diff --git "a/data_all_eng_slimpj/shuffled/split2/finalzzrmpb" "b/data_all_eng_slimpj/shuffled/split2/finalzzrmpb"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/data_all_eng_slimpj/shuffled/split2/finalzzrmpb"
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+{"text":" \nBooks by V. M. Burns\n\nMystery Bookshop Mysteries   \nTHE PLOT IS MURDER   \nREAD HERRING HUNT   \nTHE NOVEL ART OF MURDER   \nWED, READ & DEAD   \nBOOKMARKED FOR MURDER\n\nDog Club Mysteries   \nIN THE DOG HOUSE   \nTHE PUPPY WHO KNEW TOO MUCH   \nBARK IF IT'S MURDER\n\nPublished by Kensington Publishing Corporation\nBookmarked for Murder\n\nV. M. BURNS\n\nKENSINGTON BOOKS   \nwww.kensingtonbooks.com\n\nAll copyrighted material within is Attributor Protected.\nTable of Contents\n\nAlso by  \nTitle Page  \nCopyright Page  \nAcknowledgments  \nChapter 1  \nChapter 2  \nChapter 3  \nChapter 4  \nChapter 5  \nChapter 6  \nChapter 7  \nChapter 8  \nChapter 9  \nChapter 10  \nChapter 11  \nChapter 12  \nChapter 13  \nChapter 14  \nChapter 15  \nChapter 16  \nChapter 17  \nChapter 18  \nChapter 19  \nChapter 20  \nChapter 21\n\nThis book is a work of fiction. Names, characters, places, and incidents either are products of the author's imagination or are used fictitiously. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events, or locales is entirely coincidental.\n\nKENSINGTON BOOKS are published by\n\nKensington Publishing Corp.   \n119 West 40th Street   \nNew York, NY 10018\n\nCopyright \u00a9 2019 by Valerie Burns\n\nAll rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the prior written consent of the Publisher, excepting brief quotes used in reviews.\n\nKensington and the K logo Reg. U.S. Pat. & TM Off.\n\nISBN-13: 978-1-4967-1832-7 (ebook)   \nISBN-10: 1-4967-1832-1 (ebook)   \nFirst Kensington Electronic Edition: December 2019\n\nISBN: 978-1-4967-1831-0\n\nAcknowledgments\n\nAs always, I want to thank my agent Dawn Dowdle at Blue Ridge Literary and the wonderful people at Kensington who help make my dreams a reality, John, Paula, Michelle, Lauren, and all the folks who do so much behind the scenes.\n\nI am blessed to have a broad network of friends who support me in so many ways, including Patricia Lillie and my fellow Seton Hill University tribe. Thanks to the Barnyardians, Tim, Chuck, Lindsey, Jill, and our fearless leader, Sandy, for all the support and shameless promotional plugs. Thanks to my official team, Amber, Derrick, Eric, Jennifer, Jonathan, and Robin. I also have to thank my unofficial team, Deborah, Grace, Jamie, and Tena. Once a trainer . . .\n\nThanks to Trooper Tony for the technical assistance with police and TBI policy and Abby Vandiver for the legal insights. Thanks to Alexia Gordon for assistance with medical questions and for the unicorn support from both you and Kellye Garrett and the Crime Writers of Color. I appreciate the Cozy Mystery Crew, SinC, and Guppies. Thanks to Dru Ann Love, Karen Owen, Colleen Finn, Jerri Cachero, Lisa A. Kelley, Karen Kenyon, and Lori Caswell for the support, encouragement, and for all you do to help authors.\n\nThanks to my family, Ben Burns, Jackie Rucker, Christopher (Carson) and Crosby Rucker, Jillian (Drew) and Marcella Merkel. Special thanks to my friends Sophia and Shelitha for always having my back.\n\nLastly, thanks to Linda Herold for coming up with the title.\nChapter 1\n\n\"Samantha Marie Washington!\"\n\nIt was never good when my grandmother included my middle name. Mid-thirties and I still cringed as much as I did as a kid. I snapped the book I was perusing closed and looked up. \"What?\"\n\n\"You own a mystery bookshop where you spend 99 percent of your life. It's our last day in the Windy City, and you want to spend the time we have left before our bus leaves in a mystery bookshop?\" She straightened her nearly five-foot-ten frame to its fullest extent and looked down her nose at me.\n\n\"It's research.\" I glanced around the room to make sure the owner who greeted us when we came in wasn't within hearing distance. Thankfully, the owner, Linda Herold, was occupied with another customer. Linda was a stunning woman with a statuesque frame and immaculate hair, nails, and clothes. She looked as though she'd just stepped off the cover of Vogue rather than out of the back of a storage room. I stared down at my blue jeans and tried not to slump at the realization I looked more like a country hick than an aspiring author and mystery bookshop owner. I leaned closer to Nana Jo and whispered, \"Keep your voice down.\"\n\n\"If you don't put that book back on the shelf and get your hiney out of this store at once, so help me God, I'm going to take you over my knee.\" She turned to march out of the store, but something caught her attention and she stopped. \"Isn't that the man Irma picked up at the bar the other night?\"\n\n\"Are you joking? Irma Starczewski picks up at least two men every day of the week. I don't even try to keep track.\" I followed Nana Jo's gaze.\n\nShe was looking at a secluded area in the back of Murder Between the Pages. The bookstore wasn't large, but it took advantage of the vertical space. There were tall bookshelves along the walls and narrow rows with five-foot bookshelves. In the back corner, there was a spiral staircase that led to a loft area that was dark and filled with books. An older man wearing a hat and heavy coat was upstairs arguing with someone I thought to be a woman.\n\n\"I can't see his face.\"\n\n\"Stand over here.\" She stepped aside and pulled me closer. \"His face looks familiar, but, for the life of me, I can't remember where I've seen him before.