The Guardian: Kingmaker by Sonia Purnell review – a woman of influence

The extraordinary story of one of the greatest, most gossiped-about political fixers of the 20th century.

The Guardian

October 3, 2024

Pamela Digby after her wedding to Randolph Churchill. Photograph: Fred Ramage/Getty Images

In early 1965, the death of Alma Mahler-Gropius-Werfel, married to three of the most brilliant men of early 20th-century Europe and the lover of several others, inspired Tom Lehrer to compose a spoof paean to her wondrous assets. “Alma, Tell us, All modern women are jealous,” he sang with a knowing chuckle.

The song tickled upper-crust New Yorkers; they had an English version of Alma living among them in the form of The Hon Pamela Churchill-Hayward. Pamela was then on marriage number two, her first being a wartime mistake to Randolph Churchill. She exited it with a child, Winston, whom she neglected, and a famous last name that she protected fiercely. Her American do-over was Leland Hayward, the Broadway producer of such hits as South Pacific and The Sound of Music.

Her husbands were overshadowed, though, by the fabulously moneyed and titled lovers she acquired in between: Aly Khan, son of the Aga Kahn, the Fiat heir Gianni Agnelli, Baron Elie de Rothschild, and William S Paley, owner of CBS, among them. She was one of Truman Capote’s “swans” – rich society women he befriended – and he waspishly joked that the collected tales of Pamela Hayward’s exploits would last not A Thousand and One Nights, but A Thousand and Twelve. Widowhood in 1971 lasted an unhappy six months until Averell Harriman became husband number three. The business magnate turned diplomat, statesman and eminence grise of the Democratic party was also, not so incidentally, a former lover and recent widower.

She was a youthful 51, he a somewhat spry 79; time was short. Pamela’s assault on Washington was still ongoing when Averell died in 1986. The city capitulated to her in the end, just as London, Paris and New York had done. With her face and reputation burnished in ways that only serious money can achieve, Pamela triumphantly returned to Europe in 1993 as President Bill Clinton’s ambassador to France. She died in the job four years later, neither the best nor the worst political appointee who ever went to Paris.

Pamela’s fascinating life earned her the scholarly attentions of the late Christopher Ogden, Sally Bedell Smith and now Sonia Purnell. Few attract one excellent biographer, let alone three. She hated the first two books, which exhumed every skeleton and buffed it up for display. Ogden’s was remarkably fair considering she reneged on their agreement and tried to stiff him of his author’s fee. However, she would have found this latest portrait just right.

Purnell makes the case for Pamela as a woman of substance. First, because her wartime lovers – Harriman, sent to London by Roosevelt as his special envoy, Edward R Murrow, the CBS news correspondent, and Frederick Anderson, head of Eighth Bomber Command – made her a useful conduit between the British and Americans. Second, because she helped transform political fundraising in the 1980s.

Admittedly, the time Pamela exchanged views with this or that person, or convened a meeting of top-level politicos, is a lot less fun to read than the time she caught Gianni Agnelli in flagrante – he crashed into a tree while escaping her wrath, leaving him with a permanent limp.

Nevertheless, Kingmaker is on to something important. Successful women are judged differently than men. A monster like Picasso gets a free pass, but woe betide the unlikable woman. What does it matter, asks Purnell, if Harriman was a ruthless social climber and an unsatisfactory friend, mother and stepmother? She was a brilliant operator and strategist, raising millions for the Democrats during the Reagan years.

Harriman’s political effectiveness ought to be separated from her personal faults, but she is still in the dock, in my opinion. Throughout history, backdoor influencers like her were among patriarchy’s biggest cheerleaders and beneficiaries. In 1981, the year Pamela and Averell established her fundraising political action committee, or PAC, Sandra Day O’Connor became the first female US supreme court justice and Jeanne Kirkpatrick the first female US ambassador to the UN. Meanwhile, the Harriman dinners were still feeding men’s egos with port and cigars and forcing the women to take their coffee and bonbons in the drawing room.

