Search
1000 results for “empire_state_building_lights”
-
Magazine Review: Galaxy Science Fiction, ed. H. L. Gold (November 1950) (Brown, Asimov, Boucher, Leiber, Knight, Simak)
Preliminary Note: I plan on reading all 116 issues of the influential, and iconic, SF magazine Galaxy under H. L. Gold’s editorship (October 1950-October 1961) in chronological order. How long this project will take or how seriously/systematically I will take it remain complete unknowns.
See my inaugural post in this series for my reasoning behind selecting Galaxy under H. L. Gold.
Previously: the October 1950 issue.
Up Next: the December 1950 issue.
Let’s get to the stories. We have the first Galaxy masterpiece!
- Don Sibley’s cover for Galaxy Science Fiction, ed. H. L. Gold (November 1950)
You can read the entire issue here.
Fredric Brown’s “Honeymoon in Hell” (1950), 3/5 (Average): The year is 1962. The Cold War heats up. The race for a permanent presence on the Moon takes center stage. Each side “had landed a few men” and claimed it as their own (4). Each side races to construct a space station in orbit to facilitate the construction of a permanent base on the moon. But there’s another worrying world-wide trend–a massive gender imbalance in new births! Not enough boys! Riots. Cults. What’s the plan?
Capt. Raymond F. Carmody, retired from the space service (at age 27) after a successful flight to the Moon, steps into the ring. Resisting an administrative role in the service, he’d chosen a new career: cybernetics, “the science of electronic calculating machines” (9). In his new position, he had access to a powerful computer called Junior, built in 1958, tasked with issues of national security. Alone with the machine, he feeds Junior the data. Junior doesn’t have an answer. But Junior does offer a rare extrapolation that Carmody will be married on the morrow.
And a meeting with the President reveals the nature of the plan to birth a male child on the moon to avoid whatever on Earth is causing the problem! He’ll be legally married before they head to the moon and divorced if the pairing doesn’t work out. The catch? His wife will be Russian and their honeymoon will be Hell Crater.1 The “lucky” woman? Anna Borisovna is also a pilot of “experimental rockets on short-range flights” (16). Alcohol included as “icebreaker” for a “happy honeymoon” (19). The twelve day stay will be “plenty of time to get off before the Lunar night” (18) (Brown certainly intends the pun). And then the story morphs, abruptly, into a first contact story. Or does it?
This is an odd story. At its core it’s about a man and a woman (and mortal enemies) who go to the moon to have sex. But it’s the 50s. They need to be married! And all the references to the act are double entendres. As the ridiculousness fades, Brown settles on a rather enlightened position considering the Cold War terror of the moment–détente with the Soviets, politics and all, remains possible (under some circumstances). The story implies that Carmody falls head-over-heels for Anna due to the similarities of their careers and status as intellectual equals despite their divergent politics. Don Sibley’s issue cover shows her abilities under stressful circumstances. Carmody’s even willing to head to the Soviet Union to be with her! Love trumps all message aside, I am not convinced by the reading experience. Brown relays the strange events that transpire on Mars, and almost all of Carmody and Anna’s interactions, after they occur. It weakens the effect.
Somewhat recommended.
Isaac Asimov’s “Misbegotten Missionary” (variant title: “Green Patches”) (1950), 3/5 (Average): “Misbegotten Missionary” begins from the perspective of an alien entity that slipped onboard a human ship after its barrier faltered for a moment. The alien utterly believes that it is a superior “unified organism” (34) over the “life fragments” that populate the ship (34). Fanatical in its mindset, the shape-shifting alien wants to convert the entire vessel to its ways–without their consent. Slowly the nature of its own world, the purpose of the human vessel, and the fate of a past voyage become clear.
While not a miserable entry in his canon, I am starting to dread the Asimov stories in Galaxy and struggle to write coherently about them. And there’s a serialized novel on the horizon that I haven’t read yet and thus cannot skip– The Stars, Like Dust (1951). While far superior to “Darwinian Pool Room” (1950), “Misbegotten Missionary” defeats its initial success with a laborious exposition of what happened before. I appreciated the Asimov’s attempt to convey alienness of the entity’s perspective. Maybe if you’re interested in the evolution of Asimov’s attempts to write about entire planets as alien consciousness this is worth tracking down.
I reviewed this in 2021 and completely forgot. I was even more cruel in the earlier review!
Anthony Boucher’s “Transfer Point” (1950), 3/5 (Average): Three survivors retreat beneath the Earth’s surface after two apocalyptic events–the release of a new element (agnoton) and an attack by mysterious “yellow bands” (are they light-like? It’s not entirely clear. It’s pulpy on purpose). The scientist Kirth-Labbery constructed the self-sufficient retreat due to his allergies (!). His daughter Lavra spends her time eating fruit grown in the hydroponics bay. And Vyrko, a self-described intellectual poet, observes and writes about the end of the world, pines after his lost love, and reads historical pulp science fiction –including Damon Knight’s “Not with a Bang” (1950) and Robert A. Heinlein’s “By His Bootstraps” (1941). He notices that only one author seems to predict correctly what will happen. And also strange narrative parallels with himself…
I’m a sucker for metafictional science fiction that contains references and quotations from other authors both real and invented. Boucher’s “Transfer Point” serves as a recursive commentary on the nature of genre and its favorite tropes (last man and woman as Adam and Eve, time travel, etc.). Behind the tale’s ultra-pulpy exterior and sappy silliness, Boucher jabs (gently and with a smile) at science fiction’s Campbellian delusion of future prediction. Despite its moments, Boucher can’t approach the heights of Richard Matheson’s “Patterns of Survival” (1955), a far more complex commentary on the power of science fiction.
Somewhat recommended.
Fritz Leiber’s “Coming Attraction” (1950), 5/5 (Masterpiece): I reviewed this story in 2013. I’ve decided to reread it and modify my earlier review.
In Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s influential The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom (1949), a blueprint of the “new liberal self-image,” he describes the post-WWII period as an “age of anxiety” in which “Western man” is “tense, uncertain, adrift.”2 Channeling this sentiment, branded as an “American brand of misery” (83), Leiber imagines an America transformed after a limited nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
The physical landscape mirrors the psychological scars of New York’s inhabitants. “H-Bomb scars” tunnel faces (78). The Empire State Building thrusts out of “Inferno like a mangled finger” (77). In a disturbed attempt to maintain control, a new “puritanical morality” (80) replete with “anti-sex songs” (78) and required masks to cover female faces takes hold. A sinister media landscape manifests the corruption within. Billboards promote “hysterical slogans” in which “the very letters of the advertiser’s alphabet have begin to crawl with sex” (78). New TV gadgets facilitate touch and pseudo-connection (80). Perverse new forms of TV entertainment, in particular male wrestlers pitted against masked women, transfix all audiences.
Wysten Turner, the British narrator, gets caught up in the disturbing changes that have swept the US. He rescues a masked woman from a car driven by youths replete with hooks designed to snag the dresses of passing women. She embodies loneliness and despair. And he wants to help. Soon he finds himself unable to identify the new erotic and violent rituals of control and release. The games layer on themselves. Our narrator, also manipulated, flees in shame when the bizarre tableau’s true nature is unmasked.
Leiber doles out fascinating and punchy commentary on the anxieties of the modern world. A disturbed, erotic, creepy, and hyper-violent exploration of that reflexive Cold War tendency to equate the inability to control and triumph abroad as caused by internal crisis within society as a whole. A brilliant satire of late 40s/early 50s American Cold War culture.
Highly recommended.
Damon Knight’s “To Serve Man” (1950), 3.5/5 (Good): I reviewed this story in 2023. I decided not to reread it. I’ve reproduced the review below.
The Kanamit, pig-like humanoid aliens, arrive on Earth with a promise to assist humanity that appears to have zero caveats. Their similarity to a human food animal creates a disquieting horror: “when a think with the countenance of a fiend comes from the stars and offers a gift, you are disinclined to accept” (91). The Kanama proclaim that they want “to bring you the peace and plenty which we ourselves enjoy, and which we have in the past brought to other races throughout the galaxy” (92). They introduce fantastic power sources, anti-nuclear explosion shields, and technology to exponentially enhance agricultural productivity. Soon there are no “more standing armies, no more shortages, and no unemployment” (98). But no one can decode their language. And when someone finally figures it out, it will be too late.
I don’t completely understand why “To Serve Man” is one of Knight’s best-known short fictions. It won the 2001 Retro Hugo Award for Best Short Story. I would have voted for Fritz Leiber’s “Coming Attraction” (1950) from the list of nominees! That said, “To Serve Man” is an effective twist-ending story that plays with our expectations but doesn’t have the reflective or incisive impact of Knight’s best — for example “The Enemy” (1958), “You’re Another” (1955), or even “Time Enough” (1960) in Far Out (1961). I’m probably in the minority in this view.
Somewhat recommended.
Clifford D. Simak’s Time Quarry (variant title: Time and Again) (1950). Serialized over three issues. I will post an individual review after I complete the serialization.
Notes
- Brown adheres to the theory that the Moon is covered with deep dust. He claims that Hell Crater is a bit more solid than other points. Arthur C. Clarke’s A Fall of Moondust (1961) is another example. ↩︎
- See Ch. 1 of K. A. Courdileone’s Manhood and American Political Culture in the Cold War (2005) for a discussion of Schlesinger. ↩︎
For book reviews consult the INDEX
For cover art posts consult the INDEX
For TV and film reviews consult the INDEX
#1950s #avantGarde #bookReviews #books #CliffordDSimak #DamonKnight #FredricBrown #fritzLeiber #HLGold #IsaacAsimov #sciFi #scienceFiction #ShortStories -
Magazine Review: Galaxy Science Fiction, ed. H. L. Gold (November 1950) (Brown, Asimov, Boucher, Leiber, Knight, Simak)
Preliminary Note: I plan on reading all 116 issues of the influential, and iconic, SF magazine Galaxy under H. L. Gold’s editorship (October 1950-October 1961) in chronological order. How long this project will take or how seriously/systematically I will take it remain complete unknowns.
See my inaugural post in this series for my reasoning behind selecting Galaxy under H. L. Gold.
Previously: the October 1950 issue.
Up Next: the December 1950 issue.
Let’s get to the stories. We have the first Galaxy masterpiece!
- Don Sibley’s cover for Galaxy Science Fiction, ed. H. L. Gold (November 1950)
You can read the entire issue here.
Fredric Brown’s “Honeymoon in Hell” (1950), 3/5 (Average): The year is 1962. The Cold War heats up. The race for a permanent presence on the Moon takes center stage. Each side “had landed a few men” and claimed it as their own (4). Each side races to construct a space station in orbit to facilitate the construction of a permanent base on the moon. But there’s another worrying world-wide trend–a massive gender imbalance in new births! Not enough boys! Riots. Cults. What’s the plan?
Capt. Raymond F. Carmody, retired from the space service (at age 27) after a successful flight to the Moon, steps into the ring. Resisting an administrative role in the service, he’d chosen a new career: cybernetics, “the science of electronic calculating machines” (9). In his new position, he had access to a powerful computer called Junior, built in 1958, tasked with issues of national security. Alone with the machine, he feeds Junior the data. Junior doesn’t have an answer. But Junior does offer a rare extrapolation that Carmody will be married on the morrow.
And a meeting with the President reveals the nature of the plan to birth a male child on the moon to avoid whatever on Earth is causing the problem! He’ll be legally married before they head to the moon and divorced if the pairing doesn’t work out. The catch? His wife will be Russian and their honeymoon will be Hell Crater.1 The “lucky” woman? Anna Borisovna is also a pilot of “experimental rockets on short-range flights” (16). Alcohol included as “icebreaker” for a “happy honeymoon” (19). The twelve day stay will be “plenty of time to get off before the Lunar night” (18) (Brown certainly intends the pun). And then the story morphs, abruptly, into a first contact story. Or does it?
This is an odd story. At its core it’s about a man and a woman (and mortal enemies) who go to the moon to have sex. But it’s the 50s. They need to be married! And all the references to the act are double entendres. As the ridiculousness fades, Brown settles on a rather enlightened position considering the Cold War terror of the moment–détente with the Soviets, politics and all, remains possible (under some circumstances). The story implies that Carmody falls head-over-heels for Anna due to the similarities of their careers and status as intellectual equals despite their divergent politics. Don Sibley’s issue cover shows her abilities under stressful circumstances. Carmody’s even willing to head to the Soviet Union to be with her! Love trumps all message aside, I am not convinced by the reading experience. Brown relays the strange events that transpire on Mars, and almost all of Carmody and Anna’s interactions, after they occur. It weakens the effect.
Somewhat recommended.
Isaac Asimov’s “Misbegotten Missionary” (variant title: “Green Patches”) (1950), 3/5 (Average): “Misbegotten Missionary” begins from the perspective of an alien entity that slipped onboard a human ship after its barrier faltered for a moment. The alien utterly believes that it is a superior “unified organism” (34) over the “life fragments” that populate the ship (34). Fanatical in its mindset, the shape-shifting alien wants to convert the entire vessel to its ways–without their consent. Slowly the nature of its own world, the purpose of the human vessel, and the fate of a past voyage become clear.
While not a miserable entry in his canon, I am starting to dread the Asimov stories in Galaxy and struggle to write coherently about them. And there’s a serialized novel on the horizon that I haven’t read yet and thus cannot skip– The Stars, Like Dust (1951). While far superior to “Darwinian Pool Room” (1950), “Misbegotten Missionary” defeats its initial success with a laborious exposition of what happened before. I appreciated the Asimov’s attempt to convey alienness of the entity’s perspective. Maybe if you’re interested in the evolution of Asimov’s attempts to write about entire planets as alien consciousness this is worth tracking down.
I reviewed this in 2021 and completely forgot. I was even more cruel in the earlier review!
Anthony Boucher’s “Transfer Point” (1950), 3/5 (Average): Three survivors retreat beneath the Earth’s surface after two apocalyptic events–the release of a new element (agnoton) and an attack by mysterious “yellow bands” (are they light-like? It’s not entirely clear. It’s pulpy on purpose). The scientist Kirth-Labbery constructed the self-sufficient retreat due to his allergies (!). His daughter Lavra spends her time eating fruit grown in the hydroponics bay. And Vyrko, a self-described intellectual poet, observes and writes about the end of the world, pines after his lost love, and reads historical pulp science fiction –including Damon Knight’s “Not with a Bang” (1950) and Robert A. Heinlein’s “By His Bootstraps” (1941). He notices that only one author seems to predict correctly what will happen. And also strange narrative parallels with himself…
I’m a sucker for metafictional science fiction that contains references and quotations from other authors both real and invented. Boucher’s “Transfer Point” serves as a recursive commentary on the nature of genre and its favorite tropes (last man and woman as Adam and Eve, time travel, etc.). Behind the tale’s ultra-pulpy exterior and sappy silliness, Boucher jabs (gently and with a smile) at science fiction’s Campbellian delusion of future prediction. Despite its moments, Boucher can’t approach the heights of Richard Matheson’s “Patterns of Survival” (1955), a far more complex commentary on the power of science fiction.
Somewhat recommended.
Fritz Leiber’s “Coming Attraction” (1950), 5/5 (Masterpiece): I reviewed this story in 2013. I’ve decided to reread it and modify my earlier review.
In Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s influential The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom (1949), a blueprint of the “new liberal self-image,” he describes the post-WWII period as an “age of anxiety” in which “Western man” is “tense, uncertain, adrift.”2 Channeling this sentiment, branded as an “American brand of misery” (83), Leiber imagines an America transformed after a limited nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
The physical landscape mirrors the psychological scars of New York’s inhabitants. “H-Bomb scars” tunnel faces (78). The Empire State Building thrusts out of “Inferno like a mangled finger” (77). In a disturbed attempt to maintain control, a new “puritanical morality” (80) replete with “anti-sex songs” (78) and required masks to cover female faces takes hold. A sinister media landscape manifests the corruption within. Billboards promote “hysterical slogans” in which “the very letters of the advertiser’s alphabet have begin to crawl with sex” (78). New TV gadgets facilitate touch and pseudo-connection (80). Perverse new forms of TV entertainment, in particular male wrestlers pitted against masked women, transfix all audiences.
Wysten Turner, the British narrator, gets caught up in the disturbing changes that have swept the US. He rescues a masked woman from a car driven by youths replete with hooks designed to snag the dresses of passing women. She embodies loneliness and despair. And he wants to help. Soon he finds himself unable to identify the new erotic and violent rituals of control and release. The games layer on themselves. Our narrator, also manipulated, flees in shame when the bizarre tableau’s true nature is unmasked.
Leiber doles out fascinating and punchy commentary on the anxieties of the modern world. A disturbed, erotic, creepy, and hyper-violent exploration of that reflexive Cold War tendency to equate the inability to control and triumph abroad as caused by internal crisis within society as a whole. A brilliant satire of late 40s/early 50s American Cold War culture.
Highly recommended.
Damon Knight’s “To Serve Man” (1950), 3.5/5 (Good): I reviewed this story in 2023. I decided not to reread it. I’ve reproduced the review below.
The Kanamit, pig-like humanoid aliens, arrive on Earth with a promise to assist humanity that appears to have zero caveats. Their similarity to a human food animal creates a disquieting horror: “when a think with the countenance of a fiend comes from the stars and offers a gift, you are disinclined to accept” (91). The Kanama proclaim that they want “to bring you the peace and plenty which we ourselves enjoy, and which we have in the past brought to other races throughout the galaxy” (92). They introduce fantastic power sources, anti-nuclear explosion shields, and technology to exponentially enhance agricultural productivity. Soon there are no “more standing armies, no more shortages, and no unemployment” (98). But no one can decode their language. And when someone finally figures it out, it will be too late.
I don’t completely understand why “To Serve Man” is one of Knight’s best-known short fictions. It won the 2001 Retro Hugo Award for Best Short Story. I would have voted for Fritz Leiber’s “Coming Attraction” (1950) from the list of nominees! That said, “To Serve Man” is an effective twist-ending story that plays with our expectations but doesn’t have the reflective or incisive impact of Knight’s best — for example “The Enemy” (1958), “You’re Another” (1955), or even “Time Enough” (1960) in Far Out (1961). I’m probably in the minority in this view.
Somewhat recommended.
Clifford D. Simak’s Time Quarry (variant title: Time and Again) (1950). Serialized over three issues. I will post an individual review after I complete the serialization.
Notes
- Brown adheres to the theory that the Moon is covered with deep dust. He claims that Hell Crater is a bit more solid than other points. Arthur C. Clarke’s A Fall of Moondust (1961) is another example. ↩︎
- See Ch. 1 of K. A. Courdileone’s Manhood and American Political Culture in the Cold War (2005) for a discussion of Schlesinger. ↩︎
For book reviews consult the INDEX
For cover art posts consult the INDEX
For TV and film reviews consult the INDEX
#1950s #avantGarde #bookReviews #books #CliffordDSimak #DamonKnight #FredricBrown #fritzLeiber #HLGold #IsaacAsimov #sciFi #scienceFiction #ShortStories -
Magazine Review: Galaxy Science Fiction, ed. H. L. Gold (November 1950) (Brown, Asimov, Boucher, Leiber, Knight, Simak)
Preliminary Note: I plan on reading all 116 issues of the influential, and iconic, SF magazine Galaxy under H. L. Gold’s editorship (October 1950-October 1961) in chronological order. How long this project will take or how seriously/systematically I will take it remain complete unknowns.
See my inaugural post in this series for my reasoning behind selecting Galaxy under H. L. Gold.
Previously: the October 1950 issue.
Up Next: the December 1950 issue.
Let’s get to the stories. We have the first Galaxy masterpiece!
- Don Sibley’s cover for Galaxy Science Fiction, ed. H. L. Gold (November 1950)
You can read the entire issue here.
Fredric Brown’s “Honeymoon in Hell” (1950), 3/5 (Average): The year is 1962. The Cold War heats up. The race for a permanent presence on the Moon takes center stage. Each side “had landed a few men” and claimed it as their own (4). Each side races to construct a space station in orbit to facilitate the construction of a permanent base on the moon. But there’s another worrying world-wide trend–a massive gender imbalance in new births! Not enough boys! Riots. Cults. What’s the plan?
Capt. Raymond F. Carmody, retired from the space service (at age 27) after a successful flight to the Moon, steps into the ring. Resisting an administrative role in the service, he’d chosen a new career: cybernetics, “the science of electronic calculating machines” (9). In his new position, he had access to a powerful computer called Junior, built in 1958, tasked with issues of national security. Alone with the machine, he feeds Junior the data. Junior doesn’t have an answer. But Junior does offer a rare extrapolation that Carmody will be married on the morrow.
And a meeting with the President reveals the nature of the plan to birth a male child on the moon to avoid whatever on Earth is causing the problem! He’ll be legally married before they head to the moon and divorced if the pairing doesn’t work out. The catch? His wife will be Russian and their honeymoon will be Hell Crater.1 The “lucky” woman? Anna Borisovna is also a pilot of “experimental rockets on short-range flights” (16). Alcohol included as “icebreaker” for a “happy honeymoon” (19). The twelve day stay will be “plenty of time to get off before the Lunar night” (18) (Brown certainly intends the pun). And then the story morphs, abruptly, into a first contact story. Or does it?
This is an odd story. At its core it’s about a man and a woman (and mortal enemies) who go to the moon to have sex. But it’s the 50s. They need to be married! And all the references to the act are double entendres. As the ridiculousness fades, Brown settles on a rather enlightened position considering the Cold War terror of the moment–détente with the Soviets, politics and all, remains possible (under some circumstances). The story implies that Carmody falls head-over-heels for Anna due to the similarities of their careers and status as intellectual equals despite their divergent politics. Don Sibley’s issue cover shows her abilities under stressful circumstances. Carmody’s even willing to head to the Soviet Union to be with her! Love trumps all message aside, I am not convinced by the reading experience. Brown relays the strange events that transpire on Mars, and almost all of Carmody and Anna’s interactions, after they occur. It weakens the effect.
Somewhat recommended.
Isaac Asimov’s “Misbegotten Missionary” (variant title: “Green Patches”) (1950), 3/5 (Average): “Misbegotten Missionary” begins from the perspective of an alien entity that slipped onboard a human ship after its barrier faltered for a moment. The alien utterly believes that it is a superior “unified organism” (34) over the “life fragments” that populate the ship (34). Fanatical in its mindset, the shape-shifting alien wants to convert the entire vessel to its ways–without their consent. Slowly the nature of its own world, the purpose of the human vessel, and the fate of a past voyage become clear.
While not a miserable entry in his canon, I am starting to dread the Asimov stories in Galaxy and struggle to write coherently about them. And there’s a serialized novel on the horizon that I haven’t read yet and thus cannot skip– The Stars, Like Dust (1951). While far superior to “Darwinian Pool Room” (1950), “Misbegotten Missionary” defeats its initial success with a laborious exposition of what happened before. I appreciated the Asimov’s attempt to convey alienness of the entity’s perspective. Maybe if you’re interested in the evolution of Asimov’s attempts to write about entire planets as alien consciousness this is worth tracking down.
I reviewed this in 2021 and completely forgot. I was even more cruel in the earlier review!
Anthony Boucher’s “Transfer Point” (1950), 3/5 (Average): Three survivors retreat beneath the Earth’s surface after two apocalyptic events–the release of a new element (agnoton) and an attack by mysterious “yellow bands” (are they light-like? It’s not entirely clear. It’s pulpy on purpose). The scientist Kirth-Labbery constructed the self-sufficient retreat due to his allergies (!). His daughter Lavra spends her time eating fruit grown in the hydroponics bay. And Vyrko, a self-described intellectual poet, observes and writes about the end of the world, pines after his lost love, and reads historical pulp science fiction –including Damon Knight’s “Not with a Bang” (1950) and Robert A. Heinlein’s “By His Bootstraps” (1941). He notices that only one author seems to predict correctly what will happen. And also strange narrative parallels with himself…
I’m a sucker for metafictional science fiction that contains references and quotations from other authors both real and invented. Boucher’s “Transfer Point” serves as a recursive commentary on the nature of genre and its favorite tropes (last man and woman as Adam and Eve, time travel, etc.). Behind the tale’s ultra-pulpy exterior and sappy silliness, Boucher jabs (gently and with a smile) at science fiction’s Campbellian delusion of future prediction. Despite its moments, Boucher can’t approach the heights of Richard Matheson’s “Patterns of Survival” (1955), a far more complex commentary on the power of science fiction.
Somewhat recommended.
Fritz Leiber’s “Coming Attraction” (1950), 5/5 (Masterpiece): I reviewed this story in 2013. I’ve decided to reread it and modify my earlier review.
In Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s influential The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom (1949), a blueprint of the “new liberal self-image,” he describes the post-WWII period as an “age of anxiety” in which “Western man” is “tense, uncertain, adrift.”2 Channeling this sentiment, branded as an “American brand of misery” (83), Leiber imagines an America transformed after a limited nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
The physical landscape mirrors the psychological scars of New York’s inhabitants. “H-Bomb scars” tunnel faces (78). The Empire State Building thrusts out of “Inferno like a mangled finger” (77). In a disturbed attempt to maintain control, a new “puritanical morality” (80) replete with “anti-sex songs” (78) and required masks to cover female faces takes hold. A sinister media landscape manifests the corruption within. Billboards promote “hysterical slogans” in which “the very letters of the advertiser’s alphabet have begin to crawl with sex” (78). New TV gadgets facilitate touch and pseudo-connection (80). Perverse new forms of TV entertainment, in particular male wrestlers pitted against masked women, transfix all audiences.
Wysten Turner, the British narrator, gets caught up in the disturbing changes that have swept the US. He rescues a masked woman from a car driven by youths replete with hooks designed to snag the dresses of passing women. She embodies loneliness and despair. And he wants to help. Soon he finds himself unable to identify the new erotic and violent rituals of control and release. The games layer on themselves. Our narrator, also manipulated, flees in shame when the bizarre tableau’s true nature is unmasked.
Leiber doles out fascinating and punchy commentary on the anxieties of the modern world. A disturbed, erotic, creepy, and hyper-violent exploration of that reflexive Cold War tendency to equate the inability to control and triumph abroad as caused by internal crisis within society as a whole. A brilliant satire of late 40s/early 50s American Cold War culture.
Highly recommended.
Damon Knight’s “To Serve Man” (1950), 3.5/5 (Good): I reviewed this story in 2023. I decided not to reread it. I’ve reproduced the review below.
The Kanamit, pig-like humanoid aliens, arrive on Earth with a promise to assist humanity that appears to have zero caveats. Their similarity to a human food animal creates a disquieting horror: “when a think with the countenance of a fiend comes from the stars and offers a gift, you are disinclined to accept” (91). The Kanama proclaim that they want “to bring you the peace and plenty which we ourselves enjoy, and which we have in the past brought to other races throughout the galaxy” (92). They introduce fantastic power sources, anti-nuclear explosion shields, and technology to exponentially enhance agricultural productivity. Soon there are no “more standing armies, no more shortages, and no unemployment” (98). But no one can decode their language. And when someone finally figures it out, it will be too late.
I don’t completely understand why “To Serve Man” is one of Knight’s best-known short fictions. It won the 2001 Retro Hugo Award for Best Short Story. I would have voted for Fritz Leiber’s “Coming Attraction” (1950) from the list of nominees! That said, “To Serve Man” is an effective twist-ending story that plays with our expectations but doesn’t have the reflective or incisive impact of Knight’s best — for example “The Enemy” (1958), “You’re Another” (1955), or even “Time Enough” (1960) in Far Out (1961). I’m probably in the minority in this view.
Somewhat recommended.
Clifford D. Simak’s Time Quarry (variant title: Time and Again) (1950). Serialized over three issues. I will post an individual review after I complete the serialization.
Notes
- Brown adheres to the theory that the Moon is covered with deep dust. He claims that Hell Crater is a bit more solid than other points. Arthur C. Clarke’s A Fall of Moondust (1961) is another example. ↩︎
- See Ch. 1 of K. A. Courdileone’s Manhood and American Political Culture in the Cold War (2005) for a discussion of Schlesinger. ↩︎
For book reviews consult the INDEX
For cover art posts consult the INDEX
For TV and film reviews consult the INDEX
#1950s #avantGarde #bookReviews #books #CliffordDSimak #DamonKnight #FredricBrown #fritzLeiber #HLGold #IsaacAsimov #sciFi #scienceFiction #ShortStories -
Magazine Review: Galaxy Science Fiction, ed. H. L. Gold (November 1950) (Brown, Asimov, Boucher, Leiber, Knight, Simak)
Preliminary Note: I plan on reading all 116 issues of the influential, and iconic, SF magazine Galaxy under H. L. Gold’s editorship (October 1950-October 1961) in chronological order. How long this project will take or how seriously/systematically I will take it remain complete unknowns.
See my inaugural post in this series for my reasoning behind selecting Galaxy under H. L. Gold.
Previously: the October 1950 issue.
Up Next: the December 1950 issue.
Let’s get to the stories. We have the first Galaxy masterpiece!
- Don Sibley’s cover for Galaxy Science Fiction, ed. H. L. Gold (November 1950)
You can read the entire issue here.
Fredric Brown’s “Honeymoon in Hell” (1950), 3/5 (Average): The year is 1962. The Cold War heats up. The race for a permanent presence on the Moon takes center stage. Each side “had landed a few men” and claimed it as their own (4). Each side races to construct a space station in orbit to facilitate the construction of a permanent base on the moon. But there’s another worrying world-wide trend–a massive gender imbalance in new births! Not enough boys! Riots. Cults. What’s the plan?
Capt. Raymond F. Carmody, retired from the space service (at age 27) after a successful flight to the Moon, steps into the ring. Resisting an administrative role in the service, he’d chosen a new career: cybernetics, “the science of electronic calculating machines” (9). In his new position, he had access to a powerful computer called Junior, built in 1958, tasked with issues of national security. Alone with the machine, he feeds Junior the data. Junior doesn’t have an answer. But Junior does offer a rare extrapolation that Carmody will be married on the morrow.
And a meeting with the President reveals the nature of the plan to birth a male child on the moon to avoid whatever on Earth is causing the problem! He’ll be legally married before they head to the moon and divorced if the pairing doesn’t work out. The catch? His wife will be Russian and their honeymoon will be Hell Crater.1 The “lucky” woman? Anna Borisovna is also a pilot of “experimental rockets on short-range flights” (16). Alcohol included as “icebreaker” for a “happy honeymoon” (19). The twelve day stay will be “plenty of time to get off before the Lunar night” (18) (Brown certainly intends the pun). And then the story morphs, abruptly, into a first contact story. Or does it?
This is an odd story. At its core it’s about a man and a woman (and mortal enemies) who go to the moon to have sex. But it’s the 50s. They need to be married! And all the references to the act are double entendres. As the ridiculousness fades, Brown settles on a rather enlightened position considering the Cold War terror of the moment–détente with the Soviets, politics and all, remains possible (under some circumstances). The story implies that Carmody falls head-over-heels for Anna due to the similarities of their careers and status as intellectual equals despite their divergent politics. Don Sibley’s issue cover shows her abilities under stressful circumstances. Carmody’s even willing to head to the Soviet Union to be with her! Love trumps all message aside, I am not convinced by the reading experience. Brown relays the strange events that transpire on Mars, and almost all of Carmody and Anna’s interactions, after they occur. It weakens the effect.
Somewhat recommended.
Isaac Asimov’s “Misbegotten Missionary” (variant title: “Green Patches”) (1950), 3/5 (Average): “Misbegotten Missionary” begins from the perspective of an alien entity that slipped onboard a human ship after its barrier faltered for a moment. The alien utterly believes that it is a superior “unified organism” (34) over the “life fragments” that populate the ship (34). Fanatical in its mindset, the shape-shifting alien wants to convert the entire vessel to its ways–without their consent. Slowly the nature of its own world, the purpose of the human vessel, and the fate of a past voyage become clear.
While not a miserable entry in his canon, I am starting to dread the Asimov stories in Galaxy and struggle to write coherently about them. And there’s a serialized novel on the horizon that I haven’t read yet and thus cannot skip– The Stars, Like Dust (1951). While far superior to “Darwinian Pool Room” (1950), “Misbegotten Missionary” defeats its initial success with a laborious exposition of what happened before. I appreciated the Asimov’s attempt to convey alienness of the entity’s perspective. Maybe if you’re interested in the evolution of Asimov’s attempts to write about entire planets as alien consciousness this is worth tracking down.
I reviewed this in 2021 and completely forgot. I was even more cruel in the earlier review!
Anthony Boucher’s “Transfer Point” (1950), 3/5 (Average): Three survivors retreat beneath the Earth’s surface after two apocalyptic events–the release of a new element (agnoton) and an attack by mysterious “yellow bands” (are they light-like? It’s not entirely clear. It’s pulpy on purpose). The scientist Kirth-Labbery constructed the self-sufficient retreat due to his allergies (!). His daughter Lavra spends her time eating fruit grown in the hydroponics bay. And Vyrko, a self-described intellectual poet, observes and writes about the end of the world, pines after his lost love, and reads historical pulp science fiction –including Damon Knight’s “Not with a Bang” (1950) and Robert A. Heinlein’s “By His Bootstraps” (1941). He notices that only one author seems to predict correctly what will happen. And also strange narrative parallels with himself…
I’m a sucker for metafictional science fiction that contains references and quotations from other authors both real and invented. Boucher’s “Transfer Point” serves as a recursive commentary on the nature of genre and its favorite tropes (last man and woman as Adam and Eve, time travel, etc.). Behind the tale’s ultra-pulpy exterior and sappy silliness, Boucher jabs (gently and with a smile) at science fiction’s Campbellian delusion of future prediction. Despite its moments, Boucher can’t approach the heights of Richard Matheson’s “Patterns of Survival” (1955), a far more complex commentary on the power of science fiction.
Somewhat recommended.
Fritz Leiber’s “Coming Attraction” (1950), 5/5 (Masterpiece): I reviewed this story in 2013. I’ve decided to reread it and modify my earlier review.
In Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s influential The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom (1949), a blueprint of the “new liberal self-image,” he describes the post-WWII period as an “age of anxiety” in which “Western man” is “tense, uncertain, adrift.”2 Channeling this sentiment, branded as an “American brand of misery” (83), Leiber imagines an America transformed after a limited nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
The physical landscape mirrors the psychological scars of New York’s inhabitants. “H-Bomb scars” tunnel faces (78). The Empire State Building thrusts out of “Inferno like a mangled finger” (77). In a disturbed attempt to maintain control, a new “puritanical morality” (80) replete with “anti-sex songs” (78) and required masks to cover female faces takes hold. A sinister media landscape manifests the corruption within. Billboards promote “hysterical slogans” in which “the very letters of the advertiser’s alphabet have begin to crawl with sex” (78). New TV gadgets facilitate touch and pseudo-connection (80). Perverse new forms of TV entertainment, in particular male wrestlers pitted against masked women, transfix all audiences.
Wysten Turner, the British narrator, gets caught up in the disturbing changes that have swept the US. He rescues a masked woman from a car driven by youths replete with hooks designed to snag the dresses of passing women. She embodies loneliness and despair. And he wants to help. Soon he finds himself unable to identify the new erotic and violent rituals of control and release. The games layer on themselves. Our narrator, also manipulated, flees in shame when the bizarre tableau’s true nature is unmasked.
Leiber doles out fascinating and punchy commentary on the anxieties of the modern world. A disturbed, erotic, creepy, and hyper-violent exploration of that reflexive Cold War tendency to equate the inability to control and triumph abroad as caused by internal crisis within society as a whole. A brilliant satire of late 40s/early 50s American Cold War culture.
Highly recommended.
Damon Knight’s “To Serve Man” (1950), 3.5/5 (Good): I reviewed this story in 2023. I decided not to reread it. I’ve reproduced the review below.
The Kanamit, pig-like humanoid aliens, arrive on Earth with a promise to assist humanity that appears to have zero caveats. Their similarity to a human food animal creates a disquieting horror: “when a think with the countenance of a fiend comes from the stars and offers a gift, you are disinclined to accept” (91). The Kanama proclaim that they want “to bring you the peace and plenty which we ourselves enjoy, and which we have in the past brought to other races throughout the galaxy” (92). They introduce fantastic power sources, anti-nuclear explosion shields, and technology to exponentially enhance agricultural productivity. Soon there are no “more standing armies, no more shortages, and no unemployment” (98). But no one can decode their language. And when someone finally figures it out, it will be too late.
I don’t completely understand why “To Serve Man” is one of Knight’s best-known short fictions. It won the 2001 Retro Hugo Award for Best Short Story. I would have voted for Fritz Leiber’s “Coming Attraction” (1950) from the list of nominees! That said, “To Serve Man” is an effective twist-ending story that plays with our expectations but doesn’t have the reflective or incisive impact of Knight’s best — for example “The Enemy” (1958), “You’re Another” (1955), or even “Time Enough” (1960) in Far Out (1961). I’m probably in the minority in this view.
Somewhat recommended.
Clifford D. Simak’s Time Quarry (variant title: Time and Again) (1950). Serialized over three issues. I will post an individual review after I complete the serialization.
Notes
- Brown adheres to the theory that the Moon is covered with deep dust. He claims that Hell Crater is a bit more solid than other points. Arthur C. Clarke’s A Fall of Moondust (1961) is another example. ↩︎
- See Ch. 1 of K. A. Courdileone’s Manhood and American Political Culture in the Cold War (2005) for a discussion of Schlesinger. ↩︎
For book reviews consult the INDEX
For cover art posts consult the INDEX
For TV and film reviews consult the INDEX
#1950s #avantGarde #bookReviews #books #CliffordDSimak #DamonKnight #FredricBrown #fritzLeiber #HLGold #IsaacAsimov #sciFi #scienceFiction #ShortStories -
Magazine Review: Galaxy Science Fiction, ed. H. L. Gold (November 1950) (Brown, Asimov, Boucher, Leiber, Knight, Simak)
Preliminary Note: I plan on reading all 116 issues of the influential, and iconic, SF magazine Galaxy under H. L. Gold’s editorship (October 1950-October 1961) in chronological order. How long this project will take or how seriously/systematically I will take it remain complete unknowns.
See my inaugural post in this series for my reasoning behind selecting Galaxy under H. L. Gold.
Previously: the October 1950 issue.
Up Next: the December 1950 issue.
Let’s get to the stories. We have the first Galaxy masterpiece!
- Don Sibley’s cover for Galaxy Science Fiction, ed. H. L. Gold (November 1950)
You can read the entire issue here.
Fredric Brown’s “Honeymoon in Hell” (1950), 3/5 (Average): The year is 1962. The Cold War heats up. The race for a permanent presence on the Moon takes center stage. Each side “had landed a few men” and claimed it as their own (4). Each side races to construct a space station in orbit to facilitate the construction of a permanent base on the moon. But there’s another worrying world-wide trend–a massive gender imbalance in new births! Not enough boys! Riots. Cults. What’s the plan?
Capt. Raymond F. Carmody, retired from the space service (at age 27) after a successful flight to the Moon, steps into the ring. Resisting an administrative role in the service, he’d chosen a new career: cybernetics, “the science of electronic calculating machines” (9). In his new position, he had access to a powerful computer called Junior, built in 1958, tasked with issues of national security. Alone with the machine, he feeds Junior the data. Junior doesn’t have an answer. But Junior does offer a rare extrapolation that Carmody will be married on the morrow.
And a meeting with the President reveals the nature of the plan to birth a male child on the moon to avoid whatever on Earth is causing the problem! He’ll be legally married before they head to the moon and divorced if the pairing doesn’t work out. The catch? His wife will be Russian and their honeymoon will be Hell Crater.1 The “lucky” woman? Anna Borisovna is also a pilot of “experimental rockets on short-range flights” (16). Alcohol included as “icebreaker” for a “happy honeymoon” (19). The twelve day stay will be “plenty of time to get off before the Lunar night” (18) (Brown certainly intends the pun). And then the story morphs, abruptly, into a first contact story. Or does it?
This is an odd story. At its core it’s about a man and a woman (and mortal enemies) who go to the moon to have sex. But it’s the 50s. They need to be married! And all the references to the act are double entendres. As the ridiculousness fades, Brown settles on a rather enlightened position considering the Cold War terror of the moment–détente with the Soviets, politics and all, remains possible (under some circumstances). The story implies that Carmody falls head-over-heels for Anna due to the similarities of their careers and status as intellectual equals despite their divergent politics. Don Sibley’s issue cover shows her abilities under stressful circumstances. Carmody’s even willing to head to the Soviet Union to be with her! Love trumps all message aside, I am not convinced by the reading experience. Brown relays the strange events that transpire on Mars, and almost all of Carmody and Anna’s interactions, after they occur. It weakens the effect.
Somewhat recommended.
Isaac Asimov’s “Misbegotten Missionary” (variant title: “Green Patches”) (1950), 3/5 (Average): “Misbegotten Missionary” begins from the perspective of an alien entity that slipped onboard a human ship after its barrier faltered for a moment. The alien utterly believes that it is a superior “unified organism” (34) over the “life fragments” that populate the ship (34). Fanatical in its mindset, the shape-shifting alien wants to convert the entire vessel to its ways–without their consent. Slowly the nature of its own world, the purpose of the human vessel, and the fate of a past voyage become clear.
While not a miserable entry in his canon, I am starting to dread the Asimov stories in Galaxy and struggle to write coherently about them. And there’s a serialized novel on the horizon that I haven’t read yet and thus cannot skip– The Stars, Like Dust (1951). While far superior to “Darwinian Pool Room” (1950), “Misbegotten Missionary” defeats its initial success with a laborious exposition of what happened before. I appreciated the Asimov’s attempt to convey alienness of the entity’s perspective. Maybe if you’re interested in the evolution of Asimov’s attempts to write about entire planets as alien consciousness this is worth tracking down.
I reviewed this in 2021 and completely forgot. I was even more cruel in the earlier review!
Anthony Boucher’s “Transfer Point” (1950), 3/5 (Average): Three survivors retreat beneath the Earth’s surface after two apocalyptic events–the release of a new element (agnoton) and an attack by mysterious “yellow bands” (are they light-like? It’s not entirely clear. It’s pulpy on purpose). The scientist Kirth-Labbery constructed the self-sufficient retreat due to his allergies (!). His daughter Lavra spends her time eating fruit grown in the hydroponics bay. And Vyrko, a self-described intellectual poet, observes and writes about the end of the world, pines after his lost love, and reads historical pulp science fiction –including Damon Knight’s “Not with a Bang” (1950) and Robert A. Heinlein’s “By His Bootstraps” (1941). He notices that only one author seems to predict correctly what will happen. And also strange narrative parallels with himself…
I’m a sucker for metafictional science fiction that contains references and quotations from other authors both real and invented. Boucher’s “Transfer Point” serves as a recursive commentary on the nature of genre and its favorite tropes (last man and woman as Adam and Eve, time travel, etc.). Behind the tale’s ultra-pulpy exterior and sappy silliness, Boucher jabs (gently and with a smile) at science fiction’s Campbellian delusion of future prediction. Despite its moments, Boucher can’t approach the heights of Richard Matheson’s “Patterns of Survival” (1955), a far more complex commentary on the power of science fiction.
Somewhat recommended.
Fritz Leiber’s “Coming Attraction” (1950), 5/5 (Masterpiece): I reviewed this story in 2013. I’ve decided to reread it and modify my earlier review.
In Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.’s influential The Vital Center: The Politics of Freedom (1949), a blueprint of the “new liberal self-image,” he describes the post-WWII period as an “age of anxiety” in which “Western man” is “tense, uncertain, adrift.”2 Channeling this sentiment, branded as an “American brand of misery” (83), Leiber imagines an America transformed after a limited nuclear war with the Soviet Union.
The physical landscape mirrors the psychological scars of New York’s inhabitants. “H-Bomb scars” tunnel faces (78). The Empire State Building thrusts out of “Inferno like a mangled finger” (77). In a disturbed attempt to maintain control, a new “puritanical morality” (80) replete with “anti-sex songs” (78) and required masks to cover female faces takes hold. A sinister media landscape manifests the corruption within. Billboards promote “hysterical slogans” in which “the very letters of the advertiser’s alphabet have begin to crawl with sex” (78). New TV gadgets facilitate touch and pseudo-connection (80). Perverse new forms of TV entertainment, in particular male wrestlers pitted against masked women, transfix all audiences.
Wysten Turner, the British narrator, gets caught up in the disturbing changes that have swept the US. He rescues a masked woman from a car driven by youths replete with hooks designed to snag the dresses of passing women. She embodies loneliness and despair. And he wants to help. Soon he finds himself unable to identify the new erotic and violent rituals of control and release. The games layer on themselves. Our narrator, also manipulated, flees in shame when the bizarre tableau’s true nature is unmasked.
Leiber doles out fascinating and punchy commentary on the anxieties of the modern world. A disturbed, erotic, creepy, and hyper-violent exploration of that reflexive Cold War tendency to equate the inability to control and triumph abroad as caused by internal crisis within society as a whole. A brilliant satire of late 40s/early 50s American Cold War culture.
Highly recommended.
Damon Knight’s “To Serve Man” (1950), 3.5/5 (Good): I reviewed this story in 2023. I decided not to reread it. I’ve reproduced the review below.
The Kanamit, pig-like humanoid aliens, arrive on Earth with a promise to assist humanity that appears to have zero caveats. Their similarity to a human food animal creates a disquieting horror: “when a think with the countenance of a fiend comes from the stars and offers a gift, you are disinclined to accept” (91). The Kanama proclaim that they want “to bring you the peace and plenty which we ourselves enjoy, and which we have in the past brought to other races throughout the galaxy” (92). They introduce fantastic power sources, anti-nuclear explosion shields, and technology to exponentially enhance agricultural productivity. Soon there are no “more standing armies, no more shortages, and no unemployment” (98). But no one can decode their language. And when someone finally figures it out, it will be too late.
