Personal Blogs

I thought I'd post a few photos from a recent holiday in Munich that have an A113 link. They are of a couple of memorials in the city to Kurt Eisner. He was the leader of the U-SDP in the city, and seized the initiative in declaring a socialist republic in Bavaria during the German Revolution. The first memorial is on the site of his subsequent assassination in February the following year. He was shot by a far-right sympathiser whilst walking through the street - he was actually on his way to resign following national elections in which the U-SDP had gained very limited support. The memorial itself is of a shape on the ground, like the 'chalk outline' of a murder victim. The second memorial is also in the city centre, set up more recently in 2008 - I'm not sure the location has any particular significance - the quote translates as 'every human life should be sacred', taken I think from the initial manifesto for the republic. 

I found it fascinating to see what is, and isn't, memorialised in Munich - and how the city is going about acknowledging and responding to its 20^thC history in particular.

The modern building below is the NS-Dokumentationszentrum München, Munich's Documentation Center for the History of National Socialism. It's location has particular significance as it stands on the site of what was the 'Brown House', the original headquarters of the National Socialist Party. 

Just beside the Documentation Centre are the remains of one half of the two 'Ehrentempeln', 'Temples of Honour' built to house the coffins of the Nazi members killed during the 'Beer Hall' putsch in 1923. These were the site of annual memorial parades once the national socialist party came into power in Germany. The majority of these structures was destroyed in 1947 as part of a policy of 'denazification', and the remains were going to be built over in the 1980's. However, following a campaign for more open examination of the city's role in the rise of national socialism a decision was reached to preserve these sites, and to establish the Documentation Centre.

The image below shows a Nazi Party parade on Königsplatz, November 9, 1936, the Ehrentempeln are the pillared structures at the entrance to the square.

Other elements remain of what was a distinct 'Party District' - the building below was the 'Führerbau', Hitler's specially built residence in Munich, the location for the signing of the 'Munich Agreement' that sealed the fate of Czechoslovakia in 1938. After being taken over by the occupying American forces at the end of WWII this has now become the location of a performing arts college.

The 'Hitler Putsch' in 1923 ended at the Feldherrnhalle (Field Marshalls' Hall) on the Odeonsplatz in central Munich and it was here that a brief gunfight resulted in the deaths of four policemen and sixteen putschists. The site was made into a memorial to the Nazi 'martyrs' and passers-by were required to honour then with the Nazi salute.

To avoid having to pass the memorial it was possible
to cut through an alley at the rear of the Feldherrnhalle called the Viscardigasse and this street acquired the nickname of 'Drückebergergasse' or 'shirker's lane'.

These small acts of resistance are now celebrated rather than mocked, in 1995 a line of bronze cobbles was set into the street as a memorial to those individuals who resisted Nazi rule. 

Edward Hallett Carr (1892-1982) was first a diplomat and then a historian, most notably of the Soviet Union. He has been described as left-leaning, Arthur Marwick categorises his history as 'Marxist'. 

In January-March 1961, whilst a Fellow of Trinity College Cambridge, he gave the G.M.Trevelyan Lecture Series of six lectures - these were subsequently published in book form as What is History? later that year. I've read the second edition, which was first published in 1987, this contains a preface that Carr had written for a second edition, and some notes that existed for a revision that was not completed. 

These notes try and summarise and reflect on some of the key points he raises in his six lectures.

1.       The Historian and his facts

Inevitably the first point has to be that historians are exclusively masculine throughout the book - a reflection no doubt of the make-up of the profession at that time and of social norms, but also Carr seems largely disinterested in any issues of gender. 

He questions what distinguishes ‘historical’ facts from everything else in the recorded past and presents the idea of 'selection' as central to the work of the historian. Carr decries what he sees as a fetishism of both facts and archives, he sees such an approach as core to 19^thC history, but now outdated. He is unconvinced by what he describes as 'empirical' approaches that collate 'facts' and anticipate that history will flow from them. Carr argues that empiricism was valued above theory in the 19^thC as this was a ‘comfortable’ and successful time in Western Empires, everything observed just confirmed the accepted order. When 20^thC chaos starts to break out, historians were having to start thinking about bigger questions of historical philosophy.

He gives an excellent example of how selection operates using the records of Gustav Stresemann (German Foreign Minister and Chancellor). The editor who first compiled and published his records retained more which related to his 'western' diplomacy, which was seen as highly successful, and less from his 'eastern' activities - which were not. This collection was further abbreviated when translated to English. When the National Socialists came into power they destroyed much of the primary material, but fortunately copies were retained and it was possible to subsequently the establish how selection had previously operated. Carr points out the biases that would have been present if all primary records had been lost, and historian could only rely on the English translated material. He ends with the final reflection that Stresemann was his own first editor, and that the German primary records chiefly capture what he said and thought in any meetings, whilst the voices of others are less distinct. Carr argues that selection is inevitable in history.

