The Gateway Chronicle 2020

CHRONICLE
Thinking
History
THE
GATEWAY
the rise of the nazis
religion in early china
kingship in the 1400s

“there is one thing stronger than all the
armies in the world, and that is an idea
whose time has come”
Victor Hugo

Contents
A word from the editors… 02
Political ideologies 03
Mare Nostrum – The rise of Fascism in Italy 04
Lebensraum – The Nazis’ plan for the East and 08
the largest war crime in history
How was Hitler able to promote Nazism in 12
1930s Germany?
How was Nazi ideology reflected in their 15
architecture?
Labor Zionism and the creation of a state 17
Individuals 21
Was Henry VII really the king who created a 22
new style of kingship?
Gauchito Gil: The cowboy saint of Argentina 24
Marlene Dietrich: Re-defining modern German 25
culture and sexual liberalism in the 20 th century
The music of Shostakovich 28
Religion 31
Establishing and developing religion in China 32
The infancy of Christian England 37
How did the Islamic Golden Age help develop 43
modern day science?
Putney Debates – October 1647 47
The origins of laïcité in the French Revolution 50
Senior Editors
Georgie
Alex
Design
Alex
Illustrations
Gracie
With thanks to
Mrs. Gregory
Power 55
The Rule of Law and Democracy 56
The concept of kingship in the 1400s 60
Pravda vítězí (‘truth prevails’) 64
Mathematics and Economics 66
The history of numbers and their development 67
into modern mathematics
The history of Universal Basic Income 69
How laissez-faire was Britain in the late 18 th 72
and early 19 th century
Coronavirus – ‘the science of uncertainty?’ 74

A word from the
editors…
Throughout history, beliefs and ideas
have varied significantly: from the early
Caveman reverence for nature and fire,
to the prevalent political ideologies of the
modern day. Beliefs and ideas have
shaped the way societies and civilisations
have defined themselves, enabling
people to seek unity and refuge during
times of conflict and uncertainty, as well
as to build community. At the same time,
wars have often been fought and
violence perpetrated in the name of
ideology and faith, whether that be
political, scientific or religious. Through
this year’s chronicle title ‘Thinking
History’, we hope to capture the power
of ideas throughout history and the way
they shaped the world today.
Our magazine has been divided into five
sections based on themes: Political
Ideologies, Individuals, Religion, Power,
and Maths and Economics, within which
the articles are ordered chronologically.
These themes reflect the wide-ranging
articles we received, which cover beliefs
from 5000 BCE to modern day. Through
this diversity of articles, we have covered
a significant variety of ideas and beliefs
from across the world, and we truly
believe there is something for everyone –
with topics ranging from the history of
numbers and their integration into
modern mathematics, to an exploration
of religion in early China. Fittingly, there
is also an article exploring the history of
pandemics. It was also important to us
that this year’s articles were reflective of
the school community as a whole, and we
encouraged wider participation from
students lower down the school as well as
teaching staff.
As well as those who wrote articles for the
Chronicle this year, we would also like to
thank a few people for their invaluable hard
work. Firstly, building on his experience at
previous school publications, Upper Sixth
student Alex Jennings has helped immensely
with the creative design and layout of the
Chronicle, as well as contributing an article.
Alex designed the front cover and general
layout of the articles and helped greatly with
the formatting of the magazine. Secondly, we
would like to thank Gracie Thornham,
another Upper Sixth student, who very
kindly produced some amazing artwork for
the introduction pages to each theme.
Finally, a big thank you goes to the History
department and Mrs Gregory especially, to
whom we can attribute the wide-ranging
participation, through her encouragement
and support both in the sixth form and lower
down the school.
Unfortunately, for reasons beyond our
control, this edition of the Gateway
Chronicle will remain a virtual one for now,
which we feel is a shame for all of those who
worked so hard towards it, but given the
current situation, it was the safest and only
option. We hope that you are all staying safe
and healthy during this time and, despite
current events, you are able to enjoy reading
the contributions and learning more about
areas of history which you may not have
thought to explore before.
Georgie and Alex
Senior Editors

4
Political Ideologies
Mare Nostrum – The Rise of
Fascism in Italy
T
he March on Rome, ending on 29 th
October 1922, signified the final
blow to Italian democracy in the
1920s. It replaced a parliamentary
It is important to explain the main reasons
why Fascism was able to take over and the
context of the final March on Rome. During
the
“…the final blow to Italian
democracy”
early 1920s,
both society
and the
economy
were facing
several deep underlying problems. Politically,
problems had arisen because Parliament
had been struck with three decades
of weak majorities between the liberal parties.
This coalition was finally broken in
the 1919 election which
saw the Socialist Party
win 32 percent of the
vote, mainly due to the
newly introduced proportional
voting system
and the economic hardship
post World War
One.
democracy with a fascist regime,
led by Benito Mussolini and his
National Fascist Party. They retained
their iron grip upon Italy
for 21 years until 1943, following a
plot to topple Mussolini’s leadership as a
result of failures in World War Two. The
end of Fascist control also seems to have
led to the end of the constitutional monarchy
in Italy, following the result of a refer-
Benito Mussolini
endum on its abolition in 1946.
These events therefore brought
upon a new chapter in Italy’s history.
The rising popularity of
socialism presented an intimidating
force to the
upper and business classes,
who, in reaction,
were either more sympathetic
or lent their support
to Mussolini. With
the support of these
groups, Mussolini was
viewed as less revolutionary
and instead a political
leader that could protect
the status quo. This was
particularly important because
it allowed the Fascists to solidify positions
of power within the government,
while also allowing them to operate without
as much accountability for their actions.

5
There was also widespread economic and
social discontent from the events of the Biennio
Rosso (two red years), a period of
unemployment and political instability.
Following World war One, the number of
unemployed had risen to 2 million, while
many factories shut down for lack of government
wartime contracts. This led to
widespread strike action from trade unions,
with 1,881 in 1920 alone and, following
a rejection of their demands, they occupied
factories which brought
the possibility of revolution
even
closer. Fortunately
for the
other parties,
the Socialists
decided not to
call a revolution
due to their voting
base of
trade union
members being
relatively reformist
rather
than revolutionary.
Meanwhile,
the weak coalition
governments
were unable
to supress
any union activity,
only urging
businesses to offer
concessions
and, therefore,
soon lost the
confidence of
the middle class.
Within this period of economic and political
chaos, an opportunity for militaristic,
nationalist movements was presented.
These movements mainly consisted of the
soldiers returning from World War One,
students and ex-syndicalists (a labour
movement that promoted unionism).
These movements expressed themselves
usually in the form of violent agitation
and major clashes with other political
groups, predominantly workers and police
at first but then socialists and communists.
In April 1919, the offices of
‘L’Avanti!’, a socialist daily newspaper,
were burned down by fascist agitators. A
continuing string of violent attacks coming
from socialists, communists and fascists
lasted throughout the inter-war
years. However, of these, attacks by the
fascist ‘Squadristi’ (better known as the
Black Shirts due to the black uniforms
they wore) are the most wellknown.
They were
soon systematically
destroying
any opposition
by using intimidation,
assassination
and
strikebreaking
across Italy, and
even overseas in
the Italian
owned colony
of Libya. Compared
to other
political factions
at the time, the
Squadristi were
well organised,
imitating the
structure of the
Roman military
and, as a result,
they were able
to gain lots of
members - an
estimated
Italian National Fascist
Party logo
200,000 by the
time of the
March on Rome.
They consolidated
power in many regions by installing
Squadristi squad leaders as local bosses.
However, the control of the fascists in
these areas was often welcomed by the
middle class and landowners that wished
to see a return to stability rather than the
numerous strikes and civil unrest they
had seen previously. As a result of this
growing influence, the new ‘National

6
Fascist Party’ was able to win 35 deputies
(the equivalent of members of Parliament)
as part of a government bloc of 275 deputies
within the Parliament in the May 1921
elections. This represented a large majority
in the Italian Parliament with 275 out
of the total 535 seats being representative
of a broad coalition of nationalist and conservative
outlooks. Additionally, this allowed
them to hold political legitimacy rather
than just being a radical group with
Mussolini saw the situation unfolding before
him and, therefore, began to draw up
future plans before the opportunity was
lost - plans for the March on Rome. These
were finalised in mid-October 1922 and
envisaged public buildings being occupied
in major cities, Squadristi being assembled
in central Italy, an ultimatum to
the government to make Mussolini the
Prime Minister and finally the march into
Rome itself. All these measures were
Benito Mussolini
power and signalled a general
during the March on
Rome
movement from a fringe political
group to an established party with
the policy decisions and government sympathy
it provided.
made to make sure that the government
was unable to respond in time, as all communications
were crippled, while also
providing a peaceful alternative to civil
war by handing power to the Fascists. On
the actual date, 27 th October, only 16,000
Squadristi turned out to assembly points

7
Fascist Italy
around Rome with the majority not having
any weapons or food- which would
have required a minimal force to crush.
Despite their relative weakness, due to an
overestimation of their strength by the
government and the speed
of their assembly, no physical
efforts were made to
quell them. A state of siege
was declared on the 28 th
but was later revoked and
the Prime Minister, Luigi
Facta, resigned. King Victor
Emmanuel then asked Mussolini to
form a new government and allowed the
Squadristi to conduct a victory parade in
Rome. On 31 st of October, 50,000 marched
through Rome brandishing an array of
weapons for intimidation, while the local
National Fascist Party had seized power
with seemingly no physical resistance.
All that Mussolini now needed to stay in
control was consolidating his power. He
immediately saw democracy as an obstacle
to making Italy into a fascist state, only
having the power of the previously incumbent
Prime Ministers available to him
- many of which had been unable to
solve Italy’s problems as they faced large
opposition. His first action to remove this
problem was by passing the Acerbo Law.
This changed the electoral system so that
if a party gained over 25 percent of the
vote then they
would receive two
thirds of the seats in
the parliament- a
system that vastly
benefited the National
Fascist Party.
Unsurprisingly, in
the following 1924 election, the National
Fascist Party won 355 out of 535 seats
which effectively gave Mussolini completely
unchecked power. However, despite
this control of the Parliament, Mussolini
instead turned to the Grand Council
of Fascism which he created in 1922 for
governance of the country. The Council
initially acted as a body for patronage
within the Party (choosing the deputies
for the Parliament and
other local party members)
but, by that time, it had effectively
replaced the Parliament
as the main legislative
body and served to decide
most other major functions
of government. By
1926, all rival political parties
and opposition newspapers
were banned, in
1927 the OVRA secret police
force arrested most political
opponents and finally
by 1928 the Grand
Council of Fascism was
consulted on all constitutional
issues. Italy was now
under the complete control
of Mussolini, who appointed
whoever he
wanted to whatever positions,
to implement his decisions
on the economy and foreign policy,
effectively making him dictator.
“By 1926, all rival political
parties and opposition
newspapers were banned”
Sam, L6LAB

8
Political Ideologies
Lebensraum: The Nazis’ plan for the
East and the largest war crime in history
L
ebensraum as a concept has existed
in Germany since Friederich
Ratzel first wrote about it in 1901.
The idea grew to mean expansion of German
territory to accommodate Germany’s
growing population For Germany, this direction
was often east, towards the vast
lands of Eastern Europe and Russia. In the
20 th century, twice Germany has driven
eastwards under an autocratic government
to conquer land in eastern Europe.
The first was during the World War One,
where the German Empire in
tandem
with
Austria-
Hungary
bludgeoned the
Russian Empire into civil
war, setting up puppet regimes
with plans to colonies areas of Poland,
the Baltic States and Ukraine
under the abortive Septemberprogramm
which involved the ethnic
cleansing of Jews and Poles
from areas of annexed Poland.
However, it is the second attempt
which is the focus of today’s
piece; Nazi Germany’s Generalplan
Ost (Master Plan for the East).
The idea of Lebensraum in Nazi ideology
was popularized by the movement’s eventual
leader, a certain Adolf Hitler. In the
titular Mein Kampf, he states that ‘the German
people must be assured the territorial
area which is necessary for it to exist’ and
‘the German frontiers are an outcome of
chance and only temporary frontiers’. This
outlines the framework of his idea, primarily
the expansion of Germany into
Eastern Europe at the expense of other nations,
to create more space for the burgeoning
German population (despite the
fact that the German birth rate had been
declining since the 1880s). Furthermore,
they needed to secure resources, such as
farmland, so that Germany would never
be hit with the kind of mass starvation
that happened to Germany in World War
One, due to the Entente blockade, and raw
materials to power German industry and
further the principle of Autarky (German
economic independence and self-reliance).
This was also partially based on his hatred
of both Jews and Soviet Communism,
which he saw as linked through
the
conspiracy
theory
that Jews
organised the
1917 Russian Revolution and
were using communism as a tool
for world domination.
The idea was already there
within the Nazi party but,
upon the commencement of
World War Two, the Nazis
now planned to make this idea
a reality, with all the horror that
entailed. For this, the Nazis gradually
began development on Generalplan
Ost, their plan for genocide, ethnic
cleansing and colonisation in Central and
Eastern Europe, the extent of which was
known only to the top echelon of the Nazi
party. The plan was divided into 2 phases,
Kliene Planung and Gross Planung. The former
dictated German colonial policy during
the war, whilst the latter was due to be
implemented over 30 years to cement German
control. The Kliene Planung was partially
completed during the war, consisting
of the killing of any leaders, whether
political, military or cultural, in the Eastern
European states as well as Jews,

9
Gypsies and the mentally ill. There were 4
drafts of the plan, with the first being in
1940 and the last in 1942. This was prefaced
by the invasion of Poland, where 7
SS Einsatzgruppe, special task forces
formed by Reinhard ‘Young Evil God of
Death’ Heydrich to carry out mass murder
of anyone not deemed acceptable by the
Nazi regime, followed the regular army,
who's goal was to eliminate "all anti-German
elements in hostile country behind
the troops in combat", which is a fancy
way to say killing all Polish figures of political
or military importance and Jews.
The Germans attempted to crush Polish
culture through the execution of 60000
Polish ex-government officials, reserve
army officers, landowners, clergy and
members of the intelligentsia were killed
in 10 regional actions, as characterised by
Hitler’s order ’Whatever we find in the
shape of an upper class in Poland will be
liquidated’. Whilst eliminating many cultural
and political influencers in Poland
with the goal of destroying the Polish
sense of identity, they also took out many
people who could lead an uprising. This
process was continued by Operation AB-
Aktion, where 30,000 more Poles were arrested
from major cities across occupied
Poland, interrogated in prisons then transferred
to concentration camps in order to
keep the growing Polish resistance scattered
so there would be no disturbances
during the upcoming invasion of France.
Thousands of intellectuals were massacred
in mass executions, for example with
the Palmiry massacre, in 1946 investigators
from the Polish Red Cross found the
bodies of 2180 men and women in 24 mass
graves, all executed by gunfire for crimes
such as being a Polish artist, an athlete or
even living in the same a
partment block as a resistance member.
Hundreds of thousands had already died
due to the deliberate actions of the German
authorities in Poland, but that was
barely a drop of blood in a mass grave
compared to what was coming next. Operation
Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of the
Soviet Union. Millions of those the Nazi’s
viewed as being from inferior races were
brought under the control of a state with
the will and the means to commit one of
the largest atrocities in history. The
Einsatzgruppen were divided into 4 sections,
marked A, B, C and D, and spread
across the Eastern front to follow behind
the troops executing mid and high level
Communist Party officials, dedicated
Communists, the mentally ill, members of
the Roma people and all Jews, working in
tandem with the regular German army to
commit
massacres
on multiple
occasions.
After November
1941, it was
decided
that there
would be a
transition
to using
gassing targeted
people
after the
leader of
the SS
Heinrich
Himmler
visited a
mass execution
of 100
Jews near
Minsk, being
thoroughly
nauseated by the experience,
it was deemed that
mass shootings were taking too much of a
mental and physical toll on the Einzatsgruppen
themselves. Overall, estimates
put the death toll from the
Einsatzgruppen and related agencies between
1.5 and 2 million with millions
more being sent to labour or death camps.
In the relatively short span of 6 years, the
Nazis perpetrated 3 out of the 5 most
deadly genocides in history if taken in
‘Our Lebensraum even lies
here!’ – A Nazi propaganda
poster from WW2

10
isolation. Firstly, the Holocaust. The Jews
were the focus of their racial hatred and as
a result were the primary focus of the
Nazi's ethnic cleansing. Jews were deported
from across Europe to German
concentration camps, initially designed to
function as work camps, where the death
rates were high but they were not designed
for mass extermination at first. After
the Wanasee Conference on 20 January
1942, where the ‘Final Solution to the Jewish
Question’ was decided. All Jews in Europe
would be killed, worked to death or
deported to undecided locations in the
East. Under these orders, 6,000,000 Jews,
or 2/3 of Europe’s Jewish population,
died through a combination of shootings,
gassings, starvation and being worked literally
to death. Secondly, the rest of Generalplan
Ost where, even in its incomplete
phase, with the total death toll estimated
to be between
4.5 million and
nearly 14 million,
using similar
methods to
the Holocaust,
such as seizing
all farmland in
the Ukraine and
sending all produce back to Germany
combined with German soldiers being ordered
to ‘live off the land’ to avoid having
to manage the chaotic and expensive logistics
of feeding the troops during the
largest ground invasion ever, causing
mass starvation among the occupied areas.
The third was the Nazi occupation of
Poland, in which 13% of Poland’s pre-war
population were killed in an effort to Germanise
the area, to combat the resistance
through methods such as reprisal killings,
more forced labour and the infamous
Warsaw uprising.
From the ruins of the Soviet Union, Germany
planned to set up 4 puppet states
would be carved out. Reichskomissarat(RK)
Ostland, consisting of the Baltic
States, part of Belarus and stretching to
Leningrad, RK Ukraine, RK Kaukasien,
Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and most of
the Russian Caucasus, and RK Moskowien,
all the land east of Ostland and
Ukraine up to an arbitrary line between
Archangelsk and Astrakan (the A-A Line),
with thisthe finish line for Barbarossa. In
reality, only Ostland and Ukraine were
ever set up as Germany’s invasion was
turned around before these other areas
could be brought fully under their control.
Next, the areas acquired in the name of
Lebensraum had to undergo 'Germanisation’
where the culture and often the local
people themselves of a country were destroyed
and replaced with those culturally
or ethnically German. Certain percentages
of the population of the local population
were selected for Germanisation as they
apparently were racially similar enough to
Germans (Nazi racial policy was based on
science that was very shaky at best and extremely
harmful
pseudoscience
“In the relatively short span of 6 years,
the Nazis perpetrated 3 out of the 5
most deadly genocides in history”
at worst). These
figures were
seemingly
picked at random
with 50%
of Czechs, 35%
of Ukrainians
and 10% of Poles possessed ‘Germanic
blood’ and those not selected were to be
killed, sent to forced labour camps or deported
to Siberia. Even children were not
spared. An estimated 50,000 to 200,000
Polish children who were deemed to have
German traits were taken from their parents
to be Germanised and re-introduced
into German society. Only 10-15% ever
made it back to their parents and thousands
ended up in concentration camps.
During the war, 350,000 Baltic Germans
and 1.7 million Poles were the subject of
Germanisation, plus 400,000 Germans
were sent from Germany to help colonise
the new conquests. As the Nazis pushed
further and further east, Germanisation efforts
became confused, with some in
Ukraine being torn between the German
rule of needing 3 German grandparents to
be classed as German whilst some saw no

