Search
1000 results for “thomas_mock”
-
Thomas Mocket, Puritan minister, lists good reasons for generosity to the needy. This list ended up in the Westminster C.F. Among benefits of giving are that it opens hearts of those refreshed, and stops the mouths of religion’s critics.
In contrast, I hear Puritan scholars endorse contemporary books on Christian advice to the young which don’t mention liberality, but the need to resist the trans movement.
How can you give glory to God?
-
Thomas Mocket, Puritan minister, lists good reasons for generosity to the needy. This list ended up in the Westminster C.F. Among benefits of giving are that it opens hearts of those refreshed, and stops the mouths of religion’s critics.
In contrast, I hear Puritan scholars endorse contemporary books on Christian advice to the young which don’t mention liberality, but the need to resist the trans movement.
How can you give glory to God?
-
Thomas Mocket, Puritan minister, lists good reasons for generosity to the needy. This list ended up in the Westminster C.F. Among benefits of giving are that it opens hearts of those refreshed, and stops the mouths of religion’s critics.
In contrast, I hear Puritan scholars endorse contemporary books on Christian advice to the young which don’t mention liberality, but the need to resist the trans movement.
How can you give glory to God?
-
Thomas Mocket, Puritan minister, lists good reasons for generosity to the needy. This list ended up in the Westminster C.F. Among benefits of giving are that it opens hearts of those refreshed, and stops the mouths of religion’s critics.
In contrast, I hear Puritan scholars endorse contemporary books on Christian advice to the young which don’t mention liberality, but the need to resist the trans movement.
How can you give glory to God?
-
Thomas Mocket, Puritan minister, lists good reasons for generosity to the needy. This list ended up in the Westminster C.F. Among benefits of giving are that it opens hearts of those refreshed, and stops the mouths of religion’s critics.
In contrast, I hear Puritan scholars endorse contemporary books on Christian advice to the young which don’t mention liberality, but the need to resist the trans movement.
How can you give glory to God?
-
From #AwesomeQuarto:
'Beautiful Reports and Presentations with Quarto' by @thomas_mock
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbf7Ai3jnxY) -
Ooh excited about this one!
2023-02-13: CHANGES IN R-devel NEW FEATURES
"As an experimental feature the placeholder ‘_’ can now also be used in the ‘rhs’ of a forward pipe ‘|>’ expression as the first argument in an extraction call, such as ‘_$coef’. More generally, it can be used as the head of a chain of extractions, such as ‘_$coef[[2]]’."
#RStats #DataSci -
Thomas Massie Mocks He Had to ‘Find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv’ to Concede Kentucky Primary #Mediaite https://twp.ai/E5Ayse
-
Watch | U.S. Congressman Thomas Massie mocked pro-Israel lobbying influence during his concession speech after losing what he described as “the most expensive congressional primary” in modern U.S. history.
Massie joked that he had trouble reaching his opponent because he was “in Tel Aviv,” taking aim at the massive spending and outside influence mobilized against politicians who challenge unconditional U.S. backing for Israel and its genocide in Gaza.
“They decided they want to take me out,” Massie said, referring to the months-long campaign waged against him.
-
A quotation from Thomas Carlyle
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify Him. They would ask Him to dinner, and hear what He had to say, and make fun of it.
Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) Scottish essayist and historian
Remark (1850-01-12)More about this quote: wist.info/carlyle-thomas/32262…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #carlyle #thomascarlyle #Christ #Christianity #Jesus #JesusChrist #makefun #makefunof #mockery #modernworld #prophet #rejection
-
A quotation from Thomas Carlyle
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify Him. They would ask Him to dinner, and hear what He had to say, and make fun of it.
Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) Scottish essayist and historian
Remark (1850-01-12)More about this quote: wist.info/carlyle-thomas/32262…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #carlyle #thomascarlyle #Christ #Christianity #Jesus #JesusChrist #makefun #makefunof #mockery #modernworld #prophet #rejection
-
A quotation from Thomas Carlyle
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify Him. They would ask Him to dinner, and hear what He had to say, and make fun of it.
Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) Scottish essayist and historian
Remark (1850-01-12)More about this quote: wist.info/carlyle-thomas/32262…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #carlyle #thomascarlyle #Christ #Christianity #Jesus #JesusChrist #makefun #makefunof #mockery #modernworld #prophet #rejection
-
A quotation from Thomas Carlyle
If Jesus Christ were to come today, people would not even crucify Him. They would ask Him to dinner, and hear what He had to say, and make fun of it.
Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) Scottish essayist and historian
Remark (1850-01-12)More about this quote: wist.info/carlyle-thomas/32262…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #carlyle #thomascarlyle #Christ #Christianity #Jesus #JesusChrist #makefun #makefunof #mockery #modernworld #prophet #rejection
-
Steelers Land Scorching-Fast WR in Latest 2026 NFL Draft Mock-Up
2026 NFL Draft•Steelers News Credit: Petre Thomas-Imagn Images CeeDee Lamb made it known last week that new Pittsburgh…
#NFL #PittsburghSteelers #Pittsburgh #Steelers #2026NFLDraft #BrenenThompson #Football
https://www.rawchili.com/nfl/831262/ -
Steelers Land Scorching-Fast WR in Latest 2026 NFL Draft Mock-Up
2026 NFL Draft•Steelers News Credit: Petre Thomas-Imagn Images CeeDee Lamb made it known last week that new Pittsburgh…
#NFL #PittsburghSteelers #Pittsburgh #Steelers #2026NFLDraft #BrenenThompson #Football
https://www.rawchili.com/nfl/831262/ -
“Of Very Doubtful Military Significance”: the thread about The Loyal Edinburgh Spearmen
Today’s Auction House Artefacts are a pair of silver Georgian merit medals awarded to Fletcher Yetts of the Loyal Edinburgh Spearmen. Mr Yetts (1759-1832) was the keeper of the City Water Works on the Castlehill. Britain was almost continuously at war with France for between 1793 and 1815 and the quaintly named Spearmen were one of the variety of amateur paramilitary formations raised in Edinburgh during this period in anticipation of a French invasion (or a popular revolution in the French style).
Front and rear views of a George III silver medal of the Loyal Edinburgh Spearmen , dated 6th August 1804. The reverse is engraved “Reward of Merit, 1st Battn., Fletcher Yetts”. Move the slider to compare each side. Photo by Gorringe’s of East Sussex.The Volunteer Corps Act of 1794 authorised the formation of volunteer paramilitary forces for home defence; the Volunteers. These were an infantry force that generally drew their officers from petty gentry and aspirational middle-class professionals. They were distinct from the volunteer cavalry of the Yeomanry whose members were the country landowners and required to have deep pockets and horses at their disposal – and be competent in their use.
George III silver medal of the Edinburgh Spearmen Artillery Company, dated 1805. The reverse is engraved “presented by Captain Braidwood to Serjt. [sic] Major Yetts as a mark of respect for his Unremitting Attention to the Company”. Move the slider to compare each side. Photo by Gorringe’s of East Sussex.In Scotland a third force was the Militia, established by the Militia Act of 1797 which empowered the Lords Lieutenant of the Counties to raise by ballot a conscript auxiliary force for service within Scotland. Its ranks were generally drawn from the lowest rungs of society and the Act was so thoroughly unpopular that it provoked widespread rioting across the country. This led to the Massacre at Tranent in August 1797 when eleven men, women and children were killed by Dragoons when protesting against it.
“The Massacre of Tranent”, statue by David Annand in Tranent Civic Square. This represents Jackie Crookston, one of those killed during the anti-militia protests, carrying a drum to call out the slogan of “no militia”. Image via ArtUKIn contrast to the Militia, the ranks of the Volunteers were drawn largely from the lower middle and upper working classes; an attraction of joining being it could exempt one from being drafted into the Militia. Apart from a small number of drill sergeants and drummers, the Volunteers were unpaid but received their weapons and allowances for uniforms from the Government.
“The First Regiment of Royal Edinburgh Volunteers”, a sympathetic caricature of a parade “hereby dedicated to all the Volunteer Corps in Great Britain by their Humble Servant J. Jenkin.” 1802. National Library of ScotlandThe Volunteers allowed patriotic and aspirational amateurs to play at being military officers without facing the dangers and hardships of actual military service. There was a steady supply of men keen to sport the over-embellished uniforms – and even finance the units at their own expense – to reap the benefit of the high public status that a uniform conferred in the ballrooms and drawing rooms of the city.
“The Grand Inspection”, caricature satirising Edinburgh volunteer officers being inspected by a lady; the inference being their patriotic service can be reduced to dressing up for her approval. By J. Jenkin, 1805. National Library of Scotland.By late 1803, there were some 30,000 Volunteers in Scotland (and over 300,000 in the wider UK) but their efficiency varied widely; from semi-competent to completely hopeless. Georgian satirists mercilessly lampooned them, depicting them as physically unfit; poorly equipped, trained and led; over-enthusiastic and thoroughly incompetent.
“St. George’s Volunteers. Charging down the French Bond Street, after clearing the Ring in Hyde Park & Storming the Dunghill at Marylebone”. Colour caricature of 1797 by James Gillrary mocking the Volunteers. In common with other such pieces, the over-enthusiasm, poor training, poor physical condition and ill-fitting and low quality nature of uniforms are highlighted. British Museum 1851,0901.850In their distinctive blue coats the Royal Edinburgh Volunteers (REV) were one of the first established in the country and were an example of the semi-competent type of unit. A commissioned portrait of them certainly reflected this, Edinburgh caricaturist John Kay took a slightly more humours view of them.
To see ourselves as others see us. Two very different characterisations of the late 18th century Royal Edinburgh Volunteers, both featuring Sergeant Major Patrick Gould (who in his defence was at least recognised in his time as being thoroughly competent).The Spearmen – in contrast to the REV – showed “all the signs of being a force of very doubtful military significance” (W. A. Thorburn, curator of the Scottish United Services Museum, writing on the subject in the Book of the Old Edinburgh Club, vol. 32). They probably formed as a result of the officer corps of the city’s other Volunteer units being fully subscribed to and thus a further unit was required for those left out. Its stated purpose was to “defend the city, liberties and vicinity of Edinburgh, in case it be found necessary to march the other forces to a distance, and to protect the lives and property of the inhabitants from injury and depredation“. This was a coded recognition that the job of the Volunteers wasn’t really to fight the (real or imagined) threat posed by French invaders but to release regular forces to do so by securing the home front. A secondary and more realistic proposition was quelling popular revolt or opportunistic disorder in the absence of the regulars: to the local authorities and certain sections of society, the Mob invoked far more fear than the French did – as evidenced by their actions at Tranent – and the Toun Rats (the Town Guard of Edinburgh) had proved of dubious worth in the past.
The Edinburgh Town Guard, painting attributed to William Home Lizars in 1800, but Lizars was an engraver and this is likely the work of (or after) John Kay. The sergeant carries a halberd but the men have muskets and bayonets. The drummer carries a short sword. City Art Centre, Edinburgh Museums and LibrariesThe nascent Spearmen offered their services to the Crown, to make sure they were officially recognised and their officers Gazetted, and they were admitted as supernumeraries to the existing Volunteer establishment in the city in a letter dated 7th November 1803.
We are well persuaded that every man who can handle a pike and who is not engaged in any volunteer corps, will chearfully [sic] embrace this opportunity of coming forward for the defence of our families and firesides
Scots Magazine, December 1803The initial plan was to raise two Battallions, each of six-hundred men in ten companies; in theory over 1,200 men. In practice however only one Battallion was ever constituted and its ranks fluctuated between four to five hundred men. They wore scarlet cutaway jackets, blue breeches and a tall beaver hat decorated with feathers (as per the medal at the top of the page and in contrast to the long blue coats and white breeches of the REV). Initially they were armed with nothing more than short pikes and swords for the officers. Their ranks were drawn largely from those exempt from balloting into the militia; the Incorporated Trades of the City and those too old, too young or with too many dependent children.
Mr John Bennet, surgeon to the garrison of Edinburgh Castle and President of the Royal College of Surgeons, was elected as the honourary Lieutenant Colonel Commandant. He had been the surgeon to the Sutherland Fencibles (an earlier, auxiliary military force in the Highlands) from 1779-83 so was an eminent choice. He was later replaced by William Inglis WS Esq. after being found dead in a field in Fife on October 10th 1805, his gun by his side, having suffered a fatal fall from his horse when hunting.
Caricature of John Bennet in his uniform, by J. Jenkin, 1804. National Library of Scotland.Other officers included Robert Dundas and John Peat, Writers to the Signet (solicitors); William Ranken, a Town Councillor from the Incorporation of Tailors; the lighthouse engineers Thomas Smith and his step-son Robert Stevenson; Francis Braidwood, an upholsterer and cabinet-maker (and allegedly the first man in Edinburgh to wear shoelaces); John Cameron, Deacon of the Tailors and James Newton, Deacon of the Incorporation of Bakers. Their chaplain was the Reverend Alexander Brunton of New Greyfriars Kirk, later the Professor of Hebrew and Oriental Languages at the University of Edinburgh.
“Mr Dundas”, caricature by J. Jenkin, c. 1803. Given the cut of the uniform, with the short coat distinct from the other Volunteer units, and the beaver hat, this may be Major Robert Dundas of the Spearmen. National Library of Scotland.RankNamesLieutenant ColonelJohn Bennet (died October 1805, later William Inglis)MajorRobert Dundas WS (resigned August 1805, replaced by James Farquharson)CaptainsWilliam Ranken; John Simpson; Thomas Smith; Francis James Braidwood; John Cameron; James Newton; Patrick Mellis; Alexander GairdnerLieutenantsJohn Peat; William Braidwood jnr; Charles Ritchie jnr; Robert Stevenson; Thomas Hamilton; Matthew Sheriff; Adam Brooks; John Yule; John Cameron EnsignsJohn Menzies; David Robertson; Andrew Wilson; John Grieve; William Woodburn; John BallantineChaplainRev. Alexander BruntonSurgeonWilliam Farquharson; Thomas Lothian (assistant)Sergeant MajorGeorge NeagleNamed officers holding commissions in the Loyal Edinburgh Spearmen, at the time of its establishment, Gazetted Nov 1803- January 1804.It was all very Dad’s Army, but at this time the fear of invasion was genuinely held as a result of intense newspaper speculation. Matters came to a head on January 31st 1804 when the Volunteers of Hawick and Teviotdale rose to repel an “invasion” after the lighting of the chain of hilltop warning beacons across the Borders counties. This proved to be a false alarm, the result of an inexperienced but enthusiastic watchman at Hume Castle near Kelso who saw a distant glow on the eastern horizon – actually charcoal burning at Shoreswood in Northumberland, 15 miles away – and thought it was the beacon at Dowlaw being lit.
“A Hilltop Beacon”, William Bell Scott, 1828. National Galleries of ScotlandIt was not until the Scottish volunteer companies arrived at Berwick-upon-Tweed the following morning after marching excitedly through the night that the mistake was realised, but a celebration was held never-the-less to mark the efficacy of the warning system and the enthusiasm of the response. It was only a sceptical naval watchkeeper at the St. Abb’s Head signal station that prevented the warning being transmitted all the way to the end of the chain at Edinburgh.
Hey, Volunteers are ye wauking yet? Ho, jolly lads, are ye ready yet? Are ye up, are ye drest, will ye all do your best? To fight Bonaparte in the morning!
Marching song of the Dunfermline Volunteers, to the tune of the traditional “Hey, Johnnie Cope”
Now, brave Volunteers, be it day, be it night; When the signal is given that the French are in sight; Ye must haste with your brethren in arms to unite; To fight Bonaparte in the morning!Despite the Government’s approval, as supernumaries the Spearmen had to finance themselves. In February 1804 a public subscription was raised to cover the expenses of fitting out the unit, the Caledonian Mercury reporting “there can be little doubt that it will soon exceed the sum required“. The Town Council voted fifty Guineas towards the cause as did the Association for the Defence of the Firth of Forth, the Incorporation of Goldsmiths and the United Incorporations of Mary’s Chapel (the Wrights and the Masons). The Incorporation of Tailors and the Bakers provided thirty each, those of The Hammermen twenty-five, The Fleshers twenty and The Hammermen of Canongate five. A number of town councillors and many of the founding officers also contributed, as did some notable local patrons. A Benevolent Society was set up by the officers to provide “mutual aid of each other in the event of sickness or death” in September of that year and which would later be extended to all the Volunteers of the city.
Public subscriptions to the Loyal Edinburgh Spearmen (L.E.S.), giving a good indication of the demographic of the principal backers. Caledonian Mercury, 9th February 1804They used as their parade ground the Heriot’s Hospital green, that traditionally used by the other Volunteers in the city and seen in the background of the portrait at the top of the page of Sergeant Patrick Gould. In 1805 they were formally recognised by the Home Secretary, Lord Hawkesbury, as a full member of the Corps of Volunteers. This gave them equal status with the city’s other volunteer units and entitling them to receive Government funding, pay and arms. It is likely at this time they traded in their pikes for Government-issue muskets. To mark the occasion, “this band of citizen warriors had their stand of colours delivered to them on the 12th August 1805″ (the birthday of the Prince Regent, the Prince of Wales). These were provided and presented by the wife of the Lieutenant Colonel Bennet and her daughter Miss Scott of Logie. Chaplain Rev. Brunton consecrated them with “a most impressive prayer” after which the batallion marched out of the city to Duddingston House, the residence of the Earl of Moira, Commander-in-Chief of the Army in Scotland. The Earl inspected the formation after which they returned to the Bennet household on Nicolson Street where “they were regaled by him in a very liberal and handsome style of hospitality“.
The Earl of Moira, Addressing the Loyal Edinburgh Spearmen. John Kay caricature, 1805. In the background is Duddingston House, Moira’s residence in Edinburgh, where the Spearmen marched for inspection following receiving their colours at Heriot’s HospitalIn the event of the Spearmen being called out, they were to assemble upon the Mound as their chosen “alarm post in case of invasion or popular tumult“. In March 1804 a battery of artillery was added, armed with two experimental 6-pounder cannons designed and built by Mr Roebuck of the Shotts Iron Company. The guns were commanded by Captain William Braidwood jnr and were provided with two novel ammunition carts, designed to be pulled by domestic draught horses.
Caricature of an Edinburgh volunteer artillery officer and his piece, which is similar to that shown on the medal at the top of the page. The Spearmen were not the only volunteer artillery in the city, so this may or may not represent Captain William Braidwood. By J. Jenkin, 1805. National Library of Scotland.The artillery would get the Spearmen into trouble with the law. On Monday 25th September 1805, eager to demonstrate their efficiency and readiness to the city after formally receiving their colours, they marched and drilled through the streets before assembling on the Mound to firing off a number of volleys in salute from the Roebuck Guns. After the third and final blast, Lieutenant Colonel Bennet was apprehended with “violent passion” by John Tait, judge of the City Police Court and superintendent of the newly instituted Police Office. Tait threatened “at your peril remain on this ground a moment and if I ever see you and your Corps on the streets of Edinburgh again, it shall be at your peril“.
“An Eminent Judge… of Broom Besoms!!!”. While this caricature by John Kay represents a well known old peddlar of brooms, it satirises instead John Tait, the Judge of the Police Court and Superintendent of Police, who had accosted the Loyal Edinburgh Spearmen. National Portrait Gallery, London, NPG D16508Bennet wrote to Sir William Fettes, the Lord Provost and Lord Lieutenant of the City, to complained that he and his men had been prevented by the civilian authorities from carrying out their duties and were treated with “gross and repeated insults from an immense mob“. He threatened that he would have to disband the unit if they could not go about their business unmolested. Tait had only been in his position of authority a few months and was likely trying to publicly demonstrate that it was he, and not any Volunteers, who was responsible for law and order. He wrote back to the Lord Provost standing his ground, but making the clarification that it was only firing off cannons in public that he wished to prevent, and not their marching and drilling. This seemed to placate both sides and thereafter Spearmen got on with tier duties of playing at soldiers.
“Guard Room Tactics, Bugs in Dander; or a Volunteer Corps in Action.” 1798 caricature lampooning the Volunteers, by Charles Ansell. The Loyal Edinburgh Spearmen were dressed in a very similar fashion. Yale Centre for British Art B1981.25.1158, via WikimediaOn September 1807 they changed their name to the Loyal Edinburgh Volunteers to acknowledge their changed status (which causes confusion with the Royal Edinburgh Volunteers, who they remained distinct from) and also that thanks to Moira’s intervention they had retired their spears and were now properly armed with muskets. They marked their promotion by marching to Alloa for ten days on “active duty”. The Caledonian Mercury reported that “their conduct on the march to and from Alloa, and while in quarters, was orderly and regular in the highest degree, and their attendance at drill, for seven hours every day, was unremitting“.
“Light Infantry Volunteers on a March”. 1804 satirical cartoon by Thomas Rowlandson lampooning the physical condition of Volunteer units. Picture via Miesterdrucke.ieThe experience must have been enjoyable as they then applied to be transferred into the Militia, an offer which was rejected. Undeterred, in December that year it was announced that the Prince of Wales had “been graciously pleased to accept an offer… of an extension of their services to any part of Great Britain” and as such they would henceforth be known as the Prince of Wales’ Loyal Edinburgh Volunteers. This was far removed from their founding aim of serving only in the city; things may have gone to their heads as in 1809 the entire Volunteer forces of Edinburgh offered their services to go to Spain and fight alongside the regulars in the bloody Peninsular War. Again the offer which was politely declined.
“Loyal Britons Lending A Lift”, a British soldier assisting the Spanish in fighting the French. August 1808 caricature by James Gillray.Lieutenant Colonel Inglis remained in charge of the renamed Spearmen until the volunteer forces were officially disbanded on July 11th 1814. They have been largely forgotten about and even in their own time were in the shadow of the Royal Edinburgh Volunteers and the Yeomanry, but at least one unknown amateur poet penned a verse in their honour, although it is hardly complementary.