When discussing the influence of the contemporary on views of the past Carr highlights writing by Benedetto Croce ('seeing the past through the eyes of the present') and R.G. Collingwood ('facts refracted through the mind of the recorder').

The writing and opinions of multiple 19^th and 20^thC historians are touched on and Carr emphasises that the reader of a history book's  ‘...first concern should be not with the facts which it contains but with the historian who wrote it.’

Whilst agreeing with some of Collingwood's points on the importance of contemporary influences on any historian he suggests this carries the danger of relativism i.e. ‘history is what the historian makes’. Carr believes not all explanations are as good as each other and argues against the judgement of ‘rightness’ being its suitability to any present purpose, but I wasn't convinced I got a clear idea of the basis on which he thought we should judge what made for better explanations. 

The chapter ends with a section on the iterative process of creating history, a circling round of reading and writing in which the historian moulds facts to interpretation and moulds interpretation to facts. However, for me, he fails to be clear about when this process concludes and what indicates a settled account. It concludes with the classic quote that history is ‘an unending dialogue between the present and the past’. There is no doubt plenty to think about in the way in which such an abstract conversation could ever occur - and the spurious agency it gives to both 'present' and 'past'. 

2.       Society and the Individual

Carr seeks (at some length!) to establish that you can’t separate an individual from their society, ‘The cult of individualism is one of the most pervasive of modern historical myths’. He quotes Burckhardt, to suggest that individualism comes out of the Renaissance, before which people saw themselves as group members. Carr doesn’t disagree with this hypothesis, but sees this as a social process, one of ‘advancing civilization’.

Returning to his points about understanding historians, he talks about needing to understand a historian in their historical and social context, both their ‘standpoint’ and that their position is rooted in a social and historical background. 

Carr surmises that the historian ‘most conscious of his own situation is also more capable of transcending it’.

When considering the role of 'great' (or 'infamous') individuals Carr points out 'all effective movements have few leaders and a multitude of followers’ and that both are essential to their success.

Further expanding his original argument Carr says history is 'a dialogue between present and past societies.'

3.       History, science and morality

At the end of the 18^thC Carr sees a desire for a ‘social science’, a science of human society to which history contributed. He quotes J.B. Bury declaring history is ‘a science, no more and no less.’

Whilst appreciating that there had been a marked reaction against this view, Carr argues that science was now (1961) getting more like history. He claims scientists have largely abandoned a search for ‘Laws’ that govern and now seek ‘how things work’. He claims that history, like science, proposes and tests hypotheses - but he is silent on how these are in fact tested in history.

The chapter largely concerns itself with debunking what Carr says are reasons given why history is not a science. There are no sources given for who or where such claims are made and I can personally see other and possibly stronger arguments.

1. History deals with unique circumstances, science with generality
2. History teaches no lessons
3. History is unable to predict
4. History is necessarily subjective, since man is observing himself
5. History unlike science involves religion and morality

Carr's main points are:

History deals with unique circumstances, science with generality - he simply says that historians generalise all the time.

History teaches no lessons - he claims this also isn't true, the ‘function of history is to promote a profounder understanding of both past and present through the interrelation between them

History is unable to predict - suggesting that science ‘does not claim to predict what will happen in concrete circumstances' (which I think can be contested) he argues history is not fundamentally dissimilar, although accepts that the predictions may be less precise.

History is necessarily subjective, since man is observing himself - I found the argumentation complex here, Carr basically seems to argue that 'classical' distinctions between an observing subject and observed object have now broken down and new forms of philosophical thinking are required.

History unlike science involves religion and morality - Carr talks at length about morality, he argues that historians can’t make moral judgements on individuals in past, but then implies they can and should do this for events/practices etc. - I'm not clear how he justifies this distinction. He makes what seems a good point about how supposedly ‘absolute extra-historical values’ are actually rooted in history.

He suggests that those who want history not to be a science are following an outdated distinction in which: 

• Humanities are knowledge for the ruling classes
• Science is for the technicians who serve them

Carr believes history and science fundamentally seek similar ends: ‘to increase man’s understanding of, and mastery over, his environment

4.       Causation in history

Carr states simply that, ‘the study of history is a study of causes’ and then goes on to identify what he sees as some particular features of 'historical' causes:

Historians:

• Assign several causes to the same event
• Establish a hierarchy of causes – looking towards ‘the cause of all causes’

Carr sees historians as simultaneously widening and attempting to simplify their explanation, ‘the historian must work through the simplification, as well as through the multiplication, of causes’ he doesn't however. to my mind. explain why the latter is necessary.