Kingmaker: Pamela Churchill Harriman’s Astonishing Life of Seduction, Intrigue and Power by Sonia Purnell is published by Virago (£25).

To support the Guardian and Observer, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply.

The Spectator – Towards Zero: the gruesome countdown to the American Civil War

The North and South had been bitterly divided over slavery since the invention of the cotton gin in the 1790s, but the Battle of Fort Sumter in 1861 would prove the point of no return

Some 100,000 books have been written about the American Civil War since it ended in 1865. That’s hardly surprising, given the four-year conflict’s impact on society, and not just because of the immense death toll, which new estimates put as high as 750,000 – more than the losses from all other wars combined. The effusion of blood created a new nation and a new mythology, anchored on the principles of freedom, equality and democracy.

Coloured lithograph of the bombardment of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, 12-13 April 1861. [Lithograph by Currier & Ives, New York, 1861/ Getty Images]

There is not much room in this crowded field for Civil War neophytes. Erik Larson knows what he is about, however, in The Demon of Unrest – but do his critics? The mixed reception this book has received suggests not. As with his previous best-sellers, the author has taken a single event, the Battle of Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, in this case, and used it as a highly effective framing device for the immersive story he wishes to tell.

The actual event was a straightforward one. After holding out against Confederate forces for 108 days, the starving Union garrison relinquished its control of the fort on 13 April 1861. The battle was the point of no return, and although there hadn’t been any fatalities during the 34-hour bombardment leading up to it, a gruesome accident during the 50-gun salute did result in the first death of the war. Neither the Confederate besiegers nor the northern defenders of the fort had any inkling of the hell they were about to unleash on their fellow Americans.

This is not to say they were blindsided by the war. The country had been tearing itself apart over the issue of free vs slave labour ever since the invention of the cotton gin in the 1790s. Once slave-grown cotton could be efficiently cleaned and processed by machine, the South went from being an agricultural backwater to an economic powerhouse exporting four million cotton bales a year.

The production costs were cheap, the supply inexhaustible, and the southern states had a virtual monopoly on the global market. Unlike the northern states, they didn’t need immigration, education or industrialisation to grow rich – just millions of Africans, force-fed and force-bred into perpetual bondage. In the 1830s, southerners began referring to slavery as the ‘peculiar institution’, not because it was wicked and shameful, but on account of it being unique and inseparable from the southern way of life.

If northerners were at all uncertain about the non-negotiability of slavery – unlikely, given the political paralysis it caused in Washington – incidents on the floor of the Senate such as the Mississippi senator Henry Foote brandishing a loaded revolver and the South Carolina senator Preston Brooks beating the abolitionist campaigner Charles Sumner unconscious, helped to clear up any confusion.

International condemnation of slavery also fuelled southern bluster and arrogance. On the eve of the war, Britons were unamused to hear the South Carolina plantation owner James Hammond (rendered in gloriously repulsive detail by Larson) describe England as a vassal state in the southern empire. ‘Cotton is king,’ Hammond raged in a speech in 1858 that made him infamous on both sides of the Atlantic. ‘No power on Earth dares to make war on it.’ No power except the executive power of Abraham Lincoln, it turned out.‘Cotton is king,’ James Hammond raged in 1858. ‘No power on Earth dares to make war on it’

The pivotal role that individual action plays in momentous times is a recurring theme in Larson’s books. He is fascinated by two kinds of anti-heroes: the monster with a talent for propelling events, like Hammond, and the decent man whose limitations spur him towards catastrophe, like the professorial William Dodd, America’s ambassador to Germany the year Hitler came to power (In the Garden of Beasts, 2011). A colleague of Dodd’s later recalled he had seldom, if ever, ‘worked with a chief of mission who was more futile and ineffective’.In The Demon of Unrest, Larson’s anti-heroes are more starkly drawn. The decent men may be doomed to die, like Lincoln, or fail in their objective, like US Major Robert Anderson, the commander of Fort Sumter, but their flaws and limitations render them more, rather than less, admirable.