It is weel Kend these guy wheen years
Poem to the Loyal Edinburgh Spearmen, 1804
I’ve praised our Royal Volunteers
The Spearmen has appeared at last
O’ them we should hope the best.
There’s numbers o’ them without doubt
They are baith souple louns and stout,
But other o’ they I do ken
Dude help them poor auld worn out men
An’ I wad scorn to tell a lee
They’re neither fit to fight nor flee
An’ other some raw mou’d callants
I’ve seen far better selling ballants.
What brings them out in name of wonder
Wer it no to make a gudly number.
O’ them the brethern may think shame
Far better they wad stay at hame.Note to readers: unfortunately in April 2026, a third-party plug-in more than exceeded its authority and broke many of the image links on this site. No images were lost but I will have to restore them page-by-page, which may take some time. In the meantime please bear with me while I go about rectifying this issue.
If you have found this site useful, informative or amusing then you can help contribute towards its running costs by supporting me on ko-fi. This includes my commitment to keeping it 100% advert and AI free for all time coming, and in helping to find further unusual stories to bring you by acquiring books and paying for research.
Or please do just share this post on social media or amongst friends and like-minded people, sites like this thrive on being shared.Explore Threadinburgh by map:
Travelers' Map is loading...
If you see this after your page is loaded completely, leafletJS files are missing.These threads © 2017-2026, Andy Arthur.
NO AI TRAINING: Any use of the contents of this website to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.
#Lochend #Logan #Restalrig #StMargaret -
More than just dismissing us: the thread about the history of the Leith Police
Today’s auction house artefact is this Victorian Leith Burgh Police truncheon.
Victorian Leith Police truncheonPolicing in Leith goes back to the 17th century, when the first High Constables of the Port of Leith were established. They were appointed by the Magistrates of the Royal Burgh of Leith to uphold “cleanliness and orderliness, keeping the peace, law and order“. But at this point they acted as empowered individuals, rather than a force. Orders were given in 1725 stating that “they were responsible for the apprehension of beggars and vagabonds, persons guilty of a crime or disturbance, informing on houses of ill repute, bringing order to mobs and overseeing weights and measures.”
At this time, the principal civic building of Leith was the Tolbooth. It functioned as a seat of municipal government and administration, a customs house, a guardhouse, a jail and a meeting house and was one of the three essential public buildings of the Scottish Burgh; the others being the Mercat Cross and the Kirk.
Leith Tolbooth by James Skene, 1818. © Edinburgh City LibrariesIn 1762, the seven constables held a meeting and elected a moderator, treasurer and clerk, and drew up regulations to form themselves into the Honourable Society of the High Constables of the Port of Leith. In 1771, Parliament passed the “Act for Cleansing and Lighting the Streets of the Town of South Leith, the Territory of St. Anthony’s and Yardheads thereunto adjoining, and for supplying the several parts thereof with fresh water“. The description of the act itself is a reminder that at this time, the municipal police were primarily concerned with lighting, cleansing and water supply; not watch keeping or law enforcement.
The act saw the election of 30 Police Commissioners to enact its provisions; the electors were the 2 magistrates of Leith (appointed by Edinburgh), the masters and 6 assistants of the 4 Leith trade incorporations (the Cordiners, Carters, Tailors and Weavers) and all heritors (the feudal landholders of a Scottish parish who were obligated to pay tax), liferenters (landholders for life) and proprietors of lands and tenement within the burgh. Basically, the people (men) with claim over land and/or property. Added to the Commissioners were the Lord Provost, Town Clerk of Leith, The Baillie (a civic officer) of St. Anthony’s Preceptory, and 2 others elected by the feudal heritors of Yardheads and St. Anthony’s.
The heading of a poster from a ceremonial dinner of the Honourable Society of High Constables of the Port of Leith showing the outline of a constable’s baton © Edinburgh City LibrariesSo the Police Commissioners were basically a committee of the local worthies who were charged with keeping the streets clean and supplying water. At this time, Leith had no piped water, sewers, pavements or metalled roads (causeys) of any kind so they had their hands full. Such was the difficulty in resolving these issues in Leith, that for the next 20 years the Commissioners were fully occupied with water, cleansing and lighting. It was not until 1791 that attention turned to “watching and warding”, i.e. something more akin to modern policing.
The mean streets of Leith in 1790. An illustration by Dominic Serres.The Commissioners had always employed a part time “Police Officer”, but his job was to keep order at the wells and to try and keep people to the schedule of the carters who carried away the filth of the town. Perhaps he is the officious looking man in Serres’ illustration conferring with the carter and the town drummer and poring over a schedule?
The Leith “police officer”?In 1791, this was made a full time position, and Leith’s first professional polisman was hired; at £25 a year. 10 years later, in 1801 the officer, one John Ross, was finally provided with a uniform. “A blue coat, red neck with buttons thereon and a red vest with a pair of boots“. In 1802, lawlessness in Leith was such that one of the Baillies proposed to the Police Commissioners that a part-time force of sixty men, in three watches, be hired for the purposes of law enforcement. At this point, Edinburgh stepped in and said “naw”, and that it would sort it. Edinburgh then did nothing for Leith, as was frequently the case; as James Scott Marshall puts it. “Edinburgh’s policy of masterly inactivity once more frustrated [Leith’s] desire for improvement.”
A new Leith Police Act, in 1806, made provision for the recruitment of watchmen for “Guarding, Patrolling and Watching the streets“. But again nothing was done, this time for want of money. Leith had 20,000 inhabitants, but Edinburgh absolutely and tightly controlled its purse strings. Finally in 1814, the size of the Leith Police force was tripled; to 3. Two watchmen were employed to assist the “intendant” (the man in the blue and red coat). The appointments were made by the Paving Committee as they had responsibility for safety on the streets.
In 1815, the force doubled in size, to 6, with 3 more watchmen being recruited. Finally in 1816, a special “Watching Committee” was formed, rather than leave the Police under the direction of the Paving Committee. But the new force was not well thought of and there were complaints asking for it to be better organised. The watchmen were also unhappy, as the day shift worked 6AM-9PM (!) and were unable to take on labouring work on the side as a result like the shorter nightshift could.
The force grew no further until the Municipal and Police Act of 1827, when the whole force of 6 was disbanded and then re-hired under a new system under a Superintendent; one James Stuart on £120 a year. The new force totalled 20, 1 Sergeant Major, 3 Sergeants, 3 “Daymen”, 3 “Night Patrol” and 10 Watchmen. Superintendent Stuart had the force raised to 27 with 1 more Dayman, 2 Night Patrol and 4 more Watchmen. The senior ranks were paid a guaranteed basic rate, which was supplemented by the court fees of each offender they brought in; half to the Sergeant Major, and the other half split between the Sergeants.
Silver and ebony High Constable’s tipstave from 1833. ; “ON ONE END IT IS NUMBERED ’41’ , ON THE OTHER END IS ENGRAVED A SHIP AND GENTLEMAN WITHIN AND AROUND THE SHIP ‘ BURGH OF LEITH 1833’. ON ONE SIDE IS ENGRAVED A SHIP WITH ‘PERSEVERE’ BELOW IT. ON THE OTHER SIDE IT IS ENGRAVED ‘ HIGH CONSTABLE’.” The Tipstave was a symbol of office, and could be unscrewed to reveal the warrant of office carried within.The 1827 act finally settled the boundary of the Leith Police, which had been rather vaguely defined up until this point due to the fragmentary municipal boundaries and land superiority of the separate parishes of North and South Leith. When the 1832 Great Reform Act extended the boundary of Leith to the red line on this map, the reach of the Leith Police extended too. A deal was also struck with the Edinburgh Sheriff to charge him for the lodging of prisoners sent from Edinburgh to languish in Leith.
1831 boundaries of the Burgh of Leith. Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of ScotlandThe 1827 act also got round to the business of providing Leith with its first modern courthouse and police station, to replace the ancient Tolbooth. Some of the land of “Dr. Colquhoun’s Chapel” was acquired; a 99 year lease being taken on it. Dr Colquhoun was the minister of St. John’s Chapel of Ease on Constitution Street. This is how Leith’s first court house and police station came to be built on the corner of Constitution Street and [Queen] Charlotte Street, where they are to this day – although the courthouse is long unused.
The New Town Hall, Leith, by Thomas Hosmer Shepherd, 1829. Dr. Colqhoun’s chapel can be seen behind.The Leith Burgh Police were established in 1859 to cover the wider burgh of Leith defined in 1831 by the Great Reform Act. Policing of the port and docks was subsumed into the new force as a division, but the High Constables were maintained as an honourable society for ceremonial occasions. They still exist in this form, the uniform still being top hats and tails and the badge of office still being an ornamental baton. Until recently it was strictly a gentlemen’s club, although they have more recently elected a woman to their ranks.
The High Constables of Leith form a guard of honour for the arrival of HM The Queen on arrival at Leith on the HMY Britannia in 1956. The girl presenting the bouquet was “6 year old Edwina Burness”. Still from a film of the occasion held by the BFI.The High Constables of Leith and their truncheons meet the late Duke of Edinburgh. CC-by-SA, R. Clapperton via Edinburgh CollectedThey can be seen performing these same ceremonial duties for royalty here in Alexander Carse’s painting of the arrival of George IV in Leith back in 1822, backs to the artist with their top hats off. The fellows with the broad bonnets, white sashes and curving long sticks (bows) are the Company of Royal Archers .
George IV’s visit to Leith by Alexander CarseAt this point, the need for separate Commissioners of Police was redundant, as Leith was finally an independent burgh, The responsibility for oversight of the Police passed to the new Town Council, who made their home in the police station and court on Constitution Street. Below can be seen a picture of the Town Hall / court house / police station in 1870. It shows St. John’s, after the mock Tudor tower was built and parish school buildings were added to the front. Between the two is the small burgh fire station building .
Leith Town Hall, 1870, Adam W. Steele. © Edinburgh City LibrariesThe helmet badge adopted by the Burgh Police was from the traditional Leith coat of arms; the Virgin Mary and child on a galleon, underneath a canopy. The date of 1563 beneath refers to a letter signed by Mary Queen of Scots granting South Leith permission to erect its Tolbooth. Granting Leith this was a big step in its ancient struggle to exert independence from Edinburgh. The English had burned Restalrig Tolbooth in 1544 during the “Rough Wooing” (Restalrig at that time was the administrative centre of South Leith parish) and since then Edinburgh had been trying to prevent Leith from re-establishing its own local centre of law, order and taxation.
Leith Police helmet and badge from book coverAnyway, Leith Burgh Police was a small force, but one well respected for keeping law and order in the potentially lawless port town. They were merged into the Edinburgh City Police as D Division in 1921.
The last parade of the Leith Burgh Police in 1921, before becoming D Division of the Edinburgh City Police. © Edinburgh City LibrariesLeith policemen were distinctive for wearing a “ball top” to their custodian helmet, Edinburgh had these only for upper ranks, the rank and file had a “button top”.
British “custodian” Police helmets. Left is button, centre is pike and right is ball top. None are Edinburgh or Leith helmets.Leith’s greatest contribution to the world of policing is of course said to be the legendary tongue twister “The Leith Police Dismisseth Us” – which was apparently a test for drunkenness (but just try saying it sober!)
The Leith police dismisseth us, I’m sorry sir to say;
The Leith Police Dismisseth Us, a version from 1927
The Leith police dismisseth us, They thought we sought to stay;
The Leith police dismisseth us, They thought we’d stay all day;
The Leith police dismisseth us, Which caused us many sighs;
And the size of our sighs, when we said our goodbyes;
Were the size of the Leith police.However the origin of The Leith Police Dismisseth Us is probably nothing to do with Leith. It actually first originates in print on the other side of the Atlantic; in the Boston Youth’s Companion, October 20th 1887, as a line in a list of “verbal snares” or tongue-twisters. It is quite similar to an earlier American tongue-twister; variously The Sea Ceaseth and Dismisseth Us With His Blessing or The Sea Ceaseth And that Sufficeth Us and it is likely these were created for elocution purposes and inspired by biblical verse.
It first appears in a British newspaper shortly afterwards, in December 1887 in the Irvine Times, before being reprinted widely across English papers the following year. These early examples are always in lists of tongue-twisters, many of which are still familiar such as Peter Piper and She Sells Sea Shells. A fuller version does not seem to appear in print until 1919 (in The Childrens Newspaper) but it had been widely popularised before this by the Mancunian musical hall comedian Wilkie Bard, one of the biggest acts of his day, whose stage gimmick was tongue twisters. Variety magazine announced in 1909 that he was appearing in London at the Tivoli, Oxford and Paragon with “a new tongue twister. It is called The Leith Police Dismisseth Us. Bard gets a whole lot out of this number with the aid of an assistant who does a lisping souse.“
Wilkie Bard, 1911, © National Portrait GalleryThe rhyme is still used for elocution, particularly in helping non-native English speakers master the “th” and -“s” sounds of the language.
Thank you to Chris Wright for his assistance and advice in researching the early details of “The Leith Police Dismisseth Us.”
Note to readers: unfortunately in April 2026, a third-party plug-in more than exceeded its authority and broke many of the image links on this site. No images were lost but I will have to restore them page-by-page, which may take some time. In the meantime please bear with me while I go about rectifying this issue.
If you have found this site useful, informative or amusing then you can help contribute towards its running costs by supporting me on ko-fi. This includes my commitment to keeping it 100% advert and AI free for all time coming, and in helping to find further unusual stories to bring you by acquiring books and paying for research.
Or please do just share this post on social media or amongst friends and like-minded people, sites like this thrive on being shared.Explore Threadinburgh by map:
Travelers' Map is loading...
If you see this after your page is loaded completely, leafletJS files are missing.These threads © 2017-2026, Andy Arthur.
NO AI TRAINING: Any use of the contents of this website to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.
#Lochend #Logan #Restalrig #StMargaret -
Looks cool.
Must check it out next time in Bengaluru.#PrathanaNarang #LeadChef #LavonneIceCreamKitchen #LICK #IndiraNagar #Bengaluru
16 unique flavours
#Highprotein #noaddedsugar and #petfriendlydroolbowl #milkshakes #melts #mocktails offerings also available
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZBEb26WI_s -
This thread was originally written and published in January 2024.
The pub in the picture below has been in the news for the wrong reasons recently but, despite its rather forbidding appearance these days, it’s a very important pub. It is a surviving example, serving its original purpose, of only a handful of such inter-war hostelries that were built in Edinburgh; the roadhouse. But these nine public houses didn’t just appear for no reason, they were the culmination of and response to a long political and social struggle around public drinking in the first half of the 20th century. Shall we unravel their story?
The Anchor Inn on West Granton Road.The short version of the roadhouse story is this: they are a blend of 1930s architecture and design glamour that were used by the licensed trade to entice a new generation of sophisticated, Holywood-inspired, upmarket, car-driving drinkers. That’s partly true, but is by no means the full story.
1934 Dunlop Tyres advert showing cars arriving at an Art Deco roadhouse. © Illustrated London NewsTo understand how Edinburgh got its roadhouses we have to go back to 1913 when the Temperance movement was at the peak of its power and the Temperance (Scotland) Act was passed. This was also known as the Local Veto Act as it allowed localities to force referendums on going dry – although this only applied to public houses, not restaurants or hotels. The veto ballots could be called by 10% of registered electors in a burgh, parish or ward petitioning for it. There were 3 options on the bill:
- No Change, i.e. the area would stay wet
- Limitation – there would be a 25% reduction in licences in the area
- No Licence, i.e. prohibition
The No Licence option required a supermajority of 55% to pass, representing at least 35% of all electors in the area. If that hurdle failed to be passed, these votes were then counted towards Limitation.
British Women’s Temperance Association banner of the Scottish Christian Union, 1900. © Edinburgh City LibrariesThe Act had unforeseen consequences though: the brewers and licensed trade circled their wagons and got organised, forming defence committees to coordinate their response. They also put off investment in their estates in case of an unfavourable ballot; why spend money with the threat of a loss of licence hanging over you? As a result the quality of pubs got worse, not better. But the Temperance Movement had to wait until the conclusion of WW1 before making their next move. This came in 1920 to coincide with local elections and they launched their Pussyfoot Campaign to coordinate mass petitioning for local veto ballots across Scotland. This was named after an American prohibition campaigner who arrived in the UK in 1919, who had a tactic of pussyfooting around pubs incognito to gather evidence against them. And so in December 1920, Edinburgh (amongst many other Scottish localities) held its first Local Veto ballot. The terms of the act meant that public houses had to shut during polling hours. The Evening News reported record trade in Musselburgh as the city’s drinkers fled to the sanctuary of the Honest Toun for the day.
“Edinburgh Drouths Annex Musselburgh”. Edinburgh Evening News – 6th December 1920But after the last pint glasses had been emptied, the last drams downed and the ballot papers counted, the Temperance Movement were in for a disappointment: Edinburgh voted firmly for No Change in every ward – 68% overall. No Licence got 29%, less than half of what was needed, with a small minority voting for Limitation. The city would stayed wet. The Movement tried again in 1923 and although the polls shifted a few percent, once again every ward voted for a majority of No Change. Things were closest in Morningside where it was 51:46% between status quo and prohibition. You can spot something of a definite inner city / suburban and social order based split in the numbers.
Edinburgh 1920 & 1923 Local Veto Act, results for “No Change” by Ward.So it was now 1923, 10 years since the Temperance Act was passed, and neither the Movement or the more moderate Reformers were any further forward in the city and the trade still refused to invest in their estates. And so the quality of pubs continued to deteriorate. Many in the trade did recognise the need to improve, however they wanted the threat of the 1913 Act pulling the rug from under their feet to be gone before they put their money where their mouths were. They were supported politically in this by reformers, led by Lord Novar in the House of Lords and Lord Salvesen of the Scottish Public House Reform League. The Reformers took as their template the New Model Inn developed by Harry Redfern for the Government in the Carlisle district after WW1 which aimed to use better design and an improved service offering to reduce drunkenness.
The Redfern Inn at Etterby, CarlisleDespite the deliberately anachronistic appearance, these were a modern ideal of a public house, full of design innovations that we now take for granted. These included the practice of seated drinking around tables in open saloons where all corners and entries and exits could be viewed from the bar line; traditionally most pubs indulged in drinking standing around a small service bar, or in small rooms where what happened in the room stayed in the room. Public bars were accompanied by relaxed lounge bars, where women were tolerated in the company of their husbands, hot food was served and other wholesome diversions such as reading, writing and games rooms were included. The Scottish Reformers called these the Improved Public House on the Carlisle Model. Interestingly, they declined to follow a different but more local and established form of reformed public house; the Gothenburg. The Goth movement grew out of that city and had been established cooperatively across Scottish mining communities, but particularly in the Lothians and Fife. It is likely that the Goth principles were too Temperate and too verging on Socialism for the trade to accept.
The Prestongrange Goth, Prestonpans. CC-by-SA 2.0 Richard WebbReform was all well and good in practice, however the trade still had to get through the Licensing Courts, which were stuffed with conservatively-minded councillors who were frequently aligned with the Church and were heavily lobbied by well organised Temperance campaigners and their lawyers. The Courts were able to make it very difficult for new licenses to be obtained and all too easy for old ones to be lost. Over time they managed to reduce the overall numbers of licences in the City by granting fewer than were removed or expired.
The end result of all this was that there was a period of almost 20 years when no new pubs were built in Edinburgh. Things came to a head in 1933 when the President of the Edinburgh Local Veto Defence Association petitioned for a licence for a new inn in the new district of Balgreen. Robert Russell Hogg had kept a pub next to the City Chambers for 21 years, which the Corporation now wanted him to give up to allow them to extend that building. He pushed a test case to allow an Improved Tavern in an otherwise dry district as a direct challenge to Temperance – stipulating he wanted to be out of the city centre and in an area where he would not have to compete with established trade. Hogg was a keen reformer and stated he wanted “an inn after the English type, something the trade would be proud to have in Edinburgh“.
The Temperance Movement had thus far managed to keep all of Edinburgh’s new peripheral council housing schemes effectively “dry” by preventing licenses for pubs and off-licence grocers. They had a lot to lose here and rallied their troops; a petition of 181 owners and occupiers in the district against Hogg’s application was organised. The ministers of Saughtonhall Congregational Church, the Cairns Memorial Church and Stenhouse Church of Scotland all lodged protests. But lose lose they did, by 9-1 votes at the licensing court. And so on December 24th 1934, Edinburgh’s first newly built pub in at least 20 years opened; The Wheatsheaf Inn on Balgreen Road. It was in an Scottish interpretation of the Arts & Crafts style by architects Lorimer & Matthew. Hogg took out adverts calling it “Auld Reekie’s New Modern Inn“.
Promotional postcard for the Wheatsheef, showing interior of the establishment. Reproduced with kind permission of Sarah M (@sazz_mck).When it opened it was almost 1/3 mile from the nearest house. It was spacious, with a large, open “tap room” with no corners that could not be observed from the bar line, a kitchen and dining room, a garden, car park and a flat for the landlord upstairs. To cock a snoot at the Temperance Movement, Hogg had an ornamental sculpture added with a legend taken from Omar Khayyam installed above the front door: “AND AS THE COCK CREW THOSE WHO STOOD BEFORE THE TAVERN SHOUTED OPEN THEN THE DOOR“.
Wheatsheaf, the main door was on the right, below the chimney and carving over the lintel. Picture by Fiona Coutts, via British Listed Buildings.The Lord Provost was supportive of the new initiative, and hoped it would help put an end to the scourge of Vertical Drinking (or Perpendicular Drinking as he particularly called it). This was the practice of drinking standing around a serving hatch or bar (which many howffs at the time basically were), rather than seated politely around tables. The Improved Public House genie was now out of the bottle, but others in the trade held back a bit to see how Hogg got on. When it was clear he wad a success on his hands, others decided to join in on the action. The Licensing Courts sat twice a year and so the next two applications had to wait until April 1935.