He picks up two arguments (straw men?) which he says are used to undermine discussion of causation in history:

• Determinism in History - which he relates to, then, contemporary articles by Karl Popper and Isiah Berlin 
• Chance or 'Cleopatra’s Nose'  (i.e. Antony loses at Actium because Cleopatra is so beautiful)

I’m not sure I agree with Carr’s take on Popper’s ‘historicism’ – but clearly this term was not well defined by Popper. Carr seems to think that Popper rejects events having 'causes' whilst I always thought Popper’s concern was with the idea of a purported set of forces that drove history to a *specific* determined end; the following quote is from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Popper page, 

'Historicism he identified as the belief that history develops inexorably and necessarily according to certain principles or rules towards a determinate end'

Carr’s argument is mainly that events have causes and that outcomes aren’t ever ‘free’, which he sees as Popper's contention – however he mainly argues with Berlin’s addition of the need for a recognition of individual ‘free will’ and responsibility. Carr argues that you can be a determinist and still allow for moral judgements of individuals choices.

The role of chance is something Carr accepts, but makes the argument that, as it can’t be given any meaning, it can essentially be ignored in the historian's search for ‘meaningful’ causes. 

Returning to his view that history is selection, the historian will select relevant causes and discard the irrelevant (like Cleopatra's attractiveness).

The chapter ends with what feels like another key idea for Carr, that the historian works with an ‘end in view’, that they reason towards that end with reference to personal values. I think this means he believes that the actions of the historian are purposeful, that their search for meaning is in the cause of something - presumably that something varies between individuals.

5.       History as progress

Carr wants to avoid history either trending towards theology and an ahistorical final end or a 'cynicism' in which history is entirely relative or a litter of inconsequential meanings. He says that concerns that a society is in decline may miss the fact that another society is progressing. As it says this chapter talks about 'progress', but I find some of the arguments obtuse and nebulous - evolution for example is seen as progress when I would consider it adaptation - sometimes Carr's 'progress' could simply be 'change'. 

Carr makes some complex points about a view of the future being central to an understanding of the past. I've found this set of ideas difficult to grasp, I'm unsure whether these are views of desired futures or ways of saying that the historian looks for processes that have future consequences. One route in may be to follow up on his quote from Lewis Namier which Carr references ‘imagine the past, remember the future’ (cryptic to say the least 🙂)  I think this may mean that historical views of the past are created in response to thoughts about the future, but perhaps a reading of its origin Conflicts: studies in contemporary history (1942) will help!

Carr forms a definition of the 'objective' historian from this argument:

They...

• rise above the limited vision of their own situation in society and history

• project their vision into the future to give more lasting insight into the past

Sticking with his initial coinage we get to history being 'a dialogue between events of the past and progressively emerging future ends.'

He questions whether future success is the correct criteria of historical significance, accepting that history is generally not a record of what people failed to do. However, what it was that they 'did' may become clearer over time. He suggests that if you consider the life and actions of Bismarck then across time from 1880 to (a then future) 2000 it is likely there will be an increase in the objective judgement by historians - but doesn't make it clear to me on quite what basis he makes this assessment, other than more possible implications being apparent.

Carr says historians strive for a ‘coherent relation between past and future’ which rings true and talks about how past facts and current values interact, reiterating that values have a history too.

Whilst I'm not convinced that 'objectivity' is ever given an entirely clear meaning, Carr ends by saying that the 'objective historian' is one who 'penetrates the interdependence of facts and values'.

6.       The widening horizon

In his final chapter Carr makes some (as far as I'm concerned) rather contentious claims about the direction the future will take, but there are still interesting points along the way.

‘History is a constantly moving process, with the historian moving with it.'

Carr talks about dramatic changes in the 20^thC, changes in 'depth' and 'geography'. People are now ‘self-conscious’, aware of inner as well as outer influences and may now 'transform themselves' as well as the world.

He sees these times as an age when there has been an 'Expansion of Reason' – bringing new groups into the  'realm of history'. There is a deeply problematic argument here about how those apparently excluded in the past are only now coming into real, 'historical' being - presumably the poor, women, non-European people? I'm not sure this stands up to much scrutiny really.

His discussion of a 'new geography' are directed towards the East in particular and come across as quite prescient. He says in conclusion that people shouldn't be insular and argues for taking on bold fundamental challenges not engaging in the 'piecemeal social engineering' that Popper has advocated (never the most inspiring of phrases!). Carr says he worries that he encounters a fear of change – but that change is happening whatever anyone thinks - his final quote is the one attributed to Galileo  ‘and yet it moves’.

Reviews in History (a review of What is History? by 'post-modern' historian Alun Munslow)

I had a great 'hands-on' experience at a print workshop run by Thin Ice Press in York. A chance to set up a line of type and then print it!

Here's my compositor's stick, lying on the fo(u)nt ... these cases were side by side, not ^UPPER and _lower

There were a number of fonts available, I ended up working with 24pt Caslon italic. William Caslon was originally an engraver, but moved into type design and foundry in the 1720's. He's apparently the first British famous type designer - the Caslon font was used for the first printings of the the American Declaration of Independence.