11
reason to kill people if they acted German
and showed no ’racial concerns’. There
were also further disagreements where
the Reich decided a person was Jewish if
they had 3 Jewish grandparents, but the
Einsatzgruppen decided it was if you had
one Jewish grandparent, weather you
practiced the religion or not, further showing
the inconsistencies of the pseudoscience
and the unlucky dip that was Nazi
racial policy.
The Kleine Planung resulted in some of the
largest man-made losses of life in history,
and this is just the ’small’ half of the plan
carried out over 6 years. The Gross Planung
was to be even more horrific,
involving the removal of 45 million
people from Central and Eastern
Europe via being sent to the death
camps, deliberate starvation due to
seizure of food supplies or deportation
to Siberia. This would involve
50-60% of Russians exterminated
with 15% being driven to Siberia,
nearly 50% of Estonians, 50%
of Latvians, 50% of Czechs, 65% of
Ukrainians, 75% of Belarussians,
80-85% of Poles, 85% of Lithuanians
and 100% of Latgalians. Deportation
to Siberia is simply a euphamism
for mass murder as, with
very little infrastructure to accommodate
to new arrivals, they
would freeze or starve to death in
the wilderness. Even the most advanced
countries today would struggle heavily to
properly provide for an influx of millions
of people, let alone the less developed areas
of what was to be a military crushed
USSR. The regions would then be repopulated
by 8-10 million German settlers and
all the recently Germanised peoples over
the next 2-3 decades in order to fully
transform the Slavic lands into German
ones. As there were not enough Germans
to properly populate the new conquests,
people judged to be racially between Germans
and Russians called Mittleschicht (e.g
Latvians and Czechs) were also to be settled
there. Near the end of the war, all
copies of Generalplan Ost were destroyed
as the horrific plans detailed within which
would almost certainly warrant the death
penalty for anyone involved in its execution,
but we have been able to reconstruct
the main points of it through various documents
referring to it or supplementing it
as well as the testimonies of SS officers
during the Nuremburg trials.
The Second World War was a long time
ago and to many of us and numbers on a
page are hard to comprehend. The total
death toll of Lebensraum is hard to accurately
place, but civilian casualties sat in
the tens of millions due to this one idea,
‘Danzig greets its leader!’ –
civilians who had parents, The Nazi invasion of Poland,
children or siblings as entire
September 1939
towns and villages were
mercilessly wiped out. The idea of Lebensraum
was a horrific one and it is a
dark stain on humanity that it proceeded
as far as it did without seeing severe ethical
objections about from the German
army or high command. We can only
thank God that the Allies managed to defeat
the forces of evil, resulting in unprecedented
growth in the latter half of the 20 th
century, instead of the unspeakable atrocities
that would have come about if Generalplan
Ost was seen to its conclusion.
Henry, L6JRW

12 Political Ideologies
How was Hitler able to promote
Nazism in 1930s
Germany?
B
y 1933, Germany had already suffered
a depression and its streets
were plagued with hyperinflation
and poverty, so they were in desperate
need of a new ideology to steer them to
success. As Nazism spread through Europe
like an infection in the 1930s, it
seemed this would result in a reinvigorated
Germany, a far cry away from the
one who had been humiliated at Versailles.
However, the challenge of maintaining
and enforcing this new regime
proved to be the test of Nazism; how
much did German citizens want this new
ideology and what methods did Hitler
employ to ensure they wanted it?
Dr Joseph Goebbels and the mighty propaganda
machine were pivotal to the survival
of Nazism. He had the power to not
only censor any media criticising the
Reich but also the power to control mainstream
media. The organization of the Nuremberg
rallies, pro-Nazi radio broadcasts,
Nazi cinema and newspapers all
helped to
ensure Hitler
stayed
in power
and continually
promoted
Nazism.
Books
and works
of art were restricted to only ones promoting
the Nazi message and those deemed
unacceptable were burnt. Hitler did this to
attempt to censor all media and appeal to
the German multitudes but also as a public
demonstration of the rejection of alternative
ideas.
Goebbels
was able to
marry his
fascination
with new
technology
to his
power of
media censorship.
In
this way,
he was able
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s
to tap into the mind of every
propaganda minister
German as his media was so
mainstream and cheap. Consequently,
everyone was exposed to propaganda no
matter their social status or education.
Germany was in a depression, but Goebbels
combated this by putting speakers in
bars and creating cheap radios. It was on
these radios that Hitler’s speeches were
repeated – guaranteeing that his ideas
were heard by all.
Posters aimed at the poorly educated
had simplistic
bright
“Goebbels had the power to not only censor
any media criticising the Reich but also
the power to control mainstream media”
pictures to attract
them. The
content and design
typically
featured povertystricken
Germans
and exposed Communists and Jews
as the cause of this problem. This visual
propaganda meant that it appealed to
those who couldn’t afford to visit an art
gallery or visit the cinema but at the same
time it attracted Germans everywhere
with its dramatic slogans and shocking

13
pictures. This, again, promoted the idea of
the Fuhrer and gave the average German
during the depression hope that Nazism
could recover Germany’s former
glory.
The Berlin Olympics in 1936 only further
served to exaggerate the power of the Nazis
on the
world
stage. With
Germany
topping the
medals table
in the
state-of-theart
arena,
doubters of
the regime
both inside
and outside
of Germany
were silenced.
As
well as
boosting
national
pride, the
Olympics
further
served as a
reminder of
Aryan superiority.
Hitler knew the key to unlocking the full
potential of Germany was the support of
the German masses. His promises of employment
and German glory won over
some, but others
needed a stick
to complement
this carrot. This
came in the
form of violent
law enforcers.
The SS were
formed from the
ashes of the SA and were trained meticulously
by Heinrich Himmler. Their sole
aim was to destroy any opposition to Nazism
and strengthen the stranglehold that
the Nazis had on Germany. They ruled
with an iron fist; they ensured nobody
stepped out line with the threat of concentration
camps at their disposal. Unsurprisingly,
the SS were all Aryans with zealous
devotion to Hitler which enabled them to
commit the most ruthless acts of torture
and violence to eliminate opposition. At
the same time, the SS became a
form of promotion for Nazism as
Himmler had created an idealistic, elitist
order that was unparalleled since the ages
of knights.
“The aim of the SS was to destroy any
opposition to Nazism and strengthen
the stranglehold that the Nazis had on
Germany”
Nazism was reinforced
by
newly implemented
social
policies. These
were introduced
gradually so as
not to shock the civilians. Nazism’s
shameless promotion of Aryan superiority
led to the persecution of minorities, in
particular, Jews. As well as holding them
Hitler attending the
1936 Berlin Olympics

14
at fault for losing the First World War,
Hitler believed that their race was inferior
that of the Aryan. To accept the principles
of Nazism, the German citizens had to
truly believe that they were the Herrenvolk
(master race).
This meant Hitler put in place restrictions
on German Jews to reinforce this idea. By
banning them from owning businesses, he
reinforced the idea that Jews profited
from the failure of
others. By implementing
this ban,
he was able to
convince and assure
faithful Nazi
supporters of the
Jew’s evil nature.
He stopped Jews
becoming German
citizens, lawyers,
doctors or journalists.
He also
barred them from
schools and social
and sports clubs,
stopped mixed racial
marriages and
relationships. In
addition, Jewish
shops and people
were marked with
a Star of David.
These policies
led to ordinary
German civilians
having less everyday
contact with
Jews, cementing
the ideologies of Nazism. These policies
were, albeit in a less extreme manner, mirrored
regarding other minority groups
like Communists, African Americans, homosexuals,
and gypsies. In particular, the
campaign against Communism made it
easier for Germans to embrace Nazism.
Great emphasis was placed on the education
of the young with the Hitler Youth
and German League of Maidens being
created. They were vital to ensure Hitler
achieved a ‘1000-year Reich’ because, not
only did they teach children arms drills,
they further exaggerated a common enemy.
Hitler focused on the younger generations
as he knew that by isolating them
from their parents, through love for the
Nazis, would mean their primary loyalty
would be to Hitler and not them. This led
to children reporting their parents and
made it easier for the Nazis to silence enemies
of the state
who complained
within the confines
of their own
homes. By e
ffectively brainwashing
the next
generation, Nazism
was further
forced upon the
German society.
A propaganda poster for the
Hitler Youth
In their own ways,
each of the methods
employed by
the Nazis were
able to alter the
opinions of the
German masses.
While the fear and
propaganda techniques
preyed previously
existing
prejudice, social
controls ensured
compliance and alienation
of anyone
who didn’t fit the
Nazi model. Hitler
made the choice to
the people black and white: you were either
with the Nazis or against them. With
the threat of the SS looming over them,
the German citizens had very little choice
but to accept the Nazi regime and with it
their ideology.
Arthur, 5.3

Political Ideologies
15
How was Nazi ideology
reflected in their architecture?
A
fter coming to power in 1933,
Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party
began a radical transformation of
German culture, including architecture.
Indeed, architecture played a large role in
Hitler’s regime, with his chief architect Albert
Speer becoming one of the most important
men in the Nazi government by
the 1940s. The designs formulated
by the Nazis very
much reflected their political
agenda.
Firstly, Nazi architecture
reflected the authoritarian
and populist nature of
their rule and their ideology.
Hitler himself was renowned
for his populist
tactics, including large
public addresses which
sought to enthuse his followers
and whip up support.
As a result, his architecture
often accommodated
such methods of outreach. For example,
a 30 square kilometre area near
Nuremburg was supposed to be developed
in order to host up to 500,000 guests
for Nazi rallies, demonstrating how the
populist elements of Nazi ideology were
mirrored in their architecture. Likewise,
plans for a new city called ‘Germania’ to
replace Berlin included buildings such as
the ‘Volkshalle’, or People’s Hall, further
demonstrating the populist nature of Nazi
ideology, and echoing their desire to build
a utopian society with similarly named
policies such as the ‘Volksgemeinschaft’.
Nazi architecture also reflected the more
sinister, authoritarian elements of their regime.
Indeed, many of the planned buildings
were designed in such a way that
they highlighted the domineering nature
of their rule. The aforementioned
Volkshalle was planned to have a 300-metre-high
dome in the style of Hitler’s favoured
neo-classicism. Hitler even stated
that ‘our enemies and followers must realise
that these buildings strengthen our authority’,
perhaps because the sheer size of
his buildings would have dwarfed the individual
and acted as a visible metaphor
for extreme state power.
Likewise, architecture was used by the
Nazis as a means by which to demonstrate
their supposed supremacy over rivals and
those who they viewed as ‘inferior’. Supremacy
played a large role Nazi propaganda
– they sought to build the image of
the supposedly superior Aryan race. They
truly believed that the Aryans were a
‘master race’ who prevailed over all others,
especially over the perceived ‘inferior
races’ such as the Slavs and the Jews. Indeed,
there is much evidence of their bid
for Germanic superiority in their architecture.
Firstly, only German materials were
used in many of their most important architectural
projects.
The proposed
‘Volkshalle’ of Berlin

16
For instance, for the 1937 Paris International
Exhibition of Arts and Technology,
Speer designed and built a huge 65-metre
tower out of only German materials. Relying
solely on German materials helped
them to showcase their belief in German
superiority on an international stage, as it
suggests that they viewed non-German
materials as unworthy. Combined with
the imposing nature of the tower, this
demonstrated further how the Nazis
wanted to pursue their all-powerful image
in their architecture,
almost
as if it was a
form of propaganda
itself.
More importantly,
the
tower was almost
an exact
replica of the
Soviet version (for which the Nazis had
acquired the blueprints), but the only major
difference was the fact that the German
version was much bigger, proving how
the Nazis used architecture in order to devalue
their rivals and to uphold their perceived
superiority and authority. The
Olympic Stadium in Berlin was also built
in an elaborate neo-classical style preferred
by Hitler in order to showcase the
perceived German sporting superiority.
“Nazi architecture
reflected the authoritarian
and populist nature of
their rule and ideology”
Similarly, the Nazis used architecture as a
means by which to promote their traditionalist
ideological values. Indeed, during
the Weimar Period, architecture became
a progressive force for change,
alongside other elements of German culture
such as the performing arts and music.
The Art Deco buildings which hosted
such modern culture were in many ways
symbolic of the changes that were going
on in German society. Of course, the Nazis
ideologically detested such changes. Hitler
and his party were innately traditionalist,
believing developments during Weimar
Germany to be ‘un-German’, such as
the new, financially independent role of a
woman in society. Therefore, they sought
to reverse the changes to architecture
which had been symbolic of modern Weimar
society. The Nazis were especially
critical of housing schemes during the
Weimar Republic, which took on modernist,
experimental designs, going against
everything the Nazis believed in. They
much preferred the traditional Germanic
housing designs; the type that one would
probably expect to see in old Germanic
fairy tales. Indeed, many senior Nazis had
their residences built in this style, including
Hermann Goering’s “Carinhall”. They
similarly wanted to build youth hostels in
this style, reflecting another aspect of Nazi
ideology – the belief in indoctrinating the
youth. Likewise, not only did the Nazis
oppose modernist and experimental design,
but many also opposed the heavy industrial
architecture that had come to
dominate cities such as Berlin. It was no
secret that Hitler didn’t like Berlin – he
spent little time there after all, despite it
being Germany’s capital. Rapid industrialisation
was another aspect of modern German
life which the Nazis opposed, since it
went against the aforementioned traditionalist
image that they yearned for, and
as such they planned to renovate Berlin
into ‘Germania’ before 1950, which would
supposedly have captured the essence of
the their desired view of Germany. Hitler
himself drew up the basic plan, which was
to include neo-classical architecture such
as the Volkshalle. This renovation of Berlin
thus demonstrates the Nazis’ antimodernist
values.
In many ways then, Nazi architecture
acted as a metaphor for their regime.
Huge projects such as the planned city of
Germania demonstrated the sheer authority
of the Nazi state, whilst also highlighting
their hatred of progressive Weimar
culture. Likewise, the Nazis’ opposition to
modern architecture was evidence of their
favour for traditionalism.
Alex

Political Ideologies
17
Labor Zionism and the
creation of a
state
T
he first - and now second longest
serving - Prime Minister of
Israel was David Ben-Gurion;
he declared that, “The assets of the
Jewish National Home must be created
exclusively through our own work.”
This idea is known as Labor [sic] Zionism,
but what was Labor Zionism and
how powerful was this idea and the
actions it brought about in bringing
about a “Jewish National Home”?
Before one can begin to answer that
question, it is necessary to first understand
what Labor Zionists actually believed.
The primary focus of Labor Zionists
was the creation of a Jewish State
through manual labour; it was believed
that only a Jewish proletariat could bring
about a Jewish State. In order to bring
that about, Labor Zionists relied on the
emigration of diaspora Jews to Palestine.
However, merely the presence of Jews
was not sufficient; Labor Zionists had
three goals of ‘Kibbush’ (roughly translated
as ‘Conquest’): guarding land (that is agriculture)
and labour (that is any non-academic
work). It was believed that when
Jews did all three types of work, and only
then, could a solution to the question of
Jewish statehood be found: whether that
be political or revolutionary.
Arguably, the most interesting part of this
was the methods used by Labor Zionists
to achieve ‘Kibbush’. In 1910, the first of
many ‘kibbutzim’ was founded: D’ganya.
These kibbutzim aimed to create an environment
that encouraged Jewish diaspora
emigration to Palestine by facilitating
The Palestine
‘social salvation’ in the form of an
Post, May 14, 1948
agrarian, egalitarian commune and
‘individual salvation’ in the form of service
to a wider community. These communities
received many refugees of Russian
pogroms but also radical socialist Zionist
youth and, by 1939, 24,105 people
were living on kibbutzim. In fact, even today
many of these kibbutzim still exist (although
only about 60 still exist on a communal
basis as of 2010) and account for
about 40% of Israel’s agricultural output.
There were a variety of opinions on how
this might lead to a Jewish State in Palestine:
while the Marxist elements of the
movement argued that an active Jewish
proletariat would naturally create a revolution
that would build a Jewish State,
others merely argued that it facilitated
Jewish economic independence in the region
that would facilitate the creation of a
state by purely political means.

18
With that said, how did it actually contribute
to the creation of the State of Israel in
1948?
To briefly recap, the State of Israel was declared
in 1948 following the approval of
the United Nations partition plan by the
General Assembly which had precipitated
a civil war in British Mandatory Palestine.
The Partition Plan itself was created at the
request of the British Government who
had concluded in 1937 that its Mandate of
Palestine was untenable due to the conflict
between Jews and Arabs in the region and
– after the Second World War – were
The First Prime
Minister of Israel, struggling to control Jewish revolt
David Ben-Gurion over the limits on Jewish migration
to Palestine (especially in the aftermath
of the Holocaust).
One impact of Labor Zionism was that the
radical ‘kibbutznik’ represented a large
group of Jews living in Palestine who
were willing to fight for a state. In fact, the
predecessor to the modern Israel Defence
Forces, the Jewish paramilitary ‘Haganah’
(literally, ‘the defence’) was linked to the
Labor Zionist movement; Haganah was
considered the largest armed force in the
region after the British Army. These paramilitary
groups smuggled weapons into
Palestine and were part of the armed revolts
which proved the British Mandate
untenable. These armed rebellions ultimately
forced the British out, but it is
equally likely that the British would have
been forced to leave anyway; there was an
appetite for self-determination among the
United Nations and the British especially
were not desperate to keep it in their Empire.
However, it is certainly true that the
military wing of the Labor Zionist movement
sped up the British withdrawal.
Nevertheless, the partition would never
have been considered without a viable alternative.
For
the Jewish
State at least,
this came
from the Labor
Zionists.
The Kibbutzim
– as well as
‘nomadic’
groups such
as G’dud
HaAvodah
(Labor Battalion)
– created
viable agriculture
and
manual labour
forces
for a future
state; G’dud
HaAvodah notably built roads and drained
swamps in the 1920s where the British had
not. Moreover, the associated labour unions
(mainly Histadrut, that of David Ben
Gurion) began to establish education,
health care and social services for the Jewish
population outside of the kibbutzim
themselves. This created the very beginnings
of the State: one which not only had
some sort of economic output but provided
for its citizens. Therefore, as a result
of the institutions of Labor Zionism (themselves
a result of the ideology), it was
possible both for the United Nations and
the British government to consider a Jewish
State in the region; after all, there

19
already appeared to be a State at the
hands of the Labor Zionists so Labor Zionism
made it more difficult to refuse a formal
Jewish State too. Indeed, the United
Nations Special Committee on Palestine
Report specifically notes that kibbutzim,
“express the spirit of sacrifice and co-operation
through which [agricultural success]
has been achieved”.
Regardless, a Jewish State would not have
been considered without a Jewish population
in Mandatory Palestine. This too was
provided in part by the Labor Zionists. Of
course, the various issues facing European
Jews (social and economic) were the main
‘push factors’ but the kibbutzim created a
method of getting
work, finding
a community
upon arrival and
– for most immigrants
during the
Third Aliyah (literally
‘ascent’,
but a word for
the waves of migration)
from
1919 until 1923
but fewer immigrants
among the
later (and larger)
waves of Aliyot –
provided an ideological
home for socialist Jews. While
only a minority of Jews lived on kibbutzim,
their success did create a sense among the
Jewish diaspora that moving to Israel was
possible; for many it grew to be necessary,
but it did make the move more palatable.
In 1936, the local population of Palestine
began a general strike that turned into a
violent rebellion; the 1937 Peel Commission
found the cause of this to be the rapid
demographic change. The Peel Commission
also concluded that the Mandate was
untenable and that partition would be
necessary; according to Roza El-Elini, the
Commission’s report, “proved to be the
master partition plan, on which all those
that followed were either based, or to
which they were compared”. Furthermore,
the presence of a Jewish population
specifically was vital for a Jewish State to
be considered; if there were no Jews in
Palestine, there would have been no reason
to consider creating a state for Jews in
Palestine. This strongly suggests that Labor
Zionism had a notable impact on the
demographic change which ultimately
lead to the partition of Palestine and hence
the creation of the State.
With that said, there were many other significant
factors in the creation of the State
of Israel. First among them was the collapse
of the Ottoman Empire. From the
beginning of the First World War, the British
Government
concerned itself
with the fate of
Ottoman Palestine.
As part of
that, the British
Government entered
into negotiations
with another
group of
Zionists: the socalled
Political
Zionists, who
aimed to create a
Jewish State
through pure diplomacy.
The result
of the negotiations was the Balfour
Declaration of 2 November 1917, giving
sympathy to the Zionist Cause. Historians
have argued at great length as to why the
Government did this; Lloyd-George himself
claimed in his memoir it was to gain
financial support from Jews and the
American Government (Geoffrey Wheatcroft
notes that the Balfour Declaration
was almost “Wilson’s Fifteenth Point”), to
prevent Zionist support for Germany, due
to the negotiating of the Political Zionists
and his own support for the cause. Whatever
the actual reason, the declaration is of
paramount importance to the Zionist
cause. The declaration was later endorsed
by the United States and gave hope to