First up was a widow, Mrs Johan Thom, who kept the Stenhouse Inn by Liberton. She wanted an Improved Pub to replace this old country tavern which she had run with her late husband and her application was successful. The Arts & Craft style Greenend Inn opened on Gilmerton Road on March 23rd 1936, but it has always almost been known by the nickname of its predecessor, The Robin’s Nest. You can see that particular bird on the prominent external sign. These elaborate, painted tavern signs were an import from England where the brewery trade had been trying to revive their ancient art. Mrs Thom had gone all out on the latest facilities, with lounge and public bars, a tea room, restaurant, “parking and accommodation for cars” and a skittle alley! The skittle alley (or space devoted to such other such traditional, wholesome games) would become something of a feature of the roadhouses.
The Greenend Inn, Edinburgh Evening News- 30 June 1936The other application made at this time was something altogether different from these Arts & Crafts reinterpretations of the traditional Olde English country tavern, something instead inspired by the glamour of Hollywood and the ocean liner. This was the Maybury Roadhouse; “Scotland’s premier commercial establishment of the 1930s“.
Artist’s Impression of the Maybury Roadhouse. Edinburgh Evening News- 01 May 1935Gone here were old world comforts of wood and the fireplace and in were sleek Streamline Moderne architecture (by Paterson & Broom) and the glitz of neon lights and jazz bands, the cocktail bar, the grill restaurant, the ballroom, balconies, a mezzanine gallery and rooftop garden. The Maybury opened on 19th November 1936, despite 260 objections by the Temperance Movement and the usual protests of local ministers. Its licensees were Messrs P. McDougall, who had been in the trade for over 40 years, and it cost them £10,000 to build (c. £584k in 2023). Although sometimes referred to as a “roadhouse hotel“, actually a defining feature of the roadhouse was that they were not hotels, the Dundee Licensing Court defined them in 1937 as “a house which supplied all the services of the hotel without sleeping accommodation“. Certainly it was the ultimate expression of the roadhouse concept in Scotland, and endures (as a casino) as one of the finest monuments to Art Deco in the country.
Maybury Gala Casino, CC-by-SA 2.0 Thomas NugentThe scale and ostentatious glamour of the Maybury was a one-off, but it influenced subsequent applications in the city. Six months after its licence was granted, in October 1935, Mrs Jemima Hood Gair petitioned for a new roadhouse on Niddrie Mains Road to serve the housing estates there with all the latest features, including a billiards room. She had been in the trade herself for 11 years after the death of her husband and kept a licensed grocer at West Adam Street and a pub on Couper Street in Leith. The Temperance Movement were furious – this was a blatant attempt to introduce the public house to a housing scheme they considered to be dry (even though men who wanted to just went into town to drink) and sent in their lawyer, Duncan Maclennan SSC, to lead the objections. By 8 votes to 1, she prevailed, on the condition she relinquished her two existing premises, a compromise position that resulted in a net reduction in licences of one in the city. She was also obliged to serve hot meals as had been proposed. The White House opened on 18th October 1936, in an Art Deco style by Leith architects W. N. Thomson. It featured two public bars, a saloon, cocktail bar, a lounge bar, a skittle alley and billiards and darts rooms, as well as a cafe-cum-restaurant.
Opening announcement for the White House, Evening News, 22 October 1936. Mrs Gair is in the centre of the lower image, in the coat with dark fur lapels.The April 1936 licensing committee takes us back where we started, the Anchor Inn on West Granton Road. This application, by James Birrell Rintoul, was approved that year to an Art Deco design by Thomas Bowhill Gibson, better known as a cinema architect (including The Dominion in Morningside). The Anchor is probably the furthest from the model of the Roadhouse of the lot; in reality it was just a modern and vaguely upmarket public house decorated with contemporary architectural details. The Temperance Movement were probably right to see it as merely a way to get a public house into an otherwise dry estate. They managed to make it a close run thing at the Licensing Court, again Duncan Maclennan SSC opposed, as well as all 36 church ministers in Leith. Rintoul relied on the casting vote of Lord Provost Gumley to get it through and was obliged to provide “hot luncheons, high teas, cooked food“.
The year following The Anchor, three roadhouse licenses were granted. The first to open was the Hillburn Roadhouse which was the project of John Maclennan Oman and his wife Nellie who kept a number of pubs across the city and been in the trade over 40 years. Despite it being, then, well away from anything else, they still struggled to get a licence and had to have it granted on appeal.
The Hillburn Roadhouse, a contemporary photograph provided by Colin Dale to a book by Malcolm Cant.It featured all the usual roadhouse facilities, with three bars, a “first class restaurant” (serving luncheons, snacks, afternoon teas, grills, dinners, suppers etc.), an off-licence shop, car parking and “commanding a fine view of the Pentland Hills“. Latterly run as the Fairmile Inn and suffering the indignity of a Scottish & Newcastle ski chalet-themed 1970s refurbishment, the Hillburn sat empty for a number of years, unloved and unwanted, and was demolished in 2013. It’s the only Edinburgh roadhouse to suffer this fate.
Hillburn Roadhouse skittles alley. RIAS photo, picture from a book by Malcolm CantJohnnie Oman died in 1942. Nellie continued to run the Hillburn, living in the flat above, until retiring to the Grange in 1956. One of their other bars, the Duddingston Arms in Craigmillar, has long been known as Oman’s in their honour. It’s proximity to The White House can’t just be a coincidence, the Omans can’t have missed this new establishment along the road from them and were undoubtedly inspired by it.
Oman’s bar on Peffer Place. The finest glass brick pub facade in Edinburgh.The following month after the Hillburn opened, James Daly opened the Abercorn Inn on the Portobello Road, near the Northfield and Piershill housing schemes. He too had to go to appeal to get permission for it. His establishment was back to the Arts & Crafts Style of the Robin’s Nest (and although I can’t find an architect name for either, I’d put money on them being one and the same)
The (former) Abercorn Inn. Photo © SelfIt opened “in the Old English Style” on September 16th 1938 and had almost exactly the same facilities as its lookalike. The opening announcement proudly concluded that “Only First-Class Ales and Finest Whiskies and Wines Stocked“.
Opening announcement for the Abercorn Inn, 16th September 1938The last of the trio of 1937 roadhouses opened on 11th October 1938, the House O’ Hill on the Queensferry Road at Blackhall. The licensee was Edward Cranston, a wine and spirit merchant whose premises included that now known as The King’s Wark on the Shore in Leith. Again it followed the Arts & Crafts style, but contrary to some sources was a new building and not converted from an older tavern or coaching house.
The House O’ Hill on the right, with the English-style pub sign outside. From an old postcard.It too proved controversial, not because it was in a dry scheme this time, but because of its genteel surroundings. Lord Provost Gumley struggled to be heard over cries of “No!” and “Shame!” when announcing the granting of its licence. The 238 objectors claimed it was not Temperance that was their objection, but that the Queensferry Road was too busy during the day and too quiet at night to be acceptable for the motor car traffic “of the young and gay” that such an establishment would undoubtedly attract. But once again they failed to block it, and it opened with a mock-Tudor main bar with an “Old English style brick fireplace” and equipped with “small tables and comfortable modern chairs“. The “high-class restaurant” could seat 100, there was a games room with its own bar and a cocktail bar with feature lighting. Outside there were decorative gardens with fir trees and Japanese shrubs, and a car park for 25 vehicles. For as many years as I can remember, the place has been used as offices, but still retains its Olde English style pub signboard out front
The House O’ Hill these days, as offices for the Scottish Grocers FederationNot all roadhouses got through the Licensing Court however, and the objectors were able to stop a few. One on East Milton Road was declined due to its proximity to two boarding houses for girls. Another at Stenhouse Road was knocked back, as was one on Northfield Broadway. The latter would eventually be built post-war, with the curious name of the Right Wing. This came from its landlord, Hibs’ legendary “Famous Five” right winger, Gordon Smith. It was demolished in 2018 for a speculative development which has yet to be built five years later.
The Right Wing in 2008.But that’s a postwar roadhouse, and we’re here to talk about inter-war roadhouses. The last of these was approved at the licensing court of April 1938 and was one of two competing schemes on opposite corners of Parkhead Gardens at Sighthill, then a new and somewhat upmarket estate of privately rented houses and flats. Messrs. Mitchell, caterers, were successful in their application, but the opening was delayed until February 1st 1940 owing to the outbreak of war. The named it the Silver Wing in connection with the glamour of aviation. The green-tiled pagoda tower over the entrance is distinctive, but it’s not an early prototype for an all-you-can-eat Chinese Buffet! No, one of the directors of Messrs Mitchell & Co. had a pilots licence, and wanted the place to have an aeronautical theme. That pagoda is actually a control tower! The main bar floor was laid out as an aviators compass, the cocktail bar was called “The Cockpit” and painted panels and engraved mirrors around the bars represented flight-themed scenes, including of the Luftwaffe bombing raids over the Firth of Forth in October 1939. As well as a skittle alley it had a ballroom with capacity for 200 dancers.
The Silver Wing at SightillThe Silver Wing was a forces favourite for dances during WW2 – being conveniently close to the RAF at Turnhouse (the officers preferred the Maybury) and also a prisoner of war camp a bit along the Calder Road.
A Company, Edinburgh Home Guard, dance at the Silver Wing, Evening News, January 11th 1941Although only nine roadhouses were built in Edinburgh in the inter-war period, they did a fairly comprehensive job at positioning themselves on the principal approach roads from the city; staying true to the roadhouse ideal, even if some were really just glorified local pubs.
Map of Edinburgh’s inter-war roadhouse inns. Purple pins are establishments.The Temperance Movement and the Local Veto polls never went away despite these reformist pubs, indeed it may have galvanised some in the movment. The last such referendum in Edinburgh was in Corstorphine & Cramond ward in 1938 where 76% voted for No Change. Polls continued in Scotland into the 1970s, before final abolition in 1976. You can still drink in the Anchor Inn, Robin’s Nest, Silver Wing and the Maybury (although the latter is a Casino, so you need to join first). The White House is looking good, but is a (dry) community facility. The Abercorn, House O’ Hill and Wheatsheaf are commercial premises.
The White House after 2011 refurbishment – pic by Smith Scott Mullan AssociatesIf you have found this useful, informative or amusing, perhaps you would like to help contribute towards the running costs of this site (including keeping it ad-free and my book-buying budget) by supporting me on ko-fi. Or please do just share this post on social media or amongst friends.
These threads © 2017-2023, Andy Arthur
#architecture #ArtDeco #Balgreen #Blackhall #Edinburgh #Liberton #LocalPolitics #Niddrie #publicHouses #pubs #temperance #Written2024
-
Friday Reads: Twilight’s Last Gleaming
““No Mortal Man is Above the Law,” sayeth the Supremes. Enjoy your Independence Day; if the Conflicted Convicted Felon is elected, it’ll be our last.” John Buss, Repeat 1968
Good Day, Sky Dancers!
Independence Day has always been my favorite holiday, and it’s my youngest daughter’s too. When we lived in the Quarter, we would always walk our 2 blonde labs to the Mississippi River Bank and watch the left and east bank boats launch a huge fireworks display. Down here in the Bywater, it’s still the same short walk to the riverbank, but the Poland Avenue Wharf or the newest Crescent Park are the favorite places to go. Cars always turn to our local NPR station for patriotic music and blast it loud. You can tell when it’s time for the display because all the bars and houses empty into the streets and head south to the banks of the Mississippi River. I have always wondered what past celebrations were like, but that’s a rabbit hole for another day.
I spent the pre-show hours with friends listening to his industrial band livestream their efforts while sitting in their driveway patio. It seemed like a normal fourth. While everyone headed to the river, I headed home to Temple to let her dig a burrow under me to hide from the noise. No displays for me in the last 10 years. Just time at home in bed comforting Temple. The weird thing this year was the fireworks didn’t seem to bother her, and she spent most of the time spooning me. Maybe she sensed that my fear was far greater than hers today. It’s a thought.
Twilight’s last gleaming from last night at my neighbor’s driveway patio.
The swiftboating of the democratic candidate season has begun. My friend who owns the bar on the corner told me she’s hearing from others besides me who are looking for places to become expats. Given the Le Pen elections, I’m researching the south of France right now, although they may soon have their counter-revolution. Russia is happy about that one. I’m sure they have high hopes for us.
If you haven’t seen this little speech, you really should. “Leader of the pro-Trump Project 2025 suggests there will be a new American Revolution. Kevin Roberts said the revolution will be bloodless “if the left allows it to be.” This is from the AP but sourced at Politico.
The leader of a conservative think tank orchestrating plans for a massive overhaul of the federal government in the event of a Republican presidential win said that the country is in the midst of a “second American Revolution” that will be bloodless “if the left allows it to be.”
Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts made the comments Tuesday on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast, adding that Republicans are “in the process of taking this country back.”
Democrats are “apoplectic right now” because the right is winning, Roberts told former U.S. Rep. Dave Brat, one of the podcast’s guest hosts as Bannon is serving a four-month prison term. “And so I come full circle on this response and just want to encourage you with some substance that we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”
Roberts’ remarks shed light on how a group that promises to have significant influence over a possible second term for former President Donald Trump is thinking about this moment in American politics. The Heritage Foundation is spearheading Project 2025, a sweeping road map for a new GOP administration that includes plans for dismantling aspects of the federal government and ousting thousands of civil servants in favor of Trump loyalists who will carry out a hard-right agenda without complaint.
His call for revolution and vague reference to violence also unnerved some Democrats who interpreted it as threatening.
“This is chilling,” former Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson wrote on the social platform X. “Their idea of a second American Revolution is to undo the first one.”
James Singer, a spokesperson for President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, pointed to this week’s Fourth of July holiday in an emailed statement.
“248 years ago tomorrow America declared independence from a tyrannical king, and now Donald Trump and his allies want to make him one at our expense,” Singer said, adding that Trump and his allies are ”dreaming of a violent revolution to destroy the very idea of America.”
Roberts, whose name Bannon recently floated to The New York Times as a potential chief of staff option for Trump, also said on the podcast that Republicans should be encouraged by the Supreme Court’s recent immunity ruling.
Bannon is in jail right now, serving time for contempt of Congress. The New Republic‘s Parker Malloy has a good point here. “Why Does the Media Insist on Helping Steve Bannon Act the Martyr? NBC and ABC snagged pre-prison interviews with the far-right globalist. But to what end? They became tools in his propaganda machine.” The press just falls right in line by normalizing this behavior.
NBC News’s Vaughn Hillyard and ABC News’s Jonathan Karl recently made a journalistic misstep by interviewing Steve Bannon right before he reported to prison. This move, which might seem innocuous at first glance, actually elevates Bannon’s “political prisoner” narrative, a misleading storyline that does little but bolster the War Room host’s victim complex.
By interviewing Bannon just before he heads to prison, both NBC and ABC are essentially giving him a platform to paint himself as a martyr.
It allows Bannon to control the narrative. This plays directly into the hands of Bannon and his supporters, who are eager to cast any legal action against them as part of a broader conspiracy to silence dissent. It’s a classic tactic: position yourself as a victim to garner sympathy and rally support.
But Bannon is not going to prison for his political beliefs or his support for Donald Trump. He’s going to prison because he defied a congressional subpoena. By allowing Bannon to put some focus on his claims of political persecution, these interviews shift attention away from his actual misconduct and the legal consequences of that misconduct. This undermines the rule of law and gives credence to the idea that powerful individuals can evade accountability by crying foul.
Beyond that, it normalizes extremist rhetoric. In his interview with Karl, Bannon doubled down on his inflammatory language, discussing “retribution” and the need for investigations and potential imprisonments of political figures. Bannon listed former FBI Director James Comey, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and former Attorney General Bill Barr as people who should be “very worried” about prosecution under a second Trump administration. Bannon defended his use of the slogan “Victory or Death!” at the recent Turning Point Action convention and rolled his eyes at Karl for even asking him about his 2020 comments about beheading Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Also, from TNR is this headline about the black man running for governor on the insanity platform. “MAGA Gov Candidate’s Ugly, Hateful Rant: “Some Folks Need Killing!” Mark Robinson, the GOP nominee for governor in North Carolina, has a long history of incendiary comments. But he may have topped himself this time.”
Mark Robinson, the extremist GOP nominee for governor in North Carolina, appeared to endorse political violence in a bizarre and extended rant he delivered on June 30 in a small-town church.
“Some folks need killing!” Robinson, the state’s lieutenant governor, shouted during a roughly half-hour-long speech in Lake Church in the tiny town of White Lake, in the southeast corner of the state. “It’s time for somebody to say it. It’s not a matter of vengeance. It’s not a matter of being mean or spiteful. It’s a matter of necessity!”
Robinson’s call for the “killing” of “some folks” came during an extended diatribe in which he attacked an extraordinary assortment of enemies. These ranged from “people who have evil intent” to “wicked people” to those doing things like “torturing and murdering and raping” to socialists and Communists. He also invoked those supposedly undermining America’s founding ideals and leftists allegedly persecuting conservatives by canceling them and doxxing them online.
In all this, Robinson appeared to endorse lethal violence against these unnamed enemies, particularly on the left, though he wasn’t exactly clear on which “folks” are the ones who “need killing.”
Robinson, a self-described “MAGA Republican,” has a long history of wildly radical and unhinged moments. He has linked homosexuality to pedophilia, called for the arrest of trans women, pushed hallucinogenic antisemitic conspiracy theories, endorsed the vile “birther” conspiracy about Barack Obama, described Michelle Obama as a man, hinted at the need to violently oppose federal law enforcement and the government, and posted memes mocking and denying the brutal, violent assault on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, among many other things.
My belief is he said the quiet part out loud. My governor isn’t calling for the death penalty for anyone who doesn’t fit the White Christian Nationalist mold or stays quiet, afraid, and hidden, but I do believe he’d do it if any other MAGA governor started the trend. As JJ says, fear for people you love. As to the swiftboating of Biden for a cold, let’s show you this oldie but goodie of just a smidgen of the swiftboating of Hillary. “Remember when Hillary Clinton had pneumonia and showed up anyway at a 9/11 memorial & media ripped her for that?” (via @joannebamberg with Karolic Kuns and me in the amen corner.)
Even New York Magazine is in on it. “The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden. The president’s mental decline was like a dark family secret for many elite supporters.” Biden, meanwhile, is on a prove-them all full of a shit tour of duty. Here’s another ‘nattering nabob of negatism’ NBC News. (With no apologies to rotten apple dead Spiro Agnew.)
President Joe Biden will hold a rally Friday in Wisconsin and then sit for his first televised interview since his disastrous debate performance last week, events could be crucial in determining whether he can salvage his embattled candidacy.
The interview with anchor George Stephanopoulos of ABC News is shaping up to be one of the most high-stakes moments for a president or a candidate in many years. Democratic elected officials, donors and voters will be closely watching to see whether he can still deliver in an adversarial setting and turn in a performance worthy of being the party’s nominee to defeat Donald Trump this fall.
The interview will “air in its entirety as a primetime special” at 8 p.m. ET Friday, ABC said, adding that a “transcript of the unedited interview will be made available the same day.”
Before that, Biden is expected to speak this afternoon at a campaign rally in Madison, Wisconsin. At the rally, Biden will “underscore the stakes of this election for our democracy, our rights and freedoms, and our economy,” a campaign official said. Also speaking will be Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, and Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., among others.
The White House said the interview team from ABC “will be with us all day in Wisconsin” and able to cover the rally event and to observe the president as he participates in his schedule, and said it has “some flexibility” around the length of the sit-down but “no exact estimate” of the duration of the conversation.
Read the next paragraph, which I will not print here, and try not to bang your head against your desk, wall, or coffee table. Law Professor Richard W. Painter is floating a Constitutional Amendment on X.
Const. Amend. 28: “The President and the judges of the United States courts including the Supreme Court, shall be bound by the criminal laws of the United States and also by financial disclosure and conflict of interest laws enacted by Congress.” So who votes against?
If you want a real shock, go see The Economist Cover Picture today with the heading “No way to Run a Country.” The attached story is “Biden Must Withdraw.” This is from a country where the General Election just kicked the Conservative PM (a hedge fund manager) and replaced him with a Human Rights Lawyer and member of the Labour Party. Fourteen years of Conservative Rule has just been tossed for something different. Of course, CNN has joined the swiftboating effort. This is from Dr. Sanjay Gupta at CNN. “It’s time for President Biden to undergo detailed cognitive and neurological testing and share his results.”
So, I have to share this one from the New York Times even though I’m about to cancel my subscription. “Biden Tells Governors He Needs More Sleep and Less Work at Night. The president’s opening remark to a group of key Democratic leaders — that he was in the race to stay — chilled any talk of his withdrawal, participants said.” The usual suspects, Reid J. Epstein and Maggie Haberman, reported it.
President Biden told a gathering of Democratic governors that he needs to get more sleep and work fewer hours, including curtailing events after 8 p.m., according to two people who participated in the meeting and several others briefed on his comments.
The remarks on Wednesday were a stark acknowledgment of fatigue from the 81-year-old president during a meeting intended to reassure more than two dozen of his most important supporters that he is still in command of his job and capable of mounting a robust campaign against former President Donald J. Trump.
Mr. Biden’s comments about needing more rest came shortly after The New York Times reported that current and former officials have noticed that the president’s lapses over the past few months have become more frequent and more pronounced.
But Mr. Biden told the governors, some of whom were at the White House while others participated virtually, that he was staying in the race.
He described his extensive foreign travel in the weeks before the debate, something that the White House and his allies have in recent days cited as the reason for his halting performance during the debate. Initially, Mr. Biden’s campaign blamed a cold, putting out word about midway through the debate amid a series of social media posts questioning why Mr. Biden was struggling.
Mr. Biden said that he told his staff he needed to get more sleep, multiple people familiar with what took place in the meeting said. He repeatedly referenced pushing too hard and not listening to his team about his schedule, and said he needed to work fewer hours and avoid events scheduled after 8 p.m., according to one of the people familiar with what took place at the meeting.