\" Nana Jo stared.\n\n\"I know what you mean, but maybe he just has one of those faces . . . Maybe he just seems familiar because he was wrapped around Irma at the House of Blues.\" I laughed.\n\n\"Shhhh.\" Nana Jo inclined her head toward a big man wearing tight jeans, a tight leather jacket, a baseball cap, and sunglasses standing nearby. \"Check out Mr. Big.\"\n\nNana Jo leaned close to me and whispered, \"Even if he wasn't wearing sunglasses inside a store, he'd stand out like a stripper at a Baptist camp meeting.\"\n\nNana Jo's metaphor might not have been politically correct, but I couldn't argue with her logic. \"Mr. Big\" definitely stood out. Wearing mirrored sunglasses inside was only part of his disguise fail. Add to that, the extra tight leather jacket, which rode up in the back and exposed part of the butt of a gun in the back waistband of his jeans, and he might have had a neon sign over his head that read \"Security.\"\n\n\"Yeah. He's holding that book upside down,\" I joked.\n\nNana Jo stared at me. I smirked and she flashed a brief smile and then narrowed her eyes. \"Don't try to get on my good side, Samantha Marie. I want you outside in two minutes.\" She turned and walked out.\n\nMore than the use of my middle name, I recognized the tone. I sighed and returned the book to the shelf. I took one last look at \"Mr. Big\" and then hurried outside. I could always come back to Chicago another time and check out the store, preferably without my pushy grandmother in tow.\n\nOutside, Nana Jo impatiently tapped her foot, one hand on her hip, and had a look I knew could silence a classroom of rambunctious teens from her days as a high school math teacher.\n\nI slunk up to my Nana Jo and gave her a kiss on the cheek. \"I'm sorry.\"\n\nThe corners of her lips twitched. All was forgiven.\n\n\"Where are the girls?\"\n\nNana Jo pointed to a line of people that wrapped around the corner. \"They refused to leave the city without popcorn.\"\n\nWhen we agreed to take the Shady Acres four-day shopping excursion to Chicago, we knew time was limited. The trip fee was extremely reasonable and had included four days and three nights at a four-star hotel in the theatre district, tickets to a play, and one meal in the hotel dining room. The theatre district was close to the large Macy's and a short cab or elevated train ride from Michigan Avenue shopping. There was so much to do in the limited time we were there, each of the five of us identified one thing we wanted to do while in the city. Dorothy Clark wanted to shop, so we spent several enjoyable hours walking the Magnificent Mile and admiring the lights and seasonal atmosphere. The week between Christmas and New Year's wasn't the best time for outdoor excursions in Chicago. The wind from Lake Michigan could be bitterly cold, even in warmer months. However, we all dressed warmly and the wind was bearable. Excursions into Water Tower Place, Nordstrom, and Bloomingdale's provided warmth and major hits to a few credit cards but was well worth the journey. Nana Jo chose a matinee performance of the Nutcracker ballet with live music by the Chicago Philharmonic as her one must-see event, and the performance was spectacular. Irma Starczewski, true to her nature, wanted to dance and pick up men, so she chose a night at the Chicago House of Blues. I chose tea at one of the fancy hotels downtown. We'd all managed to fit in everything, except Ruby Mae Stevenson's wish. All Ruby Mae wanted was to get popcorn from a well-known Chicago attraction, Garrett's Popcorn.\n\nThe tiny popcorn shop wasn't much bigger than a telephone booth, but each time we walked by, the line of people was outside and wrapped around the building. We promised to try again every day in hopes of finding a time when the line wasn't so bad, but here it was our last day and we still hadn't found that moment.\n\n\"I'm glad Ruby Mae is getting her popcorn. Maybe I should go and take her place in the line.\" I started to walk toward the line.\n\nNana Jo nudged my arm. \"No need. Here they come.\"\n\nI looked up and Ruby Mae, Irma, Dorothy, and a tall good-looking gentleman followed with two large shopping bags in each hand.\n\nThe group approached and Ruby Mae broke into a big grin. \"Sam, I want you to meet my cousin Arnold's boy, Terrence.\"\n\nTerrence was a dark-skinned young man with a bright smile. He nodded politely.\n\n\"We better hurry if we're going to get back to the hotel in time to catch our bus.\" Nana Jo glanced down the street, lifted her arm, and let out a whistle that would have rivaled those produced by most trains.\n\nA yellow taxi skidded to a stop at the curb and the five of us piled inside while Terrence and the taxi driver crammed our shopping bags in the trunk.\n\nNot surprisingly, the traffic in Chicago was bumper to bumper. The trip, although relatively short, was an adventure. Our driver jammed on his brakes at least four times on the short five-block journey to our hotel, which would have sent us through the front windshield if we hadn't been crammed inside like sardines. He screamed what I could only assume were obscenities in a foreign language at least twice at his fellow motorists. When he pulled up to the curb in front of our hotel, we pried ourselves out of the car, and I overcame a burning desire to drop to my knees and kiss the ground.\n\n\"That was certainly an adventure.\" Nana Jo fanned herself as she straightened up slowly. \"I think he just took five years off my life.\"\n\nRuby Mae patted Nana Jo on the shoulder. \"He certainly has improved my prayer life. I don't think I've prayed that earnestly in quite some time.