20
Zionists both in Palestine and the Jewish
diaspora. Ultimately, the Balfour Declaration
served as the basis for all future efforts,
and the basis (if not motivation) for
the Peel Commission’s Report. However,
it is worth noting that the Balfour Declaration
left intentionally vague the details of
how Jewish the “national home” would
be; other events – including those resulting
from the work of Labor Zionists –
must therefore be considered significant in
the creation of a specifically Jewish State.
One thing has been glaringly missing
from the narrative so far: anti-Semitism in
Europe. The impacts of anti-Semitism on
the eventual creation of the State of Israel
are wide-ranging. For one thing, Zionism
as a form of nationalism developed – at
least in part – out of necessity derived
from anti-Semitism. Zionists such as Theodore
Herzl (considered so important to
the Zionist cause that he was mentioned
in the Declaration of Independence as part
of the new State’s history) were inspired
by anti-Semitic incidents: in the case of
Herzl, the Dreyfus affair. Others, however,
were not, including David Ben
Gurion who in his 1970 memoirs wrote
that “For
many of [the
“without the Labor Zionist ideology it
would have been distinctly less possible
for a Jewish State to be created”
members of
the Social-
Democratic
Jewish
Workers'
Party in
Płońsk, Poland],
anti-Semitic feeling had little to do
with our dedication [to Zionism]”; this
tells us that anti-Semitism was not the sole
motivator of all European Zionists, even if
anti-Semitism drove the majority. Furthermore,
almost every wave of Aliyah can, at
least in part but if not the most part, be ascribed
to anti-Semitism: whether they be
Russian pogroms or the rise of the Nazis.
Unsurprisingly, when Jews were persecuted,
they aimed to get out. As has already
been discussed, the significant Jewish
population in Mandatory Palestine
was a major factor in the end of the Mandate
and the ultimate creation of a Jewish
State in Palestine; it cannot be denied that
Jews (especially in waves of Aliyah during
the Nazi era) were strongly motivated to
emigrate by anti-Semitism and that many
more Jews migrated to other countries
than migrated to Israel while it was possible
to do so; this would suggest that ideological
motivations – such as those of Labor
Zionists – were more significant factors
in immigration to Israel than anti-
Semitism as, when given the choice, most
Jews did not act on any ideological motivations.
However, anti-Semitism has existed in Europe
for far longer than a millennium, or
even two, and yet no Jewish State came to
exist in Palestine until the mid-20 th Century.
In fact, no Jewish State successfully
came into existence anywhere, except the
(very special) Kingdom of Beta Israel in
Ethiopia, until the Jewish State of Israel;
there were some proposals, safe cities and
accidental Jewish Kings of ancient kingdoms,
but no ‘Jewish State’. It is ultimately
the case that the modern State of
Israel only came about due to a convergence
of many factors.
The Labor Zionists
were most
significant when
ensuring that
these factors actually
brought about
a Jewish State: ensuring
the British
left and facilitating the creation of a Jewish
State to – in part – replace it. Their work
relied upon the Political Zionists before
them and was aided strongly by the persistent
anti-Semitism across Europe, but
without the Labor Zionist ideology it
would have been distinctly less possible
for a Jewish State to be created.
Jacob, L6JRW

22 Individuals
Was Henry VII really the king who
created a new style of kingship?
In a period when the art of kingship was constantly evolving, responsibility rested upon the king who
wore the crown to innovate and modernise the role. Henry VII is widely considered to have brought a
new style of kingship to fruition, but was he really as pioneering as many people believe?
T
he traditional, even slightly teleological
argument goes like this.
Henry VII came to power and dramatically
began a dramatic change in the
way kings governed the land. No longer
would kings
“He relied on his own
central spies rather than
fickle nobles to provide
information”
repeatedly
go to war. Instead
they
would pursue
peace.
No longer
would kings
govern
through the nobility and parliament. Instead
they would have more direct control
over the realm.
Henry VII certainly did practice this type
of kingship. Previous medieval kings
such as Edward III and Henry V had
taken the decision to go on grand foreign
expeditions to France. Henry VII did not
pursue an interest in regaining lands from
France. He instead focussed on international
diplomacy, such as his 1496 trade
agreement with France. He also used foreign
diplomacy to bring about domestic
stability. Troublesome Margaret of Burgundy
was exiled in the Netherlands and
was aiding anti-Tudor activities in England.
Instead of going to war with the
Netherlands, he signed the Magnus Intercursus
in 1496, a trade alliance that led to
the Netherlands limiting her influence on
English affairs.
As a consequence of not having to go to
war, the King did not need to raise
money. This meant Henry VII became less
reliant on Parliament, which had made it
so much harder for previous kings to rule
effectively such as the Long Parliament
under Henry IV. Indeed, Henry VII only
called Parliament seven times throughout
his 24-year reign which gave him more
power.
His power was also strengthened by
the way he behaved towards the nobility.
He threatened them through
forced bonds which meant they would
not be rich enough to form great new
private armies which had made them
so powerful and problematic for previous
kings. He also relied on his own central
spies rather
than fickle
nobles to
provide information,
which was
exceedingly
useful, for instance
when
he used
scouts to find
out the plans
of the Cornish
rebels in
1497. Of
course, it
should be
noted that he
changed noble
relations,
but not entirely
in circumstances
of his own making. The
Henry VII

23
Wars of the Roses had significantly weakened
the nobility due to the great killings
that took place between noble families.
It is tempting to say that Henry was the
founder of this new
kingship. After all,
1485 marked the end
of the ‘Wars of the
Roses’ and brought a
new dynasty to the
throne. A new period
of history, the
Tudors, had begun and therefore surely
that’s where the new style of kingship begun.
New kingship, New England.
In fact, however, Henry VII had probably
drawn on Edward IV’s example of inform
his new monarchy. During his second
time on the throne, Edward IV had also
employed a similar style of kingship. He
had not fought foreign battles repeatedly.
Instead, he went to France with an army
“Henry VII shaped, crafted and
accentuated the new kingship”
began the use of spies, which he made
great use of in 1466 to capture Henry VI.
But maybe the original creator of this
kingship came from a man nearly a century
before Henry
VII’s reign. Richard
II was often seen as
an unsuccessful and
inept monarch who
was deposed in 1399.
Yet his style of kingship
was certainly
completely different to previous English
monarchs. He pursued peace with France,
which he achieved through his 1396 marriage
that gave him a 28-year truce and
£130 000. This made him less reliant on
Parliament which he took great pleasure
in not having to be dependent on anymore.
He most certainly tried to bully the
nobility. He forced the nobles to sign
away all their lands to him in the late
1390s and in 1397 killed three nobles who
had angered him ten years back. He
was trying to send a message to the nobility
which conveyed his strength
over them and his toughness against
them. While his bullying ultimately
backfired when Henry Bolingbroke,
who he had expelled and disinherited,
usurped him. But some aspects of his
strategy such as peace with France was
observed and acted upon by his successors
many years later.
Commemorative plaque
for Cornish Rebellion in but came back with a treaty in
Cornish and English, 1475 which gave him more
Blackheath Common money and one less threat. Rather
than relying on Parliament
for money to pay off the debts left by his
predecessors through taxation, he also relied
on forced gifts which made Parliament
less controlling. It was he who
Henry VII’s son, Henry VIII, would
build on his father’s legacy by breaking
with Rome, furthering the power
of the king – an incredibly significant
milestone in changes to kingship.
Henry VII certainly shaped, crafted
and accentuated the ‘new kingship’.
But it was not his creation entirely. Richard
II and, more importantly, Edward IV
were in fact significant players too in the
foundation of this new style of monarchy.
Sam OA

24 Individuals
Gauchito Gil: The Cowboy
Saint of Argentina
G
auchito Gil is an unofficial Catholic
Saint from Corrientes, Argentina.
Gauchito translates into ‘little
gaucho’ in English. The gaucho was
known to stand for the poor and good
luck and is therefore endorsed by countrymen
and the working class. He is both factual
and mythical with a variety of stories
emerging from his life.
The Gaucho, Antonio Mamerto Gil
Núñez, was born in 1847 and, due to Corrientes
bordering Paraguay, joined the
military to fight in the Paraguayan War
and escape a false allegation of robbery.
This war was fought from 1864-1870 between
the Triple Alliance (Uruguay, Argentina
and the Empire of Brazil) and Paraguay.
It is known today as the bloodiest
war in Latin American history, resulting
in the death of 90% of Paraguay’s male
population.
After the Paraguayan War, a political vacuum
emerged in Argentina. Civil war followed
and Gil was conscripted to fight for
the Federales against the Liberales. Sick of
bloodshed, Gil deserted the war and went
on the run.
From this point onward Gil became a
Robin Hood-like cowboy, stealing from
the rich and giving to the poor in exchange
for shelter from the authorities. It
was at this same point he began to become
a folk tale too. Some reported him as invincible
spirit immune to gunfire, others
told of him to have magical healing powers.
Many claimed to have witnessed him
in action, but one true story is renown.
On the 8th January 1878, Gauchito Gil was
captured, imprisoned and sentenced to
death. Whilst being transported to Gayo
to be executed, the
policeman escorting
him could not be
bothered to make
the long journey and
decided to execute
him under a phony
‘attempted escape’
charge. He strung
Gil up on an algarrobo
tree by the feet
and went to slit his
throat. Before the
policeman did so,
Gaucho said that the
policeman’s son was
A mural with a traditional
sick, and he should go home depiction of Gauchito Gil in
and tend to him. He then further
added that if he killed
a suburb of Rosario
him, the only way to heal his son would
be to bury his body properly and pray to
Gil. The policeman laughed in his face and
executed him. However, to the policeman’s
dismay, when he returned home, he
found his son sick and therefore carried
out the actions Gil told him to do. His son
miraculously healed the next day.
Whether this was a coincidence or a correlation,
no one really knows. However,
Gil’s life has promoted peace in a bloodstained
continent.
Today, 150,000 people gather on the 8 th
January each year to celebrate their saint
at Mercedes (his death place). Countrymen,
Gauchos and farmers can be seen
wearing crimson ponchos or stringing up
red cloth on the roadside as a symbol of
his bloody death in order to bring good
luck. Red shrines may also be seen with
the message “Gracias a Gauchito Gil” if a
prayer to him has been fulfilled.
Ben, L6JRW

Individuals
25
Marlene Dietrich: Re-defining modern
German culture and sexual liberalism in
the 20 th century
G
erman culture has undergone significant
shifts and developments
throughout the years, with the
most noteworthy periods of change being
the liberal Weimar Germany during the
inter-war years and also the decades that
came after the Second World War. The
theatre, cinema, cabaret and fashion were
the four areas that underwent the largest
change in Germany. Indeed, all of these
areas were underpinned by lurking notions
of sexual liberalism which were only
popularised thanks to one woman, Marlene
Dietrich. Not only did Dietrich become
Germany’s most famous cabaret star
and actress but, as an openly bisexual
women at a time before the idea of an
LGBT community even existed, she set
herself against traditional values through
her performances and her fashion not only
to taunt those values, but also to tempt the
world into an age consisting of political,
social and sexual freedoms.
In the theatre in the post-Second World
War period, new acting techniques and
different styles of performance began to
occur, such as street performances, which
allowed the public to be more involved in
theatre. Performances in general often reflected
politics and society, making the
theatre attractive to the public by bringing
both comedy and drama to the public political
sphere. Theatre acted as a mirror
held up to the audience to demonstrate
how their society and their politics were
conveyed. For example, bourgeois society
was heavily critiqued with very blunt acting
methods such as actors appearing on
stage sitting on the toilet. Alongside this,
cabaret developed as a more risqué form
of entertainment but, indeed, it is this sort
of debauchery that made it such an
enticing spectacle. For example, naked
dancing and nightclubs became very popular
and, by the
end of the 1930s,
Berlin rivalled
Paris as the cultural
capital of
Europe with
over 40 theatres
and many nightclubs.
Indeed,
the most famous
actress appearing
in such
nightclubs and
on such cinema
screens was
Marlene Dietrich.
Not only
was she a cultural
icon of
Weimar Germany,
but she
Dietrich in ‘The Blue Angel’
also transcended German
borders and was a star in Hollywood too,
where she became most famous. Marlene
can be admired not only for seeking to
challenge gender norms through her provocative
costumes, but also for being publicly
bisexual and for her work during the
Second World War against the Nazi regime.
Therefore, Marlene Dietrich must be
considered a cultural and global icon of
the 20 th Century as her impact on popular
culture can still be seen today.
During the 1920s, Marlene Dietrich
worked on the stage and in film in both
Berlin and Vienna playing roles in plays
such as Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew
and in films such as Tragedy of Love (1923)
where she met her future husband. However,
it is her performances in musicals
such as Broadway that attracted most

26
An example of lighting to
show off Dietrich’s features
in ‘Shanghai Express’
attention and eventually landed her her
breakthrough role of “Lola Lola” in the
film The Blue Angel (1930) in which she
played a cabaret singer. This shows that
Marlene Dietrich became a symbol of the
“Weimar Woman”, unafraid to flaunt her
sexuality and act steadfast
against the traditional
ideals of what a
German woman should
be. Throughout her acting
career she played a
cabaret singer several
times, such as in the
film Morocco (1930)
where she performs a
song dressed in a man’s
white tie and kisses another
woman. Indeed,
playing roles of cabaret
singers undoubtedly led
to her success in the
1950s-1970s when she
made a career move from film
actress to cabaret star in both
Germany and the United States, namely in
Las Vegas at the Sahara Hotel in 1953 and
1954, where she had the equivalent of the
modern-day Vegas “residency” which has
been performed by stars such as Britney
Spears, Mariah Carey and Cher. Although
cabaret and nightclubs were a large part
of Weimar culture in the 1920s, Marlene
did not seek to get involved in this particular
area of Weimar Germany until post-
World War Two as her acting career was
far more significant to her. However, this
also shows that, from very early on in her
career, Marlene opposed societal norms
and used her career to combat and challenge
what the perception of femininity
should be.
During the 1930s and under the repressive
Nazi regime, Dietrich moved to America
under a contract with Paramount Pictures,
which successfully marketed her as Germany’s
answer to Metro-Goldwyn-
Mayer’s Swedish film star, Greta Garbo.
Whilst it can be argued that Dietrich can
hardly be considered so important for
German culture given that she became
most famous during her time in the
United States, ultimately, she spent most
of her time in the US working with a German
film producer, Von Sternberg, and together
they produced films that were
banned by Nazi Germany. This clearly
shows that Dietrich, despite moving to the
United States, still had significant influence
in Germany given that Nazi leaders
saw her as enough of a threat to Nazi ideology
that they needed to ban her films
from the country. Indeed, Von Sternberg
used new filming techniques, lighting and
photographing Dietrich for optimum effect.
For example, in Shanghai Express
(1932) he used light and shadow for dramatic
effect by passing light through a veil
and slatted window blinds. This shows
that Dietrich, despite her new location,
was still making provocative films that
used new cinematic techniques to continue
to challenge the rigid German society.
Therefore, living in the USA had some
impact on her influence on German cinematic
culture as these
films did eventually
make it to Germany
after the Second
World War, despite
being initially
banned.
Politically, Dietrich
was strong-minded
and unafraid to voice
her convictions. During
the War, Dietrich
set up a fund to help
Jews escape from Germany.
Indeed, her entire
salary for Knight Without
Dietrich in a top hat and
tails
Armour (1937) of $450,000 was put towards
helping Jews escape and gain
American citizenship. This shows that
Dietrich was vehemently anti-Nazi and
also acted charitably. In 1939, Dietrich
went as far as renouncing her German citizenship.
This was the ultimate act of defiance
against the Nazi regime which also
set her against the German nation. This

27
became problematic when she returned to
Germany in the 1960s where she was
greeted with protests and people calling
for her to return to America as they felt
she had betrayed her homeland.
Dietrich performing in a
cabaret show
Furthermore, fashion was an
integral part of Marlene Dietrich’s life and
it is something for which she is most wellknown.
In an interview with the Observer
in 1960, Dietrich unexpectedly confessed
that fashion was no interest of hers by
stating that, “If I dressed for myself, I
wouldn’t bother at all.” Despite this, Dietrich
became a fashion icon of the 20 th
Century given that her image was constructed
both as a political stance and as a
fashion statement. After the war, Marlene
began her cabaret career and toured the
world, putting on ambitious and theatrical
one-woman shows which included songs
from her films as well as popular songs of
the time. Marlene performed her shows in
a variety of provocative costumes. For example,
she wore figure-hugging dresses
but also a top-hat and tails which allowed
her to sing songs usually reserved for
male singers only. Thus, the bold sexual
jibe behind her haute-couture genderswitching
was crafted to be both titillating
and subversive to her audiences. Alongside
flaunting her female sensuality, Marlene
sought to support and challenge conventional
gender roles. It is no secret that
Marlene was bisexual; she enjoyed the
thriving gay scene in Berlin and attended
many drag balls in the 1920s. She also
practiced boxing, which demonstrates yet
another attempt to enter masculine society.
This shows that Dietrich was the embodiment
of the liberties of Weimar
Germany because she challenged the
status quo in every way possible. One
critic wrote that “her masculinity appeals
to women and her sexuality to
men”. Therefore, it is clear that Marlene
used her fame to expose gender
norms and unashamedly confront
them head-on.
In conclusion, therefore, it is clear that
Marlene Dietrich was an international
and cultural icon of the 20 th Century,
not only for her career but for her active
defiance against the traditional
gender roles and repressive sexual ideals
of Nazi Germany. In other words, Dietrich
successfully popularised sexuality
and sexual liberalism, words undoubtedly
shunned and much less seen publicly before
1918 in Germany, through her gender-bending
outfits and participation in
the LGBT community. Politically, particulary
in war-time Germany, Dietrich’s association
with the debauchery of Weimar
Germany alongside her resistance against
the Nazi regime made her emblematic of a
free Germany and a persistent threat to
the Nazis. Marlene Dietrich remains culturally
significant today and her influence
on current popular culture stands unblemished.
Indeed, many people have impersonated
her, most famously on Season 9 of
the critically-acclaimed American reality
show, Ru Paul’s Drag Race, where drag
queen Sasha Valour portrayed her perfectly
in the “Snatch Game”. Therefore,
Marlene Dietrich must be considered one
of the most important figures of the modern
day as her life and career has had a
continuous and long-lasting impact on the
societies of many different nations, but
most notably she unequivocally re-defined
and modernised German culture in
the 20 th Century.
Finn, U6JQ

28 Individuals
The beliefs and ideas of
Shostakovich shown through
his music
B
orn in 1906 in St Petersburg,
the composer Shostakovich
studied the piano
from the age of nine and entered
the Russian Conservatoire aged 13
under the tuition of Alexander
Glazunov. Within 10 years, he had
produced his First Symphony, going
on to write 14 more as well as
15 string quartets, six concertos,
operas, ballets and other chamber
music.
Despite, in 1928, Stalin’s First Five-
Year-Plan greatly limiting Soviet
music style, Shostakovich was initially
not out of favour with Stalin.
Compositions were meant to be essentially
positive in nature or at
least ending victoriously to inspire
patriotism amongst Russians. In
1934, his avant-garde opera “Lady
Macbeth of the Mtsenk District”
premiered and, though popular
with audiences, it didn’t meet Stalin’s
requirements. In early January
1936, Stalin himself came to see
it. Eyewitnesses describe Shostakovich
as "white as a sheet" when he
went to take his bow after the third act.
The next day an article in the Pravda
newspaper denounced the work as a
“muddle instead of music”. It also hinted
that “things could end very badly” for
Shostakovich unless he followed the emotional
blueprint laid out by Stalin.
In 1936, he was denounced as “an enemy
of the people”; to associate with him was
potentially fatal. Indeed, during the ‘Great
Dmitri Shostakovich
Terror’, many of the composer’s
friends were imprisoned or killed,
including his mother-in-law Sofiya Mikhaylovna
Varza and musicologist friend
Nikolai Zhilyayev. Shostakovich lost commissions
and his income fell by about
75%. His Fourth Symphony was withdrawn
and “Lady Macbeth” was suppressed.
The anti-Shostakovich campaign
launched also acted as a warning to all
Russian artists with the writer Mikhail
Bulgakov, director Sergei Eisenstein, and