After Gov. Josh Green of Hawaii, a physician, asked Mr. Biden questions about the status of his health, Mr. Biden replied that his health was fine. “It’s just my brain,” he added, according to three people familiar with what took place — a remark that some in the room took as a joke, including Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York, according to a person close to her. But at least one governor did not, and was puzzled by it.
Jen O’Malley Dillon, Mr. Biden’s campaign chair, who attended the meeting, said in a statement that he had said, “All kidding aside,” a recollection confirmed by another person briefed on the meeting. Ms. O’Malley Dillon added: “He was clearly making a joke.”
So, I fully admit to being depressed and worried. I know that BB stopped her NYT subscription. I hope John Buss doesn’t mind. I shared this bit he posted to his FaceBook about canceling his. I seriously worry about him in North Carolina, too. None of us in the old Confederate States are safe right now.
This is from a poll taken in April and reported by the AP on May 1. “Half of US adults mistrust media coverage of 2024 elections, a poll finds. About half of Americans say they are extremely or very concerned that news organizations will report inaccuracies or misinformation during the election. According to a poll, 42% express worry that news outlets will use generative artificial intelligence to create stories. (AP Video: Serkan Gurbuz)”
I think it’s likely that if they redid that this month, they’d find a statistically significant increase in the number of people saying that. However, I admit that I live in the Southern City that promptly surrendered when Captain David Farragut of the Union Navy bombed two forts and arrived at the port. We are a haven for the GLBT community. We also have a strong Jewish presence and are well known for being a place of refuge for many diasporas. Our new governor hates us and wants to take away our city charter, which is the legal means by which we don’t become the rest of the state. You have to wonder how many cities like ours will come under direct attack if MAGA either gets its way or doesn’t.
The only way out of this is to VOTE and get everyone you know to VOTE because our lives depend on it.
I really hope you got to enjoy a little celebration on Independence Day. I’m still on board with ensuring liberty and justice for all. I am also standing by the Biden/Harris ticket. Again, you realize that I have had a lot of gripes in the past about Biden and what happened to Anita Hill. It is somewhat karmic that what is going on now is somewhat built in by the bad decision he, Teddy Kennedy, and John Kerry made about Clarence Thomas. Forty-eight percent of the Senate was against his confirmation. He should’ve been Borked. That, unfortunately, is toxic water under the bridge of democracy, but we have what we have now, and it is what it is. Remember the words of Benjamin Franklin and fight for it. The Roberts Supreme Court just took down the republic.
“A republic, if you can keep it.”
–Benjamin Franklin’s response to Elizabeth Willing Powel’s question: “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
I’m sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can’t stand the scene
And I’m neither left or right
I’m just staying home tonight
Getting lost in that hopeless little screen
But I’m stubborn as those garbage bags
That time cannot decay
I’m junk but I’m still holding up
This little wild bouquet
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A#Repeat1968 #aRepublicIfYouCanKeepIt #CoupAttempt #democracy #IndependenceDay #insurrection #JohnBuss #LeonardCohen #MediaAndSwiftboating #Project2025 #Swiftboating
-
Mrs Maciver: the thread about Edinburgh’s first cookery teacher and publisher of the earliest known Haggis recipe
Today’s Auction House Artefact is this old Edinburgh-published cook book, an edition from 1777.
COOKERY,
and
PASTRY.
As taught and practised by
Mrs MACIVER,
Teacher of those Arts in Edinburgh.Although it is neither the first such book printed in Scotland (that title goes to Mrs McLintock’s Recepits for Cooking and Pastrywork, Glasgow, 1736) Cookbook, nor even Edinburgh (A New and Easy Method of Cookery, 1755), this remains a very special cookbook. If you were a member of Enlightenment Edinburgh’s genteel classes then this was probably the cookery book; instructing you and your domestic staff in all the latest food and dining trends.
The Georgian kitchen in Edinburgh.James Boswell (feathered hat) and his kitchen staff preparing a meal of grouse for Dr Johnson (in the background in the tricorn hat) “Wit and Wisdom. Picturesque Beauties of Boswell. Part the First, 1786, Thomas Rowlandson after Samuel Collings. National Galleries of Scotland collection.Mrs Maciver (or Mciver) was Susanna Maciver, born circa 1709. In her own words prefacing the first (1774) edition of her book and written in 1773, she stated “her situation in life hath led her to be very much conversant in Cookery, Pastry etc. and afforded her ample opportunity of knowing the most approved methods practiced by others“. She “opened a school in this city for instructing young Ladies in this necessary branch of female education, and she hath the satisfaction to find that success hath accompanied her labours“. Running a school for other women would have been one of the few business opportunities open to an enterprising lady in Georgian Edinburgh. And clearly she was both enterprising and successful in her chosen career path.
Etching by John Kay, 1786, entitled “Mr Robert Johnston and Miss Sibilla Hutton“, no. 158.Her 238-page book was laid out in a format that would be recognisable to modern home cooks; starting with soups and then going through fish, flesh (meat), pies and pasties etc. – mixing savoury pies with sweet desert dishes – and finishing on preserves and pickles etc. It is full, cover-to-cover, of Georgian recipes, from Imperial White Soup to Roast Cod’s Head to Beef a-la-Mode to Carrot Pudding. But my personal favourite is the Syrup of Turnip:
A recipe for Syrup of Turnip, Page 222 of the first edition.Despite the Syrup of Turnip it proved to sell well and was republished over a number of years. The advert to announce the initial publication was placed in the Caledonian Mercury newspaper on December 4th 1773 and was repeated in The Scots Magazine that month. From this we can also glean that she also sold her own preserved fruits, cakes and pastries.
Caledonian Mercury advert announcing the publication of Mrs Maciver’s book. December 4th 1773. The books are dated 1774 on the inside coverHer house and cookery school was in Stephenlaw’s Close (also spelled Stevenlaw, Stanelaw and Stonelaw’s) off the High Street – it is number 74 on Edgar’s town plan below of 1765. You can handily located for the city’s produce markets centred on the Tron Kirk. The structure in the middle of the High Street marked M is the City Guard referred to in the above advert, the old guardhouse of the Toun Rats.
Edgar’s Town Plan of Edinburgh, 1765. Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of ScotlandFrom her preface to the first edition, we know that the school had been established some time when her book was first printed and is listed in Edinburgh’s first postal directories (those of the similarly enterprising “Indian Peter” Williamson).
Williamson’s Postal Directory of 1784.In October 1786 a “New Edition, With Additions“, described as “Greatly Improved” was released, now running to 264 pages. Those who had recently purchased the previous edition were offered the additional pages gratis per an advert in the Caledonian Mercury. Susanna Maciver would have been almost 80 at this time, a very good age for the 18th century.
It was suggested by some friends, that the addition of some figures of courses for dinners and suppers should be subjoined; accordingly, I have made out several courses from five to fifteen dishes.
This took the book from being just a collection of recipes to a complete guide to entertaining in Georgian polite society, keeping you right in such important matters of etiquette as how to lay the table correctly. Wealthy people still dined service à la Française at this time where a whole range of sweet, savoury and side dishes were put on the table at the same time and would be replaced as they were finished. This is opposed to the more modern style of service à la Russe where you are served in separate courses. So at this time any host or hostess had to know where to place the Soup and when to remove it, where the Roast Tongue went relative to the Artichoke Bottom Fricasee, how to stew Peas and Lettuce etc.
“Bill of Fare” diagram for family dinners of twelve or fifteen dishes, from the 1789 edition.The prospect of serving orange pudding and apricot tart alongside the roast pig and Boiled turkey with oyster sauce may seem odd to us these days, but it was the height of gastronomic sophistication in its own time! This second edition was also reprinted both in Edinburgh and London, being advertised in the London Morning Post for sale at 2 shillings and sixpence. One of the more unusually named recipes was Robert Walpole Dumplings, a stodgy, fatty, rotund pudding served soaked in alcohol. Whether or not this was a homage to, or a clever mocking of Cock Robin is a secret that only she will know. But undoubtedly Susanna Maciver’s greatest contribution to both the Edinburgh and Scottish culinary arts, and culture in general, was that in her books she published the first ever “standard” Haggis recipe (north of the border)!
Susannah MacIver’s first recipe for Scottish Haggis, 1774But note the bit in parenthesis at the end of the last paragraph. Yes, shockingly, Haggis has a rather longer history on record in English printed cuisine than Scottish! A dish very similar to haggis called Afronchemoyle is contained in the first known English cookbook, The Form of Cury, from way, way back in 1390 by the cooks of King Richard II of England. As a Scottish dish, it does not have quite such a long recorded history. The word itself is Old Scots, with a root from Middle English hagas, hagese etc., probably from the noun hag, to chop. The Gaelic for haggis, taigeis, is imported from the Scots. The earliest printed mention seems to be it used in an insult, in an early 16th century poem by William Dunbar:
The gallows gapes after thy graceless gruntill,
The Flyting of Dunbar and Kenndie, c. 1500-1520
As thou wouldst for a haggis, hungryThe poet Alexander Pennecuik uses it as a pejorative (haggis-headed) in 1715, Alan Ramsay refers to it as haggies in 1725 in The Gentle Shepherd and surviving household ledgers from Ochtertyre House for instance record it as haggise, being served for the servants’ meal in 1737 (alongside puddings and mutton). The haggis of course has been immortalised in Scottish culture by its association with the poet Robert Burns and the annual Suppers held in his memory. In 1786 Burns was newly arrived in Edinburgh and wrote the Address to a Haggice (sic). It was first published in the pages of the Caledonian Mercury newspaper on December 19th that year (n.b. most internet sources will tell you December 20th, but the newspaper did not publish that day, it was thrice weekly). Its book publication was the next year in an Edinburgh edition of his Poems, Chiefly in the Scottish Dialect. It is noteworthy that the last verse of the newspaper version is different from the Edinburgh edition version which is that used to this day.
Front page of the Caledonian Mercury, 19th December 1786, highlighting the date and the “Address to a Haggice”.Ye Pow’rs wha gie us a’ that’s gude,
Last verse of the 1786 Caledonian Mercury version of “To A Haggice”.
Still bless auld Caledonia’s brood
Wi’ great John Barleycorn’s heart’s blade,
In stowps or luggies;
And on our board that king o’food,
A glorious Haggice!”When Robert Burns immortalised the Haggis in Scottish culture as the “Great Chieftain o the puddin race” with his eponymous address of 1787, there is every chance he was referring to something made to Mrs Maciver’s recipe. And if it was served in the manner she prescribed, it may well have been on the same table as the blancmange, cheesecake and trifle! And speaking of trifles, it was her book that give us one of the earliest recipes for what we would recognise as a “modern” trifle.
“The Cottar’s Saturday Night”, an illustration of Burns’ 1786 work by David Allan. Burns thought Allan “a man of very great genius” and that it was “one of the highest compliments I have ever received” to have Allan illustrating a book of his works. A cooking pot simmers over the ifre on the left. A man on a stool to the right eats from a bowl while a hungry dog waits patiently for a tid-bit. National Galleries of Scotland collection.The Scottish food historian Florence Marian McNeill and the food writer Clarissa Dickson Wright both favour the theory that the practice of cooking the contents of an animal in its own stomach point to a Scandinavian origin of the dish. A haggis is fundamentally an offal sausage, and offal was an important source of food for the poorer classes; it spoils quickly and is not easy to transport without a modern cold chain, so it would be eaten quickly at the source; people could just not afford to waste it and it was also still perfectly nourishing. Chopping up the less palatable and digestible parts of the “pluck” of an animal and mixing it in with oatmeal as a binder and to make it go a bit further was a perfectly logical way to make a slaughtered animal feed more people for longer. Some pepper, spice or herbs – as available – would make the contents more palatable. At a time when many people would have possessed only a fire on which to cook and probably only a pot and a griddle to cook on or in, the boiled haggis is just a logical sort of dish for the ordinary folk to be cooking and eating. The cooked final product could then be smoked to preserve it.
“The Haggis Feast”, Alexander George Fraser, 1840, National Trust for ScotlandAs evidenced by its inclusion in Maciver’s book, by the time of Burns haggis had moved on from being purely a peasant and servants’ dish of necessity to something popular amongst the enlightenment classes on their dinner tables. It also became increasingly popular with the men of letters on their drinking tables. Perhaps the earliest known illustration of haggis, from c. 1810, shows two enlightenment worthies of Glasgow supping on a giant haggis, washed down with copious quantities of claret.
“Dr Balfour of Glasgow having taken lodgings in a questionable house” a caricature by John Gibson Lockhart c. 1810, National Library of Scotland Acc.11480, f.5In the 1826 book The Cook and Housewife’s Manual etc. by Margaret Dods, a recipe is given fora genuine Scotch haggis at the head of the chapter entitled Scotch National Dishes (introduced by quoting Burns). Margaret – Meg – Dods was actually a character from a Walter Scott novel and the book itself was by the writer Isobel Christian Johnston, the publisher’s wife. Scott himself contributed the book’s introduction.
This elusive but important Susanna Maciver died on August 23rd 1790 at Jamieson’s in the Canongate, aged 81 years, of “decay” (registrars’ speak for dying of old age of otherwise unknown specific reasons.) There is a plaque to mark the approximate location of her house and cookery school at Stevenlaw’s Close, appropriately featuring her recipe for “A Good Scotch Haggis”.
The plaque to “A Good Scotch Haggis” at Stevenlaw’s Close. Picture credit Historic Environment ScotlandBut that is not the end of the story, because she had a protégé, Mrs Frazer, who took on the school and the book, updating and expanding it and issuing subsequent editions. She describer herself as the “sole teacher of these arts in Edinburgh” and “several years colleague and afterwards successor” to Mrs Maciver. Of Mrs Frazer (later rendered as Fraser), I can find nothing concrete and the surname is much too common to get lucky on Scotland’s People without any dates or a forename.
Mrs Frazer’s version of the cook bookFrazer’s book moved on from purely recipes, to describing general principles and techniques of both cooking and also buying and choosing ingredients (an important skill in a time of no real food controls and produce that would easily spoil or potentially have been doctored). An interesting addition are the illustrations of table setting plans. More calf feet jelly with your small tarts?
A diagram on how to arrange dishes on the table from Mrs Maciver’s recipe book, from the 2nd edition. Notice that pork cutlets, blancmange, cut beetroot, orange cheesecake and macaroni pie are all placed adjacent!As well as this guide to laying your table, other helpful information such as foods listed by their season, a one-page ready reckoner of suggested “Things for Supper Dishes” and “General Observations” were also included such as the correct order of serving your boiled, baked and roasted meats.
General Observations as to serving up Dishes.By 1806 she had moved the cook school, now described as a “pastry school“, to Milne’s Square; opposite the Tron Kirk, still handy for the markets. The school is listed in the post office directories under her name until 1831-32, after which it disappears for a few years then a school under Miss Fraser appears at 69 Northumberland Street. I have made the assumption this was a daughter perhaps.
You can read a digital version of Mrs Maciver’s cookbook for free online and it is still published in a modern facsmilie edition. If you want to get a bit closer to the wacky dining habits of Enlightenment Edinburgh, I recommend a trip to the National Trust for Scotland’s Georgian House, who have a great display and description of the eating, drinking and cooking habits in the 18th century New Town’s dining room and kitchens.So if you want to pay homage to the great, great, great, great, grandmother of Scottish cuisine, why not do as the Georgians might have done and serve yourself up a tasty supper of haggis and trifle this weekend?
Note to readers: unfortunately in April 2026, a third-party plug-in more than exceeded its authority and broke many of the image links on this site. No images were lost but I will have to restore them page-by-page, which may take some time. In the meantime please bear with me while I go about rectifying this issue.
If you have found this site useful, informative or amusing then you can help contribute towards its running costs by supporting me on ko-fi. This includes my commitment to keeping it 100% advert and AI free for all time coming, and in helping to find further unusual stories to bring you by acquiring books and paying for research.
Or please do just share this post on social media or amongst friends and like-minded people, sites like this thrive on being shared.Explore Threadinburgh by map:
Travelers' Map is loading...
If you see this after your page is loaded completely, leafletJS files are missing.These threads © 2017-2026, Andy Arthur.
NO AI TRAINING: Any use of the contents of this website to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.
#Lochend #Logan #Restalrig #StMargaret -
Death from above: the thread about the 1916 Zeppelin air raid that terrorised Edinburgh and Leith
It was fittingly dark and late when I started to write this, but here follows the story of the Zeppelin air raid on Edinburgh and Leith of 2-3 April 1916. It’s a long-ish story which I’ll break down into 3 parts. Hopefully as we go I can clarify a few points and add some extra details to other versions of it
Part 1. Prelude
“The First Zeppelin Seen from Piccadilly Circus, 8 September 1915”, Andrew Carrick Gow, 1915. IWM Art.5216
The frightening and fascinating new technology of Zeppelins burst quite literally into the British public consciousness on 19-20 January 1915 when an attack on Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn and Sheringham left four dead and fifteen injured. Follow up raids are a failure, until bigger and more capable Zeppelins arrive and in April and May 1915 towns across the southeast of England from Ipswich to Dover are targeted and hit. Three are killed and there is public outrage. Public and newspaper ire is directed as much at the authorities for failing to protect the populace and smite the aerial menace as much as at the German military. In September a Zeppelin humiliatingly appears with impunity over London.By the end of 1915, 203 people have been killed and a further 711 injured in monthly raids over (mainly) the Eastern and South Eastern counties of England. The authorities have been largely impotent in response, but try to mobilise the public outrage as a recruiting tool.
Recruiting poster, 1915. Library of Congress.British companies also utilise the Zeppelin scare in patriotic advertising. North British Rubber, based in Fountainbridge in Edinburgh and the largest rubber products producer in the British empire, took out adverts in the illustrated papers imploring customers to Buy British as German rubber companies made the fabric for Zeppelins.
“The German Menace”, North British Rubber advert from the Graphic, 30 October 1915The Daily Mail is amongst popular newspapers which offer its loyal readers a compensation scheme should they or their family be killed or injured by a Zeppelin air raid.
Daily Mail advertisement poster for Zeppelin insurance scheme for its readers. IWM Art.IWM PST 13010There are public awareness campaigns, warning people what to look out for when scouring the skies for aerial attackers.
Public Information Poster. IWM PST 13660In early 1916, during a winter lull in the bombing campaign, George Currie MP for the Leith Burghs asked the Scottish Secretary about what was to be done by local authorities to guard against the aerial threat .
George Currie MP in 1914A week later, the Secretary for Scotland, the Rt. Hon Thomas Mackinnon Wood, issues the “Lighting Order”, which obliges local authorities to implement a basic blackout and put in place warning measures of air raids, but leaves the details to local discretion.
Thomas Mackinnon Wood Esq, MP, Lafayette Negative ArchiveA debate rages in Edinburgh Town Council about the best way to enact the order. The Chief Constable wants a complete night-time blackout but is felt to be over-reacting and over-stepping his authority. An audible warning is felt to be unnecessary and might just draw people out onto the street anyway. It is eventually settled that in the event of an air raid, the Corporation Electrical Department will dim the lighting supply as a warning before cutting it entirely as a blackout. However the gas lighting supply (the predominant domestic lighting) will not be dimmed or cut, over fears that it will lead to leaks from unlit lights when the supply is restarted.
This means that there is no warning system in place for people who use gas lighting – the majority – and the blackout will not be effective. However this is accepted. After all, Edinburgh is very far away from it all and probably feels its isolation is protection enough. The burgh of Leith follows suit and issues similar orders, however these do not apply to the shipping sitting in Leith Roads and they continue to burn lights at night.
The raids begin again at the end of January 1916 with the full moon; 57 are killed and 117 injured. There is respite as a result of the weather at the end of February but the Zeppelins return at the end of March. On the night of the 31st, 43 are killed and 66 wounded. But a Zeppelin is shot down during that raid, to public jubilation.
Zeppelin L15 sinking in the Thames Estuary after having been fatally damaged by defensive gunfire.On the next night (1-2 April), it is the North East of England that is hit, 16 people are killed and 100 are injured. The bombs are creeping northwards, but are still more than 100 miles from Edinburgh
Part 2. The Raid
On the bright spring morning of April 2nd 1916, the residents of Edinburgh open their morning newspapers to read headlines and horrifying details of the latest series of raids. Unknown to them, something sinister is stirring 500 miles to the east.
At the Nordholz naval air base north of Bremerhaven, the Imperial German Navy readies four of the latest P-class Zeppelins for a raid on Rosyth on the Firth of Forth, the base of the Royal Navy’s Grand Fleet – the most powerful fighting force on the high seas.
The Royal Navy’s Grand Fleet in the Firth of Forth, aerial photo taken from a British airship late in the warIn the early afternoon, Zeppelins L13 (pictured), L14, L16 and L22 take off and begin their long voyage west. These 163m long, 4-engined craft have a crew of 19, cruise at 39mph, can reach an altitude of 11,600 feett and carry up to 2,000kg of bombs; high explosive and incendiary.
L13L13 soon develops engine troubles and turns for home. L14, L16 and L22 press on west, but are troubled by a northerly wind that blows them well off course. L16 makes for the secondary objective of Tyneside but drops her bombs 11 miles off target. L22 gets a bit lost and mistakes the river Tweed for the Tyne, bombing fields around Chirnside. She will later claim to have destroyed one of the bridges over the Tyne.
L14 – under the capable command of Lt. Commander Alois Bocker – however is on course and schedule. She passes the Scottish coast near St. Abb’s Head, being spotted here and possibly engaged by Royal Navy destroyers (although they have no practical weapons to really do so). Nevertheless, the alarm is now raised and the Admiralty dispatches the 2nd Light Cruiser Squadron from Rosyth on a pre-determined search pattern of the Forth to look for the raider. At East Fortune naval air base, Sub Lt. GA Cox is scrambled in an Avro 504C fighter on an ultimately fruitless interception mission. Cox will be injured later trying to land his rickety aircraft in the dark.