\"\n\nDorothy staggered out of the front seat. Her purse was clutched to her chest. \"I thought the taxi drivers in New York were bad, but they're tame compared to Mario Andretti back there.\" She pointed at our driver.\n\nWe stared as the taxi sped away from the curb so quickly he left skid marks in the street and a barrage of horn blasts in his wake.\n\n\"Come on, Josephine. Don't just stand there gawking, get a move on.\" Irma prodded Nana Jo in the back. \"I see Max getting on the bus and I need to get up there and secure my seat before that hussy Velma Levington gets it.\"\n\nIrma's back was to Nana Jo, so she missed seeing her raise her purse like a bat. Fortunately, I grabbed her arm and stopped her before she could club Irma.\n\n\"I'm going to brain that dingbat one of these days,\" Nana Jo said through clenched teeth.\n\nIrma ran to the bus in the six-inch heels Nana Jo called hooker heels, and I marveled at her balance.\n\nIrma Starczewski was a petite woman, barely reaching five feet, even in her hooker heels. In her mid-eighties, she was the oldest of Nana Jo's friends. Years of heavy chain-smoking had left their marks and she spoke with a raspy voice and had a persistent cough, which was either a result of the smoking or the alcohol she kept in a flask in her purse. She swore like a sailor and flirted with every man she met. Irma also had a big heart, and I knew Nana Jo loved her like a sister.\n\nWe'd checked out of our rooms earlier and left our luggage with the bellmen, so there wasn't much for us to do except get onboard the charter bus and sit for the two-hour drive back to North Harbor, Michigan.\n\nThe bus driver, a tall man who looked to be in his thirties, stood at the door and offered a hand to each of us as we loaded onto the bus.\n\nNana Jo was in front of me. \"You're new. What happened to Earl?\"\n\nFrom the angle where she stood, Nana Jo probably wasn't able to see the man's face, but a bright red patch spread from his neck. However, it was quickly gone.\n\nThe man smiled. \"Earl had an emergency and had to leave. However, I promise to take real good care of you.\" He smiled again, but there was something behind his eyes that sent a shiver up my spine.\n\nI forced myself not to wrench my hand away as the driver assisted me into the bus, but I couldn't help wiping my hand on my jeans once I was inside and safely out of sight.\n\nNana Jo scooted over so I could sit next to her. \"Something clammy about that one, isn't there?\" She inclined her head in the direction of the driver. \"I wonder what really happened to Earl.\"\n\n\"I'm sure it's just like he said. Earl probably had something come up and had to go home.\"\n\n\"Hmm . . .\" She tilted her head to the side and stared at me.\n\n\"What?\"\n\n\"You look like my granddaughter, but she's smart enough to recognize cow dung when someone shovels it out.\"\n\n\"She's also smart enough to know when something is none of her business, and she knows how to keep her nose out of trouble.\"\n\nShe raised an eyebrow but said nothing.\n\nIrma had outrun Velma Levington. She cozied up next to Max Franck, a short, bald man with glasses and an air of something European. Irma met Max at the House of Blues a couple of nights ago. Apart from being able to hold his own with Irma when it came to shots, Max was also an enthusiastic dancer. He and Irma hit it off and spent the entire night drinking, dancing, drinking, and then drinking. Not unlike many residents of large cities like Chicago, Max didn't drive and was surprisingly enthusiastic when Irma told him about the bus trip to North Harbor. At the time, I wondered why anyone from Chicago would want to go to North Harbor, Michigan. However, the look in Max's eyes led me to believe his interest had less to do with the location and more to do with Irma.\n\nThey were so close at the House of Blues, I felt sure Irma would take him back to her hotel room. However, she was disappointed when he begged off, saying he had business he had to take care of but promised to join her today. Irma had been looking forward to his visit to Shady Acres and barely spoke of anything else. The bus wasn't full, and the activities manager permitted Max to join the trip for the ride home for free since he hadn't stayed at the hotel, eaten any meals, or taken part in any of the other activities. Besides, two residents had paid for seats on the trip but had been unable to attend at the last minute due to medical reasons. Max wasn't the only new addition to the bus. There was another woman I hadn't recognized from the first trip. She stood out because she didn't seem like one of the seniors, although it was hard to tell. She had on a large hat, which hid part of her face. She walked down the aisle. As she passed by Max and Irma, I thought I noticed a glint of recognition in Max's eyes.\n\nNana Jo leaned close. \"I wonder who that is.\"\n\nI shrugged. \"Probably someone's daughter or granddaughter getting a free ride to North Harbor.\"\n\nNana Jo nudged me. \"Look, it's Mr. Big.\"\n\nI stared after the man in question. He was the big, stocky man from the bookstore we'd seen earlier, with tight jeans and mirrored sunglasses.\n\n\"I wonder if he still has that gun in his pants?\"\n\nNana Jo patted her purse. \"Well, if he does, I've got my peacemaker with me and I'll drop him like a Thanksgiving turkey if he so much as reaches a finger toward his waistband.\"\n\nHe sidled down the aisle with a duffle bag. He took a seat directly across from Irma and Max. I could have sworn a look of recognition passed across Max's face, but with sunglasses, it was hard to tell if Mr. Big had the same reaction and the recognition was mutual.