Lincoln was elected the first Republican president in November 1860 by a majority in the 34-state electoral college. But he lost the popular vote by a wide margin, giving the impression that his victory was an accident. His failure to address this added fuel to the claims of southern fire-eaters that he intended to destroy the South’s economy using high tariffs, ram abolition down their throats and set off a race war between blacks and whites.

Having never visited the Deep South, Lincoln was unaware of how entrenched the secession movement had become or how desperately pro-Union southerners needed support and leadership. Even more damaging for the prospects of peace was the traditional four months’ grace between the election and the inauguration. The General Assembly of South Carolina, the state with the noisiest supporters and longest history of secession attempts, voted to become an ‘independent commonwealth’ on 20 December 1860. Half a dozen more followed soon afterwards, yet Lincoln was still in Illinois in early February when the seven announced the formation of the Confederate States of America under President Jefferson Davis.

Lincoln only settled into Washington at the end of February, by which time another four states were preparing to secede, bringing the final total to 11. At his inauguration on 4 March, his belated attempt to cool secession fever by insisting he would defend the Union to his last breath while promising that slavery was safe in his hands alienated everyone. Southerners were convinced he was lying, even as abolitionists hoped that he was.

Initially, the majority of Lincoln’s cabinet felt certain he was not up to the job. Several tried to sideline him, sowing chaos among the already confused attempts to prevent disunion. Lincoln never altered his position, however, that slavery was a negotiable issue, but not Federal authority. Only two naval fortifications were still in Union hands by the time he took office: Sumter in Charleston and Fort Pickens in Pensacola, Florida. Back in December, John Floyd, Buchanan’s secessionist secretary of war, believed he had picked ‘one of us’ when he assigned a middle-aged southern officer from a slave-owning family to oversee Charleston’s fortifications. Major Robert Anderson’s rise up the ranks had stalled, despite an exemplary service record and being severely wounded in action during the Mexican-American War. He was teaching cadets at West Point when Floyd recalled him. It was not uncommon for such men to seek compensation by means of treachery. Anderson was the exception.

South Carolina’s secession was meant to have been the signal for Anderson to stand aside or evacuate his position. He did, slipping out under cover of darkness with a few dozen troops; but only to take up a stronger one. Although still under construction, Fort Sumter was the biggest of Charleston’s three forts. Anderson didn’t care about the rights or wrongs of slavery, nor did he care much about politics, but his honour and duty were sacred to him. To the indignation and fury of his now former brother officers, he made it clear that he would protect the Union flag flying over Sumter until he ran out of food or Confederate forces overwhelmed him.

In Larson’s dramatic rendering of the countdown to war, Lincoln was the one who cocked the starting gun by insisting that Major Anderson be resupplied, knowing it would provoke the Confederates; by engaging in a battle he knew he would lose, Anderson was the one who fired it. There’s an unmistakable aura of Greek tragedy to these men in The Demon of Unrest. They are reluctant heroes, forced to act the way they do because they are incapable of behaving in any other way.

It’s history as a form of catharsis, which leads to the deeper purpose of this work. The real project of the book may not be immediately divined from its soaring prose and ripping action scenes, yet it was shaped by the calamitous events at the Capitol on 6 January 2021. ‘I had the eerie feeling that present and past had merged,’ Larson writes in his foreword. It seemed to him as though America was once again in danger of slipping loose from its ideological moorings.

The Demon of Unrest is Larson’s attempt to call the country back to its senses. The book is not so much history in the traditional Thucydidean manner of causes and events, but rather a political argument posing as history in the manner of Xenophon, the father of popular narrative history. It is a full-throated defence of democratic values, individual agency and the power of collective action. Why read it? Because to understand the meaning of freedom for others is to know it in ourselves.

Historically Speaking: Here Comes the Rain Again

Storms have long shaped human destiny, as Californians know all too well.