I don’t completely understand why “To Serve Man” is one of Knight’s best-known short fictions. It won the 2001 Retro Hugo Award for Best Short Story. I would have voted for Fritz Leiber’s “Coming Attraction” (1950) from the list of nominees! That said, “To Serve Man” is an effective twist-ending story that plays with our expectations but doesn’t have the reflective or incisive impact of Knight’s best — for example “The Enemy” (1958), “You’re Another” (1955), or even “Time Enough” (1960) in Far Out (1961). I’m probably in the minority in this view.
Somewhat recommended.
Clifford D. Simak’s Time Quarry (variant title: Time and Again) (1950). Serialized over three issues. I will post an individual review after I complete the serialization.
Notes
- Brown adheres to the theory that the Moon is covered with deep dust. He claims that Hell Crater is a bit more solid than other points. Arthur C. Clarke’s A Fall of Moondust (1961) is another example. ↩︎
- See Ch. 1 of K. A. Courdileone’s Manhood and American Political Culture in the Cold War (2005) for a discussion of Schlesinger. ↩︎
For book reviews consult the INDEX
For cover art posts consult the INDEX
For TV and film reviews consult the INDEX
#1950s #avantGarde #bookReviews #books #CliffordDSimak #DamonKnight #FredricBrown #fritzLeiber #HLGold #IsaacAsimov #sciFi #scienceFiction #ShortStories -
The Palace at the Foot of the Walk: the thread about the many lives of an early cinema
The Foot of the Walk pub in Leith has been in the news recently as its owner has put it on the market for sale, to much local indignation. These premises first opened on 1st January 1913 as The Palace cinema (in reference to the term “Picture Palace“, which was in use at the time to differentiate the upper end of the cinema market from the lower), showing a programme of illustrated nursery rhymes, a film about a gang of horse thieves and other “pictures of a humorous kind, which were greatly appreciated“. The cinema, as built, had a proscenium 32 feet wide by 22 feet high which gave it the largest screen in all of Edinburgh or Leith. It had a capacity for 2,000; 900 in the pit, 650 in the pit stalls and 450 in the upper gallery and a feature was that both the roof and balcony were cantilevered, with no supporting pillars to get in the way of the view of the screen. Great attention was paid to fire safety; the Brackliss Motiograph projector was installed behind the auditorium, within fireproof walls, there were 8 emergency exits from the auditorium and lighting was electric, rather than gas.
“Palace Buildings & Foot of Leith Walk”, James Valentine picture postcard, 1913. The round tower over the entrance is long gone. © Edinburgh City LibrariesIt cost the Leith Public Hall & Property Co. around £20,000 to build (around £1.8 million in 2023) and was part of a syndicate of cinemas controlled by theatre impresario Robert Colburn (“RC”) Buchanan; a man described by Scottish Cinema journal at that time as being gifted to the trade “by the gods“. Buchanan was for a time the managing director of the Gaiety theatre in Leith, which stood on th opposite side of Constitution Street from The Palace. The latter site had long been the premises of Bell, Rannie & Co., one of Leith’s longest established wine merchants, where brothers Robert and John Cockburn served their apprenticeships.
The Foot of the Walk in 1891, looking towards Bell, Rannie & Co.’s vaults and house in the centre distance. The buildings on the right were replaced by Leith Central Station in 1903, those on the left remain, now the British Heart Foundation shop. © Edinburgh City LibrariesA fire at Bell, Rannie & Co.’s George Street shop in 1910 led to the sale of their Constitution Street warehouse and offices. It was briefly thereafter occupied by the Rev. John Findlater and the Leith Methodist Church, which had recently become homeless after its church across the road was demolished to allow the construction of Leith Central Station. Shortly after this, it too was cleared, to make way for the cinema which was built on top of Bell & Rannie’s old vaults.
Sale of Bell, Rannie & Co. vaults etc. at 171-173 constitution street, The Scotsman- 5th February 1910The cinema was surrounded at ground floor level with shop units on both Constitution and Duke Streets and at this time the opportunity was taken for the former street to be widened and a corresponding portion of the latter narrowed, to improve the road layout at the Foot of the Walk. Upstairs, on the Duke Street side, there was a hall that was long occupied by the Leith Central Snooker Club.
The Foot of the Walk in Ordnance Survey Maps of 1849 (left) and 1944 (right). Move the slide to compare how the plot of the Palace Cinema was changed from that of Bell & Rannie by widening Constitution Street and narrowing Duke Street correspondingly. Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of ScotlandOne thing that wasn’t included in the demolition and rebuilding was an adjoining bonded warehouse, the property of Cockburn & Campbell, wine merchants at 15 Duke Street. This sad looking, long-abandoned old building is actually one of the oldest in this part of Leith – dating from at least 1804!
The Duke Street wing of The Palace in 1953. The number 19 tram to Tollcross passes by as someone steps into The Marksman public house (which is there to this day). On the first floor gable a painted sign can be read “The Palace, Continuous 6 – 10:30” and the old Cockburn’s warehouse is the dark, windowless building beyond.The Palace was designed around showing two programmes every night, at 7PM and 9PM, and so was laid out internally such that one audience could enter through the foyer while previous one exited through separate doors onto Duke and Constitution street, without any mutual disruption. The advert below shows the opening week’s programme, which described the venue as “a Lordly Picture House. The Largest. The Latest. The Best.“
The Palace – “A Lordly Picture House”, opening week programme. Evening News – 6th January 1913The opening feature – “A Race For An Inheritance” (A Drama rushing from sensation to sensation) – was a Gaumont film that had only recently been released.
Kinematograph Weekly – 7th November 1912This wasn’t the only “Palace” cinema in the neighbourhood, there was Pringle’s Picture Palace at the other end of The Walk on Elm Row and they were joined by the Empire Picture Palace on Henderson Street in 1917. Further afield there was the St. Bernard’s Picture Palace in Stockbridge, which opened in 1911, The Palace on Princes Street, which opened on Christmas Eve 1913 and the New Palace on the High Street that opened for talkies in 1929. The Leith Palace was wired for sound in September 1930 to allow it to join that latest cinema craze. In 1931 the Cimarron with Richard Dix and Irene Dunne was one of the first such pictures being shown. Alterations were made at this time by renowned cinema (and roadhouse!) architect Thomas Bowhill Gibson, whose work includes the Dominion in Morningside and former George / County in Portobello. These may have included removal of the tower over the entrance that is seen in the first picture on this page.
George cinema in Portobello, 1971, photograph by Kevin & Henry Wheelan. © Edinburgh City LibrariesThe Palace quietly prospered in the 1930s and 1940s, although eclipsed by newer and larger and more modern houses (such as The Capitol on Manderston Street and The State on Great Junction Street, it remained popular. However by the 1960s, like many smaller houses it was beginning to struggle to compete with television and closed without ceremony on December 31st 1966, 53 years to the day since it opened, showing The Trouble With Angels starring Rosalind Russell and Hayley Mills.
The Palace in the early-to-mid 1950s, taken looking down Constitution Street from the Foot of the Walk. Picture from “The last picture shows, Edinburgh : ninety years of cinema entertainment in Scotland’s capital city” by Brendon ThomasThe cinema went on the market and was purchased by new owners, Norwich Enterprises Ltd, trading as Palace Promotions. It was shortly thereafter converted to serve the new craze of bingo, still under the Palace name. A fire in 1968 destroyed most of the auditorium roof of the building on March 24th 1968, fortunately some hours after the 1,000 patrons who had been playing had gone home. It was repaired thereafter and soon back in business.
Palace Bingo Club, 1971, photograph by Kevin & Henry Wheelan, 1971. © Edinburgh City LibrariesIn 1978 the Bingo hall closed and was replaced by Cuemasters Snooker and Social Club and in turn the long established Leith Central Snooker Club upstairs closed in 1983. In 1992 a small church called “The Potters House” moved in to the latter space.
Potters House Christian Centre, Evening News, October 15th 1992The old cinema was refurbished and reopened as the Wetherspoon pub The Foot of the Walk on 27th June 2001. Few of the original features are visible inside, but if you use your imagination you can get a rough idea of the original layout. The upper balcony still exists, hidden away, with its seats, carpets and wall coverings as they were when the last film was shown in 1966. You can view pictures of it here on the excellent Scottish Cinemas website. After over 20 years of security in the guise of a cheap, cheerful and popular watering hole, its future is once again uncertain. In its life it has spent 53 years as a cinema, 12 years as a bingo hall, 23 years as a snooker hall and a further 23 as a public house; like many former cinemas it has now spent longer not being a cinema than the time it spent serving its intended purpose.
The Foot of the Walk, JD Wetherspoon promotional picture.As for the name “Foot of the Walk“? It’s a name for this locality that’s as old as postal directories are in Edinburgh and Leith, appearing in Peter Williamson’s first directories in the 1770s. And we can push it back 40 years more in the newspapers, an advert for one of the first houses built here appearing in the Caledonian Mercury on January 4th 1737.
“At the foot of the Walk of Leith”, Caledonian Mercury – 4th January 1737Note 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 -
Greek Shipowners and Russia’s Shadow Fleet
Greek shipowners launched a large-scale campaign to resell high-capacity tankers that had previously transported Russian cargoes. Nevertheless, major Greek shipping corporations continue to play a key role in the operation of Russia’s shadow fleet.
Among the companies that operated tankers transporting hundreds of millions of tons of Russian oil in 2025 are Dynacom Tankers Management Ltd, Minerva Marine Inc, Polembros Shipping Ltd, Kyklades Maritime Corp, New Shipping Ltd-Lib, Stealth Maritime Corp SA, Marine Trust Ltd-Mai, Star Marine Management Inc, Eurotankers Inc, and SR Navigation SA.
Despite substantial publicly available evidence showing that dozens of vessels operated by these companies violated sanctions restrictions, they have largely avoided inclusion in sanctions lists. At the same time, they remain influential lobbyists for Kremlin interests within the European Union.
For example, the Athens-based company Dynacom Tankers Management Ltd used the tanker Eleni (IMO 9432062) last year to transport oil from Ust-Luga to the Indian port of Paradip. The tanker’s crew was partly recruited through Russian-controlled Crimean crewing agencies such as Sydyma.
Dynacom Tankers Management Ltd (DTM), registered under IMO number 1527598, was founded in 1991 as a subsidiary of a corporation established in 1974. The company currently controls at least 74 tankers and employs more than 5,000 seafarers.
DTM maintains two corporate “clones,” one registered in Glyfada near Athens and another in Monrovia, Liberia. The company is owned by Greek shipping magnate George Procopiou, who also controls Dynagas Ltd and Sea Traders S.A., companies operating LNG carriers and bulk cargo vessels respectively.
Procopiou’s fortune was estimated at $3.7 billion in 2024, and he has increasingly invested maritime profits in the real-estate sector. In February 2025 he acquired the Greek hotel group Astir Palace Vouliagmenis. In 2023 he was named Greek Shipping Personality of the Year, and later ranked 14th on Lloyd’s List of the most influential figures in global shipping.
At the same time, Procopiou is known for publicly criticizing policies aimed at reducing the use of petroleum fuels and actively lobbying against decarbonization initiatives within the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and EU regulatory frameworks. His four daughters—who are already active in maritime business along with their spouses—are expected to inherit his shipping empire. One example is Marielena Procopiou, who now controls the tanker company Akrotiri Tankers.
Another major participant in Russia’s shadow fleet is the Athens-based Minerva Marine Inc, founded in 1996 and registered in the Marshall Islands (IMO 1774869). The company operates more than 70 vessels. It was founded by Greek shipping magnate Andreas J. Martinos and is now controlled by his son Andreas A. Martinos, whose fortune is estimated at around €2 billion.
Other vessels belonging to the Martinos family, operated through Thenamaris Inc, transport petroleum products between the United States, Canada, and France using “clean” tankers under Greek and Maltese flags. Minerva Marine itself originally emerged from the broader Thenamaris corporate network.
Minerva Marine tankers have often operated under the Maltese flag, and the company’s involvement in Russian oil transportation in recent years has generated criticism from sectors of Malta’s maritime industry.
In late 2025, Maltese media linked the Martinos family’s business activities to the corporation Alkagesta Ltd, controlled by Azerbaijani businessmen Adnan Ahmadzada and Kamran Agaev, which trades oil in the Mediterranean region. Reports also indicate that Minerva Marine controls the Liberian company Rourke Services Ltd, through which it conducts certain operations.
The executive director of Minerva Marine is Athanasios J. Martinos, who also owns the maritime corporation Eastern Mediterranean Maritime Limited, which controls 74 tankers. The network of shipping enterprises associated with the Martinos family demonstrates the concentration of ownership within extended family structures.
Minerva Marine subsidiaries operate not only in the Greek islands of Chios and Kalymnos but also in Manila and Odessa, where they function as crewing agencies responsible for recruiting seafarers. One such subsidiary is Minerva Manning Agency, established in 2007 in Odessa.
Another Greek corporation closely linked to the Russian tanker trade is Polembros Shipping Ltd, founded in Athens in 1974 and currently operating dozens of tankers. For nearly half a century the company was controlled by Spyros M. Polemis, a member of the Andros shipowning family.
Polemis’s influence within the maritime sector was demonstrated when he was elected president of both the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the International Shipping Federation (ISF) in 2006.
Polembros Shipping has also collaborated with the energy trading firm Gunvor, a company historically associated with Russian oil trading networks. The Polemis family had earlier financial exposure to the Russian market as well, investing heavily in Russian government bonds during the 1990s.
After the Russian financial crisis of 1998, the family lost significant capital and engaged in long legal disputes with JPMorgan Chase in London. Following the death of Spyros Polemis in 2024, control of the company passed to his son Leonidas S. Polemis.
The Polemis family also controls New Shipping Ltd-Lib, a corporation registered in Piraeus and Liberia that operates up to 15 tankers, many of which serve routes to China.
Another participant in the Russian shadow fleet is Kyklades Maritime Corp, founded in 1985 and controlled by the Alafouzos family, which operates approximately 30 vessels under Greek and Marshall Islands flags.
The family’s influence extends beyond shipping. Aristides Alafouzos, who founded the company, also acquired the Greek newspaper Kathimerini in 1988. The family later developed Skai Group, a major Greek media corporation controlling television channels, radio stations, news websites, and publishing businesses.
His son Ioannis Alafouzos currently leads the maritime business and also served as president of the Greek football club Panathinaikos F.C.
Other Greek companies participating in Russian oil transportation include Stealth Maritime Corp SA, which operates roughly 50 vessels, including gas carriers and tankers, and Marine Trust Ltd-Mai, which controls a fleet of about 20 tankers.
Further operators include Star Marine Management Inc and Eurotankers Inc, the latter controlled by the Gotsis family. Some Eurotankers vessels were previously sanctioned by the United States for transporting Venezuelan oil.
Another company involved in transporting Russian oil is SR Navigation SA, which operates around ten tankers through a network of Panama-registered companies.
Greek shipowners remain a central component of Russia’s shadow fleet.
The family-based ownership structure of these shipping corporations, combined with their deep influence in Greek politics, media, and the global maritime infrastructure—as well as their extensive connections in the United States and the United Kingdom—makes them highly resistant to traditional sanctions mechanisms.
At the same time, this family-centered structure creates a critical vulnerability: personal sanctions against the ultimate beneficial owners of these companies could significantly alter their willingness to support Russia’s oil-export system and its broader war economy.
Greek Shipping Families and Historical Links to Soviet/Russian Oil Trade Structural Background: Soviet Reliance on Western Shipping
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union relied heavily on foreign tanker fleets to export crude oil. Soviet shipping capacity was limited, and Moscow therefore chartered vessels from international shipping companies.
Greek shipowners became particularly important partners because:
- Greece controlled one of the largest tanker fleets in the world,
- Greek shipping companies often operated through flags of convenience (Liberia, Panama, Malta),
- many Greek firms maintained commercial flexibility with both Western and Eastern markets.
This created a long-standing commercial relationship between Greek shipping houses and Soviet energy export systems.
Greek Shipping Families and Soviet Trade Networks
The Polemis family
The Polemis family has historically been active in global oil shipping.
In the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, family investment structures were involved in financial activities connected to the Russian market, including investments in Russian government securities. These investments were handled through Western financial institutions.
The episode illustrates how Greek shipping capital was partially integrated into the post-Soviet financial opening of Russia, although it does not indicate direct political alignment with Moscow.
The Martinos family
The Martinos shipping group, including companies such as Thenamaris and Minerva Marine, has long operated tankers transporting oil globally.
Greek tanker operators have historically chartered vessels for oil trading houses that deal in Russian crude. In global energy markets, Russian oil has been transported through intermediaries such as:
- trading companies,
- oil majors,
- commodity brokers.
Thus the connection between Greek shipowners and Russian oil flows is often indirect and commercial rather than political.
The Procopiou family
Shipping companies controlled by George Procopiou operate large fleets of crude and LNG carriers.
Greek tanker fleets have traditionally transported oil from many exporting states, including Russia. Because Russian crude remains a major global commodity, many shipping firms have participated in transporting it under legal contracts prior to sanctions regimes.
The Alafouzos family
Companies associated with the Alafouzos family have been active in maritime transportation for decades. Like other Greek shipping houses, their fleets have historically operated on global charter markets where Russian cargoes were commonly traded.
Again, this reflects commercial market participation rather than necessarily political alignment with Russian interests.
Post-Soviet Transformation (1991–2000)
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian energy exports became increasingly integrated into global markets.
During this period:
- Western banks financed Russian energy trade
- commodity traders expanded their role
- international tanker fleets—including Greek operators—transported Russian crude.
This phase created many commercial relationships between Russian exporters and international shipping companies, including Greek firms.
Russian Oil and the Modern “Shadow Fleet”
After the 2022 sanctions regime, Russia increasingly relied on a so-called shadow fleet to transport oil outside Western regulatory systems.
Greek shipping companies have been involved in several ways:
- Selling older tankers that were later used in sanctions-evasion fleets,
- Chartering vessels to traders handling Russian cargoes,
- Operating ships in legal grey zones before sanctions enforcement tightened.
- However, many major Greek companies have also reduced or ended Russian cargo transportation under pressure from EU and U.S. sanctions regimes.
Influence of Greek Shipping in EU Policy
Greek shipping interests have historically been influential in European maritime regulation.
Because Greece controls a large portion of the global tanker fleet, Greek shipping companies have often lobbied for:
- flexible sanctions enforcement
- protection of maritime trade flows
- gradual energy transition policies.
This lobbying influence sometimes intersects with geopolitical debates around Russian energy exports.
Strategic Assessment
The relationship between Greek shipping families and Soviet/Russian energy trade should be understood primarily as commercial rather than ideological.
Key points:
- Soviet and Russian oil exports historically depended on international tanker fleets,
- Greek shipowners have long been major participants in global oil transportation,
- financial and commercial interactions with Russia increased after the Soviet collapse.
However, these connections do not necessarily imply political alignment with the Kremlin. In most cases they reflect the structural role of Greek shipping in global energy logistics.
Why Soviet Intelligence Was Interested in Shipping
The Soviet Union depended heavily on foreign maritime logistics, especially during the Cold War. Soviet intelligence agencies such as the KGB closely monitored global shipping because maritime networks were crucial for:
- exporting Soviet oil and raw materials,
- acquiring restricted Western technology,
- circumventing trade restrictions and embargoes,
- gathering intelligence in foreign ports.
Large tanker operators, including Greek fleets, therefore became objects of intelligence attention, even if only as commercial partners.
Greek Shipping’s Unique Role in the Global Oil Trade
Greek shipowners controlled a very large portion of the world’s tanker capacity from the 1960s onward. During the Cold War:
- Greek companies transported oil from the Middle East, USSR, and other exporters
- many operated under flags of convenience (Liberia, Panama, Cyprus)
- their fleets worked with traders from both Western and Eastern blocs.
Because Soviet shipping capacity was limited, Moscow sometimes chartered foreign tankers, including Greek vessels, through state trading organizations.
These transactions were commercial, not intelligence cooperation.
Known Soviet Methods in the Maritime Sector
Soviet intelligence historically used several maritime-related methods:
Commercial cover companies
Soviet state trading firms sometimes functioned as fronts or contact points for intelligence officers.
Recruitment of port or shipping insiders
Intelligence agencies occasionally tried to recruit:
- port officials,
- shipping brokers,
- maritime engineers.
Monitoring shipping markets
The KGB and Soviet economic intelligence services tracked:
- tanker availability
- freight prices
- shipping routes.
This information was valuable for Soviet energy export planning.
Evidence Regarding Greek Shipping Families
There are no confirmed declassified documents or credible investigations showing that the major Greek shipping families discussed earlier were KGB collaborators.
However, there are several historical realities:
- Greek shipowners did transport Soviet oil cargoes in some cases
- Soviet trading companies chartered Western tankers
- Greek shipping businesses maintained contacts with Soviet commercial organizations.
These interactions were typical commercial relationships within the global shipping market.
Organized Crime Overlap in the Post-Soviet Period
In the 1990s, after the collapse of the USSR, some international shipping and trading networks intersected with post-Soviet financial and criminal structures.
Figures such as Semion Mogilevich operated financial networks in Central Europe during that period.
However, linking such networks directly to Greek shipowners requires specific evidence and should not be assumed.
Strategic Assessment
The most realistic interpretation is that:
- Soviet intelligence monitored and interacted with global shipping networks, including Greek companies,
- Greek tanker operators sometimes carried Soviet cargoes through commercial contracts,
- There is no reliable public evidence that leading Greek shipping families were intelligence collaborators.
In intelligence analysis terms, these relationships should be described as commercial interaction with possible intelligence observation, not proven cooperation.
Bottom line:
Greek shipowners were important players in the maritime system that transported Soviet and later Russian oil, which naturally attracted the attention of Soviet intelligence. But no verified evidence currently shows that the major Greek shipping families themselves cooperated with the KGB.Legal Cases and Controversies Involving Major Greek Shipping Families
The Polemis Family
The Polemis family has been active in global shipping for decades through companies such as Polembros Shipping and related maritime enterprises.
Financial litigation after the Russian default (1998)
One of the most notable legal disputes involving the family arose after the Russian financial crisis of 1998. Investments linked to the family’s shipping revenues had been placed in Russian government securities (GKOs and related instruments). These investments were managed through major international financial institutions, including JPMorgan Chase.
After Russia’s sovereign default, the Polemis family pursued legal action in London courts against financial institutions over losses connected to those investments. The litigation lasted several years but ultimately did not succeed. The dispute was a commercial financial case rather than a criminal investigation.
Maritime disputes
Like many shipping companies, Polembros vessels have periodically been involved in:
- insurance claims
- cargo disputes
- chartering disagreements.
Such litigation is common in international maritime law and is usually handled through arbitration.
The Martinos Family
The Martinos family controls major shipping companies including Minerva Marine and Thenamaris.
Taxation and regulatory scrutiny
Greek shipping has historically operated under a special tax regime, and shipping magnates—including members of the Martinos family—have occasionally been mentioned in public debates in Greece about taxation and wealth transparency.
However, there are no widely documented criminal convictions against the Martinos family related to their shipping activities.
Maritime regulatory controversies
Companies connected with the family have sometimes faced scrutiny regarding:
- vessel registration under foreign flags
- environmental compliance
- shipping safety regulations.
These matters typically involve administrative or regulatory issues, not criminal charges.
The Procopiou Family
Shipping magnate George Procopiou controls several major maritime companies including Dynacom, Dynagas, and Sea Traders.
Commercial litigation
Companies within the Procopiou shipping group have occasionally been involved in:
- contract disputes
- shipbuilding disagreements
- chartering claims.
These are typical disputes in global shipping markets and are usually resolved through maritime arbitration.
Environmental policy lobbying
Procopiou has publicly opposed certain international environmental regulations related to shipping emissions and decarbonization. While controversial, such lobbying activity is not a legal violation.
The Alafouzos Family
The Alafouzos family controls shipping interests through companies such as Kyklades Maritime and also owns the Greek media group SKAI.
Football governance investigations
Ioannis Alafouzos, owner of the Greek football club Panathinaikos, has been involved in several disputes within Greek football governance structures. Some investigations concerned:
- alleged corruption within football administration,
- financial irregularities in sports management.
These cases were widely reported in Greek media but were largely resolved without major criminal convictions related to shipping activities.
Tax-related investigations
As with other prominent business figures in Greece, there have been periodic tax investigations related to high-net-worth individuals. These inquiries did not result in major criminal rulings against the family.
Broader Context: Why Shipping Families Often Appear in Legal Disputes
Large maritime corporations frequently appear in legal proceedings due to the nature of the industry. Common areas of litigation include:
- charter contracts,
- maritime accidents,
- insurance claims,
- environmental compliance.
- ship financing.
Such cases are generally handled through commercial courts or arbitration bodies such as the London Maritime Arbitrators Association.
Strategic Assessment
The available public record indicates that:
- the major Greek shipping families discussed have participated in commercial litigation and regulatory disputes, which is normal in global shipping;
- no consistent pattern of major criminal convictions related to their maritime activities has been widely documented;
some controversies surrounding these families relate more to tax policy debates, media influence, or sports management disputes rather than shipping operations.
Greek tanker operators became central to Russia’s post-2022 oil logistics for three main reasons: they initially kept lawful access open under the G7 price-cap regime, they later monetized the transition by selling older tonnage into opaque markets, and they remained politically important because Greek shipping still controlled a meaningful share of compliant capacity long after Russia began building a shadow fleet.
Greek shipowners filled the immediate transport gap after the embargo
When the EU embargo on seaborne Russian crude and the G7 price cap came into force in late 2022, Russia did not suddenly lose all access to Western shipping. The cap still allowed Western shipping and insurance services if the oil was sold below the capped price. In practice, this created a large legal grey zone in which experienced tanker operators could continue lifting Russian cargoes while claiming compliance. Reuters reported that in January 2023 EU-owned vessels, primarily Greek, moved more than 2 million tonnes of Urals crude from Baltic and Black Sea ports, and that Greek-owned ships handled at least 21 voyages that month.
This mattered because Greece had exactly the kind of fleet Russia needed: large numbers of aframax and suezmax tankers, deep experience in crude shipping, and established commercial ties with traders, ports, and insurers. In the first phase after sanctions, Greek firms were not yet the shadow fleet itself; they were the bridge that prevented a sudden collapse in Russian seaborne exports while Moscow reorganized its logistics.
The price cap created profits strong enough to keep Greek firms engaged
The sanctions regime did not ban all transport; it changed the risk premium. Reuters reported that Russian oil routes became highly lucrative, with freight for voyages from Baltic ports to India reaching as much as $15 million per tanker voyage during the early phase of the cap. That made Russian trade attractive for shipowners willing to tolerate sanctions risk and compliance complexity. Reuters also noted that several major Greek firms continued transporting Russian oil even after many other Western operators withdrew.
So Greek involvement was not only about legacy ties or fleet availability. It was also about commercial arbitrage. The combination of long-haul routes to India and China, elevated freight rates, and a sanctions framework that still permitted “compliant” shipping meant that Greek owners could profit while Russia bought time to assemble a more opaque fleet architecture.
Greek owners helped build the shadow fleet by selling older tankers
The decisive shift came when Russia and its intermediaries began acquiring older tankers outside the mainstream compliance ecosystem. A Brookings paper states that Western shipowners, especially Greek ones, enabled the growth of the shadow fleet by selling older oil tankers to opaque buyers at attractive prices, because Russia was paying top dollar for export capacity outside the G7 cap. The paper argues that this loophole should have been closed when the cap was introduced, but it was not.
This is the key structural reason Greek firms became central. They did not just carry Russian oil in the early phase; they also helped create the fleet that later displaced them. Once older Greek- and Western-linked vessels were sold into shell-company structures under flags of convenience, Russia could move larger volumes without relying on reputable Western insurers, owners, or service providers. That turned Greek shipping from a transport intermediary into a major upstream enabler of the shadow fleet’s expansion.
Enforcement pressure pushed Greek operators out of some trades, but not out of the system
By late 2023, U.S. enforcement tightened. Reuters reported that three major Greek shipping firms stopped accepting Russian crude loadings after Washington began sanctioning vessels that appeared to violate the cap. That marked a turning point: direct Greek participation in Russian crude transport began to shrink as legal and reputational risks increased.
But this did not mean Greek influence disappeared. On the contrary, it showed that the system had matured. Once mainstream Greek operators pulled back from some routes, shadow-fleet vessels could step in using the secondhand capacity already transferred into opaque ownership chains. In other words, Greek firms helped Russia survive phase oneby carrying compliant cargoes, and helped Russia survive phase two by supplying the ships that made non-transparent trade possible.
Even after shadow-fleet growth, Greek-controlled tonnage still mattered
Russia’s shadow fleet did not fully replace mainstream shipping overnight. Lloyd’s List reported in February 2026 that EU-owned or EU-controlled tankers still accounted for 19% of Russian liftings, with the vast majority of those tankers controlled by Greek entities. CREA similarly found that in February 2026 G7+ tankers still carried 33% of Russian crude, even though sanctioned shadow vessels carried the majority.
That means Greek shipping remained central not because it dominated the whole trade, but because it sat at the hinge between the compliant and non-compliant systems. Greece mattered in both worlds: as the largest remaining pool of mainstream European crude-shipping capacity still willing to operate where legal, and as a historic source of older tankers that had already migrated into opaque shadow structures.
Why Greek companies were unusually well placed
Greek shipping companies were especially suited to this role because the industry is highly concentrated, family-controlled, and globally networked. Greek owners control one of the world’s largest crude-tanker ecosystems, with dense relationships across brokers, insurers, registries, crewing networks, and commodity traders. That gave them four advantages after 2022:
- they had ships of the right size and age profile,
- they knew the Russian crude routes and buyers,
- they could move quickly through offshore corporate structures,
- and they had enough market power to shape EU debate on shipping sanctions.
Brookings explicitly argues that lobbying from countries with large tanker fleets helped prevent early restrictions on tanker resales, while Lloyd’s List reported Greek pushback against new EU maritime-service bans.
Greek tanker companies became central to Russia’s shadow fleet not because they were uniquely pro-Russian, but because they were uniquely positioned at the intersection of fleet capacity, legal permissibility, commercial incentives, and sanctions loopholes. They helped Russia in sequence: first by carrying capped oil when that was still allowed, then by selling aging vessels into opaque ownership chains, and finally by continuing to provide part of the remaining compliant tanker capacity while the shadow fleet absorbed the rest. The main policy implication is that sanctions aimed only at cargoes or insurers are not enough. Any serious effort to weaken Russia’s maritime oil-export system has to target the vessel-supply chain itself: secondhand tanker sales, beneficial ownership opacity, flag-hopping, and the corporate intermediaries that allow mainstream tonnage to become shadow tonnage.
-
Spirituality & Religious Studies @spiritualityreligiousstudies.wordpress.com@spiritualityreligiousstudies.wordpress.com ·
Apotheosis
This is also called divinization or deification. It’s from the Latin deificato, meaning “making divine.” This is the glorification of a subject to divine levels & commonly, the treatment of a human being, any other living thing, or an abstract idea in the likeness of a deity.
The original sense of apotheosis relates to religion & is the subject of many works of art. Figuratively “apotheosis” may be used in almost any context for “the deification, glorification, or exaltation of a principle, practice, etc.” So normally attached to an abstraction of some sort.
In religion, apotheosis was a feature of many religions in the ancient world. Some that are active today. It requires a belief that there’s a possibility of newly created God’s, so a polytheistic belief system.
The Abrahamic religions of Christianity, Islam, & Judaism don’t allow this. Though many recognize minor sacred categories such as saints. They’re created by a process called canonization. In Christian theology, there’s a concept of the faithful becoming god-like, called divinization or in Eastern Christianity theosis.
In Hinduism, there’s some range for new deities. A human may be deified by becoming regarded as an avatar of an established deity, usually a major one, or by being regarded as a new, independent deity (usually a minor one), or a mix of the 2.
In art, an apotheosis scene usually shows the subject in the Heavens or rising towards them. They’re often partnered by a number of angels, putti, personifications of virtues, or similar figures.
Especially from Baroque art onwards apotheosis scenes may show rulers, generals, or artists purely as an honorific symbol. In many cases, the “religious” context is classical Greco-Roman pagan religion, like The Apotheosis of Voltaire, which features Apollo. The Apotheosis of Washington (1865) sits high in the dome of the United States of America Capitol Building is another example. Personification of places or abstractions are also shown receiving an apotheosis. The classic composition was suited for artistic placement on ceilings or inside domes.
Before the Hellenistic period, imperial cults were known in ancient Egypt (pharaohs) & Mesopotamia (from Naran-Sin through Hammurabi). In the New Kingdom of Egypt, all deceased pharaohs were deified as the god Osiris, having been identified as Horus while on the throne. They were sometimes referred to as the “son” of other various deities.
The architect Imhotep was defied after his passing away. Though the process seems to have been gradual. This took over 1,000 years, by which time he had become associated with medicine. About a dozen non-royal ancient Egyptians became regarded as deities.
Ancient Greek & Roman religions have many characters who were born as humans but became gods. Like Disney’s Hercules. They’re usually made divine by 1 of the main deities, the 12 Olympians. In the Roman story of Cupid & Psyche, Zeus gave the ambrosia of the gods to the mortal Psyche. This transformed her into a goddess herself.
In the case of the Hellenistic queen Berenice II of Egypt was deified like other rulers of the Ptolemaic dynasty. The court dispersed a myth that her hair, that was cut off to fulfill a vow, had its own apotheosis before becoming the Coma Berenices, a group of stars that still bear her name.
In the Greek world, the 1st leader who granted himself diving honors was Philip II of Macedon. At the wedding to his 6th wife, Philip’s enthroned image was carried in procession among the Olympian gods. Such Hellenistic state leaders might be raised to a status equal to the gods before death, like Alexander the Great, or afterwards, like members of the Ptolemaic dynasty.
A heroic cult status that’s similar to apotheosis was also an honor given to a few reversed artists of the distant past, such as Homer.
Up to the end of the Roman Republic, the god Quirinus was the only 1 the Romans accepted as having undergone apotheosis, for his identification/syncretism with Romulus. Syncretism is the practice of meshing together different beliefs & various schools of thought. Eventually apotheosis in Ancient Rome was a process whereby a deceased ruler was recognized as divine by their successors. This was usually done by a decree of the Senate & popular consent.
The 1st of these cases was the posthumous deification of the last Roman dictator Julius Caesar in 42 BC by his adopted son, the triumvir Caesar Octavian. In addition to showing respect, the present ruler often deified a popular predecessor to legitimize himself & gain popularity himself & gain popularity with the people.
A vote in the Roman Senate, in the later Empire confirming an imperial decree, was the normal official process. But this sometimes followed a period with the unofficial use of deific language or imagery for the individual. This was often done rather discreetly within the imperial circle.
There was then a public ceremony, called a consecratio, including the release of an eagle which flew high. This represents the ascent of the deified person’s soul to Heaven. Imagery featuring the ascent, sometimes using a chariot, was common on coins & in other art.
The largest & most famous example in art in a relief on the base of the Column of Antoninus Pius, showing the emperor & his wife, Faustina the Elder, being carried up by a much larger winged figure, described as representing “Eternity,” as the personifications of “Roma” & the Campus Martius sit below, & eagles fly above. The imperial couple are represented as Jupiter & Juno (or Zeus & Hera).
The historian Dio Cassius, who said he was present, gives a detailed description of the large, & lavish, public consecratio of Perinax, emperor for 3 months in 193, ordered by Septimius Severus.
At the height of the imperial cult during the Roman Empire, sometimes the emperor’s deceased loved ones (heirs, empresses, or lovers) like Hadrian’s Antinous were deified as well.
Deified people were posthumously given the title ‘Divus’ for men & ‘Diva’ for women to their names to signify their divinity. Traditional Roman religion distinguished between a deus (god) & divus (a mortal who became divine or deified), though not consistently. Temple & columns were erected to provide a space for worship.
The imperial cult was mainly popular in the provinces. Especially in the Eastern Empire, where many cultures were well used to deified rulers, & less popular in Rome itself, & among traditionalists & intellectuals.
Some privately, & cautiously, ridiculed the apotheosis of inept & feeble emperors, as in the satire The Pumkinification of (the Divine) Claudius. This is usually attributed to Seneca.
Numerous mortals have been deified into the Taoist pantheon. Examples are Guan Yi, Iron-crutch Li, & Fan Kuai. Song dynasty general Yue Fei was deified during the Ming dynasty. He’s considered by some practitioners to be 1 of the 3 highest-ranking heavenly generals. The Ming dynasty epic Investiture of the Gods deals heavily with deification legends.
In the complicated, & variable, conceptions of deity in Buddhism, the achievement of Buddhahood may be regarded as an achievable goal for the faithful. Many significant deities are considered to have begun as normal people, from Gautama Buddha (the original Buddha & the creator of Buddhism) downwards. Most of these are seen as avatars or re-births of earlier figures.
Some significant Hindu deities, in particular Rama, were also born as humans. He’s seen as an avatar of Vishnu. In more modern times, Swaminarayan is an undoubted & well-documented historical figure, who’s regarded by some Hindus as an avatar of Vishnu, or as being a still more elevated deity. Bharat Mata (Mother India) began as a national personification devised by a group of Bengali intellectuals in the late 19th century. But now it receives some worship.
Various Hindu & Buddhist rulers in the past have been represented as deities, especially after death, from India to Indonesia. Jayavarman VII, King of the Khmer Empire the 1st Buddhist king of Cambodia, had his own features used for the many statues of Buddha/Avalokitevara he erected.
The extreme personality cult instituted by the founder of North Korea, Kim Il-Sung, has been to represent a deification. And continues to this day with the current leader. Even the nation is admittedly atheist.
In Christian theology, instead of the word “apotheosis,” they use the words “deification” or “divinization” or the Greek word “theosis.” Pre-Reformation, & mainstream theology, in both East & West, views Jesus Christ as the preexisting God who undertook mortal existence. Not as a mortal being who attained divinity. A view known as adoptionism. Adoptionism is an early Christian non-Trinitarian doctrine that holds that Jesus was born a mere human being. But Jesus was later adopted by God as His son, usually at Jesus’ baptism or resurrection, rather than being divine from eternity.
It holds that he has made it possible for human beings to be raised to the level of sharing the divine nature as II Peter 1:4 states that he became human to make humans “partakers of the divine nature.”
In John 10:34, Jesus referenced Psalm 82:6 when he stated: “Is it not written in your Law, I have said you are gods?” Other authors stated: “For this is why the Word became man, & the Son of God became the Son of man: so that Man, by entering into communion with the Word & thus receiving divine sonship, might be made God.” Accusations of self deification to some degree may have been placed on heretical such as the Waldensians.
The language of II Peter is taken up by St. Irenaeus, in his famous phrase, “if the Word has been made man, it is so that men may be made gods.” It becomes the standard in Greek theology. In the 14th century, St. Athanasius repeats Irenaeus almost word for word. In the 5th century, St. Cyril of Alexandria says that we shall become sons “by participation” (Greek methexis). Methexis is “group sharing,” where the audience actively participates in the performance.
Deification is the central idea in the spirituality of St. Maximus the Confessor. For whom the doctrine is the result of the Incarnation: “Deification, briefly, is the encompassion & fulfillment of all times and ages.”
The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t use the term “apotheosis” in its theology. This is equivalent to the Greek word theosis are Latin-derived words “divinization” & deification” used in the Latin tradition of the Catholic Church.
The concept has been given less prominence in Western theology than in that of the Eastern Catholic Churches. But is present in the Latin Church’s liturgical prayer.
Despite the theological differences, in the Catholic church art depictions of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in art & the Ascension of Jesus in Christian art do share many similarities in composition to apotheosis subjects. As there are many images of saints being raised into Heaven.
Anthropolatry is the deification & worship of humans. It was practiced in ancient Japan towards their emperors. Followers of Socinianism were later accused of practicing anthropolatry.
Make a one-time donation
Your contribution is appreciated.
Donate
Make a monthly donation
Your contribution is appreciated.
Donate monthly
Make a yearly donation
Your contribution is appreciated.
Donate yearly
Rate this:
#1865 #193 #42BC #4thCentury #5thCentury #AbrahamicReligions #Adoptionism #AlexanderTheGreat #Ambrosia #AncientRome #Angels #Anthropolatry #Antinous #Apollo #Apotheosis #AscensionOfJesus #AssumptionOfTheVirginMary #Atheist #Avalokiteshvara #Avatar #Avatars #BaroqueArt #bengali #BereniceIIOfEgypt #BharatMata #Buddha #BuddhaGautama #Buddhahood #Buddhism #CaesarOctavian #Cambodia #CampusMartius #canonization #CatholicChurch #Christianity #ColumnOfAntoninusPius #ComaBerenices #Consecratio #Cupid #Deification #Deity #Deus #DioCassius #Disney #DIva #Divinization #Divus #EasternCatholicChurch #EasternChristianity #EasternEmpire #Egypt #Egyptians #Emperors #FanKuai #FaustinaTheElder #GrecoRoman #Greek #GuanYi #Hadrian #Hammurabi #Heaven #Hellenistic #Hera #Hercules #Hindu #Hinduism #Homer #Horus #IIPeter14 #Imhotep #ImperialCults #India #Indonesia #InvestitureOfTheGods #IronCrutchLi #Islam #Japan #JayavarmanVII #Jesus #John1034 #Judaism #JuliusCaesar #Juno #Jupiter #KhmerEmpire #KimIlSung #Krishna #Late19thCentury #Latin #LatinChurch #Mesopotamia #Methexis #MingDynasty #NaramSin #NewKingdom #NorthKorea #Olympians #Osiris #pagan #Pertinax #Pharaohs #PhilipIIOfMacedon #polytheistic #Psalm826 #Psyche #PtolemaicDynasty #Putti #Rama #Reformation #Roman #RomanCatholicChurch #RomanRepublic #RomanSenate #Romans #Romulus #Saints #Senate #Seneca #SeptimiusSeverus #Socinianism #StAthanasius #StCyrilOfAlexandria #StIrenaeus #StMaximusTheConfessor #Swaminarayan #Syncretism #Taoist #TaoistPantheon #Temple #ThePumpkinificationOfTheDivineClaudius #Theosis #Triumvir #USCapitolBuilding #Vishnu #Waldensians #YueFei #Zeus
-
29D) Vsevolod III “Big Nest” Part 4 (1194-1200)
Vsevolod “Big Nest” / Всеволод Большое Гнездо
To see a list of the characters and their inter-relations, please click here 1
Last time, we left Vsevolod firmly in charge in Vladimir but with a new (not that new) Grand Prince down south: Rurik Rostislavich, in for the third and by far the longest of his seven periods ruling Kiev. Despite a degree of distrust between them, Rurik and Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich had avoided armed conflict for Svyatoslav’s second reign in Kiev, allowing Rurik and his relatives to control much of the hinterland of Kiev while Svyatoslav kept the title of Grand Prince and the income from trade and customs duties. According to the chronicles, Svyatoslav tried to ensure a smooth hand-over by summoning Rurik to his deathbed and charging him to take care of his widow, children (although they were all adults) and Kiev itself.
Rurik becomes Grand Prince of Kiev, again.
Rurik returned to Kiev in July 1194 to the delight of the nobles and burgesses, particularly those who had traditionally favoured the descendants of Vsevolod Yaroslavich over those of his brother Svyatoslav. Metropolitan Nikifor greeted Rurik at the city gates and led the procession to St Sophia’s cathedral, where Rurik was enthroned. Unfortunately, not everyone was so happy. Yaroslav Vsevolodovich in Chernigov had hoped to inherit Kiev from his brother, while Vsevolod Big Nest was also a little unsettled by Rurik’s return to the old capital. While Rurik and Svyatoslav divided the area around Kiev between them, neither of them could afford to take action that would disturb the peace, but with all the territory under Rurik’s domination, he might be able to act more independently and, potentially, in a manner that might inconvenience Vsevolod himself.
At this time Vsevolod took some practical action to defend his positions, both in his homeland and near Kiev. In 1194, after having rebuilt both Vladimir and Suzdal’, he ordered the reconstruction of the fortifications of Pereyaslavl’-Zalessky. He also sent his servant south to Gorodets to organise the rebuilding of the fortress which had been founded by his grandfather Vladimir Monomakh a century before and which had belonged to his father. In parallel to the rising political temperature in the rest of the country, the north-west was hit with a drought which led to a rash of fires in Ladoga, Russa and Gorodische, but Novgorod was worst hit, with so many fires starting that many inhabitants thought it safer to live out in the fields rather than risk burning to death in their houses. The next year saw the Archbishop of Novgorod Martiriy take the lead in reconstruction work after the fires, laying the foundations of two churches, one above the city gate, which one must presume required repair after the fires of 1194.
Building work in Novgorod
In 1195, Rurik invited his brother David from Smolensk, his son Rostislav and his son-in-law Roman Mstislavich of Galich to share out the territories that had recently fallen into his hands. The princes held a series of feasts in Vyshgorod, Belgorod and Kiev itself where they fed and watered each other, the nobles and churchmen of the various cities as well as arranging feasts for the common people. Along with the wining and dining, in order to boost his position against his neighbour and rival Yaroslav of Chernigov, Rurik appointed his son-in-law Roman Mstislavich of Vladimir-Volynsky to take over a string of cities to the south-east of Kiev: Korsun’, Boguslav and Torchesk along the river Ros’ as well as Kanev and Trepol’ along the Dnieper. However, when Vsevolod heard of this, he sent a messenger to Rurik demanding control over that territory for himself. After all, Rurik had recognised Vsevolod as his senior and Vsevolod already had a number of sons who would require places to rule.