An Avro 504C aircraft, a type with marginal performance specifically rushed into service as an anti-Zeppelin defence.And in Edinburgh and Leith, the warning message is received by the authorities that an air raid may be imminent, and the electric lights are dimmed and the tramway is stopped. The fire brigade, hospitals and Red Cross are put on alert.
Bocker turns L14 turn back out to sea after passing St. Abbs, using the Isle of May in the outer reaches of the Forth to get their bearings, then flying directly down the middle of the Firth. They appear over Inchkeith around 11:15PM. Over Inchkeith they do what Zeppelin attackers often do; they stop to take their bearings, floating high over the island. The night is clear but there is a low haze and they cannot make out their target from the glazed cabin high above the sea.
The command cabin of L22 after the war, where Bocker and his men would have looked out from over the ForthInstead, the welcoming lights of the ships in Leith Roads point Bocker towards the docks and L14 sets off again with a new target in mind. Bocker is familiar with the port having visited it as a sailor in peacetime and he knows if he follows its river it will lead him to the city centre of Edinburgh.
The Leith Police spot L14 around 11:25, approaching from Inchkeith. She is flying high, perhaps as high as 10,000ft. The zeppelin (the black track on the below map) is heading southwest, straight towards the heart of Leith.
L14’s approach to Leith over the Sands, towards the Albert DockThe first three bombs are unleashed here. Bomb 1, a 50kg high explosive (yellow marker), lands in the Edinburgh dock, sinks two rowing boats and destroys the skylight windows of a Danish sailing vessel. The two incendiaries, bombs 2 and 3, land near the Albert Dock but cause no damage beyond a burnt fence which is quickly extinguished.
The first 3 bombs dropped.Bombs 4 and 5 are High Explosive. They hit a grain warehouse in the Timberbush and the Custom House Quay. Damage is done to property from flying masonry and smashed glass, but it’s largely superficial and nobody is hurt.
Bombs 4 and 5 Land near the Shore.Bomb 6 is high explosive, it hits the roof of the tenement at 2 Commercial St. and takes L14‘s first victim; 61 year old engineer Robert Love- husband of Ann Porteous and father of James – is killed as he sleeps in his bed in the top floor flat.
Robin Love, contemporary newspaper photo, provenance unknownBomb 6 causes a fatality. Bomb 7 lands nearby.A few doors down at 14 Commercial Street, bomb 7 – an incendiary – smashes through the roof and then through the floor of the top floor flat before starting a fire in the flat below. The elderly woman who had been sleeping in her bed calmly got up and poured a pan of water in the hole and extinguished it. More bombs rapidly drop. 8, 9 and 10 are incendiaries and land on Sandport Street. A fire is started and rapidly extinguished and no further damage is caused.
Bombs 8, 9 and 10 land in Sandport StreetBomb 11 is another 50kg HE. It comes down in Innes & Grieve’s whisky bond on Ronaldson’s Wharf and sets the spirit store on fire. The inferno lights up the night sky, making the job of navigating the Zeppelin and aiming the bombs easier. The entire stock, worth £44k (an enormous sum in 1916) is destroyed. It is not insured against aerial attack (this seems to be a recurrent situation at the time, special “air raid insurance” schemes were set up to cover where other insurance would not) . Bomb 12, an incendiary, lands at 15 Church St. and falls through the roof into a room where a mother and 3 children are asleep. The flats are set on fire but the residents have a lucky escape before it is quenched.
Bombs 11 & 12Bocker now steers L14 along a course following the Water of Leith. A stick of four incendiary bombs is dropped around Mill lane. The St. Thomas Church manse is largely destroyed, but the minister and his family are miraculously unharmed. Clearly he had been saying his prayers as somehow he, his wife and their servant girl asleep in the attic were spared.
St. Thomas’ ManseThe attic room of the manse, note the bomb-shaped hole in the floorDamage caused to St. Thomas’ Manse. © Edinburgh City LibrariesThe St. Thomas’ School next door and the Leith Hospital across the street get lucky escapes as bombs 14 and 15 land directly outside. Bomb 16, landing on Hawthorn & Co’s shipyard, sets fire to a fence but it is quickly put out. L14 continues its course along the Water of Leith.
Bombs 13, 14, 15 and 16.Four HE bombs are dropped over the industrial quarter of Bonnington. Seemingly little damage is done beyond smashed windows, but when the dust settles it is found that little David Robb, just 1 year old and who had been sleeping in his cot has been tragically killed by shrapnel. David’s parents, Robert and Jane, were just getting over the loss of another infant the previous year.
Bombs 17, 18, 19 and 20. Those at 200 Bonnington Road cause a fatality.The “disconsolate” Robert Robb gave an upsetting interview to a journalist which, unusually for the time, passed the censors.
Robert Robb’s newspaper interview.L14 had now completed wreaking its terrible toll on Leith. Bocker took his bearings again from the Water of Leith and turned his ship to head south, directly towards the city centre of Edinburgh. It is 11:50PM. an HE bomb, number 21, is dropped, landing on waste ground at the end of Bellevue Terrace. It blows out windows in houses and flats for streets around and demolishes a tin shed, but no further damage is done. Likewise bomb 22, an incendiary, does no damage when it lands on the road surface of The Mound.
L14‘s course takes it just past the Castle atop its promontory. The next bomb, 23, is another 50kg HE (my map has it coloured wrong). It crashes through the roof of the Georgian townhouse at 39 Lauriston Place. The McLaren family are awake inside and hear it descending on them.
Dr Mclaren and his wife and teenage daughter miraculously are unharmed at 39 Lauriston Place, despite the damage. The family reputedly still have a piece of the bomb’s nose cap. The Skins – the Edinburgh Special School for children with ringworm – next door is also damaged.
The damage caused to 39 Lauriston Place. The house was demolished in the early 1970sThis bomb claims a victim though. David Robertson, a 27 year old soldier invalided out of the Royal Field Artillery, is outside in an adjacent street to see what is going on and is hit in the stomach by flying shrapnel, later succumbing to his injuries.
David Robertson. Contemporary newspaper image, via Newbattle at War.Bomb 24 is high explosive. It lands in the playground of George Watson’s College school and causes extensive damage to classrooms. It is perilously close to the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh next door. Bomb 25 is an incendiary and lands near Jawbone Walk on the Meadows without causing damage.
Bombs 24 – 26 near The MeadowsL14 continues south over the Meadows before making a turn to east, dropping bomb 26 – another 50kg HE – as it does so. This comes down in the tenement at 82 Marchmont Crescent. It fails to properly explode but its kinetic energy carries it through floors and ceilings to the ground floor flat at no. 80. It is this bomb that is now on display at the National Museum of Flight at East Fortune.
Bomb 26, now on display at the Museum of Flight. © SelfMeandering east across the Southside, incendiaries are dropped (bombs 27 and 29) at Hatton and Blacket Places, landing in gardens and doing no damage. An HE bomb comes down at 183 Causewayside and “practically wrecked” the tenement. Six are injured, four of whom are hospitalised. One of the injured, 71 year old Wilhelminha Henderson, will succumb to her injuries in the following days and dies in hospital of a heart attack brought on by the shock.
Bombs 27 – 29 dropped across the SouthsideL14 now makes a U-turn back towards the city. This time it passes directly over the Royal Infirmary, dropping an incendiary (bomb 30) as it does so. This comes down on a roof but fails to do any damage.
This is the incendiary on the roof of the RIE. This was a conical-shaped bomb with a central fuse. Inside the cone was a mix of oil and kerosene, on the outside it was wrapped in tar-soaked rope. It was not particularly effective and would be replaced by fearsome Thermite weapons towards the end of the war.
The bomb on the roof of the RIEThere are multiple eye-witness reports of seeing “blue lights” dropping from the Zeppelin. What people were seeing was the long streamers on the incendiary bomb’s tail, which were meant to stabilise it, catching the light as it fell. One of these incendiaries from the night is also on display at East Fortune.
Incendiary bomb at the Museum of Flight. The top portion fitted over the lower one, this weapon has been disassembled to show its construction. © SelfBomb 31.L14 is now on a heading directly for the Castle. Another HE bomb – number 31 – is dropped, coming down in the Grassmarket outside the White Hart Hotel and Gothenburg tavern. Four men gathered in the area are injured and more damage is done to buildings. One of the injured, a 45 year Corporation Porter by the name of William Breakey, will die shortly afterwards from his injuries having been struck on the chest by flying debris
William Breakey. Contemporary newspaper image, via Newbattle at War.Most of the windows in the area were blown out. Buildings took the scars of flying debris. Given how usually busy and how densely overpopulated the neighbourhood was, it was remarkable that the death and injury toll here was not much higher.
Crowds gather in the Grassmarket the next day to inspect the damage. Note that all the windows are blown out.Animated transition showing the damage caused in the Grassmarket against the street todayL14 was perhaps aiming for the Castle, as bomb 31 at the Grassmarket and 32 and 33 – which fall immediately after – are in a straight line across it. Bomb 32 hits the southwest face of the Castle Rock. The Castle gunners impotently fire two blank rounds from the One O’Clock Gun in response. At the County Hotel on Lothian Road number 33 falls, an HE bomb, and there is another miraculous escape. The bomb explodes in the hotel roof causing extensive damage, but casualties are limited to a woman resident in a bedroom below suffering slight injuries .
Bombs 32 and 33 dropped as L14 flies over the CastleHaving missed the castle, L14 continues on its course before picking up its navigational maker of the Water of Leith again. Again a 180° turn is made, again bombs are unleashed as it does so. What Bocker is aiming for is anyone’s guess. Perhaps railways, perhaps the prominently large building of Donaldson’s Hospital. But all 3 bombs land in the river and although countless windows are blown out – including Donaldson’s chapel stained glass – there are no injuries.
Bombs 34-36 are dropped as L14 U-turns over ColtbridgeL14s new course takes it back directly over the Castle agai but this time no bombs are dropped; not until it is well past it at least. Bomb 37, a high explosive, comes down outside the tenement at 16 Marshall Street off Nicolson Square.
L14 is almost retracing its steps, the Castle is crossed 3 times. Bomb 37 falls well beyond it.This will be the most deadly bomb. Residents had gathered in the passageway of the building, probably up and about due to the excitement of it all and taking shelter within as the drone of the Zeppelin’s engines approached again. The 50kg bomb strikes the pavement outside, the blast is driven into the stair of No. 16 and kills six men and boys standing within instantly. It injures a further seven.
The victims are William Smith 15, his father John Smith 41, Henry Rumble 17, David Graham 5, William Ewing 23 and Victor MacFarlane. The injured include the brother and son of the deceased Smiths and the father of Henry Rumble. Private Thomas Donoghue, 24, of the 3/4 Royal Scots who was home on leave was also injured. He had been visiting family. He would succumb to serious injuries to the abdomen and is the 7th fatality from Marshall Street.
Animated transition image showing the damage caused to No. 16 Marshall Street against the building todayThe bomb at Marshall Street fell at about 00:25AM, fully an hour after L14 was first spotted approaching Leith. And still it droned on over the city, at complete liberty to undertake its terrible deeds. As it continues on its course, two more HE bombs are dropped. 38 lands in the tenement at Haddon’s Court and 39 comes down in the tenement at 69 St. Leonard’s Hill. Each of these bombs will claim a victim.
Bombs 38 and 39At Haddon’s Court, James Farquhar, a 73 year old mason, will die 5 days later from his injuries in hospital. At St. Leonard’s Hill, 4 year old Cora Edmond Bell is killed in her bed.
L14‘s course takes it over the south western edge of the King’s Park. Here the City finally fights back, soldiers have been dispatched to the Salisbury Crags (where there was a military rifle range) and engage the Zeppelin with a Lewis and a Vickers machine gun. L14 drops four of its last five bombs, an incendiary and three HEs. It is perhaps aiming for the railway yard at St. Leonard’s, or the flashes of gunfire far below, but no damage is done beyond to some walls and the gunners have no chance of hitting the Zeppelin anyway at its altitude.
Bombs 40-43 fall in the King’s ParkThe last bomb, number 44, falls further south in the grounds of Prestonfield House at around 00:40AM (times in the records vary and conflict slightly). L14 now turns east around the south of Arthur’s Seat and strikes a course for home.
In the approximate hour and 15 minutes when it was over Edinburgh and Leith, it dropped 44 bombs, caused 14 fatalities and 24 injuries. No targets of any military value had been hit, a whisky bond and a manse had been destroyed, and countless thousands of window panes smashed.
Part 3. The Aftermath
It took until April 4th, the day after the morning after the raid, for the events in Edinburgh and Leith to hit the papers. Reporting censorship restrictions kept things vague and just referred to “south east Scottish counties” and “an eastern coastal town” .
The Scotsman praised the public response “the raid… naturally caused some excitement, but failed to produce any panic or do otherwise than steel the hearts of the people against the nation capable of using such barbarous methods of warfare against the civilian population“.
The first 3 Funerals took place on the afternoon of April 5th. A further 4 Funerals took place on the 6th. Municipal representatives were present and there “were numerous manifestations of public sympathy as the cortège passed.” It was announced that the National Relief Fund had made “provisional arrangements” to give grants to local committees for the purchase of furniture for displaced persons. It was anticipated that applications would be made to the fund for indirect losses, e.g. loss of lodgers.
The lack of accurate reporting meant rumours and gossip was rife. The word on the street in Dundee was that the Scott Monument had been destroyed. Visitors from there to family in Edinburgh asked if they could please go and see the ruins? Unable to report the facts, the Scotsman settled for odd editorials, for instance extolling the virtues of traditional Scottish construction over suspect English ways.
Scottish stone proved more resisting than English bricks; instead of the crumbling ruins of houses… the only evidence of the raid on the tough fabric of Scottish buildings was shattered windows and indentations on the walls. This first raid on the costs of Scotland has been a great triumph for the Scottish builder.
Scotsman editorial opinion after the raidAnd there was an even weirder one on how the general lack of public panic was some sort of proof evident of the racial and genetic purity of the people of Edinburgh and Leith.
The Lord Provost, who was in London on council business, met with John French, 1st Earl of Ypres and Commander-in-Chief of the British Home Forces to “explain to him the position of matters in connection with the raid“. French was reportedly “quite sympathetic.” Sympathies were sent from war-torn France.
French sympathy with Scottish sufferersAnd in the letters columns, recriminations were quick to come. Multiple organisations of the city worthies and self appointed committees of dignitaries wrote their opinions about what must be done. All that could be agreed was that something must be done. Given the woeful state of the anti-aircraft defences in the country, Mr Ralph Richardson wrote to suggest that local authorities must be empowered to raise their own air forces, as they did fire services “to defend the lives and property of the lieges committed to their care“. There was also the question of the warning and blackouts. It was ordered that the gas supply would be cut along with the electricity in the event of a raid. Stricter blackout conditions were made, to be “drastically enforced” due to the “slackness in various parts of the city”
The Army provided a rudimentary anti-aircraft battery on Corstorphine Hill. Manned by artillery volunteers the gun was a QF 13pdr 6cwt Mk.I. This was a “marginally effective” weapon, and indeed was a cast off. Only 20 had been made before replaced by something better. This had likely been sent to Scotland as a token gesture to show that the military authorities were doing something, anything, in response. The battery was provided with a searchlight and an acoustic direction finder, which was meant to help locate the direction from which a Zeppelin was approaching from the noise of its engines (it didn’t really work).
13 pounder AA gun on Corstorphine HillSound locator device and searchlight on Corstorphine Hill.These defences were more morale-boosting “security theatre” than anything effective. However subsequent “War Weapons Week” campaigns encouraged the public in Edinburgh to directly finance better anti aircraft weapons to guard against the Zeppelin threat.
Scottish War Weapons Week poster. IWM PST 10244The proximity of the bombs to Edinburgh castle worried the governor, who wrote to the Keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland to inform him that the Regalia of Scotland had been moved for safekeeping from the Crown Room to the Castle vaults.
Letter from the Governor of Edinburgh Castle to the Keeper of the Great Seal of Scotland in Whitehall NRS HH31/21/1 fol.19At least two babies born just before or after the raid were named in its honour;
- Catherine O’May Campbell Raida Smith was born 2nd April to Janet Smith at 49 Montague Street
- Raida Alexandra Douglas was born May 21st to Barbara Mackay Douglas of 88 Nicholson Street
Raida Smith’s father, Peter, made an appeal against conscription on account of his wife “remaining ill… she did not make a good recovery and has been nervous and sleepless since… A strain that at present she is ill able to bear“. I don’t know if he was successful.
The L14 would become the most successful German Zeppelin of the War. It made 17 attacks on Britain and dropped 22 tonnes of bombs. Alois Bocker was shot down commanding L33 in September 1916 over London. He survived, was captured and reportedly treated well as a Prisoner of War.
Alois BockerIn 2016 on the centenary of the attack, Edinburgh University Library published a fascinating first hand account of the aftermath, from the diaries of schoolboy Archibald Campbell who had roamed the city the day after taking notes of his impressions.
Points to Clarify
There are many good accounts of this story, however there are various points and facts which have inevitably become confused or corrupted (with honest intention) over time. I will try to clear up those that I have identified.
Firstly, only one Zeppelin, L14, bombed Edinburgh and Leith. L22 never made it and erroneous reports of it being over the city persist. German and British official records all agree that only L14 was within 100 miles of Edinburgh that night. L14 was much higher – 10,000ft – than you might think. It was dark and unlit, many people heard it, very few saw anything. As it flitted between pockets of cloud and light and went back and forth over the city it would be easy to think that you had seen or heard 2.
Secondly, there are no photos of L14 over the city. There are photos that purport to be it, but this is of the civilian airliner Graf Zeppelin over the city in 1930. There are other mockups too. But they are just that. The illustration below from the “Illustrated London News” shows what people *might* have seen in the night sky had they been able to get a view of L14 – but it qould have required a good set of binoculars or a telescope. It is an older, smaller model of Zeppelin though.
“Illustrated London News,” September 18th 1915The third point concerns the number of bombs and fatalities.
- 20 bombs were dropped in Leith and 24 in Edinburgh, Leith was a separate burgh at this time and some accounts overlook this nuance and thus get the total wrong.
- 14 people lost their lives in total; some reports miss out some of those who died of their injuries up to 5 days later, they are listed in the table below
As far as I’m aware, there are 3 public memorials to the air raid.
- A flagstone on the Grassmarket where William Breakey was fatally wounded.
- a piece of damaged masonry from the old Grassmarket Corn Exchange, now removed to the back of the Apex Hotel car park (see picture below)
- A plaque on the Castle Rock, near where the bomb fell there. There is a picture on this site;
The events of this night were commemorated back in 2016 but still don’t really pervade the local public consciousness, at least not to the extent of the attacks made during WW2.
Note to readers: unfortunately in April 2026, a third-party plug-in more than exceeded its authority and broke many of the image links on this site. No images were lost but I will have to restore them page-by-page, which may take some time. In the meantime please bear with me while I go about rectifying this issue.
If you have found this site useful, informative or amusing then you can help contribute towards its running costs by supporting me on ko-fi. This includes my commitment to keeping it 100% advert and AI free for all time coming, and in helping to find further unusual stories to bring you by acquiring books and paying for research.
Or please do just share this post on social media or amongst friends and like-minded people, sites like this thrive on being shared.Explore Threadinburgh by map:
Travelers' Map is loading...
If you see this after your page is loaded completely, leafletJS files are missing.These threads © 2017-2026, Andy Arthur.
NO AI TRAINING: Any use of the contents of this website to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.
#Lochend #Logan #Restalrig #StMargaret -
The thread about Edinburgh’s roadhouses; when the glamour of art deco hostelries took on the Temperance Movement (and won!)
This thread was originally written and published in January 2024.
The pub in the picture below has been in the news for the wrong reasons recently but, despite its rather forbidding appearance these days, it’s a very important pub. It is a surviving example, serving its original purpose, of only a handful of such inter-war hostelries that were built in Edinburgh; the roadhouse. But these nine public houses didn’t just appear for no reason, they were the culmination of and response to a long political and social struggle around public drinking in the first half of the 20th century. Shall we unravel their story?
The Anchor Inn on West Granton Road.The short version of the roadhouse story is this: they are a blend of 1930s architecture and design glamour that were used by the licensed trade to entice a new generation of sophisticated, Holywood-inspired, upmarket, car-driving drinkers. That’s partly true, but is by no means the full story.
1934 Dunlop Tyres advert showing cars arriving at an Art Deco roadhouse. © Illustrated London NewsTo understand how Edinburgh got its roadhouses we have to go back to 1913 when the Temperance movement was at the peak of its power and the Temperance (Scotland) Act was passed. This was also known as the Local Veto Act as it allowed localities to force referendums on going dry – although this only applied to public houses, not restaurants or hotels. The veto ballots could be called by 10% of registered electors in a burgh, parish or ward petitioning for it. There were 3 options on the bill:
- No Change, i.e. the area would stay wet
- Limitation – there would be a 25% reduction in licences in the area
- No Licence, i.e. prohibition
The No Licence option required a supermajority of 55% to pass, representing at least 35% of all electors in the area. If that hurdle failed to be passed, these votes were then counted towards Limitation.
British Women’s Temperance Association banner of the Scottish Christian Union, 1900. © Edinburgh City LibrariesThe Act had unforeseen consequences though: the brewers and licensed trade circled their wagons and got organised, forming defence committees to coordinate their response. They also put off investment in their estates in case of an unfavourable ballot; why spend money with the threat of a loss of licence hanging over you? As a result the quality of pubs got worse, not better. But the Temperance Movement had to wait until the conclusion of WW1 before making their next move. This came in 1920 to coincide with local elections and they launched their Pussyfoot Campaign to coordinate mass petitioning for local veto ballots across Scotland. This was named after an American prohibition campaigner who arrived in the UK in 1919, who had a tactic of pussyfooting around pubs incognito to gather evidence against them. And so in December 1920, Edinburgh (amongst many other Scottish localities) held its first Local Veto ballot. The terms of the act meant that public houses had to shut during polling hours. The Evening News reported record trade in Musselburgh as the city’s drinkers fled to the sanctuary of the Honest Toun for the day.