The Wall Street Journal

February 15, 2024

Given that much of California was suffering a severe drought just two years ago, it might seem ungrateful to complain about too much rain. Yet Californians have already managed two record-breaking storms this year, and more are expected. The increase in the frequency and strength of these weather events spells trouble for the state. Some worry it is a sign that the “Big One”—a massive once-in-a-millennium storm—is nigh.

A man walks his dog on the edge of the Los Angeles River, Feb. 4.

Scientists think that these storms are growing more severe as a result of climate change, but mythical stories about destructive floods have haunted humans for eons, from the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh in 2000 B.C. to the biblical story of Noah and his ark.

Thousands of years of accumulated climate records combined with modern computing methods have led to new insights for the role rain has played in shaping human destiny. For example, excessive rain can now be added to the list of reasons behind the collapse of the Roman Empire. Apparently the final decades of the fifth century were unusually wet. Harvests failed and granaries rotted, setting off a cataclysmic chain of famines, wars and mass migration that hastened the empire’s demise.

Abnormal rainfall needn’t spell human disaster. In the early 13th century, 15 consecutive years of unprecedented rainfall turned the barren Mongolian steppe into fertile grassland. The region could finally feed the massive armies that allowed Genghis Khan to pursue his dream of a Mongol empire. But the intensely wet spring of 1242 may have pushed his descendants to abruptly leave Central Europe. The Mongol cavalry could seemingly defeat any foe except the bottomless mud of the Hungarian plain.

A series of engravings made for the first edition of the ‘Liber Genesis,’ 1612

A recurring theme in most Great Flood myths is how destruction can be creative; the washing away of the past being necessary for a redemptive transformation. A real-life example can be seen in Europe’s response to the crisis of 1816—the so-called Year Without a VolSummer. The 1815 eruption of Mt. Tambora in Indonesia ejected a huge cloud of sulfate gases into the atmosphere and created an unseasonable chill in much of the Northern Hemisphere. Endless rain watered already sodden fields. Communities starved; typhus outbreaks infected millions of people; rioting became endemic.

The sheer scale of the human emergency forced a reconceptualization in Britain and elsewhere of the purpose of government. No longer could it be concerned only with taxes, laws and diplomacy. The modern state must also consider public health, public administration and public responsibility.

California’s Great Flood of 1862, which remains the state’s worst disaster, was another catalyst for change. The storm began in late 1861 and lasted eight weeks. California’s Central Valley became an inland sea. At least 4,000 people died and a quarter of the state’s economy was destroyed. The Sacramento government relocated to San Francisco, which was also partially underwater.

The robust reconstruction efforts afterward marked a shift in attitude. Californians erected new flood defenses and instituted better building regulations. Sacramento rose again, literally 10 feet higher than before. The infrastructure may be up to 150 years old, but it is still doing its job. No matter what the rain brings, the answer isn’t an ark. It is being prepared.

Stepping out of the Shadows

Sylvia Pankhurst by Rachel Holmes, review — finally having her moment.

Her mother and sister were once better known, but this fine biography shows just how remarkable the women’s rights activist was.

The Times

September 22, 2020

After decades of obscurity, Sylvia Pankhurst is finally having her moment. This is the third biography in seven years — not bad for a woman who spent much of her life being unfavourably compared with her more popular mother and sister.

The neglect is partly owing to Sylvia’s rich, complex life not being easily pigeonholed. Although she played an instrumental role in the suffrage movement, she was first and foremost a defender of the poor, the oppressed and the marginalised. Her political choices were often noble, but lonely ones.

Sylvia inherited her appetite for social activism and boundless energy for work from her parents, Richard and Emmeline. A perpetually aspiring MP, Richard cheerfully espoused atheism, women’s suffrage, republicanism, anti-imperialism and socialism at a time when any one of these causes was sufficient to scupper a man’s electoral chances. Emmeline was just as politically involved and only slightly less radical.