The noblemen in Kiev advised Rurik that although it was far from ideal, he could give Vsevolod other territories near Kiev. Unfortunately, Vsevolod was insistent on getting the lands that had gone to Roman Mstislavich. Although these fortresses would give their holder a strong military presence near Kiev, another reason might have been more personal: there had been a long-standing rivalry between Vsevolod and Roman’s families going back to Vsevolod’s father Yury’s struggles against Roman’s father and grandfather. Roman had also recently been a threat to his neighbour (and Vsevolod’s nephew) Vladimir Yaroslavich in Galich. In the end, Rurik accepted that Vsevolod was a more valuable ally than Roman and agreed to deprive Roman and hand the cities to Vsevolod. As with the case of Pereyaslavl’, which Vsevolod inherited in 1187 then immediately gave to his nephew Yaroslav Mstislavich, Vsevolod chose to stay in Vladimir and hand these southern territories to someone he felt he could rely on, but also someone to whom Rurik could not object: Vsevolod’s son-in-law and Rurik’s oldest son Rostislav.
Dear Roman, Do you remember those territories I said you could have? I’m afraid there’s been a change of plan. Hope that’s OK. All the best, Rurik.
Although Rurik could hardly complain at the honour shown to his first-born, Roman Mstislavich was far from happy at seeing himself stripped of some very strategic fortresses close to Kiev. Up until this point, Roman had been married to Rurik’s daughter Predslava. Roman was furious with his father-in-law for bowing to Vsevolod’s pressure and suspected him of acting in concert with Vsevolod to humiliate him. He divorced Predslava and sent her back to Kiev. Roman started openly supporting Yaroslav Vsevolodovich’s claim to Kiev, but also sought allies in Poland, backing the sons of Casimir against their uncle Mieszko who was plotting to take Krakow from them, a goal which had come into closer reach after Casimir died in May.
If Roman had hoped for Polish support in his rivalry with Vsevolod, he was to be disappointed. In 1195, the conflict in Poland erupted into open war between young Leszek the White, now High Duke of Poland and his uncle Mieszko the Old. Leszek had inherited Krakow but both Mieszko and his son Boleslaw were not happy to see a ten year old child occupy a throne they thought should be theirs. Luckily for Leszek and his brother Konrad, the boys had the support of the nobility of Krakow and the church. They called on Roman’s help and he and his army went into Poland on the understanding that the favour would soon be returned. Mieszko tried to arrange a deal with Roman, sending heralds to talk peace, but despite the advice of his own followers, Roman was insistent on fighting. Things came a head at the battle of the river Mozgawa on 13th September 1195. The battle proved costly to both sides: Mieszko lost his son Boleslaw and was injured himself, but Roman too was badly wounded, returning to Vladimir-Volynsky with a severely battered army and in need of rest and recuperation. Given his weakened position, both personally and militarily, Roman sought to mend fences with Rurik and accepted the transfer of the fortress Polonny from Kiev to his own territory, as well as getting some landed estates near Korsun’.
“and his (Roman’s) warband took him from there and carried him to Vladimir(-Volynsky)”
In late 1195, an attempt was made to bring a little unity to the political sphere through a dynastic marriage. The Prince of Pskov, Mstislav Romanovich, Rurik’s uncle and Yaroslav Vsevolodovich’s nephew, sent his ten-year-old daughter Maria to Vladimir marry Vsevolod Big Nest’s son nine-year-old son Konstantin on 15th October. Despite the links to Yaroslav’s kin, this was more to cement the alliance between the houses of Smolensk and Vladimir – (Yaroslav was not invited, although the Princes of Ryazan’ and Murom were) and shortly after, Vsevolod called upon Yaroslav Vladimirovich to get the armies of Novgorod to prepare for a fight against Chernigov.
Vsevolod Big Nest, David of Smolensk, the princes of Ryazan’ and Rurik of Kiev sent a joint message to Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and his relatives that they should respect the settlement at Lyubech in 1097 by which their forefather’s descendants were essentially ruled out of the succession for Kiev, as Svyatoslav Yaroslavich had not ruled Kiev legitimately himself. Given that a number of princes from that branch of the family (Vsevolod II, Igor’ II Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich – Yaroslav’s father, uncle and brother) had already ruled Kiev since then, Yaroslav was not willing to accept that. He replied to Vsevolod saying that he and his kinsmen were willing to look after Kiev for Vsevolod or Rurik, but that if the descendants of Vladimir Monomakh wanted to deny Kiev to the descendants of Svyatoslav Yaroslavich forever, it should remembered that his family were not Hungarians or Poles, but descendants of a common forefather. Vsevolod and Rurik could rule as long as they lived, but afterwards, may Kiev go to the most worthy, according to the will of God.
A round of diplomacy as the appetiser for a main course of violence.
Vsevolod and Rurik took steps to back up their words with action; aside from the army of Novgorod which had gathered at Novy Torg and their own men, Rurik had recruited a force of Polovtsy, who were waiting in the steppes to fall on Chernigov, Novgorod-Seversky and Kursk. However, although Vsevolod had agreed to meet with Rurik’s army outside Chernigov at the end of 1195, Vsevolod had been negotiating with Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, who had, in the face of the threat of war, suddenly become far more pliable. Yaroslav’s promises of peace were believed and and Vsevolod sent his own warband and the men of Novgorod home. Rurik withdrew and paid off his Polovtsian allies and agreed a deal with Yaroslav Vsevolodovich in early 1196. As part of this, he agreed to lobby his brother David of Smolensk to arrange the transfer of Vitebsk from David’s son-in-law Vasil’ko Bryachislavich to Yaroslav’s control.
Yaroslav was keen to take control of Vitebsk straight away and sent his nephew Oleg Svyatoslavich, descendant of a previous prince of Vitebsk through his mother, with an army through the territory of Smolensk in the early spring of 1196 to stake his claim. Rurik had withdrawn to Ovruch for the winter and was unable to prevent Oleg Svyatoslavich from entering Smolensk’s terrorities and pillaging them. David raised an army and called upon help from Mstislav Romanovich of Pskov, Gleb Vladimirovich of Ryazan’ and Rostislav Vladimirovich, brother of the Prince of Novgorod. Unfortunately, David found himself fighting a war on two fronts as Vladimir, Prince of Polotsk and Boris of Drutsk turned against him and joined forces with Oleg Svyatoslavich.
Oleg’s men had been careful to maintain good order, even after a heavy snowfall. When David’s men discovered their army on 12th March 1196, Mstislav Romanovich led a sudden cavalry charge in an attempt to throw his enemy into disarray. The attack took a heavy toll on Oleg’s forces, with his standards being abandoned and his eldest son David Olegovich losing his life. However, when David Rostislavich’s commander sent his infantry to deal with the men from Polotsk, the men from Smolensk lost their nerve and fled. The Polotskian contingent had better discipline and, instead of chasing after the fleeing infantry, they rode to the aid of Oleg, hitting Mstislav’s regiment in the rear. At the time, Mstislav was out in front, chasing Oleg’s men and did not realise what was happening behind him. By the time Mstislav returned to whom he thought were his infantry, the survivors had already fled the field, and Mstislav was captured by the men of Polotsk. When Rostislav Vladimirovich, Gleb Vladimirovich and David’s commanders returned from the chase, they realised what had happened and rapidly withdrew to Smolensk to avoid the trap that Mstislav Romanovich had fallen into. When Oleg Svyatoslavich realised they had captured Rurik Rostislavich’s nephew Mstislav, he was delighted and wrote back to his uncle with the good news.
Dear Vsevolod, I’m afraid Yaroslav attacked Smolensk and captured my nephew Mstislav. Can you please help. All the best, Rurik.
Yaroslav Vsevolodovich thought things were turning his way on multiple fronts. After Vsevolod had sent the men Yaroslav Vladimirovich had gathered home to Novgorod at the end of 1195, political forces opposed to Yaroslav’s rule tried to get him removed. They sent the Posadnik Miroshka and other dignitories to Vladimir to request that Vsevolod send one of his sons (although his eldest, Konstantin, was only ten at the time). Vsevolod insisted his guests stay indefinitely and refused to send a replacement for Yaroslav. However, once Oleg Svyatoslavich had defeated David of Smolensk and his allies, the opposition in Novgorod used the fact that Vsevolod was still holding their Posadnik hostage to drive out Yaroslav Vladimirovich in the autumn of 1196 and to request a new prince from Yaroslav Vsevolodovich in Chernigov. Yaroslav sent his second son Yaropolk, who, because of the conflict with Smolensk, took an indirect route and only arrived in March 1197.
Unfortunately for Yaropolk Yaroslavich, the previous incumbent had not left the territory of Novgorod and had taken up residence in Novy Torg. Yaroslav clearly still had support among the wider political class in Novgorod’s territories and started collecting tribute from most of its lands, from the Urals almost up to the city itself. After six months of this, Yaroslav’s opponents lost the argument in the city, Yaropolk was sent packing and the elites of Novgorod asked Vsevolod to send Yaroslav to them again. Yaroslav had been summoned from Novy Torg to Vladimir for consultations with Vsevolod and the chief men of Novgorod met him there, promising to be loyal if only he would return to rule them. Both Vsevolod and Yaroslav were delighted with how things turned out and Vsevolod sent Yaroslav on his way, accompanied by Posadnik Miroshko and the remaining involuntary guests. According to the Novgorod Chronicle, Yaroslav and the notables arrived just after Epiphany in what we would consider 1198 and “all in Novgorod, from small to great, were glad.”
Yaroslav returns to Novgorod and everyone is happy.
Moving back to 1196, after the defeat of David and his allies in March, Rurik raised an army to attack Chernigov and release his nephew Mstislav. His plan was spoiled by Roman Mstislavich of Vladimir-Volynsky, who was still openly supporting Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and who could have attacked Kiev from the south-west while Rurik was out east invading Chernigov. Instead of moving against Yaroslav, Rurik decided to first deal with Roman Mstislavich and prepared to move on Vladimir-Volynsky. Before he could do so, however, Vsevolod Big Nest and David Rostislavich of Smolensk, along with the princes of Ryazan’ and Murom started their own offensive against Chernigov, Kursk and Novgorod-Seversky.
Yaroslav sent his nephews Oleg and Gleb Svyatoslavich to guard the western approaches against Rurik, while withdrawing into the forest zone to the south east. This area – the frontier zone against the steppes – was defended by long rows of fallen trees, built up into an almost impassable barrier for cavalry to slow up the Polovtsy, but would also serve as a good place to avoid Vsevolod and his allies. Although there had been an agreement not to come to a deal with Yaroslav without Rurik, there was some kind of back-channel between Vsevolod on one side and Yaroslav on the other, even while Vsevolod’s allies ravaged the northern areas of Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversky. Yaroslav essentially surrendered by September, agreeing to release Mstislav Romanovich without a ransom being paid and promising not to attempt any more assaults on Kiev or Smolensk while under the current management.
Vsevolod puts his point across to Yaroslav Vsevolodovich through the medium of arson.
In the south-west, Roman Mstislavich of Vladimir-Volynsky, having recovered from his injuries at the hands of Mieszko the Old, was about to call more misfortune upon his head by attacking territories in the principality of Kiev. When Rurik heard of Vsevolod and David’s invasion of Chernigov, his hands were untied and he sent Mstislav Mstislavich to Galich where he joined forces with Vladimir Yaroslavich in an attack on Roman’s fortress at Peremil’ while at the same time, Rostislav Rurikovich and the Black Hats attacked Kamenets. These raids did not seriously affect Roman’s control over his principality, but with Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and Igor’ Svyatoslavich making peace with Roman’s enemies, there seemed little point in continuing the fight. Roman did however finalise his divorce with Predslava, Rurik’s daughter.
An uneasy peace settled over Russia and Vsevolod returned to Vladimir on October 6th to celebrate. He had done quite well, avoiding damage to his own principality, seeing off a threat from Yaroslav while leaving him in power in Chernigov to balance the power of the descendants of Rostislav Mstislavich in Smolensk and Kiev. Yaroslav’s position had been weakened, not only by Vsevolod’s attack, but also by the death of Vsevolod “Wild Bull” Svyatoslavich, Prince of Kursk, at some point in 1196 – he was either too ill or already too dead to take part in any of the military action that year. Vsevolod was known as a courageous warrior and his death at the age of forty-three may have been somewhat unexpected.
Vsevolod and Yaroslav make peace.
Things went even better for Vsevolod Big Nest in 1197. David Rostislavich was a little disappointed at the outcome of the war of 1196 and had been preparing another campaign against Yaroslav, when he fell ill. At the age of fifty-seven, he realised this was probably the end, moved from Smolensk to the monastery where St. Gleb was killed and took monastic vows, leaving his principality to his nephew Mstislav Romanovich. David passed away on 23rd April, leaving a reputation as a pious ruler but a strict enforcer of the law upon rebels. The new prince Mstislav had family ties to both Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, being his cousin and to Vsevolod “Big Nest” as his daughter Maria had married Vsevolod’s son Konstantin in 1195 and was an ally of the Grand Prince of Vladimir. Aside from Yaropolk Yaroslavich’s short period in charge of Novgorod, followed by Yaroslav Vladimirovich’s triumphant return six months later and the birth of Vsevolod’s youngest son, Ivan, 1197 was otherwise a fairly quiet year.
1198 saw the passing of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich of Chernigov, which, like that of his brother Svyatoslav and, more recently, of David of Smolensk, was preceeded by his taking monastic vows. Chernigov was inherited by his cousin Igor’ Svyatoslavich, although who succeeded Igor’ as prince of Novgorod-Seversky is not clear – it could have been his son Vladimir, who died shortly after, or possibly Oleg Svyatoslavich, Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich’s son. Records in Novgorod-Seversky did not survive well, so there is considerable debate as to the later succession to Novgorod-Seversky for several decades.
Yaroslav Vsevolodovich passes away.
With Yaroslav Vsevolodovich ailing or having passed away, Vsevolod “Big Nest” took the opportunity to introduce his son thirteen year old son Konstantin to the art of military campaigning when they set out in spring to clear out the winter camping areas of the Polovtsy along the Don. However, the Polovtsy had seen the size of Vsevolod’s army and made themselves scarce, fleeing to the seaside. The two princes returned to Vladimir on 6th June having set light to the nomads’ campsites without any actual fighting. They were just in time to witness another fire, as, once again, a major conflagration hit Vladimir on 25th June, destroying a large section of the city.
Tragedy hit Yaroslav Vladimirovich in Novgorod at this time. Although Novgorod was seeing a rash of new churches and monasteries being built, suggesting prosperity for the trading elites, this did not stave off the risk of illness. Yaroslav’s elder, seven-year-old son Izyaslav had been placed in nominal charge of Luki on the southern frontiers once Yaroslav had returned to power in 1197, to help guard Novgorod from the threat of Chernigov-aligned Polotsk. On 20th June 1198, Izyaslav’s younger brother Rostislav died in Novgorod, followed two weeks later by Izyaslav himself. Both boys were buried in the Yuriev Monastery to the south of Novgorod. A few months later, Luki was raided by the army of Polotsk in alliance with the Lithuanians, but the townspeople had been warned and were able to escape, although the city was burned. Yaroslav gathered an army from across Novgorod’s huge territory and launched a counter-attack, but when the two sides met, the men of Polotsk, seemingly without their erstwhile allies, chose to make peace and they separated without bloodshed.
Yaroslav Vladimirovich buries his sons.
Despite having regained power in Novgorod due to the support of Vsevolod Big Nest, Yaroslav was not exactly popular. He had recently disappointed his army a second time by calling off a campaign. His men were no doubt hoping to get rich by relieving their defeated enemies of their war gear and other valuables and, at this point, Yaroslav seems to have exhausted the goodwill of his subjects. Archbishop Martiriy and various notables of Novgorod travelled to Vladimir in the summer of 1199 to ask Vsevolod to send one of his sons to reign over them. Sadly, Archbishop Martiriy passed away on the journey but the others made it to Vladimir to make the request: “Lord Grand Prince! Our province is your ancestral property: we pray that you grant us a grandson of Dolgoruky, a great-grandson of Monomakh!” Vsevolod consulted his warband before making what must have been a tricky decision. Vsevolod’s sons were all fairly young at that point, but the choice of Svyatoslav must have seemed a bit odd, both to the elites of Novgorod and to the three-year-old himself. However, the logic seems solid. His appointment underlined both the prestige of Vladimir and of Vsevolod as its ruler, while also allowing the elites of Novgorod to run their city as they wished without an adult like Yaroslav hanging around who might make decisions that annoyed them.
Like Vladimir, Novgorod continued to see its trading wealth expressed in a number of building projects, both of churches and defences – Rusa to the south of Novgorod had its defences built up, not a moment too soon as early 1200 saw an attack by the Lithuanians up the river Lovot’ towards Rusa and Novgorod. The defenders beat the invaders off, freeing the prisoners and regaining the looted valuables, but most of the Lithuanians were able to escape. Later that year the men of Novgorod struck back with a raid against Latgale, where they killed their opponents and took their wives and children back to Luki as prisoners.
Beating off the Lithuanian attack
Around the same time, late 1199 or early 1200, trouble in the south-west also flared up. Vladimir Yaroslavich died in Galich, without an obvious heir near at hand. His neighbour and rival for the principality, Roman Mstislavich, saw his chance. With the help of the young Polish princes he had aided back in 1195, he besieged a leaderless Galich and forced the inhabitants to accept him as ruler. At least some of the nobles had been trying to get one of Igor’ Svyatoslavich of Chernigov’s sons to come and rule, as they were nephews of Vladimir through their mother. Others had visited the Polish camp, begging Duke Leszek the White to take over Galich himself, rather than allow Roman to rule but these attempts to avoid Roman’s dominance over their region ended badly for the nobles.
To remove any open opposition to his rule, he publicly executed a number of the old elite in a particularly cruel manner. including burying them alive, quartering them and even inventing his own methods of torture, scaring many other noblemen to seek safety elsewhere. This gave Roman the opportunity to confiscate their property and distribute it to his own supporters. Having already split up with his first wife, Roman married again. The chronicles did not mention his wife’s name, but many historians believe she could have been Euphrosyne, daughter of the, at the time imprisoned, Roman Emperor Isaac II Angelos.
Isaac II Angelos, Emperor and Autocrator of the Romans. Unknown Byzantine scribes, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Late 1199 also saw the death of Yaroslav Mstislavich, nephew of Vsevolod “Big Nest” and Prince of Pereyaslavl’ after twelve years in charge. Yaroslav had no surviving children and no brothers, so once again Vsevolod got to choose the next ruler. This time, he chose his eldest son, only nine or ten at the time, like his predecessor in the post, also called Yaroslav. The choice, like that of Svyatoslav for Novgorod, seems strange, especially bearing in mind that Vsevolod’s oldest son Konstantin would have been fourteen at the time, so just about ready to rule as an adult, and who did not have his own territory yet. However, Konstantin wanted to concentrate on his studies in Vladimir and the next son, Yury, was not well, so the burden fell on Yaroslav. Yaroslav was accompanied to Pereyaslavl’ by his father, his brothers Konstantin and Yury arriving in August 1200 for Yaroslav to take up his post. After the enthroment, Vsevolod headed back north, leaving Yaroslav behind with a large military force under the command of two of his most experienced commanders.
In Galich, Roman Mstislavich’s cruelty had brought him control of a large rich territory as well as a notoriety among other Russian princes. By divorcing Rurik’s daughter, he had attracted the particular ire of the Grand Prince of Kiev. Rurik had been arranging a campaign to put Roman back in his place with Igor’ Svyatoslavich of Chernigov, who was brother-in-law of the previous prince of Galich – Vladimir Yaroslavich. However, Roman got wind of the plan and struck first. In the autumn of 1200 he mobilised his forces, arriving near Kiev when Igor’ Svyatoslavich was still on the far side of the Dnieper. The Black Hats and Torks serving Rurik saw which way the wind was blowing, swapped sides and Rurik was betrayed again by supporters of Roman who opened the gates of Kiev and many other fortresses in the area. Rurik and his allies were isolated in the inner fortress of Kiev and agreed to abandon the city. Rurik accepted Roman’s peace terms and withdrew to his previous seat at Ovruch.
Ingvar’, would you like to rule Kiev for me, please?
However, Roman Mstislavich, like Andrey Bogolyubsky in his day, was not interested in ruling Kiev himself. The northern chronicles state that his cousin, Ingvar’2 Yaroslavich of Lutsk was set in place by both Roman and Vsevolod Big Nest, while southern sources do not mention Vsevolod at all. It is possible that Vsevolod was not asked, but did not particularly object to Ingvar’s rule, as it would keep the city out of the direct control of Roman and prevent any potential rival to Vsevolod from gaining too much power. Whether or not Vsevolod gave his blessing, that winter, Roman felt secure enough in his extended area of influence to make a move against the Polovtsy on behalf of his new wife’s uncle, the Roman Emperor Alexios III Angelos. The Polovtsy had been helping the Bulgars raid the area around Constantinople and as they frequently did, the Romans engaged a more distant power, in this case – Galich, to strike a closer opponent from the rear. Roman’s campaign was hugely successful, devastating the Polovtsian camps and liberating very many enslaved Russian prisoners, while also breaking the will of the enemies of the Roman Empire.
We shall see how Vsevolod deals with this rival in the next episode.
- Descendants of Yury Dolgoruky, Vladimir Monomakh and Vsevolod I:
Vsevolod “Big Nest” Yuryevich, Grand Prince of Kiev (1173), Grand Prince of Vladimir (1176-1212), son of Yury Dolgoruky, husband of Maria Shvarnovna, brother of Andrey Bogolyubsky, cousin of Izyaslav II and Rostislav Mstislavich, brother-in-law of Mstislav Svyatoslavich.
Maria Shvarnovna, wife of Vsevolod “Big Nest”, mother of all of his many children, sister of Marfa Shvarnovna.
Verkhuslava Vsevolodovna, daughter of Vsevolod “Big Nest”, wife of Rostislav Rurikovich.
Konstantin Vsevolodovich, eldest son of Vsevolod “Big Nest”.
Gleb Vsevolodovich, short-lived third son of Vsevolod “Big Nest”.
Yury Vsevolodovich, fourth son of Vsevolod “Big Nest”.
Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, Prince of Pereyaslavl’ (1200-06)…fifth son of Vsevolod “Big Nest”, father of Alexander Nevsky and ancestor of the subsequent rulers of Russia until 1598.
Vladimir Vsevolodovich, sixth son of Vsevolod “Big Nest”
Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, Prince of Novgorod (1200-05)…, seventh son of Vsevolod “Big Nest”
Ivan Vsevolodovich, eighth son of Vsevolod “Big Nest”.
Yaroslav Mstislavich, Prince of Novgorod (1176), Prince of Pereyaslavl’ Zalessky (1178-87), Prince of Pereyaslavl’ (1187-99), nephew of Vsevolod “Big Nest”, grandson of Yury Dolgoruky.
Descendants of Mstislav I, Vladimir Monomakh and Vsevolod I
Mstislav Vladimirovich, Prince of Dorogobuzh (1171-73), Prince of Trepol’ (1173-83), Prince of Kanev (1194-1203), son of Vladimir Mstislavich, brother of Yaroslav and Rostislav Vladimirovich.
Yaroslav Vladimirovich, Prince of Novgorod (1182-84, 1187-96)… son of Vladimir Mstislavich, brother of Mstislav and Rostislav Vladimirovich.
Izyaslav Yaroslavich, Prince of Luki (1197-8), son of Yaroslav Vladimirovich, brother of Rostislav.
Rostislav Yaroslavich, son of Yaroslav Vladimirovich, brother of Izyaslav.
Rostislav Vladimirovich, son of Vladimir Mstislavich, brother of Mstislav and Yaroslav Vladimirovich.
Roman Mstislavich, Prince of Novgorod (1168-70), Prince of Vladimir-Volynsky (1170-88, 1188-1205), Prince of Galich (1188, 1199-1205)…, son of Mstislav Izyaslavich, brother of Vsevolod Mstislavich.
Vsevolod Mstislavich, Prince of Belz (1170-88, 1188-95), Prince of Vladimir-Volynsky (1188).
Ingvar’ Yaroslavich, Prince of Luchesk (1180-1220), Grand Prince of Kiev (1200-02)…, son of Yaroslav Izyaslavich, grandson of Izyaslav Mstislavich.
Descendants of Rostislav Mstislavich, Mstislav I etc.
Rurik Rostislavich, Prince of Vruchy (1168-73, 1173-1208), Prince of Novgorod (1170-71), Grand Prince of Kiev (1173, 1180-81, 1194-1201..) third son of Rostislav Mstislavich, cousin of Andrey Bogolyubsky.
Rostislav Rurikovich, Prince of Torchesk (before 1190-1205)…, son of Rurik Rostislavich, brother of Predslava.
Predslava Rurikovna, daughter of Rurik Rostislavich, sister of Rostislav, wife of Roman Mstislavich of Vladimir-Volynsky and Galich.
David Rostislavich, viceroy of Novy Torg (1157-60), Prince of Vitebsk (1165-6), Prince of Vyshgorod (1167-80), Prince of Smolensk (1180-97), fourth son of Rostislav Mstislavich, cousin of Andrey Bogolyubsky
Vladimir Davidovich, Prince of Vyshgorod (1187-119?), Prince of Vyshgorod, son of David Rostislavich.
Mstislav Romanovich, Prince of Pskov (1179-?), son of Roman Rostislavich, nephew of Rurik and David Rostislavich.
Mstislav Mstislavich “the Successful”, Prince of Trepol’ (1193-1203)…, son of Mstislav Rostislavich, grandson of Rostislav Mstislavich, nephew of David, Roman and Rurik Rostislavich.
Descendants of Vsevolod II and Svyatoslav II,
Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, Prince of Novgorod (1140), Prince of Turov (1142, 1154-55), Prince of Vladimir-Volynsky (1142-46), Prince of Novgorod-Seversky (1157-64) Prince of Chernigov (1164-80), Grand Prince of Kiev (1174, 1176-80, 1181-94), son of Vsevolod II, nephew of Igor’ II, father of Vladimir, Oleg, Vsevolod, Gleb and Mstislav, cousin of Izyaslav Mstislavich, great-grandson of Svyatoslav II.
Oleg Svyatoslavich, son of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, brother of Vladimir, Gleb, Vsevolod and Mstislav, father of David Olegovich.
David Olegovich, son of Oleg Svyatoslavich.
Gleb Svyatoslavich, Prince of Kolomna (1179), Prince of Kanev (1182-90)… son of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, brother of Vladimir, Oleg, Vsevolod and Mstislav, grandson of Vsevolod II
Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, Prince of Starodub (1164-1180), Prince of Chernigov (1180-99), son of Vsevolod II, brother of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich.
Yaropolk Yaroslavich, Prince of Novgorod (1197), son of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich.
Igor’ Svyatoslavich, Prince of Novgorod-Seversky (1180-98), Prince of Chernigov (1198-1201), son of Svyatoslav Ol’govich, nephew of Vsevolod II and Igor’ II, cousin of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, brother of Oleg and Vsevolod “Wild Bull”, great-grandson of Svyatoslav II
Vladimir Igorevich, Prince of Putivl’ (1185-96), maybe Prince of Novgorod-Seversky (1198-121?), son of Igor’ Svyatoslavich.
Vsevolod “Wild Bull” Svyatoslavich, Prince of Trubetsk and Kursk (1180-96), son of Svyatoslav Ol’govich, nephew of Vsevolod II and Igor’ II, cousin of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, brother of Oleg and Igor’, great-grandson of Svyatoslav II
Gleb Vladimirovich, Prince of a section of Ryazan’ principality (?-1212), great-great-great-grandson of Svyatoslav II.
Descendants of Vseslav the Sorceror
Vladimir Volodarevich?, Prince of Polotsk (118?-1216), possibly son of Volodar’ Glebovich, great-grandson of Vseslav the Sorceror.
Boris Rogvolodovich, Prince of Drutsk (118?-later than 1196), great-grandson of Vseslav the Sorceror.
Vasil’ko Bryachislavich, Prince of Vitebsk (1186-later than 1209), great-great-grandson of Vseslav the Sorcer
Descendants of Yaroslav the Wise
Yaroslav “Eight-Minds” Vladimirovich, Prince of Galich (1153-87), son of Vladimir Volodarevich, great-great-great-grandson of Yaroslav the Wise, father of Vladimir and Oleg, brother-in-law of Vsevolod “Big Nest”, father-in-law of Igor’ Svyatoslavich.
Vladimir Yaroslavich, Prince of Galich (1187-88, 1189-99), son of Yaroslav “Eight Minds”, half-brother of Oleg. ↩︎ - Ingvar’ was the original Norse version of the name Russified as Igor’. It is interesting to see a return to Norse names like Rurik. ↩︎
- Descendants of Yury Dolgoruky, Vladimir Monomakh and Vsevolod I:
-
29D) Vsevolod III “Big Nest” Part 4 (1194-1200)
Vsevolod “Big Nest” / Всеволод Большое Гнездо
To see a list of the characters and their inter-relations, please click here 1
Last time, we left Vsevolod firmly in charge in Vladimir but with a new (not that new) Grand Prince down south: Rurik Rostislavich, in for the third and by far the longest of his seven periods ruling Kiev. Despite a degree of distrust between them, Rurik and Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich had avoided armed conflict for Svyatoslav’s second reign in Kiev, allowing Rurik and his relatives to control much of the hinterland of Kiev while Svyatoslav kept the title of Grand Prince and the income from trade and customs duties. According to the chronicles, Svyatoslav tried to ensure a smooth hand-over by summoning Rurik to his deathbed and charging him to take care of his widow, children (although they were all adults) and Kiev itself.
Rurik becomes Grand Prince of Kiev, again.
Rurik returned to Kiev in July 1194 to the delight of the nobles and burgesses, particularly those who had traditionally favoured the descendants of Vsevolod Yaroslavich over those of his brother Svyatoslav. Metropolitan Nikifor greeted Rurik at the city gates and led the procession to St Sophia’s cathedral, where Rurik was enthroned. Unfortunately, not everyone was so happy. Yaroslav Vsevolodovich in Chernigov had hoped to inherit Kiev from his brother, while Vsevolod Big Nest was also a little unsettled by Rurik’s return to the old capital. While Rurik and Svyatoslav divided the area around Kiev between them, neither of them could afford to take action that would disturb the peace, but with all the territory under Rurik’s domination, he might be able to act more independently and, potentially, in a manner that might inconvenience Vsevolod himself.
At this time Vsevolod took some practical action to defend his positions, both in his homeland and near Kiev. In 1194, after having rebuilt both Vladimir and Suzdal’, he ordered the reconstruction of the fortifications of Pereyaslavl’-Zalessky. He also sent his servant south to Gorodets to organise the rebuilding of the fortress which had been founded by his grandfather Vladimir Monomakh a century before and which had belonged to his father. In parallel to the rising political temperature in the rest of the country, the north-west was hit with a drought which led to a rash of fires in Ladoga, Russa and Gorodische, but Novgorod was worst hit, with so many fires starting that many inhabitants thought it safer to live out in the fields rather than risk burning to death in their houses. The next year saw the Archbishop of Novgorod Martiriy take the lead in reconstruction work after the fires, laying the foundations of two churches, one above the city gate, which one must presume required repair after the fires of 1194.
Building work in Novgorod
In 1195, Rurik invited his brother David from Smolensk, his son Rostislav and his son-in-law Roman Mstislavich of Galich to share out the territories that had recently fallen into his hands. The princes held a series of feasts in Vyshgorod, Belgorod and Kiev itself where they fed and watered each other, the nobles and churchmen of the various cities as well as arranging feasts for the common people. Along with the wining and dining, in order to boost his position against his neighbour and rival Yaroslav of Chernigov, Rurik appointed his son-in-law Roman Mstislavich of Vladimir-Volynsky to take over a string of cities to the south-east of Kiev: Korsun’, Boguslav and Torchesk along the river Ros’ as well as Kanev and Trepol’ along the Dnieper. However, when Vsevolod heard of this, he sent a messenger to Rurik demanding control over that territory for himself. After all, Rurik had recognised Vsevolod as his senior and Vsevolod already had a number of sons who would require places to rule.
The noblemen in Kiev advised Rurik that although it was far from ideal, he could give Vsevolod other territories near Kiev. Unfortunately, Vsevolod was insistent on getting the lands that had gone to Roman Mstislavich. Although these fortresses would give their holder a strong military presence near Kiev, another reason might have been more personal: there had been a long-standing rivalry between Vsevolod and Roman’s families going back to Vsevolod’s father Yury’s struggles against Roman’s father and grandfather. Roman had also recently been a threat to his neighbour (and Vsevolod’s nephew) Vladimir Yaroslavich in Galich. In the end, Rurik accepted that Vsevolod was a more valuable ally than Roman and agreed to deprive Roman and hand the cities to Vsevolod. As with the case of Pereyaslavl’, which Vsevolod inherited in 1187 then immediately gave to his nephew Yaroslav Mstislavich, Vsevolod chose to stay in Vladimir and hand these southern territories to someone he felt he could rely on, but also someone to whom Rurik could not object: Vsevolod’s son-in-law and Rurik’s oldest son Rostislav.
Dear Roman, Do you remember those territories I said you could have? I’m afraid there’s been a change of plan. Hope that’s OK. All the best, Rurik.
Although Rurik could hardly complain at the honour shown to his first-born, Roman Mstislavich was far from happy at seeing himself stripped of some very strategic fortresses close to Kiev. Up until this point, Roman had been married to Rurik’s daughter Predslava. Roman was furious with his father-in-law for bowing to Vsevolod’s pressure and suspected him of acting in concert with Vsevolod to humiliate him. He divorced Predslava and sent her back to Kiev. Roman started openly supporting Yaroslav Vsevolodovich’s claim to Kiev, but also sought allies in Poland, backing the sons of Casimir against their uncle Mieszko who was plotting to take Krakow from them, a goal which had come into closer reach after Casimir died in May.
If Roman had hoped for Polish support in his rivalry with Vsevolod, he was to be disappointed. In 1195, the conflict in Poland erupted into open war between young Leszek the White, now High Duke of Poland and his uncle Mieszko the Old. Leszek had inherited Krakow but both Mieszko and his son Boleslaw were not happy to see a ten year old child occupy a throne they thought should be theirs. Luckily for Leszek and his brother Konrad, the boys had the support of the nobility of Krakow and the church. They called on Roman’s help and he and his army went into Poland on the understanding that the favour would soon be returned. Mieszko tried to arrange a deal with Roman, sending heralds to talk peace, but despite the advice of his own followers, Roman was insistent on fighting. Things came a head at the battle of the river Mozgawa on 13th September 1195. The battle proved costly to both sides: Mieszko lost his son Boleslaw and was injured himself, but Roman too was badly wounded, returning to Vladimir-Volynsky with a severely battered army and in need of rest and recuperation. Given his weakened position, both personally and militarily, Roman sought to mend fences with Rurik and accepted the transfer of the fortress Polonny from Kiev to his own territory, as well as getting some landed estates near Korsun’.
“and his (Roman’s) warband took him from there and carried him to Vladimir(-Volynsky)”
In late 1195, an attempt was made to bring a little unity to the political sphere through a dynastic marriage. The Prince of Pskov, Mstislav Romanovich, Rurik’s uncle and Yaroslav Vsevolodovich’s nephew, sent his ten-year-old daughter Maria to Vladimir marry Vsevolod Big Nest’s son nine-year-old son Konstantin on 15th October. Despite the links to Yaroslav’s kin, this was more to cement the alliance between the houses of Smolensk and Vladimir – (Yaroslav was not invited, although the Princes of Ryazan’ and Murom were) and shortly after, Vsevolod called upon Yaroslav Vladimirovich to get the armies of Novgorod to prepare for a fight against Chernigov.
Vsevolod Big Nest, David of Smolensk, the princes of Ryazan’ and Rurik of Kiev sent a joint message to Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and his relatives that they should respect the settlement at Lyubech in 1097 by which their forefather’s descendants were essentially ruled out of the succession for Kiev, as Svyatoslav Yaroslavich had not ruled Kiev legitimately himself. Given that a number of princes from that branch of the family (Vsevolod II, Igor’ II Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich – Yaroslav’s father, uncle and brother) had already ruled Kiev since then, Yaroslav was not willing to accept that. He replied to Vsevolod saying that he and his kinsmen were willing to look after Kiev for Vsevolod or Rurik, but that if the descendants of Vladimir Monomakh wanted to deny Kiev to the descendants of Svyatoslav Yaroslavich forever, it should remembered that his family were not Hungarians or Poles, but descendants of a common forefather. Vsevolod and Rurik could rule as long as they lived, but afterwards, may Kiev go to the most worthy, according to the will of God.
A round of diplomacy as the appetiser for a main course of violence.
Vsevolod and Rurik took steps to back up their words with action; aside from the army of Novgorod which had gathered at Novy Torg and their own men, Rurik had recruited a force of Polovtsy, who were waiting in the steppes to fall on Chernigov, Novgorod-Seversky and Kursk. However, although Vsevolod had agreed to meet with Rurik’s army outside Chernigov at the end of 1195, Vsevolod had been negotiating with Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, who had, in the face of the threat of war, suddenly become far more pliable. Yaroslav’s promises of peace were believed and and Vsevolod sent his own warband and the men of Novgorod home. Rurik withdrew and paid off his Polovtsian allies and agreed a deal with Yaroslav Vsevolodovich in early 1196. As part of this, he agreed to lobby his brother David of Smolensk to arrange the transfer of Vitebsk from David’s son-in-law Vasil’ko Bryachislavich to Yaroslav’s control.
Yaroslav was keen to take control of Vitebsk straight away and sent his nephew Oleg Svyatoslavich, descendant of a previous prince of Vitebsk through his mother, with an army through the territory of Smolensk in the early spring of 1196 to stake his claim. Rurik had withdrawn to Ovruch for the winter and was unable to prevent Oleg Svyatoslavich from entering Smolensk’s terrorities and pillaging them. David raised an army and called upon help from Mstislav Romanovich of Pskov, Gleb Vladimirovich of Ryazan’ and Rostislav Vladimirovich, brother of the Prince of Novgorod. Unfortunately, David found himself fighting a war on two fronts as Vladimir, Prince of Polotsk and Boris of Drutsk turned against him and joined forces with Oleg Svyatoslavich.
Oleg’s men had been careful to maintain good order, even after a heavy snowfall. When David’s men discovered their army on 12th March 1196, Mstislav Romanovich led a sudden cavalry charge in an attempt to throw his enemy into disarray. The attack took a heavy toll on Oleg’s forces, with his standards being abandoned and his eldest son David Olegovich losing his life. However, when David Rostislavich’s commander sent his infantry to deal with the men from Polotsk, the men from Smolensk lost their nerve and fled. The Polotskian contingent had better discipline and, instead of chasing after the fleeing infantry, they rode to the aid of Oleg, hitting Mstislav’s regiment in the rear. At the time, Mstislav was out in front, chasing Oleg’s men and did not realise what was happening behind him. By the time Mstislav returned to whom he thought were his infantry, the survivors had already fled the field, and Mstislav was captured by the men of Polotsk. When Rostislav Vladimirovich, Gleb Vladimirovich and David’s commanders returned from the chase, they realised what had happened and rapidly withdrew to Smolensk to avoid the trap that Mstislav Romanovich had fallen into. When Oleg Svyatoslavich realised they had captured Rurik Rostislavich’s nephew Mstislav, he was delighted and wrote back to his uncle with the good news.
Dear Vsevolod, I’m afraid Yaroslav attacked Smolensk and captured my nephew Mstislav. Can you please help. All the best, Rurik.
Yaroslav Vsevolodovich thought things were turning his way on multiple fronts. After Vsevolod had sent the men Yaroslav Vladimirovich had gathered home to Novgorod at the end of 1195, political forces opposed to Yaroslav’s rule tried to get him removed. They sent the Posadnik Miroshka and other dignitories to Vladimir to request that Vsevolod send one of his sons (although his eldest, Konstantin, was only ten at the time). Vsevolod insisted his guests stay indefinitely and refused to send a replacement for Yaroslav. However, once Oleg Svyatoslavich had defeated David of Smolensk and his allies, the opposition in Novgorod used the fact that Vsevolod was still holding their Posadnik hostage to drive out Yaroslav Vladimirovich in the autumn of 1196 and to request a new prince from Yaroslav Vsevolodovich in Chernigov. Yaroslav sent his second son Yaropolk, who, because of the conflict with Smolensk, took an indirect route and only arrived in March 1197.
Unfortunately for Yaropolk Yaroslavich, the previous incumbent had not left the territory of Novgorod and had taken up residence in Novy Torg. Yaroslav clearly still had support among the wider political class in Novgorod’s territories and started collecting tribute from most of its lands, from the Urals almost up to the city itself. After six months of this, Yaroslav’s opponents lost the argument in the city, Yaropolk was sent packing and the elites of Novgorod asked Vsevolod to send Yaroslav to them again. Yaroslav had been summoned from Novy Torg to Vladimir for consultations with Vsevolod and the chief men of Novgorod met him there, promising to be loyal if only he would return to rule them. Both Vsevolod and Yaroslav were delighted with how things turned out and Vsevolod sent Yaroslav on his way, accompanied by Posadnik Miroshko and the remaining involuntary guests. According to the Novgorod Chronicle, Yaroslav and the notables arrived just after Epiphany in what we would consider 1198 and “all in Novgorod, from small to great, were glad.”
Yaroslav returns to Novgorod and everyone is happy.
Moving back to 1196, after the defeat of David and his allies in March, Rurik raised an army to attack Chernigov and release his nephew Mstislav. His plan was spoiled by Roman Mstislavich of Vladimir-Volynsky, who was still openly supporting Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and who could have attacked Kiev from the south-west while Rurik was out east invading Chernigov. Instead of moving against Yaroslav, Rurik decided to first deal with Roman Mstislavich and prepared to move on Vladimir-Volynsky. Before he could do so, however, Vsevolod Big Nest and David Rostislavich of Smolensk, along with the princes of Ryazan’ and Murom started their own offensive against Chernigov, Kursk and Novgorod-Seversky.
Yaroslav sent his nephews Oleg and Gleb Svyatoslavich to guard the western approaches against Rurik, while withdrawing into the forest zone to the south east. This area – the frontier zone against the steppes – was defended by long rows of fallen trees, built up into an almost impassable barrier for cavalry to slow up the Polovtsy, but would also serve as a good place to avoid Vsevolod and his allies. Although there had been an agreement not to come to a deal with Yaroslav without Rurik, there was some kind of back-channel between Vsevolod on one side and Yaroslav on the other, even while Vsevolod’s allies ravaged the northern areas of Chernigov and Novgorod-Seversky. Yaroslav essentially surrendered by September, agreeing to release Mstislav Romanovich without a ransom being paid and promising not to attempt any more assaults on Kiev or Smolensk while under the current management.
Vsevolod puts his point across to Yaroslav Vsevolodovich through the medium of arson.
In the south-west, Roman Mstislavich of Vladimir-Volynsky, having recovered from his injuries at the hands of Mieszko the Old, was about to call more misfortune upon his head by attacking territories in the principality of Kiev. When Rurik heard of Vsevolod and David’s invasion of Chernigov, his hands were untied and he sent Mstislav Mstislavich to Galich where he joined forces with Vladimir Yaroslavich in an attack on Roman’s fortress at Peremil’ while at the same time, Rostislav Rurikovich and the Black Hats attacked Kamenets. These raids did not seriously affect Roman’s control over his principality, but with Yaroslav Vsevolodovich and Igor’ Svyatoslavich making peace with Roman’s enemies, there seemed little point in continuing the fight. Roman did however finalise his divorce with Predslava, Rurik’s daughter.
An uneasy peace settled over Russia and Vsevolod returned to Vladimir on October 6th to celebrate. He had done quite well, avoiding damage to his own principality, seeing off a threat from Yaroslav while leaving him in power in Chernigov to balance the power of the descendants of Rostislav Mstislavich in Smolensk and Kiev. Yaroslav’s position had been weakened, not only by Vsevolod’s attack, but also by the death of Vsevolod “Wild Bull” Svyatoslavich, Prince of Kursk, at some point in 1196 – he was either too ill or already too dead to take part in any of the military action that year. Vsevolod was known as a courageous warrior and his death at the age of forty-three may have been somewhat unexpected.
Vsevolod and Yaroslav make peace.
Things went even better for Vsevolod Big Nest in 1197. David Rostislavich was a little disappointed at the outcome of the war of 1196 and had been preparing another campaign against Yaroslav, when he fell ill. At the age of fifty-seven, he realised this was probably the end, moved from Smolensk to the monastery where St. Gleb was killed and took monastic vows, leaving his principality to his nephew Mstislav Romanovich. David passed away on 23rd April, leaving a reputation as a pious ruler but a strict enforcer of the law upon rebels. The new prince Mstislav had family ties to both Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, being his cousin and to Vsevolod “Big Nest” as his daughter Maria had married Vsevolod’s son Konstantin in 1195 and was an ally of the Grand Prince of Vladimir. Aside from Yaropolk Yaroslavich’s short period in charge of Novgorod, followed by Yaroslav Vladimirovich’s triumphant return six months later and the birth of Vsevolod’s youngest son, Ivan, 1197 was otherwise a fairly quiet year.
1198 saw the passing of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich of Chernigov, which, like that of his brother Svyatoslav and, more recently, of David of Smolensk, was preceeded by his taking monastic vows. Chernigov was inherited by his cousin Igor’ Svyatoslavich, although who succeeded Igor’ as prince of Novgorod-Seversky is not clear – it could have been his son Vladimir, who died shortly after, or possibly Oleg Svyatoslavich, Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich’s son. Records in Novgorod-Seversky did not survive well, so there is considerable debate as to the later succession to Novgorod-Seversky for several decades.