“Edinburgh Drouths Annex Musselburgh”. Edinburgh Evening News – 6th December 1920But after the last pint glasses had been emptied, the last drams downed and the ballot papers counted, the Temperance Movement were in for a disappointment: Edinburgh voted firmly for No Change in every ward – 68% overall. No Licence got 29%, less than half of what was needed, with a small minority voting for Limitation. The city would stayed wet. The Movement tried again in 1923 and although the polls shifted a few percent, once again every ward voted for a majority of No Change. Things were closest in Morningside where it was 51:46% between status quo and prohibition. You can spot something of a definite inner city / suburban and social order based split in the numbers.
Edinburgh 1920 & 1923 Local Veto Act, results for “No Change” by Ward.So it was now 1923, 10 years since the Temperance Act was passed, and neither the Movement or the more moderate Reformers were any further forward in the city and the trade still refused to invest in their estates. And so the quality of pubs continued to deteriorate. Many in the trade did recognise the need to improve, however they wanted the threat of the 1913 Act pulling the rug from under their feet to be gone before they put their money where their mouths were. They were supported politically in this by reformers, led by Lord Novar in the House of Lords and Lord Salvesen of the Scottish Public House Reform League. The Reformers took as their template the New Model Inn developed by Harry Redfern for the Government in the Carlisle district after WW1 which aimed to use better design and an improved service offering to reduce drunkenness.
The Redfern Inn at Etterby, CarlisleDespite the deliberately anachronistic appearance, these were a modern ideal of a public house, full of design innovations that we now take for granted. These included the practice of seated drinking around tables in open saloons where all corners and entries and exits could be viewed from the bar line; traditionally most pubs indulged in drinking standing around a small service bar, or in small rooms where what happened in the room stayed in the room. Public bars were accompanied by relaxed lounge bars, where women were tolerated in the company of their husbands, hot food was served and other wholesome diversions such as reading, writing and games rooms were included. The Scottish Reformers called these the Improved Public House on the Carlisle Model. Interestingly, they declined to follow a different but more local and established form of reformed public house; the Gothenburg. The Goth movement grew out of that city and had been established cooperatively across Scottish mining communities, but particularly in the Lothians and Fife. It is likely that the Goth principles were too Temperate and too verging on Socialism for the trade to accept.
The Prestongrange Goth, Prestonpans. CC-by-SA 2.0 Richard WebbReform was all well and good in practice, however the trade still had to get through the Licensing Courts, which were stuffed with conservatively-minded councillors who were frequently aligned with the Church and were heavily lobbied by well organised Temperance campaigners and their lawyers. The Courts were able to make it very difficult for new licenses to be obtained and all too easy for old ones to be lost. Over time they managed to reduce the overall numbers of licences in the City by granting fewer than were removed or expired.
The end result of all this was that there was a period of almost 20 years when no new pubs were built in Edinburgh. Things came to a head in 1933 when the President of the Edinburgh Local Veto Defence Association petitioned for a licence for a new inn in the new district of Balgreen. Robert Russell Hogg had kept a pub next to the City Chambers for 21 years, which the Corporation now wanted him to give up to allow them to extend that building. He pushed a test case to allow an Improved Tavern in an otherwise dry district as a direct challenge to Temperance – stipulating he wanted to be out of the city centre and in an area where he would not have to compete with established trade. Hogg was a keen reformer and stated he wanted “an inn after the English type, something the trade would be proud to have in Edinburgh“.
The Temperance Movement had thus far managed to keep all of Edinburgh’s new peripheral council housing schemes effectively “dry” by preventing licenses for pubs and off-licence grocers. They had a lot to lose here and rallied their troops; a petition of 181 owners and occupiers in the district against Hogg’s application was organised. The ministers of Saughtonhall Congregational Church, the Cairns Memorial Church and Stenhouse Church of Scotland all lodged protests. But lose lose they did, by 9-1 votes at the licensing court. And so on December 24th 1934, Edinburgh’s first newly built pub in at least 20 years opened; The Wheatsheaf Inn on Balgreen Road. It was in an Scottish interpretation of the Arts & Crafts style by architects Lorimer & Matthew. Hogg took out adverts calling it “Auld Reekie’s New Modern Inn“.
Promotional postcard for the Wheatsheef, showing interior of the establishment. Reproduced with kind permission of Sarah M (@sazz_mck).When it opened it was almost 1/3 mile from the nearest house. It was spacious, with a large, open “tap room” with no corners that could not be observed from the bar line, a kitchen and dining room, a garden, car park and a flat for the landlord upstairs. To cock a snoot at the Temperance Movement, Hogg had an ornamental sculpture added with a legend taken from Omar Khayyam installed above the front door: “AND AS THE COCK CREW THOSE WHO STOOD BEFORE THE TAVERN SHOUTED OPEN THEN THE DOOR“.
Wheatsheaf, the main door was on the right, below the chimney and carving over the lintel. Picture by Fiona Coutts, via British Listed Buildings.The Lord Provost was supportive of the new initiative, and hoped it would help put an end to the scourge of Vertical Drinking (or Perpendicular Drinking as he particularly called it). This was the practice of drinking standing around a serving hatch or bar (which many howffs at the time basically were), rather than seated politely around tables. The Improved Public House genie was now out of the bottle, but others in the trade held back a bit to see how Hogg got on. When it was clear he wad a success on his hands, others decided to join in on the action. The Licensing Courts sat twice a year and so the next two applications had to wait until April 1935.
First up was a widow, Mrs Johan Thom, who kept the Stenhouse Inn by Liberton. She wanted an Improved Pub to replace this old country tavern which she had run with her late husband and her application was successful. The Arts & Craft style Greenend Inn opened on Gilmerton Road on March 23rd 1936, but it has always almost been known by the nickname of its predecessor, The Robin’s Nest. You can see that particular bird on the prominent external sign. These elaborate, painted tavern signs were an import from England where the brewery trade had been trying to revive their ancient art. Mrs Thom had gone all out on the latest facilities, with lounge and public bars, a tea room, restaurant, “parking and accommodation for cars” and a skittle alley! The skittle alley (or space devoted to such other such traditional, wholesome games) would become something of a feature of the roadhouses.
The Greenend Inn, Edinburgh Evening News- 30 June 1936The other application made at this time was something altogether different from these Arts & Crafts reinterpretations of the traditional Olde English country tavern, something instead inspired by the glamour of Hollywood and the ocean liner. This was the Maybury Roadhouse; “Scotland’s premier commercial establishment of the 1930s“.
Artist’s Impression of the Maybury Roadhouse. Edinburgh Evening News- 01 May 1935Gone here were old world comforts of wood and the fireplace and in were sleek Streamline Moderne architecture (by Paterson & Broom) and the glitz of neon lights and jazz bands, the cocktail bar, the grill restaurant, the ballroom, balconies and a mezzanine gallery to watch it all from. As a nod to its ocean liner-influenced architectural styling, there was a rooftop garden complete with a quoits deck . The Maybury opened on 19th November 1936, despite 260 objections by the Temperance Movement and the usual protests of local ministers. Its licensees were Messrs P. McDougall, who had been in the trade for over 40 years, and it cost them £10,000 to build (c. £584k in 2023). Although sometimes referred to as a “roadhouse hotel“, actually a defining feature of the roadhouse was that they were not hotels, the Dundee Licensing Court defined them in 1937 as “a house which supplied all the services of the hotel without sleeping accommodation“. Certainly it was the ultimate expression of the roadhouse concept in Scotland, and endures (as a casino) as one of the finest monuments to Art Deco in the country. During WW2 it was a popular hangout for the officers from the nearby RAF base at Turnhouse and during renovation work in 1988 it was found that the roof structure had been damaged by gun emplacements fitted for the protection of that airfield during that conflict.
Maybury Gala Casino, CC-by-SA 2.0 Thomas NugentThe scale and ostentatious glamour of the Maybury was a one-off, but it influenced subsequent applications in the city. Six months after its licence was granted, in October 1935, Mrs Jemima Hood Gair petitioned for a new roadhouse on Niddrie Mains Road to serve the housing estates there with all the latest features, including a billiards room. She had been in the trade herself for 11 years after the death of her husband and kept a licensed grocer at West Adam Street and a pub on Couper Street in Leith. The Temperance Movement were furious – this was a blatant attempt to introduce the public house to a housing scheme they considered to be dry (even though men who wanted to just went into town to drink) and sent in their lawyer, Duncan Maclennan SSC, to lead the objections. By 8 votes to 1, she prevailed, on the condition she relinquished her two existing premises, a compromise position that resulted in a net reduction in licences of one in the city. She was also obliged to serve hot meals as had been proposed. The White House opened on 18th October 1936, in an Art Deco style by Leith architects W. N. Thomson. It featured two public bars, a saloon, cocktail bar, a lounge bar, a skittle alley and billiards and darts rooms, as well as a cafe-cum-restaurant.
Opening announcement for the White House, Evening News, 22 October 1936. Mrs Gair is in the centre of the lower image, in the coat with dark fur lapels.The April 1936 licensing committee takes us back where we started, the Anchor Inn on West Granton Road. This application, by James Birrell Rintoul, was approved that year to an Art Deco design by Thomas Bowhill Gibson, better known as a cinema architect (including The Dominion in Morningside). The Anchor is probably the furthest from the model of the Roadhouse of the lot; in reality it was just a modern and vaguely upmarket public house decorated with contemporary architectural details. The Temperance Movement were probably right to see it as merely a way to get a public house into an otherwise dry estate. They managed to make it a close run thing at the Licensing Court, again Duncan Maclennan SSC opposed, as well as all 36 church ministers in Leith. Rintoul relied on the casting vote of Lord Provost Gumley to get it through and was obliged to provide “hot luncheons, high teas, cooked food“.
The year following The Anchor, three roadhouse licenses were granted. The first to open was the Hillburn Roadhouse which was the project of John Maclennan Oman and his wife Nellie who kept a number of pubs across the city and been in the trade over 40 years. Despite it being, then, well away from anything else, they still struggled to get a licence and had to have it granted on appeal.
The Hillburn Roadhouse, a contemporary photograph provided by Colin Dale to a book by Malcolm Cant.It featured all the usual roadhouse facilities, with three bars, a “first class restaurant” (serving luncheons, snacks, afternoon teas, grills, dinners, suppers etc.), an off-licence shop, car parking and “commanding a fine view of the Pentland Hills“. Latterly run as the Fairmile Inn and suffering the indignity of a Scottish & Newcastle ski chalet-themed 1970s refurbishment, the Hillburn sat empty for a number of years, unloved and unwanted, and was demolished in 2013. It’s the only Edinburgh roadhouse to suffer this fate.
Hillburn Roadhouse skittles alley. RIAS photo, picture from a book by Malcolm CantJohnnie Oman died in 1942. Nellie continued to run the Hillburn, living in the flat above, until retiring to the Grange in 1956. One of their other bars, the Duddingston Arms in Craigmillar, has long been known as Oman’s in their honour. It’s proximity to The White House can’t just be a coincidence, the Omans can’t have missed this new establishment along the road from them and were undoubtedly inspired by it.
Oman’s bar on Peffer Place. The finest glass brick pub facade in Edinburgh.The following month after the Hillburn opened, James Daly opened the Abercorn Inn on the Portobello Road, near the Northfield and Piershill housing schemes. He too had to go to appeal to get permission for it. His establishment was back to the Arts & Crafts Style of the Robin’s Nest (and although I can’t find an architect name for either, I’d put money on them being one and the same)
The (former) Abercorn Inn. Photo © SelfIt opened “in the Old English Style” on September 16th 1938 and had almost exactly the same facilities as its lookalike. The opening announcement proudly concluded that “Only First-Class Ales and Finest Whiskies and Wines Stocked“.
Opening announcement for the Abercorn Inn, 16th September 1938The last of the trio of 1937 roadhouses opened on 11th October 1938, the House O’ Hill on the Queensferry Road at Blackhall. The licensee was Edward Cranston, a wine and spirit merchant whose premises included that now known as The King’s Wark on the Shore in Leith. Again it followed the Arts & Crafts style, but contrary to some sources was a new building and not converted from an older tavern or coaching house.
The House O’ Hill on the right, with the English-style pub sign outside. From an old postcard.It too proved controversial, not because it was in a dry scheme this time, but because of its genteel surroundings. Lord Provost Gumley struggled to be heard over cries of “No!” and “Shame!” when announcing the granting of its licence. The 238 objectors claimed it was not Temperance that was their objection, but that the Queensferry Road was too busy during the day and too quiet at night to be acceptable for the motor car traffic “of the young and gay” that such an establishment would undoubtedly attract. But once again they failed to block it, and it opened with a mock-Tudor main bar with an “Old English style brick fireplace” and equipped with “small tables and comfortable modern chairs“. The “high-class restaurant” could seat 100, there was a games room with its own bar and a cocktail bar with feature lighting. Outside there were decorative gardens with fir trees and Japanese shrubs, and a car park for 25 vehicles. For as many years as I can remember, the place has been used as offices, but still retains its Olde English style pub signboard out front
The House O’ Hill these days, as offices for the Scottish Grocers FederationNot all roadhouses got through the Licensing Court however, and the objectors were able to stop a few. One on East Milton Road was declined due to its proximity to two boarding houses for girls. Another at Stenhouse Road was knocked back, as was one on Northfield Broadway. The latter would eventually be built post-war, with the curious name of the Right Wing. This came from its landlord, Hibs’ legendary “Famous Five” right winger, Gordon Smith. It was demolished in 2018 for a speculative development which has yet to be built five years later.
The Right Wing in 2008.But that’s a postwar roadhouse, and we’re here to talk about inter-war roadhouses. The last of these was approved at the licensing court of April 1938 and was one of two competing schemes on opposite corners of Parkhead Gardens at Sighthill, then a new and somewhat upmarket estate of privately rented houses and flats. Messrs. Mitchell, caterers, were successful in their application, but the opening was delayed until February 1st 1940 owing to the outbreak of war. The named it the Silver Wing in connection with the glamour of aviation. The green-tiled pagoda tower over the entrance is distinctive, but it’s not an early prototype for an all-you-can-eat Chinese Buffet! No, one of the directors of Messrs Mitchell & Co. had a pilots licence, and wanted the place to have an aeronautical theme. That pagoda is actually a control tower! The main bar floor was laid out as an aviators compass, the cocktail bar was called “The Cockpit” and painted panels and engraved mirrors around the bars represented flight-themed scenes, including of the Luftwaffe bombing raids over the Firth of Forth in October 1939. As well as a skittle alley it had a ballroom with capacity for 200 dancers.
The Silver Wing at SightillThe Silver Wing was a forces favourite for dances during WW2 – being conveniently close to the RAF at Turnhouse (the officers preferred the Maybury) and also a prisoner of war camp a bit along the Calder Road.
A Company, Edinburgh Home Guard, dance at the Silver Wing, Evening News, January 11th 1941Although only nine roadhouses were built in Edinburgh in the inter-war period, they did a fairly comprehensive job at positioning themselves on the principal approach roads from the city; staying true to the roadhouse ideal, even if some were really just glorified local pubs.
Map of Edinburgh’s inter-war roadhouse inns. Purple pins are establishments.The Temperance Movement and the Local Veto polls never went away despite these reformist pubs, indeed it may have galvanised some in the movment. The last such referendum in Edinburgh was in Corstorphine & Cramond ward in 1938 where 76% voted for No Change. Polls continued in Scotland into the 1970s, before final abolition in 1976. You can still drink in the Anchor Inn, Robin’s Nest, Silver Wing and the Maybury (although the latter is a Casino, so you need to join first). The White House is looking good, but is a (dry) community facility. The Abercorn, House O’ Hill and Wheatsheaf are commercial premises.
The White House after 2011 refurbishment – pic by Smith Scott Mullan AssociatesIf you have found this useful, informative or amusing, perhaps you would like to help contribute towards the running costs of this site – including keeping it ad-free and my book-buying budget to find further stories to bring you – by supporting me on ko-fi. Or please do just share this post on social media or amongst friends.
Explore Threadinburgh by map:
Travelers' Map is loading...
If you see this after your page is loaded completely, leafletJS files are missing.These threads © 2017-2026, Andy Arthur.
NO AI TRAINING: Any use of the contents of this website to “train” generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to generate text is expressly prohibited. The author reserves all rights to license uses of this work for generative AI training and development of machine learning language models.
#Lochend #Logan #Restalrig #StMargaret -
Well, the judge in the case against Unite the Right tiki torch marcher Jacob Dix has definitively dismissed the charges. Dix is a free man.
Dix had actually been put on trial for "burning an object with the intent to intimidate," a felony in Virginia under a 2002 law that replaced an older anti-KKK law against cross burning. That prior law had been ruled unconstitutional.
The jury in Dix's case came back hung three months ago.
I generally don't regard putting people in cages as an effective solution to social problems. But the judge's rationale for dismissing this case is just atrocious. According to the article below, Judge Thomas Padrick said in court that "this is akin to flag-burning. It's distasteful, and I don't agree with it, but the Supreme Court has defended it. It is Constitutional free speech."
Uh-huh.
Attacking and deliberately traumatizing a group of people in the name of an explicitly violent, misanthropic ideology with a none-too-obscure history of actual genocide is totally the same thing as burning a piece of cloth. So free speech. Much Constitution.
The judge also expressed misgivings about his own instructions to the jury in Dix's trial. He had invoked the idea of "concert of action," which is a legal doctrine that holds people liable for criminal activity when they only abet it, rather than actually committing it. In dismissing the case, he asked "Every one of them committed a felony? Every one of them just because they carried a lit tiki torch and marched in formation and uttered hate speech?"
Is that even a real question? Virginia law defines "burning an object with the intent to intimidate" as a felony. So yes. Yes they did. When that march happened, I wasn't even in the crowd at the rotunda. I was across the street, just off campus, and I felt intimidated. And I'm a fairly large, relatively inconspicuous white male gentile.
Just think for one moment about the effect of that spectacle: the fire, the booming voices, the constant swirling motion, the smell of burning butane. Nobody had the luxury of hindsight then. There was no way to know what kind of harm might come from that. People were getting bits of lighter fluid on their clothes from torches being swung at them, sometimes actually hitting them. And while we can mock the marchers for using bullshitty Walmart tiki torches, there was actual fire involved, and it was coming at people from all directions.
Oh, but the actual, literal fascists merely carried lit torches, marched in formation, and uttered hate speech? Is that all? Good point, judge. Good fucking point.
Judge Padrick also raised an issue that's been brought up by both Dix's attorney and every pissant nazi twerp from sea to shining sea, namely that "we're talking about something that happened seven years ago and no prior commonwealth's attorney would prosecute." Well, that's because the prosecutor in that county in 2017 simply declined to prosecute. When the current prosecutor ran against him in 2020, he specifically promised to go after these people and -- guess what? -- he got elected. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but to me, that at least suggests that there's a good chance that people who live in that county disagreed with the old prosecutor's approach and did, in fact, want to see the "justice system" hold these people accountable.
Lastly, the implication that these cases should just be dropped and forgotten because so much time has passed is just disgraceful. Dix claims he doesn't hold the same beliefs anymore, but he remains unapologetic. During the torch march, he was wearing a t-shirt with a big "88" on it (for the uninitiated: in context, that's *definitely* a Nazi symbol). Now he's whining that the trial cost him "tens of thousands of dollars" while claiming he no longer has that shirt. He says "that was more of a radical time for me. I don't want to apologize for any past mistakes, but I don't hold those same values."
Sure, man. Cool. Refusing to apologize for your "mistakes" is an excellent way to convince the world that you've changed.
The one real upside to all of this is that Jacob Joseph Dix (29) of Clarksville, Ohio, has effectively been doxxed in a big way. I mean, his case has by now gotten significantly more coverage than the other "intimidation by fire cases," though that may no longer be the case once Patriot Front leader Thomas Rousseau gets his day in court for this. Dix is going to find it rather difficult to get work, a date, or probably even friends who aren't also nazis. He will be celebrated as a hero in some circles, but ultimately, that's a fairly small world, and he is going to find it rather difficult to move beyond its borders. But then treating borders as sacrosanct is kind of a big deal to people like him, so maybe that's no loss after all.
#UTR #UniteTheRight #Charlottesville #JacobDix #NeoNazis #fcknzs #fascism
-
Wednesday Weekly Blogging Challenge: Books I Read on Someone’s Recommendation
Hi everyone! I hope you’re all well. Today is Wednesday, and it’s time for another post in the Wednesday Weekly Blogging Challenge hosted by Long and Short Reviews. If you’d like to participate in the challenge, you can find the list of topics for 2025 here. If you’re interested in reading other people’s responses to this week’s topic, you can do so here.
Books I Read on Someone’s Recommendation
The Deep
Last year, lovely Lydia Scoch recommended I read The Deep, a novella by Rivers Solomon, and I thought it was brilliant. It’s an original and unique take on the origin of mermaids—and as a fan of mermaids and mythical creatures in general, I found it fascinating.Cher: The Memoir (Part One)
Recently, a friend recommended that I read Cher: The Memoir (Part One), so my husband bought it for me for my birthday. I’ve always enjoyed Cher’s music; I grew up listening to it—it was ubiquitous in the 80s, 90s and 00s, and now when I hear certain songs, I’m transported back in time. The book, which I’m halfway through reading, is brilliant, and I recommend it if you’re a fan.Thornhedge by T. Kingfisher
Someone recommended I read Thornhedge about two years ago, I think it might have been Michael Mock, though I’m not sure. Either way, it’s a novella that wonderfully retells the story of Sleeping Beauty, and I remember not being able to put it down for long.Anyway… that’s quite enough out of me!
Thank you, as ever, for reading my post this week. It means the world.