29
theatre director Vsevolod Meyerhold
among the main targets.
Shostakovich’s 1937 Fifth Symphony was
a response to his fall from grace, a more
conservative piece than his earlier works.
It premiered
“In 1936, he was denounced
as an enemy of the people;
to associate with him was
potentially fatal”
on 21st November
and
was a great
success.
Those critics,
who had once
accused him
of formalism,
claimed he had learnt from his previous
mistakes. The composer Dmitry Kabalevsky,
who had disassociated himself from
Shostakovich in 1936, congratulated Shostakovich
for "not having given in to the seductive
temptations of his previous 'erroneous'
ways."
is music about terror, slavery, and oppression
of the spirit. Later, when Shostakovich
got used to me and came to trust me,
he said openly that the Seventh (and the
Fifth as well) was not only about fascism
but about our country and generally about
all tyranny and totalitarianism.”
Additionally, Lev Lebedinsky, Soviet
music critic and friend of the
composer, confirms this idea, saying
“The famous theme in the first
movement Shostakovich had first
as the Stalin theme … Right after
the war started, the composer
called it the anti-Hitler theme. Later Shostakovich
referred to that theme as the
"theme of evil," which was absolutely true,
since the theme was just as much anti-Hitler
as it was anti-Stalin, even though the
world music community fixed on only the
first of the two definitions.”
During World War Two, Shostakovich
composed possibly his most acclaimed
piece - his Seventh Symphony, titled “Leningrad”.
Officially, it is claimed to be a
representation of the resistance
of the brave people
in Leningrad, in response to
the German invasion, a patriotic
composition. Though,
according to the Testimony
(the still-disputed memoirs
of Shostakovich by Volkov),
the composer stated that he
had “other enemies of humanity”
in mind when composing
the Symphonies
famed “invasion theme” for
his Seventh Symphony.
The daughter-in-law of
Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet
foreign minister before the
war, heard Shostakovich play the Seventh
Symphony privately on the piano in a private
home during the war: “And then
Shostakovich said meditatively: of course,
it's about fascism, but music, real music is
never literally tied to a theme … and this
Joseph Stalin
The invasion theme of itself is of great interest
when considering Shostakovich’s
beliefs surrounding Stalin and Hitler alike.
When Russia was attacked by Hitler, it
was an attack
of tremendous
military
power. Interestingly,
in the
symphony,
the invasion
theme begins
softly and
gradually
grows perhaps
confirming
the idea of
Stalin as the
force of evil.
Certainly, evidence
lends itself
towards
the simpler
view that it the symphony depicts the
German invasion: Shostakovich quotes the
song ‘Da geh’ ich zu Maxim’ from Hitler’s
favourite operetta “The Merry Widow”
and there are elements which resemble the

30
third bar of ‘Deutschland über Alles’. Ian
MacDonald comments on these allusions
posing that the theme is “superficially an
image of the Nazi invasion; more fundamentally
a satirical picture of Stalinist society
in the thirties."
On 2 nd September, the day the Germans
began bombarding the city, Shostakovich
began the Symphony’s second movement
and he completed
in within two
weeks. He then
played what he
had written so far
to a small group
of Leningrad musicians
and started
work of the third
movement which
he completed on
29 th September in
the city. Shostakovich
and his family
were then
evacuated to Moscow
on 1 October
1941. They moved
to Kuybyshev
(now Samara) on
22 nd October,
where the symphony
was finally
completed.
The symphony
was first premiered
by the Bolshoi Theatre orchestra in
Kuibyshev, though the most compelling
performance was the premiere in Leningrad
by the Radio Orchestra in the besieged
city. The orchestra had only 14 musicians
left, so the conductor Karl Eliasberg
had to recruit anyone who could
play an instrument to perform. Posters
were put up and orchestral players were
given extra rations to achieve an acceptably
sized orchestra. The concert was given
on 9 th August 1942, coincidentally (or perhaps
not so) the same day that Hitler had
chosen to celebrate the fall of Leningrad
with a banquet. Loudspeakers broadcast
the performance throughout the city as
well as to the German forces in a move of
psychological warfare. The Soviet commander
of the Leningrad front, General
Govorov, ordered a bombardment of German
artillery positions in advance to ensure
their silence during the performance
of the symphony- an operation code
named “Squall”.
Antiaircraft guns guarding
the sky of Leningrad, in
The political situation in Russia
can be seen through the
front of St Isaac’s Cathedral
musical compositions of Shostakovich, in
which his anti-Stalin, anti-Hitler and fascist
beliefs are clearly reflected: from his
defiant opera “Lady Macbeth of the
Mtsenk District” and the denunciation
that followed, through to the conservative
yet successful Fifth Symphony and his reemergence
as an acceptable composer, culminating
in the Seventh Symphony and its
performance in Leningrad in 1942.
Rosanna, L6AMG

32 Religion
Establishing and developing
religion in China
R
eligion and religious practices
have been present in Chinese culture
for almost 7000 years. Over
time, the beliefs and practices of the Chinese
people have changed drastically, ultimately
developing into the three main religions
present in the country today: Buddhism,
Confucianism and Taoism. In order
to understand how these three ideologies
developed into the complex and nuanced
religions of today, it’s important to
look at their origins, as well as the impact
that political changes in the country had
on both personal and organised faiths. Indeed,
in many ways, these religions have
been uniquely implemented in China,
which demonstrates that wider cultural
shifts have driven the way beliefs
have evolved throughout
the arduous turbulence of the
country’s history.
Evidently, the establishment of
organised religion in China took
place over many years. In fact,
originally, the concepts now
seen in popular religions were
born out of folklore or traditional
beliefs, which usually consisted
of the worship of nature
and concepts of wealth, rather
than that of any specific gods.
The core beliefs of Taoism are
still influenced by this idea, and
– while some modern-day Taoists
may worship gods in private
– the religion itself focuses more
on an unspecified universal
force, similar to the origins of faith itself.
The very first evidence of faith was dated
back to 5000-3000 BCE, in the Neolithic
Yangshao culture in northern China. It is
believed to be one of the earliest settled
cultures in the country and holds the
earliest evidence of religious practices.
During the 1921 excavation of Banpo village,
roughly 250 graves were uncovered,
facing east to west. The placement of these
graves is believed to represent a religious
belief in death and rebirth, meaning that
the society had a shared belief in some
sort of afterlife – this is further supported
by evidence of valuable ‘grave goods’ designed
for the deceased to take with them
to the next life. Further findings suggest
that this was a matriarchal society, as the
most valuable objects lay in the graves of
women, meaning they were the religious
leaders and held positions of power. This
links to an idea which was prevalent in
many of the early Asian religions, where
Banpo Village Tomb
feminine deities were worshipped,
as they were believed to be benevolent.
Conversely, masculine deities were often
regarded as malevolent. While these beliefs
have not necessarily continued into
modern-day religions, they do represent

33
the origins of a religious culture which
was rapidly developing. Scholars believe
that the establishment of religion was key
to cultivating prosperous societies and,
therefore, these early beliefs were integral
to the way society developed in the centuries
that followed.
However, it was not until the Shang dynasty
that the core beliefs really became defined.
During 1600-1046 BCE, common beliefs
became widespread across different
cultures and societies within the country.
Most notably, these included the worship
of ancestors and ghosts, who were believed
to hold power over the family.
Many Chinese wore amulets and jewellery,
to show honour to their ancestors
and bring their family tree good fortune.
To this day in China, Tomb Sweeping day
is celebrated, where families ensure that
their dead relatives
are happy in the afterlife.
The belief is
that, if the ancestors
don’t feel honoured,
they will return as
ghosts to haunt their
living relatives and,
therefore, it is of utmost importance that
each new child is taught respect and honour
for their past. Further to this, the
Shang dynasty saw the popularisation of
belief in gods, which were believed to be
the highest powers, and ancestors were
believed to have connections to the gods,
which is how they protected their family.
Shangti was the main god, believed to be
the most powerful. His role was to preside
over all important matters, such as law,
order, justice and life. He decreed how the
universe was run – similar to God in
Christianity and Judaism, or Allah in Islam.
Yet, unlike these three religions, early
Chinese beliefs worshipped over 200 gods,
who all had powers (though lesser than
Shangti) over various aspects of life. Many
of these gods find similarities in Hinduism,
perhaps the most famous of these
gods is the dragon, which has since become
synonymous with Chinese culture.
“Early beliefs were integral to
the way society developed in the
centuries that followed”
Dragon gods are regarded as protectors of
soldiers and kings, as well as looking over
the weather for crops. Therefore, in Chinese
culture, they are held in great esteem,
given the significant power they hold over
all areas of society. Other gods such as
Nuwa and Fuxi were responsible for the
wellbeing of humankind, inventing concepts
such as marriage, introducing fire
into civilisation and take care of their basic
needs. These gods were considered the
mother and father of human beings and
were generally called upon for protection
and nourishment. These gods were predominantly
called upon for protection or
good fortune, and often this was done so
through prayers to the ancestors – who
were said to have close contact with the
gods themselves. They were seen to be
key to the wellbeing both economically
and physically of a family, and therefore
these traditions
transcended generations.
Indeed, there were
other gods of the
early religions that
shared similarities
more with the gods of ancient Greece. Lei
Shen was the god of thunder, and legend
told that the rumble of thunder came from
him beating upon drums with a hammer.
He was believed to be an ill-tempered
man, who controlled storms. Lei Shen was
reputed to punish those who were wasteful,
and he would do so by killing them
with a lightning bolt. However, on the occasion
of wrongfully killing a woman
named Dian Mu, she was reincarnated as
the goddess of lightning, the idea being
that she would help guide Lei Shen, thus
avoiding the problem of innocent death.
This story was one of the earliest ways in
which the Chinese religions attempted to
explain the world around them; it is one
of the reasons that religion became so
popular – because it explains the phenomena
that ordinary people could not comprehend,
thus many sought refuge in the
comfort of spiritual understanding –

34
which is often the way popular religions
find followers.
perhaps the most notable common aspect
was the ‘hygiene schools’ which were installed
in most temples. These were places
where the religious could come to learn
how to take care of themselves and live a
Another important aspect of early Chinese
religions was the practices of worship and
the specific way in which these changed
over time. Even during the Shang dynasty,
there were many different variations
of religious practices, and different types
of services were held in different types of
temples. These temples were looked after
by monks, who – despite the origins of
Chinese religion suggesting the im-
Yuantong Temple – an ancient
Buddhist temple in Kunming, portance of women – were
Yunnan, China
always male. Indeed, as religion
became popular, it was
enforced that women had no spiritual authority
over men, and therefore they were
not entitled to any positions of power in
temples. This was one of few consistencies
across all types of spiritual worship, yet
healthy life. The idea of this was that temples
would provide not only spiritual but
a physical cleansing – to the extent that
some schools taught Tai Chi as a way to
prevent rapid ageing and immobility.
Other important elements included incense
and music which, though not uncommon,
were particularly important to
the image of religion, which was built up
even more by the extravagance of temple
architecture. These features of religion became
integrated into Chinese culture very
quickly and were the cornerstones to the
mixture of faiths across East Asia today.
However, over the course of the millennia

35
that followed, much of the origins of religion
would be lost to the politics and manipulation.
The politicisation of religion is certainly
not unique to China, but the numerous
changes that took place over
various dynasties and rulers are far
from coincidental, speaking to the
strong influence of politics on wider
society in the country. Indeed, similar
to the medieval concept of the
Divine Right of Kings, the Mandate
of Heaven was established during
the Zhou dynasty. This proclaimed
that the emperors were chosen directly
by Shanti, and he alone could
determine the length of their reign.
Many emperors employed this mandate
to justify their actions in a spiritual
context, which often created
unrest. However, it was believed
that if an emperor was not serving
his people, Shangti would remove
his power, which (for many citizens)
justified political actions. Shangti’s
mandate was also used to explain
rapid changing of regimes, since
none could question the god’s decisions.
Despite this politicisation, religions
blossomed during the first
half of the Zhou dynasty (referred to
as the Western Zhou), yet from 771-
226 BCE, philosophical development
began to challenge the established
belief systems and led to significant
unrest and complications. The ancient
beliefs were now exposed, as
new thinkers – such as Confucius –
began to introduce new ways of
thinking into society (for example,
criticising an overreliance on the supernatural,
in favour of taking more
personal responsibility for one’s actions).
Taoism different in that it
was based purely upon folk religion,
therefore Confucianism is seen to
have developed as a response to the
overly emotional nature of Taoism
and its flaws.
Further to this, religious practices saw significant
development during what is commonly
referred to as the Warring states
period. This was a time of particular unrest
for the Chinese political systems, as
Emperor Ming welcomed Buddhist
after the collapse of the
teachings into Chinese culture
Zhou dynasty, the states
fought for control of the country. This led

36
to a period of sustained chaos, in which
religious practices certainly suffered rapid
upheaval, as so often religion was controlled
by those in power. During this period
Confucians flourished, and became
widely popular. However, this was shortlived,
as the Qin dynasty managed to regain
power, and rapidly implemented
their new philosophy ‘Legalism’. This
maintained that all people were inherently
evil and
needed to
be controlled
to
avoid
self-interested
behaviour.
Therefore,
this
became a mandated philosophy as it was
the official ‘faith’ of the state – it was not
officially a religion, since religion had
been banned and all philosophical books
burned. The state implemented harsh penalties
and strict laws which were hugely
unpopular, yet they used the guise of religious
mandate to justify these laws. Fortunately,
the Han dynasty took power in 202
BCE, and quickly removed the policy of
Legalism in favour of Confucianism as the
state religion and once again became the
most popular religion. In spite of this
new-found stability, religious development
continued into the 1 st century CE,
where Buddhism arrived in China via the
Silk Road trading routes. Chinese Buddhism
was believed to have come from India,
and emperor Ming had wholeheartedly
welcomed its teachings into the culture.
In fact, it quickly became so integrated
that Buddha was considered a god,
and Buddhists even incorporated ancestor
worship into this religion. In fact, Buddhism
was quickly accepted as one of the
three major religions in the country and,
by the conclusion of the Tang dyna
sty, it appeared like religious stability had
finally been achieved.
“Religion today is regarded as a way of
maintaining psychological hygiene and
stability in Chinese society itself”
The legacy of early religious practices still
impacts the Chinese culture today – as
previously mentioned the dragon is perhaps
one of the most important symbols
and has become synonymous with the culture
itself, as well as events such as Chinese
New Year. This demonstrates that
the religions that form the basis of Chinese
culture do find many similarities with the
early folk religions, including the beliefs
in gods, in spite of the
added influences
(particularly in Buddhism)
of other Asian
countries. Today, Chinese
practices are still
hugely affected by the
legacy of religions origins.
Believing in ancestors,
ghosts and
gods are still an important part of Chinese
culture, and the concepts of family honour
are very prevalent in society. Ultimately,
religious practices can be divided into
three groups: Taoism, Confucianism and
Buddhism, which all reached the conclusion
of their establishment around the end
of the Tang dynasty. Since, the changes
that took place have developed the religions
to be adaptable for the modern Chinese
society, while still maintaining the
core beliefs which are most important to
faith.
From 1949 CE until the late 1970s, the People’s
Republic of China outlawed religion
completely; however, despite this, religious
practices still remained prominent
in private, albeit without access to temples
or churches. Indeed, religion today is regarded
much as it was during the Shang
dynasty, as a way of maintaining psychological
hygiene and stability in Chinese
society itself. Yet, while in China religion
remains a highly important belief system,
the country is far from defined by its religion,
and – perhaps akin to the role of language
or food – the religion is as much a
part of the overall culture itself.
Georgie

Religion
37
The Infancy of
Christian England
E
ven though Christianity appears to have been the inevitable victor of its conquest of
the Indo-European world, the fact remains that along the way it has seen many defeats
at the hands of other ideologies. Christianity was first introduced to the world
as a concept during the peak and decline of Roman influence and has eventually become the
world’s largest religion. In Britain, it saw ebbs and flows throughout the first thousand years
of the Anno Domini period with a particularly notable nadir around the time of the decline
of the Roman Empire. Later on it would see a reawakening after a short recess in Christian
thinking, that would drive a resurgence of Christian ideals whilst eventually the whole saga
cumulates in a rigid dichotomy between different religious thought, the outcome of which
was pivotal in determining the primary religious outlook of England.
Roman foster home
In the beginning, for this purpose around
First Century AD, when the people of Britain
were Celts, there was a strange fusion
of Druidism with other religions. Druid
intellectuals and thinkers were an elite
group who became prominent figures
in first century society. They
had sizeable influence over the
general population and some of
their beliefs became remarkably
widespread and have lasted up
until the modern age - for example,
Halloween which was the
ancient Celtic feast of Samhain.
To celebrate this event, Celts
built huge bonfires where they
gathered to sacrifice crops and
animals to their Gods, as
well as costumes, to ward
off metaphysical beings that
would see them harmed.
Notably, the Celts were
Polytheistic, meaning they
had more than one God,
as too were the Romans.
When the Romans then invaded
Britain during the
reign of Emperor Claudius in May AD43,
bringing their own Gods,
Britannia became a Roman
province. The Celts, like
the Romans were, at
this point in time,
polytheistic. Subsequently,
many
of the so-called
Roman Gods
originate
from both
the Ancient
Greek civilisation
and
the Etruscan
civilisation
in an apparent
fusion
of
ideas.
This is
generally
agreed
to be
1832 illustration depicting Druids preparing a wickerwork filled
with live humans to be burned as a sacrifice
because
religious

38
individuals, who believe that different
gods have different powers, can often
agree that either their gods are not the
only gods with power, or that two groups
of society may worship the same gods under
different names. In fact, there is evidence
to show that despite the Roman displeasure
with some Druid practices, for
example human sacrifice, they were remarkably
tolerant
of the Druids. This
can also be said for
the whole of the
Roman Empire,
where the Druids
and other religious
trends that were
spreading, for example
Mithraism,
were almost always
tolerated.
Notably, the Romans
had soldiers
fighting in their
army from across
their empire who
were followers of
many religions,
and their empire
provided trade opportunities
that
brought tradesmen
and immigrants
with it that otherwise
would not
have come to the
island with their
own ideas, beliefs,
and ideologies.
Thus, the Roman
occupation was instrumental
in bringing foreign ideas into
Britain and can be credited with initially
bringing Christianity to our Island.
Christians were widely unpopular across
the Roman Empire for three main reasons.
One of these was because of their monotheistic
views. They refused to take part in
Animal or crop sacrifice and engage in
minimal levels of worship of other gods,
which was expected of those living in the
Roman Empire. Resultantly, they were rejected
by Roman Civilisation, and were
seen as outcasts by other citizens. Secondly,
they were a small group in comparison
to their Jewish counterparts, who
during the early years of the AD period
begun a series of revolts against the Roman
rulers. This particularly angered emperor
Nero who
then after the
Great Fire of Rome
of July AD64,
blamed the Christian
community of
Rome for starting
the fire. This led to
all Christians being
exiled from the
Empire and the
ones that remained
being persecuted
through the forms
of torture and execution.
This persecution
came to an
end between
AD312 when the
Emperor Constantine
converted to
Christianity, and
AD313 where Constantine
and Emperor
Licinius who
controlled the Balkans
agreed the
Edict of Milan,
which gave Christians
a legal status.
Notably, it was
Saint Alban
during this period,
that our Saint, Alban,
was killed after returning from
fighting in the Roman Army for refusing
to renounce his newfound Christian faith
after being caught harbouring a Christian
preacher with whom he had travelled.
Not only was Alban the first saint from
Briton, but his story is testament to the
reach of the Empire in terms of spread of
ideas and philosophies. The sheer size of

39
the Empire and its armies eventually
bought the very religion the Empire originally
abhorred to British shores. Despite
Christians being persecuted during a large
amount of this period, it is the tolerance of
the Roman Empire in the later part of this
period that drew a level of acceptance of
monotheistic religions that would otherwise
imaginably have evolved slower.
Thus, Rome was an undeniable foster parent
of Christian Britain, and it was during
the period after the early 4th century,
when Christians gained legal status, that
Christianity really began to take hold at a
grass roots level. It was during this time
that Britannia became a predominantly
Christian area for the first time. So much
so that we had begun to see our first
Christian intellectuals rise out from the
masses. One example is a man named
Pelagius, a theologist who advocated the
concepts of free
will and asceticism
and became
popular enough
that Rome issued
a statement denouncing
his
teachings. However,
this newfound
Christianity
was not to
last, as at the start
of the 5th century
(410AD) the Roman
legions evacuated
Britain in
order to protect
their own lands
closer to Rome
from persistent
Barbarian raids.
Despite the impact
that Rome
had on the religious feeling in
Britain, and particularly on the Celts who
in strong numbers had become Christian,
this was not to last.
Orphaned
After the last Roman Legion left Briton in
AD410, Pagan tribes began settling in the
northern territories and some of the southernmost
areas. Overtime, this forced the
Celts, who were at this time known as the
Britons, into areas such as Cornwall,
Wales, and Scotland, and this created the
foundations of an Anglo-Saxon region.
These Pagan tribes introduced a new religious
demographic back into Britain.
Notably, the term Pagan did not originally
have religious connotations, but became
the name for people with polytheistic
views in the late Roman period. It came
from the Latin word Paganus meaning village
or district. This word that can also be
pronounced Pagus is Pays in French
meaning country or countryside. The etymology
of this word is significant as it
shows us how Christianity
primarily existed
in towns where information
and preaching
was available, along
with the first churches
and minsters. Pagan
therefore became the
term for a Non-monotheist
or polytheist and
was first used around
the fourth century.
Pointedly, the invasion
of Germanic peoples
such as the Danes or the
Norse drove religious
and geographic divisions
between the Christian
Britons and the new
pagan Anglo-Saxons
that knocked Christianity
from its pedestal as
the primary religion in
Saint Augustine of Canterbury Britain for a great number
of years. Although, as
the existence of the modern-day church
proves, this was not the end of Christianity
for the people of this island.