My line of type below is almost finished, but if you look carefully there's a missing comma after 'sect' - so some changes were needed. Made it very clear why a printer might decide to leave some 'typos' and identify them in an erratum, rather than have to take multiple lines of type apart and rearrange. If you look closely you can see the really thin copper spacer strips that you use to make sure the type is really packed in tightly.

This was the point where you transferred your line of type into a forme, obviously there'd have been much more to do with multiple lines of type to set up on a page.

'Locked in' to a steel forme, spaced with 'furniture' and tightened with 'quoins' and resting on an imposition stone. This was quite heavy and it was only one line of 24pt, struggling to imagine lifting one of the Gutenberg bible pages!

In these machines the paper is pressed on to the type, quite a lot of fiddling to get the pressure and the imprint right.

Someone had chosen a rather lurid green ink (supposedly 'Christmasy') 😀.

Thought I'd go with a fragment of Francis Bacon, '...no empire, no sect, no star seems to have exerted greater power and influence on human affairs...'

Apparently a 16th century estimate for production time worked on 5 minutes per line for all the stages through to the final print - my effort only took a couple of hours .... the print revolution would have been a more drawn out affair with me in charge! 😆

Another fantastic opportunity to use my SCONUL access rights and explore the archives at the University of York.

The Rare Books collection holds on long-term loan all those pre-1800 books that were part of the library of the Community of the Resurrection at Mirfield, West Yorkshire. This Anglican religious community for men was founded in Oxford in 1892, and moved to Mirfield in 1898. The library was built up mainly by gifts from members and friends, and contains much valuable early material - including this copy of......

Auslegung der Episteln und Evangelien von Advent au bis auff Ostern, written by Martin Luther and published in the town of Magdeburg in 1533.

It has been absolutely fascinating, and also just an amazing privilege, to examine this nearly 500 year old book - a real primary source from the heart of the Lutheran Reformation!

The book is a postil, a collection of sermons by Martin Luther on each of the prescribed weekly Bible readings from the Gospels and the Epistles in the period from Advent to Easter. Further collections were made of Luther's interpretations of the readings for the rest of the year - eventually collected into what become known as his Church Postil. The term postil is derived from the Latin post illa verba textus ("after these words from Scripture")

It is a hefty tome, bound in leather - I think it is just 'blind tooled', although perhaps there is some gilt remaining in places. The covers are wooden and there are metal corners and two clasps. There is a little damage by wood worm, both to the covers and some gently nibbled pages.

It was once the property of someone called 'Hans Voyt', who has added his name to the ornate title page - which also highlights that the text has been corrected by Martin Luther and contains a 'new register' (essentially an index) - I'm guessing the ability to have a standard page length and numbering in every copy made indexing so much more straightforward in printed books - a 'new feature'.

There are lots of points to note on the page layouts and the different printed features in the book. I assume that there was a combination of metal movable type and woodblocks for the decorated capitals and illustrations. There was a side margin printed that summarised key aspects of the sermon text and woodblock pictures were spread throughout the pages. I wonder what the presence of these illustrations tells us about the intended readership - were these pictures 'entertainment', symbols of the added value embodied in a high end gift, did they have an educational objective in addition to supporting the text, was this just 'the fashion'?

I haven't found any reference anywhere yet to a specific illustrator, but I did find a small monograph in just one of the pictures shown below (John the Baptist is in prison on the left and checking out whether Jesus is 'he that should come?') I think it's probably 'HB'. There is a famous artist, Hans Brosamer, who I've found illustrated a number of publications at that time - but his 'HB' monograph looks different with the H run into B not distinct as in these letters. Something to look into further if I get the chance - but I guess most illustrators went unidentified if they weren't themselves a 'name' that might help sell the publication.

I liked the bit of 16thC cosmology shown below, with sun and moon rotating around the newly formed world - and Jesus sliding down to earth from the mouth of (a very Papal-looking!) God. (I'm struggling with the lettering that circles the world - is it perhaps 'God's Word'?)

Some great anachronistic knights accompany the three kings on Epiphany - and presumably the agents of King Herod on the way to do no good in the background (the stable has scrubbed up well too 😃)

The end of the postil confirms the printer to have been Michael Lotther. The Lott(h)ers were a multi-generational family of printers closely linked to Martin Luther and the Reformation. Luther had supported Melchior Lotther the Elder to set up as a printer in Wittenberg, and his sons Melchior (the younger) and Michael both entered the trade. Michael had moved out of Wittenberg to set up shop in Magdeburg by the time this work was being printed in 1533 - he remained close to Luther though and married into his family.

However, the book doesn't end there. In fact there is a second printed work bound together with it - another Reformation text, produced at the same time - but by a different printer and in a different city altogether.