Until next time,
George
© 2025 GLT
#challenge #Cher #mermaids #music #SleepingBeauty #Wednesday #WednesdayWeeklyBloggingChallenge
-
There is a story, universally known to mathematicians, about Leonhard Euler, Denis Diderot, Catherine the Great, and the epistemological authority of mathematics. It apparently first appeared in English in Augustus De Morgan‘s book A Budget of Paradoxes:
Diderot paid a visit to the Russian Court at the invitation of [Catherine the Great]. He conversed very freely, and gave the younger members of the Court circle a good deal of lively atheism. The Empress was much amused, but some of her councillors suggested that it might be desirable to check these expositions of doctrine. The Empress did not like to put a direct muzzle on her guest’s tongue, so the following plot was contrived. Diderot was informed that a learned mathematician was in possession of an algebraical demonstration of the existence of God, and would give it him before all the Court, if he desired to hear it. Diderot gladly consented: though the name of the mathematician is not given, it was Euler. He advanced towards Diderot, and said gravely, and in a tone of perfect conviction: Monsieur, $\frac{(a + b^n)}{n} = x$, donc Dieu existe; repondez!1 Diderot, to whom algebra was Hebrew, was embarrassed and disconcerted; while peals of laughter rose on all sides. He asked permission to return to France at once, which was granted.2
One interesting thing about this is the fact that De Morgan misrepresents the point of the anecdote he’s quoting. He attributes it to Dieudonné Thiébault, whose version ends quite differently:
…Diderot wanted to explain that this alleged proof was nonsense, but was unable to escape the embarrassment of realizing he was being fooled with and would not be able to escape the jokes with which they were ready to assail him…3
De Morgan’s version, contra Thiébault, paints Diderot as an actual clown, too ignorant of algebra to even understand the mockery. Mathematicians have been fervently repeating De Morgan’s version since he published it. It’s as foundational a myth for mathematicians as the story of George Washington and his dentures made of slaves’ teeth is for the United States. What lessons does it teach its audience? How does it comfort those who share it? Myths reinforce and reproduce social systems — what’s being reinforced here? How does this myth help reproduce the community that relies on it?
There’s a clue in De Morgan’s weirdest and least plausible addition — the claim that to Diderot “algebra was Hebrew.” Diderot, a famously brilliant guy, wrote an entire monograph on mathematics. If algebra to him was Hebrew it would only have been because he was fluent in Hebrew.4 The folk process really latched onto this detail, which shows its significance. One recounter changed “Hebrew” to “Chinese,” while another used “Arabic.”5 Thiebault wrote in 1804, De Morgan in 1872, and the other two in the early 20th Century. What had changed?
For one thing, capitalist domination of the world, still not a done deal in the 18th Century, was essentially complete by the turn of the 20th. This happened over the course of De Morgan’s lifespan.6 By then capital had discovered many of its modern uses for mathematics, and consequently mathematicians were integrated into social power structures in many of the same ways they are now.7 Which means that they were in the market for worldviews that justified their privilege in contrast to the violence necessary to create and maintain it.
This need is reflected in the evolution of the story. On first telling the point was obscure, perhaps because it was close to a description of something that actually happened. De Morgan had an axe that needed grinding, so he punched it up a little by beclowning an old-school renaissance man and natural philosopher of precisely the type that supplied the theoretical foundations of power in the 18th Century, of precisely the type whose role was now filled in part by mathematicians. But by the first decades of the 20th Century much graver threats to peace of mind had surfaced, which therefore called for new mythmaking.
The replacement of Hebrew, in the relevant time a dead language, with Arabic and Chinese, in their relevant times languages spoken by stereotypically subhuman colonised peoples, served to pearl-coat the jagged violence of colonialism, much more apparent in elite white circles by the early 20th Century than had previously been the case. The story justifies white Europe’s colonial violence by framing its intellectual architects as rightfully, due to their unassailable knowledge authority, advising Catherine the Great’s world-ruling counterparts.
Another essential element of De Morgan’s version of the story is the stature of the characters, including his own personal stature. Euler, the greatest mathematician of his time, was responsible for much of the framework of modern mathematics. Carl Gauss, himself the greatest mathematician of his time, said that “The study of Euler’s works will remain the best school for the different fields of mathematics, and nothing else can replace it.”
Diderot’s fame is also essential to the story’s point. Titans clashed and the one with the recognizably, at least to De Morgan, modern worldview won out. Part of the pleasure, part of the community, that the anecdote provides to mathematicians in its recounting lies in vicarious identification with Euler’s triumph and its parallel to their own triumphs. Another part lies in vicariously identifying oneself with a cause championed by the also-eminent De Morgan. Without archetypally famous characters reading the lines the scene misses its mark.
Something all versions from De Morgan’s on have in common is that they’re told by mathematicians to mathematicians. By definition then members of the audience have already claimed a share of power and are looking for a way to feel better about that choice. The narrations must build community, and aggression works against that so the tellers take a respectful tone. It’s different when they’re defending against the non-mathematical world. Here’s De Morgan’s description, from the very same book that has the Euler-Diderot story, of an amateur mathematician who had the nerve not only to disagree publicly with famous mathematicians but doubled down on being told he was wrong:
The behavior of this singular character induces me to pay him the compliment which Achilles paid Hector, to drag him round the walls again and again. He was treated with unusual notice and in the most gentle manner. The unnamed mathematician, E. M. bestowed a volume of mild correspondence upon him; Rowan Hamilton quietly proved him wrong in a way accessible to an ordinary schoolboy; Whewell, as we shall see, gave him the means of seeing himself wrong, even more easily than by Hamilton’s method. Nothing would do ; it was small kick and silly fling at all; and he exposed his conceit by alleging that he, James Smith, had placed Whewell in the stocks. He will therefore be universally pronounced a proper object of the severest literary punishment: but the opinion of all who can put two propositions together will be that of the many strokes I have given, the hardest and most telling are my republications of his own attempts to reason.8
This De Morgan doesn’t gently invite his peers to self-soothe with shared humor and community reaffirmation — this De Morgan repeatedly announces his intention to physically assault a human being. Like many whose continued existence relies on brutal violence directed by others on their behalf De Morgan needs to justify his intention by showing how many have tried nonviolently to convince the heretic. He was given many chances to conform! Clearly he has willingly forfeited the protection of civilization! He is a semi-civilized subhuman! Beat his ass! De Morgan goes so far as to describe his criticisms as “strokes,” a punishment administered to slaves by their masters. The metaphor is striking and striking is the metaphor. Intellect righteously serves power by wielding a pen as an implement of physical torture and subaltern correction.
Which brings us to the next subject of this essay, a self-proclaimed anarchist known as William Gillis.9 Gillis, who seems to be some kind of minor cult figure among left-wing libertarians,10 is a dude with a website, some thoughts about things, and a tsunami of untempered rage. Apparently there are people to whom his work provides comfort and community given that it’s pretty widely published and discussed in certain circles. These people are to Gillis as the mathematicians in his audience were to De Morgan. He supplies conscience-soothing, community-creating myths to his followers. But Gillis lacks an essential tool that De Morgan had a surfeit of — knowledge authority.
Knowledge authority is the ability to have one’s assertions accepted as fact by virtue of one’s social position without adequate supporting argument.11 It’s not a function of the truth or falsity of the claims, which is irrelevant to the authority. Knowledge authority is a relation between knowers and consumers of knowledge rather than a property of the particular knowledge in question. It’s a social fact. Social facts are backed by society, and therefore in a coercive society ultimately backed by violence rather than reason. This situation is colorfully evoked by De Morgan’s putatively hyperbolic threats against a man who refused to accept his putatively rational arguments.
Scientists in modern American society have a great deal of knowledge authority because their work is essential to capitalism, the ultimate source of violence. We know physicists are telling the truth because their bombs explode. Their conclusions are justified by three unassailable social facts: They know stuff we don’t know, if we did know it we’d agree with them, and we will never know it like they do.
Ultimately this kind of authority doesn’t come from the truth values of its claims but from the utility of those claims to people with the power to impose worldviews that serve their purposes. Without power there’s no knowledge authority, but only authoritative knowledge. I am not saying that scientific claims are false, but rather that, true or false, they’re authoritative because they’re backed by force.12
So Gillis has a problem. Anarchists have zero knowledge authority in the world and less than that in anarchist circles. They can’t wield state violence for obvious reasons, and they can’t get other anarchists, hardened skeptics who’ve already rejected violence-backed state agendas, to accept their dogmas through mere amateur violence. Many anarchist writers resolve this dilemma by explaining their ideas clearly and respectfully to their audience to allow them to come to their own conclusions. Gillis chose another path: cosplay. See, for instance, his website bio, where he proclaims publicly for all the world to see that he “…is a second generation anarchist activist who studies high energy theoretical physics.”
What an interesting phrase! He “studies high energy theoretical physics.” In the ordinary denotational meaning of the words this is probably a completely true statement, but connotations can be tricky. The connotational meaning of the verb “to study” conjugated this way, in some kind of ongoing present tense,13 and followed by an academic discipline, changes radically depending on how the discipline is described. If it’s something general, like “physics,” the word “studies” retains its ordinary meaning. If someone asks what my kid does at college I could plausibly answer that she studies physics. But if the discipline is highly qualified, narrow, esoteric, a different meaning becomes available.
It still makes sense to say that a college kid “studies high energy physics”14 if they’re taking a series of classes in that subject, but it also makes sense to say of a working scientist engaged in original research that she or he “studies high energy physics.” It’s a kind of modesty, a way of saying that even though the subject knows more about high energy physics than all but a few hundred or even a few dozen people in all of human history, they’re still humble students. For instance, “Allison Hall studies high energy physics using the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva, Switzerland.” It’s easy to find plenty of similar examples.
So what is up with Gillis? He doesn’t seem ever to have published anything in any area of physics. He doesn’t have an advanced degree in the subject as far as I can tell, and nothing on his website suggests he’s done original scientific research.15 He may dip into Physics for Dummies to kill time in airports but equivocating on different connotations of the verb “studies” is dishonest — stolen humility rather than stolen valor. On his Twitter bio he calls himself a “lapsed physicist” and on Mastodon unqualifiedly a “physicist.” Without access to genuine authority the guy needs knowledge authority and he’s not shy about grabbing it.
The three social facts that scientific knowledge authority relies on are these: they know stuff we don’t, if we knew it we’d agree with them, and we can never know it. Gillis stakes his claim to such authority in a remarkable essay, the general tenor of which is well-represented by this passage, a sort of Platonic ideal of the first and third pillars:
The qualia of physics and math, the richness, the crystal clarity, the complex humor of someone’s proof, the overwhelming resonance of the revealed relations and their potency at further exploration make sad jokes of all the cheap fragmentary poetic or neural associations one can momentarily garner and perhaps struggle to hold onto from drugs and religions. Trying to explain this kind of experiential depth to those who have never even glimpsed mathematics beyond arithmetic isn’t like explaining sex to a preschooler, it’s like trying to explain the subjectivity of other individuals’ knowledge to a toddler or self-awareness to an newborn. The doors it opens to experiencing reality and the remarkable solidity of the whole affair are not even fathomable beforehand.16
And just like De Morgan, when Gillis is talking to his followers, rather than aggression he uses explanations, examples, arguments, discussion. And just like it did with De Morgan, Gillis’s knowledge authority plays a more tacit role in this context than it would for outsiders. He’s careful to project respect for his followers, a necessary element of any discursive style appropriate for intra-group community strengthening and reaffirmation.17
Although intragroup aggression destroys community rather than building it, extragroup aggression may build community. It’s a dangerous tool, though, and must be handled carefully. Thus the contextually reasonable Gillis, like the contextually reasonable De Morgan before him, can become quite unreasonable, even aggressive, when dealing with external threats to his community:18
We agree to leave you that stupid house you bought in the surburbs, with firm social norms against violating such. You can operate on the market, collect food and basic needs from post-state social services, and we’ll retrain anyone to work in professions without power. But the moment someone organizes a hierarchy or fields an ex-cop gang to spread terror again that gang gets exterminated by every surrounding watchful civilian. We have to be willing to, at the drop of a hat, race out of our houses and confront and stop with violence the predatory gangs the ex-cops will try to form.19
Like I said, though, such talk can be dangerous if not handled carefully. Remember that De Morgan, when fantasizing about the violence with which he’d like to meet the challenge posed to his power by an amateur mathematician, took care to demonstrate to his peers that the aggression was justified, that its target deserved its fate. Such moves supports social stability in the sense that they reassure spectators that as long as they meet relevant community norms they won’t be subject to a violent fate.
Without this reassurance the aggression can’t build community because the intended audience is too anxious to attend to the performance. Gillis is cheerfully planning vigilance committees and community lynchings and at least some of his followers, the ones with any sense, will wonder if they’ll end up lynched. It’s not hard to see proposed impromptu communitarian death squads settling personal scores for Gillis or other wannabe lefty-lib Robespierres. If leaders propose violence to build community they must have effective ways to reassure the community that they themselves won’t become victims.
To this end the criteria for outlawry must be as visible as possible and one way to do this is to perform the determination process as publicly as possible. Insiders must be reassured that they’ll get a fair trial if they’re suspected of being potential targets.20 A tentative approach might be useful, a sort of hand extended to someone who may be a transgressor but who could conceivably still redeem themselves by conforming if offered a chance. If they turn out to be the first Gillis can make an example of them. If the second he may gain a follower.
De Morgan’s litany of evidence justifying his proposed violence is part of this process and we can see the same decision process unfolding in this recent toot thread, which began with Mastodon user Ben Chambers posting the following claim:21
knowledge and economic calculation problems are solved by relational egalitarianism, democracy, and usufructuary commons, not by market transaction, property, and commercial enclosure
This makes a lot of sense to me, but it’s a fairly dense aphorism. I can see how people might fail to understand it if they haven’t been thinking along these lines or aren’t willing to put some thought into deciphering it. But regardless of what you think about the truth or the content of the claim it’s clear that it’s plausible, to be taken seriously, and that it has something to do with left libertarian concerns. Gillis, as some kind of left libertarian leader, must be alert to social-capital-building opportunities. Inducing a heretic to recant is such an opportunity, and violently attacking a heretic, whether metaphorically or literally, is another. Gillis, needing to decide which is appropriate in this case, a few hours later, chimed in with a who-goes-there challenge: “Cool assertion. Now let’s see the proof!”22
There is so much aggression imbedded in just these few small words! The word “cool” followed by a communicational noun, “assertion,” evokes the tagline “cool story, bro,” which, as Wiktionary tells us, is “[u]sed to dismiss a comment perceived as boring or pointless, or refute an anecdote that one considers difficult to believe.” The next word, “assertion,” does more than just connotationally influence the word “cool.” First, it’s an unusual word choice, at least superficially. Compare the n-gram viewer results for it compared to “claim,” “statement,” and “idea,” all of which seem much more natural in the sentence.
This result suggests that the choice was deliberate, and as such likely intended at least to add an air of esoteric technical knowledge to Gillis’s challenge. It’s entirely plausible that Gillis meant to evoke the spirit of proof by assertion, which is an informal fallacy. We’ll see below that Gillis relies heavily on this kind of connotational innuendo, each individual instance of which might be a coincidence but the aggregate weight of the instances is hard to explain other than by intention. So the first two words of Gillis’s toot constitute a rhetorically complex and ideologically loaded challege to Ben Chambers’s aphorism.23
The next sentence, wherein Gillis demands “a proof” of Chambers’s claim, is more straightforward. It’s also an archetypal invocation of scientific knowledge authority, by the way. The word “proof” sounds technical, like there are technical standards that make an argument so good, so foolproof, that it can be called “a proof.” Self-proclaimed physicist Gillis understands this, do you?! Mathematics is the paradigmatic example of a discipline whose claims admit of “proof,” and when people hear the word in even mildly technical contexts they tend to visualize 9th grade geometry and its associated feelings of ignorance and shame. But mathematical ideas of proof, whatever they might be, can’t apply outside of mathematics, so this must not be what Gillis means.24
The general consensus, shared by such mainstream figures as Albert Einstein and Karl Popper, is that scientific truths don’t admit of definitive proof, but can only be definitively disproved. Popper, quoted in Wikipedia’s article on Scientific Evidence, said:
In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.
Gillis spends a lot of energy and time pretending to be a scientist, so maybe he’s referring to some kind of scientific but not mathematical proof, something that would establish the truth of the claim not necessarily mathematically but in accordance with the epistemological standards of some accepted scientific community. The consensus is that each scientific discipline is a community of knowers with its own community standards of proof. If someone demands a proof of a non-mathematical statement, then, it’s appropriate, if only for the sake of efficiency, to ask what standards of proof they’ll accept, which I did in my response to Gillis:
What kind of proof do you think statements like that admit? This is a purely good faith question, because it seems like an important issue, and one I don’t know the answer to even after a lot of thought.
Such questions are a staple of trolls, but I wasn’t trolling, so I asserted my good faith. Of course trolls assert their good faith too, so it’s also respectful and pragmatic to offer some evidence that one’s question is thoughtful as a token of commitment to the discussion, which I did. My complete response is here and in the footnote.25 I don’t want to rehash the argument in this essay, but some parts of my response are necessary to understand Gillis’s tactics.
First, I outlined how I use the word “proof,” which is essentially as it’s used in mathematics. Second, to give a motive to my question other than trolling I explained why I don’t think that the word applies in that sense to anything outside of mathematics, which makes it reasonable to ask what he means by the word. Third, I used the word “worldviews” to describe the epistemological frameworks in which proof-admitting truths reside. I mean by this essentially what Thomas Kuhn meant by “paradigms” in a purely scientific context, although the concept has much broader application.
Finally, I proposed that however the problems mentioned by Chambers have been solved in the past it couldn’t have to do with private property, an institution created and maintained at great cost by coercive states, which therefore has only existed for a few centuries. Like I said, I’m not arguing here for the truth of these claims, although I believe they are true, but just describing them enough to make Gillis’s response intelligible:
Naw. You can’t negate the constraints of gravity (() or complexity classes ) by changing worldview.
As to your historical appeal. 1) Almost every hunter-gatherer society recognizes some form of property, indeed the Kung San can even trade land titles! 2) No one is saying you can’t live inefficiently, but pursuit of material freedom involves pursuit of some measure of economic efficiency.
The first sentence is a single word, a negation, denotationally simple but connotationally complex. This word suggests weariness, a speaker worn down by refuting the same tired arguments against the rationality that he, as a physicist and member of the knowledge elite, is required by all he considers sacred to defend. “Sigh,” it says. “Here we go again!” This move is intended to put me in my place, to let me know that I’m not even wrong, as physicists, even the self-proclaimed variety, love to say. My thoughts are long-ago-refuted cliches, and so on. The next sentence is more complex, containing shorthand versions of two purported arguments against my claim that propositional knowledge is only possible inside a worldview. He didn’t address standards of proof at all.26
The rest of his response, about the !Kung, is based on an equivocation between the standard meaning of the phrase “private property” in economic discourse and whatever it means to hunter-gatherers who, whatever they’re doing with land they control, aren’t fencing people out of it in order to enslave them. The existence of private property in this sense relies on the existence of a state. No state, no private property. The !Kung don’t have a state, so they don’t have private property in the only sense the phrase could have meant in context.27
So what does it all mean? De Morgan, writing on behalf of capital’s world-spanning power, to justify his position in it and that of his peers, had to rationalize capital’s actually-existing violence. He was writing after-the-fact justifications for capital’s victory and his role in its maintenance and growth, his reliance on violence. De Morgan is defending the existing order, so has no need to court followers. His socially granted knowledge authority is an essential element of this process.
But Gillis is in a different position. He has no access to state power, no way to impose his individual will on the world by physical force, ultimately the only reliable way for one person to control multiple people. He lacks De Morgan’s legitimized knowledge authority but by hook or by crook has cooked up a functional substitute. It’s backed neither by the socially granted knowledge authority or potential state violence at De Morgan’s disposal, but it works in Gillis’s context. In short, what Gillis lacks is De Morgan’s state-associated political power.
If he wants to get anything done, then, he has to build political power outside the state. One way to do this, as I said, is through respectful discourse. Another is by dividing the world up into the chosen and the unchosen, the lynchers and the lynched. Promising followers a share in the impending violence, whether vicariously as violence-theorizers or directly as members of community lynch squads is a way to build power in the present, and that’s what Gillis is essentially up to. In particular, his unprovoked and untenable attack on an aphorism he didn’t take the time to understand can be fruitfully seen as an abortive political move.
Postscript: Because it’s not clear to me how much of my mental space a minor and fairly inconsequential figure like Gillis is worth it’s also not clear to me if I’ll ever write the second part of this essay, but if I did it would be about the kinds of worlds that might result from Gillis’s tactics. I was joking when I called him a wannabe Robespierre, but it’s not entirely a joke. His utopian visions terrify me, which will be the subject if it ever feels worth writing.
- Therefore God exists! Respond!
- Augustus De Morgan. A Budget of Paradoxes. Pp. 250-1.
- DIDEROT, voulant prouver la nullite et l’ineptie de cette pretendue preuve, mais ressentant malgre lui, l’embarras oil l’on est d’abord lorsqu’on decouvre chez les autres, le dessein de nous jouer, n’avoit pu echapper aux plaisanteries dont on etoit pret a l’assaillir; que cette aventure lui en faisant craindre d’autres encore, il avoit temoigne peu de temps apres le desir de retourner en France… Dieudonne Thiebault. Mes souvenirs de vingt ans de sejour a Berlin ou Frederic Le Grand, sa famille, sa cour, son gouvernement, son academie, ses ecoles, et ses amis litterateurs et philosophes par Dieudonne Thiebault. De Morgan also, less substantially, changes the denominator of the lefthand side of the equation to $n$ where Dieudonne has $z$, but that’s not important. I apologize for my lousy translation, which is a superficial rewrite of Google translate output.
- I have no idea if he was or not.
- For Chinese see The Mathematical Writings of Diderot. Krakeur and Krueger. Isis
Volume 33(2). June, 1941. For Arabic see The So-Called Euler-Diderot Incident. R. J. Gillings. Amer. Math. Monthly. 61(1954). 77-80. - 1806–1871.