Yaroslav Vsevolodovich passes away.
With Yaroslav Vsevolodovich ailing or having passed away, Vsevolod “Big Nest” took the opportunity to introduce his son thirteen year old son Konstantin to the art of military campaigning when they set out in spring to clear out the winter camping areas of the Polovtsy along the Don. However, the Polovtsy had seen the size of Vsevolod’s army and made themselves scarce, fleeing to the seaside. The two princes returned to Vladimir on 6th June having set light to the nomads’ campsites without any actual fighting. They were just in time to witness another fire, as, once again, a major conflagration hit Vladimir on 25th June, destroying a large section of the city.
Tragedy hit Yaroslav Vladimirovich in Novgorod at this time. Although Novgorod was seeing a rash of new churches and monasteries being built, suggesting prosperity for the trading elites, this did not stave off the risk of illness. Yaroslav’s elder, seven-year-old son Izyaslav had been placed in nominal charge of Luki on the southern frontiers once Yaroslav had returned to power in 1197, to help guard Novgorod from the threat of Chernigov-aligned Polotsk. On 20th June 1198, Izyaslav’s younger brother Rostislav died in Novgorod, followed two weeks later by Izyaslav himself. Both boys were buried in the Yuriev Monastery to the south of Novgorod. A few months later, Luki was raided by the army of Polotsk in alliance with the Lithuanians, but the townspeople had been warned and were able to escape, although the city was burned. Yaroslav gathered an army from across Novgorod’s huge territory and launched a counter-attack, but when the two sides met, the men of Polotsk, seemingly without their erstwhile allies, chose to make peace and they separated without bloodshed.
Yaroslav Vladimirovich buries his sons.
Despite having regained power in Novgorod due to the support of Vsevolod Big Nest, Yaroslav was not exactly popular. He had recently disappointed his army a second time by calling off a campaign. His men were no doubt hoping to get rich by relieving their defeated enemies of their war gear and other valuables and, at this point, Yaroslav seems to have exhausted the goodwill of his subjects. Archbishop Martiriy and various notables of Novgorod travelled to Vladimir in the summer of 1199 to ask Vsevolod to send one of his sons to reign over them. Sadly, Archbishop Martiriy passed away on the journey but the others made it to Vladimir to make the request: “Lord Grand Prince! Our province is your ancestral property: we pray that you grant us a grandson of Dolgoruky, a great-grandson of Monomakh!” Vsevolod consulted his warband before making what must have been a tricky decision. Vsevolod’s sons were all fairly young at that point, but the choice of Svyatoslav must have seemed a bit odd, both to the elites of Novgorod and to the three-year-old himself. However, the logic seems solid. His appointment underlined both the prestige of Vladimir and of Vsevolod as its ruler, while also allowing the elites of Novgorod to run their city as they wished without an adult like Yaroslav hanging around who might make decisions that annoyed them.
Like Vladimir, Novgorod continued to see its trading wealth expressed in a number of building projects, both of churches and defences – Rusa to the south of Novgorod had its defences built up, not a moment too soon as early 1200 saw an attack by the Lithuanians up the river Lovot’ towards Rusa and Novgorod. The defenders beat the invaders off, freeing the prisoners and regaining the looted valuables, but most of the Lithuanians were able to escape. Later that year the men of Novgorod struck back with a raid against Latgale, where they killed their opponents and took their wives and children back to Luki as prisoners.
Beating off the Lithuanian attack
Around the same time, late 1199 or early 1200, trouble in the south-west also flared up. Vladimir Yaroslavich died in Galich, without an obvious heir near at hand. His neighbour and rival for the principality, Roman Mstislavich, saw his chance. With the help of the young Polish princes he had aided back in 1195, he besieged a leaderless Galich and forced the inhabitants to accept him as ruler. At least some of the nobles had been trying to get one of Igor’ Svyatoslavich of Chernigov’s sons to come and rule, as they were nephews of Vladimir through their mother. Others had visited the Polish camp, begging Duke Leszek the White to take over Galich himself, rather than allow Roman to rule but these attempts to avoid Roman’s dominance over their region ended badly for the nobles.
To remove any open opposition to his rule, he publicly executed a number of the old elite in a particularly cruel manner. including burying them alive, quartering them and even inventing his own methods of torture, scaring many other noblemen to seek safety elsewhere. This gave Roman the opportunity to confiscate their property and distribute it to his own supporters. Having already split up with his first wife, Roman married again. The chronicles did not mention his wife’s name, but many historians believe she could have been Euphrosyne, daughter of the, at the time imprisoned, Roman Emperor Isaac II Angelos.
Isaac II Angelos, Emperor and Autocrator of the Romans. Unknown Byzantine scribes, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Late 1199 also saw the death of Yaroslav Mstislavich, nephew of Vsevolod “Big Nest” and Prince of Pereyaslavl’ after twelve years in charge. Yaroslav had no surviving children and no brothers, so once again Vsevolod got to choose the next ruler. This time, he chose his eldest son, only nine or ten at the time, like his predecessor in the post, also called Yaroslav. The choice, like that of Svyatoslav for Novgorod, seems strange, especially bearing in mind that Vsevolod’s oldest son Konstantin would have been fourteen at the time, so just about ready to rule as an adult, and who did not have his own territory yet. However, Konstantin wanted to concentrate on his studies in Vladimir and the next son, Yury, was not well, so the burden fell on Yaroslav. Yaroslav was accompanied to Pereyaslavl’ by his father, his brothers Konstantin and Yury arriving in August 1200 for Yaroslav to take up his post. After the enthroment, Vsevolod headed back north, leaving Yaroslav behind with a large military force under the command of two of his most experienced commanders.
In Galich, Roman Mstislavich’s cruelty had brought him control of a large rich territory as well as a notoriety among other Russian princes. By divorcing Rurik’s daughter, he had attracted the particular ire of the Grand Prince of Kiev. Rurik had been arranging a campaign to put Roman back in his place with Igor’ Svyatoslavich of Chernigov, who was brother-in-law of the previous prince of Galich – Vladimir Yaroslavich. However, Roman got wind of the plan and struck first. In the autumn of 1200 he mobilised his forces, arriving near Kiev when Igor’ Svyatoslavich was still on the far side of the Dnieper. The Black Hats and Torks serving Rurik saw which way the wind was blowing, swapped sides and Rurik was betrayed again by supporters of Roman who opened the gates of Kiev and many other fortresses in the area. Rurik and his allies were isolated in the inner fortress of Kiev and agreed to abandon the city. Rurik accepted Roman’s peace terms and withdrew to his previous seat at Ovruch.
Ingvar’, would you like to rule Kiev for me, please?
However, Roman Mstislavich, like Andrey Bogolyubsky in his day, was not interested in ruling Kiev himself. The northern chronicles state that his cousin, Ingvar’2 Yaroslavich of Lutsk was set in place by both Roman and Vsevolod Big Nest, while southern sources do not mention Vsevolod at all. It is possible that Vsevolod was not asked, but did not particularly object to Ingvar’s rule, as it would keep the city out of the direct control of Roman and prevent any potential rival to Vsevolod from gaining too much power. Whether or not Vsevolod gave his blessing, that winter, Roman felt secure enough in his extended area of influence to make a move against the Polovtsy on behalf of his new wife’s uncle, the Roman Emperor Alexios III Angelos. The Polovtsy had been helping the Bulgars raid the area around Constantinople and as they frequently did, the Romans engaged a more distant power, in this case – Galich, to strike a closer opponent from the rear. Roman’s campaign was hugely successful, devastating the Polovtsian camps and liberating very many enslaved Russian prisoners, while also breaking the will of the enemies of the Roman Empire.
We shall see how Vsevolod deals with this rival in the next episode.
- Descendants of Yury Dolgoruky, Vladimir Monomakh and Vsevolod I:
Vsevolod “Big Nest” Yuryevich, Grand Prince of Kiev (1173), Grand Prince of Vladimir (1176-1212), son of Yury Dolgoruky, husband of Maria Shvarnovna, brother of Andrey Bogolyubsky, cousin of Izyaslav II and Rostislav Mstislavich, brother-in-law of Mstislav Svyatoslavich.
Maria Shvarnovna, wife of Vsevolod “Big Nest”, mother of all of his many children, sister of Marfa Shvarnovna.
Verkhuslava Vsevolodovna, daughter of Vsevolod “Big Nest”, wife of Rostislav Rurikovich.
Konstantin Vsevolodovich, eldest son of Vsevolod “Big Nest”.
Gleb Vsevolodovich, short-lived third son of Vsevolod “Big Nest”.
Yury Vsevolodovich, fourth son of Vsevolod “Big Nest”.
Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, Prince of Pereyaslavl’ (1200-06)…fifth son of Vsevolod “Big Nest”, father of Alexander Nevsky and ancestor of the subsequent rulers of Russia until 1598.
Vladimir Vsevolodovich, sixth son of Vsevolod “Big Nest”
Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, Prince of Novgorod (1200-05)…, seventh son of Vsevolod “Big Nest”
Ivan Vsevolodovich, eighth son of Vsevolod “Big Nest”.
Yaroslav Mstislavich, Prince of Novgorod (1176), Prince of Pereyaslavl’ Zalessky (1178-87), Prince of Pereyaslavl’ (1187-99), nephew of Vsevolod “Big Nest”, grandson of Yury Dolgoruky.
Descendants of Mstislav I, Vladimir Monomakh and Vsevolod I
Mstislav Vladimirovich, Prince of Dorogobuzh (1171-73), Prince of Trepol’ (1173-83), Prince of Kanev (1194-1203), son of Vladimir Mstislavich, brother of Yaroslav and Rostislav Vladimirovich.
Yaroslav Vladimirovich, Prince of Novgorod (1182-84, 1187-96)… son of Vladimir Mstislavich, brother of Mstislav and Rostislav Vladimirovich.
Izyaslav Yaroslavich, Prince of Luki (1197-8), son of Yaroslav Vladimirovich, brother of Rostislav.
Rostislav Yaroslavich, son of Yaroslav Vladimirovich, brother of Izyaslav.
Rostislav Vladimirovich, son of Vladimir Mstislavich, brother of Mstislav and Yaroslav Vladimirovich.
Roman Mstislavich, Prince of Novgorod (1168-70), Prince of Vladimir-Volynsky (1170-88, 1188-1205), Prince of Galich (1188, 1199-1205)…, son of Mstislav Izyaslavich, brother of Vsevolod Mstislavich.
Vsevolod Mstislavich, Prince of Belz (1170-88, 1188-95), Prince of Vladimir-Volynsky (1188).
Ingvar’ Yaroslavich, Prince of Luchesk (1180-1220), Grand Prince of Kiev (1200-02)…, son of Yaroslav Izyaslavich, grandson of Izyaslav Mstislavich.
Descendants of Rostislav Mstislavich, Mstislav I etc.
Rurik Rostislavich, Prince of Vruchy (1168-73, 1173-1208), Prince of Novgorod (1170-71), Grand Prince of Kiev (1173, 1180-81, 1194-1201..) third son of Rostislav Mstislavich, cousin of Andrey Bogolyubsky.
Rostislav Rurikovich, Prince of Torchesk (before 1190-1205)…, son of Rurik Rostislavich, brother of Predslava.
Predslava Rurikovna, daughter of Rurik Rostislavich, sister of Rostislav, wife of Roman Mstislavich of Vladimir-Volynsky and Galich.
David Rostislavich, viceroy of Novy Torg (1157-60), Prince of Vitebsk (1165-6), Prince of Vyshgorod (1167-80), Prince of Smolensk (1180-97), fourth son of Rostislav Mstislavich, cousin of Andrey Bogolyubsky
Vladimir Davidovich, Prince of Vyshgorod (1187-119?), Prince of Vyshgorod, son of David Rostislavich.
Mstislav Romanovich, Prince of Pskov (1179-?), son of Roman Rostislavich, nephew of Rurik and David Rostislavich.
Mstislav Mstislavich “the Successful”, Prince of Trepol’ (1193-1203)…, son of Mstislav Rostislavich, grandson of Rostislav Mstislavich, nephew of David, Roman and Rurik Rostislavich.
Descendants of Vsevolod II and Svyatoslav II,
Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, Prince of Novgorod (1140), Prince of Turov (1142, 1154-55), Prince of Vladimir-Volynsky (1142-46), Prince of Novgorod-Seversky (1157-64) Prince of Chernigov (1164-80), Grand Prince of Kiev (1174, 1176-80, 1181-94), son of Vsevolod II, nephew of Igor’ II, father of Vladimir, Oleg, Vsevolod, Gleb and Mstislav, cousin of Izyaslav Mstislavich, great-grandson of Svyatoslav II.
Oleg Svyatoslavich, son of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, brother of Vladimir, Gleb, Vsevolod and Mstislav, father of David Olegovich.
David Olegovich, son of Oleg Svyatoslavich.
Gleb Svyatoslavich, Prince of Kolomna (1179), Prince of Kanev (1182-90)… son of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, brother of Vladimir, Oleg, Vsevolod and Mstislav, grandson of Vsevolod II
Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, Prince of Starodub (1164-1180), Prince of Chernigov (1180-99), son of Vsevolod II, brother of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich.
Yaropolk Yaroslavich, Prince of Novgorod (1197), son of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich.
Igor’ Svyatoslavich, Prince of Novgorod-Seversky (1180-98), Prince of Chernigov (1198-1201), son of Svyatoslav Ol’govich, nephew of Vsevolod II and Igor’ II, cousin of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, brother of Oleg and Vsevolod “Wild Bull”, great-grandson of Svyatoslav II
Vladimir Igorevich, Prince of Putivl’ (1185-96), maybe Prince of Novgorod-Seversky (1198-121?), son of Igor’ Svyatoslavich.
Vsevolod “Wild Bull” Svyatoslavich, Prince of Trubetsk and Kursk (1180-96), son of Svyatoslav Ol’govich, nephew of Vsevolod II and Igor’ II, cousin of Svyatoslav Vsevolodovich, brother of Oleg and Igor’, great-grandson of Svyatoslav II
Gleb Vladimirovich, Prince of a section of Ryazan’ principality (?-1212), great-great-great-grandson of Svyatoslav II.
Descendants of Vseslav the Sorceror
Vladimir Volodarevich?, Prince of Polotsk (118?-1216), possibly son of Volodar’ Glebovich, great-grandson of Vseslav the Sorceror.
Boris Rogvolodovich, Prince of Drutsk (118?-later than 1196), great-grandson of Vseslav the Sorceror.
Vasil’ko Bryachislavich, Prince of Vitebsk (1186-later than 1209), great-great-grandson of Vseslav the Sorcer
Descendants of Yaroslav the Wise
Yaroslav “Eight-Minds” Vladimirovich, Prince of Galich (1153-87), son of Vladimir Volodarevich, great-great-great-grandson of Yaroslav the Wise, father of Vladimir and Oleg, brother-in-law of Vsevolod “Big Nest”, father-in-law of Igor’ Svyatoslavich.
Vladimir Yaroslavich, Prince of Galich (1187-88, 1189-99), son of Yaroslav “Eight Minds”, half-brother of Oleg. ↩︎ - Ingvar’ was the original Norse version of the name Russified as Igor’. It is interesting to see a return to Norse names like Rurik. ↩︎
- Descendants of Yury Dolgoruky, Vladimir Monomakh and Vsevolod I:
-
Book Review: Build the Life You Want by Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey
Happiness is one of the most searched topics on the internet and one of the least understood in daily life. Everyone wants it, most people feel they do not have enough of it, and the self-help industry has built an enormous business around the gap between those two facts. Build the Life You Want: The Art and Science of Getting the Happier, published in 2023 by Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey, enters that crowded space with more intellectual credibility than most of its competitors. It is grounded in actual happiness research, written with genuine warmth, and structured around practical tools rather than vague inspiration. Whether it fully delivers on its ambitious premise is worth examining honestly.
Who Are Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey?
Arthur C. Brooks is a social scientist, professor, and author who has spent much of his career studying the relationship between human behavior, policy, and wellbeing. He earned a PhD in policy analysis from the Pardee RAND Graduate School and served as president of the American Enterprise Institute from 2009 to 2019. He currently holds professorships at Harvard Business School and Harvard Kennedy School, where he teaches courses on leadership and happiness. His Atlantic column on happiness and human flourishing has reached millions of readers, and his previous book, From Strength to Strength, which is reviewed separately on this site, established him as one of the most thoughtful voices in the applied happiness space.
Oprah Winfrey needs considerably less introduction (no offense Arthur, but come on… she’s Oprah). Born in 1954 in rural Mississippi in poverty, she became the host of one of the most successful talk shows in television history, built a media empire that includes television, film, publishing, and digital platforms, and became the first Black female billionaire in American history. She is one of the most recognizable and influential figures in American public life and has spent decades using her platform to champion books, ideas, and conversations about personal growth and human potential. Her book club, launched in 1996, has made bestsellers of dozens of titles and introduced millions of Americans to serious literature and nonfiction they might not otherwise have encountered.
The collaboration between Brooks and Winfrey began when Brooks appeared on Winfrey’s podcast and the two discovered a shared framework for thinking about happiness that felt worth developing into a book. Their voices are genuinely distinct throughout, with Brooks providing the research scaffolding and Winfrey providing personal experience and emotional grounding, and that distinction is one of the book’s genuine strengths.
Buy Build the Life You Want on Amazon
What the Book Is About
Build the Life You Want is organized around what Brooks and Winfrey call the four pillars of happiness: family, friendship, work, and faith or philosophy. The argument is that genuine, lasting happiness is not a feeling you pursue or a destination you arrive at. It is a set of practices you build into your life through deliberate choices about how you invest your time, energy, and attention across these four domains.
The book opens by challenging what the authors call the happiness myth, the widespread belief that happiness is a stable state that some people have and others lack, or a condition that arrives when circumstances are right. Drawing on research in neuroscience and psychology, Brooks explains that human beings are not neurologically wired for sustained happiness. We are wired for survival, which means we are wired to notice threats, register dissatisfaction, and return relatively quickly to a hedonic baseline after both positive and negative events. Understanding that architecture is the starting point for working with it rather than against it.
From that foundation the book moves through each of the four pillars, examining what research shows about how each contributes to wellbeing, where people commonly go wrong in each domain, and what practical changes produce meaningful improvement. The work section, for example, addresses the difference between a job, a career, and a calling, and examines how to find more meaning in work at any level rather than treating meaning as something only available in prestigious or passion-driven occupations.
The faith and philosophy pillar is handled carefully, acknowledging that not all readers share a religious framework while arguing that some form of transcendent meaning, a belief that life points toward something larger than individual comfort and achievement, is consistently associated with greater wellbeing across cultures and research populations.
Throughout the book Winfrey weaves in personal stories from her own life that illustrate the research Brooks presents. Her account of growing up in poverty and chaos, of building professional success without initially understanding how to build personal happiness alongside it, and of the specific work she has done on each of the four pillars gives the book an emotional credibility that pure research writing rarely achieves.
Lessons Readers Can Take Away
The most practically valuable lesson in the book is the distinction between feeling happy and being happy, which Brooks frames using the research concept of subjective wellbeing. Feeling happy is an emotional state, pleasant but transient and largely outside your direct control. Being happy is a more stable orientation toward life that emerges from specific habits and investments in the four pillars. The implication is that the goal is not to maximize pleasant feelings but to build the structures that support durable wellbeing, a reorientation that changes how you think about both daily choices and long-term planning.
For readers thinking about money and financial decisions, this distinction has direct relevance. Research consistently shows that beyond a moderate income threshold, additional money produces rapidly diminishing returns in terms of actual wellbeing. The person who sacrifices relationships, health, and meaningful work in pursuit of additional wealth accumulation is almost certainly making a bad trade by any objective wellbeing measure. Brooks and Winfrey are not arguing that money does not matter. They are arguing, with solid evidence behind them, that it matters much less than most Americans behave as if it does, and that the domains that matter most, close relationships in particular, tend to be systematically underinvested by people focused primarily on financial achievement.
Another lesson concerns what the authors call the relationship portfolio. They argue that healthy social lives are not just about having a best friend or a romantic partner. They require a range of relationships at different levels of intimacy and commitment, from close family and deep friendships to the looser connections of acquaintances and community ties. Research suggests that the weaker ties, neighbors, colleagues, and casual regulars at the places you frequent, contribute meaningfully to daily wellbeing in ways that most people do not anticipate and therefore fail to cultivate deliberately.
A third lesson is about the role of gratitude and what Brooks calls the subtract, do not add approach to happiness. Rather than constantly pursuing new sources of pleasure or achievement, research suggests that deliberately noticing and appreciating what you already have produces more reliable wellbeing gains than acquiring more. That is a message with obvious financial implications for anyone trying to live below their means and avoid lifestyle inflation.
The book also addresses the relationship between happiness and adversity. Brooks and Winfrey both draw on research and personal experience to argue that the path through genuine suffering, loss, failure, disappointment, is not avoidance or positivity performance but what psychologists call post-traumatic growth. The capacity to find meaning in difficulty rather than simply surviving it is one of the most reliable predictors of long-term wellbeing, and it is something that can be developed deliberately rather than waiting for it to happen.
Buy Build the Life You Want on Amazon
Criticisms of the Book
Build the Life You Want is a genuinely good book, but it has real weaknesses that a fair review should name.
The most substantive criticism is that the four pillars framework, while useful as an organizing structure, can feel somewhat arbitrary. Why these four domains and not others? The book does not make a rigorous case for why work, family, friendship, and faith constitute a complete and exhaustive account of what matters for human wellbeing, and readers with different life arrangements may find that their most important sources of meaning do not map cleanly onto the framework provided.
A second criticism is that the practical guidance, while generally sensible, is not always as specific or actionable as the book promises. Telling readers to invest more in relationships is good advice. Telling them exactly how to do that when they are working long hours, geographically separated from family, or socially anxious is harder, and the book is better at identifying the goal than at mapping the route for people facing real structural obstacles.
A third criticism concerns the collaboration dynamic. While the combination of Brooks’s research and Winfrey’s personal narrative is generally effective, there are moments where the two voices feel less integrated than juxtaposed. Readers who are primarily interested in the science may find Winfrey’s sections less essential, while readers drawn primarily to Winfrey’s perspective may find Brooks’s research sections overly academic. The seams show occasionally.
A fourth criticism, consistent with critiques of the broader happiness research field, is that much of the science Brooks cites is correlational rather than causal. The finding that people with strong relationships report greater happiness does not definitively establish that building stronger relationships will make a specific person happier. The gap between population-level findings and individual prescription is a genuine limitation of the evidence base that the book does not always acknowledge.
Should You Buy This Book?
Yes, for most readers, and particularly for those who want an accessible, research-grounded introduction to the happiness literature that does not sacrifice intellectual honesty for inspirational packaging.
The book is especially worth reading alongside From Strength to Strength, Brooks’s previous book, which covers adjacent territory with more depth and more personal candor. Together they form a coherent two-book examination of how to build a meaningful life in both its first and second halves. The Psychology of Money by Morgan Housel is a natural third companion, addressing the financial dimension of a meaningful life with comparable seriousness and accessibility.
For readers who have already spent time with the happiness research literature, through books like The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt or the work of researchers like Sonja Lyubomirsky, the book will cover familiar ground. But the combination of Brooks’s clarity as an explainer and Winfrey’s personal honesty gives it an emotional texture that more academic treatments lack.
The book is widely available, reads quickly, and is priced modestly. The investment of time and money is low relative to what it offers.
Final Thoughts
Build the Life You Want is a book about something that matters enormously and gets surprisingly little serious attention in personal finance circles: the relationship between how you manage your money and whether you actually end up happy. The research Brooks presents consistently shows that the financial decisions most Americans make, working more to earn more, deferring relationships and leisure and meaning in exchange for greater professional achievement and financial accumulation, are not producing the wellbeing those sacrifices are implicitly supposed to purchase.
That is not an argument against financial responsibility, disciplined saving, or long-term investing. It is an argument for being deliberate about what you are building financial security toward. A high-yield savings account, a fully funded S&P 500 nest egg, and a well-tracked budget are tools in service of a life. They are not the life itself. The four pillars Brooks and Winfrey describe, the relationships, the meaningful work, the community, and the sense of transcendent purpose, are what financial security is supposed to protect and enable. Building those pillars with the same intentionality you bring to your investment strategy is not optional. It is the whole point.
That message, delivered with genuine warmth and solid research, is what makes this book worth the few hours it takes to read.
Buy Build the Life You Want on Amazon
#ArthurCBrooks #BookReviews #Books #BuildTheLifeYouWant #Nonfiction #OprahWinfrey #PersonalFinance #Psychology #SelfHelp -
Book Review: Build the Life You Want by Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey
Happiness is one of the most searched topics on the internet and one of the least understood in daily life. Everyone wants it, most people feel they do not have enough of it, and the self-help industry has built an enormous business around the gap between those two facts. Build the Life You Want: The Art and Science of Getting the Happier, published in 2023 by Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey, enters that crowded space with more intellectual credibility than most of its competitors. It is grounded in actual happiness research, written with genuine warmth, and structured around practical tools rather than vague inspiration. Whether it fully delivers on its ambitious premise is worth examining honestly.
Who Are Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey?
Arthur C. Brooks is a social scientist, professor, and author who has spent much of his career studying the relationship between human behavior, policy, and wellbeing. He earned a PhD in policy analysis from the Pardee RAND Graduate School and served as president of the American Enterprise Institute from 2009 to 2019. He currently holds professorships at Harvard Business School and Harvard Kennedy School, where he teaches courses on leadership and happiness. His Atlantic column on happiness and human flourishing has reached millions of readers, and his previous book, From Strength to Strength, which is reviewed separately on this site, established him as one of the most thoughtful voices in the applied happiness space.
Oprah Winfrey needs considerably less introduction (no offense Arthur, but come on… she’s Oprah). Born in 1954 in rural Mississippi in poverty, she became the host of one of the most successful talk shows in television history, built a media empire that includes television, film, publishing, and digital platforms, and became the first Black female billionaire in American history. She is one of the most recognizable and influential figures in American public life and has spent decades using her platform to champion books, ideas, and conversations about personal growth and human potential. Her book club, launched in 1996, has made bestsellers of dozens of titles and introduced millions of Americans to serious literature and nonfiction they might not otherwise have encountered.
The collaboration between Brooks and Winfrey began when Brooks appeared on Winfrey’s podcast and the two discovered a shared framework for thinking about happiness that felt worth developing into a book. Their voices are genuinely distinct throughout, with Brooks providing the research scaffolding and Winfrey providing personal experience and emotional grounding, and that distinction is one of the book’s genuine strengths.
Buy Build the Life You Want on Amazon
What the Book Is About
Build the Life You Want is organized around what Brooks and Winfrey call the four pillars of happiness: family, friendship, work, and faith or philosophy. The argument is that genuine, lasting happiness is not a feeling you pursue or a destination you arrive at. It is a set of practices you build into your life through deliberate choices about how you invest your time, energy, and attention across these four domains.
The book opens by challenging what the authors call the happiness myth, the widespread belief that happiness is a stable state that some people have and others lack, or a condition that arrives when circumstances are right. Drawing on research in neuroscience and psychology, Brooks explains that human beings are not neurologically wired for sustained happiness. We are wired for survival, which means we are wired to notice threats, register dissatisfaction, and return relatively quickly to a hedonic baseline after both positive and negative events. Understanding that architecture is the starting point for working with it rather than against it.
From that foundation the book moves through each of the four pillars, examining what research shows about how each contributes to wellbeing, where people commonly go wrong in each domain, and what practical changes produce meaningful improvement. The work section, for example, addresses the difference between a job, a career, and a calling, and examines how to find more meaning in work at any level rather than treating meaning as something only available in prestigious or passion-driven occupations.
The faith and philosophy pillar is handled carefully, acknowledging that not all readers share a religious framework while arguing that some form of transcendent meaning, a belief that life points toward something larger than individual comfort and achievement, is consistently associated with greater wellbeing across cultures and research populations.
Throughout the book Winfrey weaves in personal stories from her own life that illustrate the research Brooks presents. Her account of growing up in poverty and chaos, of building professional success without initially understanding how to build personal happiness alongside it, and of the specific work she has done on each of the four pillars gives the book an emotional credibility that pure research writing rarely achieves.
Lessons Readers Can Take Away
The most practically valuable lesson in the book is the distinction between feeling happy and being happy, which Brooks frames using the research concept of subjective wellbeing. Feeling happy is an emotional state, pleasant but transient and largely outside your direct control. Being happy is a more stable orientation toward life that emerges from specific habits and investments in the four pillars. The implication is that the goal is not to maximize pleasant feelings but to build the structures that support durable wellbeing, a reorientation that changes how you think about both daily choices and long-term planning.
For readers thinking about money and financial decisions, this distinction has direct relevance. Research consistently shows that beyond a moderate income threshold, additional money produces rapidly diminishing returns in terms of actual wellbeing. The person who sacrifices relationships, health, and meaningful work in pursuit of additional wealth accumulation is almost certainly making a bad trade by any objective wellbeing measure. Brooks and Winfrey are not arguing that money does not matter. They are arguing, with solid evidence behind them, that it matters much less than most Americans behave as if it does, and that the domains that matter most, close relationships in particular, tend to be systematically underinvested by people focused primarily on financial achievement.
Another lesson concerns what the authors call the relationship portfolio. They argue that healthy social lives are not just about having a best friend or a romantic partner. They require a range of relationships at different levels of intimacy and commitment, from close family and deep friendships to the looser connections of acquaintances and community ties. Research suggests that the weaker ties, neighbors, colleagues, and casual regulars at the places you frequent, contribute meaningfully to daily wellbeing in ways that most people do not anticipate and therefore fail to cultivate deliberately.
A third lesson is about the role of gratitude and what Brooks calls the subtract, do not add approach to happiness. Rather than constantly pursuing new sources of pleasure or achievement, research suggests that deliberately noticing and appreciating what you already have produces more reliable wellbeing gains than acquiring more. That is a message with obvious financial implications for anyone trying to live below their means and avoid lifestyle inflation.
The book also addresses the relationship between happiness and adversity. Brooks and Winfrey both draw on research and personal experience to argue that the path through genuine suffering, loss, failure, disappointment, is not avoidance or positivity performance but what psychologists call post-traumatic growth. The capacity to find meaning in difficulty rather than simply surviving it is one of the most reliable predictors of long-term wellbeing, and it is something that can be developed deliberately rather than waiting for it to happen.
Buy Build the Life You Want on Amazon
Criticisms of the Book
Build the Life You Want is a genuinely good book, but it has real weaknesses that a fair review should name.
The most substantive criticism is that the four pillars framework, while useful as an organizing structure, can feel somewhat arbitrary. Why these four domains and not others? The book does not make a rigorous case for why work, family, friendship, and faith constitute a complete and exhaustive account of what matters for human wellbeing, and readers with different life arrangements may find that their most important sources of meaning do not map cleanly onto the framework provided.
A second criticism is that the practical guidance, while generally sensible, is not always as specific or actionable as the book promises. Telling readers to invest more in relationships is good advice. Telling them exactly how to do that when they are working long hours, geographically separated from family, or socially anxious is harder, and the book is better at identifying the goal than at mapping the route for people facing real structural obstacles.
A third criticism concerns the collaboration dynamic. While the combination of Brooks’s research and Winfrey’s personal narrative is generally effective, there are moments where the two voices feel less integrated than juxtaposed. Readers who are primarily interested in the science may find Winfrey’s sections less essential, while readers drawn primarily to Winfrey’s perspective may find Brooks’s research sections overly academic. The seams show occasionally.
A fourth criticism, consistent with critiques of the broader happiness research field, is that much of the science Brooks cites is correlational rather than causal. The finding that people with strong relationships report greater happiness does not definitively establish that building stronger relationships will make a specific person happier. The gap between population-level findings and individual prescription is a genuine limitation of the evidence base that the book does not always acknowledge.
Should You Buy This Book?
Yes, for most readers, and particularly for those who want an accessible, research-grounded introduction to the happiness literature that does not sacrifice intellectual honesty for inspirational packaging.
The book is especially worth reading alongside From Strength to Strength, Brooks’s previous book, which covers adjacent territory with more depth and more personal candor. Together they form a coherent two-book examination of how to build a meaningful life in both its first and second halves. The Psychology of Money by Morgan Housel is a natural third companion, addressing the financial dimension of a meaningful life with comparable seriousness and accessibility.
For readers who have already spent time with the happiness research literature, through books like The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt or the work of researchers like Sonja Lyubomirsky, the book will cover familiar ground. But the combination of Brooks’s clarity as an explainer and Winfrey’s personal honesty gives it an emotional texture that more academic treatments lack.
The book is widely available, reads quickly, and is priced modestly. The investment of time and money is low relative to what it offers.
Final Thoughts
Build the Life You Want is a book about something that matters enormously and gets surprisingly little serious attention in personal finance circles: the relationship between how you manage your money and whether you actually end up happy. The research Brooks presents consistently shows that the financial decisions most Americans make, working more to earn more, deferring relationships and leisure and meaning in exchange for greater professional achievement and financial accumulation, are not producing the wellbeing those sacrifices are implicitly supposed to purchase.
That is not an argument against financial responsibility, disciplined saving, or long-term investing. It is an argument for being deliberate about what you are building financial security toward. A high-yield savings account, a fully funded S&P 500 nest egg, and a well-tracked budget are tools in service of a life. They are not the life itself. The four pillars Brooks and Winfrey describe, the relationships, the meaningful work, the community, and the sense of transcendent purpose, are what financial security is supposed to protect and enable. Building those pillars with the same intentionality you bring to your investment strategy is not optional. It is the whole point.
That message, delivered with genuine warmth and solid research, is what makes this book worth the few hours it takes to read.
Buy Build the Life You Want on Amazon
#ArthurCBrooks #BookReviews #Books #BuildTheLifeYouWant #Nonfiction #OprahWinfrey #PersonalFinance #Psychology #SelfHelp -
Book Review: Build the Life You Want by Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey
Happiness is one of the most searched topics on the internet and one of the least understood in daily life. Everyone wants it, most people feel they do not have enough of it, and the self-help industry has built an enormous business around the gap between those two facts. Build the Life You Want: The Art and Science of Getting the Happier, published in 2023 by Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey, enters that crowded space with more intellectual credibility than most of its competitors. It is grounded in actual happiness research, written with genuine warmth, and structured around practical tools rather than vague inspiration. Whether it fully delivers on its ambitious premise is worth examining honestly.
Who Are Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey?
Arthur C. Brooks is a social scientist, professor, and author who has spent much of his career studying the relationship between human behavior, policy, and wellbeing. He earned a PhD in policy analysis from the Pardee RAND Graduate School and served as president of the American Enterprise Institute from 2009 to 2019. He currently holds professorships at Harvard Business School and Harvard Kennedy School, where he teaches courses on leadership and happiness. His Atlantic column on happiness and human flourishing has reached millions of readers, and his previous book, From Strength to Strength, which is reviewed separately on this site, established him as one of the most thoughtful voices in the applied happiness space.
Oprah Winfrey needs considerably less introduction (no offense Arthur, but come on… she’s Oprah). Born in 1954 in rural Mississippi in poverty, she became the host of one of the most successful talk shows in television history, built a media empire that includes television, film, publishing, and digital platforms, and became the first Black female billionaire in American history. She is one of the most recognizable and influential figures in American public life and has spent decades using her platform to champion books, ideas, and conversations about personal growth and human potential. Her book club, launched in 1996, has made bestsellers of dozens of titles and introduced millions of Americans to serious literature and nonfiction they might not otherwise have encountered.
The collaboration between Brooks and Winfrey began when Brooks appeared on Winfrey’s podcast and the two discovered a shared framework for thinking about happiness that felt worth developing into a book. Their voices are genuinely distinct throughout, with Brooks providing the research scaffolding and Winfrey providing personal experience and emotional grounding, and that distinction is one of the book’s genuine strengths.
Buy Build the Life You Want on Amazon
What the Book Is About
Build the Life You Want is organized around what Brooks and Winfrey call the four pillars of happiness: family, friendship, work, and faith or philosophy. The argument is that genuine, lasting happiness is not a feeling you pursue or a destination you arrive at. It is a set of practices you build into your life through deliberate choices about how you invest your time, energy, and attention across these four domains.
The book opens by challenging what the authors call the happiness myth, the widespread belief that happiness is a stable state that some people have and others lack, or a condition that arrives when circumstances are right. Drawing on research in neuroscience and psychology, Brooks explains that human beings are not neurologically wired for sustained happiness. We are wired for survival, which means we are wired to notice threats, register dissatisfaction, and return relatively quickly to a hedonic baseline after both positive and negative events. Understanding that architecture is the starting point for working with it rather than against it.
From that foundation the book moves through each of the four pillars, examining what research shows about how each contributes to wellbeing, where people commonly go wrong in each domain, and what practical changes produce meaningful improvement. The work section, for example, addresses the difference between a job, a career, and a calling, and examines how to find more meaning in work at any level rather than treating meaning as something only available in prestigious or passion-driven occupations.
The faith and philosophy pillar is handled carefully, acknowledging that not all readers share a religious framework while arguing that some form of transcendent meaning, a belief that life points toward something larger than individual comfort and achievement, is consistently associated with greater wellbeing across cultures and research populations.
Throughout the book Winfrey weaves in personal stories from her own life that illustrate the research Brooks presents. Her account of growing up in poverty and chaos, of building professional success without initially understanding how to build personal happiness alongside it, and of the specific work she has done on each of the four pillars gives the book an emotional credibility that pure research writing rarely achieves.
Lessons Readers Can Take Away
The most practically valuable lesson in the book is the distinction between feeling happy and being happy, which Brooks frames using the research concept of subjective wellbeing. Feeling happy is an emotional state, pleasant but transient and largely outside your direct control. Being happy is a more stable orientation toward life that emerges from specific habits and investments in the four pillars. The implication is that the goal is not to maximize pleasant feelings but to build the structures that support durable wellbeing, a reorientation that changes how you think about both daily choices and long-term planning.
For readers thinking about money and financial decisions, this distinction has direct relevance. Research consistently shows that beyond a moderate income threshold, additional money produces rapidly diminishing returns in terms of actual wellbeing. The person who sacrifices relationships, health, and meaningful work in pursuit of additional wealth accumulation is almost certainly making a bad trade by any objective wellbeing measure. Brooks and Winfrey are not arguing that money does not matter. They are arguing, with solid evidence behind them, that it matters much less than most Americans behave as if it does, and that the domains that matter most, close relationships in particular, tend to be systematically underinvested by people focused primarily on financial achievement.
Another lesson concerns what the authors call the relationship portfolio. They argue that healthy social lives are not just about having a best friend or a romantic partner. They require a range of relationships at different levels of intimacy and commitment, from close family and deep friendships to the looser connections of acquaintances and community ties. Research suggests that the weaker ties, neighbors, colleagues, and casual regulars at the places you frequent, contribute meaningfully to daily wellbeing in ways that most people do not anticipate and therefore fail to cultivate deliberately.
A third lesson is about the role of gratitude and what Brooks calls the subtract, do not add approach to happiness. Rather than constantly pursuing new sources of pleasure or achievement, research suggests that deliberately noticing and appreciating what you already have produces more reliable wellbeing gains than acquiring more. That is a message with obvious financial implications for anyone trying to live below their means and avoid lifestyle inflation.
The book also addresses the relationship between happiness and adversity. Brooks and Winfrey both draw on research and personal experience to argue that the path through genuine suffering, loss, failure, disappointment, is not avoidance or positivity performance but what psychologists call post-traumatic growth. The capacity to find meaning in difficulty rather than simply surviving it is one of the most reliable predictors of long-term wellbeing, and it is something that can be developed deliberately rather than waiting for it to happen.
Buy Build the Life You Want on Amazon
Criticisms of the Book
Build the Life You Want is a genuinely good book, but it has real weaknesses that a fair review should name.
The most substantive criticism is that the four pillars framework, while useful as an organizing structure, can feel somewhat arbitrary. Why these four domains and not others? The book does not make a rigorous case for why work, family, friendship, and faith constitute a complete and exhaustive account of what matters for human wellbeing, and readers with different life arrangements may find that their most important sources of meaning do not map cleanly onto the framework provided.
A second criticism is that the practical guidance, while generally sensible, is not always as specific or actionable as the book promises. Telling readers to invest more in relationships is good advice. Telling them exactly how to do that when they are working long hours, geographically separated from family, or socially anxious is harder, and the book is better at identifying the goal than at mapping the route for people facing real structural obstacles.
A third criticism concerns the collaboration dynamic. While the combination of Brooks’s research and Winfrey’s personal narrative is generally effective, there are moments where the two voices feel less integrated than juxtaposed. Readers who are primarily interested in the science may find Winfrey’s sections less essential, while readers drawn primarily to Winfrey’s perspective may find Brooks’s research sections overly academic. The seams show occasionally.
A fourth criticism, consistent with critiques of the broader happiness research field, is that much of the science Brooks cites is correlational rather than causal. The finding that people with strong relationships report greater happiness does not definitively establish that building stronger relationships will make a specific person happier. The gap between population-level findings and individual prescription is a genuine limitation of the evidence base that the book does not always acknowledge.
Should You Buy This Book?
Yes, for most readers, and particularly for those who want an accessible, research-grounded introduction to the happiness literature that does not sacrifice intellectual honesty for inspirational packaging.
The book is especially worth reading alongside From Strength to Strength, Brooks’s previous book, which covers adjacent territory with more depth and more personal candor. Together they form a coherent two-book examination of how to build a meaningful life in both its first and second halves. The Psychology of Money by Morgan Housel is a natural third companion, addressing the financial dimension of a meaningful life with comparable seriousness and accessibility.
For readers who have already spent time with the happiness research literature, through books like The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt or the work of researchers like Sonja Lyubomirsky, the book will cover familiar ground. But the combination of Brooks’s clarity as an explainer and Winfrey’s personal honesty gives it an emotional texture that more academic treatments lack.
The book is widely available, reads quickly, and is priced modestly. The investment of time and money is low relative to what it offers.
Final Thoughts
Build the Life You Want is a book about something that matters enormously and gets surprisingly little serious attention in personal finance circles: the relationship between how you manage your money and whether you actually end up happy. The research Brooks presents consistently shows that the financial decisions most Americans make, working more to earn more, deferring relationships and leisure and meaning in exchange for greater professional achievement and financial accumulation, are not producing the wellbeing those sacrifices are implicitly supposed to purchase.
That is not an argument against financial responsibility, disciplined saving, or long-term investing. It is an argument for being deliberate about what you are building financial security toward. A high-yield savings account, a fully funded S&P 500 nest egg, and a well-tracked budget are tools in service of a life. They are not the life itself. The four pillars Brooks and Winfrey describe, the relationships, the meaningful work, the community, and the sense of transcendent purpose, are what financial security is supposed to protect and enable. Building those pillars with the same intentionality you bring to your investment strategy is not optional. It is the whole point.
That message, delivered with genuine warmth and solid research, is what makes this book worth the few hours it takes to read.
Buy Build the Life You Want on Amazon
#ArthurCBrooks #BookReviews #Books #BuildTheLifeYouWant #Nonfiction #OprahWinfrey #PersonalFinance #Psychology #SelfHelp -
Book Review: Build the Life You Want by Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey
Happiness is one of the most searched topics on the internet and one of the least understood in daily life. Everyone wants it, most people feel they do not have enough of it, and the self-help industry has built an enormous business around the gap between those two facts. Build the Life You Want: The Art and Science of Getting the Happier, published in 2023 by Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey, enters that crowded space with more intellectual credibility than most of its competitors. It is grounded in actual happiness research, written with genuine warmth, and structured around practical tools rather than vague inspiration. Whether it fully delivers on its ambitious premise is worth examining honestly.
Who Are Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey?
Arthur C. Brooks is a social scientist, professor, and author who has spent much of his career studying the relationship between human behavior, policy, and wellbeing. He earned a PhD in policy analysis from the Pardee RAND Graduate School and served as president of the American Enterprise Institute from 2009 to 2019. He currently holds professorships at Harvard Business School and Harvard Kennedy School, where he teaches courses on leadership and happiness. His Atlantic column on happiness and human flourishing has reached millions of readers, and his previous book, From Strength to Strength, which is reviewed separately on this site, established him as one of the most thoughtful voices in the applied happiness space.
Oprah Winfrey needs considerably less introduction (no offense Arthur, but come on… she’s Oprah). Born in 1954 in rural Mississippi in poverty, she became the host of one of the most successful talk shows in television history, built a media empire that includes television, film, publishing, and digital platforms, and became the first Black female billionaire in American history. She is one of the most recognizable and influential figures in American public life and has spent decades using her platform to champion books, ideas, and conversations about personal growth and human potential. Her book club, launched in 1996, has made bestsellers of dozens of titles and introduced millions of Americans to serious literature and nonfiction they might not otherwise have encountered.
The collaboration between Brooks and Winfrey began when Brooks appeared on Winfrey’s podcast and the two discovered a shared framework for thinking about happiness that felt worth developing into a book. Their voices are genuinely distinct throughout, with Brooks providing the research scaffolding and Winfrey providing personal experience and emotional grounding, and that distinction is one of the book’s genuine strengths.
Buy Build the Life You Want on Amazon
What the Book Is About
Build the Life You Want is organized around what Brooks and Winfrey call the four pillars of happiness: family, friendship, work, and faith or philosophy. The argument is that genuine, lasting happiness is not a feeling you pursue or a destination you arrive at. It is a set of practices you build into your life through deliberate choices about how you invest your time, energy, and attention across these four domains.
The book opens by challenging what the authors call the happiness myth, the widespread belief that happiness is a stable state that some people have and others lack, or a condition that arrives when circumstances are right. Drawing on research in neuroscience and psychology, Brooks explains that human beings are not neurologically wired for sustained happiness. We are wired for survival, which means we are wired to notice threats, register dissatisfaction, and return relatively quickly to a hedonic baseline after both positive and negative events. Understanding that architecture is the starting point for working with it rather than against it.