Kirchen Ordnung. In meiner gnedigen herrn der Marggraven zu Brandenburg und eins erbern Rats der Stat Nürmberg Oberkeyt und gepieten, wie man sich bayde mit der leer und Ceremonien halten solle

These are Kirchen Ordnung, Church Orders - basically an agreed set of new 'rules' that a Lutheran church community should follow now that the old Catholic 'ordnung' had been set aside. I think in the early years of the Reformation there were a number of different regional/local formulations of church regulations, these are the set created by the Margraves of Brandenburg and the imperial city of Nuremberg.

They were printed in the city of Nuremberg in 1533 by the Gutknecht press and they helped to produce more uniform and stable approaches to worship amongst Lutheran churches both in that area and across Europe.

Whilst this part of the book has none of the fine illustration of the postil it does have quite a lot of two colour printing (I assume this was two impressions through the press) - most of this is in the description of the liturgy to distinguish the words of priest and congregation. There were also four pages of musical notation - I eventually worked out that this is plainsong to accompany the mass, 'Our Lord Jesus on the night he was betrayed...' 

These are 'neumes', a way to denote choral chants before the five line staves and notes we are now used to. This style is a specifically German form - 'Gothic neumes' or Hufnagel - 'Horsenails' as they looked like the nails used to shoe horses. 

I'll have to see if I can make musical sense of it - so far I have even't worked out what the clef means! 

Given that this book is made up two separately printed texts I'm left with lots of questions about how and when these were brought together. Whilst there is a discontinuity in the printing style and the page numbering the appearance of the pages looks to have similar wear, the edges look to be discoloured to the same extent. I couldn't distinguish two 'sections' from the 'outside', so perhaps there is evidence that they have been bound together for a long time. Both texts are probably 'working documents', I can imagine how each would be of value to a Lutheran cleric - biblical exegesis and practical summaries of the new Reformed regulations and liturgy - a useful combination within one book.

One further observation might be of relevance to dating the book. Both the front and back endpapers have a faint watermark. I spent a long time trying to make it out and subsequently discovering a whole world of scholarship based around collecting and cataloguing paper watermarks. The mark is of an ox's head, with a letter 'M' below its mouth and a cross and entwined snake above. The best match I could find (and I think it is pretty much on the money) is a mark which is recorded in 'Briquet Online' having been recorded in a Copybook in Prague in 1534.

So, on the basis of the watermarks there is some evidence that the two seperate texts may have been bound together not that long after they were originally printed. The information I've found so far about paper watermarks is clear that you have to be very cautious in assuming similarity means that you can 'date' or 'locate' documents - but I think there's at least some basis for arguing that the current book may have been created sometime in the 1530's.

I've been astounded how many different strands of the A113 content came together in just this single artifact: technical aspects of printing (woodblocks/type/colour); printing and music (and the history of musical notation); the role of Martin Luther in 'expert' interpretation of God's word - not something that everyone in the 'priesthood of believers' could be trusted to do; the use of the German vernacular throughout; the challenge of bringing new regulation to control the revolutionary diversity of the new beliefs.

Examining this object was a really valuable experience and one I hope to come back to - perhaps to think more formally about a 'source analysis'.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography

Primary source:

Luther, M. (1533). Auslegung der Episteln und Evangelien von Advent an bis auff Ostern; anderweit corrigirt durch Martinum Luther, etc. Wittenberg: Michael Lotther. [From an original held at the Borthwick Institute for Archives, University of York (https://www.york.ac.uk/borthwick/)]

Kirchen Ordnung. In meiner gnedigen herrn der Marggraven zu Brandenburg und eins erbern Rats der Stat Nürmberg Oberkeyt und gepieten, wie man sich bayde mit der leer und Ceremonien halten solle Nürmberg: Gutknecht,1533 [via the digitisation portal of Rhineland-Palatinate dilibri]

Auslegung der Episteln und Evangelien von Advent an bis auff Ostern; anderweit corrigirt durch Martinum Luther [via the Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek]

To help identify the paper watermarks:

Briquet Online (v. 2.1 - 2021-01-23)

Background on the Lotthers:

Reformation Printers: Unsung Heroes Author(s): Richard G. Cole Source: The Sixteenth Century Journal , Autumn, 1984, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 327-339 Published by: Sixteenth Century Journal Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/2540767

Tillmanns, W. G. (1951) "The Lotthers: Forgotten Printers of the Reformation," Concordia Theological Monthly: Vol. 22, Article 23. Available at: https://scholar.csl.edu/ctm/vol22/iss1/23

Marc Bloch (1886-1944)

A historian engaged in the Resistance, shot at Saint-Didier-de-Formans.