- Capital’s modern uses for mathematics are so various, so technical, and so obscured that it’s hard to imagine describing them comprehensively. Piecewise methods like this essay are easier. That being said, mathematics in the service of engineering, e.g. weapons, infrastructure, strength of materials, and so on, is well-understood. For some less familiar aspects, Accounting for Slavery by Caitlin Rosenthal is astonishing. Without mathematical abstractions, she argues — among many, many other things — absentee ownership of plantations wouldn’t have been feasible. Think of how Atlantic history might have changed without this capability.
- In A Budget of Paradoxes pp. 104ff.
- I’m not omitting a link to Gillis’s Wikipedia page out of spite. At press time he didh’t have one. I am, however, noting that fact out of spite.
- I can’t keep track of what these folks like to call themselves. They act like libertarians and say they’re left-wing, so that’s what I call them. Read the first few paragraphs of their Wiki page for examples of their interminable terminologizing.
- This may not be a standard definition. I’m treating this as a technical term here, and defining it only for this discussion.
- Is this controversial? I feel like it might be, but it’s too much to argue for in detail here. The idea is that scientific theories will sometimes conclude that the natural order of the world requires people to allow themselves to starve in the face of abundant food, to die of exposure in the face of abundant housing. No one actually believes this when it’s themselves or their family that has to starve and die, so it can’t actually be true for anyone. Anyone would do anything to feed themselves and their children, and only the threat of a more violent fate than death by starvation can make them stop themselves. So the antihuman conclusions of science must be backed up by violence rather than by reason. But scientists don’t distinguish between kinds of conclusions. They’re all just scientific truths, value-free, they are so quick to remind us. They use the same justificatory tools on all of them, so their authority is backed by violence. Without violence they’d have to convince, and no one can convince someone that it’s not just pragmatic to starve themselves, but actually right and good. This is part of the reason mathematicians and presumably other scientists repeat myths like De Morgan’s. They dampen the contradictions rather than heightening them, they soothe the conscience rather than inspiring right action.
- I’m sorry I don’t know the technical term for this.
- I’m dropping the qualifier “theoretical” because it’s too easy to make fun of.
- I’m not at all claiming that possession of an advanced degree is required for someone to be reasonably called a physicist. All I’m saying is that I’m willing to treat possession of an advanced degree as sufficient to establish one’s status as a scientist. This is clearly overly generous, but in a direction that cuts against my conclusion, so it’s reasonable. Publishing scientific work is also sufficient but not necessary on this account, again being generous.
- Isn’t it fricking convenient that no one can experience whatever it is he’s talking about? How can we deny that it’s like whatever it is he says it’s like? I’ve been a working mathematician for four decades and I have no idea how to explain how deeply false, how deeply deceptive, this statement is. Gillis comes off as a clueless undergraduate suck-up wannabe grade booster trying to buddy-buddy a professor by falsely claiming to share their ultrarefined aesthetic perceptions. Making new science is hard work, much of it incredibly tedious, a fact missing from every one of Gillis’s descriptions. He doesn’t even know enough about science to know how revelatorily wrong his statements are. Gillis also inexplicably ignores the fact that many scientists also teach and almost all of us on the truth-and-beauty side of the business are teachers. One of our major activities is explaining whatever it is Gillis is going on about to a bunch of college kids, many of whom may or may not have glimpsed “mathematics beyond arithmetic,” but they don’t necessarily remember it. We teach those kids something about how to think about mathematics and science also. You shouldn’t take my word for it, though. If you know an actual working scientist ask them what they think of this passage and see if they don’t agree that it’s pure bullshit.
- Examples of the overtly reasonable Gillis abound, and here’s just one:
… under many systems of property-titles if the legal experts cannot reach consensus on who is the legitimate owner of an object nothing is done with the object in the meantime. Those involved in contending differing uses for an object in a propertyless society are directly capable of far more diverse means of negotiation, but so to, if they can’t reach consensus, then nothing is done with the object. Because literally everyone in the world has the capacity to veto.
William Gillis. From Whence do Property Titles Arise?. Appears in Markets Not Capitalism. Chartier and Johnson eds. Minor Compositions, 2011.
- De Morgan was defending the existing community of mathematicians. Gillis, as a revolutionary, defends at least two different communities. The first is the ideal community he and his comrades work towards and the second is the existing community made up of him and the comrades. This may complicate the analysis but I’m not really considering it in this essay.
- Quoted in The Superior Race of Good People —
On William Gillis’ “Bad people”. - Which is as good an explanation for public criminal court trials as anything else I’ve heard.
- This thread, which drew Gillis to my attention, is also a necessary condition for this essay’s existence.
- One possible objection to my line of reasoning here is a claim that Gillis wasn’t actually engaged in either of these activities but was just participating as an equal in the conversation. That he had no ulterior motives for participating, but just wanted to talk. To me this theory is utterly inconsistent with his over-the-top level of aggression. People whose only motive is the pleasure of the conversation aren’t generally so angry.
- It was at this point in the interaction, by the way, that I started to think about responding to Gillis. I had no idea who he was or why he so aggressively inserted himself into the conversation but I had been working intermittently on an essay about De Morgan’s version of the Euler Diderot incident and recognized the same dynamic at play. Learning more about Gillis and his career only solidified the picture.
- I’m applying the principle of charity here. If Gillis actually does mean mathematical proof his request is incoherent and not worthy of a response, so I don’t interpret it that way. I’m not arguing in favor of my claim that mathematical standards of proof can’t apply outside of mathematics, but only because it’s too tangential to this essay. The basic idea is that only problems which admit of acceptably mathematical solutions are part of mathematics. If a problem can’t be solved mathematically it’s not a mathematical problem. Likewise if a truth doesn’t admit of mathematical proof it’s not a mathematical truth. Does this strike you as a tautology? It is, but so is every other true statement. Change my mind about that if you can!
- I tend to think of proving statements as something that’s only possible in a system of propositional knowledge, where truth is established deductively, or at least synthetically in line with community standards. I’d go further and say that proof is only possible in systems of knowledge that have been artificially restricted to the kinds of truths that do admit of proof. Whatever the uses of proof-based knowledge, I don’t see how either of the two positions involved in the assertion could plausibly be seen as living in such an epistemological space.
Instead I think they’re more embedded in worldviews. If you see things one way one version is obviously true and if the other then the other is obviously true. But worldviews aren’t established propositionally. Propositional knowledge exists inside worldviews rather than the other way round.
Or maybe the answer is much more simple than that. In 200,000 years of human history private property and commercial enclosure have only existed for a few hundred. Knowledge and economic calculation problems were solved before private property existed or we wouldn’t be here today. Can they be solved after private property is smashed along with the state? No one knows the future, but obviously I think they can or why do I fight?
- The first argument, that “[y]ou can’t negate the constraints of gravity … by changing worldview,” seems to go like this:
1. By way of contradiction, assume propositional knowledge is only possible inside worldviews.
2. “[T]jhe constraints of gravity” are an example of propositional knowledge.
3. Therefore “the negation of the constraints of gravity” is an example of propositional knowledge.
4. Contradictory propositions can’t exist inside the same worldview.
5. Therefore it’s possible to establish the truth of “the negation of the constraints of gravity” by adopting an appropriate worldview.
6. Statement 5 is false, therefore statement 1 is false.That’s the strongest version of the argument I could come up with, although it’s not strong. I can’t even see how to refute it because it’s not clear what Gillis means by “the constraints of gravity.” If he means that I’ll still die if I jump off the roof no matter how I look at things, well, I agree. If he’s talking about the kind of thing that admits of proof, or does in his mind, maybe he means constraints of gravity as expressed in natural laws? If so, he’s going to have to explain a lot to overcome the historical fact that the constraints of gravity in that sense changed as physicists’ worldview changed from Newtonian to relativistic. Not only that, but he’s guilty of the fallacy of the converse here. I asserted that propositional knowledge exists inside worldviews but certainly not that given any piece of propositional knowledge there’s a worldview inside which it exists. Without this obviously false claim he doesn’t have an argument at all. There’s more to say about this, but not here.
- There’s no way to be sure about what Gillis means. He might not even know himself. But given his left-wing libertarian connections it’s possible he means something like Benjamin Tucker‘s idea of every household having community-granted control over 10 acres, or some fixed amount of land, which is supposed to be as I understand it determined by how much they can use and how much over which the community is willing to cede control. Like most of Tucker’s ideas this one is self-contradictory, false, and uninteresting.
#albert-einstein #augustus-de-morgan #ben-chambers #benjamin-tucker #catherine-the-great #denis-diderot #dieudonne-thiebault #epistemology #existence-of-god #falsifiability #folk-process #individualist-anarchism #jack-of-swords #karl-popper #knowledge-authority #left-wing-libertarianism #leonhard-euler #libertarianism #mastodon #mathematical-proof #paradigms #proof #science #science-worship #scientific-proof #thomas-kuhn #wannabe-lefty-lib-robespierres #william-gillis
-
“Fetal personhood” activists struggle to maintain the fiction they are neutral on birth control
When asked about their intentions to restrict or protect access to birth control, Republican lawmakers and leaders of the anti-abortion movement will typically point out the fact that there’s no bill currently under consideration explicitly aimed at banning #contraception.
As journalist Jessica Valenti noted in her "Abortion, Every Day" newsletter, the president of Ohio Right to Life mocked a state Democrat who warned of the risk to birth control by saying,
“she can’t cite a piece of legislation that bans contraception … it’s fear-mongering.”Susan B. Anthony #Pro-#Life #America’s website calls it a “MYTH” that Republicans want to stop people from getting birth control.
“FACT: No state anywhere has banned birth control,” it says.
And yet taking one big swing to restrict access has never been the strategy of the anti-contraception playbook.
Rather, activists either maintain neutrality on birth control or say nothing while actively working to conflate abortion with birth control and pass laws that redefine life as beginning at conception.
As journalist Christina Cauterucci pointed out at Slate, the anti-abortion group #Americans #United #for #Life claims on its website that it takes “no stance on the underlying issue of contraceptive use,”
but elsewhere it insists that people who use emergency contraception
“take the lives of their unborn children.”When Mother Jones reporter Kiera Butler attended the annual conference of the anti-abortion group #Heartbeat #International in 2022, she found restriction of birth control to be a major theme, with several sessions dedicated to the topic.
The push to redefine the start of #personhood as the point of #conception holds real implications for fertility treatments and the wide range of available birth control methods.
Many lawmakers in states with such “fetal personhood” laws on the books have not fully grappled with the practical consequences of how enforcing those laws in the post-Roe era might work.
In the near future, most Republicans will likely continue to dismiss the idea that there’s any threat to birth control at all, and leaders of anti-abortion organizations will surely do their best to change the subject.
But ♦️pay attention to how fights over expanding access to birth control
— including nonhormonal methods like condoms
— play out.♦️Pay attention to proposals to gut funding for #TitleX, a federal program that provides birth control to millions of low-income people in the United States.
♦️Pay attention to efforts in Congress to restrict access to contraception in foreign aid spending bills.
♦️And pay attention to how courts and lawmakers aim to expand the definition of abortion.
(4/4)
https://www.vox.com/24087411/anti-abortion-roe-dobbs-birth-control-contraception-ivf
#Human #Life #International #IUDs #Students #for #Life #Marjorie #Taylor #Greene #PlanB #Lauren #Boebert #Matt #Rosendale #Pulse #Life #Advocates #Tea #Party #Catholic #Church #Hobby #Lobby #Roe #Marsha #Blackburn #Mike #Braun #Griswold #Roe #Dobbs #Clarence #Thomas #Blake #Masters #Birth #control #Pregnancy #implantation #implantation #conception #birth #IVF #Alabama #disgusting #Joseph #Scheidler #Randall #Terry
-
DATE: May 14, 2026 at 04:00PM
SOURCE: PSYPOST.ORG** Research quality varies widely from fantastic to small exploratory studies. Please check research methods when conclusions are very important to you. **
-------------------------------------------------TITLE: Making snap judgments on dating apps hurts your own perceived value as a mate
URL: https://www.psypost.org/why-swiping-by-gut-feeling-on-dating-apps-might-lower-your-self-esteem/
Making snap, gut-level judgments on dating apps might leave users feeling worse about themselves than evaluating profiles methodically based on set criteria. A recent study published in Media Psychology found that while seeing a high number of potential partners increases feelings of being overwhelmed, it is the intuitive swiping strategy that actually harms users’ self-esteem and perceived value as a mate. These results suggest that the fast-paced design of modern dating platforms carries hidden psychological costs depending on how individuals choose to engage with the app.
Traditional online matchmaking agencies typically rely on lengthy questionnaires and deliberate algorithms to pair users. Modern mobile dating platforms take a vastly different approach, exposing users to a massive pool of seemingly available partners within a single session. Users are invited to evaluate these profiles rapidly with a simple swipe of their thumb. Platform designs, which offer positive social feedback in the form of matches, heavily incentivize this continuous browsing behavior.
Prior research into consumer behavior suggests that having an abundance of options can make decisions harder and leave people feeling dissatisfied. Psychologists often refer to this phenomenon as a tyranny of choice. Under this theory, an optimal environment filled with endless choices increases the pressure to succeed. If a user fails to find a partner or makes a bad choice, they have no excuses left and might blame their own personal shortcomings.
Marina F. Thomas, a researcher at the Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences in Austria, led the investigation alongside Alice Binder and Jörg Matthes from the University of Vienna. They set out to test how the sheer number of viewed profiles and the user’s personal decision-making style jointly affect psychological well-being. The investigators wanted to test whether dating apps provide the self-validation users often seek or if the apps simply overwhelm them.
To frame their experiment, the researchers utilized regulatory mode theory. This psychological concept explains that people usually make decisions using one of two primary modes. The assessment mode involves methodically judging options, comparing specific attributes, and trying to make the right, defensible choice. The locomotion mode is action-oriented. People using this mode make quick, intuitive decisions based on gut feelings, primarily trying to keep moving forward rather than overthinking.
To test these dynamics, the researchers recruited 401 undergraduate students for an online experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to view varying pools of dating app profiles. One group viewed a low number of 11 profiles, a second group viewed a medium number of 31 profiles, and a third group viewed a high number of 91 profiles. The photos were presented in a mock dating application specially designed for the study.
The researchers used a two-part method to influence how participants made their decisions. First, participants completed a writing task to prime their mindset. They wrote down personal memories of times they acted as a quick decision maker to spark the action-oriented mode, or they wrote about times they critically compared themselves to others to spark the assessment mode. A control group skipped this writing exercise and received no special instructions.
Following the writing task, participants were given explicit instructions for evaluating the dating profiles. One group was told to evaluate profiles critically, looking at specific physical traits, clothing styles, and perceived social status to make highly justified decisions. The action-oriented group was instructed to swipe intuitively and dynamically, basing their choices purely on first impressions and gut feelings.
After sorting through the mock profiles, participants answered questions designed to measure several psychological outcomes. The researchers assessed their state self-esteem, their fear of being single, how highly they rated their own value as a potential romantic partner, and how overwhelmed they felt. The software also silently recorded the percentage of profiles each participant chose to accept.
The experiment revealed that looking at a higher number of options directly increased the feeling of being overwhelmed. Participants who looked at 91 profiles reported a heavier mental burden than those who viewed fewer profiles. Evaluating more options also resulted in lower overall acceptance rates. Participants became much pickier as the abundance of choices grew, accepting a smaller percentage of the people they saw.
Contrary to the tyranny of choice theory, the sheer volume of profiles did not negatively impact self-esteem or the participants’ fears regarding their relationship status. Instead, the specific way participants made their decisions produced the psychological shifts. The results showed that swiping intuitively based on gut feelings directly led to a drop in self-esteem.
Participants who followed the quick, action-oriented strategy reported lower self-esteem than those who swiped naturally without instructions, as well as those who used specific criteria to evaluate profiles. The intuitive group also rated their own personal value as a mate lower than the other groups did. The research team noted this was an unexpected outcome, as previous theories suggested that highly critical, criteria-based decision-making typically caused more stress and self-doubt in consumer settings.
The authors suspect that making intuitive choices places the entire burden of the decision on the user’s internal feelings rather than observable facts. Because romantic preferences are difficult to perfectly define, relying solely on unexplainable gut instincts might make users feel uneasy. As a result, they might misdirect that unease inward, causing them to doubt their own self-worth. By contrast, relying on concrete traits provides an external buffer that protects the ego from the weight of the decision.
Another possible explanation involves cognitive friction regarding the format of the dating app. A static dating profile primarily displays unmoving photos and brief text, which naturally lends itself to critical evaluation. Pushing users to react quickly and intuitively to static photos might create a mismatch between the task and the mental mode. Users might misinterpret this subtle mental mismatch as a personal inadequacy.
The chosen swiping strategy also influenced when participants started to feel mentally overloaded. For people using strict criteria or swiping naturally, looking at 31 profiles felt about as manageable as looking at 11 profiles. For those swiping based on gut instincts, the feeling of being overwhelmed spiked much earlier, hitting just as hard at 31 profiles as it did when evaluating 91 profiles.
While the experiment provides a detailed window into dating app use, the study has practical limitations depending on its simulated nature. The decisions made during the experiment carried no actual social consequences, meaning participants knew they would not go on real dates with the people they evaluated. In a functioning dating app, users might put varying levels of effort into their choices because real rejections or connections are at stake.
The study also relied on a sample composed largely of young college students evaluating portraits tailored specifically to their demographic. The authors noted that college students often work in environments that reward critical assessment, which might have made the intuitive swiping task feel unusually foreign. Future research should involve more diverse populations encompassing different age groups and educational backgrounds.
Future investigations could also track actual dating app behaviors over time to see how self-reported decision styles hold up outside a laboratory environment. Implementing technology like eye-tracking software could help researchers observe what kind of profile information users focus on naturally. This approach would allow scientists to study natural swiping mechanisms accurately without relying on explicit behavioral instructions.
The study, “Decision-Making on Dating Apps: Is Swiping More Less and Swiping Right Wrong?,” was authored by Marina F. Thomas, Alice Binder, and Jörg Matthes.
URL: https://www.psypost.org/why-swiping-by-gut-feeling-on-dating-apps-might-lower-your-self-esteem/
-------------------------------------------------
DAILY EMAIL DIGEST: Email [email protected] -- no subject or message needed.
Private, vetted email list for mental health professionals: https://www.clinicians-exchange.org
Unofficial Psychology Today Xitter to toot feed at Psych Today Unofficial Bot @PTUnofficialBot
NYU Information for Practice puts out 400-500 good quality health-related research posts per week but its too much for many people, so that bot is limited to just subscribers. You can read it or subscribe at @PsychResearchBot
Since 1991 The National Psychologist has focused on keeping practicing psychologists current with news, information and items of interest. Check them out for more free articles, resources, and subscription information: https://www.nationalpsychologist.com
EMAIL DAILY DIGEST OF RSS FEEDS -- SUBSCRIBE: http://subscribe-article-digests.clinicians-exchange.org
READ ONLINE: http://read-the-rss-mega-archive.clinicians-exchange.org
It's primitive... but it works... mostly...
-------------------------------------------------
#psychology #counseling #socialwork #psychotherapy @psychotherapist @psychotherapists @psychology @socialpsych @socialwork @psychiatry #mentalhealth #psychiatry #healthcare #depression #psychotherapist #DatingApps #SwipeRight #SelfEsteem #TyrannyOfChoice #IntuitiveSwipe #DecisionMaking #RomanticRelationships #ProfileEvaluation #PsychologyOfDating #DatingAppTips
-
I've recently finished Gabriele Tergit's 1931 "Käsebier Takes Berlin" (Käsebier erobert den Kurfürstendamm) in Sophie Duvernoy's translation.
I've got mixed feelings about the novel.
On the one hand, the organization of the narrative struck me as clumsy both on a large scale and in certain details. Overall, the journalistic satire that dominates the first half does not fit well with the property speculation plot salient in the second half. At times, the abundance of characters combines with some minimal attribution of dialogue to make parts of the novel difficult to follow. I can imagine impatient readers throwing the book aside.
Yet one should resist that impatient impulse, since the novel will reward the reader who perseveres. Anybody interested in Weimar Germany in general and Berlin in particular will profit from a reading. The flip side of the abundance of characters is Tergit's multiple snapshots of the cityscapes, media, interiors, outfits, and consumer goods as the 30s begin in Berlin. This aspect of the novel invites a contrast and compare exercise with "Berlin Alexanderplatz".
Tergit's background as a journalist helped her in both in the satire of the press and also in her acute observation of social climbing and pretension. This perspicacity coupled with her talent as a maker of fiction to create the loathsome Willi Frächter. This character will not only stick in the memory but, sadly, also be all too recognizable to observers of contemporary culture.
Readers today will inevitably have the coming of Hitler in mind as the novel unfolds. Of course, the journalists' mocking use of "Heil und Sieg und fette Beute", translated as "Heil and Sieg and catch a fat one", is now tinged with an irony that Tergit could not have grasped at the time of publication, although only two years later she fled Germany after a narrow escape from the thugs of the SA.
Today, we might do well to consider the parallels between the media of our own day and Frächter's gleeful transformation of the "Berliner Rundschau":
>> What you call dumbing down, Mr. Miermann, I call blooming. <<
I'm going to give Tergit's 1951 family saga "The Effingers" a try. The idea of a "Jewish 'Buddenbrooks' " I find hard to resist. I'm not expecting her to be another Thomas Mann, but it's not unreasonable to hope that her novelist's technique had developed in the two decades following "Käsebier Takes Berlin".
#Books #Bookstodon #GabrieleTergit #KäsebierTakesBerlin #KäsebierErobertDenKurfürstendamm
#Fiction #Novel #GermanLiterature #Berlin #20thCenturyLiterature #1930sLiterature #WeimarRepublic #Newspapers #Press #Media #Journalism