\n\nWhen Velma boarded, she glanced toward Max and Irma. For a brief second, she hesitated. That momentary hesitation brought a look in Irma's face which could only be described as gloating. Velma glared. However, she quickly plastered on a fake smile and glanced around for a seat. Velma was about the same height and weight as Irma, but she lacked Irma's outgoing personality. She had long white hair, which she usually wore in a tight bun. Velma's most distinct feature was her eyes. They were blue, a cold, steely blue like Lake Michigan in the winter when the ice covered the water. Velma turned toward the seat next to Mr. Big but was thwarted when the stranger picked up his duffle bag from the floor and placed it in the empty seat.\n\n\"Well, I never.\" Velma stomped down the aisle in search of another seat.\n\nIf Mr. Big took note of Velma's ire, it was well hidden behind his sunglasses. He slouched in his seat and pulled his cap down so most of his face was hidden. Arms folded across his chest, he presented a stony barrier that screamed, \"Do Not Disturb,\" louder than any placard on a hotel room.\n\nIf the smile on Irma's face and her body language were any indication, Irma reveled in her victory over Velma, whom Irma viewed as competition. Velma hadn't been at Shady Acres long, but, in just a few short months, she and Irma had become bitter rivals in practically every area. This round was definitely scored in Irma's favor.\n\nMax, on the other hand, seemed agitated and distracted. He was definitely not as attentive to Irma as he'd been in the bar. Whether due to the light of day, lack of alcohol, or improved judgment, which often occurred outside of bars, Max wasn't nearly as flirtatious and enamored with Irma as he'd been in the House of Blues.\n\nThe bus filled up and, once the new activities director made sure everyone was present and accounted for, we were off. At the House of Blues, Max was jovial and charming. However, on this return trip, his disposition appeared to be quiet and taciturn. However, I grew tired of people-watching and pulled out a book I'd picked up at Murder Between the Pages by Ellery Adams, The Secret, Book & Scone Society, and buried my head in murder, mystery, and intrigue set in a bookshop.\n\n* * *\n\nI went to college in the Chicago suburbs many moons ago. However, after more than a decade, the one thing that hadn't changed much was the traffic. Traffic in Chicago was a nightmare, especially on weekdays. I knew many natives who owned cars but left them at home and used public transportation, especially the elevated trains, known locally as \"the EL,\" to avoid the rush hour. There was even a commuter train that ran between River Bend, Indiana, and Chicago, which was popular with commuters and anyone who wanted to take advantage of the theatre, shopping, or sports events without the hassle of sitting on the interstate for what felt like eons. Charter bus trips, like the one Shady Acres provided, were very popular as a way to enjoy the sites of the city without the hassle of driving or dealing with parking.\n\nNormally, the interstates were less busy on weekends. However, the holidays were on the weekend this year, which would have meant several of the places we wanted to visit would be unavailable. So, this trip was Monday through Thursday. I had hoped the holidays would mean less people on the interstate and, hopefully, less traffic congestion. However, road construction on the toll road had diverted a lot of traffic onto the expressway, and we spent several hours inching our way eastward. What should have been two hours and twenty minutes turned into four hours and we'd barely crossed over into the state of Indiana.\n\nOnce we finally began to move, I noticed a rumble coming from the crowd. I lifted my head when I heard Nana Jo shout. \"Hey, driver. We're going to need to stop at a rest area.\"\n\nI looked up and saw the driver glance in the mirror, but he neither slowed his pace nor acknowledged the request as he sped past several exits.\n\n\"There's a toilet in the back.\" Our driver glanced into the rearview mirror and gave a halfhearted smile to soften the words.\n\n\"It's broken,\" someone yelled from the back. I didn't recognize the voice, but I definitely recognized the tone.\n\nOur driver passed two more exits with no signs of slowing down. That was when the buzz got louder and less polite.\n\n\"We've been on this missile for four hours. You've got old people with small bladders,\" Nana Jo yelled. \"Listen, Bub, I suggest you pull this tank over or you're going to have a lot of clean up.\"\n\nWhether it was Nana Jo's tone or the look in the eyes of some of the other prisoners, her message finally came through.\n\nThe activities director, Caroline Fenton, leaned forward and whispered something to the driver, who then pulled off the interstate into a rest area.\n\nNana Jo was one of the first people at the door. When the driver assisted her down, I heard him whisper, \"My name is Bob, not Bub.\"\n\nNana Jo hurried off, but I could tell by the set of her shoulders and her ramrod straight back, she'd heard him.\n\nThere was a mass exodus to get off the bus. I was half the age of most of the people on the bus, so I stayed in my seat to allow the others to leave first.\n\n\"Come on, Max. Let's take a walk.\" Irma stood up.\n\n\"No. I think I'll just wait here.\" Max looked around. \"You go on.\" He smiled and stood up to allow Irma to slide past him into the aisle before he returned to his seat.