From that foundation the book moves through each of the four pillars, examining what research shows about how each contributes to wellbeing, where people commonly go wrong in each domain, and what practical changes produce meaningful improvement. The work section, for example, addresses the difference between a job, a career, and a calling, and examines how to find more meaning in work at any level rather than treating meaning as something only available in prestigious or passion-driven occupations.
The faith and philosophy pillar is handled carefully, acknowledging that not all readers share a religious framework while arguing that some form of transcendent meaning, a belief that life points toward something larger than individual comfort and achievement, is consistently associated with greater wellbeing across cultures and research populations.
Throughout the book Winfrey weaves in personal stories from her own life that illustrate the research Brooks presents. Her account of growing up in poverty and chaos, of building professional success without initially understanding how to build personal happiness alongside it, and of the specific work she has done on each of the four pillars gives the book an emotional credibility that pure research writing rarely achieves.
Lessons Readers Can Take Away
The most practically valuable lesson in the book is the distinction between feeling happy and being happy, which Brooks frames using the research concept of subjective wellbeing. Feeling happy is an emotional state, pleasant but transient and largely outside your direct control. Being happy is a more stable orientation toward life that emerges from specific habits and investments in the four pillars. The implication is that the goal is not to maximize pleasant feelings but to build the structures that support durable wellbeing, a reorientation that changes how you think about both daily choices and long-term planning.
For readers thinking about money and financial decisions, this distinction has direct relevance. Research consistently shows that beyond a moderate income threshold, additional money produces rapidly diminishing returns in terms of actual wellbeing. The person who sacrifices relationships, health, and meaningful work in pursuit of additional wealth accumulation is almost certainly making a bad trade by any objective wellbeing measure. Brooks and Winfrey are not arguing that money does not matter. They are arguing, with solid evidence behind them, that it matters much less than most Americans behave as if it does, and that the domains that matter most, close relationships in particular, tend to be systematically underinvested by people focused primarily on financial achievement.
Another lesson concerns what the authors call the relationship portfolio. They argue that healthy social lives are not just about having a best friend or a romantic partner. They require a range of relationships at different levels of intimacy and commitment, from close family and deep friendships to the looser connections of acquaintances and community ties. Research suggests that the weaker ties, neighbors, colleagues, and casual regulars at the places you frequent, contribute meaningfully to daily wellbeing in ways that most people do not anticipate and therefore fail to cultivate deliberately.
A third lesson is about the role of gratitude and what Brooks calls the subtract, do not add approach to happiness. Rather than constantly pursuing new sources of pleasure or achievement, research suggests that deliberately noticing and appreciating what you already have produces more reliable wellbeing gains than acquiring more. That is a message with obvious financial implications for anyone trying to live below their means and avoid lifestyle inflation.
The book also addresses the relationship between happiness and adversity. Brooks and Winfrey both draw on research and personal experience to argue that the path through genuine suffering, loss, failure, disappointment, is not avoidance or positivity performance but what psychologists call post-traumatic growth. The capacity to find meaning in difficulty rather than simply surviving it is one of the most reliable predictors of long-term wellbeing, and it is something that can be developed deliberately rather than waiting for it to happen.
Buy Build the Life You Want on Amazon
Criticisms of the Book
Build the Life You Want is a genuinely good book, but it has real weaknesses that a fair review should name.
The most substantive criticism is that the four pillars framework, while useful as an organizing structure, can feel somewhat arbitrary. Why these four domains and not others? The book does not make a rigorous case for why work, family, friendship, and faith constitute a complete and exhaustive account of what matters for human wellbeing, and readers with different life arrangements may find that their most important sources of meaning do not map cleanly onto the framework provided.
A second criticism is that the practical guidance, while generally sensible, is not always as specific or actionable as the book promises. Telling readers to invest more in relationships is good advice. Telling them exactly how to do that when they are working long hours, geographically separated from family, or socially anxious is harder, and the book is better at identifying the goal than at mapping the route for people facing real structural obstacles.
A third criticism concerns the collaboration dynamic. While the combination of Brooks’s research and Winfrey’s personal narrative is generally effective, there are moments where the two voices feel less integrated than juxtaposed. Readers who are primarily interested in the science may find Winfrey’s sections less essential, while readers drawn primarily to Winfrey’s perspective may find Brooks’s research sections overly academic. The seams show occasionally.
A fourth criticism, consistent with critiques of the broader happiness research field, is that much of the science Brooks cites is correlational rather than causal. The finding that people with strong relationships report greater happiness does not definitively establish that building stronger relationships will make a specific person happier. The gap between population-level findings and individual prescription is a genuine limitation of the evidence base that the book does not always acknowledge.
Should You Buy This Book?
Yes, for most readers, and particularly for those who want an accessible, research-grounded introduction to the happiness literature that does not sacrifice intellectual honesty for inspirational packaging.
The book is especially worth reading alongside From Strength to Strength, Brooks’s previous book, which covers adjacent territory with more depth and more personal candor. Together they form a coherent two-book examination of how to build a meaningful life in both its first and second halves. The Psychology of Money by Morgan Housel is a natural third companion, addressing the financial dimension of a meaningful life with comparable seriousness and accessibility.
For readers who have already spent time with the happiness research literature, through books like The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt or the work of researchers like Sonja Lyubomirsky, the book will cover familiar ground. But the combination of Brooks’s clarity as an explainer and Winfrey’s personal honesty gives it an emotional texture that more academic treatments lack.
The book is widely available, reads quickly, and is priced modestly. The investment of time and money is low relative to what it offers.
Final Thoughts
Build the Life You Want is a book about something that matters enormously and gets surprisingly little serious attention in personal finance circles: the relationship between how you manage your money and whether you actually end up happy. The research Brooks presents consistently shows that the financial decisions most Americans make, working more to earn more, deferring relationships and leisure and meaning in exchange for greater professional achievement and financial accumulation, are not producing the wellbeing those sacrifices are implicitly supposed to purchase.
That is not an argument against financial responsibility, disciplined saving, or long-term investing. It is an argument for being deliberate about what you are building financial security toward. A high-yield savings account, a fully funded S&P 500 nest egg, and a well-tracked budget are tools in service of a life. They are not the life itself. The four pillars Brooks and Winfrey describe, the relationships, the meaningful work, the community, and the sense of transcendent purpose, are what financial security is supposed to protect and enable. Building those pillars with the same intentionality you bring to your investment strategy is not optional. It is the whole point.
That message, delivered with genuine warmth and solid research, is what makes this book worth the few hours it takes to read.
Buy Build the Life You Want on Amazon
#ArthurCBrooks #BookReviews #Books #BuildTheLifeYouWant #Nonfiction #OprahWinfrey #PersonalFinance #Psychology #SelfHelp -
Book Review: Build the Life You Want by Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey
Happiness is one of the most searched topics on the internet and one of the least understood in daily life. Everyone wants it, most people feel they do not have enough of it, and the self-help industry has built an enormous business around the gap between those two facts. Build the Life You Want: The Art and Science of Getting the Happier, published in 2023 by Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey, enters that crowded space with more intellectual credibility than most of its competitors. It is grounded in actual happiness research, written with genuine warmth, and structured around practical tools rather than vague inspiration. Whether it fully delivers on its ambitious premise is worth examining honestly.
Who Are Arthur C. Brooks and Oprah Winfrey?
Arthur C. Brooks is a social scientist, professor, and author who has spent much of his career studying the relationship between human behavior, policy, and wellbeing. He earned a PhD in policy analysis from the Pardee RAND Graduate School and served as president of the American Enterprise Institute from 2009 to 2019. He currently holds professorships at Harvard Business School and Harvard Kennedy School, where he teaches courses on leadership and happiness. His Atlantic column on happiness and human flourishing has reached millions of readers, and his previous book, From Strength to Strength, which is reviewed separately on this site, established him as one of the most thoughtful voices in the applied happiness space.
Oprah Winfrey needs considerably less introduction (no offense Arthur, but come on… she’s Oprah). Born in 1954 in rural Mississippi in poverty, she became the host of one of the most successful talk shows in television history, built a media empire that includes television, film, publishing, and digital platforms, and became the first Black female billionaire in American history. She is one of the most recognizable and influential figures in American public life and has spent decades using her platform to champion books, ideas, and conversations about personal growth and human potential. Her book club, launched in 1996, has made bestsellers of dozens of titles and introduced millions of Americans to serious literature and nonfiction they might not otherwise have encountered.
The collaboration between Brooks and Winfrey began when Brooks appeared on Winfrey’s podcast and the two discovered a shared framework for thinking about happiness that felt worth developing into a book. Their voices are genuinely distinct throughout, with Brooks providing the research scaffolding and Winfrey providing personal experience and emotional grounding, and that distinction is one of the book’s genuine strengths.
Buy Build the Life You Want on Amazon
What the Book Is About
Build the Life You Want is organized around what Brooks and Winfrey call the four pillars of happiness: family, friendship, work, and faith or philosophy. The argument is that genuine, lasting happiness is not a feeling you pursue or a destination you arrive at. It is a set of practices you build into your life through deliberate choices about how you invest your time, energy, and attention across these four domains.
The book opens by challenging what the authors call the happiness myth, the widespread belief that happiness is a stable state that some people have and others lack, or a condition that arrives when circumstances are right. Drawing on research in neuroscience and psychology, Brooks explains that human beings are not neurologically wired for sustained happiness. We are wired for survival, which means we are wired to notice threats, register dissatisfaction, and return relatively quickly to a hedonic baseline after both positive and negative events. Understanding that architecture is the starting point for working with it rather than against it.
From that foundation the book moves through each of the four pillars, examining what research shows about how each contributes to wellbeing, where people commonly go wrong in each domain, and what practical changes produce meaningful improvement. The work section, for example, addresses the difference between a job, a career, and a calling, and examines how to find more meaning in work at any level rather than treating meaning as something only available in prestigious or passion-driven occupations.
The faith and philosophy pillar is handled carefully, acknowledging that not all readers share a religious framework while arguing that some form of transcendent meaning, a belief that life points toward something larger than individual comfort and achievement, is consistently associated with greater wellbeing across cultures and research populations.
Throughout the book Winfrey weaves in personal stories from her own life that illustrate the research Brooks presents. Her account of growing up in poverty and chaos, of building professional success without initially understanding how to build personal happiness alongside it, and of the specific work she has done on each of the four pillars gives the book an emotional credibility that pure research writing rarely achieves.
Lessons Readers Can Take Away
The most practically valuable lesson in the book is the distinction between feeling happy and being happy, which Brooks frames using the research concept of subjective wellbeing. Feeling happy is an emotional state, pleasant but transient and largely outside your direct control. Being happy is a more stable orientation toward life that emerges from specific habits and investments in the four pillars. The implication is that the goal is not to maximize pleasant feelings but to build the structures that support durable wellbeing, a reorientation that changes how you think about both daily choices and long-term planning.
For readers thinking about money and financial decisions, this distinction has direct relevance. Research consistently shows that beyond a moderate income threshold, additional money produces rapidly diminishing returns in terms of actual wellbeing. The person who sacrifices relationships, health, and meaningful work in pursuit of additional wealth accumulation is almost certainly making a bad trade by any objective wellbeing measure. Brooks and Winfrey are not arguing that money does not matter. They are arguing, with solid evidence behind them, that it matters much less than most Americans behave as if it does, and that the domains that matter most, close relationships in particular, tend to be systematically underinvested by people focused primarily on financial achievement.
Another lesson concerns what the authors call the relationship portfolio. They argue that healthy social lives are not just about having a best friend or a romantic partner. They require a range of relationships at different levels of intimacy and commitment, from close family and deep friendships to the looser connections of acquaintances and community ties. Research suggests that the weaker ties, neighbors, colleagues, and casual regulars at the places you frequent, contribute meaningfully to daily wellbeing in ways that most people do not anticipate and therefore fail to cultivate deliberately.
A third lesson is about the role of gratitude and what Brooks calls the subtract, do not add approach to happiness. Rather than constantly pursuing new sources of pleasure or achievement, research suggests that deliberately noticing and appreciating what you already have produces more reliable wellbeing gains than acquiring more. That is a message with obvious financial implications for anyone trying to live below their means and avoid lifestyle inflation.
The book also addresses the relationship between happiness and adversity. Brooks and Winfrey both draw on research and personal experience to argue that the path through genuine suffering, loss, failure, disappointment, is not avoidance or positivity performance but what psychologists call post-traumatic growth. The capacity to find meaning in difficulty rather than simply surviving it is one of the most reliable predictors of long-term wellbeing, and it is something that can be developed deliberately rather than waiting for it to happen.
Buy Build the Life You Want on Amazon
Criticisms of the Book
Build the Life You Want is a genuinely good book, but it has real weaknesses that a fair review should name.
The most substantive criticism is that the four pillars framework, while useful as an organizing structure, can feel somewhat arbitrary. Why these four domains and not others? The book does not make a rigorous case for why work, family, friendship, and faith constitute a complete and exhaustive account of what matters for human wellbeing, and readers with different life arrangements may find that their most important sources of meaning do not map cleanly onto the framework provided.
A second criticism is that the practical guidance, while generally sensible, is not always as specific or actionable as the book promises. Telling readers to invest more in relationships is good advice. Telling them exactly how to do that when they are working long hours, geographically separated from family, or socially anxious is harder, and the book is better at identifying the goal than at mapping the route for people facing real structural obstacles.
A third criticism concerns the collaboration dynamic. While the combination of Brooks’s research and Winfrey’s personal narrative is generally effective, there are moments where the two voices feel less integrated than juxtaposed. Readers who are primarily interested in the science may find Winfrey’s sections less essential, while readers drawn primarily to Winfrey’s perspective may find Brooks’s research sections overly academic. The seams show occasionally.
A fourth criticism, consistent with critiques of the broader happiness research field, is that much of the science Brooks cites is correlational rather than causal. The finding that people with strong relationships report greater happiness does not definitively establish that building stronger relationships will make a specific person happier. The gap between population-level findings and individual prescription is a genuine limitation of the evidence base that the book does not always acknowledge.
Should You Buy This Book?
Yes, for most readers, and particularly for those who want an accessible, research-grounded introduction to the happiness literature that does not sacrifice intellectual honesty for inspirational packaging.
The book is especially worth reading alongside From Strength to Strength, Brooks’s previous book, which covers adjacent territory with more depth and more personal candor. Together they form a coherent two-book examination of how to build a meaningful life in both its first and second halves. The Psychology of Money by Morgan Housel is a natural third companion, addressing the financial dimension of a meaningful life with comparable seriousness and accessibility.
For readers who have already spent time with the happiness research literature, through books like The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt or the work of researchers like Sonja Lyubomirsky, the book will cover familiar ground. But the combination of Brooks’s clarity as an explainer and Winfrey’s personal honesty gives it an emotional texture that more academic treatments lack.
The book is widely available, reads quickly, and is priced modestly. The investment of time and money is low relative to what it offers.
Final Thoughts
Build the Life You Want is a book about something that matters enormously and gets surprisingly little serious attention in personal finance circles: the relationship between how you manage your money and whether you actually end up happy. The research Brooks presents consistently shows that the financial decisions most Americans make, working more to earn more, deferring relationships and leisure and meaning in exchange for greater professional achievement and financial accumulation, are not producing the wellbeing those sacrifices are implicitly supposed to purchase.
That is not an argument against financial responsibility, disciplined saving, or long-term investing. It is an argument for being deliberate about what you are building financial security toward. A high-yield savings account, a fully funded S&P 500 nest egg, and a well-tracked budget are tools in service of a life. They are not the life itself. The four pillars Brooks and Winfrey describe, the relationships, the meaningful work, the community, and the sense of transcendent purpose, are what financial security is supposed to protect and enable. Building those pillars with the same intentionality you bring to your investment strategy is not optional. It is the whole point.
That message, delivered with genuine warmth and solid research, is what makes this book worth the few hours it takes to read.
Buy Build the Life You Want on Amazon
#ArthurCBrooks #BookReviews #Books #BuildTheLifeYouWant #Nonfiction #OprahWinfrey #PersonalFinance #Psychology #SelfHelp -
Spirituality & Religious Studies @spiritualityreligiousstudies.wordpress.com@spiritualityreligiousstudies.wordpress.com ·
Samaritanism
Samaritanism is an Abrahamic monotheistic, ethnic religion. It comprises the collective spiritual, cultural, & legal traditions of the Samaritan people.
Often preferring to be called Israelite Samaritans, who originated from the Hebrews & Israelites. They began to emerge as a relatively distinct group after the Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Iron Age. The Neo-Assyrian Empire was the 4th, & penultimate, stage of ancient Assyrian history.
Central to their continuity as an Indigenous Heritage in the Holy Land is keeping the Patriarchal & Mosaic covenant as specified in the Samaritan Torah. Samaritans believe this is the original & unchanged version of the Pentateuch (which is the first 5 books of the Hebrew & Christian bible) since Moses & the Israelites at Mount Sinai.
The Abisha Scroll is traditionally held by the community to be the oldest existing scroll written by Abisha, son of Aaron the priest, around 3,000 years ago based on living tradition. However, Jewish & Christian theologians have made attempts to dispute this claim which proved unsatisfactory.
Judaism claims Samaritanism developed right alongside their own religion. Samaritanism asserts itself as the true preserved form of the monotheistic faith that the Israelites kept under Moses. Samaritan belief also holds that the Israelites’ original holy site was Mount Gerizim, near Nablus, the State of Palestine (West Bank).
They also believe that Jerusalem only attained importance under Israelite dissenters who had followed Eli (In the Book of Samuel, Eli was a priest & judge of the Israelites in the city of Shiloh) to the city of Shiloh.
The Israelites who remained at Mount Gerizim would become the Samaritans in the Kingdom of Judah. Mount Gerizim is revered by Samaritans as the location where the Binding of Isaac occurred. In comparison to the Jewish belief that it occurred at Jerusalem’s Temple Mount.
Today there are only about 900 registered communal members. This puts Samaritanism as 1 of the smallest ethnoreligious groups globally in the Abrahamic faiths. Samaritans believe that this is a prophecy fulfilled from the scriptures: “You’ll be left few in number.”
Though they hope for a future time when a prophet like Moses known as the “Taheb” (Restorer) will perform 3 signs, namely the jar of manna, the staff of Moses, & Cherubim, or the Golden Candlestick.
This time period they believe is when an era of Divine Favor would return, & the hidden tabernacle of Moses would miraculously be revealed for the Israelite people & Mount Gerizim is restored to its former glory.
Samaritans trace their history, as a separate entity, to a period soon after the Israelites’ arrival into the “Promised Land.” Samaritan historiography traces the schism to High Priest Eli leaving Mount Gerizim, where stood the 1st Israelite altar in Canaan, & building a competing altar in nearby Shiloh.
The dissenting group of Israelites who followed Eli to Shiloh would be the ones who, in later years, would head south to settle in Jerusalem (the Jews). Whereas the Israelites who stayed on Mount Gerizim, in Samaria, would become known as the Samaritans.
Genetic studies in 2004 suggest that Samaritans’ lineages trace back to a common ancestor with Jews in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) temporally near to the period of the Assyrian conquest of the Kingdom of Israel. They’re probably descendants of the historical Israelite population. The Cohanim refers to the Jewish priestly class, male descendants of Aaron the priest.
The Hasmonean king, John Hyrcanus, destroyed the Mount Gerizim Temple & brought Samaria under his control around 120 BCE. This led to a long-lasting sense of mutual hostility between the Jews & Samaritans.
From this point, the Samaritans likely sought to consciously distance themselves from their Judean brethren. Both peoples came to see the Samaritan faith as a religion distinct from Judaism. By the time of Jesus, Samaritans & Jews deeply disparaged one another, as shown by Jesus’ Parable of the Good Samaritan.
The main beliefs of Samaritanism are:
- There’s 1 God, Yahweh, the same God recognized by the Jewish prophets.
- The Torah is the only true holy book & was given by God to Moses. The Torah was created before the creation of the world & whoever believes in it is assured a part in the world to come. The Torah’s status in Samaritanism as the only holy book causes them to reject the Oral Torah, the Talmud, & all the prophets & scriptures, except for a version of the Book of Joshua (which they don’t hold as Scripture), whose book in the Samaritan community is significantly different from the Book of Joshua in the Jewish “Bible.” Moses is considered to be the last of the line of prophets.
- Mount Gerizim, not Jerusalem, is the 1 true sanctuary chosen by God. The Samaritans don’t recognize the sanctity of Jerusalem & don’t recognize the Temple Mount, claiming instead that Mount Gerizim was the place where the Binding of Isaac took place.
- The Apocalypse, called “the day of vengeance,” will be the end of days. When an entity called the Taheb (basically the Jewish Messiah equal) that comes from the tribe of Joseph will come, be a prophet like Moses for 40 years & bring about the return of all the Israelites, following which the dead will be resurrected. The Tahib will then discover the tent of Moses’ Tabernacle on Mount Gerizim, & will be buried next to Joseph when he dies.
The Samaritans have retained the institution of a high priesthood & the practice of slaughtering & eating lambs on Passover Eve. They celebrated Pesach, Shavuot, & Sukkot. But they use a different method from that used in mainstream Judaism in order to determine the dates annually.
For example, Yom Teru’ah (the biblical name for Rosh Hashanah), at the beginning of Tishrei (This is the 1st month of the civil year & the 7th month of the ecclesiastical year in the Hebrew calendar.), isn’t considered a New Year as it is in Rabbinic Judaism.
Their Sabbath is observed weekly by the Samaritan community every week from Friday to Saturday, beginning & ending at sundown. For 24 hours, the families gather together to celebrate the rest day: all electricity with the exception of minimal lighting (kept on the entire day) in the house is disconnected, no work is done, & neither cooking nor driving is allowed.
The time is devoted to worship which consists of 7 prayer services, reading the weekly Torah portion, spending quality time with family, taking meals, rest & sleep, & visiting other members of the community.
Passover is particularly important in the Samaritan community, climaxing with the sacrifice of up to 40 sheep.
The Counting of the Omar remains relatively unchanged. The Counting of the Omar is a ritual in Judaism that consists of a verbal counting of each of the 49 days between the holidays of Passover & Shavuot. However, the week before Shavuot is a unique festival celebrating the continued commitment Samaritanism has maintained since the time of Moses.
During Sukkot, the Sukkah (the temporary hut built for use during Sukkot) is built INSIDE of houses, instead of OUTSIDE like mainstream Judaism. This Samaritan tradition is traced back to the persecution of the Samaritans during the Byzantine Empire.
The roof of the Samaritan Sukkah is decorated with citrus fruits & branches of palm, myrtle, & willow trees. This is in accordance with the Samaritan interpretation of the 4 species designated in the Torah for the holiday. The 4 species are 4 plants (the etrog, lulav, hadass, & aravah) mentioned in the Torah as being relevant to the Jewish holiday of Sukkot.
Make a one-time donation
Your contribution is appreciated.
Donate
Make a monthly donation
Your contribution is appreciated.
Donate monthly
Make a yearly donation
Your contribution is appreciated.
Donate yearly
Rate this:
#120BCE #4Species #Aaron #Abisha #AbishaScroll #AbrahamicFaiths #AncientAssyria #Apoclypse #Aravah #BindingOfIsaac #BookOfJoshua #BookOfSamuel #ByzantineEmpire #Canaan #Cherubim #Christians #CitrusFruits #Cohanim #CountingOfTheOmar #Eli #Etrog #GoldenCandlestick #Hadass #Hasmonean #HebrewCalendar #Hebrews #HighPriestEli #HighPriesthood #IndigenousPeoples #IronAge #IsraeliteSamaritans #Israelites #Jerusalem #Jesus #Jewish #JewishProphets #Jews #Joseph #Judah #KingJohnHyrcanus #KingdomOfIsrael #Lulav #Manna #Messiah #MosaicCovenant #Moses #MountGerizim #MountSinai #Myrtle #Nablus #NeoAssyrianEmpire #OralTorah #Palestine #ParableOfTheGoodSamaritan #Passover #PatriarchalCovenant #Pentateuch #Priest #PromisedLand #RabbinicJudaism #RoshHashanah #Sabbath #SamaritanTorah #Samaritanism #Shavuot #Shiloh #StaffOfMoses #Sukkah #Sukkot #Tabernacle #Taheb #Talmud #TempleMount #Tishrei #Torah #WestBank #Willow #Yahweh #YomTeruAh
-
Tony Blair: Soulless Creature of the West’s War Machine.
Article republished by Jerry Alatalo | April 8, 2026
(Source: ScheerPost.com)
[Editor’s note: Jonathan Cook’s literary evisceration/disembowelment of Iraq War criminal Tony Blair applies in equal measure to war criminals Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu and their fellow ZioFascist imperialist members of the so-called “Board of Peace”.
Tony Blair is a founding member of the “Board of Peace,” an international organization established by Donald Trump to oversee peacekeeping and reconstruction efforts in Gaza. Blair has praised Trump’s vision for the region and is involved in discussions about redevelopment plans.
The Board of Peace currently has 27 member states, including countries like the United States, Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, among others. Membership requires a financial commitment, with countries able to renew their membership every three years.
Particularly relevant – considering the repeated irrational public statements from the “Board of Peace” chairman: Donald Trump’s control over the Board of Peace, including his ability to determine membership and set the agenda, raises significant concerns about its legitimacy as an impartial entity in international relations. This centralization of power may undermine the Board’s effectiveness and perception as a fair arbiter in global conflicts.]
Please share this information far and wide. Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you very much. Peace.
***
Blair’s Latest Deceit-Riddled Column Vilifies The UK Left To Justify Genocide
Tony Blair, the man who led Britain into a disastrous and illegal war on Iraq more than 20 years ago based on false information, is still very much a sought-after commentator in the UK media.
His regular political pronouncements are treated as pearls of wisdom; his columns as consequential insights from a globe-striding elder statesman.
Even his leading role on Donald Trump’s Board of Peace, the US president’s panel of autocrats seeking to elbow the United Nations – and international law – off the world stage, appears to have done little to dent his claim to moral authority.
Blair, more than anybody, illustrates the capacity of western leaders – with the help of a complicit establishment media – to rewrite their criminal past and escape accountability in perpetuity.
The former British prime minister’s latest political intervention is a lengthy, and typically repugnant, article published by the Sunday Times newspaper. It effectively blames “the left” for an arson attack last month on four ambulances owned by a Jewish charity in London.
No, Blair hasn’t unearthed any startling new information tying leftwingers to the attack. His article is a pure disinformation – propaganda designed to malign those critical of Israel.
More on that in a moment.
But as a prelude, let us note that there are many terrible things going on in the world right now that might be considered more pressing for Blair to write about than the torching of a handful of ambulances: whether it be a genocide in Gaza – where Israel destroyed not just four ambulances but the enclave’s entire health sector – or an illegal, joint US-Israeli war on Iran that has similarly targeted medical centres and other civilian infrastructure.
Twisted logic
Blair once served as a Middle East envoy to an international body known as the Quartet. In that role, he spent several years shuttling futilely between his eponymous institute in London and Israel and the Palestinian territories.
There are, however, two self-evident reasons why Blair may have been averse to dedicating his latest column to the catastrophes unfolding in the Middle East.
First, because his close allies – the leaders of the US and Israel – are indisputably the ones committing the crimes of genocide and aggression respectively in Gaza and Iran.
And second, because Blair was himself responsible for launching, alongside the US, a war of aggression on Iraq in 2003.
But it is not just that Blair is in no position to moralise on matters of the utmost global importance.
He has made it his primary duty in public life to excuse the West’s supreme crimes – crimes that, were there meaningful accountability for western leaders, would necessitate that he stand trial at the international war crimes court in the Hague.
That is the context for understanding both why Blair penned his column on the arson attack in London and the twisted logic that underpins his argument in that article.
Dirty war
Anyone who has studied Blair’s back-catalogue of opinion pieces will hardly be surprised by the Sunday Times headline: “We must end left’s unholy alliance with the Islamists.”
Or its subhead: “Parts of the left cast Jewish communities as supporters of Israel and Jews become ‘fair game’.”
Although the article ostensibly concerns an arson attack on a Jewish community ambulance service in London, Blair has much larger – carefully veiled – ambitions.
This is his latest manoeuvre in a dirty war to silence and crush Britain’s progressive left – waged by those, like Blair, who duplicitiously claim both to belong to that left and to serve as its natural leaders.
Blair is central to a cabal of so-called Atlanticists who view the world in Manichean terms, as “a clash of civilisations” between a supposedly superior, enlightened Judeo-Christian West, led by the US, and a backward, primitive Islamic East, now, it seems, led de facto by Iran.
Israel is presented as a first line of defence against this dangerous “Muslim” enemy.
Everything for Blair is seen through this racist prism.
He would sound more obviously like some Victorian, pith-helmeted empire-builder were it not for the fact that his fundamental, and fundamentalist, worldview continues to be shared by the entire UK ruling class, including the billionaire-owned media and the main political parties.
And for good reason. A Britain belonging to a “superior” West can openly aid Israel’s genocidal campaign of carpet-bombing and starvation in Gaza, and loan air bases to assist the US in its illegal war of aggression on Iran, and still pretend to itself that this is all being done “defensively”.
Christendom is still, apparently, “defending” itself against the rampaging barbarian hordes.
Achilles’ heel
In fact, Blair’s column in the Sunday Times should be seen as another front in a continuing war being waged by British prime minister Keir Starmer – a disciple of Blair – on the Corbynite left.
Their joint aim is to shepherd back into the Atlanticist fold a Labour party that supposedly lost its way under Starmer’s predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn.
Corbyn’s crime was to have taken Labour towards internationalism – and the prioritising of human rights for all, not just westerners. That project necessarily entailed treating British Muslims as an integral part of British society, no less than British Jews.
Corbyn’s politics were an ideological assault on – and continue to pose a threat to – the Blair-Starmer worldview.
In other words, Blair’s article is part of a running battle – as the British establishment’s claim to moral authority is steadily eroded by its collusion in Israeli and US crimes – to prevent the progressive left ever reviving its political fortunes.
With the help of the Israel lobby, Blair and his ilk believe they have identified the achilles’ heel of a British left determined to highlight a brutal US-led western imperialism and its inherent hypocrisies.
The goal is to crop out the left’s increasingly persuasive critique of US imperialism and zoom in instead on the left’s parallel criticisms of Israel: its apartheid rule over Palestinians, its ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, and its genocidal campaign of destruction in Gaza.
Blair wishes to wave all this away, as if wielding a magic wand, by labelling it as “antisemitism”.
After that move worked so successfully in fatally wounding Corbyn as Labour leader, Blair and Starmer assume the same smear can be repurposed more generally – in this case, to implicate an undefined “left” over the torching of a handful of ambulances.
It goes without saying, that in prioritising the suppression of the left’s critiques of western imperialism, Blair and Starmer are leaving the door wide open to a resurgence by the far-right – which indeed is antisemitic.
That should serve as a reminder that Blair, Starmer and the rest of the British establishment have no real concern for the welfare of the Jewish community they profess to be protecting.
If the Jewish community turns out to be collateral damage in their war on the left, then so be it.
‘New antisemitism’
In the article itself, Blair argues that a so-called left-wing antisemitism “is a pernicious and novel development in progressive politics: the alliance with Islamists”.
First, notice the sleight of hand. British Muslims who, quite reasonably, are deeply critical of Israel because its army has been committing for decades war crimes with impunity against their extended families are reduced here simply to “Islamists”.
Blair is doing to Muslims precisely what he accuses – falsely – the left of doing to Jews. He is conflating Muslims, a religious group, with Islamists, champions of an extreme political ideology.
Yet he considers it patently antisemitic to conflate Jews, a religious and ethnic group, with Zionists, champions of an equally extreme political ideology – one whose adherents still mostly deny a genocide in Gaza.
Paradoxically, Blair is laundering his own rancid Islamophobia to smear the British left as antisemites.
The imagined “alliance” between the left and “Islamists” aside, there is nothing novel about the allegation of a “new antisemitism”. It has been the blueprint for vilifying the left for decades – trotted out every time Israel is exposed committing war crimes so egregious they cannot be hidden.
As the American Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein noted in his book Beyond Chutzpah, the term “the new Anti-Semitism” was actually coined way back in 1973 by Israel’s then foreign minister, Abba Eban, to deal with what was at the time a novel development: parts of the western left had started to grow more critical of Israel.
That year, Eban wrote in a publication of the American Jewish Congress: “Let there be no mistake: the new left is the author and the progenitor of the new anti-Semitism.”
The aim was to demonise and discredit this “new left”, which had begun to appreciate that the Palestinian territories conquered by Israel in 1967 were facing permanent, brutal military occupation.
This new scrutiny emerged in the context of additional concern from Israel that it was being seen as a geopolitical liability following the 1973 war, when western powers supported Israel against its Arab neighbours. In echoes of current events, a resulting Arab oil embargo plunged the world into economic crisis.
Shrill warnings about a “new antisemitism” would re-emerge a decade later, in the 1980s.
This followed another double whammy for Israel: its so-called “new historians” excavated from the archives revelations of shocking crimes committed at Israel’s founding in 1948; and the Israeli army was exposed as committing systematic war crimes during its occupation of Lebanon, including overseeing a massacre of Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila.
Again, echoes from the present moment.
The only really novel development in this latest moral panic about a “new antisemitism” is that the lobby no longer needs, when Israel is in reputational trouble, to fabricate these smears itself. It can outsource the job to figures like Tony Blair.
Deep collusion
It is a sign of how insular the worldview of western leaders like Blair has become that he apparently imagines the following argument will resonate: “In its opposition to Israel, [the left] has found an animating cause. And the war in Gaza has allowed it full rein in pursuing it.”
So the problem, suggests Blair, is that the left has chosen to highlight Israel’s genocidal campaign of carpet-bombing and starvation of Gaza’s population. Presumably, he believes it should have cheered the slaughter on instead.
And therein lies the real problem for Blair. The left has also been highlighting the deep collusion of the British establishment, of which he is a figurehead, in Israel’s genocide of Gaza’s Palestinians.
The UK has provided arms to Israel, shipped US and German munitions to carry out the genocide, operated RAF spy flights to assist with Israel’s targeting of Palestinians, and run cover for Israel with continuous genocide denial.
The British establishment’s real grievance with the left is that it has pursued with “full rein” the exposure of Israel’s war crimes and Britain’s complicity in those crimes, organising regular mass demonstrations against the slaughter.
Israeli talking points
Blair continues: “Parts of the left cast the Jewish community as supporters of the government of Israel. And Jews become ‘fair game’.”
Strangely, he fails to note that it is not the left making this claim about the Jewish community. It is Jewish community leaders. They are on record regularly asserting – with little evidence – that there is almost unanimous support among British Jews for Israel.
So, accepting Blair’s logic, what should we conclude? If most Jews truly do support Israel – in fact, polling suggests that’s not close to being true in relation to the slaughter in Gaza – does Blair regard the Jewish community as having made itself “fair game” for an arson attack?
Maybe he needs to have a word with the Board of Deputies, rather than vilify “the left” once again.
Next, Blair insists that the left cannot “legitimately” criticise Israel’s two-and-a-half-year genocide in Gaza unless it first condemns Hamas’ one-day attack on Israel on 7 October 2023.
He writes: “You cannot pretend that Israel does not face a substantial terrorist threat from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Iranian regime and other groups that do not recognise Israel’s right to exist.”
Unravelling the hotchpotch of Israeli talking points in his column is no simple task. But let us start by noting – for the umpteenth time – that states do not have an intrinsic “right to exist”, even if peoples do.
Apartheid South Africa had no “right to exist”. That state is now relegated to the history books. A new South Africa was born in its place. White and Black South Africans exist in this new state. No one, apart from a few diehard racists, is any the poorer for the erasure of that apartheid state.
There is precisely no reason why the apartheid state of Israel, nearly 60 years into an intensifying, brutal occupation and in the third year of a genocide, should have any right to exist. It must be brought to an end like apartheid South Africa was.
That objective, whatever Blair claims, is not the preserve of the left and groups dismissed by him and the UK government as “terrorists”.
In fact, a large panel of eminent judges at the International Court of Justice ruled two years ago that Israel’s system of illegal occupation and apartheid rule had to end. Are they also culpable for the arson attack on the four ambulances in London?
The left’s recognition of the corrupt and corrupting nature of an Israeli ethnocratic state isn’t the problem. It is evidence only that the progressive left refuses to follow politicians like Blair in making endless excuses for a discredited, criminal and unsustainable status quo.
Moral abyss
But this is just Blair’s warm-up act. Now he jumps feet first into the moral abyss.
He continues: “You cannot complain about the restrictions on goods and material going in and out of Gaza unless you also reference the reasons for the restrictions: the fear in Israel that such materials will be used for the purpose of building a terrorist infrastructure, which is precisely what nearly 300 miles of tunnels underneath Gaza represent.”
Seen another way, the tunnels represent the best chance a people in a tiny territory under an illegal blockade and Israel’s regular “mowing the lawn” stand of resisting their oppressor, one of the most fearsomely armed militaries in the world.
But more significantly, and appallingly, Blair appears to be excusing Israel’s starvation of the 2.3 million people of Gaza, half of them children.
According to Blair, no one, not even the progressive left, should be allowed to criticise an Israeli siege that has blocked food, water, fuel and medicines to Gaza – unless they first justify that blockade as essential to Israel’s “security”.
Again, maybe he needs to have a word with the judges of the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Because they are seeking Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, on charges of crimes against humanity over his efforts to starve Gaza’s population.
Is the ICC also responsible for torching four ambulances in London?
Meanwhile, Starmer will be delighted by Blair’s argument. After all, at the outset of the genocide, asked whether Israel had a right to cut off all essentials to Gaza answered that Israel “had that right”. The prime minister presumably represents, in Blair’s view, the legitimate “left”.
Historical illiteracy
In Blair’s assessment, not only should the left not criticise Israel, nor oppose its starvation blockade of Gaza, but it also should not use the term “genocide” to describe Israel’s killing of many tens of thousands – and more likely, hundreds of thousands – of civilians.
Blair opines: “You should not diminish the charge of genocide — whatever your views of Israel’s actions — by a barb particularly aimed at Jewish memories of the Holocaust, which was a genocide.”
This seems clear evidence either of Blair’s mendacity or his historical illiteracy. The Holocaust is not the only example of genocide. Far from it. There have been many different genocides, each unique.
And their status as genocides is determined not by “Jewish memories”, whatever that is supposed to mean, but by legal considerations set out in the 1948 Genocide Convention. Human rights groups and a raft of leading Israeli genocide scholars have all judged that the slaughter in Gaza to clearly meet those criteria.
Are they too responsible for the arson attack in London?
Gaza’s dead and maimed cannot be denied the status of genocide victims simply because such a characterisation might offend the feelings of Israel apologists like Blair.
Lesser humans
In another wantonly deceitful Israeli talking point, Blair claims “the war would have ended at any point in time if Hamas had said they were releasing the hostages”.
Yet Gaza’s problems did not start with the taking of Israelis as hostages by Hamas on 7 October 2023. Before the genocidal “war”, the enclave had suffered decades of brutal, illegal occupation and siege – abuses that continue, despite the last of the hostages being released many months ago.
In any case, Blair cannot justify the levelling of the enclave, mass murder and the engineered destitution of its people just because he can point to crimes committed by Hamas. That is collective punishment of the wider population, a grave war crime.
Blair even has the chutzpah to blame Gaza’s immiseration on Hamas’ failure to achieve “a Palestinian State … through negotiation”. As if the Israeli government has not been openly opposed for decades to a Palestinian state and to any negotiations to achieve it.
Israel refuses to speak even with Mahmoud Abbas, the so-called “moderate” Palestinian leader in the West Bank, who says security coordination with Israel is “sacred”.
Is Hamas to blame for not negotiating with itself?
Blair wonders how Britons would react “if we woke up one day and between the hours of 6am and midday, 1,200 of our citizens were murdered, including young people at a music festival, with women raped and others taken hostage”.
Set aside again the Israeli disinformation – no tangible evidence has ever been produced of any rapes taking place on 7 October – and instead ask a more pertinent question, one Blair desperately wants to distract us from.
How would Britons respond if they woke up every day for eight decades to find they were losing more of their homeland – and their homes – to colonising immigrants claiming a right to take their lands based on a supposed 3,000-year-old birthright?
How would Britons react if many hundreds of thousands of them were given lengthy prison terms, often following torture, by kangaroo military courts set up by those same colonisers with near 100 per cent conviction rates?
How would Britons feel about foreign settler militias being allowed, again for decades, to regularly rampage through their towns and villages, setting fire to their homes and cars, pointing guns at them, sometimes shooting at their family members – all watched over by paramilitary forces that not only refused to intervene to protect them but often joined in the attacks?
Blair observes of the likely response of Britons: “I suspect it would be total determination that those responsible were going to be removed as a threat, and nothing would deter us from doing so.”
And yet here is Blair writing a column condemning a British left that agrees with him. They believe the threat to Palestinians posed by Israel’s criminal settlers, by Israel’s criminal army, by Israel’s criminal government needs to be removed with “total determination”.
The difference is that Blair is indifferent to Palestinian suffering because, in a long tradition of racists, he regards them as lesser humans. He cares only when Israelis suffer a reaction to their state’s systematic abuses of the Palestinians.
Soulless creature
Blair correctly concludes by arguing that he is defending more than just Israel.
“It’s about defending reason,” he writes. “Defending facts. Standing up to the noise and intimidation to assert the truth.”
But Blair is not “defending reason”, in the sense of rationality. He is defending rationalisation – excuses for wanton criminality that currently includes overwhelming US-led western aggression towards Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Iran, Venezuela and Cuba.
The British establishment, in which he is a central figure, is deeply enmeshed in those criminal endeavors, from its role sharing intelligence to Israel and the US, the latter as a member of Five Eyes, and providing air bases, weapons and diplomatic cover.
And also, as Blair does here, by manipulating the information sphere with a mix of continuous pro-war messaging and relentless demonisation campaigns against those – mostly on the left – who try to convey a little of the reality of western criminality.
Blair is not defending facts. He is defending the inhuman void into which western foreign policy sucks all those like him whose job is to whitewash imperial crimes.
And while he may face “noise” – from the the street protests organised by the anti-war left he so despises – he faces no meaningful intimidation. After all, the left does not have prisons to lock up criminals like Blair. It is the left that is being locked up – as terrorists – for holding placards opposing Israel’s genocide. That is the real intimidation.
What Blair wants is for the left to be utterly silenced so that its protests do not rouse uncomfortable twinges of guilt forcibly reminding him that long ago he became a soulless creature of the West’s war machine.
It is not just that Blair has faced no consequences for his criminal undertaking in Iraq. He has instead become fabulously wealthy, venerated by western establishments, and an oracle for an equally complicit, billionaire-owned media.
Blair is the model that proves there is no price in the West to be paid for selling one’s soul, for engineering mass slaughter in the service of a western empire.
Which is why those mass slaughters not only continue but grow relentlessly in scale.
Jonathan Cook
Jonathan Cook is a MintPress contributor. Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net.
#BoardOfPeace #DonaldTrump #GazaGenocide #InternationalLaw #Iran #Israel #Zionism -
REVEALED: THE “BALLROOM” AND “RADICAL LEFTISM” PSYOPS ARE COVER FOR A “STARGATE COMMAND” UNDERGROUND DATA CENTER & PALANTIR-STYLE MASS SURVEILLANCE STATE — Sam Parker
#espionage #infiltration #information #speculation #technology #totalitarianismTHE BALLROOM
Trump is building a 90,000 square foot ballroom with a 1,000 person capacity. Hardly adequate for the White House Correspondents Dinner which was attended by 2,600 people. But we’re told that we need the ballroom in order to host events like the WHCD in the future. Bullsh*t.COST & LOCATION
The cost has ballooned to over $300-$400 million. We’re told it’s being privately funded and being sold on that as being a good thing that won’t cost the taxpayers. Here’s the reality: private funding means no congressional oversight or appropriations, no budget hearings, no public scrutiny.Furthermore, when infrastructure is part of the Executive Office of the President at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, it can be CLASSIFIED under “executive privilege.” The entire executive branch will be able to run this data center without oversight or checks & balances.
…LEAD ARCHITECT
Shalom Baranes, a jewish immigrant to the US via the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), has been appointed architect. Previously, Baranes was the architect for the post-911 hardening & rebuilding of a little building called the Pentagon. SCIFs, bomb-proofing, compartmentalization, etc.—the whole 9 yards. Baranes has no expertise designing ballrooms, that I could find. But he did help renovate one at the National Red Cross Headquarters once. Besides his renovation of Pentagon Wedges 2-5, he’s also done the U.S. Treasury Building modernization, and the Department of the Interior Headquarters & GSA National Headquarters renovations. It seems his talents center around building secure federal infrastructure, not event halls.…CONCLUSION
They’re building a Stargate Command bunker under the ballroom, and they need us to buy the ballroom narrative bullsh*t in order to gin up public support to ram this through against the opposition it’s currently facing.This facility will most likely be the nerve center hub of the new “national security” Palantir spy infrastructure and digital control grid panopticon. In short, an essential facility to continue helping to enslave us, and putting any oversight by WE THE PEOPLE beyond our control. For israel’s benefit, and the jewish global empire-national security state blob.
I don’t think so. I’m America First & Only, and israel/ballroom LAST.