40
This said, it took until AD597 for the seed
of Christianity to find new soils (within
Anglo-Saxon lands) that were fertile
enough to foster its growth a second time.
This it found within the Anglo-Saxon Aristocracy.
A group of monks lead by a man called
Augustine arrived in Britain from Rome
sent by Pope Gregory I. Their aim was to
convert the Kentish king AEthelbert to
Christianity. Kent was probably chosen as
AEthelbert had a Christian Queen with
European connections and, as a result,
was the most pliable to this concept of
Christianity, which had survived on
the continent after the fall of Rome. After
succeeding in converting AEthelbert
and having him baptised, Augustine
then became the first Archbishop
of Canterbury and begun the process
of dividing Britain up into Parishes,
building Minsters, and founding the
first monastery in Canterbury in
AD598. By AD1100, there would be
around 6000 local churches, and
around 600 monastic communities.
founded the first monastery in Canterbury,
then you would find Christian worshippers
and pilgrims mourning en masse
at the death of their Christian Monarch.
This man was King Alfred the Great. He
was instrumental in creating an English
identity, defeating a Viking invasion and,
most significantly, ensuring the survival
of Christianity in Britain. This huge body
of Christians in one town is testament not
only to the success of Augustines system
but also to Alfred success as a monarch.
It is almost definitely true to say that
the impact that Augustine had was
widespread across the Island. The system
of building Minsters as missionary
outposts across the island was widely
accepted by Aristocrats and was also a
massive success. This is partly down to
the charitable actions that the church
undertook, and partly because of the
sheer number of people it gave the
church access too. Whilst I cannot stipulate
as to the events that may have occurred
should Augustine have never
arrived in Kent, it is imaginable that it
may well have taken a great many
more years for Christianity to gain another
footing on the Island.
Adoptive father – Alfred the Great
If you were to be in Wessex, or more specifically
Winchester (Wintanceaster in old
English) 301 years after Augustine
To understand this, one must first
understand a little about the geo-political
situation at the time.
Alfred the Great

41
England at this time was divided into
roughly five nations: Wessex (which Alfred
had come to inherit in 871), Mercia
(led by a man named king Ceowulf II),
East Anglia, Northumbria, and Kent. At
this point in time Northumbria was the
cultural hub of Britain and was the centre
of learning. The venerable Bede (author of
the Ecclesiastical History of the British
people) hailed from here along with many
other powerful Ealdorman and religious
figures such as the Saint Cuthburt. Crucially,
the ruler of Wessex, which in 871
becomes Alfred, is not the ruler of the
whole peninsula. Furthermore, the five
nations at the start of this period have
both Pagan and Christian cohorts living
within them.
When Alfred came to power in AD871 he
inherited a powerful Wessex with strong
economic ties with its neighbouring Mercia.
N.B. It was previously believed that
the Mercians and particularly their king
Battle of Edington
had been overshadowed by a more
powerful Alfred, but a treasure
trove of Anglo-Saxon coins depicting both
Ceowulf and Alfred were found suggesting
that later hostilities led to Wessex
seeking to erase this union from their
scriptures and history.
However, this Wessex was not to last as a
huge Danish invasion of East Anglia had
landed just before Alfred came to power.
Whilst there had been attacks on the country
before, with an attack on the Wessex
capitol Winchester in AD850, there had
not in living memory been an invasion
force that had intended to capture land
and settle there. Thus, the integrity of the
Christian population was preserved from
the infiltration of Pagan settlers.
It was in the year AD865 that the nature of
small attacks changed to a large invasion
on the east coast in East Anglia. Brothers,
Ivar the Boneless, Ubba the Frisian, Guthrum,
and a man named Halfdan brought a
huge Viking scourge with them from Denmark
to conquer Anglo-Saxon lands.
Guthrum declared himself the new king
of East Anglia and his brother Halfdan declared
himself king of Northumbria, and a
laborious campaign into Mercia began. By
877 almost the whole of Anglo-Saxony
had been defeated
with the exception
of Wessex who
paid Halfdan and
his men to leave
their lands. British
Christendom was
now threatened
once again by pagan
settlers. Not
only was the purse
of Wessex weakened
from paying
the Vikings for a
temporary truce,
but any hope of a
joint battle with
their allied armies
had collapsed with
Mercia. Notably
also, the collapse of
Northumbria and the way in which
churches across the island had been sullied,
including in Wessex, had landed a
significant blow to the church and had essentially
robbed them of their land and influence.

42
This brings us to the 6 th of January 878
when Alfred was forcibly removed from
power by a surprise invasion at Chippenham
and went into hiding in the Somerset
marshes. During this time, Alfred called
upon his lords to raise their armies and to
fight with him under the Christian banner
of Wessex at what became the infamous
Battle of Edington. Here Alfred won such
a victory that the Danish armies agreed to
split Mercia in two and have a north easterly
Danish country called “Danelaw” and
have a strong Wessex in the south west.
Most notably though, the terms of this
agreement signed at Wedmore/Chippenham
included Guthrum (at this time believed
to be the most powerful of his
brothers) being baptised and having Alfred
accept him as his adoptive son. It was
this conversion of Guthrum (who then became
Christian king AEthelstan by name)
to Christianity that would reinvigorate the
processes kicked into motion by Augustine
300 years prior. This treaty ensured
that across the area that would become
England, Christians were both free to
travel and preach in an environment
where they were not persecuted by anyone.
Furthermore, the way that Alfred dealt
with the aftermath of the crisis, and the
destruction of monasteries and churches
across the country was incredibly important
in preserving England as a Christian
country. Within his own territories
Alfred created a system of Buhrs or fortifications
around settlements that would
prevent from future Viking raids and lootings.
As mentioned earlier in the article,
towns and cities were where Christianity
had taken hold and thus the word pagan
developed for rural peoples who were
polytheistic. Thus, the creation of fortified
Burhs around major towns and cities ensured
the survival of Christianity in Anglo-Saxony.
Alfred ensured in his treaty
that his missionaries could be sent to Minsters
across Danelaw, and where they had
been destroyed, he rebuilt them with the
help of his newly baptised counterpart
AEthelstan. This was important in ensuring
the survival of a Christian Kingdom,
which under Alfred’s son, Edward the Elder,
and his grandson, also named AEthelstan,
would be unified and become England.
Adulthood?
Since then, a lot has changed within the
internal structures of the Church. Events
set in motion by the invasion of William
the Conqueror in 1066 would eventually
lead to a disconnection from the Church
felt by the average man or woman. This
religious extravagance would then become
the justification of a tyrannous Monarch
450 years later for transitioning the
Church into a new Protestant Church.
However, since those Christian mourners
wept on the roads of Winchester, they,
and their descendants, have remained
part of a Christian nation.
Firstly, the Roman empire laid the foundation
of Christian ideals such as monotheism
and a degree of tolerance that were
important in sowing the seeds of Christianity
amongst the Anglo-Saxon masses, as
well as providing the political context
through which to normalise it elsewhere
and provide footings that would last long
into the future. Secondly, the arrival of
Augustine at the end of the 6 th century
was incredibly important in developing
the first system of worship on our Island.
Augustine’s systems incredible success is,
in my mind at the very least, creditable
with ensuring that Christianity could recapture
the hearts and minds of the Anglo-Saxons
and the Britons. Finally, Alfred
provided a strong Christian leader that
was crucial in preserving the influence of
the church on our island. Thus, the Christian
vagabond found a home within England
as the result of an empire, a small
group of monks and a single Christian
king.
Sam, L6JPD

Religion
43
How did the Islamic Golden
Age help develop modern day
science?
T
he Islamic Golden Age was a period
of significant advancement in
subjects including mathematics,
law, science and economics, fuelled by the
Islamic desire for knowledge. It is widely
agreed that the period began during the
reign of Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid
(786 – 809) and concluded with the fall of
the Abbasid Caliphate in 1258 (The caliph
was seen as the religious leader of all
Muslims and successor to Prophet Muhammad
‏(ﷺ . Therefore, it lasted from the
8 th century to the 13 th , however some
small advancements were said to be made
in the 14 th century.
When the Abbasids came into power, they
moved the capital to the newly constructed
city of Baghdad. It was here
where al-Rashid and his son al-Ma’mun
established a House of Wisdom, where famous
Jewish and Christian scholars were
invited to collaborate with their Islamic
equivalents. It was also the centre of the
Translation Movement, the translation of
Greek, Persian, Chinese and Roman educational
texts into Arabic. Inspired by
verses from the Quran and hadiths - sayings
of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ - that
emphasised the value of knowledge and
understanding, the Abbasids and other Islamic
leaders heavily funded the work of
ﷺ their scholars. In particular, the Prophet
placed intense emphasis on medical research
ensuring that his people “Make use
of medical treatment, for Allah has not
made a disease without appointing a remedy
for it, with the exception of one disease:
old age.” With the language of Arabic
unifying scholars and the Islamic
Empire stretching from the Iberian Peninsula
to Central Asia and the Arabic improvements
of Chinese paper printing, Islamic
scholars found it much easier to
communicate and share their ideas.
One of the most notable Islamic scholars
to operate in the field of medicine was Ibn
Sina. Already a doctor at the age of 18, Ibn
Scholars at the Abbasid Library
Sina went on to publish one
of the most famous medical
pieces of all time – Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb (The
Canon of Medicine.) Originally published in
1025, the encyclopaedia harmonised all
Greek, Persian and Indian medical
knowledge as well as Ibn Sina’s own work

44
– including explanations on contagious
diseases and a detailed description on the
anatomy of the eye. The Canon became the
standard medical textbook in both the Islamic
world and Europe for the next six
centuries. Ibn Sina’s remarkable achievement
ensured
that European
medics continued
to study
the Canon of
Medicine until
the 18 th century.
Known in the
west as Rhazes,
Abu Bakr Muhammad
Ibn
Zakariyya al-
Razi was to become
regarded
as the greatest
physician in
the medieval
world. He
helped bring
about the
emergence of
chemistry as an experimental science built
on precise and accurate observation. One
of al-Razi’s greatest accomplishments in
the subject of chemistry was the classification
scheme that he developed. His system
was illustrated in his Kitab al-Asrar (Book of
Secrets) where he classified substances into
four groups: animal, vegetable, mineral
and products of the other three groups.
He was one of the very first chemists to
use experimental observation to provide
evidence and explanation for his ideas.
For example, his minerals were distinguished
into six categories according to
their different chemical properties: spirits
were flammable, metals were shiny and
malleable, and salts dissolved in water.
Al-Razi’s use of experimental observation
to categorize different substances allowed
his own classification system to be seen as
an early predecessor to the modern-day
periodic table – developed in 1897.
Anatomy of the eye in al-Haytham’s Book of Optics
Along with al-Razi, Ibn al-Haytham used
experiments to demonstrate his theories.
His greatest work Kitab al-Manathir (Book
of Optics) – which in itself contained the
oldest drawing of the nervous system –
significantly advanced the scientific field
of optics. Before Ibn al-Haytham,
there were two different
theories of vision, both originating
from the Greeks. One was
the emission theory, believed by
Euclid and Ptolemy, where light
was emitted by the eye – in
straight eyes like a cone - to illuminate
objects. A more reasonable
view was held by Aristotle
where objects emit their essence
which is then captured by the
eye. Ibn al-Haytham’s theory to
help explain how vision works
consisted of both. He argued
that rays of light enter the eye
after being reflected from the
object, applying principals of geometry
on straight lines, and became
the first to demonstrate
that the light is processed by
the brain. Ibn Haytham’s idea
became the widely accepted
model for vision even until today. In his
Optics, he continued to use experiments to
justify his theory providing clear and accurate
evidence. Ibn al-Haytham’s development
paved the way for modern optics
and ensured that later scientists like Isaac
Newton and Johannes Kepler were able to
make the significant accomplishments that
they did.
Al-Razi’s and Ibn al-Haytham’s implementation
of experimental observation
unintentionally, but significantly, helped
advance the concept that a theory must be
supported by experiments of mathematical
evidence – resulting in the formation
of the scientific method.
The Islamic golden age was not isolated to
the Abbasids in Baghdad. Advancements
were made in other cities such as the
Umayyad controlled Cordoba. For

45
example, Ibn al-Nafis was the first to discover
the pulmonary and coronary circulatory
system. In 711, originating from
North Africa, the Umayyads invaded
southern Spain – an area called Andalusia.
The Umayyads eventually took control of
the majority of modern-day Portugal,
Spain and some of southern France, forming
the civilisation of Al-Andalus. Despite
a strong Islamic presence in Al-Andalus
already established, it was only until 929
that the golden age of Al-Andalus is said
to have begun. 929 was the year in which
Abd al-Rahman III came into power. During
his reign, Al-Rahman united Spain
and founded the great palace city of Medina
al-Zahra – seen as the medieval
equivalent of modern-day Versailles. In an
attempt to rival the Abbasid caliphate in
Baghdad, al-Rahman proclaimed himself
caliph – establishing the Caliphate of Córdoba.
Abd al-Rahman wanted to further
cement Córdoba - a city already considered
the most prosperous and cultured in
Europe - as a rival to Baghdad and its
prestigious scholarly works and scientific
advances, similar to Abbasid caliphs, like
al-Rashid, attempts to elevate Baghdad.
However, it was al-Rahman’s son, al-Hakim
II who would contribute more to his
father’s aspiration. Sharing the same desire
for knowledge as the great Abbasid
caliph, al-Mamun, al-Hakim similarly invested
heavily in the translation of many
ancient texts and widely encouraged wellknown
scholars to study in his court at
Córdoba.
Amongst al-Hakim’s greatest scholars was
the most famous surgeon in medieval
world and considered to be the father of
surgery, Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi. Practicing
in al-Zahra, from where his name is
derived, al-Zahrawi contributed hugely to
the medical world. He invented more than
200 new surgical instruments that are still
in use today (such as the forceps used in
childbirth) including: the surgical hook,
the use of catgut for stitching patients, the
speculum, the surgical needle, the syringe,
retractors and the lithotomy scalpel. He
also made advancements in dentistry and
neurology. Majority of his innovations
were written in his most famous text, Kitab
al-Tasrif (The method of medicine.) Published
in 1000, his thirty volumes discuss areas
such as nutrition, pharmacology but most
importantly surgery. His detailed anatomical
descriptions ensured that like Ibn
Sina’s Canon, his encyclopaedia would
serve as a source of European medical
knowledge for five centuries. However,
the difference with al-Zahrawi’s Kitab al-
Tasrif is that he provides a detailed account
of the life as an Islamic surgeon
providing a reference for all future doctors
and surgeons. Al-Zahrawi pioneered the
implementation of anaesthesia through
the use of sponges soaked in a mixture of
narcotics including cannabis and opium.
One of al-Zahrawi’s contemporaries, who
contributed largely to
modern anaesthesia, was
Ibn Zuhr. Ibn Zuhr was
one of the first to perform
dissections and post-mortem
autopsy on human
bodies. He promoted the
idea of performing experimental
surgery on animals
to further human understanding.
Ibn Zuhr invented
the procedure of
tracheotomy and perfected
it by performing on goatsbringing
about the era of
experimental surgery. He
gave accurate descriptions
of mental disorders and
formulated the medicine Page from a 1531 Latin translation
for these kinds of diseases;
therefore, he is
of al-Zahrawi’s Kitab al-Tasrif
credited for the contribution to modern
neuropharmacology. Ibn Zuhr was one of
the first physicians who tried to establish
surgery as an independent field of medicine
and suggested training courses meant
especially for future surgeons – a suggestion
not too far from the principles of
modern-day medical school.