\n\nIf the call of nature hadn't been so strong, I suspect Irma might have spent more time cajoling Max to join her. Instead, she hurried down the aisle and off the bus.\n\nI stood and stretched. Velma looked to be asleep in the back of the bus. Mr. Big with the mirrored glasses remained in his seat. Max and the activities director were the only other ones left as I got off the bus.\n\nPublic restrooms, especially at rest stops, are often a place I avoided whenever possible. However, while I was fine while sitting, gravity wasn't my friend. Once I stood, the urge to go increased. So, I took a few deep breaths and did what I had to do.\n\nNana Jo waited for me near the vending machines. She juggled chips, bottled water, candy bars, and donuts.\n\n\"You can't possibly be planning to eat all of that.\"\n\nShe never took her gaze from the vending machine. \"You got any ones?\"\n\n\"I'm not hungry.\"\n\n\"You will be before we get home.\"\n\nI stared at her. \"We're through the worst of the traffic now. We should be home in less than an hour.\"\n\nShe smirked. \"What do you think the likelihood is our prison guard is going to stop for food?\"\n\nI stared at her for several seconds and then reached in my purse and pulled out my wallet. \"Good point. Maybe you should get some of those beef jerky things and cheese crackers.\"\n\nOnce our bags were full of snacks, we headed back to the bus. The driver was nowhere to be found and the doors of the bus were locked. Several of the others stood outside waiting.\n\nCaroline Fenton, the activities director, hurried to the front of the line. \"What's wrong? We should get back on the road.\"\n\n\"The door's locked.\" I pointed to the door.\n\nShe smiled. \"That's impossible.\" She shook the door and realized what we already knew, and the smile left her face. She looked around like a frantic rabbit. \"Where's Bob?\"\n\nWe shrugged and looked around.\n\n\"I assume he went to the bathroom,\" Nana Jo said what we all thought must have been obvious.\n\nAt that point, Bob hurried to the front.\n\n\"Sorry.\" He pulled keys out of his pocket and unlocked the doors and climbed into the bus.\n\nHe helped each of us onto the bus, same as before. Sarah Howard was the first person on the bus. The only person onboard was Max, who hadn't left his seat. We each returned to our seats. Irma was one of the last to board. When she got to her seat, she waited for Max to stand and allow her to return to her seat. However, he didn't move.\n\nShe gave him a playful shake. \"Maxie, wake up. I need to get by.\" When Max didn't respond, she shook him harder. \"Max, come on.\"\n\nPeople huffed with impatience, as did the bus driver.\n\nMiss Fenton stood and looked back. \"If everyone would take their seats, we'll be able to leave.\"\n\nIrma shook Max harder. This time, Max slumped over in his seat and slowly slid to the floor. Irma stood in shock for what felt like a full minute. Then she let out a bloodcurdling scream and fainted.\nChapter 2\n\nThe rest stop on the Indiana toll road wasn't exactly the most restful place I'd ever been. I'd been to rest areas with restaurants, gas stations, and even showers for truckers. This wasn't one of those. The building was a basic concrete block. There were restrooms for men and women, vending machines, and a display stand with brochures and maps. Outside, there were picnic tables and an area for dogs to play and relieve themselves, complete with trash receptacles and plastic bags for the waste. It was much too cold outside to sit at the picnic tables, and the public restrooms didn't lend themselves to long stays. The state police wouldn't allow us back onto the bus until the forensics team finished. So, a busload of seniors and about four people who had yet to make it to the half-century mark were all huddled inside the concrete building. The vending machine looked as though it had been raided by locusts. The only things left in the machine were a pack of chewing gum and a Milky Way that had gotten twisted and was impaled on the spiral coil used to push it forward.\n\n\"Hand me a piece of that shoe leather.\" Nana Jo reached out her hand.\n\nI gave her one of the pieces of beef jerky I had left.\n\n\"My teeth aren't what they used to be, but I'm starving.\"\n\nDorothy stared at the flat stick. \"Josephine, you must be pretty desperate to even consider eating that.\" She frowned. \"I don't think my teeth could take it.\"\n\n\"I'm desperate. It's either the shoe leather or I'm going to pass out.\" She bit into the jerky and tugged. Unfortunately, it had been in the machine quite a while and was tougher than rubber.\n\nRuby Mae scowled. \"If we could get to our luggage, I could get my popcorn.\"\n\nThe police had taped off the area around the bus and, unfortunately, our luggage was within the boundary and therefore, off-limits.\n\n\"Well, I can't eat this.\" Nana Jo tossed the beef jerky stick into a nearby trash can. \"Where are we?\"\n\nDorothy pulled out her cell phone. \"Hey, Siri.\"\n\n\"How can I serve you today, my queen,\" Siri responded.\n\nDorothy didn't bat an eyelash. \"Where am I?\"\n\nAfter a few moments, the phone responded with an address.\n\n\"Ask her to order ten large pepperoni pizzas and have them delivered.\" Nana Jo turned around to face the majority of the crowd. \"We're ordering pizza. Who wants in?\"\n\nEvery hand raised and Nana Jo took a quick count. \"Better add five cheese to the order.\"\n\nDorothy promptly updated her request to her cellular servant.\n\n\"I wonder how Irma's doing?\" Ruby Mae craned her neck to look around the crowd toward a small maintenance closet where Irma had been carried after she fainted.