"A graduate in history, Marc Bloch was mobilized during the Great War. He then taught medieval history at the University of Strasbourg and founded with Lucian Febvre the journal Annales d'histoire économique et sociale.

When war was declared, he held a chair at the Sorbonne.

A volunteer in 1939, he took part in the evacuation of Dunkirk and narrowly escaped capture. In 'Strange Defeat', published posthumously, he recounts this experience. Withdrawn to Clermont-Ferrand, he was for a time excluded from his duties because of his Jewish origins, then reinstated for 'exceptional service'.

In 1941, he went to Montpellier and took part in setting up Combat* in the region.

In 1943, he went underground and joined Franc-Tireur, then became a member of the regional board of the 'Mouvements unis de la Résistance' (MUR)^¶. He is one of the editors of 'Cahiers politiques', an underground Parisian publication.

Arrested in Lyon on March 8, 1944, he was interrogated in the headquarters of the Gestapo, then interned in the prison of Montluc. On June 16, he was taken from his cell and taken with 29 other detainees about thirty kilometers from Lyon, to Saint-Didier-de-Formans (Ain), where all were shot."

*(Combat was a large movement in the French Resistance created in the non-occupied zone of France/)

¶(Created by the merger of the three major non-communist movements in the southern zone (“Combat”, “Franc-Tireur” and “Liberation-Sud”), chaired by Jean Moulin.)

_______________________________________________________________________

Took an hour or so out of 'holiday-mode' in Lyon to visit Montluc Prison. It was a military prison that became a holding site for members of the WWII French Resistance, Jewish people and other 'undesirables' before execution or deportation to the death camps.

Almost immediately on liberation of Lyon in late August 1944 it became a prison for German military, Gestapo and French collaborators. 

It had further incarnations as a prison for members of the Algerian independence fighters (the site of 11 executions) and then for women - it closed finally in 2009.

The commemorated and memorialised history was limited to the 'positive' stories of French resistance, though (as far as my school French could take me) accounts of individual prisoners were not sensationalised - there was material available that covered the entire history of the site.

I went out of curiosity chiefly, my son is a student of medieval history and had mentioned the story of the historian Marc Bloch - there are accounts (I don't know their validity) that Bloch spent some of his time at Montluc in teaching French history to other inmates. 

It was a somber and serious site and a real relief to walk back out through the gates.

 A chance to do some A111 pilgrimage revision whilst on holiday in the French city of Lyon. 

Firstly, €3 would buy you the equivalent of a pilgrim badge at the Basilica of Notre-Dame de Fourvière - for that you got an image of Mary (plenty of Marian imagery and history on show in and on the building) and of the Basilica itself which was built between 1872 and 1896.

The other object was an enameled reliquary of St Thomas Becket that was displayed at the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon. This was made in Limoges at some time around 1210 CE and comes from a church in the South of France, near Toulouse. There is a link between Thomas Becket and Lyon as the original chapel (c. 1180 CE) on the site of the current Notre-Dame de Fourvière was jointly dedicated to the Virgin Mary and St Thomas. There is no evidence that Thomas visited Lyon whilst exiled in France, but two twelfth century archbishops of Lyon had known him personally, the archbishop at the time of the chapel's founding, Jean Bellesmains (a previous Treasurer at York Minster), had studied with Thomas at Canterbury and became a fervent supporter of his reputation after his martyrdom.

I had been interested to come across details of a 'round-table' discussion of the return of Benin Art to Nigeria, being hosted by the Goethe-Institut (the German equivalent of the British Council) in Abuja. I'd heard about it via a Twitter link and eventually ended up watching it via a recording on a Goethe-Institut Facebook page.

A recording can be accessed here:

https://www.facebook.com/nadine.siegert/videos/798083458597257/?mibextid=v7YzmG

These are just a few summary notes of points that were discussed.

The context was the return of artefacts by the German government and debate within Nigeria about 'ownership' of objects and about where and how they might be displayed. The most recent development had been a statement from the outgoing president of Nigeria that the ownership of any returned artefacts would lie with the Oba.

There was a strong 'Benin' feel to the African panellists - the representative of the National Commission for Museums and Monuments didn't attend although a member of the regional government was in the audience. 

Some points that I found interesting:

Martin Huth (Deputy Head of Missions, German Embassy) - gave a potted history of museums and collection in Germany. From the Renaissance an increased interest in ancient art and the beginnings of art collections started with state rulers in the Holy Roman Empire. This became more widespread amongst German elites after 1848, collection became fashionable and was accompanied by a developing scientific interest in ethnology. Germany was a relative 'latecomer' to European colonialism, but as this developed it brought a boost to collection. He highlighted that in the mid 20th century Germany had both perpetrated and been the victim of cultural looting; plundering art works from Jewish people and conquered populations and then losing materials to Soviet Union and Western Allies. He brought up the term the 'nationalisation of art' to describe current desires to repatriate art that had been seen to have been stolen. Huth dated a change in culture to the late 1960's with student activism and subsequent discussions in the 1970's about it being untenable to retain artefacts like Benin Bronzes. He was keen to hear what Nigerian civic society wanted as the model for display of the art and asked whether a 'museum culture' was something that African society wanted to embrace, or was this an overly Eurocentric view?