-
Plunder, Mystery, and Intrigue: Visiting the British Museum and the British Library
After leaving the Lake District, I traveled to London by train, for the third part of my trip. This was where I saw the most libraries during my trip. On my last day in London, August 3rd, I visited the British Museum, located in London’s West End, which was overcrowded with tourists. This made viewing the so-called “chronicle of Western collection,” which was acquired through extensive plunder and theft, as American tour guide Rick Steves describes the museum, very uncomfortable. Even so, there were two highlights. The first was the stately and round reading room. English writers Virginia Woolf and Beatrix Potter, Chinese revolutionary Sun Yat-sen, radical thinkers Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, Black nationalist Marcus Garvey, women’s rights campaigner Sylvia Pankhurst, independence activist Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Irish author Bram Stoker all studied there.
Note: This serves as second part of my series on this blog about my library tourism last year, with the first part, about my attempted and successful library tourism in Edinburgh and Northern England, posted on this blog last week. The series begins, chronologically, with my guest post on Reel Librarians, on February 11th, in a post entitled “Edinburgh and the National Library of Scotland: Library tourism redux.” It will be reposted on here over a month later. There will be one more parts of this series, focusing on my continued library tourism in Belgium coming next week.
Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, as noted in Doyle’s “The Complete Sherlock Holmes,” studied in the reading room. In the 1893 short story “The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual” (sometimes abbreviated as “The Musgrave Ritual”), he studied “those branches of science which might make me more efficient” in the reading room. He learned other information from the British Museum in chapter 15 of 1902 novel The Hound of the Baskervilles and “The Tiger of San Pedro” chapter, within a 1917 collection entitled His Last Bow: Some Reminiscences of Sherlock Holmes (sometimes abbreviated as “His Last Bow”). There are mentions of libraries in the short stories “The Five Orange Pips”, “The Adventure of the Engineer’s Thumb”, and “The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet” in the 1892 short story collection The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.
The same is the case for “The Musgrave Ritual,” “The ‘Gloria Scott’”, and “The Reigate Squires” all within the 1893 short story collection The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, and the stories “The Adventures of the Three Students” and “The Adventure of the Golden Pince-Nez” in the 1905 short story collection The Return of Sherlock Holmes. Apart from that, chapter 10 of The Hound of the Baskervilles, chapter 7 of the 1915 novel The Valley of Fear, and the story “The Problem of Thorn Bridge” in the 1927 set of short stories The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes feature libraries as well. Lastly, there’s a mention of a London Library in St. James’s Square and Lomax, who is said to be a “sublibrarian,” in “The Illustrious Client.” This is another short story within The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes.
In an email communication, Nathalie Belkin, an archivist who works for the London Library, told me that Doyle was a library member, joining in 1896 after his friend, and fellow writer, Arthur Griffith, nominated him. According to Belkin, Doyle was an active library user, even serving on the library’s committee. In fact, it is believed that The Illustrious Client, also entitled The Adventure of the Illustrious Client, was written in the library’s main reading room. While the borrowing history from the time has been lost, he was a “well-known fixture” of the library.
Otherwise, Karl Marx formulated ideas on communism, including within Das Kapital (also known as Capital), in the aforementioned reading room within the British Museum. Displays within the room describe it as a place for diverse thought. Many patrons left behind their mark in the visitors log. It was even one of the first places in London to have electric light (in 1879)! The room could, at maximum, hold 302 readers sitting at 38 tables, sitting across from each other, and was heated from underneath. Readers would consult a catalogue of printed books in the room’s center, then fill out a request form. In some ways, this makes this room similar to the Library of Congress’s Reading Room, since books for the British Library could be accessed there until they were moved to their current location in 1997. In fact, 62,000 people came when this reading room opened in 1857. A sign, when looking into the reading room, tells visitors to be quiet, feeding into the common conception of libraries as quiet places, which is not always the case for all libraries anymore.
Compilation of four photographs of the Reading Room within the British Library, taken on August 3, 2025 (Photographs by me. Sorry for the blurriness in one of these photos)What Rick Steves didn’t mention is that the historic reading room only re-opened to the public in 2024 after being closed for eleven years. The room was designed by Sydney Smirke, inspired by Rome’s domed Pantheon, and opened in 1857. It first re-opened to visitors in 2000 (after it stopped being an active reading room in 1997), then closed in 2013, when it was used for archival storage. The room, described by some as “legendary,” “stunning,” and an impressive sight for bibliophiles (protagonist and book-defender Elianna Bernstein of Bibliophile Princess would be right at home there) is not technically a library anymore. You can’t borrow any of the 25,000 books, and photography is now permitted (it wasn’t previously). Even so, it is still a marvel to see. You can even go on a twenty-minute tour there and there is currently a plan to completely transform the galleries and reading room.
The second highlight was the Enlightenment Gallery, formerly known as the King’s Library. It once held the British Library’s treasures when it was founded in 1753. Today it holds objects about the Age of Enlightenment, as Rick Steves notes. A display board, when you enter the room, says that it was developed in partnership with the House of Commons Library and the Natural History Museum. The current books on display are being loaned from the House of Commons Library. The aforementioned display notes that those who lent non-book artifacts to the gallery included the British King, the Science Museum in London, King’s College in London, Wellcome Collection, Society of Antiquities of London, Victor and Albert Museum, the Linnean Society of London, and the Royal Asiatic Society (also in London). Of these institutions, most have their own libraries. In fact, the D. Leonard Corgan Library at Kings College, the college’s main library, served as a location in Dan Brown’s controversial novel The Da Vinci Code. The building’s exterior appeared in the 2020 film Enola Holmes, a mystery film about Sherlock Holmes’ teenage sister.
The room itself was originally created, in 1823, to house King George II’s library, hence the original name. It was designed by architect Robert Smirke, known for the British Museum’s main facade and block, along with various clubs and houses within London. Of these, the Inner Temple, for which he did some work on, has a library, which continues to operate to this day, as did Bickley Hall. Smike also completed building restoration of the Bodleian Library’s Upper Reading room, which is part of the “old library.” As for the Enlightenment Gallery, it has a Greek Revival design, with neoclassical decoration. It’s said to be in keeping with the “styles of libraries in grand houses all over Britain” at the time, with claims it has echoes of “ancient wisdom and learning.” In 1998, the British Library moved to a new location across from the current St. Pancras station. The latter is not to be confused with pancreas or the Japanese anime film which centers on libraries and librarians, entitled I Want to Eat Your Pancreas. It is far too easy to call it “pancreas” by mistake, a name that almost stuck with me.
This gallery is where thousands of objects can be viewed and serves as an introduction to the British Museum’s collections. Even so, for me, I visited it at the end of my time at the overcrowded museum. I was inspired to visit this room by one particular scene in the December 2011 anime film, K-On! the Movie, a spinoff from the 2009-2010 anime series, K-On!. It features two episodes with libraries, including one about studying in the library and featuring a student librarian at an information desk. In fact, I rewatched this film before my trip to London, just for this scene. During the film, Yui Hirasawa, Ritsu Tainaka, Mio Akiyama, Azusa Nakano, and Tsumugi Kotobuki bop around London, visiting many sites, including walking through the strangely empty Great Court of the British Museum. They make their way into the gallery. During a short scene, Azusa points out that the Rosetta Stone (she put it on their itinerary) is also a replica. In fact, they used a replica in a school play as the death stone for a Romeo & Juliet play, because the fake tombstone they wanted to use had been misplaced.
My photograph on the left on August 3, 2024, of the Rosetta Stone replica in the Enlightenment Gallery, and image of the replica from K-On! the Movie on the right.The British Museum also has the actual Rosetta Stone in the Egyptian sculpture room, but like Yui, Ritsu, Mio, Azusa, and Tsumugi, I only looked at and touched the replica. The aforementioned gallery likely would have been overcrowded, as the gallery rooms I visited were extremely overcrowded and not suited for visitors. They had inadequate airflow and no overhead fans. As for the film, there were a few other short library scenes in the private all-girls school the protagonists attend, Sakuragaoka High School.
The same day I visited the British Museum, I visited the British Library. It sits across from St. Pancras station, and would be the last library I visited in the U.K. As Rick Steves put it, the British empire built its “greatest monuments out of paper.” The library holds every publication within the U.K. and Northern Ireland, with over 170 million items, such as sacred texts, maps, the Magna Carta, Leonardo Da Vinci’s notebook, plays by William Shakespeare, and lyrics of songs by the Beatles. This library, established by an act of Parliament in July 1972 and opened in July 1973, is one of the biggest in the world. It’s only rivaled by the Library of Congress, Russian State Library in Moscow, or Shanghai Library in China. Many such institutions are the legal deposit libraries for their respective countries. Anyone is open to explore the British Library reading rooms and peruse exhibits. You can get a readers registration pass if you are over 18, allowing you to enter the reading rooms.
When I visited, on August 3rd, the reading rooms for humanities, manuscripts, rare books, music, science, maps, and Asian and African studies, were not open. I even saw rooms reserved for the sole purpose of prayer, and went through the “Treasures of the British Library” exhibit in the St. John Ritblat Gallery. It contained many of the artifacts I noted in the previous paragraph. Perhaps because they have the space, the British Library holds the library collections of the British Museum. Rare books fill the middle of the library in a massive climate-controlled column, allowing the upper floors to only be accessed by stairs or elevators, and affecting the structure of each floor. There was also a fascinating collection of foreign currency, stamps, and other postage from former British colonies, called the Philatelic Collection. It could be easily overlooked, but was fun to look through, especially in the way it was displayed.
Like the British museums I visited during my travels, they asked for a donation, but they were free to enter, without payment or restriction. The number of visitors using the study area made clear that they were open to all, in line with library ethical principles, as did the books in their bookshop, some of which would likely be on banned books lists of in U.S. libraries. In the next part of this series, I’ll talk briefly about the university library I visited in Belgium.
© 2025-2026 Burkely Hermann. All rights reserved.
Sources used
- “About this Reading Room,” Library of Congress, 2025.
- “About Us,” British Library, 2025.
- “About us,” House of Commons Library, 2025.
- “About us,” Royal Asiatic Society, 2025.
- “About us,” Wellcome Collection, 2025.
- “Archives,” London Library, 2025.
- Barker, Sam. “The British Museum’s Secretive Round Reading Room Has Reopened To The Public,” Secret London, 4 Jul. 2024.
- “Bickley,” Wikishire, 13 Jul. 2025.
- “D. Leonard Corgan Library,” Kings College, 2025.
- “Dana Research Centre and Library,” Science Museum, 2025.
- “Everything you ever wanted to know about the Rosetta Stone,” British Museum, 2025.
- Fox, Caroline. “Every Enola Holmes Filming Location (And What Every Place Looks Like Now),” ScreenRant, 26 Oct. 2020.
- Funk, Alex. “The British Museum’s mysterious domed Reading Room has officially reopened to the public,” TimeOut, 3 Jul. 2024.
- Hermann, Burkely. “Librarians and libraries in anime,” Pop Culture Library Review, 2025 (orig. 25 Jul. 2020).
- Hermann, Burkely. “More than a coming-of-age drama: The value of libraries and librarians in “I Want To Eat Your Pancreas”,” Pop Culture Library Review, 8 Jan. 2024.
- Hermann, Burkely. “Recently added titles (March 2025),” Pop Culture Library Review, 2 Apr. 2025.
- Hermann, Burkely. “The fictional library and the value of studying redux,” Pop Culture Library Review, 30 Jul. 2024.
- Hickley, Catherine. “British Museum’s historic Reading Room opens to the public after 11 years,” The Art Newspaper, 3 Jul. 2024.
- “History of The London Library,” London Library, 2025.
- “Library,” Linnean Society of London, 2025.
- “Library & Collections,” Society of Antiquities of London, 2024.
- Mathur, Rhea. “The British Museum’s Reading Room: Past and Present,” gowithyamo, 2 Sept. 2024.
- Moran, Sarah. “The British Museum’s Stunning Domed Reading Room Reopens to Public,” Home Journal, 27 Sept. 2024.
- “National Art Library,” Victor and Albert Museum, 2025.
- “Philatelic Collections: Introduction,” British Library, 29 Mar. 2010.
- Hermann, Burkely. “Remembering “Bibliophile Princess” and its significant fictional depiction of libraries,” Pop Culture Library Review, 14 May 2024.
- “Spaces at the Bodleian Old Library,” Bodleian Library, 2025.
- “Spotlight: the Reading Room,” British Museum, 2025.
- Steves, Rick and Openshaw, Gene. London (24th Edition, US: Avalon Travel, Sept. 2022): 212, 214-215, 236, 238, 240, 244-247, 249.
- “Strand Campus: Self-guided tour,” King’s College, 5 Oct. 2014, p. 8.
- “The British Library Philatelic Collection,” The Royal Philatelic Society London, Nov. 2005.
- “The Present Buildings,” Inner Temple Library, 2025.
- “Treasures of the British Library,” British Library, 2025.
- “Update on progress with the Masterplan,” British Museum, 19 Dec. 2024.
#AncientEgypt #archives #ArthurConanDoyle #artifacts #BeatrixPotter #Belgium #BibliophilePrincess #BlackPatrons #BlackPeople #BramStoker #BritishLibrary #BritishMuseum #China #ChinesePatrons #colonialism #communism #electricity #EnolaHolmes #HouseOfCommonsLibrary #JapanesePatrons #JenniferSnoekBrown #KOn #KOnTheMovie #KarlMarx #LibraryOfCongress #libraryStereotypes #libraryTourism #LondonLibrary #MarcusGarvey #MohandasKGandhi #quiet #railroads #reading #ReelLibrarians #restrictions #RickSteves #RosettaStone #royalLibraries #royalty #Russia #RussianStateLibrary #ShanghaiLibrary #SherlockHolmes #SunYatSen #SylviaPankhurst #TheBeatles #TheDaVinciCode #TheIllustriousClient #trains #VirginiaWoolf #WhiteLibrarians #WhiteMen #WhitePatrons
-
Plunder, Mystery, and Intrigue: Visiting the British Museum and the British Library
After leaving the Lake District, I traveled to London by train, for the third part of my trip. This was where I saw the most libraries during my trip. On my last day in London, August 3rd, I visited the British Museum, located in London’s West End, which was overcrowded with tourists. This made viewing the so-called “chronicle of Western collection,” which was acquired through extensive plunder and theft, as American tour guide Rick Steves describes the museum, very uncomfortable. Even so, there were two highlights. The first was the stately and round reading room. English writers Virginia Woolf and Beatrix Potter, Chinese revolutionary Sun Yat-sen, radical thinkers Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, Black nationalist Marcus Garvey, women’s rights campaigner Sylvia Pankhurst, independence activist Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Irish author Bram Stoker all studied there.
Note: This serves as second part of my series on this blog about my library tourism last year, with the first part, about my attempted and successful library tourism in Edinburgh and Northern England, posted on this blog last week. The series begins, chronologically, with my guest post on Reel Librarians, on February 11th, in a post entitled “Edinburgh and the National Library of Scotland: Library tourism redux.” It will be reposted on here over a month later. There will be one more parts of this series, focusing on my continued library tourism in Belgium coming next week.
Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, as noted in Doyle’s “The Complete Sherlock Holmes,” studied in the reading room. In the 1893 short story “The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual” (sometimes abbreviated as “The Musgrave Ritual”), he studied “those branches of science which might make me more efficient” in the reading room. He learned other information from the British Museum in chapter 15 of 1902 novel The Hound of the Baskervilles and “The Tiger of San Pedro” chapter, within a 1917 collection entitled His Last Bow: Some Reminiscences of Sherlock Holmes (sometimes abbreviated as “His Last Bow”). There are mentions of libraries in the short stories “The Five Orange Pips”, “The Adventure of the Engineer’s Thumb”, and “The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet” in the 1892 short story collection The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.
The same is the case for “The Musgrave Ritual,” “The ‘Gloria Scott’”, and “The Reigate Squires” all within the 1893 short story collection The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, and the stories “The Adventures of the Three Students” and “The Adventure of the Golden Pince-Nez” in the 1905 short story collection The Return of Sherlock Holmes. Apart from that, chapter 10 of The Hound of the Baskervilles, chapter 7 of the 1915 novel The Valley of Fear, and the story “The Problem of Thorn Bridge” in the 1927 set of short stories The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes feature libraries as well. Lastly, there’s a mention of a London Library in St. James’s Square and Lomax, who is said to be a “sublibrarian,” in “The Illustrious Client.” This is another short story within The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes.
In an email communication, Nathalie Belkin, an archivist who works for the London Library, told me that Doyle was a library member, joining in 1896 after his friend, and fellow writer, Arthur Griffith, nominated him. According to Belkin, Doyle was an active library user, even serving on the library’s committee. In fact, it is believed that The Illustrious Client, also entitled The Adventure of the Illustrious Client, was written in the library’s main reading room. While the borrowing history from the time has been lost, he was a “well-known fixture” of the library.
Otherwise, Karl Marx formulated ideas on communism, including within Das Kapital (also known as Capital), in the aforementioned reading room within the British Museum. Displays within the room describe it as a place for diverse thought. Many patrons left behind their mark in the visitors log. It was even one of the first places in London to have electric light (in 1879)! The room could, at maximum, hold 302 readers sitting at 38 tables, sitting across from each other, and was heated from underneath. Readers would consult a catalogue of printed books in the room’s center, then fill out a request form. In some ways, this makes this room similar to the Library of Congress’s Reading Room, since books for the British Library could be accessed there until they were moved to their current location in 1997. In fact, 62,000 people came when this reading room opened in 1857. A sign, when looking into the reading room, tells visitors to be quiet, feeding into the common conception of libraries as quiet places, which is not always the case for all libraries anymore.
Compilation of four photographs of the Reading Room within the British Library, taken on August 3, 2025 (Photographs by me. Sorry for the blurriness in one of these photos)What Rick Steves didn’t mention is that the historic reading room only re-opened to the public in 2024 after being closed for eleven years. The room was designed by Sydney Smirke, inspired by Rome’s domed Pantheon, and opened in 1857. It first re-opened to visitors in 2000 (after it stopped being an active reading room in 1997), then closed in 2013, when it was used for archival storage. The room, described by some as “legendary,” “stunning,” and an impressive sight for bibliophiles (protagonist and book-defender Elianna Bernstein of Bibliophile Princess would be right at home there) is not technically a library anymore. You can’t borrow any of the 25,000 books, and photography is now permitted (it wasn’t previously). Even so, it is still a marvel to see. You can even go on a twenty-minute tour there and there is currently a plan to completely transform the galleries and reading room.
The second highlight was the Enlightenment Gallery, formerly known as the King’s Library. It once held the British Library’s treasures when it was founded in 1753. Today it holds objects about the Age of Enlightenment, as Rick Steves notes. A display board, when you enter the room, says that it was developed in partnership with the House of Commons Library and the Natural History Museum. The current books on display are being loaned from the House of Commons Library. The aforementioned display notes that those who lent non-book artifacts to the gallery included the British King, the Science Museum in London, King’s College in London, Wellcome Collection, Society of Antiquities of London, Victor and Albert Museum, the Linnean Society of London, and the Royal Asiatic Society (also in London). Of these institutions, most have their own libraries. In fact, the D. Leonard Corgan Library at Kings College, the college’s main library, served as a location in Dan Brown’s controversial novel The Da Vinci Code. The building’s exterior appeared in the 2020 film Enola Holmes, a mystery film about Sherlock Holmes’ teenage sister.
The room itself was originally created, in 1823, to house King George II’s library, hence the original name. It was designed by architect Robert Smirke, known for the British Museum’s main facade and block, along with various clubs and houses within London. Of these, the Inner Temple, for which he did some work on, has a library, which continues to operate to this day, as did Bickley Hall. Smike also completed building restoration of the Bodleian Library’s Upper Reading room, which is part of the “old library.” As for the Enlightenment Gallery, it has a Greek Revival design, with neoclassical decoration. It’s said to be in keeping with the “styles of libraries in grand houses all over Britain” at the time, with claims it has echoes of “ancient wisdom and learning.” In 1998, the British Library moved to a new location across from the current St. Pancras station. The latter is not to be confused with pancreas or the Japanese anime film which centers on libraries and librarians, entitled I Want to Eat Your Pancreas. It is far too easy to call it “pancreas” by mistake, a name that almost stuck with me.
This gallery is where thousands of objects can be viewed and serves as an introduction to the British Museum’s collections. Even so, for me, I visited it at the end of my time at the overcrowded museum. I was inspired to visit this room by one particular scene in the December 2011 anime film, K-On! the Movie, a spinoff from the 2009-2010 anime series, K-On!. It features two episodes with libraries, including one about studying in the library and featuring a student librarian at an information desk. In fact, I rewatched this film before my trip to London, just for this scene. During the film, Yui Hirasawa, Ritsu Tainaka, Mio Akiyama, Azusa Nakano, and Tsumugi Kotobuki bop around London, visiting many sites, including walking through the strangely empty Great Court of the British Museum. They make their way into the gallery. During a short scene, Azusa points out that the Rosetta Stone (she put it on their itinerary) is also a replica. In fact, they used a replica in a school play as the death stone for a Romeo & Juliet play, because the fake tombstone they wanted to use had been misplaced.
My photograph on the left on August 3, 2024, of the Rosetta Stone replica in the Enlightenment Gallery, and image of the replica from K-On! the Movie on the right.The British Museum also has the actual Rosetta Stone in the Egyptian sculpture room, but like Yui, Ritsu, Mio, Azusa, and Tsumugi, I only looked at and touched the replica. The aforementioned gallery likely would have been overcrowded, as the gallery rooms I visited were extremely overcrowded and not suited for visitors. They had inadequate airflow and no overhead fans. As for the film, there were a few other short library scenes in the private all-girls school the protagonists attend, Sakuragaoka High School.
The same day I visited the British Museum, I visited the British Library. It sits across from St. Pancras station, and would be the last library I visited in the U.K. As Rick Steves put it, the British empire built its “greatest monuments out of paper.” The library holds every publication within the U.K. and Northern Ireland, with over 170 million items, such as sacred texts, maps, the Magna Carta, Leonardo Da Vinci’s notebook, plays by William Shakespeare, and lyrics of songs by the Beatles. This library, established by an act of Parliament in July 1972 and opened in July 1973, is one of the biggest in the world. It’s only rivaled by the Library of Congress, Russian State Library in Moscow, or Shanghai Library in China. Many such institutions are the legal deposit libraries for their respective countries. Anyone is open to explore the British Library reading rooms and peruse exhibits. You can get a readers registration pass if you are over 18, allowing you to enter the reading rooms.
When I visited, on August 3rd, the reading rooms for humanities, manuscripts, rare books, music, science, maps, and Asian and African studies, were not open. I even saw rooms reserved for the sole purpose of prayer, and went through the “Treasures of the British Library” exhibit in the St. John Ritblat Gallery. It contained many of the artifacts I noted in the previous paragraph. Perhaps because they have the space, the British Library holds the library collections of the British Museum. Rare books fill the middle of the library in a massive climate-controlled column, allowing the upper floors to only be accessed by stairs or elevators, and affecting the structure of each floor. There was also a fascinating collection of foreign currency, stamps, and other postage from former British colonies, called the Philatelic Collection. It could be easily overlooked, but was fun to look through, especially in the way it was displayed.
Like the British museums I visited during my travels, they asked for a donation, but they were free to enter, without payment or restriction. The number of visitors using the study area made clear that they were open to all, in line with library ethical principles, as did the books in their bookshop, some of which would likely be on banned books lists of in U.S. libraries. In the next part of this series, I’ll talk briefly about the university library I visited in Belgium.
© 2025-2026 Burkely Hermann. All rights reserved.
Sources used
- “About this Reading Room,” Library of Congress, 2025.
- “About Us,” British Library, 2025.
- “About us,” House of Commons Library, 2025.
- “About us,” Royal Asiatic Society, 2025.
- “About us,” Wellcome Collection, 2025.
- “Archives,” London Library, 2025.
- Barker, Sam. “The British Museum’s Secretive Round Reading Room Has Reopened To The Public,” Secret London, 4 Jul. 2024.
- “Bickley,” Wikishire, 13 Jul. 2025.
- “D. Leonard Corgan Library,” Kings College, 2025.
- “Dana Research Centre and Library,” Science Museum, 2025.
- “Everything you ever wanted to know about the Rosetta Stone,” British Museum, 2025.
- Fox, Caroline. “Every Enola Holmes Filming Location (And What Every Place Looks Like Now),” ScreenRant, 26 Oct. 2020.
- Funk, Alex. “The British Museum’s mysterious domed Reading Room has officially reopened to the public,” TimeOut, 3 Jul. 2024.
- Hermann, Burkely. “Librarians and libraries in anime,” Pop Culture Library Review, 2025 (orig. 25 Jul. 2020).
- Hermann, Burkely. “More than a coming-of-age drama: The value of libraries and librarians in “I Want To Eat Your Pancreas”,” Pop Culture Library Review, 8 Jan. 2024.
- Hermann, Burkely. “Recently added titles (March 2025),” Pop Culture Library Review, 2 Apr. 2025.
- Hermann, Burkely. “The fictional library and the value of studying redux,” Pop Culture Library Review, 30 Jul. 2024.
- Hickley, Catherine. “British Museum’s historic Reading Room opens to the public after 11 years,” The Art Newspaper, 3 Jul. 2024.
- “History of The London Library,” London Library, 2025.
- “Library,” Linnean Society of London, 2025.
- “Library & Collections,” Society of Antiquities of London, 2024.
- Mathur, Rhea. “The British Museum’s Reading Room: Past and Present,” gowithyamo, 2 Sept. 2024.
- Moran, Sarah. “The British Museum’s Stunning Domed Reading Room Reopens to Public,” Home Journal, 27 Sept. 2024.
- “National Art Library,” Victor and Albert Museum, 2025.
- “Philatelic Collections: Introduction,” British Library, 29 Mar. 2010.
- Hermann, Burkely. “Remembering “Bibliophile Princess” and its significant fictional depiction of libraries,” Pop Culture Library Review, 14 May 2024.
- “Spaces at the Bodleian Old Library,” Bodleian Library, 2025.
- “Spotlight: the Reading Room,” British Museum, 2025.
- Steves, Rick and Openshaw, Gene. London (24th Edition, US: Avalon Travel, Sept. 2022): 212, 214-215, 236, 238, 240, 244-247, 249.
- “Strand Campus: Self-guided tour,” King’s College, 5 Oct. 2014, p. 8.
- “The British Library Philatelic Collection,” The Royal Philatelic Society London, Nov. 2005.
- “The Present Buildings,” Inner Temple Library, 2025.
- “Treasures of the British Library,” British Library, 2025.
- “Update on progress with the Masterplan,” British Museum, 19 Dec. 2024.
#AncientEgypt #archives #ArthurConanDoyle #artifacts #BeatrixPotter #Belgium #BibliophilePrincess #BlackPatrons #BlackPeople #BramStoker #BritishLibrary #BritishMuseum #China #ChinesePatrons #colonialism #communism #electricity #EnolaHolmes #HouseOfCommonsLibrary #JapanesePatrons #JenniferSnoekBrown #KOn #KOnTheMovie #KarlMarx #LibraryOfCongress #libraryStereotypes #libraryTourism #LondonLibrary #MarcusGarvey #MohandasKGandhi #quiet #railroads #reading #ReelLibrarians #restrictions #RickSteves #RosettaStone #royalLibraries #royalty #Russia #RussianStateLibrary #ShanghaiLibrary #SherlockHolmes #SunYatSen #SylviaPankhurst #TheBeatles #TheDaVinciCode #TheIllustriousClient #trains #VirginiaWoolf #WhiteLibrarians #WhiteMen #WhitePatrons
-
Plunder, Mystery, and Intrigue: Visiting the British Museum and the British Library
After leaving the Lake District, I traveled to London by train, for the third part of my trip. This was where I saw the most libraries during my trip. On my last day in London, August 3rd, I visited the British Museum, located in London’s West End, which was overcrowded with tourists. This made viewing the so-called “chronicle of Western collection,” which was acquired through extensive plunder and theft, as American tour guide Rick Steves describes the museum, very uncomfortable. Even so, there were two highlights. The first was the stately and round reading room. English writers Virginia Woolf and Beatrix Potter, Chinese revolutionary Sun Yat-sen, radical thinkers Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, Black nationalist Marcus Garvey, women’s rights campaigner Sylvia Pankhurst, independence activist Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Irish author Bram Stoker all studied there.
Note: This serves as second part of my series on this blog about my library tourism last year, with the first part, about my attempted and successful library tourism in Edinburgh and Northern England, posted on this blog last week. The series begins, chronologically, with my guest post on Reel Librarians, on February 11th, in a post entitled “Edinburgh and the National Library of Scotland: Library tourism redux.” It will be reposted on here over a month later. There will be one more parts of this series, focusing on my continued library tourism in Belgium coming next week.
Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, as noted in Doyle’s “The Complete Sherlock Holmes,” studied in the reading room. In the 1893 short story “The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual” (sometimes abbreviated as “The Musgrave Ritual”), he studied “those branches of science which might make me more efficient” in the reading room. He learned other information from the British Museum in chapter 15 of 1902 novel The Hound of the Baskervilles and “The Tiger of San Pedro” chapter, within a 1917 collection entitled His Last Bow: Some Reminiscences of Sherlock Holmes (sometimes abbreviated as “His Last Bow”). There are mentions of libraries in the short stories “The Five Orange Pips”, “The Adventure of the Engineer’s Thumb”, and “The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet” in the 1892 short story collection The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.
The same is the case for “The Musgrave Ritual,” “The ‘Gloria Scott’”, and “The Reigate Squires” all within the 1893 short story collection The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, and the stories “The Adventures of the Three Students” and “The Adventure of the Golden Pince-Nez” in the 1905 short story collection The Return of Sherlock Holmes. Apart from that, chapter 10 of The Hound of the Baskervilles, chapter 7 of the 1915 novel The Valley of Fear, and the story “The Problem of Thorn Bridge” in the 1927 set of short stories The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes feature libraries as well. Lastly, there’s a mention of a London Library in St. James’s Square and Lomax, who is said to be a “sublibrarian,” in “The Illustrious Client.” This is another short story within The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes.
In an email communication, Nathalie Belkin, an archivist who works for the London Library, told me that Doyle was a library member, joining in 1896 after his friend, and fellow writer, Arthur Griffith, nominated him. According to Belkin, Doyle was an active library user, even serving on the library’s committee. In fact, it is believed that The Illustrious Client, also entitled The Adventure of the Illustrious Client, was written in the library’s main reading room. While the borrowing history from the time has been lost, he was a “well-known fixture” of the library.
Otherwise, Karl Marx formulated ideas on communism, including within Das Kapital (also known as Capital), in the aforementioned reading room within the British Museum. Displays within the room describe it as a place for diverse thought. Many patrons left behind their mark in the visitors log. It was even one of the first places in London to have electric light (in 1879)! The room could, at maximum, hold 302 readers sitting at 38 tables, sitting across from each other, and was heated from underneath. Readers would consult a catalogue of printed books in the room’s center, then fill out a request form. In some ways, this makes this room similar to the Library of Congress’s Reading Room, since books for the British Library could be accessed there until they were moved to their current location in 1997. In fact, 62,000 people came when this reading room opened in 1857. A sign, when looking into the reading room, tells visitors to be quiet, feeding into the common conception of libraries as quiet places, which is not always the case for all libraries anymore.
Compilation of four photographs of the Reading Room within the British Library, taken on August 3, 2025 (Photographs by me. Sorry for the blurriness in one of these photos)What Rick Steves didn’t mention is that the historic reading room only re-opened to the public in 2024 after being closed for eleven years. The room was designed by Sydney Smirke, inspired by Rome’s domed Pantheon, and opened in 1857. It first re-opened to visitors in 2000 (after it stopped being an active reading room in 1997), then closed in 2013, when it was used for archival storage. The room, described by some as “legendary,” “stunning,” and an impressive sight for bibliophiles (protagonist and book-defender Elianna Bernstein of Bibliophile Princess would be right at home there) is not technically a library anymore. You can’t borrow any of the 25,000 books, and photography is now permitted (it wasn’t previously). Even so, it is still a marvel to see. You can even go on a twenty-minute tour there and there is currently a plan to completely transform the galleries and reading room.
The second highlight was the Enlightenment Gallery, formerly known as the King’s Library. It once held the British Library’s treasures when it was founded in 1753. Today it holds objects about the Age of Enlightenment, as Rick Steves notes. A display board, when you enter the room, says that it was developed in partnership with the House of Commons Library and the Natural History Museum. The current books on display are being loaned from the House of Commons Library. The aforementioned display notes that those who lent non-book artifacts to the gallery included the British King, the Science Museum in London, King’s College in London, Wellcome Collection, Society of Antiquities of London, Victor and Albert Museum, the Linnean Society of London, and the Royal Asiatic Society (also in London). Of these institutions, most have their own libraries. In fact, the D. Leonard Corgan Library at Kings College, the college’s main library, served as a location in Dan Brown’s controversial novel The Da Vinci Code. The building’s exterior appeared in the 2020 film Enola Holmes, a mystery film about Sherlock Holmes’ teenage sister.
The room itself was originally created, in 1823, to house King George II’s library, hence the original name. It was designed by architect Robert Smirke, known for the British Museum’s main facade and block, along with various clubs and houses within London. Of these, the Inner Temple, for which he did some work on, has a library, which continues to operate to this day, as did Bickley Hall. Smike also completed building restoration of the Bodleian Library’s Upper Reading room, which is part of the “old library.” As for the Enlightenment Gallery, it has a Greek Revival design, with neoclassical decoration. It’s said to be in keeping with the “styles of libraries in grand houses all over Britain” at the time, with claims it has echoes of “ancient wisdom and learning.” In 1998, the British Library moved to a new location across from the current St. Pancras station. The latter is not to be confused with pancreas or the Japanese anime film which centers on libraries and librarians, entitled I Want to Eat Your Pancreas. It is far too easy to call it “pancreas” by mistake, a name that almost stuck with me.
This gallery is where thousands of objects can be viewed and serves as an introduction to the British Museum’s collections. Even so, for me, I visited it at the end of my time at the overcrowded museum. I was inspired to visit this room by one particular scene in the December 2011 anime film, K-On! the Movie, a spinoff from the 2009-2010 anime series, K-On!. It features two episodes with libraries, including one about studying in the library and featuring a student librarian at an information desk. In fact, I rewatched this film before my trip to London, just for this scene. During the film, Yui Hirasawa, Ritsu Tainaka, Mio Akiyama, Azusa Nakano, and Tsumugi Kotobuki bop around London, visiting many sites, including walking through the strangely empty Great Court of the British Museum. They make their way into the gallery. During a short scene, Azusa points out that the Rosetta Stone (she put it on their itinerary) is also a replica. In fact, they used a replica in a school play as the death stone for a Romeo & Juliet play, because the fake tombstone they wanted to use had been misplaced.
My photograph on the left on August 3, 2024, of the Rosetta Stone replica in the Enlightenment Gallery, and image of the replica from K-On! the Movie on the right.The British Museum also has the actual Rosetta Stone in the Egyptian sculpture room, but like Yui, Ritsu, Mio, Azusa, and Tsumugi, I only looked at and touched the replica. The aforementioned gallery likely would have been overcrowded, as the gallery rooms I visited were extremely overcrowded and not suited for visitors. They had inadequate airflow and no overhead fans. As for the film, there were a few other short library scenes in the private all-girls school the protagonists attend, Sakuragaoka High School.
The same day I visited the British Museum, I visited the British Library. It sits across from St. Pancras station, and would be the last library I visited in the U.K. As Rick Steves put it, the British empire built its “greatest monuments out of paper.” The library holds every publication within the U.K. and Northern Ireland, with over 170 million items, such as sacred texts, maps, the Magna Carta, Leonardo Da Vinci’s notebook, plays by William Shakespeare, and lyrics of songs by the Beatles. This library, established by an act of Parliament in July 1972 and opened in July 1973, is one of the biggest in the world. It’s only rivaled by the Library of Congress, Russian State Library in Moscow, or Shanghai Library in China. Many such institutions are the legal deposit libraries for their respective countries. Anyone is open to explore the British Library reading rooms and peruse exhibits. You can get a readers registration pass if you are over 18, allowing you to enter the reading rooms.
When I visited, on August 3rd, the reading rooms for humanities, manuscripts, rare books, music, science, maps, and Asian and African studies, were not open. I even saw rooms reserved for the sole purpose of prayer, and went through the “Treasures of the British Library” exhibit in the St. John Ritblat Gallery. It contained many of the artifacts I noted in the previous paragraph. Perhaps because they have the space, the British Library holds the library collections of the British Museum. Rare books fill the middle of the library in a massive climate-controlled column, allowing the upper floors to only be accessed by stairs or elevators, and affecting the structure of each floor. There was also a fascinating collection of foreign currency, stamps, and other postage from former British colonies, called the Philatelic Collection. It could be easily overlooked, but was fun to look through, especially in the way it was displayed.
Like the British museums I visited during my travels, they asked for a donation, but they were free to enter, without payment or restriction. The number of visitors using the study area made clear that they were open to all, in line with library ethical principles, as did the books in their bookshop, some of which would likely be on banned books lists of in U.S. libraries. In the next part of this series, I’ll talk briefly about the university library I visited in Belgium.
© 2025-2026 Burkely Hermann. All rights reserved.
Sources used
- “About this Reading Room,” Library of Congress, 2025.
- “About Us,” British Library, 2025.
- “About us,” House of Commons Library, 2025.
- “About us,” Royal Asiatic Society, 2025.
- “About us,” Wellcome Collection, 2025.
- “Archives,” London Library, 2025.
- Barker, Sam. “The British Museum’s Secretive Round Reading Room Has Reopened To The Public,” Secret London, 4 Jul. 2024.
- “Bickley,” Wikishire, 13 Jul. 2025.
- “D. Leonard Corgan Library,” Kings College, 2025.
- “Dana Research Centre and Library,” Science Museum, 2025.
- “Everything you ever wanted to know about the Rosetta Stone,” British Museum, 2025.
- Fox, Caroline. “Every Enola Holmes Filming Location (And What Every Place Looks Like Now),” ScreenRant, 26 Oct. 2020.
- Funk, Alex. “The British Museum’s mysterious domed Reading Room has officially reopened to the public,” TimeOut, 3 Jul. 2024.
- Hermann, Burkely. “Librarians and libraries in anime,” Pop Culture Library Review, 2025 (orig. 25 Jul. 2020).
- Hermann, Burkely. “More than a coming-of-age drama: The value of libraries and librarians in “I Want To Eat Your Pancreas”,” Pop Culture Library Review, 8 Jan. 2024.
- Hermann, Burkely. “Recently added titles (March 2025),” Pop Culture Library Review, 2 Apr. 2025.
- Hermann, Burkely. “The fictional library and the value of studying redux,” Pop Culture Library Review, 30 Jul. 2024.
- Hickley, Catherine. “British Museum’s historic Reading Room opens to the public after 11 years,” The Art Newspaper, 3 Jul. 2024.
- “History of The London Library,” London Library, 2025.
- “Library,” Linnean Society of London, 2025.
- “Library & Collections,” Society of Antiquities of London, 2024.
- Mathur, Rhea. “The British Museum’s Reading Room: Past and Present,” gowithyamo, 2 Sept. 2024.
- Moran, Sarah. “The British Museum’s Stunning Domed Reading Room Reopens to Public,” Home Journal, 27 Sept. 2024.
- “National Art Library,” Victor and Albert Museum, 2025.
- “Philatelic Collections: Introduction,” British Library, 29 Mar. 2010.
- Hermann, Burkely. “Remembering “Bibliophile Princess” and its significant fictional depiction of libraries,” Pop Culture Library Review, 14 May 2024.
- “Spaces at the Bodleian Old Library,” Bodleian Library, 2025.
- “Spotlight: the Reading Room,” British Museum, 2025.
- Steves, Rick and Openshaw, Gene. London (24th Edition, US: Avalon Travel, Sept. 2022): 212, 214-215, 236, 238, 240, 244-247, 249.
- “Strand Campus: Self-guided tour,” King’s College, 5 Oct. 2014, p. 8.
- “The British Library Philatelic Collection,” The Royal Philatelic Society London, Nov. 2005.
- “The Present Buildings,” Inner Temple Library, 2025.
- “Treasures of the British Library,” British Library, 2025.
- “Update on progress with the Masterplan,” British Museum, 19 Dec. 2024.
#AncientEgypt #archives #ArthurConanDoyle #artifacts #BeatrixPotter #Belgium #BibliophilePrincess #BlackPatrons #BlackPeople #BramStoker #BritishLibrary #BritishMuseum #China #ChinesePatrons #colonialism #communism #electricity #EnolaHolmes #HouseOfCommonsLibrary #JapanesePatrons #JenniferSnoekBrown #KOn #KOnTheMovie #KarlMarx #LibraryOfCongress #libraryStereotypes #libraryTourism #LondonLibrary #MarcusGarvey #MohandasKGandhi #quiet #railroads #reading #ReelLibrarians #restrictions #RickSteves #RosettaStone #royalLibraries #royalty #Russia #RussianStateLibrary #ShanghaiLibrary #SherlockHolmes #SunYatSen #SylviaPankhurst #TheBeatles #TheDaVinciCode #TheIllustriousClient #trains #VirginiaWoolf #WhiteLibrarians #WhiteMen #WhitePatrons
-
Plunder, Mystery, and Intrigue: Visiting the British Museum and the British Library
After leaving the Lake District, I traveled to London by train, for the third part of my trip. This was where I saw the most libraries during my trip. On my last day in London, August 3rd, I visited the British Museum, located in London’s West End, which was overcrowded with tourists. This made viewing the so-called “chronicle of Western collection,” which was acquired through extensive plunder and theft, as American tour guide Rick Steves describes the museum, very uncomfortable. Even so, there were two highlights. The first was the stately and round reading room. English writers Virginia Woolf and Beatrix Potter, Chinese revolutionary Sun Yat-sen, radical thinkers Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, Black nationalist Marcus Garvey, women’s rights campaigner Sylvia Pankhurst, independence activist Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Irish author Bram Stoker all studied there.
Note: This serves as second part of my series on this blog about my library tourism last year, with the first part, about my attempted and successful library tourism in Edinburgh and Northern England, posted on this blog last week. The series begins, chronologically, with my guest post on Reel Librarians, on February 11th, in a post entitled “Edinburgh and the National Library of Scotland: Library tourism redux.” It will be reposted on here over a month later. There will be one more parts of this series, focusing on my continued library tourism in Belgium coming next week.
Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, as noted in Doyle’s “The Complete Sherlock Holmes,” studied in the reading room. In the 1893 short story “The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual” (sometimes abbreviated as “The Musgrave Ritual”), he studied “those branches of science which might make me more efficient” in the reading room. He learned other information from the British Museum in chapter 15 of 1902 novel The Hound of the Baskervilles and “The Tiger of San Pedro” chapter, within a 1917 collection entitled His Last Bow: Some Reminiscences of Sherlock Holmes (sometimes abbreviated as “His Last Bow”). There are mentions of libraries in the short stories “The Five Orange Pips”, “The Adventure of the Engineer’s Thumb”, and “The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet” in the 1892 short story collection The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.
The same is the case for “The Musgrave Ritual,” “The ‘Gloria Scott’”, and “The Reigate Squires” all within the 1893 short story collection The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, and the stories “The Adventures of the Three Students” and “The Adventure of the Golden Pince-Nez” in the 1905 short story collection The Return of Sherlock Holmes. Apart from that, chapter 10 of The Hound of the Baskervilles, chapter 7 of the 1915 novel The Valley of Fear, and the story “The Problem of Thorn Bridge” in the 1927 set of short stories The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes feature libraries as well. Lastly, there’s a mention of a London Library in St. James’s Square and Lomax, who is said to be a “sublibrarian,” in “The Illustrious Client.” This is another short story within The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes.
In an email communication, Nathalie Belkin, an archivist who works for the London Library, told me that Doyle was a library member, joining in 1896 after his friend, and fellow writer, Arthur Griffith, nominated him. According to Belkin, Doyle was an active library user, even serving on the library’s committee. In fact, it is believed that The Illustrious Client, also entitled The Adventure of the Illustrious Client, was written in the library’s main reading room. While the borrowing history from the time has been lost, he was a “well-known fixture” of the library.
Otherwise, Karl Marx formulated ideas on communism, including within Das Kapital (also known as Capital), in the aforementioned reading room within the British Museum. Displays within the room describe it as a place for diverse thought. Many patrons left behind their mark in the visitors log. It was even one of the first places in London to have electric light (in 1879)! The room could, at maximum, hold 302 readers sitting at 38 tables, sitting across from each other, and was heated from underneath. Readers would consult a catalogue of printed books in the room’s center, then fill out a request form. In some ways, this makes this room similar to the Library of Congress’s Reading Room, since books for the British Library could be accessed there until they were moved to their current location in 1997. In fact, 62,000 people came when this reading room opened in 1857. A sign, when looking into the reading room, tells visitors to be quiet, feeding into the common conception of libraries as quiet places, which is not always the case for all libraries anymore.
Compilation of four photographs of the Reading Room within the British Library, taken on August 3, 2025 (Photographs by me. Sorry for the blurriness in one of these photos)What Rick Steves didn’t mention is that the historic reading room only re-opened to the public in 2024 after being closed for eleven years. The room was designed by Sydney Smirke, inspired by Rome’s domed Pantheon, and opened in 1857. It first re-opened to visitors in 2000 (after it stopped being an active reading room in 1997), then closed in 2013, when it was used for archival storage. The room, described by some as “legendary,” “stunning,” and an impressive sight for bibliophiles (protagonist and book-defender Elianna Bernstein of Bibliophile Princess would be right at home there) is not technically a library anymore. You can’t borrow any of the 25,000 books, and photography is now permitted (it wasn’t previously). Even so, it is still a marvel to see. You can even go on a twenty-minute tour there and there is currently a plan to completely transform the galleries and reading room.