Sylvia’s mother, the suffragette Emmeline Pankhurst
ALAMY

Despite financial troubles and career disappointments, the Pankhurst parents were a devoted couple and the household a happy one. Sylvia was born in 1882, the second of five children and the middle daughter between Christabel (her mother’s favourite) and Adela (no one’s favourite). She craved Emmeline’s good opinion, but was closer to her father. “Life is valueless without enthusiasms,” he once told her, a piece of advice she took to heart.

Sylvia was only 16 when her father died. Without his counter-influence, the three sisters (and their brother, Harry, who died of polio aged 20) lived in thrall to their powerful mother. After Emmeline and Christabel founded the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) in 1903 — having become frustrated by the lack of support from the Independent Labour Party — there was no question that Sylvia and Adela would do anything other than sacrifice their personal interests for the good of the cause. Sylvia later admitted that one of her greatest regrets was being made to give up a promising art career for politics.

She was imprisoned for the first time in 1906. As the tactics of the WSPU became more extreme, so did the violence employed by the authorities against its members. Sylvia was the only Pankhurst to be subjected to force-feeding, an experience she likened to rape.

“Infinitely worse than the pain,” she wrote of the experience, “was the sense of degradation.” Indeed, in some cases that was the whole point of the exercise. While not widespread, vaginal and anal “feeding” was practised on the hunger strikers. Holmes hints, but doesn’t speculate that Sylvia may have been one of its victims.


Pankhurst died in Ethiopia in 1960 after accepting an invitation from Emperor Haile Selassie, pictured, to emigrate to Africa
PHOTO ARCHIVE/GETTY

Ironically, Sylvia suffered the most while being the least convinced by the WSPU’s militant tactics. It wasn’t only the violence she abhorred. Emmeline and Christabel wanted the WSPU to remain an essentially middle-class, politically aloof organisation, whereas Sylvia regarded women’s rights as part of a wider struggle for revolutionary socialism. The differences between them became unbridgeable after Sylvia founded a separate socialist wing of the WSPU in the East End. Both she and Adela, whom Emmeline and Christabel dismissed as a talentless lightweight, were summarily expelled from the WSPU in February 1914. The four women would never again be in the same room together.

Sylvia had recognised early on that first-wave feminism suffered from a fundamental weakness. It was simultaneously too narrow and too broad to be a stand-alone political platform. The wildly different directions that were taken by the four Pankhursts after the victory of 1918 proved her right: Emmeline became a Conservative, Christabel a born-again Christian, Sylvia a communist and Adela a fascist, yet all remained loyal to their concept of women’s rights.

Once cut loose from the Pankhurst orbit, Sylvia claimed the freedom to think and act as her conscience directed. In 1918 she fell in love with an Italian anarchist socialist refugee, Silvio Corio, who already had three children with two women. Undeterred, she lived with him in Woodford Green, Essex, in a ramshackle home appropriately named Red Cottage. They remained partners for the best part of 30 years, writing, publishing and campaigning together. Even more distressing for her uptight family, not to mention society in general, at the advanced age of 45 she had a son by him, Richard, who was given her surname rather than Silvio’s.

Sylvia Pankhurst, here in 1940, became a communist after the victory of 1918
ALAMY

Broadly speaking, her life can be divided into four campaigns: after women’s suffrage came communism, then anti-fascism and finally Ethiopian independence. (The last has received the least attention, although Sylvia insisted it gave her the greatest pride.) None was an unalloyed success or without controversy. Her fierce independence would lead her to break with Lenin over their ideological differences, and later support her erstwhile enemy Winston Churchill when their views on fascism aligned. She never had any time for Stalin, left-wing antisemitism or liberal racism. In her mid-seventies and widowed, she cut all ties with Britain by accepting an invitation from Emperor Haile Selassie to emigrate to Ethiopia. She died there in 1960.