John Asien (Nigerian Copyright Commission) - was very measured about concerns over the recent Presidential decree - he stressed that the Oba still had to work with others to ensure safe storage and display of the artefacts. He made an interesting point about ownership, highlighting that African culture stressed three parties in ownership,: ancestors, current and future generations.

Prof Ken Okoli (Academic, Art Historian) - made interesting points about the sacred nature of the objects (something stressed by a number of speakers) this was something that was largely passed over in the A111 module materials. He proposed at one point that to view the objects, once returned, people would need to perform various ritual ablutions - and that the objects would need to be purified on return given their 'desecration' in the West. Along with a number of people on the panel and the audience he gave a strong 'Bini' perspective and was clear he thought the objects should be returned to the Oba.

Prince Akeni Prosper (Heir-apparent to the Throne of Elluega I, the Ovie of Ozoro Kingdom) - gave an impressive account of his families' connection back to the 17th century civil wars in The Kingdom of Benin and the magical properties of the artefacts. Whilst the arguments around restitution were familiar, it was very interesting to hear them so eloquently put in terms of a 'traditional' community leader. 

Overall it was an interesting discussion to listen in to. Perhaps understandably, there was very little positive that speakers or audience had to say about British holders of the artworks. Many of the points that would come up on any Twitter discussion about repatriation were also voiced, concerns about the security of the objects, criticism of the national government's interest in the heritage and art communities in Nigeria, questions about how accessible the objects might be once returned. There were some interesting observations about the possibility that strong Christian and Islamic cultures acted to reduce interest in these 'idolatrous' objects and that there might be limited interest amongst younger members of the Nigerian population.

Managed to 'negotiate' 20 minutes in the British Museum at the end of April. Fascinating both to see the Benin objects and to watch people looking at them. I'm a bit sceptical about the 'museum for the world' rhetoric - but perhaps just a little less having been reminded of what a global city London really is!

However displayed it was interesting to watch how much (and how little) attention the objects received. 

There is just so much going on in some the plaques (Ama), the detail in this one is amazing, the hairstyles, musical instruments, even the patterning in the clothes.

Details from Digital Benin

Oba supported by two attendants 

If you look closely you can make out Portuguese heads in the detail of the Oba's dress

Details from Digital Benin

An attempt to reinforce the depth of the relief casting - I'm still intrigued as to whether they were cast with sprue and channels to enable the brass to reach all the areas (a question for the future)

Ivory hip-pendant mask (Uhunmwu-Ẹkuẹ) thought to be of Queen Mother Idia

Understandable why this image is so iconic, the design alone is really striking even before you get to the historic meaning.

Details from Digital Benin

Figure of European with long hair, beard and moustache

Details from Digital Benin

Four page figures in front of palace compound

Another incredibly detailed and exciting plaque, with altar goods set out that you can see around you in the exhibits.

Details from Digital Benin

Oba with royal page holding a netted calabash rattle

Details from Digital Benin

This last plaque really intrigued me - I wasn't at all sure what to make of it - male?...female? 

Tracking down details online on the train home revealed it was thought to represent an 'Ehioba' carrying a stick/switch.

'Ehioba is leader of the Ooton guild, selected from descendants of previous rulers of Benin, who served the high priest Osuan. The bulge beneath his tunic on his chest represents the concealed jawbones of a deceased Iyase (a political opponent to the Oba).'

Details from Digital Benin

Made me think a lot about all the detailed scholarship and research that will have been conducted by Western experts to 'establish' an interpretation of this object - work that was only needed because it was stripped of all context by its initial Western looters.

This is a bronze of the head of an Oba - thought to have been cast around 1816 or after. It was part of the loot from the 1897 destruction of the Kingdom of Benin and was gifted to the Royal Albert Memorial Museum in Exeter by Ralph Locke. He, along with Alan Boisragon, was one of the two British survivors from the initial expedition to Benin and accompanied the group which subsequently sacked the city. Locke served in the consular service in Nigeria and on return to the UK became a prison governor, he was apparently governor at Exeter prison when he donated this casting. He made some other donations (I think the figure of a Portuguese soldier on page 168 of Crossing Boundaries A111 book was given to the BM by him) but sold most of his collection at auction in the 1920's - so presumably it is now all over the world in private and public collections.