The second highlight was the Enlightenment Gallery, formerly known as the King’s Library. It once held the British Library’s treasures when it was founded in 1753. Today it holds objects about the Age of Enlightenment, as Rick Steves notes. A display board, when you enter the room, says that it was developed in partnership with the House of Commons Library and the Natural History Museum. The current books on display are being loaned from the House of Commons Library. The aforementioned display notes that those who lent non-book artifacts to the gallery included the British King, the Science Museum in London, King’s College in London, Wellcome Collection, Society of Antiquities of London, Victor and Albert Museum, the Linnean Society of London, and the Royal Asiatic Society (also in London). Of these institutions, most have their own libraries. In fact, the D. Leonard Corgan Library at Kings College, the college’s main library, served as a location in Dan Brown’s controversial novel The Da Vinci Code. The building’s exterior appeared in the 2020 film Enola Holmes, a mystery film about Sherlock Holmes’ teenage sister.
The room itself was originally created, in 1823, to house King George II’s library, hence the original name. It was designed by architect Robert Smirke, known for the British Museum’s main facade and block, along with various clubs and houses within London. Of these, the Inner Temple, for which he did some work on, has a library, which continues to operate to this day, as did Bickley Hall. Smike also completed building restoration of the Bodleian Library’s Upper Reading room, which is part of the “old library.” As for the Enlightenment Gallery, it has a Greek Revival design, with neoclassical decoration. It’s said to be in keeping with the “styles of libraries in grand houses all over Britain” at the time, with claims it has echoes of “ancient wisdom and learning.” In 1998, the British Library moved to a new location across from the current St. Pancras station. The latter is not to be confused with pancreas or the Japanese anime film which centers on libraries and librarians, entitled I Want to Eat Your Pancreas. It is far too easy to call it “pancreas” by mistake, a name that almost stuck with me.
This gallery is where thousands of objects can be viewed and serves as an introduction to the British Museum’s collections. Even so, for me, I visited it at the end of my time at the overcrowded museum. I was inspired to visit this room by one particular scene in the December 2011 anime film, K-On! the Movie, a spinoff from the 2009-2010 anime series, K-On!. It features two episodes with libraries, including one about studying in the library and featuring a student librarian at an information desk. In fact, I rewatched this film before my trip to London, just for this scene. During the film, Yui Hirasawa, Ritsu Tainaka, Mio Akiyama, Azusa Nakano, and Tsumugi Kotobuki bop around London, visiting many sites, including walking through the strangely empty Great Court of the British Museum. They make their way into the gallery. During a short scene, Azusa points out that the Rosetta Stone (she put it on their itinerary) is also a replica. In fact, they used a replica in a school play as the death stone for a Romeo & Juliet play, because the fake tombstone they wanted to use had been misplaced.
My photograph on the left on August 3, 2024, of the Rosetta Stone replica in the Enlightenment Gallery, and image of the replica from K-On! the Movie on the right.The British Museum also has the actual Rosetta Stone in the Egyptian sculpture room, but like Yui, Ritsu, Mio, Azusa, and Tsumugi, I only looked at and touched the replica. The aforementioned gallery likely would have been overcrowded, as the gallery rooms I visited were extremely overcrowded and not suited for visitors. They had inadequate airflow and no overhead fans. As for the film, there were a few other short library scenes in the private all-girls school the protagonists attend, Sakuragaoka High School.
The same day I visited the British Museum, I visited the British Library. It sits across from St. Pancras station, and would be the last library I visited in the U.K. As Rick Steves put it, the British empire built its “greatest monuments out of paper.” The library holds every publication within the U.K. and Northern Ireland, with over 170 million items, such as sacred texts, maps, the Magna Carta, Leonardo Da Vinci’s notebook, plays by William Shakespeare, and lyrics of songs by the Beatles. This library, established by an act of Parliament in July 1972 and opened in July 1973, is one of the biggest in the world. It’s only rivaled by the Library of Congress, Russian State Library in Moscow, or Shanghai Library in China. Many such institutions are the legal deposit libraries for their respective countries. Anyone is open to explore the British Library reading rooms and peruse exhibits. You can get a readers registration pass if you are over 18, allowing you to enter the reading rooms.
When I visited, on August 3rd, the reading rooms for humanities, manuscripts, rare books, music, science, maps, and Asian and African studies, were not open. I even saw rooms reserved for the sole purpose of prayer, and went through the “Treasures of the British Library” exhibit in the St. John Ritblat Gallery. It contained many of the artifacts I noted in the previous paragraph. Perhaps because they have the space, the British Library holds the library collections of the British Museum. Rare books fill the middle of the library in a massive climate-controlled column, allowing the upper floors to only be accessed by stairs or elevators, and affecting the structure of each floor. There was also a fascinating collection of foreign currency, stamps, and other postage from former British colonies, called the Philatelic Collection. It could be easily overlooked, but was fun to look through, especially in the way it was displayed.
Like the British museums I visited during my travels, they asked for a donation, but they were free to enter, without payment or restriction. The number of visitors using the study area made clear that they were open to all, in line with library ethical principles, as did the books in their bookshop, some of which would likely be on banned books lists of in U.S. libraries. In the next part of this series, I’ll talk briefly about the university library I visited in Belgium.
© 2025-2026 Burkely Hermann. All rights reserved.
Sources used
- “About this Reading Room,” Library of Congress, 2025.
- “About Us,” British Library, 2025.
- “About us,” House of Commons Library, 2025.
- “About us,” Royal Asiatic Society, 2025.
- “About us,” Wellcome Collection, 2025.
- “Archives,” London Library, 2025.
- Barker, Sam. “The British Museum’s Secretive Round Reading Room Has Reopened To The Public,” Secret London, 4 Jul. 2024.
- “Bickley,” Wikishire, 13 Jul. 2025.
- “D. Leonard Corgan Library,” Kings College, 2025.
- “Dana Research Centre and Library,” Science Museum, 2025.
- “Everything you ever wanted to know about the Rosetta Stone,” British Museum, 2025.
- Fox, Caroline. “Every Enola Holmes Filming Location (And What Every Place Looks Like Now),” ScreenRant, 26 Oct. 2020.
- Funk, Alex. “The British Museum’s mysterious domed Reading Room has officially reopened to the public,” TimeOut, 3 Jul. 2024.
- Hermann, Burkely. “Librarians and libraries in anime,” Pop Culture Library Review, 2025 (orig. 25 Jul. 2020).
- Hermann, Burkely. “More than a coming-of-age drama: The value of libraries and librarians in “I Want To Eat Your Pancreas”,” Pop Culture Library Review, 8 Jan. 2024.
- Hermann, Burkely. “Recently added titles (March 2025),” Pop Culture Library Review, 2 Apr. 2025.
- Hermann, Burkely. “The fictional library and the value of studying redux,” Pop Culture Library Review, 30 Jul. 2024.
- Hickley, Catherine. “British Museum’s historic Reading Room opens to the public after 11 years,” The Art Newspaper, 3 Jul. 2024.
- “History of The London Library,” London Library, 2025.
- “Library,” Linnean Society of London, 2025.
- “Library & Collections,” Society of Antiquities of London, 2024.
- Mathur, Rhea. “The British Museum’s Reading Room: Past and Present,” gowithyamo, 2 Sept. 2024.
- Moran, Sarah. “The British Museum’s Stunning Domed Reading Room Reopens to Public,” Home Journal, 27 Sept. 2024.
- “National Art Library,” Victor and Albert Museum, 2025.
- “Philatelic Collections: Introduction,” British Library, 29 Mar. 2010.
- Hermann, Burkely. “Remembering “Bibliophile Princess” and its significant fictional depiction of libraries,” Pop Culture Library Review, 14 May 2024.
- “Spaces at the Bodleian Old Library,” Bodleian Library, 2025.
- “Spotlight: the Reading Room,” British Museum, 2025.
- Steves, Rick and Openshaw, Gene. London (24th Edition, US: Avalon Travel, Sept. 2022): 212, 214-215, 236, 238, 240, 244-247, 249.
- “Strand Campus: Self-guided tour,” King’s College, 5 Oct. 2014, p. 8.
- “The British Library Philatelic Collection,” The Royal Philatelic Society London, Nov. 2005.
- “The Present Buildings,” Inner Temple Library, 2025.
- “Treasures of the British Library,” British Library, 2025.
- “Update on progress with the Masterplan,” British Museum, 19 Dec. 2024.
#AncientEgypt #archives #ArthurConanDoyle #artifacts #BeatrixPotter #Belgium #BibliophilePrincess #BlackPatrons #BlackPeople #BramStoker #BritishLibrary #BritishMuseum #China #ChinesePatrons #colonialism #communism #electricity #EnolaHolmes #HouseOfCommonsLibrary #JapanesePatrons #JenniferSnoekBrown #KOn #KOnTheMovie #KarlMarx #LibraryOfCongress #libraryStereotypes #libraryTourism #LondonLibrary #MarcusGarvey #MohandasKGandhi #quiet #railroads #reading #ReelLibrarians #restrictions #RickSteves #RosettaStone #royalLibraries #royalty #Russia #RussianStateLibrary #ShanghaiLibrary #SherlockHolmes #SunYatSen #SylviaPankhurst #TheBeatles #TheDaVinciCode #TheIllustriousClient #trains #VirginiaWoolf #WhiteLibrarians #WhiteMen #WhitePatrons
-
Plunder, Mystery, and Intrigue: Visiting the British Museum and the British Library
After leaving the Lake District, I traveled to London by train, for the third part of my trip. This was where I saw the most libraries during my trip. On my last day in London, August 3rd, I visited the British Museum, located in London’s West End, which was overcrowded with tourists. This made viewing the so-called “chronicle of Western collection,” which was acquired through extensive plunder and theft, as American tour guide Rick Steves describes the museum, very uncomfortable. Even so, there were two highlights. The first was the stately and round reading room. English writers Virginia Woolf and Beatrix Potter, Chinese revolutionary Sun Yat-sen, radical thinkers Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, Black nationalist Marcus Garvey, women’s rights campaigner Sylvia Pankhurst, independence activist Mohandas K. Gandhi, and Irish author Bram Stoker all studied there.
Note: This serves as second part of my series on this blog about my library tourism last year, with the first part, about my attempted and successful library tourism in Edinburgh and Northern England, posted on this blog last week. The series begins, chronologically, with my guest post on Reel Librarians, on February 11th, in a post entitled “Edinburgh and the National Library of Scotland: Library tourism redux.” It will be reposted on here over a month later. There will be one more parts of this series, focusing on my continued library tourism in Belgium coming next week.
Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, as noted in Doyle’s “The Complete Sherlock Holmes,” studied in the reading room. In the 1893 short story “The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual” (sometimes abbreviated as “The Musgrave Ritual”), he studied “those branches of science which might make me more efficient” in the reading room. He learned other information from the British Museum in chapter 15 of 1902 novel The Hound of the Baskervilles and “The Tiger of San Pedro” chapter, within a 1917 collection entitled His Last Bow: Some Reminiscences of Sherlock Holmes (sometimes abbreviated as “His Last Bow”). There are mentions of libraries in the short stories “The Five Orange Pips”, “The Adventure of the Engineer’s Thumb”, and “The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet” in the 1892 short story collection The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.
The same is the case for “The Musgrave Ritual,” “The ‘Gloria Scott’”, and “The Reigate Squires” all within the 1893 short story collection The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, and the stories “The Adventures of the Three Students” and “The Adventure of the Golden Pince-Nez” in the 1905 short story collection The Return of Sherlock Holmes. Apart from that, chapter 10 of The Hound of the Baskervilles, chapter 7 of the 1915 novel The Valley of Fear, and the story “The Problem of Thorn Bridge” in the 1927 set of short stories The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes feature libraries as well. Lastly, there’s a mention of a London Library in St. James’s Square and Lomax, who is said to be a “sublibrarian,” in “The Illustrious Client.” This is another short story within The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes.
In an email communication, Nathalie Belkin, an archivist who works for the London Library, told me that Doyle was a library member, joining in 1896 after his friend, and fellow writer, Arthur Griffith, nominated him. According to Belkin, Doyle was an active library user, even serving on the library’s committee. In fact, it is believed that The Illustrious Client, also entitled The Adventure of the Illustrious Client, was written in the library’s main reading room. While the borrowing history from the time has been lost, he was a “well-known fixture” of the library.
Otherwise, Karl Marx formulated ideas on communism, including within Das Kapital (also known as Capital), in the aforementioned reading room within the British Museum. Displays within the room describe it as a place for diverse thought. Many patrons left behind their mark in the visitors log. It was even one of the first places in London to have electric light (in 1879)! The room could, at maximum, hold 302 readers sitting at 38 tables, sitting across from each other, and was heated from underneath. Readers would consult a catalogue of printed books in the room’s center, then fill out a request form. In some ways, this makes this room similar to the Library of Congress’s Reading Room, since books for the British Library could be accessed there until they were moved to their current location in 1997. In fact, 62,000 people came when this reading room opened in 1857. A sign, when looking into the reading room, tells visitors to be quiet, feeding into the common conception of libraries as quiet places, which is not always the case for all libraries anymore.
Compilation of four photographs of the Reading Room within the British Library, taken on August 3, 2025 (Photographs by me. Sorry for the blurriness in one of these photos)What Rick Steves didn’t mention is that the historic reading room only re-opened to the public in 2024 after being closed for eleven years. The room was designed by Sydney Smirke, inspired by Rome’s domed Pantheon, and opened in 1857. It first re-opened to visitors in 2000 (after it stopped being an active reading room in 1997), then closed in 2013, when it was used for archival storage. The room, described by some as “legendary,” “stunning,” and an impressive sight for bibliophiles (protagonist and book-defender Elianna Bernstein of Bibliophile Princess would be right at home there) is not technically a library anymore. You can’t borrow any of the 25,000 books, and photography is now permitted (it wasn’t previously). Even so, it is still a marvel to see. You can even go on a twenty-minute tour there and there is currently a plan to completely transform the galleries and reading room.
The second highlight was the Enlightenment Gallery, formerly known as the King’s Library. It once held the British Library’s treasures when it was founded in 1753. Today it holds objects about the Age of Enlightenment, as Rick Steves notes. A display board, when you enter the room, says that it was developed in partnership with the House of Commons Library and the Natural History Museum. The current books on display are being loaned from the House of Commons Library. The aforementioned display notes that those who lent non-book artifacts to the gallery included the British King, the Science Museum in London, King’s College in London, Wellcome Collection, Society of Antiquities of London, Victor and Albert Museum, the Linnean Society of London, and the Royal Asiatic Society (also in London). Of these institutions, most have their own libraries. In fact, the D. Leonard Corgan Library at Kings College, the college’s main library, served as a location in Dan Brown’s controversial novel The Da Vinci Code. The building’s exterior appeared in the 2020 film Enola Holmes, a mystery film about Sherlock Holmes’ teenage sister.
The room itself was originally created, in 1823, to house King George II’s library, hence the original name. It was designed by architect Robert Smirke, known for the British Museum’s main facade and block, along with various clubs and houses within London. Of these, the Inner Temple, for which he did some work on, has a library, which continues to operate to this day, as did Bickley Hall. Smike also completed building restoration of the Bodleian Library’s Upper Reading room, which is part of the “old library.” As for the Enlightenment Gallery, it has a Greek Revival design, with neoclassical decoration. It’s said to be in keeping with the “styles of libraries in grand houses all over Britain” at the time, with claims it has echoes of “ancient wisdom and learning.” In 1998, the British Library moved to a new location across from the current St. Pancras station. The latter is not to be confused with pancreas or the Japanese anime film which centers on libraries and librarians, entitled I Want to Eat Your Pancreas. It is far too easy to call it “pancreas” by mistake, a name that almost stuck with me.
This gallery is where thousands of objects can be viewed and serves as an introduction to the British Museum’s collections. Even so, for me, I visited it at the end of my time at the overcrowded museum. I was inspired to visit this room by one particular scene in the December 2011 anime film, K-On! the Movie, a spinoff from the 2009-2010 anime series, K-On!. It features two episodes with libraries, including one about studying in the library and featuring a student librarian at an information desk. In fact, I rewatched this film before my trip to London, just for this scene. During the film, Yui Hirasawa, Ritsu Tainaka, Mio Akiyama, Azusa Nakano, and Tsumugi Kotobuki bop around London, visiting many sites, including walking through the strangely empty Great Court of the British Museum. They make their way into the gallery. During a short scene, Azusa points out that the Rosetta Stone (she put it on their itinerary) is also a replica. In fact, they used a replica in a school play as the death stone for a Romeo & Juliet play, because the fake tombstone they wanted to use had been misplaced.
My photograph on the left on August 3, 2024, of the Rosetta Stone replica in the Enlightenment Gallery, and image of the replica from K-On! the Movie on the right.The British Museum also has the actual Rosetta Stone in the Egyptian sculpture room, but like Yui, Ritsu, Mio, Azusa, and Tsumugi, I only looked at and touched the replica. The aforementioned gallery likely would have been overcrowded, as the gallery rooms I visited were extremely overcrowded and not suited for visitors. They had inadequate airflow and no overhead fans. As for the film, there were a few other short library scenes in the private all-girls school the protagonists attend, Sakuragaoka High School.
The same day I visited the British Museum, I visited the British Library. It sits across from St. Pancras station, and would be the last library I visited in the U.K. As Rick Steves put it, the British empire built its “greatest monuments out of paper.” The library holds every publication within the U.K. and Northern Ireland, with over 170 million items, such as sacred texts, maps, the Magna Carta, Leonardo Da Vinci’s notebook, plays by William Shakespeare, and lyrics of songs by the Beatles. This library, established by an act of Parliament in July 1972 and opened in July 1973, is one of the biggest in the world. It’s only rivaled by the Library of Congress, Russian State Library in Moscow, or Shanghai Library in China. Many such institutions are the legal deposit libraries for their respective countries. Anyone is open to explore the British Library reading rooms and peruse exhibits. You can get a readers registration pass if you are over 18, allowing you to enter the reading rooms.
When I visited, on August 3rd, the reading rooms for humanities, manuscripts, rare books, music, science, maps, and Asian and African studies, were not open. I even saw rooms reserved for the sole purpose of prayer, and went through the “Treasures of the British Library” exhibit in the St. John Ritblat Gallery. It contained many of the artifacts I noted in the previous paragraph. Perhaps because they have the space, the British Library holds the library collections of the British Museum. Rare books fill the middle of the library in a massive climate-controlled column, allowing the upper floors to only be accessed by stairs or elevators, and affecting the structure of each floor. There was also a fascinating collection of foreign currency, stamps, and other postage from former British colonies, called the Philatelic Collection. It could be easily overlooked, but was fun to look through, especially in the way it was displayed.
Like the British museums I visited during my travels, they asked for a donation, but they were free to enter, without payment or restriction. The number of visitors using the study area made clear that they were open to all, in line with library ethical principles, as did the books in their bookshop, some of which would likely be on banned books lists of in U.S. libraries. In the next part of this series, I’ll talk briefly about the university library I visited in Belgium.
© 2025-2026 Burkely Hermann. All rights reserved.
Sources used
- “About this Reading Room,” Library of Congress, 2025.
- “About Us,” British Library, 2025.
- “About us,” House of Commons Library, 2025.
- “About us,” Royal Asiatic Society, 2025.
- “About us,” Wellcome Collection, 2025.
- “Archives,” London Library, 2025.
- Barker, Sam. “The British Museum’s Secretive Round Reading Room Has Reopened To The Public,” Secret London, 4 Jul. 2024.
- “Bickley,” Wikishire, 13 Jul. 2025.
- “D. Leonard Corgan Library,” Kings College, 2025.
- “Dana Research Centre and Library,” Science Museum, 2025.
- “Everything you ever wanted to know about the Rosetta Stone,” British Museum, 2025.
- Fox, Caroline. “Every Enola Holmes Filming Location (And What Every Place Looks Like Now),” ScreenRant, 26 Oct. 2020.
- Funk, Alex. “The British Museum’s mysterious domed Reading Room has officially reopened to the public,” TimeOut, 3 Jul. 2024.
- Hermann, Burkely. “Librarians and libraries in anime,” Pop Culture Library Review, 2025 (orig. 25 Jul. 2020).
- Hermann, Burkely. “More than a coming-of-age drama: The value of libraries and librarians in “I Want To Eat Your Pancreas”,” Pop Culture Library Review, 8 Jan. 2024.
- Hermann, Burkely. “Recently added titles (March 2025),” Pop Culture Library Review, 2 Apr. 2025.
- Hermann, Burkely. “The fictional library and the value of studying redux,” Pop Culture Library Review, 30 Jul. 2024.
- Hickley, Catherine. “British Museum’s historic Reading Room opens to the public after 11 years,” The Art Newspaper, 3 Jul. 2024.
- “History of The London Library,” London Library, 2025.
- “Library,” Linnean Society of London, 2025.
- “Library & Collections,” Society of Antiquities of London, 2024.
- Mathur, Rhea. “The British Museum’s Reading Room: Past and Present,” gowithyamo, 2 Sept. 2024.
- Moran, Sarah. “The British Museum’s Stunning Domed Reading Room Reopens to Public,” Home Journal, 27 Sept. 2024.
- “National Art Library,” Victor and Albert Museum, 2025.
- “Philatelic Collections: Introduction,” British Library, 29 Mar. 2010.
- Hermann, Burkely. “Remembering “Bibliophile Princess” and its significant fictional depiction of libraries,” Pop Culture Library Review, 14 May 2024.
- “Spaces at the Bodleian Old Library,” Bodleian Library, 2025.
- “Spotlight: the Reading Room,” British Museum, 2025.
- Steves, Rick and Openshaw, Gene. London (24th Edition, US: Avalon Travel, Sept. 2022): 212, 214-215, 236, 238, 240, 244-247, 249.
- “Strand Campus: Self-guided tour,” King’s College, 5 Oct. 2014, p. 8.
- “The British Library Philatelic Collection,” The Royal Philatelic Society London, Nov. 2005.
- “The Present Buildings,” Inner Temple Library, 2025.
- “Treasures of the British Library,” British Library, 2025.
- “Update on progress with the Masterplan,” British Museum, 19 Dec. 2024.
#AncientEgypt #archives #ArthurConanDoyle #artifacts #BeatrixPotter #Belgium #BibliophilePrincess #BlackPatrons #BlackPeople #BramStoker #BritishLibrary #BritishMuseum #China #ChinesePatrons #colonialism #communism #electricity #EnolaHolmes #HouseOfCommonsLibrary #JapanesePatrons #JenniferSnoekBrown #KOn #KOnTheMovie #KarlMarx #LibraryOfCongress #libraryStereotypes #libraryTourism #LondonLibrary #MarcusGarvey #MohandasKGandhi #quiet #railroads #reading #ReelLibrarians #restrictions #RickSteves #RosettaStone #royalLibraries #royalty #Russia #RussianStateLibrary #ShanghaiLibrary #SherlockHolmes #SunYatSen #SylviaPankhurst #TheBeatles #TheDaVinciCode #TheIllustriousClient #trains #VirginiaWoolf #WhiteLibrarians #WhiteMen #WhitePatrons
-
The Finnish Connection: the thread about William Crichton and the Trinity Chain Pier
The Old Chain Pier, on the sea wall at Trinity in the north of Edinburgh, is a nice little pub for a drink or some lunch with an uninterrupted view across the Firth of Forth to Fife. It takes its name from the Trinity Chain Pier, a rather fragile-looking structure opened nearby on August 14th 1821 to serve the east coast steamers. The pier is long gone, commemorated by the pub, but surprisingly you can fine many direct links to it in Finland of all places!
“Pier of Suspension. Erected at Trinity, near Newhaven, and within Three Short Miles of Edinburgh”. 1825 print by Charles Hulmandel. Edinburgh and Scottish Collection, Edinburgh City Libraries.The pier was first proposed in 1820 by George Crichton, an entrepreneurial Leith businessman. George, the son of was the son of Alexander Crichton of Woodhouselee and Newington, came from money and had spent some time in the Royal Navy, rising to be a Lieutenant. But it was on land where he made his own fortune as a shipowner. He introduced one of the first steamships to Leith, the imaginatively named Tug of 1817, which plied the Forth coast. The Port of Leith at that time was not in a good state of upkeep and access was strictly tidal. His company, the London, Leith, Edinburgh and Glasgow Shipping Company – was granted permission to build his rival pier. They in turn transferred their interest to a new company backed by Crichton – the Trinity Pier Company – who would build, own and operated it.
Coloured lithograph by Jobbins & Chiffins, 1836, showing steamers at the Chain Pier from the sea, looking south towards Trinity. Edinburgh and Scottish Collection, Edinburgh City Libraries.The final design of this “pier of suspension” was by Captain Samuel Brown RN and it was situated west of the old harbour of Newhaven. Its three spans projected 627 feet out into the sea and rose ten feet above high water, it was intended that it would be accessible to steamers at all states of the tide and would not have to compete with the Newhaven fishing fleet for space.
Close up of the end of the pier from the 1825 print by Charles Hulmandel, showing a small steamer berthed. There were stairs down to water level to allow embarkation. Edinburgh and Scottish Collection, Edinburgh City Libraries.At the head of the pier was a small waiting room for steamer passengers and visitors could pay 1d at a toll booth to promenade along the slender deck. The pier however never really caught on with the steamer trade; a proper deep-water harbour at Granton would open in 1837, in 1850 the North British Railway bridged the Forth from there using Thomas Bouch’s “floating railway” system, and improvements to the docks at the Port of Leith all conspired to make it surplus to requirements.
Comparison of the 1849 OS Town Plan and the 1893 25 inch map of Edinburgh showing the Chain Pier. The original toll house has been replaced by a public house in the later view, and a tramway and waiting room to serve the steamers have gone, with new bathing shelters added instead. Move the slider to compare. Reproduced with the permission of the National Library of ScotlandNot long after the pier was opened, a public house opened opposite called The Chain Pier Inn. This was sold in 1865 so that the portion of Trinity Crescent called Albert Terrace could be extended to the east and the pub transferred across the road, replacing the former pier toll house. It is this building, much modified over the years, that forms the core of the present-day Old Chain Pier.
Around 1910, already the Chain Pier Inn is the Old Chain Pier Bar. It features an ornamental cupola from its days as the ticket office for the pier. Old postcard.The last regular steamer from Trinity, the Helen McGregor, sailed its final season in 1850, leaving Largo on the east Fife coast at 6:45AM each morning with intermediate stops at Leven, Dysart and Kirkcaldy before arriving at the pier to meet the 9AM train from Edinburgh and make the return journey. Further departures were made to Fife at 1PM and 5PM.
“Newhaven Harbour and the Chain Pier, looking east” coloured print of an engraving by R. Brandard after W. H. Bartlett, originally published c. 1840.After that year, when the railway service was inaugurated from Granton to Burntisland, the steamer trade reduced to little more than the occasional summer visitor and the pier found itself without a purpose. In 1859 ownership was sold to the Colonial Life Assurance Company. In order to try and make some money out of the scheme, it was promoted as a swimming station, with changing huts erected at the end and served by special early morning bathers’ trains and later cable-hauled tramcars.
Bathing huts at the end of the chain pier in the 1890s. Edinburgh and Scottish Collection, Edinburgh City Libraries.Advertising bill for the Chain Pier. Edinburgh and Scottish Collection, Edinburgh City Libraries.In March 1898 the Chain Pier Inn burned down, the result of an overheated hearth stove, and a much more permanent disaster occured later in the year the pier was largely swept away in a great storm that culminated on the night of October 18th 1898. Sections of the sea wall at Newhaven and the sea wall and railway embankment at Wardie Bay were also swept away by the power of the waves.
After the storm in 1898. The remains of the pier would be demolished. From Old Leith by Guthrie Hutton.During the height of the storm, which lasted for thirty-six hours, the Norwegian sailing ship Kawe was wrecked ashore at Annfield, between Newhaven and Leith Docks, and the Swedish barque Bertha was wrecked between Cramond and Granton. Numerous other vessels were damaged, driven ashore or wrecked all along the Forth coast.
Evening News artist’s impression of the stranding of the Kawe at Annfield. Printed 19th October 1898The pub would be rebuilt – and survives to this day – but the pier was not and the remains were demolished. Within the pub you can find the older masonry walls of the original structure and other relics from the pier.
Relics from the Old Chain Pier within the pub of that name. © SelfGeorge Crichton however prospered, even if his pier did not; he was one of the Leith Docks Commissioners, a Commissioner of Police, councillor of the Royal Landing Club, a reformist and vocal defender of Leith’s political independence from Edinburgh. He died in September 1841, leaving behind the not insubstantial fortune of £8,167 (after his creditors were settled) – about £901k in today’s money.
In 1827, George Crichton’s third son – William – was born in the family home at John’s Place in South Leith. His mother was Margaret Gifford Allan, known as Gifford. William followed in his older brothers’ footsteps and went into a career in engineering. At the age of fourteen his father died and he finished school. His brother Alexander got him a position at Scott & Company of Greenock, one of Scotland’s most prestigious shipbuilders. After that his other brother Edward got him into the Shotts Iron Company, the name in iron founding in 19th century Scotland. He completed this practical education at Robert Napier & Sons in Govan, one of the names in the country for marine engine building. When he left in 1848 he was aged just 21 but already had a most impressive CV for an aspiring young engineer.
William Crichton in later lifeWilliam now went to sea to get practical experience, and served as engineer on one of the ships of his father’s old company – the London, Leith, Edinburgh & Glasgow Shipping Co. – where he still had relations on the board of directors. After a season on the Royal Victoria he spent a winter working on his draughtsmanship and design studies, before sailing the next season with the Napier-engined Isabella Napier of the Continental Steam Navigation Co. between Leith, London and Hamburg.
Post Office Directory advert showing the “Royal Victoria”William’s big break came unexpectedly in 1850 when a letter arrived from his fellow Scotsman, David Cowie of Cowie & Eriksson – marine engineers in Turku, the Grand Duchy of Finland (then a part of the Russian Empire). Cowie invited William to join his company on a three year contract as a supervisor. William jumped at the chance, Russia was then the place to be for an aspiring naval engineer to make his name and make money; the waning Imperial power was playing catchup with France and Britain and desperately trying to buy in the foreign expertise to expand and modernise its navy.
David CowieRussia held a further attaction for the aspiring William as he had connections in high places in the country. His uncle, Sir Alexander Crichton, was physician to the Czar and his cousin, Sir Archibald Crichton, was also in the service to the Czar’s family. His first job in Finland was to supervise the construction and installation of the steam engines of the new frigate Rurik then being built by Cowie & Errikson for the Russian Navy.
Launch of the “Rurik” in 1851Crichton however soon fell ill and needed to be nursed back to health by Cowie’s wife. It was during this time he met her brother, Samuel Owen (junior), whose father Samuel Senior had helped industrialise Sweden and through whom Eriksson and Cowie had come to work together and form their partnership. In turn through Samuel Junior he met Annie Elizabeth Owen and the two would be wed in 1854. They would ultimately have twelve children together but before he could marry, William had to finish his work on the Rurik, which dd not complete until 1853. This brought his contract with Cowie & Eriksson to a close and so William took up a new opportunity in Helsinki through the Owens with Fiskars (the company known for orange-handled scissors and who may have made your garden shears).
But before he could get started, the matter of the War in Crimea got in the way and he was arrested in St. Petersburg as a possible enemy agent. Fortunately he was able to drop the name of Sir Alexander Crichton to the chief of police and instead of being sent to Moscow, he was released into his uncle’s care. Put above suspicion through his connections, he instead was given a place with Izhorskiye Zavody, a state-owned engineering works in Kolpino, St. Petersburg. Here he was able to repay Samuel Owen Junior by getting him a place there too.
Soviet postage stamp celebrating 250 years of the Izhorskiye ZavodyWilliam set about his new job with enthusiasm and after the Crimean War was over travelled frequently back to England to appraise himself of the latest designs and technology, bringing them back to Russia to improve his own company’s engines. For his efforts in modernising their naval engineering the appreciative Russians presented him with a St Stanislaus Ribbon with a golden medal in 1860.
St. Stanislaus ribbon and silver medal, collection of the SmithsonianIn 1862, William was called back to Turku in Finland by a letter from one Erik Julin who had bought Eriksson’s shares of his old employer Cowie & Eriksson. Julin informed him that Cowie was ready to sell his share too and wanted William to consider buying it and entering into partnership with him, acting as the lead engineer. William agreed and bought Cowie’s share for 32,810 Silver Roubles. The new company became William Crichton & Co and it wasted no time in expanding from engineering into shipbuilding.
Erik Julin, Crichton’s partner in Crichton & Co.With solid finances, Julin’s business sense and William’s engineering prowess and Imperial connections the company prospered. By the 1870s their Turku yard employed 400 and was building small screw tugs, coastal vessels and auxiliary engines. The company expanded by taking control of the Turku Old Shipyard and modernising it to allow production of steel vessels. With greater liabilities at stake it was converted into a limited organisation, with tho-thirds of the shares owned by Crichton and one third by Julin.
Letterhead of William Crichton & Co,The company went from strength to strength and became the largest employer in Turku. To ensure Imperial orders it maintained a dedicated “commercial counsellor” in St. Petersburg, to handle the delicate negotiations and backhanders required to get state work. Crichton continued to modernise and enlarge the works until his death in 1889 aged 62. None of his many children wanted to take on the operation, so his shares were sold off to his deputy, John Eager and to Russian banks and nobility. The company continued to prosper and increasingly started to build small warships for the Russian navy. In 1898 it built twenty-six Sokol torpedo boats and took over a yard in Okhta, St. Petersburg. This investment would ultimately be their undoing as it incurred significant debts and its poor performance resulted in large penalty contract clauses.
Sokol torpedo boat of the Imperial Russian NavyIn 1906, tensions between Moscow and the Finnish Grand Duchy saw the Russian Navy cancel all contracts with Finnish yards. This hit Crichtons hard and they incurred further losses from which they never recovered. By 1913 they declared bankruptcy with enormous debts. But that was not the end for the Leith name of Crichton in Finnish shipbuilding – two of the company’s biggest creditors (and shareholders) were the Dahlström brothers, and they restarted the yard in Turku under the name Aktiebolaget (AB) Crichton in 1914.
AB Crichton letterheadThis new company got by on orders from the new Finnish state – including a pair of gunboats Karjala and Turunmaa which would go on to serve in Finland’s wars with the Soviet Union in the 1940s and into the 1950s. But the post-WW1, post-revolution, post-independence and post-civil war recession hit AB Crichton very hard and it built its last ship in 1924. But once again the name it was saved; a merger with its neighbour and rival AB Vulcan formed Crichton-Vulcan Oy. Thus it was that a company with a half-Scottish name and heritage would become Finland’s largest shipyard and was awarded orders in 1927 for two new 3,900 tonne coastal defence armoured ships for the Finnish navy, Ilmarinen and Väinämöinen, the pride of the fleet
Väinämöinen in 1938, pride of the Finish NavyBoth of these ships served in the 1940s wars with the Soviet Union, Ilmarinen hit mines in September 1941 and sank with the loss of 271 men from a crew of 401. The survivors were sardonically termed “Ilmarisen uimaseura” (Ilmarinen‘s Swimming Club). Väinämöinen was a persistent thorn in the enemy side who expended great efforts to sink her. They succeeded in doing so in July 1944 only to find out that thanks to herculean camouflage efforts on the part of the Finns, they had actually sank the German anti-aircraft ship Niobe instead.
And this is why, to this day, there is a street in Turku on the waterfront called Crichtoninkatu or Crichtongatan (please feel free to send me a better picture if you find yourself on that street any time soon!)
Crichtoninkatu in TurkuNote 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 -
Indigenous Peoples Fight Climate Change
In the wake of the worst wildfires in living memory in Mexico and Central America in 2024, news outlets were looking for someone to blame. Howler monkeys and many species of parrots perished in the blazes. Slash and burn farming practices by Belize‘s indigenous communities were singled out as a primary cause. Yet this knee-jerk reaction is not evidence based and doesn’t take into account forces like corporate landgrabbing for mining and agribusinesses like meat, soy and palm oil.
Belize’s indigenous Maya communities are rebuilding stronger based on the collective notion of se’ komonil: reciprocity, solidarity, traditional knowledge, gender equity, togetherness and community.
In the wake of horrific #wildfires in #Belize and #Mexico caused by #climatechange, #indigenous #Maya are rebuilding using the notion of se’ komonil: reciprocity #community and solidarity. #indigenousrights #landrights #BoycottPalmOil @palmoildetect https://wp.me/pcFhgU-924
Share to BlueSky Share to TwitterWritten by James Stinson, Senior Research Associate and Evaluation Specialist, Young Lives Research Lab, Faculty of Education, York University, Canada and Lee Mcloughlin, PhD student, Global Sociocultural Studies, Florida International University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Driven by extreme heat and drought, some of the worst wildfires in living memory raged across Mexico and Central America through April and May 2024.
News agencies reported howler monkeys dropping dead from trees, and parrots and other birds falling from the skies.
In Belize, a state of emergency was declared as wildfires burned tens of thousands of hectares of highly bio-diverse forest. Farmers suffered huge losses as fires destroyed crops and homes, and communities across the country suffered from hazardous air quality and hot, sleepless nights. Many risked their lives to fight off the approaching fires.
As the wildfire crisis subsided with rains in June, public attention shifted toward identifying the causes and allocating blame. Many singled out the “slash and burn” farming practices in Belize’s Indigenous communities as the primary cause. This simple knee-jerk reaction ignores the underlying causes of the climate crisis, are scientifically unfounded and stoke resentment of Indigenous Peoples.
Young Mayan women. Image source: WikipediaFanning the flames
On June 5, one of Belize’s major news networks ran a story with the headline “Are Primitive Farming Techniques Responsible for Wildfires?” The story placed blame for Belize’s wildfires on “slash-and-burn farming”, arguing that “there has to be a shift away from this destructive means of agriculture.”
The story was followed by an op-ed published online asserting that “because of the increased amounts of escaped agricultural fires, aided by climate change, global warming and drought, slash and burn has become more of a problem than the solution it once was.” This sentiment was further reinforced by Belize’s prime minister, who declared that “slash аnd burn has to be something of the past.”
While some of the recent fires in Belize were connected to agricultural burning — and poorly managed fire-clearing practices can have negative air-quality impacts — blaming “slash and burn” for the wildfire crisis ignores the larger context and conditions that made it possible, namely global warming.
May 2024 was the hottest and driest month in Belize’s history. This extreme heat is part of a broader global trend, with June 2024 marking the 13th consecutive “hottest month on record” globally.
More fundamentally, these statements confuse other forms of slash-and-burn agriculture with the distinct “milpa” systems employed by Indigenous people in Belize.
Indigenous knowledge undermined
Throughout Belize, Indigenous Maya farmers commonly practise a form of agriculture referred to as milpa in which fire is used to clear fields and fertilize the soil. Within this system, small areas of forest are chopped down, burned, and planted with maize, beans, squash and other crops. After being cultivated for a year or two, the field is then left fallow and allowed to regenerate back to forest cover while the farmers move on to a new area within a cyclical pattern where areas are reused after a regenerative period.
Commonly derided as slash-and-burn farming, milpa has long been perceived as environmentally destructive. This perspective has been perpetuated by long-standing myths and misconceptions that portray the farming practices of non-Europeans, and specifically the use of fire, as wasteful and irrational.
In Belize, this negative view of slash and burn has driven many colonial and post-colonial interventions to modernize Maya farming practices.
Recent research, however, has shown that the lands of Indigenous Peoples around the world have reduced deforestation and degradation rates relative to non-protected areas. The southern Toledo district of Belize, where the majority of Maya communities are located, boasts a forest cover rate of 71 per cent, significantly higher than the national average of 63 per cent.
Further research has found that the species composition of contemporary Mesoamerican forests has been shaped by the agricultural practices of ancient Maya farmers.
In Belize, fire has been found to play a role in promoting ecosystem health and resilience and intermediate levels of forest disturbance caused by milpa can increase species diversity. Well-managed milpa farming can support soil fertility, result in long-term carbon sequestration and enriched woodland vegetation.
Research has also shown that previous studies of deforestation in southern Belize significantly overestimated the rate of deforestation due to milpa agriculture by not accounting for its rotational process.
Many researchers now believe that milpa is a more benign alternative, in terms of environmental effects, than most other permanent farming systems in the humid tropics. Indeed, findings such as these have led to a growing appreciation for the role of Indigenous Peoples in advancing nature-based and life-enhancing climate solutions.
Unfortunately, research in the region has also found that climate change is undermining the ecological sustainability of milpa farming by forcing farmers to abandon traditional practices and adopt counterproductive measures in their struggle to adapt. In some cases, this has resulted in a decrease in the biodiversity and ecological resilience of the milpa system. This issue is compounded by the decreasing participation of young people, resulting in a further generational loss of traditional ecological knowledge.
Together, these issues are serving to alter and undermine a livelihood strategy that has proven sustainable for thousands of years. However, rather than call for Maya farmers to abandon slash and burn, we encourage support for the self-determined efforts of Maya communities to adapt to this changing climate. https://www.youtube.com/embed/ok787HRp_gA?wmode=transparent&start=0 A video documenting the Maya response to the 2024 wildfire crisis.
Planting seeds of collaboration
Since winning a groundbreaking land rights claim in 2015, Maya communities in southern Belize have been working to promote an Indigenous future based on principles of reciprocity, solidarity, traditional knowledge, gender equity and, most significantly, se’ komonil, the Maya notion of togetherness and community.
Led by a collaboration of Maya leaders and non-governmental organizations, work toward this has included efforts to revitalize traditional institutions and governance systems, as well as the development of an Indigenous Forest Caring Strategy and fire-permitting system. In an effort to encourage and support the participation of youth in this process, Maya leaders have collaborated with the Young Lives Research Lab at York University to develop the Partnership for Youth and Planetary Wellbeing.
Building on previous research with Maya youth, the project has produced innovative youth-led research and education on the impacts of climate change, the importance of food sovereignty, traditional ecological knowledge and the struggle to secure Indigenous land rights in Maya communities. This work has been shared with global policymakers at the United Nations and local audiences in Belize.
Rather than fanning the flames of climate blame, we must work together to revitalize Indigenous knowledge systems and plant seeds of climate collaboration and care.
Written by James Stinson, Senior Research Associate and Evaluation Specialist, Young Lives Research Lab, Faculty of Education, York University, Canada and Lee Mcloughlin, PhD student, Global Sociocultural Studies, Florida International University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
ENDS
Read more about human rights abuses and child slavery in the palm oil and gold mining industries
Investigation by Bloomberg exposes that despite being RSPO members, #SOCFIN plantations in #WestAfrica are the epicentre of #humanrights abuses, sexual coercion, environmental destruction, and #landgrabbing. Operating in #Liberia, #Ghana, #Nigeria, and beyond, SOCFIN’s…
Palm Oil Threatens Ancient Noken Weaving in West Papua
Colonial palm oil and sugarcane causing the loss of West Papuans’ cultural identity. Land grabs force communities from forests, threatening Noken weaving
Family Ties Expose Deforestation and Rights Violations in Indonesian Palm Oil
An explosive report by the Environment Investigation Agency (EIA) details how Indonesia’s Fangiono family, through a wide corporate web, is linked to ongoing #deforestation, #corruption, and #indigenousrights abuses for #palmoil. Calls mount for…
West Papuan Indigenous Women Fight Land Seizures
Indigenous Melanesian women in West Papua fight land seizures for palm oil and sugar plantations, protecting their ancestral rights. Join #BoycottPalmOil
Greasing the Wheels of Colonialism: Palm Oil Industry in West Papua
A landmark study published in Global Studies Quarterly in April 2025 has revealed that the rapid expansion of the #palmoil industry in #WestPapua is not only fuelling #deforestation, #ecocide and environmental destruction but…
Load more posts
Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.
Take Action in Five Ways
1. Join the #Boycott4Wildlife on social media and subscribe to stay in the loop: Share posts from this website to your own network on Twitter, Mastadon, Instagram, Facebook and Youtube using the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil #Boycott4Wildlife.
Enter your email address
Sign Up
Join 3,171 other subscribers2. Contribute stories: Academics, conservationists, scientists, indigenous rights advocates and animal rights advocates working to expose the corruption of the palm oil industry or to save animals can contribute stories to the website.
Mel Lumby: Dedicated Devotee to Borneo’s Living Beings
Anthropologist and Author Dr Sophie Chao
Health Physician Dr Evan Allen
The World’s Most Loved Cup: A Social, Ethical & Environmental History of Coffee by Aviary Doert
How do we stop the world’s ecosystems from going into a death spiral? A #SteadyState Economy
3. Supermarket sleuthing: Next time you’re in the supermarket, take photos of products containing palm oil. Share these to social media along with the hashtags to call out the greenwashing and ecocide of the brands who use palm oil. You can also take photos of palm oil free products and congratulate brands when they go palm oil free.
https://twitter.com/CuriousApe4/status/1526136783557529600?s=20
https://twitter.com/PhillDixon1/status/1749010345555788144?s=20
https://twitter.com/mugabe139/status/1678027567977078784?s=20
4. Take to the streets: Get in touch with Palm Oil Detectives to find out more.
5. Donate: Make a one-off or monthly donation to Palm Oil Detectives as a way of saying thank you and to help pay for ongoing running costs of the website and social media campaigns. Donate here
Pledge your support#belize #boycottPalmOil #boycottpalmoil #childLabour #childSlavery #climatechange #community #goldMining #humanRights #hunger #indigenous #indigenousActivism #indigenousKnowledge #indigenousRights #indigenousrights #landRights #landgrabbing #landrights #maya #mexico #palmOil #poverty #slavery #wildfires
-
Made a Mural of Me
I have walked streets where the walls remember
#CentralAmerica #Justice #Lament #Martyrs #memory #murals #peace #propheticWitness #ProsePoem #publicArt #solidarity #SpokenWord #WashingtonDC
better than the governments do.