\n\n\"No idea, but she's surrounded by men, so I'd say she's in hog heaven,\" Nana Jo said.\n\nIt took less than thirty minutes for a Volkswagen Beetle that was probably older than me, with a black roof, baby-blue body, one green door, and one orange door to arrive at our rest area. The myriad of police cars had cordoned off the area by the bus, but the car chugged its way to the front. The driver pulled up front. He left the car running, hopped out, and looked around. Nana Jo and I went outside.\n\n\"You ordered fifteen pizzas?\" A freckle-faced kid, who looked about twelve, with curly red hair, ripped jeans, a red hoodie with a Star Trek insignia, and red Converse All-Stars, held up a smartphone that looked as though it cost more than the car.\n\n\"Nice shoes.\" Nana Jo scribbled her name with her finger.\n\n\"Thanks. All the old ladies usually like them.\" He reached inside his car and handed out the pizzas. \"What happened over there?\" He inclined his head toward the bus.\n\nThe coroner was removing the body from the bus.\n\n\"That's what's left of the last person who called me an old lady. Remember, on Star Trek, the red shirts always die first.\" Nana Jo handed me half of the pizzas, turned, and walked toward the building.\n\nThe driver stood there staring for a half minute and then laughed.\n\nI hurried to catch up to my grandmother. \"What's that mean, 'the red shirts always die first'?\"\n\nNana Jo smirked. \"And I thought you were a trekkie.\"\n\nI thought about her comment and that was when the lightbulb went on and I chuckled.\n\nAs we were about to enter the building, everyone started to come outside.\n\n\"What's going on?\" I juggled my pizza boxes to alleviate some of the heat and grease coming through the boxes.\n\nCaroline Fenton pointed to the back. \"The replacement charter bus finally arrived.\" She reached for some of the boxes. \"Let me help you.\"\n\n\"Great. Maybe we can get home soon,\" Nana Jo said.\n\n\"Unfortunately, we can't leave until the police finish questioning everyone, but at least we can sit down.\" She followed the herd of seniors heading to the bus.\n\nLike lemmings, we marched to the bus. Once onboard, everyone dug into the pizza and found seats. The new bus driver had come prepared with a cooler full of bottled water and everyone was grateful.\n\nEveryone wanted to give Nana Jo something for the pizza, but she declined. Caroline Fenton said Shady Acres would reimburse her for the costs.\n\nFed and finally able to sit, I hoped we would be able to leave soon. My brother-in-law, Tony Rutherford, had been looking after my dogs, Snickers and Oreo, so I knew they were in good hands. However, my sister, Jenna, wasn't a big fan and the medicine Snickers had to take for her heart disease was causing her kidneys to fail. Combined with the fact she was fourteen, she had the occasional accident. Too many accidents and Jenna would blow a gasket. I'd called earlier to let them know what happened, but they weren't home.\n\n\"Boy, that hit the spot.\" Nana Jo wiped her mouth with a napkin. \"I was so hungry I was getting hangry.\"\n\n\"How can you tell the difference?\" Dorothy leaned over the seat.\n\nNana Jo swiped at her friend. \"Very funny.\"\n\n\"I wonder what happened to the cop.\"\n\nI looked back at her. \"What cop?\"\n\nRuby Mae Stevenson sat next to Dorothy in the seat behind Nana Jo and me. She pulled out her knitting from a bag, which she always carried with her, and started knitting what appeared to be a baby hat. She knitted a few more stitches. \"The one that was sitting across from Irma and Max.\"\n\n\"How do you know he was a cop?\" I asked the question but something in my mind knew she was right.\n\nShe looked up over her glasses. \"The mirrored sunglasses, the gun he had in the back of his pants, the policeman-military haircut under the baseball cap.\" She shrugged. \"It all adds up. He's either a cop or he's a former policeman. Plus, there's just something about police.\" She stopped for a moment. After a few seconds, she shook her head and continued knitting. \"They always have an air of authority about them.\" She shrugged again. \"Besides, he and Irma are the only ones allowed to walk around.\"\n\nI thought about what she said and realized I hadn't seen Mr. Big since we were ushered off the bus and told to wait. I should have recognized that, but, seeing him at the mystery bookstore, I suspected something sinister from him. \"I wonder why he was following Max.\"\n\nWe shared what we'd seen at the bookstore, but no one had answers.\n\nNana Jo stretched. \"I'm tired. I think I'll take a nap.\"\n\nShe pulled her coat close and snuggled down in her seat.\n\nDorothy pulled a book out of her purse and Ruby Mae continued knitting.\n\nI sighed. I wasn't in the mood for my book. Suddenly, my reality was much more interesting than my book. I pulled a notebook out of my purse that I had taken to keeping with me all the time. I flipped to a blank page.\n\n\"I'm shattered.\" Lady Penelope flopped onto a chair in an unladylike manner.\n\nLady Elizabeth Marsh looked intently at her niece. \"I hope you haven't overdone it. Boxing Day shopping at Harrods is a lot, especially for someone in your condition should\u2014\"\n\n\"Don't you start too.\" Lady Penelope stared at her aunt, but, after a few seconds, her eyes and voice softened. \"I'm sorry. I know you mean well, but I've had enough babying from Victor.\" She reached across the table and patted her aunt's hand. \"I don't mean to be cross, but I'm fine. Dr. Haygood says I'm as strong as an ox and the baby is doing just fine.\" She patted her stomach. \"Besides, we've got a long way to go.