46
In Islam, waqf is a donation of one’s
wealth to Allah. Funded by these waqf,
public hospitals treated the sick, provided
Illustration of alshelter
for the elderly and housed the
Mansuri hospital
mentally ill. Part of the state budget
was also used to help maintain the
hospitals. Hospitals were also forbidden
by law to refuse people who were incapable
of paying - thereby creating a free
health service similar to a modern-day
NHS. In some cities, there were even hospitals
set up solely for the purpose of
emergencies - resembling an A&E. The
first Islamic hospital was built in 805 in
Baghdad by Harun al-Rashid. By the tenth
century, Baghdad contained 5 more hospitals,
Damascus had six hospitals by the
15 th century and Córdoba had 50 major
hospitals. Seen as the best early Islamic
hospitals, the great Syro-Egyptian establishments
of the 12th and 13th centuries
were home to the best known hospital in
the Islamic world - Al-Mansuri Hospital,
built in Cairo by the sultan Qalawun in
1285 – and Aleppo’s Arghun hospital –
known mostly for its treatment of the
mentally ill. Hospitals were divided into
numerous departments; cleaning staff,
pharmacists and universities were also
typically connected directly to hospitals.
Medical students were also allowed to
shadow physicians and participate in patient
care.
The Islamic Golden Age also made significant
contributions to the field of pharmacology.
A pharmacist was called saydalani
and introduced new drugs including
sandalwood, camphor, senna, rhubarb,
myrrh, nutmeg, mercury and
coconut. As private pharmacy stores
became more numerous and prominent,
they also became less unregulated.
Decrees by the Caliphs al-
Ma’mun and al-Mutasim required
pharmacists to pass examinations
and hold legal paperwork to allow
them to practice the profession.
Pharmacies were also periodically inspected
by government inspectors,
known as muhtasib. As well as his
Canon of Medicine, Ibn Sian also developed
rules for the testing of drugs
and medication, that are still used in
modern day drug testing.
In conclusion, we can see that the Islamic
Golden Age significantly advanced modern-day
science. The innovations of Ibn
Zakariyya al-Razi and Ibn al-Haytham in
experimental observation ensured that future
scientists had a template to allow
them to prove their theories. Ibn al-Haytham
revolutionised the field of optics and
his theory allowed other scientists to make
significant advancements in optics. Books
written by Islamic scholars in the Islamic
Golden Age, such as Canon by Ibn Sina
and Kitab al-Tasrif by al-Zahrawi, provided
a source of medical information for
European doctors and surgeons. The Islamic
improvements of hospitals and
pharmacies created a foundation to allow
other scientists to develop more efficient
and hygienic facilities. However, all these
advances would not have been possible
unless the early Abbasid caliphs had use
teachings from Prophet Muhammad
ﷺ and the Quran promoting knowledge – in
particularly science – as motivation for
their actions.
Taha, 4.4

Religion
47
Putney Debates – October 1647
I
n a small ordinary Church, St Mary’s
at Putney, on the North bank of the
Thames about 6 miles out of London,
a series of debates took place in October
1647 which would profoundly influence
the development of ideas in Britain and
across the world for centuries to come. In
those debates, ideas were articulated
which, whilst sounding commonplace today,
were then radical and extraordinary.
By the summer of 1647, the Roundheads
were winning the English civil war. At
Marston Moor and Naseby, Oliver Cromwell's
New Model Army had crushed the
Cavaliers and King Charles I himself was
a prisoner. The
Civil War had
been brutal and
bloody – proportionally,
the
death toll was
greater than the
First and Second
World Wars
combined. But
the approaching
end of the war
fostered a new
fear among ordinary
soldiers - t
hat Parliament
and the army
generals (or
"grandees") were
preparing to sell
them out. Some
MPs, fearing the
army and keen for a settlement with the
King, wanted to cut soldiers' pay, disband
regiments, refuse indemnity for war damage
and pack them off to Ireland. In many
regiments, ‘agitators’ sprang up who f
ought back against these proposals - "We
were not a mere mercenary army hired to
serve any arbitrary power of a state, but
called forth ... to the defence of the
people's just right and liberties," said agitator
pamphlets circulating in the Summer
of 1647. For the first time, those who and
fought and suffered in a struggle demanded
some kind of recompense –
maybe political, maybe financial. The
sense that the elite would settle back into
the cosy status quo which had been preserved
through blood and toil was a powerful
theme of the pamphlets and petitions
which flooded the Army in the summer of
1647.
The grievances of the soldiers were taken
up by groups of radical thinkers, known
as Levellers, both inside and outside the
Army. Originally coming out of
churches in London in the mid-
1640s, the Levellers are often considered
to be the first “communists", declaring
that all degrees of men should be “levelled,
and an equality should be established".
Identified by their green scarves
and ribbons, the Levellers put forward a
post war manifesto entitled the
Battle of Edgehill,
October 1642

48
The Putney Debates
“Agreement of the
People.” This called for voting rights for
all adult males, annual elections, religious
freedom, an end to censorship, the abolition
of the
monarchy and the House of Lords and the
end of trial by jury. Two really radical
ideas stand out from this document.
Firstly, there should religious freedom
and toleration. "The ways of God's
worship are not at all
entrusted by us to
any human power" it
declared – if religious
faith was a matter of
conscience and conscience
was derived
from God, how could
the state interfere?
The concept that religious
liberty and,
therefore, diversity
should be permitted
was a forerunner to
political discourse
and debate itself.
Secondly, that it was
the people who were
sovereign- the very
title suggested that
rule can only be legitimate
with the consent
of the people.
“The Agreement of
the People” was a response
to "The Heads
of the Proposals",
which the army leaders
such as Cromwell
and Ireton had submitted
to the king. In
some ways a radical
document, it called
for biennial Parliaments
and parliamentary
control of
the King’s ministers –
but nevertheless constituted
a more moderate
peace settlement
with the King,
maintaining political
influence in the hand of the elite.
And so, when the debate on the future of
the governance of England began at St
Mary’s in Putney in October 1647, the two
sides were set. With Oliver Cromwell in
the chair, it proved to be one of the ‘greatest
intellectual encounters in western political
thought’. Even better, thanks to the

49
shorthand notes of the army secretary,
William Clarke, we get to hear their political
theory. On the second day, the debate
focused on the question of the franchise:
Who had the right to vote? For the Levellers
and
radicals,
there was
only one
answer:
everyone
under a
government
should have the right to elect it.
During the course of this debate, Thomas
Rainsborough, the highest ranked Leveller
sympathiser on the Army Council, put
forward this position: "I think that the
poorest he that is in England hath a life to
live, as the greatest he," "and therefore ...
every man that is to live under a government
ought first, by his own consent, to
put himself under that government;
and I do think that the poorest
man in England is not at all
bound in a strict sense to that government
that he hath not had a
voice to put himself under." The
other side of the debate – led by
the wealthy Army generals, such
as Cromwell
and Fairfax - argued that such an
approach would lead to ‘anarchy’
and ‘confusion’. Instead, Cromwell's
son-in-law, Henry Ireton,
proposed that the franchise be limited
to those with a "fixed local interest"
(in other words, the rich
with property). For Rainsborough,
such a solution was a betrayal of
everything they had fought for in
the Civil war - "I would fain know
“The debates that began at
Putney pioneered the ideas of a
liberal democratic settlement”
what we have fought for… this is
the old law that enslaves the people
of England - that they should be
bound by laws in which they have no
voice at all!"
In the end, a compromise was discussed.
We should always remember there are
definite limits to arguments put forward
at Putney – we should not romanticise the
debate or see modern ideas of ‘democracy’
being espoused there. Because what happened
at Putney was a pragmatic discussion
about the limits and practical applications
of democracy – who
should vote would not include
women nor those who received
wages (about a third of
men) as they were ‘servants’ of
the elite and therefore corruptible.
The Putney debates came to an abrupt end
in November 1647 when the King escaped
from custody and the Civil War resumed.
In the immediate aftermath, the ideas expressed
at Putney had little traction – a
military dictatorship followed quickly after
the execution of the King. Yet the debates
that began at Putney pioneered the
ideas of a liberal democratic settlement.
As Historian
Geoffrey Robertson
asserts:
"From its first
ascendancy
here at St
Mary's, there
may be traced
the acceptance
- centuries later
in the Universal
Declaration
of Human
Rights and
now in twothirds
of the
nations of the
world - of the
idea that government
requires
the consent
of freely
and fairly
elected representatives of all adult citizens,
irrespective of class or caste or status
or wealth.”
Church of St. Mary the Virgin, where the
Putney Debates were held
Alison Gregory

50 Religion
The origins of laïcité in the
French Revolution
O
n the 15 th April 2019, a devastating
fire broke out in the Notre-
Dame Cathedral of Paris. Luckily,
there was little structural damage
aside from the roof and spire. Then followed
the flood of donations
which sought to
fund the reconstruction
of the Cathedral, which
highlighted its importance
in modern
French culture. President
Emmanuel Macron made
firm commitments to rebuild the Cathedral
in the next few years and led tributes
to the perceived French cultural icon. This
seemed to contrast with the highly secular
relationship the French state has had with
contains three main principles: the strict
separation of Church and state, freedom
to practice any religion and freedom of
conscience. The origins of laïcité can be
traced back to the French Revolution,
which began
“When the revolution began in
1789, Catholicism was the official
state religion of France”
116 years before
the formalisation
of
secularism in
France.
When the
revolution began in 1789, Catholicism was
the official state religion of France, with
almost all of her 28 million inhabitants
being Catholic. There was an intolerance
towards minority religions, with
Protestant and Jewish minorities
being denied access to
civil liberties.
The execution of
Louis XVI in 1793 the Catholic Church ever since
laïcité was passed in 1905 – the
French version of secularism. Laïcité
Intellectual support for secularism
in France began to
surge during the Age of Enlightenment,
which brought
about a new wave of ideas in
Europe and elsewhere. Scientific
theories such as those of
Isaac Newton began to take
on a more mainstream role in
society, and philosophers including
John Locke put more
of an emphasis of rationality.
This naturally meant that
well-read philosophers of the
18 th Century (the philosophes)
began to challenge the arguably
irrational religious ideals,
which dominated society in
France. Indeed, the motto of
the Enlightenment was “sapere aude” –
dare to think for yourself.

51
The philosophes not only questioned the
ideological validity of this religious dominance,
but also its effects on wider society.
They criticised the monks and nuns who
spent all of their time in prayer in the
monasteries rather helping the national
cause and ‘reproducing’. Philosophe Denis
Diderot criticised the notion of nuns and
monks taking vows so young in their
lives. Whilst Diderot and others favoured
reform over revolution, their ideas played
into the growing anti-clerical narrative.
Whilst there was some praise for the
Church’s social role, with the philosophes
praising the religious promotion of moral
and social order, the Gallican Church (the
French Catholic Church) was increasingly
coming under attack for its excessive political
and financial power. It is estimated
that the Church’s revenue
in 1789 stood at 150 million
livres, an immense
number by historical
standards. Six percent of
French land was owned by
the Church, which asserted
its hegemony in
French society through the
services it operated such as
schools and hospitals. The
Church was also exempt
from direct taxation and
were entitled to collect a
tithe (one-tenth of the
value) on agricultural
goods. The wealth of the
Church was arguably the
main reason why discontent
with it started to rise.
Ordinary people were less
concerned with the philosophical and ideological
arguments, and more with social
and financial issues. This discontent is
demonstrated by the cahiers de doléances, or
statement of grievances, which was sent to
the Estates General (the representative assembly)
from around the country in May
1789. On the day before the Revolution,
the Kingdom was on the verge of
bankruptcy, which only enhanced animosity
towards the Church’s wealth.
The first major event of the Revolution
concerning the Clergy came on the 4 th August,
when, as part of a series of major reforms,
the Church permitted the state to
take charge of its funding and, importantly,
agreed to let go of the tithe. On
the 26 th August, the Declaration of the
Rights of Man and Citizen did not
acknowledge the role of the Church in
France, and in November, the newly
founded Constituent Assembly decreed
that all Church property was now at the
hands of the state. By 13 February 1790,
the new government had ordered the sale
of all monasteries both to prevent monks
and nuns from taking the solemn vows
and to balance the books of the state. It
was clear that the Church
was coming under attack
during the Revolution.
But strangely, all of this seems to go
against the main principle of laïcité – the
strict separation of Church and state. If anything,
the state began to take a much
more active role in the organisation of the
Church. By July 1790, the Assembly had
ratified the Civil Constitution of the
The National Constituent Assembly,
which decreed in November
1789 that all Church property was
now at the hands of the state

52
Clergy, which redrew regional clerical
boundaries (the dioceses) to match those
of the state. The Assembly eventually pronounced
that all members of the Clergy
must have sworn allegiance to the new
Constitution or risk losing their job. This
was condemned by Pope Pius VI, leading
to a two-way split in the
French Clergy. The socalled
refractory priests
were those who refused
to take the oath and
sided with the Pope,
whilst over half of parish
clergy did swear allegiance
to the new constitution. The refractory
Church became a symbol for
counterrevolution in France, with exiled
priests often preaching against the Constitutional
Church from overseas. The newfound
Legislative Assembly, which
sought to implement the aims of the early
revolution, halted pensions for members
of the refractory Church whilst prohibiting
them from using religious buildings.
“The citizens of Paris
massacred 1200 inmates,
including 200 priests”
Despite growing state control
over the Church, the Legislative
Assembly also made reforms
which were in line with
the principles of laïcité. In
April 1792, they banned all
forms of religious dress, which
has echoes in modern French
society with the recent and
controversial ban on Islamic
veils. The purpose of this was
to abolish the hierarchy that
was present in the ancien régime,
where people were
viewed not as citizens, but as
members of their ‘Estate’ – the
First Estate being the Clergy,
the Second being the aristocracy
and the Third being everyone
else. This would achieve equality in
French society – one of the three key principles
of the revolution alongside liberty
and fraternity.
Suspicion with the refractory Church intensified
when revolutionary France made
bad progress in the early stages of their
war against Austria. The citizens of Paris
were concerned that the counterrevolutionaries
would break out of jail and join
the enemy, and subsequently massacred
1200 inmates, including
200 priests, in what became
known as the September
Massacres. This
was succeeded by the
‘Reign of Terror’, in
which the new Republican
government (the
Convention) introduced laws in 1793 and
1794 to crack down on so-called ‘enemies
of the people’, which led to the detention
of thousands of members of the Clergy. A
small number of these were executed with
the Guillotine in order to set the example
that refractory activity would not be tolerated.
Ultimately, religious practice associated
with the refractory Church was
driven underground. Even the Constitu-
The September Massacres, 1792
tional Church began to be
viewed with suspicion by the Convention.
It saw the values of Catholicism in any
form as incompatible with those of the
Revolution. Thus began the movement of
‘dechristianisation’.

53
This started with the Convention encouraging
priests to leave the Clergy and get
married. In certain cases, they were even
forced to do so. Those who refused faced
prosecution and even deportation. In a
more extreme move, the Convention
banned all public worship in October 1793
and proceeded to remove all visible reminders
of Christianity from view.
Churches were even closed and turned
into industrial buildings, whilst the Gregorian
calendar was
replaced with the
new Revolutionary
calendar, which removed
Sunday as a
day of worship and
instead implemented
a ten-day week. But
this wasn’t the end of
religion in France. Instead,
the revolutionary
government
sought to replace Catholicism
with a religion
celebrating the
Revolution itself,
which would honour
revolutionary ‘martyrs’
and use the red
liberty cap as one of
its symbols. This
movement gave birth
to several ‘cults’, including
the Cult of
Reason, which worshipped
the ‘goddess
of reason’, and the
Cult of the Supreme
Being, created by Maximilien
Robespierre with the intent of
making it the new state religion. This
sought to replicate the benefits of previous
religious practice (the encouragement of
moral behaviour by suggesting that the
soul is immortal) without the drawbacks
of excessive Church power. Unfortunately
for Robespierre, the new cults attracted
barely any interest, aside from a little in
urban areas. Rather than replacing Catholicism,
all that the dechristianisation
movement had achieved was forcing religious
practice to become private.
Whilst many worshipped privately in
their homes, other members of the laity, in
the absence of priests, took matters into
their own hands and performed services
themselves. The Convention recognised
the changes that had come about and realised
that they would be forced to accommodate
such private religious practice.
Thus, on 21 February
1795, Church and
State were formally
separated. This involved
the reopening
of Churches and the
release of refractory
priests from prison.
These priests were
now permitted to
practice alongside
constitutional priests
as long as they
vowed to honour the
rules of the Republic.
Despite the relaxed
restrictions, the state
continued to view religion
as a threat to
the new Republic. For
this reason, the public
ban on religious statues
and clothing remained.
There was a
blip in this new relationship,
with the
Napoleon Bonaparte
government in power
from 1795 until 1799
(known as the Directory) re-arresting
many refractory priests and attempting
yet again to introduce new cults to replace
Catholicism. However, once again, these
suffered from a lack of popular support,
and instead there was a revival in Catholicism
across France, which served to develop
faith and morality at a time of bitter
division and uncertainty. It was well recognised
that any new government would

54
be forced to acknowledge the important
social role that religion now played.
Then Napoleon Bonaparte entered the picture.
Coming to power in 1799, he was
willing to permit the continuation of religious
practice in order to both promote
moral social values and to diminish counter-revolutionary
spirit. He even recognised,
despite this somewhat going
against the separation of Church and
state, that having religious congregations
running hospitals and schools would have
great financial benefits for the government.
Most importantly, he saw that by
repairing relations with the Church, he
could use it as a means by which to consolidate
his power. Thus, despite protests
from avid revolutionaries within his government,
Napoleon sought to formalise
the place of the
Church in France. On
16 July 1801, he
signed the Concordat
with Rome after an 8-
month negotiation period.
This recognised
Catholicism as the ‘religion
of the vast majority
of French citizens’, rather than giving
the Church any unique role within the
French state, whilst also requiring the
Church to give up their calls for the return
of property that they lost during the Revolution.
Most significantly, the Church was
brought under full control by the state.
Napoleon himself would now be in charge
of appointing Bishops, further reducing
papal authority. He was even crowned a
Notre-Dame in 1804, demonstrating its
cultural significance in France. This was
now very much Napoleon’s Church, with
its own distinct national identity, much
like the preceding Gallican Church in the
ancien régime. He was ultimately excommunicated
upon occupying Rome in 1808,
which led him to jail the Pope in response.
Napoleon was eventually defeated in his
war of conquest in 1815. His legacy was
very significant as far as secularism is
“Napoleon emancipated religious
minorities, which contributed
to the secular principle
of freedom of religion”
concerned. Firstly, he emancipated religious
minorities, which contributed to the
secular principle of freedom of religion.
Secondly, whilst it may seem that his expansion
of state relations with the Church
went against the basic principles of secularism,
Napoleon’s authority actually
worked in favour of secularism, as it enhanced
animosity against state intervention
in peoples’ religious lives, thus again
forcing religious practice into the private
sphere rather than the public and dividing
his government.
90 years later, the French government formally
enacted laïcité, finally consolidating
all of the changes that had come about in
French society with regard to religion. As
previously mentioned, the three main
principles of laïcité are the separation of
Church and state, the
freedom of religion
and the freedom of
conscience. The Revolution
was hugely influential
in bringing
about such changes.
Whilst it expanded
state regulation over
the Church, it successfully reduced the
very influential role that religion had
played in the ancien régime, thus fulfilling
the first principle of laïcité to an extent. It
virtually ended the important social role
that the Church had in public French life,
by forcing them to sell off their property.
This also meant that religion became
much more of a private matter than a public
one. Furthermore, the emancipation of
religious minorities served to fulfil the last
two principles.
In the present day, the echoes of the Revolution
and the passage of laïcité are still
very much heard. With the recent spate of
religious extremism in France, the issue of
religious dress has once again entered the
forefront public debate, and schools in
France continue to very strictly adhere to
laïcité.
Alex

56 Power
The Rule of Law and
Democracy
D
emocracy is a word that’s commonly
used with little appreciation
of the important components
behind it. Furthermore, due to its existence
being mostly “behind the scenes”,
the significance of the rule of law is often
overlooked, too. However, the rule of law
is, of course, a fundamental principle of
every true democracy. Despite the continuing
fight to preserve this principle, the
ideas surrounding it stem from classical
thinkers such as Aristotle and Cicero. After
the classical empires ended, it was individual
events such as the signing of
Magna Carta that were the next significant
points on the realisation of the rule of law,
followed by a cocktail of influential earlymodern
thinkers and revolutions in England,
America, and France, that finally
fused democracy and the rule of law.
Simply put, the rule of law is the principle
that nobody is above the law, even those
in a position of power. The laws must be
comprehensible and easy to obey, and justice
must be administered fairly and
openly. This tripartite definition was conceived
by A.V Dicey, without whom the
term ‘rule of
law’ would not
have been popularised.
Nonetheless,
most of
the strands can
be drawn from
various different
parts of history across the world, and
it is this muddled formation which is important
to explore to see how the concept
of the rule of law was conceived, and how
inextricably linked it is with democracy.
To start, it’s interesting to see how the
ideas of the rule of law can easily be
“nobody is above the
law, even those in a
position of power”
An example of a court in the Dikasteria system
traced
back to the classical world: Aristotle held
the importance of good laws over that of
good rulers. In fact, in his work Politics,
Aristotle asserts that laws ought to be supreme
over everything, showing his emphasis
of that key legal principle, which
also ensures key democratic principles –
such as accountability and legitimacy –
can be upheld. Additionally, Cicero (born
around 200 years after Aristotle died) devised
the idea of Natural Law: basic, instinctive
laws similar to the human rights
we have today. Moreover, they were
both constitutionalists; the importance
of a constitution for democracy again
being that it ensures legitimacy and accountability
of the government, further
demonstrating how the rule of law was
already inseparable from democratic
principles. The significance of these
ideas is shown through their assimilation
into greater things, and also through the
fact that they were drawn up in some of
the most politically advanced states in history.