There is more detail on the Digital Benin website (which is where I found out about the object in the first place)

The object is displayed as part of the 'Africa' section of a diverse ethnographic collection at RAMM, I've also included the contextual information they provide. The display text includes an image of members of the 1897 expedition and the object is described as 'plundered' - the information also makes a point of saying the object was donated to the museum. There is interesting detail about how the object would have originally displayed and of its original meanings - there was no reference to the relationship between the cast heads and carved ivory tusks, perhaps because the museum does not have anything to display. 

The image below is of a more contemporary casting that is also displayed in the gallery. This is described as a 'Lost wax casting in brass of an Oba or King of Benin on horseback. The casting was made by a Yoruba craftsman in the Benin court style for sale to a British expatriate'

It is recorded as 'purchased 1962-68', presumably this is a date range for original sale as I would have thought that RAMM would have an exact date if a museum purchase had been meant. The object is identified as produced in Owo, Southwest Nigeria. It was interesting to see a 'shiny' bronze and try to imagine what the original royal art might have looked like.

RAMM has repatriated at least one object from its collection in recent years (returned to a first nation group in Canada after a vote by the city council) I don't know if there are any active claims for return of the Oba's head bronze to Nigeria.

At the start of March I had the opportunity to see a touring production of 'The Island' at the studio theatre at Hull Truck, I made a few notes on the production which was by the Elysium Theatre Company. Really excellent performances by Ewen Cummins as John and Daniel Poyser as Winston. 

I've included a few production stills below to give a sense of the stage setting and design. The outline of Africa in the cracks of the cell wall with a darkened South Africa looks so obvious now on the photos but came as a real surprise when I eventually spotted it for the first time during the performance!

John (L) outlines the plot of Antigone to Winston (R)

Set design and the opening mime

Winston and John in the final moments of the play, just before they are re-shackled

There was a bit of contextualising for the play arranged around the performance - there was an audio-loop running in the background as you entered the theatre, it was made up of what sounded like apartheid era newsreel clips, these were short and seemed to present multiple perspectives i.e. some supported the policy, some did not, these were edited as though tuning into different radio stations. I've copied the programme details below and highlighted the one explicit comment made in the programme by the company on the 'meaning' of the play in the current era.

One detail that I wouldn't have picked up on at all (or at least would have thought differently about) if I'd not skimmed the A111 chapter beforehand... in scene one (page 78 of the A111 book) when John briefly pretends to be an actor 'George' playing King Creon in a production he had seen - the actor did it in what was clearly an imitation of Nelson Mandela (who I now know, courtesy of A111, played Creon in Antigone whilst on Robben Island). I thought that was such a clever way of linking together so many things about the history of the play and the history of South Africa. 

The audience was almost entirely middle-aged, which probably just represents a theatre-going age-group - but did make me wonder if it was a 'nostalgia' for causes of our youth as much as engagement with contemporary concerns or drama that had attracted people? (I don't think it was made up exclusively of OU students and tutors!) It was an exclusively white audience, one of the other things that will have changed so often as this play has been performed in different settings since 1973 and interesting at the point in the play when the 'audience' is part of the drama.

Glass

(St Luke painting Mary and Jesus was at Wansford; the windows showing scenes from the 'Creation' are at Thixendale and by the same company, Clayton and Bell, and to the same design as the wall paintings at Garton; Clayton and Bell are also responsible for the scenes of Jesus on Lake Galilee and feeding the five thousand at Fimber and window details of castle and flowers at Wansford)

Tiles

(The knotted pattern is at Thixendale, the other tiling is from Bishop Wilton) 

Ceilings

(Going clockwise these ceilings are at: Thixendale; Thixendale; Bishop Wilton; Garton-on-the-Wolds)

Walls

(All these paintings are at Garton-on-the-Wolds, the architect GE Street was responsible for the design, Clayton and Bell created the paintings)

I have included an image of the bust of Sir Tatton Sykes II that can be found in each of the churches, they are quite an achievement.

Only just started this book (and may dip in and out as chiefly interested in the early phase at this point) but didn't want to lose sight of the arguments Caine raises about reasons for, as she sees it, the lack of a continuity in traditions in feminism that might be seen in other political and social movements.

Caine makes the point that claiming connection to a founding father in other fields like economics '...automatically conferred legitimacy and importance on male writers [...] connection with Wollstonecraft suggested only moral laxity.' (page 6)

Caine goes on to suggest the lack of a single tradition might make feminism '...appear particularly subject to discontinuities and to breaks and constantly to be in need of revival and rescue.' resulting in opportunities and challenges. The absence of a strong central tradition can make it feel a 'starting from scratch' for every generation, 'On the other hand, the lack of an institutionally based tradition has conferred great freedom on later feminists to break with the past, [...] to formulate new theories and programmes [and also] to read and reconstruct their feminist past as they choose.'

Along with being helpful in thinking about the nature of Wollstonecraft's 'legacy' I think these may be important issues in other situations, particularly thinking about traditions relevant to other oppressed groups.