\"\n\n\"How's the morning sickness?\"\n\n\"I'm much better. Mrs. McDuffie suggested tea and soda crackers first thing and amazingly, it's done the trick.\" She smiled. \"Victor brings them religiously every morning and won't let me move until I've eaten them.\"\n\n\"Good.\" Lady Elizabeth relaxed and smiled at her niece. \"I suppose hitting the Boxing Day sales is enough to wear anyone out.\" She sighed. \"I'm fairly shattered myself.\"\n\nA very prim and proper waitress placed a pot of tea on the table in the department store dining room along with a triple-tiered plate stand, which was piled high with scones, sandwiches, and tarts.\n\n\"That looks scrumptious.\" Lady Penelope helped herself to a scone and slathered a generous helping of clotted cream and strawberry preserves over the top. She took a bite.\n\nLady Elizabeth's niece closed her eyes and moaned. When Lady Penelope opened her eyes, her aunt was staring at her and both ladies laughed.\n\n\"I just needed a little nourishment and then I intend to get back into the fray. There are some sheets I want to get for the nursery.\" Lady Penelope washed her scone down with tea and then tackled a cucumber sandwich.\n\nLady Elizabeth sipped her tea and listened as her niece talked about her plans for decorating the nursery and the preparations she and her husband, Victor Carlston, were making for their first child. She smiled as she listened to her niece's enthusiastic plans. Lady Elizabeth shared her excitement at finding the perfect fabric for curtains for the bedroom at Wickfield Lodge, which was being shared by Josiah and Johan, the two Jewish boys the Marshes were keeping from the Kindertransport. Lady Elizabeth feared the nursery where the young boys stayed, along with their younger sister, Rivka, was too frilly for two rambunctious boys. Not having any children of their own, Lady Elizabeth and Lord William Marsh had only experienced girls, having raised their nieces, Lady Daphne and Lady Penelope, after their parents were killed in an automobile accident. Lady Elizabeth knew the children wouldn't be staying with them long, but she was determined to make what time the children did stay as pleasant as possible. It was clear these Polish refugees had witnessed not only the death of their parents but had seen atrocities that could scar them for life. Lady Elizabeth knew curtains, a few toys, and warm clothes couldn't wipe away the horror, but she hoped she could help to create an environment of safety and love where they would now see there were people who cared.\n\n\"Penny for your thoughts,\" Lady Penelope joked.\n\n\"I'm sorry, dear. I was woolgathering.\" Lady Elizabeth smiled. She reached into one of her bags and pulled out a lovely Chinese silk pillowcase. \"I found these wonderful silk pillowcases for the boys' rooms. I have no idea what these markings mean, but the color was perfect. What do you think?\"\n\nLady Penelope admired the pillowcases and nodded her agreement about the color.\n\nLady Elizabeth glanced up and noticed an elderly woman staring at her. When the woman made eye contact, she smiled broadly and hurried to the table.\n\n\"Hello, I thought that was you. It's been such a long time.\" She glanced around nervously.\n\n\"Hello,\" Lady Elizabeth said hesitantly. She put the pillowcases back into the bag.\n\n\"I saw your lovely Chinese pillowcases.\" She reached out a hand. \"May I?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth passed the woman the pillowcases.\n\nShe examined them and smiled. \"Beautiful embroidery.\" She glanced at Lady Elizabeth. \"Do you know what it says?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth shook her head.\n\n\"It's the English equivalent to Sweet Dreams.\" She smiled. \"My husband and I lived in China for many years. It's not easy learning the language, but I was determined to master it and I found an excellent teacher.\" She sighed and reluctantly passed the items back.\n\n\"That's wonderful. Thank you. They were the perfect color and I got an excellent price, so I bought them, but then I wondered if I should have. I had just asked my niece about the markings.\"\n\nThe woman looked as though she was remembering something extremely pleasant. \"I loved China. My husband and I were missionaries.\" She sighed. \"I love puzzles and China and all things Chinese, especially my Chinese puzzle boxes.\" She looked at Lady Elizabeth. \"You don't remember me, but then why should you. It's been such a long time since we've seen each other. It's me, Eleanor . . . Eleanor Forsythe.\" She looked around nervously, then turned back to Lady Elizabeth. \"Do you mind if I sit for a moment? I'm a bit tired.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth clearly didn't remember, but good breeding took over. \"Of course. Forgive my manners. Please, won't you join us?\"\n\nThe lady eagerly sat down.\n\nThe waitress had been hovering nearby and hurried over to the table with an extra cup and plate setting for the new arrival. She'd barely finished filling the woman's cup, before the woman whisked it to her mouth and drank as though she was parched.\n\nLady Elizabeth requested more sandwiches and the waitress hurried to fulfill the order.\n\nEleanor Forsythe was a thin woman with wispy white hair, which was a bit wild. Her hat and coat were of a good quality, but they were old and outdated. Her hat was slightly askew and sat at a rakish angle. She hungrily ate the sandwiches and scones that the waitress brought and drank several cups of tea, all the while maintaining a steady stream of conversation. \"How is his lordship?