57
Democracy itself was created in Ancient
Greece (albeit in a direct form): for example,
in Athens, every citizen was permitted
a vote each time a law was proposed.
Also , they established a system of courts,
known as the Dikasteria, which were composed
of randomly selected, and paid, ju-
The signing of the Magna Carta in 1215
rors. Similarly, in
Rome, the Republic had varying degrees
of democracy which, at various points, included
a constitution, and elected legislatures,
but nonetheless confirms the idea
that the concept of the rule of law was,
even 2000 years ago, already conjoined
with the idea of democracy, and hence
highlights its importance in today’s democracies.
One of the next major developments, and
one closer to home, was Magna Carta,
drawn up in 1215. Whilst technically unsuccessful
in curbing the unscrupulous behaviour
of King John, clauses of the charter
such as protecting the barons from illegal
imprisonment, and access to swift justice
for all, demonstrate a clear acknowledgement
of what would later become a
major component of the rule of law. Furthermore,
the context of Magna Carta is
that of an arbitrary ruler being brought
under the control of codified limits – essentially
attempting to form a constitutional
monarchy, which is the system of
government Britain has today. The significance
of this document can still be shown
today, as Magna Carta was actually cited
in the US Supreme Court - in the aftermath
of 9/11, President Bush imprisoned
foreign terrorist suspects arbitrarily. The
ruling judged that all detainees have the
right to fair trials and
hence the decision was unconstitutional.
Subsequently,
many of the suspects
were released, as
there was little valid evidence
that they were terrorists.
The modern application
of such a charter,
that was at the time almost
800 years old, shows how
significant it is today, and
that it still acts as an underlying
principle both legally
and democratically.
After centuries of divine
monarchical rule, it was
during the Enlightenment
period that the influence of the rule of law
began to really take hold. The three most
notable revolutions – in England, America
and France – were three key stages which
showed the formal implementation of the
rule of law, and process of establishing
true democracies. These revolutions were
founded on the ideas of key Enlightenment
philosophers such as John Locke,
Montesquieu, and Rousseau.
The first of these was the Glorious Revolution
in England, which, in 1688, brought
with it the Bill of Rights. In contrast to the
rule by decree exercised by King James II,
it brought into statute ‘certain basic liberties’
which would be afforded to all citizens
of the state such as the guarantee of
no punishment of convicts before a trial
had taken place. As well as this, it brought
in a more codified form of rule, which
clearly set out the line of monarchical succession.
Therefore, the passage of this bill
put limits on the power of the monarch,
which reduced the propensity for their

58
arbitrary exercise of power. It also enhanced
the democracy and separation of
powers in England as it took power away
from the unelected monarch and required
laws to be passed through
Parliament instead. The idea of setting
clear limits on power – favoured
by Montesquieu particularly – was
clearly influential here, but absolutely
crucial to the American Founding
Fathers (chiefly James Madison).
The American War of Independence
in the latter part of the 18 th Century,
and the subsequent granting of the
American Constitution in 1787, was
hugely significant in establishing the
rule of law, possibly being the most
significant single event in this process.
For example, under Article
Two, it is established that the President
and other senior officials can be
impeached by Congress if their behaviour
strays out of law, and under Article Three,
the right to trial by jury was protected.
Furthermore, the Bill of Rights (interestingly
taking the same name as the aforementioned
English bill) which was implemented
in 1791, enshrined more aspects of
the rule of law into the United States’ democracy.
This was essentially just a group
of ten amendments to the Constitution,
that established intrinsic rights for every
citizen of the USA, arguably being based
of Cicero’s concept of Natural Law. For
example, the
“It was this age of Enlightenment,
supported by philosophers such as
Rousseau, which promulgated the
notion of natural rights”
Fifth
Amendment
protected the
right to due
process, and
the Sixth established
further
rights for the accused, such as a speedy
trial, the assistance of counsel, an impartial
jury, and so on. Even regardless of the
specific details, the American Constitution
is particularly significant as it is one codified
document, which sets out commitments
to democracy, and to the rule of
The US Constitution places a large emphasis on the ‘people’
law. Also, as it was made “in one go”, unlike
the evolutionary law in Britain, so the
influence of philosophers on this document
was significant. Montesquieu, who was
interestingly also a judge, was the first to
develop the principle of separation of
powers, as mentioned above, which itself
protects the citizens from arbitrary wielding
of power and is one of the most defining
principles of the US Constitution. This
principle is so important that its implementation
can be seen far more recently in
order to “democratise” countries; after the
Second World War, West Germany – under
control of the allied powers – separated
the judiciary and the legislature, as
well as pursuing devolution
of much legislative
power to constituent
states (Länder).
Moreover, the US
Constitution’s establishment
of an elected
legislature and executive
(albeit by a tiny
minority of the population), and clear
term lengths for all officials, shows its rigorous
commitment to democracy. Therefore,
the Constitution’s significance to
both the rule of law and democracy was

59
evident in 1787 and continues to be so today.
The influence of the events in America can
be shown to be significant by events in
France two years after the Constitution
was granted. In 1789, in revolutionary
France with its tripartite foundation of liberty,
equality, and fraternity, the National
Constituent Assembly granted the French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the
Citizen. This declaration was drafted by
LaFayette, who had been meeting with
one of the American Framers – Thomas
Jefferson. Jefferson clearly influenced this
legislation as it had much in common with
the fundamental principles of the United
States. The principles enacted in France included
many which show how – for a
small window of time until Robespierre’s
‘Reign of Terror’ – the French government
The UK Supreme Court,
founded in 2009 was intent on maintaining the
rule of law as a pillar in its democracy;
the notion of “innocent until
proven guilty” was declared under Article
9, for example. It was this age of Enlightenment,
supported by philosophers such
as Rousseau, which promulgated the notion
of natural rights, originally formulated,
as mentioned, by Cicero during the
Roman times. In France, it was declared
that every man is born free and equal and,
in the American Bill of Rights passed two
years later, there were ten amendments to
the Constitution, each outlining the fundamental
rights endowed to every US citizen.
Therefore, the chiming with the Natural
Law first discussed close to 2000
years before, was now becoming reality
across the world. Even following the Second
World War, the principles in Cicero’s
Natural Law have been formalised: after
the atrocities seen in the war, the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights was
passed through the United Nations.
Therefore, it is evident that the French
Revolution was incredibly important, too,
in establishing the importance of the rule
of law, human rights, and also furthering
the cause of democracy.
Today, the significance of these historical
developments is irrefutable. As well as the
fact that we can take our own governments
to court – as Johnson’s was in last
Autumn – the economic growth
and globalisation seen across the
world was only achieved because
countries and businesses understand
that there is a contract of
law which must be adhered to
and, therefore, individuals and
firms are willing to trade with
each other. The rule of law is
clearly a cornerstone of democracy;
for example, even the UK has
recognised the need for further
progression, establishing a Supreme
Court in 2009 in order to
achieve a further separation of
powers (away from the House of
Lords).
Therefore, although there is always more
to do to restrain power, whilst simultaneously
maintaining effective government, it
is clear that all true democracies have
eventually implemented the rule of law,
and that it is hugely significant in preserving
the rights of people around the world,
and the legitimacy of the governments
that rule them.
Ollie, L6NJC

60 Power
The Idea of Kingship: what
made a king successful in the
1400s?
A
t a time when government
revolved so crucially
around the monarch, responsibility
often rested exclusively
upon those who wore the
crown to innovate the art of kingship.
The crown’s top priorities – to
maintain law and order, establish
security on the throne and harness
support from both the populace
and nobility – remained unchanged
throughout the 1400s. Yet
the methods of rule employed by
the eight reigning kings of that century
were far from consistent. Some were negligent,
vacant and abysmally flawed and
others were pragmatic and bold. But each
king stamped a unique and indelible mark
on England through his own concept of
kingship.
Domestic military success certainly
proved invaluable to securing the king’s
authority in showing he could put down
rebellion, rule above factionalism and assert
a dynasty
by
eliminating
threats
from rivals.
Henry IV,
who became
king in 1399 after deposing Richard
II, inevitably faced challenges to his kingship
on the grounds that he was an illegitimate
usurper. In 1403, a rebellion against
Henry’s reign, which sought to restore
Richard to the throne, was led by the eldest
Percy son, Hotspur, and climaxed with
“triumph on the battlefield was
key to securing the king’s authority
and dynasty”
the Battle of
Shrewsbury in
July. However, this dangerous threat to
Henry’s position was put down: the king
himself led an army of 11-14,000 on the
battlefield to a resounding victory, which
saw death of Hotspur and other leading
rebels, as well as brutal reprisals by the
king, including the slaughter of 1600 rebel
soldiers. In crushing opposition to his
reign with such domestic military success,
we see how triumph on the battlefield was
key to securing the king’s authority
and dynasty. Indeed,
emphatic victory at Shrewsbury
weakened the later threat of
Glyndwr’s attempted invasion
of England in 1405-6, for
Henry’s position was strong
enough that he didn’t even have
to engage in battle to win.
In a similar position of needing to assert
his dynasty, Edward IV’s domestic military
success at the Battle of Towton in
March 1461 certainly translated into secured
authority. He personally led his
forces to victory in ‘Britain’s bloodiest
The Battle of Shrewsbury, 1403

61
battle’, which resulted in Henry VI, Margaret
of Anjou and Prince Edward fleeing
to Scotland and the political
nation accepting Edward as
the rightful new king. However,
in contrast, Henry VI,
who did not achieve any domestic
military success, was
an especially weak king.
Cade’s rebellion in 1450 further
popularised the view of
Henry as incompetent, for
he did not even face the rebels
and instead met many
of their demands, while
Henry’s passivity and weakness
at the Battle of St Albans
in
1455, where he taken as a
submissive prisoner by
York, proved how an inability
to achieve any personal
military success was detrimental
to a king’s jurisdiction
in late medieval England.
Foreign military success was
also certainly key in securing the king’s
authority through uniting the country,
proving strong leadership and achieving
material gains. Undoubtedly the most renowned
foreign military victor was Henry
V, who achieved extensive successes
against the French in the Hundred Years
War, particularly the Battle of Agincourt
in 1415 and the conquest of Normandy
from 1417-20.
In a time
when good
kingship and
military ability
were inextricably
linked,
Henry V’s
foreign military successes certainly restored
the authority of his Lancastrian
monarchy: it won the vast support of his
subjects, convinced them that their taxes
and prayers were bringing prestige and
prosperity to England and therefore ensured
domestic stability. Foreign military
success also
delivered the
king additional
patronage for
him to both
dispense in return
for continued
support
from the nobility
and bolster
crown finances.
In contrast,
Henry VI’s
complete lack
of foreign military
success
certainly contributed
to his
weak authority.
Gradually,
Henry V’s victories
in France
were undone
as Henry VI ignored
the issue
of France throughout his reign. The Battle
of Castillon in 1453, which resulted in the
loss of all lands in France except Calais,
undoubtedly weakened the crown in
many ways. Immediately, Henry VI lost a
significant swathe of popular support, a
fact which manifested itself in breakdown
of law and order throughout the 1450s,
particularly among returning veterans in
the south-eastern epicentre
that was
Henry VI was viewed as a weak king, emphasised by
his defeat at St Albans
“Henry V’s foreign military successes
certainly restored the authority of his
Lancastrian monarchy”
Kent. Prominent nobles
also ceased to
support Henry’s
reign, such as York
and Norfolk, which
also severely reduced
the crown’s
authority by factionalising the nobility.
The losses in France also created a serious
financial problem: Henry was already indebted
by a massive £372,000 by November
1449, but now that France was lost and

62
England was dissolving into factionalism
and disarray, such debt became an unacceptable
and critical problem for the
crown’s power. Therefore, military failure,
seen particularly in the 1453 losses in
France, was detrimental to the crown’s
power through increasing factionalism
and crippling finances.
However,
a
lack of
military
focus by
a king in
the 1400s
could
also be a good thing. The 1453 loss of
France may even be considered a watershed
moment which increased the crown’s
success. Indeed, after 1453, Edward IV
was unwilling to fight in France and more
open to diplomacy: the 1475 Treaty of Picquigny
not only brought about a sevenyear
truce, but also financially benefitted
the crown in providing Edward with an
annual pension of £10,000. Therefore, for
the rest of his reign, Edward had little to
fear from the French, was financially
strengthened and was able to focus more
on domestic policy, such as the improvement
of law and order with regional councils
and the increased use of JPs. But while
the loss of France may have been a significantly
positive, large-scale and enduring
change in this regard, it is more accurate
to assert that Edward IV’s domestic success
was more due to his own skill and
adeptness than the French losses of 1453.
Ultimately, therefore, military success was
certainly the key factor in securing the
king’s power and authority.
“both domestic and foreign military
operations essentially required
money and men”
However, such military success would be
impossible without underpinning support
of the nobility and parliament. Indeed,
both foreign and domestic military operations
essentially required money and men.
For example, Henry IV’s victory against
the Scottish at Homildon Hill in 1402 relied
on both military support from the
noble Percy family and parliament granting
a subsidy of a tenth and a fifteenth at
the September meeting, which demonstrates
how parliament and noble support
were important underpinning factors in
securing the king’s success and strength.
Parliament also exercised power to more
directly secure or threaten a king’s authority:
the ‘Parliament of Devils’
in 1459 saw leading
Yorkist nobles convicted of
high treason, thereby fortifying
Henry VI’s authority
as king, while through the
Act of Accord in 1460,
where the Duke of York
was made heir to the
throne, Henry VI’s authority was severely
undermined as his son was disinherited in
favour of a future Yorkist dynasty.
Furthermore, parliament demonstrated its
willingness and power to destruct the
king’s authority in January 1450 with the
demanding that Suffolk, the ‘royal puppeteer’
of
Henry VI’s
government,
be tried for
treason, despite
the
king’s support
for him.
With Suffolk’s
subsequent
exile,
it’s clear that
without parliamentary
support, the
king’s authority
could easily
be overturned.
The nobility
was also important,
jurisdiction to nobles
Henry V drew authority from his ability to delegate
moreover, in
keeping law and order in the localities.

63
Henry V certainly drew authority from his
ability to delegate jurisdiction to nobles
such as John Talbot, who secured English
settlements in Ireland against Irish insurgency.
In contrast, Henry VI, who did not
command such strong noble support allowed
law and order to break down. This
was evident in the vicious Courtenay and
Bonville family feud, which demonstrated
the king’s lack of authority in his inability
to rule above factionalism and disputes.
Therefore, while military success was the
key factor in securing authority in 1399-
1461, support from the nobility and parliament
was a consistent underpinning
factor.
was fighting a costly war in France was
impoverishing the crown, Henry endowed
Eton College and King’s College
Cambridge demonstrating his financial inability
and personal failings to financially
stabilise the country. Furthermore, his
A further underpinning factor which secured
the king’s authority was his personality,
for not only did it dictate military
success, but also strength in ruling above
the nobility and factionalism. In a reign
threatened on multiple occasions by revolt,
Henry IV’s strong will was certainly
crucial to maintaining his authority.
This was most evident with Archbishop
Scrope’s rebellion in 1405, which, despite
just a very limited northern threat, was
met by Henry with the execution of
Scrope, an act which risked divine retribution
but ultimately secured his authority
to suppress any and all rebellion. Henry
V, meanwhile, had direction and drive as
a military leader, a crucial characteristic at
a time when victory in the Hundred Years
War was greatly required, given the lack
of action in France by Henry IV. And
while some accuse Henry V of cruelty, it is
perhaps more valid to see him as a disciplinarian,
who through hanging those
who disobeyed him, brought order into
the army, which depicted him as the
leader who was in control of his men and
in control of his country.
Again, in contrast, Henry VI’s weak character
largely translated into his lack of authority
and failed kingship. He was militarily
inept and easily influenced: this was
demonstrated when even though England
Henry V had the characteristics required to be
weak personality
caused the
successful in the Hundred Years War
creation of over-mighty subjects in Suffolk
and York, the latter even bringing an end
to Henry’s dynasty with the Act of Accord
in 1460. Therefore, while military success
was the key factor in securing authority in
1399-1461, the king’s personality was a
consistent underpinning factor for in a
time of such personal kingship, personality
dictated military success, and also
strength in ruling above the nobility and
factionalism.
Ultimately, at a time when England’s government
depended so fundamentally on
the personal competence of the king, it is
clear that the king himself was most significant
in determining the crown’s
power. In such volatile times, a king
simply had to rise to the challenge of kingship,
innovate the art rule by the crown
and often exercise an iron fist. Failure to
do so was often fatal.
Alex

64 Power
Pravda vítězí (‘truth prevails’)
O
Prague, October 1918. The
Czechoslovak National Council
proclaims independence, drawing
an end to the centuries-long
struggle of the Czechs, and the
beginning of a new European nation
– Czechoslovakia.
The First World War, despite its
bloody consequences across the
continent, had brought with it
the arrival of the first truly
Czecho-Slovak state. Since the
Middle Ages, the two peoples
had fought relentlessly to fend
off the ambitions of their aggressive
neighbours. The Germans to
the west looked down from their
imposing seat in the Holy Roman
Empire, whilst the Hungarians
had already carved out an empire
in the 11 th century, stretching
from Vienna to the rocky
mountains of Carpathia. Simply
put, the future looked bleak. Yet
the Czechs and Slovaks would not give
up.
The 15 th century saw the genesis of Czech
architecture and its establishment in the
region, but, perhaps more importantly,
military campaigns of a newly formed
Czech army. Although still in its early
stages, it
represented
something
not
quite
seen before
–
Czech
ambition, and Czech it was. For once, this
was not a creation of its neighbours. Slovaks
joined in too, spreading Czech Protestantism
(albeit not long-lasting). In the
19 th century, the Bohemian Revolution
accelerated the strides made in literature
and the sciences. Society saw a shift from
peasantry to one of intellectuals and industrialisation.
“It was the First World War where
Czech pride finally took centre-stage”
A First World War memorial for Czechoslovak
legions in France
But there was no state. And without a nation
to reap the benefits of Czech hardship,
the floor was once again open, now
to the likes of the German Empire and
Austria-Hungary. It was the First World
War where Czech national pride finally
took centre-stage. Revolutionaries
such as
Tomáš Masaryk voiced
the creation of some
sort of Czecho-Slovak
entity, challenging previously
separatist policies.
With the downfall
of Austria-Hungary,
this became a reality. But would Czechoslovakia
survive?
Upon its proclamation, the country was
led by Masaryk. Following through with

65
his initial promises, Czechoslovakia became
a prominent example of a successful
transition to democracy. This continued
into the 1920s, where it was one of the
founding members of the League of Nations.
Most notably, it had managed to
keep peace and stability between its many
Revolutionary Tomáš Masaryk led the
ethnic minorities.
new Czechoslovak state after World
War One
Theoretically, this
weakness could have
been exploited very early on, but wasn’t
until the signing of the Munich Agreement
in September 1938. Czechoslovakia
had now lost the Sudetenland to
Germany. Not long after, the entire country
was invaded, in March 1939.
Following the Second World War, the
country saw a radical change. What
seemed to be a prospering democracy had
been stopped dead in its tracks by socialism,
attributable to the Soviet Union
and the formation of the Eastern
Bloc. It had essentially become a satellite
state, and irreversibly.
The 1948 coup d'état ultimately
marked the beginning of the country’s
41 year-long single party system.
It continued its work as part of
the Warsaw Pact, promoting communism
whilst
barely surviving
on a command
economy.
Nevertheless,
history
had taught the
people one
thing – truth
prevails (the
motto of the
nation). To be
accurate, hope
prevails – and hope did prevail. December
1989 brought the Velvet Revolution,
and the return to democracy.
In line with other similar events in
Eastern Europe at the time, the authoritarian
communist government
collapsed, and with an audience of
half a million. The country adopted
the official name Czech and Slovak
Federative Republic in April 1990, although
the two republics formally
separated in December 1992. This
was the end of a long journey.
“Today, the two
countries share a
nostalgic memory
of the past, still
holding on to their
common heritage”
Today, the two countries share a nostalgic
memory of the past, still holding on to
their common heritage. For now, at the
very least, the Czechs and the Slovaks are
here to stay.
Elion, 4.3

Mathematics and Economics
67
The history of numbers and
their development into modern
mathematics
Al-Khwarizmi
W
hat are numbers? They are
many things but are, first and
foremost, a way of clearly expressing
the world around us. They, unlike
words, are unambiguous, and one of
the most fascinating things about numbers
is that
they are
thousands
of
years
old - ten
thousand
to
be precise.
Roughly
at the
dawn of
the Neolithic
age, in
what is
now the
Czech
Republic,
numbers
made
their
first recorded
appearance in the form of the
humble counting stick. The counting stick
in question was a wolf bone, with notches
carved into it in groups of five (why five?
Work it out on your fingers…). This may
not sound like the birth of maths as we
know it today, with all of our chaos theories
and non-Euclidian geometry but, at a
time when life was short and brutal, this
was a major intellectual achievement.
Unfortunately, this was the extent of
mathematical and numerical progress for
the next 6000 years. The next stop on the
mathematical timeline is in Babylonia. The
expansion of trade powered the development
of mathematics greatly, as with
goods also moved ideas, hand in hand.
This was particularly evident in Babylonia,
which lay in what is now Southern
Iraq. It sat on a crossroads of two major
trade routes, running east to west, so it
was somewhat inevitable that this vital
economic region would see a certain degree
of development in ideas, namely
mathematical. It was here that the most
primitive algebra was developed, along
with something a little more important:
Base 60. Base 60 was the unreliable counting
system used by the Babylonians.
Whilst it wasn’t reliable for counting, it
paved the way for much more significant
counting systems such as base 10 (denary
counting system), which we use to count
with today, and even binary – something
used heavily in computers. Furthermore,
Base 60 lives on today in the way we
reckon time, with 60 seconds to the minute
and 60 minutes to the hour. Despite
the unreliability of base 60 to count with,
clearly the Babylonians did something
right after all!
Just over a thousand years down the timeline,
we see another very significant mathematical
breakthrough – but this time in
India. 900 B.C marks the birthday of perhaps
the most important mathematical
figure in existence – zero. Muhammad ibn
Musa al-Khwarizmi came up with a term
to finally embody the already ubiquitous
idea of having nothing of something.