The genius of Holmes’s fascinating and important biography is that it approaches Sylvia’s life as if she were a man. The writing isn’t prettified or leavened by amusing anecdotes about Victorian manners, it’s dense and serious, as befits a woman who never wore make-up and didn’t care about clothes. To paraphrase the WSPU’s slogan, it is about deeds not domesticity. Rather than dwelling on moods and relationships, Holmes is interested in ideas and consequences. It’s wonderfully refreshing. Sylvia lived for her work; her literary output was astounding. In addition to publishing her own newspaper almost every week for over four decades, she wrote nonfiction, fiction, plays, poetry and investigative reports. She even taught herself Romanian so that she could translate the poems of the 19th-century Romantic poet Mihail Eminescu. It doesn’t matter whether Sylvia was right or wrong in her political enthusiasms; as Holmes rightly insists, what counts is that by acting on them she helped to make history.

WSJ Historically Speaking: In Epidemics, Leaders Play a Crucial Role

ILLUSTRATION: JON KRAUSE

Lessons in heroism and horror as a famed flu pandemic hits a milestone

A century ago this week, an army cook named Albert Gitchell at Fort Riley, Kansas, paid a visit to the camp infirmary, complaining of a severe cold. It’s now thought that he was America’s patient zero in the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918.

The disease killed more than 40 million people world-wide, including 675,000 Americans. In this case, as in so many others throughout history, the pace of the pandemic’s deadly progress depended on the actions of public officials.

Spain had allowed unrestricted reporting about the flu, so people mistakenly believed it originated there. Other countries, including the U.S., squandered thousands of lives by suppressing news and delaying health measures. Chicago kept its schools open, citing a state commission that had declared the epidemic at a “standstill,” while the city’s public health commissioner said, “It is our duty to keep the people from fear. Worry kills more people than the epidemic.”

Worry had indeed sown chaos, misery and violence in many previous outbreaks, such as the Black Plague. The disease, probably caused by bacteria-infected fleas living on rodents, swept through Asia and Europe during the 1340s, killing up to a quarter of the world’s population. In Europe, where over 50 million died, a search for scapegoats led to widespread pogroms against Jews. In 1349, the city of Strasbourg in France, already somewhat affected by the plague, put to death hundreds of Jews and expelled the rest.

But not all authorities lost their heads at the first sign of contagion. Pope Clement VI (1291-1352), one of a series of popes who ruled from the southern French city of Avignon, declared that the Jews had not caused the plague and issued two papal bulls against their persecution.

In Italy, Venetian authorities took the practical approach: They didn’t allow ships from infected ports to dock and subjected all travelers to a period of isolation. The term quarantine comes from the Italian quaranta giorni, meaning “40 days”—the official length of time until the Venetians granted foreign ships the right of entry.

Less exalted rulers could also show prudence and compassion in the face of a pandemic. After the Black Plague struck the village of Eyam in England, the vicar William Mompesson persuaded its several hundred inhabitants not to flee, to prevent the disease from spreading to other villages. The biggest landowner in the county, the earl of Devonshire, ensured a regular supply of food and necessities to the stricken community. Some 260 villagers died during their self-imposed quarantine, but their decision likely saved thousands of lives.

The response to more recent pandemics has not always met that same high standard. When viral severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) began in China in November 2002, the government’s refusal to acknowledge the outbreak allowed the disease to spread to Hong Kong, a hub for the West and much of Asia, thus creating a world problem. On a more hopeful note, when Ebola was spreading uncontrollably through West Africa in 2014, the Ugandans leapt into action, saturating their media with warnings and enabling quick reporting of suspected cases, and successfully contained their outbreak.

Pandemics always create a sense of crisis. History shows that public leadership is the most powerful weapon in keeping them from becoming full-blown tragedies.