I have stood beneath the painted faces
of the disappeared, the assassinated,
the catechists, the campesinos,
the students, the mothers,
the ones whose names were spoken once with terror
and now are spoken with flowers.
I have seen their eyes in plaster and pigment,
their halos done in cheap color,
their mouths half open as if the wall itself
were still trying to tell the story
of what was done to them.
In Central America,
I learned that a wall can become a gospel
when the newspapers lie.
A wall can become an archive
when the official files are burned,
when the generals call murder peace,
when the empire calls bloodshed stability,
when the poor are told to forget
for the sake of moving on.
But the wall does not move on.
The wall says: here.
The wall says: this happened.
The wall says: this child had a name.
This priest had hands.
This woman had laughter.
This union worker had a mother.
This martyr did not die in abstraction,
did not perish as an example,
did not vanish into a sermon illustration.
They were flesh.
They were breath.
They were somebody’s beloved.
And I have seen it elsewhere too.
Not only there, where memory was brushed onto concrete
beneath the long shadow of rifles and oligarchs,
but here,
in this empire’s marble reach,
in this capital of speeches and signatures,
in neighborhoods of D.C. where color rises up
against erasure,
where the dead look down from brick walls
and ask the living what exactly we are doing
with the testimony they left us.
I have walked those streets too,
where murals bloom like wounds that refuse to close,
where every face says both remember
and why again?
That is the ache of it.
Because a mural is beautiful,
but it is also an indictment.
A mural is what happens
when grief runs out of sanctioned places to go.
When cemeteries are too quiet,
when courtrooms are too compromised,
when history books are too polite,
when churches would rather canonize the dead
than stand beside the threatened living,
someone climbs a ladder with paint
and says:
You will not make us forget.
And yet even that holy act contains a heartbreak.
Because every new mural is also a confession
that we have failed again.
We say we honor the martyrs.
We paint them large.
We ring them with light.
We write their names in careful letters.
We tell their stories to our children.
We call them seeds.
We call them saints.
We call them witnesses.
But if we must keep making more walls,
if there is always another name,
another mother,
another child,
another prophet with blood on their shirt,
another journalist, another dreamer, another body,
then our memorials are not only songs of praise.
They are laments.
They are accusations.
They are unfinished prayers.
I do not want a world
where we become very skilled
at decorating the aftermath.
I do not want justice outsourced to artists
because legislators are cowards,
because police departments close ranks,
because borders harden,
because markets consume,
because nations baptize their violence
and then ask poets to clean up the silence.
I am grateful for the murals.
God, I am grateful for them.
For the ones who paint the saints with brown hands
and tired eyes.
For the ones who make a wall preach.
For the ones who turn an alley into a liturgy.
For the ones who refuse the second death,
the death of being forgotten.
But I am tired of needing them.
Tired of standing before another radiant face
and knowing radiance came at the price of a bullet.
Tired of admiring the colors
while knowing the color had to cover over grief
too large for speech.
Tired of telling the story again
because the engines that made the story
were never dismantled,
only rebranded, relocated, repainted.
That is the terrible genius of empire.
It learns to tolerate memorials
so long as the machinery of martyr-making stays intact.
Put the face on the wall.
Name the school after the slain.
Hold the vigil.
Light the candle.
Share the quote.
Then fund the weapons.
Protect the system.
Discredit the witness.
Fortify the border.
Ignore the neighborhood.
Silence the poor.
And when the next body falls,
commission another mural.
No.
There is something obscene
about praising the courage of the dead
while refusing the cost of solidarity with the living.
There is something blasphemous
about loving Romero on the wall
but not listening to prophets now.
About cherishing painted martyrs in San Salvador
and neglecting crucified people in Washington,
in detention centers,
in poor towns,
in Black and brown neighborhoods,
in places where the state still knows how to kneel
on a neck,
how to disappear a future,
how to call a human being illegal
before making them dead in spirit.
So yes,
I have walked among the murals.
And yes,
they have taught me.
They taught me that memory is resistance.
That color can be a form of defiance.
That beauty can tell the truth
when official language becomes a mask for murder.
They taught me the communion of saints
sometimes looks less like stained glass
and more like chipped paint on cinder block.
Less like cathedral windows
and more like public walls under open sky.
They taught me that the martyrs are still speaking.
Not only from heaven.
From brick.
From alley.
From barrio.
From the side of a building everyone passes
on the way to work,
on the way to school,
on the way to forgetting.
And they taught me to shudder.
Because sometimes, standing there,
I have had the strange and terrible thought:
One day they could make a mural of me.
Not because I seek glory.
Not because I imagine myself noble.
Not because I think suffering makes a person pure.
But because in a world like this,
where truth still threatens power,
where solidarity still has a price,
where loving the crucified too closely
can still get you crucified,
any one of us who dares enough
might end up as paint.
Made a mural of me.
Put me on a wall with the others.
Give me a background of sunburst gold,
or deep blue,
or the red of blood transfigured into witness.
Paint my face calmer than I ever was in life.
Smooth out my fear.
Make me look brave.
But if you do,
let the mural say I did not want this.
Let it say I wanted fewer murals,
not more.
Let it say I wanted children to know these names
without needing to inherit their wounds.
Let it say I wanted nations to repent
before artists had to remember for them.
Let it say I wanted churches
to become sanctuaries of the endangered
instead of galleries of the already slain.
Let it say I wanted the wall
to go blank someday,
not from amnesia,
but from justice.
That is my prayer now.
Not that we stop honoring the martyrs.
Never that.
Paint them.
Sing them.
Tell them.
Teach them.
Write them in the streets and on the doors
and in the marrow of the young.
But also:
stop making so many of them.
Let there come a day
when the painters have to find another subject.
When the ladders lean against walls
for festivals instead of funerals.
When color is used for delight
and not only for defiance.
When remembrance is no longer emergency labor.
When the living are protected enough
that martyrdom becomes rare,
and rare enough
that every new death shocks us again.
Until then,
the walls will keep preaching.
And I will keep listening
with gratitude and grief,
with reverence and anger,
with hope cracked open but not empty.
Because every mural is a promise
the dead make to the living:
We are still here.
We are watching what you do next.
Do not honor us
by becoming connoisseurs of tragedy.
Honor us
by ending the thing that killed us.
And until that day,
the paint will keep drying,
and the faces will keep multiplying,
and the walls will keep learning names
they should never have had to learn.
And I will stand before them,
heart broken open,
thinking:
this wall should be empty by now. -
Made a Mural of Me
I have walked streets where the walls remember
#CentralAmerica #Justice #Lament #Martyrs #memory #murals #peace #propheticWitness #ProsePoem #publicArt #solidarity #SpokenWord #WashingtonDC
better than the governments do.
I have stood beneath the painted faces
of the disappeared, the assassinated,
the catechists, the campesinos,
the students, the mothers,
the ones whose names were spoken once with terror
and now are spoken with flowers.
I have seen their eyes in plaster and pigment,
their halos done in cheap color,
their mouths half open as if the wall itself
were still trying to tell the story
of what was done to them.
In Central America,
I learned that a wall can become a gospel
when the newspapers lie.
A wall can become an archive
when the official files are burned,
when the generals call murder peace,
when the empire calls bloodshed stability,
when the poor are told to forget
for the sake of moving on.
But the wall does not move on.
The wall says: here.
The wall says: this happened.
The wall says: this child had a name.
This priest had hands.
This woman had laughter.
This union worker had a mother.
This martyr did not die in abstraction,
did not perish as an example,
did not vanish into a sermon illustration.
They were flesh.
They were breath.
They were somebody’s beloved.
And I have seen it elsewhere too.
Not only there, where memory was brushed onto concrete
beneath the long shadow of rifles and oligarchs,
but here,
in this empire’s marble reach,
in this capital of speeches and signatures,
in neighborhoods of D.C. where color rises up
against erasure,
where the dead look down from brick walls
and ask the living what exactly we are doing
with the testimony they left us.
I have walked those streets too,
where murals bloom like wounds that refuse to close,
where every face says both remember
and why again?
That is the ache of it.
Because a mural is beautiful,
but it is also an indictment.
A mural is what happens
when grief runs out of sanctioned places to go.
When cemeteries are too quiet,
when courtrooms are too compromised,
when history books are too polite,
when churches would rather canonize the dead
than stand beside the threatened living,
someone climbs a ladder with paint
and says:
You will not make us forget.
And yet even that holy act contains a heartbreak.
Because every new mural is also a confession
that we have failed again.
We say we honor the martyrs.
We paint them large.
We ring them with light.
We write their names in careful letters.
We tell their stories to our children.
We call them seeds.
We call them saints.
We call them witnesses.
But if we must keep making more walls,
if there is always another name,
another mother,
another child,
another prophet with blood on their shirt,
another journalist, another dreamer, another body,
then our memorials are not only songs of praise.
They are laments.
They are accusations.
They are unfinished prayers.
I do not want a world
where we become very skilled
at decorating the aftermath.
I do not want justice outsourced to artists
because legislators are cowards,
because police departments close ranks,
because borders harden,
because markets consume,
because nations baptize their violence
and then ask poets to clean up the silence.
I am grateful for the murals.
God, I am grateful for them.
For the ones who paint the saints with brown hands
and tired eyes.
For the ones who make a wall preach.
For the ones who turn an alley into a liturgy.
For the ones who refuse the second death,
the death of being forgotten.
But I am tired of needing them.
Tired of standing before another radiant face
and knowing radiance came at the price of a bullet.
Tired of admiring the colors
while knowing the color had to cover over grief
too large for speech.
Tired of telling the story again
because the engines that made the story
were never dismantled,
only rebranded, relocated, repainted.
That is the terrible genius of empire.
It learns to tolerate memorials
so long as the machinery of martyr-making stays intact.
Put the face on the wall.
Name the school after the slain.
Hold the vigil.
Light the candle.
Share the quote.
Then fund the weapons.
Protect the system.
Discredit the witness.
Fortify the border.
Ignore the neighborhood.
Silence the poor.
And when the next body falls,
commission another mural.
No.
There is something obscene
about praising the courage of the dead
while refusing the cost of solidarity with the living.
There is something blasphemous
about loving Romero on the wall
but not listening to prophets now.
About cherishing painted martyrs in San Salvador
and neglecting crucified people in Washington,
in detention centers,
in poor towns,
in Black and brown neighborhoods,
in places where the state still knows how to kneel
on a neck,
how to disappear a future,
how to call a human being illegal
before making them dead in spirit.
So yes,
I have walked among the murals.
And yes,
they have taught me.
They taught me that memory is resistance.
That color can be a form of defiance.
That beauty can tell the truth
when official language becomes a mask for murder.
They taught me the communion of saints
sometimes looks less like stained glass
and more like chipped paint on cinder block.
Less like cathedral windows
and more like public walls under open sky.
They taught me that the martyrs are still speaking.
Not only from heaven.
From brick.
From alley.
From barrio.
From the side of a building everyone passes
on the way to work,
on the way to school,
on the way to forgetting.
And they taught me to shudder.
Because sometimes, standing there,
I have had the strange and terrible thought:
One day they could make a mural of me.
Not because I seek glory.
Not because I imagine myself noble.
Not because I think suffering makes a person pure.
But because in a world like this,
where truth still threatens power,
where solidarity still has a price,
where loving the crucified too closely
can still get you crucified,
any one of us who dares enough
might end up as paint.
Made a mural of me.
Put me on a wall with the others.
Give me a background of sunburst gold,
or deep blue,
or the red of blood transfigured into witness.
Paint my face calmer than I ever was in life.
Smooth out my fear.
Make me look brave.
But if you do,
let the mural say I did not want this.
Let it say I wanted fewer murals,
not more.
Let it say I wanted children to know these names
without needing to inherit their wounds.
Let it say I wanted nations to repent
before artists had to remember for them.
Let it say I wanted churches
to become sanctuaries of the endangered
instead of galleries of the already slain.
Let it say I wanted the wall
to go blank someday,
not from amnesia,
but from justice.
That is my prayer now.
Not that we stop honoring the martyrs.
Never that.
Paint them.
Sing them.
Tell them.
Teach them.
Write them in the streets and on the doors
and in the marrow of the young.
But also:
stop making so many of them.
Let there come a day
when the painters have to find another subject.
When the ladders lean against walls
for festivals instead of funerals.
When color is used for delight
and not only for defiance.
When remembrance is no longer emergency labor.
When the living are protected enough
that martyrdom becomes rare,
and rare enough
that every new death shocks us again.
Until then,
the walls will keep preaching.
And I will keep listening
with gratitude and grief,
with reverence and anger,
with hope cracked open but not empty.
Because every mural is a promise
the dead make to the living:
We are still here.
We are watching what you do next.
Do not honor us
by becoming connoisseurs of tragedy.
Honor us
by ending the thing that killed us.
And until that day,
the paint will keep drying,
and the faces will keep multiplying,
and the walls will keep learning names
they should never have had to learn.
And I will stand before them,
heart broken open,
thinking:
this wall should be empty by now. -
The Techno Anarchist Manifesto aka Let’s fuck up Techno Feudalism
This practical and profanity-laced manifesto provides the loose philosophy, strategies, battleplans, tactics, and weapons to destroy Techno Feudalism via the practice of Techno Anarchism. It explains the war we are in, the Techno battle’s place in it, and what Techno Feudalism and Techno Anarchism are.
Don’t worry, I not going to start capping tech CEOs anytime soon. I’m not a 1914 anarchist or advocating for it in general.
Introduction
The same day I started writing this article about some ideas floating in my head, Joan Westenberg kind of beat me to the punch on its premise.
This piece will now be more expansive and a sort of manifesto.
I want to focus my thoughts regarding the battle against Techno Feudalism. And narrow my scope. And be systemic.
I will build whatever this ends up being in public. And put my masters degree in Political Science to work. So, this is just the start of a living document. I will update it with more of the philosophy of Techno Anarchism (and other points) in the coming weeks.
It’s also the first thing I’ve written that needs a table of contents.
Here’s what we’re exploring:
- Introduction
- Late Stage Capitalism / Techno Feudalism
- The War
- Enshittification
- The Winnable Battle
- Resources
The Mission
As supporters of democracy we need to engage in a positive fight against this timeline’s bullshit in a manner we can control ourselves.
Our goal should be to destroy autocracy rather than protect democracy. Simply because most of us live in autocracies unfortunately.
Still, we must reform both democracy and neuter it’s biggest threat, Big Tech.
I aim to make this writing more actionable than academic. We need action on the individual level and in small groups – neighborhoods, communities (geographical or digital), libraries, companies, unions, teams, non-profits, associations, clubs, schools, real churches, credit unions, local governments, the arts, independent media, etc. These groups have always been the building blocks of democracy. And they must be nurtured through use and membership.
I call the solution I propose to combat autocracy and Techno Feudalism, Techno Anarchism. While political anarchism as defined by Wikipedia is currently unlikely if not impossible. You will see that in the tech arena, it is possible.
“Major definitional elements of anarchism include the will for a non-coercive society, the rejection of the state apparatus, the belief that human nature allows humans to exist in or progress toward such a non-coercive society, and a suggestion on how to act to pursue the ideal of anarchy.”
It’s idealistic but not 100% practical. But we can build its practicality via our interactions with tech.
Now, Wikipedia defines a manifesto as:
“A manifesto is a written declaration of the intentions, motives, or views of the issuer, be it an individual, group, political party, or government. A manifesto can accept a previously published opinion or public consensus, but many prominent manifestos—such as The Communist Manifesto (1848) and those of various artistic movements—reject accepted knowledge in favor of a new idea.”
Is that what this will be? I think it mostly will.
The Problem
But, before going into the details of this manifesto, let’s explore our major problem as humans, what and who we are fighting, and the bigger war that the techno feudalism versus anarchism battle takes place in.
First, let’s look at the problem, ourselves. We have not evolved enough as humans to keep up with the culture, economies, and technology we’ve developed. That’s why we feel alienated and a little lost.
We need a purpose be it one dictated by religion (for the weak-minded) or philosophy. Or a very strong personal moral framework which is difficult. We might even get by with a manifesto. 😉 What we want to avoid is ideologies.
In general our overwhelmed brains need structure for things we don’t understand or can’t explain. We want simple, not the truth, which is why autocrats have an advantage. We’re mostly uneducated, unaware, unobservant, and intellectually lazy so we want easy answers.
Greg Epstein’s book, Tech Agnostic: How Technology Became the World’s Most Powerful Religion, and Why It Desperately Needs a Reformation has this:
“Today technology is the water in which we swim, whether on not we notice we are fish. Tech provides contemporary Western lives, so polarized and divided in countless ways, with a universal organizing principle… It offers myriad rites, capturing our attention and transforming our consciousness, connecting us with a community of people who spend their days…indeed their entire lives engaging in the same repetitive behaviors with the same fervent intensity.
Naturally, we all hope our devotion to this community of fellow travelers will bear fruit: surely tech will lead to a better future! Even a kind of paradise! But the truth is many of us fear, more than we’d like to admit, this may all be heading to a deeply dark place.
In other words: technology has become a religion.”
As you see, Big Tech now functions as a religion. It provides answers as more people reject the horseshit of traditional religion.
But, there’s no putting the genie back in the bottle so it needs to be reformed into a more satisfying religion. More the Tao of Pooh than the Old Testament and Revelations. More philosophy and morality for how to live life and less damnation, doctrine, and hate. One grown by us not tech oligarchs. More good, less evil. Ok.
More on this will follow in future updates.
Late Stage Capitalism / Techno Feudalism
Next let’s take a look at economics. Currently we are stuck in the economic model of capitalism. The problem is that it’s not really capitalism. It’s rigged, crony, oligarchic capitalism headed back toward feudalism. Some argue persuasively that it has already fully evolved into Techno Feudalism.
So, let’s define Techno Feudalism.
Is it a malign denomination of the Tech religion?
The child of Big Tech and Late Stage / Crony Capitalism?
Or just a bunch of cunts in Silicon Valley?
Yanis Varoufakis coined the term Techno Feudalism. So, here’s his hypothesis:
“… capitalism is dead, in the sense that its dynamics no longer govern our economies. … that role … has been replaced by something fundamentally different, which I call techno feudalism.
… the thing that killed capitalism is capital itself. Not capital as we have known it since the dawn of the industrial revolution, a new form of capital, a mutation of it that has arisen in the last two decades, so much more powerful that its predecessor that like a stupid, overzealous virus it has killed off its host.”
How’s that for an academic sentence. 😉
He continues:
“… capital’s mutation into what I call cloud capital has demolished capitalism’s two pillars: markets and profits.
Markets, the medium of capitalism, have been replaced by digital trading platforms, which look like, but are not markets, and are better understood as fiefdoms. And profit, the engine of capitalism, has been replaced with its feudal predecessor, rent.
… the owners of tradition capital … have become vassals in relation to a new class of feudal overlord, the owners of cloud capital.
… the rest of us have returned to our former status a serfs … contributing to the wealth and power of the new ruling class with our unpaid labor – in addition to the waged labor we perform, when we get the chance.”
Does this sound familiar? I think so.
And who wants to be a fucking serf? Not me.
More on this will follow in future updates.
The subject of equality is obviously relevant to feudal overlords and serfs.
In his book, A Brief History of Equality, Thomas Piketty writes:
“…since the end of the eighteenth century there has been a historical movement toward equality. The world of the early 2020s, no matter how unjust it may seem, is more egalitarian than that of 1950 or that of 1900, which were themselves more egalitarian than those of 1850 or 1780. ..over the long term, no matter the criterion we employ, we arrive at the same conclusion. Between 1780 and 2020 we see developments tending toward greater equality…
To continue… crises and power relations are necessary, as was the case in the past, but we will also need processes of learning and collective engagement, as well as mobilization around new political programs and proposals for new institutions.
Resistance by elites is a reality, in a world in which transnational billionaires are richer than states, much as in the French revolution. Such resistance can be overcome only by powerful collective mobilization during moments of crises and tension.
To ensure that everyone can contribute… in a decentralized way, we must develop new forms of sovereignism with a universalist vocation.”
I maintain that Techno Feudalism is contributing to the current slow to non-existent grow of equality. And I also maintain that Techno Anarchism can reverse the trend and grow equality via small-scale social mobilization and personal-data-sovereignty among other strategies to destroy Techno Feudalism.
Politics aka The War
Now, on to politics. Let’s begin with a few points. And a quick note, this isn’t about parties, but policies and exercising political rights.
Autocracy is a threat to democracy. Authoritarianism is a threat to human rights. Fascism is a threat to minorities. Autocrats, Fascists (secular or religious), and Communists are the bad guys.
However, unregulated capitalism and digital technology are a deadlier threat to democracy. Big Money and Big Tech equal the really bad guys. Oligarchs suck.
These two threats to human freedom go hand in hand. Unbound capitalism leads to fascist / authoritarian governments which lead to corrupt, crony capitalism or state capitalism aka hypocritical communism. Both of which erode and eventually destroy democracy, the environment, and human rights.
So, we need to reform and regulate large-scale capitalism and keep autocracy at bay. And again, reform democracy to function in the world we now live in.
Tech both in its Silicon Valley incarnation and the tools of repression Chinese / Israeli model are destroying democracy. One via corrupt, oligarchic capitalism / Techno Feudalism. And one via authoritarianism.
In we want democracy to survive we must fight these two tech models along with autocrats, autocratic political parties, autocratic nations, and autocratic ideologies.
More on this will follow in future updates.
The War’s Combatants
To reiterate, the larger war which I think of as WWIII is one between supporters of democracy and what I call the Evil Empire (Reagan is dead and I have commandeered the term!):
- Unregulated Capitalists / Techno Feudalists
- Big Tech in general
- Autocrats
The Evil Empire
Unregulated capitalist oligarchs, and Techno Feudalists
We’ve seen who they are.
More on this will follow in future updates.
Big Tech which is mostly Techno Feudalists, and some Techno Fascists
In her book, The Tech Coup: How to Save Democracy from Silicon Valley, Marietje Schaake writes:
“…the fact that our social, professional, and civil lives are increasingly digitized and, essentially, all aspects of digitation are in the hands of private companies; that certain technologies have inherent antidemocratic characteristics, while laws to protect democratic values and the rule of law are lagging; and that, most important, democratic governments’ outsourcing of key functions has led to a hollowing out of government’s core capabilities.
These systemic problems are now undermining the core principles of democracy: free and fair elections, the rule of law, the separation of powers, a well-informed, public debate, national security and the protection of civil liberties such as freedom of expression, the presumption of innocence, and the right to privacy.
As digitization progresses, we see a gradual shift in responsibility and power away from democratic leaders. This shift accelerates two trends: growing digital authoritarianism and a wholesale decline in democratic governance.”
We are the frogs being slowly boiled in the pot as the temperature rises. But, it’s not a fucking joke.
More on this will follow in future updates.
Autocrats
You are probably most familiar with these villains. They either rule your country or are a political party(ies) in it.
In her book, Autocracy Inc: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World Anne Applebaum writes:
“Unlike military or political alliances from other times and places, (today’s Autocrats) operates not like a bloc but rather like an agglomeration of companies, bound not by ideology but rather by a ruthless, single-minded determination to preserve their personal wealth and power, Autocracy, Inc.
Their bonds with one another, and with their friends in the democratic world, are cemented not through ideals but through deals – deals designed to take the edge off sanctions, to exchange surveillance technology, to help one another get rich.
Autocracy, Inc., offers its members not only money and security but also something less tangible, impunity.
Their enmity toward the democratic world is not merely some form of traditional geopolitical competition… (It) …has its roots in the very nature of the democratic political system, in words “accountability,” “transparency,” and “democracy.” They hear that language coming from the democratic world, they hear the same language coming from their on dissidents, and they seek to destroy them both.”
More on this will follow in future updates.
Democracy Supporters / Enlightened Humans
This is short. It’s us. At least the intelligent ones in the “Western World”, Oceana, Japan, and South Korea rules-based world. Plus a few other countries in the global south and various dissidents everywhere.
Enshittification
Before moving on to Techno Anarchism, here’s a quick note about Enshittification. It is part of techno feudalism. Chicken or the egg first? I don’t know.
But, Cory Doctorow describes enshittification like this:
“Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a “two-sided market”, where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, hold each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them.”
So, not only are Techno Feudalists part of the evil empire, their products suck as well.
Ok, enough about the cunts. Let’s move on the good guys.
The Winnable Battle
Will democracy win the war against autocracy? Who knows? It’s an eternal war that the bad guys currently have the upper hand in. And have had for the last decade or two. And have had for 99.99% of human history. Make what you will of that.
But, one of the war’s largest current battles can definitely be won. Equality can continue to grow. And our lives can be improved. And the world’s apocalypse can be delayed.
This battle is the one where Techno Anarchism opposes Techno Feudalism.
It is winnable because this victory can be achieved at the personal and small group level. It also has the advantage that the bad guys can’t defeat it (only resist it). Only apathy (which is also hard to overcome) can defeat Techno Anarchism. If you have a hundred million of drops of water you might drown an elephant. If you have a hundred you can’t even get one toe wet.
It’s also winnable because it’s more of a matter of changing habits (difficult) than political beliefs (extremely difficult). Anarchists and libertarians can be partial allies here along with many other freedom lovers.
And partial is important because this battle’s tactics are modular. It’s not all or nothing. You can take it one step at a time. It’s easy to be a soldier and not too hard to be an officer. You can increase your efforts over time as you get in the martial groove. Hopefully, you can even become a general.
Techno Anarchism
Finally, let’s move on to Techno Anarchism / Digital Distributism and Digital Sovereignty (which is slightly different). This is the philosophy, strategies, and actions needed to defeat Techno Feudalism.
As I mentioned before, Joan Westenberg published something similar to my gestating thoughts. So, let’s not reinvent the wheel and look as her points.
The article in question is The Revolution Will Be Decentralized. It’s not really a revolution, but more a radical adjustment of habits. But, if it happens it will be decentralized. Anyway, take a break and go read her article now! You may need to eat lunch too.
You’re back. Great.
She uses the terms Digital Democracy and Digital Feudalism versus Techno Anarchism and Techno Feudalism.
Westenberg’s central idea addresses both distribution and personal data sovereignty:
“The implementation of Digital Distributism rests on three foundational pillars: infrastructure commons, data sovereignty, and algorithmic democracy. Each pillar requires specific technical and organizational structures to function effectively.
The revolution toward digital democracy begins with individual choices. Every person who moves to decentralized platforms weakens the grip of tech monopolies. Every contribution to open source projects builds alternative infrastructure. Every act of resistance against surveillance and control helps shift the balance of power.
But individual action is not, is never enough. It must be coupled with collective organization. We need coordinated efforts to build and promote alternatives. We need political movements that understand the connection between digital and democratic power. We need communities dedicated to practicing digital distributism in their own operations.
The infrastructure of freedom won’t build itself. But neither did the infrastructure of control. Every system of power depends on the daily choices of millions of individuals. Will we shape the change toward digital democracy or submit to digital feudalism?”
That’s the question. And fortunately you can answer it.
How? With a blast from the past.
Joan and I both propose a similar idea, the Digital Distributist Alternative (Joan) and Techno Anarchism (me).
But FYI, these are not new ideas. They existed before as an alternative to capitalism and socialism. Unfortunately, they didn’t win out.
Distributism
Traditional Distributism is summarized by Wikipedia as:
”Distributism is an economic theory asserting that the world’s productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated. Developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, distributism was based upon Catholic social teaching principles, especially those of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931). It has influenced Anglo Christian Democratic movements, and has been recognized as one of many influences on the social market economy.
Distributism views laissez-faire capitalism and state socialism as equally flawed and exploitative, due to their extreme concentration of ownership. Instead, it favors small independent craftsmen and producers; or, if that is not possible, economic mechanisms such as cooperatives and member-owned mutual organisations, as well as small to medium enterprises and vigorous anti-trust laws to restrain or eliminate overweening economic power.”
Techno Distributism / Anarchism is the modern equivalent fighting Techno Feudalism as opposed to unregulated capitalism and state socialism. And it has a better chance of coming out on top. It’s more about the means of computation and consumption versus the means of production.
We’re digital serfs here, not the proletariat.
More on this will follow in future updates.
So, we now have our nebulously defined movement, Techno Anarchism. How do we win the war against its all to real foe?
By slowly killing Techno Feudalism with weapons of course.
The Arsenal of Techno Anarchism
Okay, so what are the weapons we can use to destroy Techno Feudalism?
Open Source Technology
We start by using open-source technology. Again, it has the advantage that it can’t be bought and enshittified at scale.
Let’s examine the arsenal in detail. Please explore and start using these tools while dropping their enshittified, corporate, feudalistic alternatives. Obviously, all of these are not for everyone. But, do what you can.
They will also boost the privacy and security of your personal data aka your digital sovereignty.
More details on these individual tools will follow in future updates. For now please use the links.
Password Manager
VPN
Browser
Search Engine
Cloud
Office Suite
Chat / Messaging
eMail
Personal Websites via opensource publishing software
- Drupal CMS (integrates with Fediverse)
- WordPress.org not .com (integrates with Fediverse)
- Joomla)
- Microwebber
- Publi)
RSS
Your website should have it. And you should follow your allies’ websites with it.
App Building
Operating Systems
Computers – Linux. But very user-friendly, similar to Chromebooks.
Mobile devices
Hardware
Fediverse
In the home stretch, let’s look at the most powerful weapon against techno feudalism, The Fediverse.
Corporate social media is even worse than mass media. Millions of morons can get on it and pontificate as much as they want. It is used by extremists and conspiracy theorists to devastating effect. And it’s run by the motherfuckers behind techno feudalism. Today’s true rulers control the algorithms that show all this horseshit, encourage it, and addict us to following it.
In her book, Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality, Renee DiResta writes:
“My focus is on a profound transformation in the dynamics of power and influence, which have fundamentally shifted, and on how we, the citizens, can come to grips with a force that is altering our politics, our society, and our very relationship to reality. For sure, companies and governments must bear their burden of figuring out how to regulate this new space, and how to restore trust and shore up institutions, but we as citizens, have a responsibility to understand these dynamics so we can build healthy norms and fight back. This is the task of a new civics.”
Well said, though I have no faith in the companies doing shit and little faith in governments doing their part competently. So it falls to us as Techno Anarchists to unfuck this. We can do this by leaving corporate social media and moving to the Fediverse.
In his book, Governable Spaces: Democratic Design for Online Life, Nathan Schneider writes:
“The ways people can and cannot collectively self-govern in daily online life, furthermore, have been constrained in dominant social networks… the constraints on governance in online spaces have contributed to the peril of democratic politics in general. It is not enough to merely defend existing governmental institutions, healthy democracy depends on enabling creative new forms of self-governance, especially on networks.
If democracy is on the horizon (for humanity), self-governance is a plausible practice for moving in that direction. Governable Spaces, then, are where democratic self-governance can happen.
…the design of online social spaces has contributed to the atrophy of everyday democratic skills. (Fortunately) …the future of democracy can begin at the level of ordinary community, wherever we find ourselves together, where each of us has a chance to make a difference.”
You and I can make have a profound impact on the governance of the Fediverse in addition to the good it does in the world. Pick a platform and get involved.
We covered the enshittification of corporate social media above.
For its The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation page, Cory Doctorow’s publisher wrote:
“When the tech platforms promised a future of “connection,” they were lying. They said their “walled gardens” would keep us safe, but those were prison walls.
The platforms locked us into their systems and made us easy pickings, ripe for extaction. Twitter, Facebook and other Big Tech platforms hard to leave by design. They hold hostage the people we love, the communities that matter to us, the audiences and customers we rely on. The impossibility of staying connected to these people after you delete your account has nothing to do with technological limitations: it’s a business strategy in service to commodifying your personal life and relationships.
We can – we must – dismantle the tech platforms. (We must) …seize the means of computation, by forcing Silicon Valley to do the thing it fears most: interoperate. Interoperability will tear down the walls between technologies, allowing users leave platforms, remix their media, and reconfigure their devices without corporate permission.
Interoperability is the only route to the rapid and enduring annihilation of the platforms. The Internet Con is the disassembly manual we need to take back our internet.”
To counteract enshittification (and speed up the death of these feudal social platforms) we must seize the means of communication / computation via self-publishing with open-source tech. This is provided by personal websites built with open-source technology and distributed with RSS as seen earlier and via the Fediverse. Decentralization and interoperability are key. We must work for these results politically as well.
The Fediverse is the most formidable weapon of Techno Anarchy because it is unbuyable. It is unseizable if hosted in Europe. And it lets us focus on localism (again small groups) vs globalism. It’s distributed not siloed. And open-source not corporate. No ads, less harassment, and less bullshit greet you there. It’s also quite anarchic in general.
Learn more about the technical aspects and platforms of the Fediverse from these Symfony Station articles.
- You say you want a revolution: help the free, fair, and friendly Fediverse destroy Big Social
- Intrigued by the Fediverse – Traverse our Accounts to Map your Journey
And more details on these individual tools will follow in future updates. For now please use the links.
Publishing – Distribution
Publishing – Personal Websites / Blogging
Microblogging
- MastodonDo join Mastodon, but don’t join the mastodon.social instance.
- Friendica – Follow me on the Friendica.
- GoToSocial
- And more.
Photos
Do join Pixelfed, but don’t join the pixelfed.social instance.
Videos
Podcasting
Forums / Link Aggregators
Music
Curation
Surf Dawn Patrol from Flipboard
It’s a critical tactic to use these weapons. It’s also important to support them financially and to be active in their communities.
Tactics
Here are some more easy and local tactics.
Support the Independent Non-profit Press
The mass media is an unreliable ally in the war against autocracy much less the battle against Techno Feudalism.
Traditional journalism is flailing and failing. And it’s slowly going out of business. Plus, they are too spineless to save themselves. It’s because they are corporate and thus cowards. And they are mostly owned by cunts.
Instead, we need to support and patronize independent non-profit journalistic organizations. That means giving them money directly my fellow anarchists.
Like this publication the following examples are tech-oriented or political-oriented. But there are many for every issue you care about.
- Propublica
- 404 Media
- The Markup
- CalMatters
- The 19th News
- good internet magazine– coming soon
- Investigative Journalism Foundation
- Tech Policy
- Newsletters, unless they are on SubStack
- Public Media
Think Global, Buy Local
Before spending your capital, think about that decision’s impact on our planet and your fellow humans. That’s basic morality. And please buy physical products from a local brick and mortar store. And only if you need them.
More relevant to Techno Anarchism, buy digital products from small tech suppliers or open-source suppliers or non and not-for-profits. Donate as much money as you can to open-source technology and other non-profit service providers.
This is easy, it just takes a little conscious thought and avoiding lazy thinking. Or a lack of thinking.
Battleplan
I am sure you’re ready to kick some ass. So, what can you do? I think you mostly know by now. It’s not complex. We’re not invading Normandy here.
Digital Sovereignty
You must own your communications, own your data, own your digital identity, own your digital devices, and own your own online real estate. Use the open-source technology featured here. Use open-source hardware. Each time you do you place a nail in Techno Feudalism’s coffin. The more you use, the faster that death occurs.
Choose Your Weapons and Kill Techno Feudalism
Use the weapons in Techno Anarchism’s arsenal. Again, the battle against Techno Feudalism is modular. It’s not all or nothing. You can take it one step at a time or one weapon at a time. Put more nails in. And add as many as you can over time. Let’s shut that fucker tight.
You’re the General
Again, proceed at your pace. Rome wasn’t built or destroyed in a day and these corporate shits are difficult to leave. Intentionally.
We’re in WWIII here and its going to take a while to kill these fucks and cripple their allies. But, they are going to die. Inglorious bastards style but via Techno Anarchism not bullets or baseball bats. That’s the final resort I hope we never see.
Thanks for reading my semi-manifesto. Please share it, bookmark it, and come back to it later as a reference and to see its updates.
Keep Fighting Anarchists! We can win this. The power is yours.
Resources
To begin with, follow us each week for the latest happenings in this battle via Battalion’s Destroying Autocracy posts.
Follow me via the Fediverse. Or follow this site via the button in the footer. Or via RSS. Or follow Battalion on Bluesky.
If you are of an academic bent, feel free to take a deep dive into the resources inspiring this manifesto.
Tech as a Religion
The War
The Tech Coup: How to Save Democracy from Silicon Valley
Autocrats
Autocracy Inc: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World
Techno Feudalism
Welcome to the Age of Technofeudalism
How Silicon Valley Unleashed Techno-feudalism:The Making of the Digital Economy
Critique of Techno-Feudal Reason
Techno Feudalism: What Killed Capitalism
Governable Spaces book: Democratic Design for Online Life
Techno Anarchism/Digital Distributism
The Revolution Will Be Decentralized
The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation
Rulers: The People Who Turn Lies into Reality
Capital in the Twenty-First Century
Governable Spaces: Democratic Design for Online Life
CTAs (aka show us some free love)
- Please share this article.
- Follow me on the Fediverse. Or this site via the button in the footer. Or via RSS.
- Or follow Battalion on Bluesky.
Ringleader, Battalion
Reuben Walker
Follow me on the Fediverse#anarchism #arsenal #Authoritarianism #Autocracy #battleplan #BigTech #Capitalism #combatants #Democracy #Distributism #enshittification #Fascism #fedivers #Fediverse #general #local #media #mission #opensource #problem #resources #sovereignty #tactics #TechnoAnarchism #war #weapons #winnable
-
Spirituality & Religious Studies @spiritualityreligiousstudies.wordpress.com@spiritualityreligiousstudies.wordpress.com ·Samaritanism
Samaritanism is an Abrahamic monotheistic, ethnic religion. It comprises the collective spiritual, cultural, & legal traditions of the Samaritan people.
Often preferring to be called Israelite Samaritans, who originated from the Hebrews & Israelites. They began to emerge as a relatively distinct group after the Kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the Iron Age. The Neo-Assyrian Empire was the 4th, & penultimate, stage of ancient Assyrian history.
Central to their continuity as an Indigenous Heritage in the Holy Land is keeping the Patriarchal & Mosaic covenant as specified in the Samaritan Torah. Samaritans believe this is the original & unchanged version of the Pentateuch (which is the first 5 books of the Hebrew & Christian bible) since Moses & the Israelites at Mount Sinai.
The Abisha Scroll is traditionally held by the community to be the oldest existing scroll written by Abisha, son of Aaron the priest, around 3,000 years ago based on living tradition. However, Jewish & Christian theologians have made attempts to dispute this claim which proved unsatisfactory.
Judaism claims Samaritanism developed right alongside their own religion. Samaritanism asserts itself as the true preserved form of the monotheistic faith that the Israelites kept under Moses. Samaritan belief also holds that the Israelites’ original holy site was Mount Gerizim, near Nablus, the State of Palestine (West Bank).
They also believe that Jerusalem only attained importance under Israelite dissenters who had followed Eli (In the Book of Samuel, Eli was a priest & judge of the Israelites in the city of Shiloh) to the city of Shiloh.
The Israelites who remained at Mount Gerizim would become the Samaritans in the Kingdom of Judah. Mount Gerizim is revered by Samaritans as the location where the Binding of Isaac occurred. In comparison to the Jewish belief that it occurred at Jerusalem’s Temple Mount.
Today there are only about 900 registered communal members. This puts Samaritanism as 1 of the smallest ethnoreligious groups globally in the Abrahamic faiths. Samaritans believe that this is a prophecy fulfilled from the scriptures: “You’ll be left few in number.”
Though they hope for a future time when a prophet like Moses known as the “Taheb” (Restorer) will perform 3 signs, namely the jar of manna, the staff of Moses, & Cherubim, or the Golden Candlestick.
This time period they believe is when an era of Divine Favor would return, & the hidden tabernacle of Moses would miraculously be revealed for the Israelite people & Mount Gerizim is restored to its former glory.
Samaritans trace their history, as a separate entity, to a period soon after the Israelites’ arrival into the “Promised Land.” Samaritan historiography traces the schism to High Priest Eli leaving Mount Gerizim, where stood the 1st Israelite altar in Canaan, & building a competing altar in nearby Shiloh.
The dissenting group of Israelites who followed Eli to Shiloh would be the ones who, in later years, would head south to settle in Jerusalem (the Jews). Whereas the Israelites who stayed on Mount Gerizim, in Samaria, would become known as the Samaritans.
Genetic studies in 2004 suggest that Samaritans’ lineages trace back to a common ancestor with Jews in the paternally-inherited Jewish high priesthood (Cohanim) temporally near to the period of the Assyrian conquest of the Kingdom of Israel. They’re probably descendants of the historical Israelite population. The Cohanim refers to the Jewish priestly class, male descendants of Aaron the priest.
The Hasmonean king, John Hyrcanus, destroyed the Mount Gerizim Temple & brought Samaria under his control around 120 BCE. This led to a long-lasting sense of mutual hostility between the Jews & Samaritans.
From this point, the Samaritans likely sought to consciously distance themselves from their Judean brethren. Both peoples came to see the Samaritan faith as a religion distinct from Judaism. By the time of Jesus, Samaritans & Jews deeply disparaged one another, as shown by Jesus’ Parable of the Good Samaritan.
The main beliefs of Samaritanism are:
- There’s 1 God, Yahweh, the same God recognized by the Jewish prophets.
- The Torah is the only true holy book & was given by God to Moses. The Torah was created before the creation of the world & whoever believes in it is assured a part in the world to come. The Torah’s status in Samaritanism as the only holy book causes them to reject the Oral Torah, the Talmud, & all the prophets & scriptures, except for a version of the Book of Joshua (which they don’t hold as Scripture), whose book in the Samaritan community is significantly different from the Book of Joshua in the Jewish “Bible.” Moses is considered to be the last of the line of prophets.
- Mount Gerizim, not Jerusalem, is the 1 true sanctuary chosen by God. The Samaritans don’t recognize the sanctity of Jerusalem & don’t recognize the Temple Mount, claiming instead that Mount Gerizim was the place where the Binding of Isaac took place.
- The Apocalypse, called “the day of vengeance,” will be the end of days. When an entity called the Taheb (basically the Jewish Messiah equal) that comes from the tribe of Joseph will come, be a prophet like Moses for 40 years & bring about the return of all the Israelites, following which the dead will be resurrected. The Tahib will then discover the tent of Moses’ Tabernacle on Mount Gerizim, & will be buried next to Joseph when he dies.
The Samaritans have retained the institution of a high priesthood & the practice of slaughtering & eating lambs on Passover Eve. They celebrated Pesach, Shavuot, & Sukkot. But they use a different method from that used in mainstream Judaism in order to determine the dates annually.
For example, Yom Teru’ah (the biblical name for Rosh Hashanah), at the beginning of Tishrei (This is the 1st month of the civil year & the 7th month of the ecclesiastical year in the Hebrew calendar.), isn’t considered a New Year as it is in Rabbinic Judaism.
Their Sabbath is observed weekly by the Samaritan community every week from Friday to Saturday, beginning & ending at sundown. For 24 hours, the families gather together to celebrate the rest day: all electricity with the exception of minimal lighting (kept on the entire day) in the house is disconnected, no work is done, & neither cooking nor driving is allowed.
The time is devoted to worship which consists of 7 prayer services, reading the weekly Torah portion, spending quality time with family, taking meals, rest & sleep, & visiting other members of the community.
Passover is particularly important in the Samaritan community, climaxing with the sacrifice of up to 40 sheep.
The Counting of the Omar remains relatively unchanged. The Counting of the Omar is a ritual in Judaism that consists of a verbal counting of each of the 49 days between the holidays of Passover & Shavuot. However, the week before Shavuot is a unique festival celebrating the continued commitment Samaritanism has maintained since the time of Moses.
During Sukkot, the Sukkah (the temporary hut built for use during Sukkot) is built INSIDE of houses, instead of OUTSIDE like mainstream Judaism. This Samaritan tradition is traced back to the persecution of the Samaritans during the Byzantine Empire.
The roof of the Samaritan Sukkah is decorated with citrus fruits & branches of palm, myrtle, & willow trees. This is in accordance with the Samaritan interpretation of the 4 species designated in the Torah for the holiday. The 4 species are 4 plants (the etrog, lulav, hadass, & aravah) mentioned in the Torah as being relevant to the Jewish holiday of Sukkot.
Make a one-time donation
Your contribution is appreciated.
Donate
Make a monthly donation
Your contribution is appreciated.
Donate monthly
Make a yearly donation
Your contribution is appreciated.
Donate yearly
Rate this:
#120BCE #4Species #Aaron #Abisha #AbishaScroll #AbrahamicFaiths #AncientAssyria #Apoclypse #Aravah #BindingOfIsaac #BookOfJoshua #BookOfSamuel #ByzantineEmpire #Canaan #Cherubim #Christians #CitrusFruits #Cohanim #CountingOfTheOmar #Eli #Etrog #GoldenCandlestick #Hadass #Hasmonean #HebrewCalendar #Hebrews #HighPriestEli #HighPriesthood #IndigenousPeoples #IronAge #IsraeliteSamaritans #Israelites #Jerusalem #Jesus #Jewish #JewishProphets #Jews #Joseph #Judah #KingJohnHyrcanus #KingdomOfIsrael #Lulav #Manna #Messiah #MosaicCovenant #Moses #MountGerizim #MountSinai #Myrtle #Nablus #NeoAssyrianEmpire #OralTorah #Palestine #ParableOfTheGoodSamaritan #Passover #PatriarchalCovenant #Pentateuch #Priest #PromisedLand #RabbinicJudaism #RoshHashanah #Sabbath #SamaritanTorah #Samaritanism #Shavuot #Shiloh #StaffOfMoses #Sukkah #Sukkot #Tabernacle #Taheb #Talmud #TempleMount #Tishrei #Torah #WestBank #Willow #Yahweh #YomTeruAh