68
Abacuses were something of a new invention,
but, when they were used, an empty
space was left to indicate that there was
nothing to add on. So, we ca
n tell that these primitive people did have
an idea of the concept zero, but al-
Khwarizmi was the one who actually gave
it a name. He then took it one step further
and expanded upon the idea of early algebra,
allowing more complex calculations
to be performed, with the aid of his newfound
number. Although al-Khwarizmi
lived less than 40 years, his legacy is still
felt today, testament to the rapid mathematical
discovery that has taken place
since his death, so this development is
naturally credited to him.
Whilst mathematical progress was being
made from al-Khwarizmi’s death onwards,
much of it
was simply expanding
on what
earlier mathematicians
had discovered
and
there were very
few new concepts
produced.
We do not see a
significant discovery again until 1614 (as
between then and Al-Khwarizmi’s death,
the
most that occurred was further development
of algebra, as well as the decimal
system being introduced). This discovery
was made by John Napier of Scotland,
who revolutionised the mathematical
world once again with the concept of Logarithms.
A logarithm (or ‘log) is similar to
an index (for example, a to the power of b
where a and b are both integers), except
that they are used to express numbers of
powers of ten. For example, the number
100 is equal to 10 squared, which means
that the logarithm of 10 here is 2. These
logarithms may be developed into logarithmic
tables, which are particularly useful
for working out things like
trigonometric functions, something with
great significance and importance today.
“All the way from the development of
zero, right up to the pioneering Chaos
theory, we know that maths is the
driving force behind the world”
The final stop on our mathematical tour is
in the early 19 th and 20th centuries, when
we experience a boom of new ideas, after
a somewhat stagnant period of mere expansions
of existing knowledge. Kickstarted
somewhat by the Industrial Revolution,
where new ideas were widespread
thanks to the necessity of moving industrial
materials. Where one thing moves,
ideas usually move with it. In 1830, we see
the development of non-Euclidian geometry;
then, during the mid-20 th century, we
see the pioneer, Benoit Mandlebrot develop
fractal geometry. But the pinnacle of
this boom was without doubt Chaos Theory.
Chaos theory states that where we see
great randomness, such as in weather systems,
there is actually
great underlying
complexity
and selforganization.
Such is true for
weather systems,
although Chaos
theory was not
applied to
weather systems until the 21 st Century.
This is such an incredible concept because
it proves that maths is omnipotent. If you
look out of the window and a gale is
blowing, rain whipping the windows,
there is order in the black heart of the
storm. There is method in the madness.
Maths really is everywhere; in everything
we see and in everything we do. It is incredible
to think that this all came from a
wolf’s femur found buried in the Czech
Republic from 10 000 years ago! All the
way from the development of zero, right
up to the pioneering of Chaos theory, we
know that maths is the driving force behind
the world. It’s in this paper. It’s in
this page. It’s even in you.
Ben, 4.2

Mathematics and Economics
69
The history of Universal
Basic Income
T
he idea that the State should provide
some level of basic income to
its citizens, unconditionally, to everyone,
is one that has enjoyed a recent resurgence.
It is a solution to, amongst other
issues, the forecasted future wave of automation
that could lead to mass unemployment
across the world. Universal Basic Income
(UBI) has been slowly gathering mo
mentum and is increasingly a central topic
of debate in think-tanks, universities and
best-seller lists. While the Labour party
has announced that it is considering making
UBI a frontline policy, an American
entrepreneur Andrew Yang progressed
into the final ten nominees for the 2020
Democrat presidential candidate with his
main agenda being to implement UBI, or
as his marketing team have re-branded it
‘The Freedom Dividend’. From the outside,
it seems like an overtly modern idea
to this modern problem. Further to that,
some of its key proponents are Silicon Valley
moguls such as Mark Zuckerberg and
Elon Musk. Strangely, supporters of UBI
are not confined to one end of the political
or economic spectrum, including Dr Martin
Luther King Jr and Milton Friedman.
However, one of the most surprising aspects
of the idea is that is over 500 years
old and has
been constantly
added
to and developed
by numerous
influential
thinkers.
“supporters of UBI are not
confined to one end of the
political spectrum”
To say that Sir Thomas More (1478-1535),
adviser to Henry VIII, was an advocate, or
even creator of Universal Basic Income
would be
somewhat
anachronistic,
but it is
fair to say
that he was
first prominent
proposer
of
the notion
of basic income
to all.
In his book
Utopia,
More envisaged
a
society in
which everyone
had
a guaranteed
income.
The problem which More was addressing
was the desperation with which the poor
would steal and the failure of punishments
such as hangings to prevent this.
More wrote, ‘Instead of inflicting these
horrible punishments, it would be far
more to the point to provide everyone
with some means of livelihood.’ This was
one part of the wider paradigm shift that
the care of the poor was to no
longer be exclusively managed by
Andrew Yang recently supported UBI in his bid to
become US President
the Church. A similar idea and rationale
was picked up on by
More’s friend, the Spanish philosopher
Juan Luis Vives (1493-
1540), who is widely regarded as
the first person to draw up actual
plans for some basic income scheme.
Vives was also concerned with the
amount of hunger-related crime and
thought basic income to be a solution too.

70
However, he seems to be more of an advocate
of ‘participation income’, where one
has to do some socially beneficent tasks in
order to receive an income from the State.
As such, early humanists, such as More,
began the dialogue on a wider entity
providing for everyone. Highlighting the
plight of the
poorest is
something
that has not
been lost on
modern UBI
advocates
and they
promote the
idea, in part,
as it could
may reduce
crime rates
as it stands
as a positive
impetus for
those in the
bottom deciles
of society.
Jean Luis Vives was an early proponent of UBI
Revolutions
in the eve of
the 18th century brought further discourse
on basic income. French thinkers such as
Montesquieu, Babeuf, Condorcet and
Robespierre all, in some form contributed
to the argument for UBI. While they all
made important additions, Thomas Paine
was instrumental in bringing the light to
the idea and stressing basic income as a
right more than just a
useful policy in socio-economic
terms. In both
Rights of Man and Agrarian
Justice, Paine extensively
laid out plans and
for basic income. A common
objection to the idea
is that UBI would be
given to both the Hedge
fund manager and the unemployed single
mother. Paine, as well as modern day proponents,
argue that this should be the case
for numerous reasons, and he specifically
wanted to ‘prevent invidious distinctions’
that would be involved with means-testing.
For his work, Paine is often seen as
the father of basic income. Unfortunately
for Paine, he was living at a time where
these ideas of such radical redistribution
were extremely unlikely to be accepted by
the ruling classes. This does not eradicate
the contributions that Paine made and his
work on the justification on the basis of
rights rather than purely practical needs,
is still cited often today. Some of these
rights-based reasoning re-emerged decades
later with Charles Fourier (1772-
1837) claiming that the violation of every
person’s right to hunt, fish and farm on
common land meant that civilisation
owed a subsistence level of income to
those unable to their own needs, a belief
echoed by Joseph Charlier (1816-96).
While the latter and his ‘dividende teritorial’
was quickly forgotten, the very much
unforgotten J.S Mill picked up on Fourier’s
ideas. Mill appreciated the fact Fourier
did not suggest abolishing private
property or inheritance and that his system
of basic income (begrudgingly) accommodated
these key aspects to liberal
society.
After the first World War, Philosopher
and Nobel laureate Bertrand Russell
(1870-1972) believed that basic income
could marry the advantages of anarchism
and of socialism. Russell fused the appeal
of anarchism in terms of the sheer liberty
it bestows to individuals with socialism’s
‘inducement
to
work’. In
this sense,
basic income
could be
implemented
in
order to
allow people the free choice to not work,
living with the subsistence income and ensure
there was a system to allow those
“Revolutions in the eve of the 18 th
century brought further discourse on
basic income”

Mathematics and Economics
71
who wish to work to earn accordingly
above that level. Modern UBI-ers, such as
author Annie Lowry, point out that this
decision not to work, beyond being a supposed
individual right, would be beneficial
as people can spend more time doing
social activities such as spending time
with dependents, learning a new skill, and
doing voluntary work.
The 20th century proposition of UBI was
not confined to the Left, however. Two ostensibly
right- wing economists Friedrich
Hayek and Milton Friedman both supported
basic income. Hayek (1899-1992),
the leader of the Austrian
School of economists
and influencer of
the likes of Thatcher,
was an advocate of
what he named ‘a sort
of floor below which
nobody need fall’ ie. a
subsistence level of income.
He believed the
idea was ‘wholly legitimate’
as it seems to be
a ‘protection against a
risk common to all’.
The risk he was alluding
to was the boombust
cycle of capitalism
and wars which he
lived through in the
turbulent 20th Century
in Europe. This,
again, relates to the
importance of UBI to
be paid to all rather than just those lower
deciles of the spectrum. Although Hayek
undoubtedly supported basic income in
this way, his work was not extensive on
how it could be funded, which remains
one of the central aspects of opposition to
the programme. This is where Milton
Friedman (1912-2006) joined the party. He
suggested that those unable or even unwilling
to work should, instead of the welfare
system of the day, be given a rebate
or ‘negative income tax’.
Milton Friedman
This would be at the bare subsistence level
in order to encourage people to still work.
Alongside this, other welfare assistance
would be abolished, in part, in order to
pay for this. This model has been integrated
into many current day proposals.
So it is clear to see that, while those who
oppose UBI that are right-wing inclined,
that shake it off simply out of objection to
its left-wing embodiments, should take
note that some of the most influential
thinkers and economists that they take serious
inspiration from were, in different
ways, proponents of some form of basic
income.
The debate thereafter
was stimulated by Belgian
political theorist
Phillippe Van Parijs.
He is often seen as the
father of UBI - a misconception
commonly
held as the history of
basic income is clearly
extensive. Universal
Basic Income is certain
to be a growing topic
of debate in future
decades. Pilot programmes
have already
begun around the
world, including in
Finland and California.
As UBI gains momentum
in the years
to come, its opponents,
as well as proponents, would be
wise to take on the lessons of those notable
names to have come before them - including
many not discussed here. Where
commentators purely focus on the economic
minutia of basic income, there is
clearly a wealth of literature on rights and
liberties-based arguments from thinkers
across the political spectrum. These could
be used to bring people over to the cause,
in order to draw the necessary support for
such a radical and fascinating idea.
Will, U6CPAG

72 Mathematics and Economics
How laissez-faire was Britain in
the late 18 th and early 19 th
Century?
L
aissez-faire ideas are a belief
in free markets and so little
state regulation in those markets.
British economist Adam Smith
developed ideas of laissez-faire in
his 1776 book the ‘Wealth of Nations’.
The saying ‘Laissez-faire’ is
said to have come from a French Finance
General who, when asked by
King Louis XIV what he could to
help, was told to leave it alone. In
the late 18 th and early 19 th Century,
the British government, under both
Whigs and Tories, believed laissezfaire
policies were the strongest way to promote
industrialisation.
The government was particularly Laissezfaire
in their approach to the living and
working conditions of workers. The gov-
Britain during the industrial revolution
ernment left
it up to factory owners to ensure the
safety of their workers. This can be shown
by Richard Arkwright who, in 1769,
opened Britain’s first factory with no
safety mechanisms. Moreover, the
government would pass legislation to ensure
the interest of factory owners were
met. For example, in 1813 the Repeal of
the Statue of Artificers was passed which
mean regulations on
wages and working
conditions were lifted.
Additionally, the government
passed anti
trade Union legislation
to protect factory
owners against striking.
In 1799 and 1800
the Combinations
Acts were passed
which made Trade
Unions illegal and in
1823 the Master and
Servant Act was
passed which made striking punishable
by imprisonment. The government also
tried to limit
“The government
was particularly
laissez-fair in
their approach to
living and working
conditions of
workers”
Adam Smith

73
“some elements of government
policy would
suggest they intervened
more in the free market”
the number of Friendly Societies with the
Friendly Societies Act of 1793. Furthermore,
in 1807
Britain abolished
the
slave trade.
Adam Smith
argued in his
book this was
a policy that
would protect
the free
market, as
paying workers ensures they are more efficient.
The government also supported
banking in their free-market approach as,
in 1826, the government removed limits
on the number of joint-stock banks.
tax, which especially affected the rich as
incomes over £200 were taxed 10%. The
tax would not only be used to finance
the War as Robert Peel reintroduced it
in 1846 to fund a deficit. Additionally,
in 1807 the orders-in-council were issued
by the British government
known as the Ministry of all Talents.
These forbade British trade with
France, its allies, or any neutral European
country in the War. However,
these trade barriers must be viewed
only as a necessary War measure.
Moreover, the fact the tax was repealed in
1816 by Lord Liverpool, which suggests
the government were sticking to laissezfaire
policy. These were not the only trade
barriers introduced as, in 1815, the corn
laws were introduced which placed a tariff
on grain imports. However, these were
repealed in 1846 by Peel, showing they
were only used as a temporary and necessary
measure
to protect
British
landowners.
However, some elements of government
policy would suggest they intervened
more in the free market. This was espe-
The war with France prompted the
introduction of income tax
cially true in the 1793-
1815 War with France.
In 1799, to finance the War, Prime Minister
Pitt was forced to introduce an income
Overall,
the government
were
committed
to
laissezfaire
policies
as
they ensured
industrial
growth
for Britain
and
they
would
only
move away from laissez-faire policies
when it was necessary in the War with
France.
Joe, L6AJG

74 Mathematics and Economics
Coronavirus – ‘the science of
uncertainty?’
W
hen Canadian physician William
Osler remarked ‘medicine
is a science of uncertainty and
an art of probability’ at the turn of the 20 th
century, it was a sentiment that resonated
strongly. One hundred years on, in the
middle of the coronavirus pandemic, it
certainly feels like we’re facing a ‘science
of uncertainty’, with so many questions
unanswered and our ordinary lives hanging
in the balance.
However,
the uncertainty
we
face now is just
a fraction of
that which humanity
has
dealt with in
the face of pandemics
gone
by and an exploration
of
four of the
world’s deadliest
pandemics shows just how far the
history of thought around disease has
evolved.
“One hundred years
on, in the middle of the
coronavirus pandemic,
it certainly feels like
we’re facing a ‘science
of uncertainty’”
One of the earliest pandemics recorded
was the Plague of Justinian, named after
the Emperor Justinian, I who ruled at the
time, which tore through the Byzantine
Empire and The Eastern Mediterranean
in the middle of the sixth century.
Caused by the same disease that caused
the Black Death, the Plague of Justinian
was bubonic, with reports of swellings,
delirium and fever. A contemporary
scholar, Procopius, blamed the disease on
the emperor, ‘declaring Justinian to be either
a devil or that the emperor was being
punished by God for his evil ways’.
Whether or not this personal attack on the
emperor was a widespread theory, the
idea of plague being a punishment from
God certainly was and one of the main
home remedies was prayer, along with
powders that had been ‘blessed’ by saints,
magic charms and amulets, all of which
were designed to appease supernatural
forces. Other home remedies included
cold-water baths and drug taking, none of
which were noted to be particularly effec-
The Black Death killed up
tive, of which the same can be
to 60% of all Europeans at
said for professional treatment
the time
by a physician, which was
based on Galen’s ideas of balancing the
body’s humours.
By the end of the pandemic, an estimated
25 million people had died – a staggering

7375
amount considering it lasted less than two
years – but certainly less than the alleged
500 million who were cut down by the
same disease eight centuries later, under
the new name of The Black Death.
There was incredibly
little
medical innovation
in Europe
in the
period between
these
two catastrophic
plagues,
which can
largely be attributed to the dominance of
the Roman Catholic Church. As a sufferer
of the Black Death, which killed as many
as 60% of Europe’s
population between
1346-53, you would
largely have been
offered the same
choices as during
the Plague of Justinian.
Unless you
were rich enough to
afford a physician,
there were home
remedies and other
‘cures’, which
ranged from selfflagellation
in the
street, strapping a
live chicken to buboes
– known as the
Vicary method after
the man who invented
it – or drinking
potions laced
with mercury.
“There was incredibly little
medical innovation in Europe
in the period between these two
catastrophic plagues”
Although there was
some good news,
such as a primitive understanding
of quarantine,
significant breakthroughs in the
thought around disease and pandemics
John Snow made important discoveries about
cholera
were yet to be made, with the majority of
people – like before – blaming supernatural
causes such as God’s punishment and
the positioning of the planets.
More significant medical developments
were made centuries later,
during the Third Cholera
Pandemic, which was arguably
the most severe of the
seven global cholera pandemics
that we know of in
recorded history. Much of
this was thanks to
the work of physician John
Snow, who discovered the
connection between the disease
and contaminated water. Due to the
commonly held beliefs about miasma and
spontaneous generation, efforts were already
being made to
keep streets clean following
the Public
Health Act of 1848, but
cholera was still rampant.
By mapping the deaths
in a breakout in Soho,
Snow realised that
there was a strong concentration
round a water
pump on Broad
Street. After removing
the handle, so it could
no longer be used, the
deaths fell. He might
not have had the science
to prove it, which
was discovered a decade
or so later by Louis
Pasteur, but John Snow
knew something: that
the disease was spreading
through water, not
air. Unable to completely
prove this to the
government, the immediate
effect his findings had was limited –
other than to the people living near the
Broad Street pump – but he has

76
nevertheless been considered massively
influential and a founder of epidemiology.
Treatment during this age had begun to
move on from prayer and amulets, and
was primarily based on avoiding the sick:
prevention, rather than cure. This was
seen again during the Spanish Flu epidemic
in 1918, to which there are stark
similarities in the response to Covid-19:
schools were closed, people were told to
Although this sounds very alarming, and
was a tragic loss of life, there are numerous
reasons why Covid-19 may not be as
‘uncertain’ as previous epidemics. Our
understanding of the causes of disease,
the science of epidemiology and our hospital
capacity to treat rather than just comfort
the sick mean we face significantly
better odds than our predecessors. The
history of thought around disease has
moved on significantly as we understand
The response to the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic was somewhat similar to the fight against Covid-19
wear masks, and the sick were quarantined.
However, there is a key difference
between then and now, and that is the
lack of vaccinations. The first flu vaccine
was created in the 1940s, after the influenza
virus was discovered in the early
1930s. This lack of a vaccination combined
with the very aggressive nature of
the disease meant death tolls were up to
as many as 50 million by the end of the
pandemic.
their real causes – bacteria and viruses –
as opposed to assuming Covid-19 is the
wrath of God.
And lastly, hopefully we’ve moved on
from drinking mercury.
Polly, U6DJFW