WSJ Historically Speaking: The Quest for Unconsciousness: A Brief History of Anesthesia

The ancient Greeks used alcohol and opium. Patients in the 12th century got a ‘soporific sponge.’ A look at anesthetics over the centuries

ILLUSTRATION: ELLEN WEINSTEIN

Every year, some 21 million Americans undergo a general anesthetic. During recent minor surgery, I became one of the roughly 26,000 Americans a year who experience “anesthetic awareness” during sedation: I woke up. I still can’t say what was more disturbing: being conscious or seeing the horrified faces of the doctors and nurses.

The best explanation my doctors could give was that not all brains react in the same way to a general anesthetic. Redheads, for example, seem to require higher dosages than brunettes. While not exactly reassuring, this explanation does highlight one of the many mysteries behind the science of anesthesia.

Although being asleep and being unconscious might look the same, they are very different states. Until the mid-19th century, a medically induced deep unconsciousness was beyond the reach of science. Healers had no reliable way to control, let alone eliminate, a patient’s awareness or pain during surgery, though not for lack of trying.

The ancient Greeks generally relied on alcohol, poppy opium or mandrake root to sedate patients. Evidence from the “Sushruta Samhita,” an ancient Sanskrit medical text, suggests that Indian healers used cannabis incense. The Chinese developed acupuncture at some point before 100 B.C., and in Central and South America, shamans used the spit from chewed coca leaves as a numbing balm.

Little changed over the centuries. In the 12th century, Nicholas of Salerno recorded in a treatise the recipe for a “soporific sponge” with ingredients that hadn’t advanced much beyond the medicines used by the Greeks: a mixture of opium, mulberry juice, lettuce seed, mandrake, ivy and hemlock.

Discoveries came but weren’t exploited. In 1540, the German alchemist and astrologer Paracelsus (aka Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim) noted that liquid ether could induce sleep in animals. In 1772, the English chemist Joseph Priestley discovered nitrous oxide gas (laughing gas). Using it became the thing to do at parties—in 1799, the poet Coleridge described trying the gas—but no one apparently tried using ether or nitrous oxide for medicinal purposes.

In 1811, the novelist Fanny Burney had no recourse when she went under the knife for suspected breast cancer. She wrote later, “O Heaven!—I then felt the Knife rackling against the breast bone—scraping it!”

Despite the ordeal, Burney lived into her 80s, dying in 1840—just before everything changed. Ether, nitrous oxide and later chloroform soon became common in operating theaters. On Oct. 16, 1846, a young dentist from Boston named William Morton made history by performing surgery on a patient anesthetized with ether. It was such a success that, a few months later, Frances Appleton Longfellow, wife of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, became the first American to receive anesthesia during childbirth.

But these wonder drugs were lethal if not administered properly. A German study compiled in 1934 estimated that the number of chloroform-related deaths was as high as 1 in 3,000 operations. The drive for safer drugs produced such breakthroughs as halothane in 1955, which could be inhaled by patients.

Yet for all the continuous advances in anesthesia, scientists still don’t entirely understand how it works. A study published in the December 2017 issue of Annals of Botany reveals that anesthetics can also stop motion in plants like the Venus flytrap—which, as far as we know, doesn’t have a brain. Clearly, we still have a lot to learn about consciousness in every form.

WSJ Historically Speaking: The Ancient Magic of Mistletoe

The plant’s odyssey from a Greek festival to a role in the works of Dickens and Trollope

ILLUSTRATION: THOMAS FUCHS

Is mistletoe naughty or nice? The No. 1 hit single for Christmas 1952 was young Jimmy Boyd warbling how he caught “mommy kissing Santa Claus underneath the mistletoe last night.” It may very well have been daddy in costume—but, if not, that would make mistletoe very naughty indeed. For this plant, that would be par for the course.

Mistletoe, in its various species, is found all over the world and has played a part in fertility rituals for thousands of years. The plant’s ability to live off other trees—it’s a parasite—and remain evergreen even in the dead of winter awed the earliest agricultural societies. Mistletoe became a go-to plant for sacred rites and poetic inspiration.

Kissing under the mistletoe may have begun with the Greeks’ Kronia agricultural festival. Its Roman successor, the Saturnalia, combined licentious behavior with mistletoe. The naturalist Pliny the Elder, who died in A.D. 79, noticed to his surprise that mistletoe was just as sacred, if not more, to the Druids of Gaul. Its growth on certain oak trees, which the Druids believed to possess magical powers, spurred them to use mistletoe in ritual sacrifices and medicinal potions to cure ailments such as infertility.

Mistletoe’s mystical properties also earned it a starring role in the 13th-century Old Norse collection of mythical tales known as the Prose Edda. Here mistletoe becomes a deadly weapon in the form of an arrow that kills the sun-god Baldur. His mother Frigga, the goddess of love and marriage, weeps tears that turn into white mistletoe berries. In some versions, this brings Baldur back to life, carrying faint echoes of the reincarnation myths of ancient Mesopotamia. Either way, Frigga declares mistletoe to be the symbol of peace and love.

Beliefs about mistletoe’s powers managed to survive the Catholic Church’s official disapproval for all things pagan. People used the plant as a totem to scare away trolls, thwart witchcraft, prevent fires and bring about reconciliations. But such superstitions fizzled out in the wake of the Enlightenment.

Continue reading…

WSJ Historically Speaking: Kylo Ren, Meet Huck Finn: A History of Sequels and Their Heroes

The pedigree of sequels is as old as storytelling itself

ILLUSTRATION: RUTH GWILY

“Star Wars: The Last Jedi” may end up being the most successful movie sequel in the biggest sequel-driven franchise in the history of entertainment. That’s saying something, given Hollywood’s obsession with sequels, prequels, reboots and remakes. Although this year’s “Guardians of the Galaxy 2” was arguably better than the first, plenty of people—from critics to stand-up comedians—have wondered why in the world we needed a 29th “Godzilla,” an 11th “Pink Panther” or “The Godfather Part III.”

But sequels aren’t simply about chasing the money. They have a distinguished pedigree, as old as storytelling itself. Homer gets credit for popularizing the trend in the eighth century B.C., when he followed up “The Iliad” with “The Odyssey,” in which one of the relatively minor characters in the original story triumphs over sexy immortals, scary monsters and evil suitors of his faithful wife. Presumably with an eye to drawing in fans of the “Iliad,” Homer was sure to throw in a flashback about the Trojan horse. Continue reading…

WSJ Historically Speaking: The Power of Pamphlets: A Brief History

As the Reformation passes a milestone, a look at a key weapon of change

ILLUSTRATION: THOMAS FUCHS

The Reformation began on Oct. 31, 1517, when Martin Luther, as legend has it, nailed his “95 Theses” to a church door in Wittenberg, Germany. Whatever he actually did—he may have just attached the papers to the door or delivered them to clerical authorities—Luther was protesting Catholics’ sale of “indulgences” to give sinners at least partial absolution. The protest immediately went viral, to use a modern term, thanks to the new “social media” of the day—the printed pamphlet.

The development of the printing press around 1440 had set the stage: In the famous words of the German historian Bernd Moeller, “Without printing, no Reformation.” But the pamphlet deserves particular recognition. Unlike books, pamphlets were perfect for the mass market: easy to print and therefore cheap to buy. Continue reading…

The Sunday Times: Amanda Foreman: public schools shun classic novels

A bestselling biographer fears Austen and Dickens have been forsaken to boost results

Sian Griffiths, Education Editor

Photo by DAN CALLISTER

Top public schools including Eton and Marlborough have been accused of “shutting children out of their literary heritage” by failing to teach classic novels.

The academic and writer Amanda Foreman is campaigning to return classic novels by authors such as Jane Austen, Charles Dickens and George Eliot to the curriculum of some of Britain’s most famous schools.

She was spurred into action after being “horrified” to discover that her 16-year-old daughter “had not read a single 18th or 19th-century novel” at her private school in England. Continue reading…