\"\n\n\"He's well. He's been plagued by gout. I think he outdid it at the wedding.\"\n\n\"Wedding? Don't tell me I missed a wedding?\" She turned to Lady Penelope.\n\n\"Not Penelope. No, it was my other niece, Lady Daphne, who married Lord Browning, the Duke of Kingfordshire.\"\n\nEleanor smiled. \"How wonderful. I positively love weddings. I love puzzles and I love weddings. I'm sorry to have missed it.\" She looked around nervously. \"I don't get out much anymore. My cousin Desmond, and his wife, Constance, have moved into my home at Battersley Manor.\" Eleanor leaned forward as she spoke and stared into Lady Elizabeth's eyes and reached out and clutched her hand. \"They are so careful about me getting out . . . afraid I'll catch a cold or take a fall. They do worry so.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth stared back. \"Yes, one can never be too careful.\"\n\nEleanor Forsythe's eyes darted around. \"No, indeed, especially as I've aged. I have gotten so forgetful. Only last week when my nephew was out of town, I slipped on a bar of soap. I would have broken an arm or a leg if my maid, Dora, hadn't come to fill my hot water bottle.\" She gazed at Lady Elizabeth. \"I don't even remember taking a bath, but Constance, that's Desmond's wife, says I did. I'm so forgetful these days.\"\n\n\"Gracious. You are so fortunate to have Dora,\" Lady Penelope said slowly.\n\nEleanor nodded. \"Yes, it was fortunate, indeed. Although, my cousin says the taxes are so bad and my investments aren't doing well. He doesn't know how much longer I will be able to afford to keep her, but Dora is wonderful. She appreciates my treasures. She's the only one who does.\"\n\n\"I see.\" Lady Elizabeth's gaze never wavered from Eleanor. After a moment, she looked around. \"How did you manage to get out today?\"\n\n\"Constance and Desmond went out of town for Christmas. They left the new housekeeper, Mrs. Sanderson, in charge. Actually, Muriel is a distant cousin of my late husband, but I managed to get out.\" She looked around. \"I don't have much time.\"\n\nA large, barrel-shaped woman rushed into the dining room like a blustery wind. She looked around the room with a frantic gaze.\n\n\"Is Mrs. Sanderson a large woman with a rather equine-shaped face and a no-nonsense way about her?\" Lady Penelope cast a sidewise glance toward the front of the dining room.\n\nMrs. Forsythe nodded.\n\n\"I think she may be looking for you.\" Lady Penelope inclined her head toward the front of the dining room.\n\nMrs. Forsythe glanced over her shoulder and her eyes took on a frightened expression, like a deer caught in the headlamps of a car. She turned toward Lady Elizabeth and clasped her hand tighter. \"I don't have much time. Please, they're trying to kill me and take my treasures. Please, I\u2014\"\n\n\"There you are. I've been looking all over for you. I just called your cousin Desmond. I was so frightened.\" Mrs. Sanderson rushed to the table.\n\nShe looked quickly at Lady Elizabeth, and something in her manner changed. Lady Elizabeth was accustomed to the change. She'd experienced it many times before. In the woman's voice and in her bearing, something changed. She'd assessed Lady Elizabeth Marsh and knew she was a well-bred woman of status. Whether due to the cut of her simple, but well-made clothing, her expensive coat with its luxurious fur collar, or perhaps due to the intelligent expression on her face, Lady Elizabeth Marsh was a woman of prominence and Mrs. Sanderson's attitude and mannerisms adjusted accordingly.\n\n\"I'm so sorry if she's been bothering you. I'm afraid the poor dear is easily confused.\" She smiled.\n\n\"Not in the least. Eleanor and I are old friends.\" Lady Elizabeth smiled and patted the older woman's hand. \"We were just enjoying a chat.\"\n\nThe waitress returned. \"Would your ladyship care for anything else?\"\n\n\"Your ladyship?\" Mrs. Sanderson muttered.\n\nLady Elizabeth turned to the gaping woman. \"Would you care to join us for tea?\"\n\nMrs. Sanderson's face grew red and she shook her head. \"No . . . no thank you.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth turned to the waitress and indicated she was done and would like her bill.\n\nThe young girl bobbed a curtsey and then hurried away.\n\n\"Excuse me, but . . . your ladyship?\" Mrs. Sanderson said.\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled. \"I'm sorry. I didn't introduce myself. I'm Lady Elizabeth Marsh and this is my niece, Lady Penelope Carlston.\"\n\nThe housekeeper's already red face grew redder. \"Your ladyship.\" She made a slight curtsy. She nervously glanced from her charge to Lady Elizabeth. \"Did you say, you and Mrs. Forsythe are friends?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth waved her hand. \"Yes. Eleanor and I go way back. It's shameful how people lose touch these days, but I intend to rectify that.\" She turned to Mrs. Forsythe. \"I was just saying, we'll have to come by Battersley Manor soon, and, of course, Eleanor has an open invitation to visit us at Wickfield Lodge. I know Lord William will love to see you.\"\n\nMrs. Sanderson's face registered surprise, but she quickly tried to hide it. \"Well, of course, your ladyship is welcome any time, but Mrs. Forsythe isn't well and can't get out like she used to.\" She collected the woman's purse and helped her up from her chair. \"In fact, I'm afraid this excursion may have been too much. She's looking rather flushed.\" She glanced from Mrs. Forsythe to Lady Elizabeth. \"I'd better get the old dear home before . . . well, before she gets worse. Plus, I need to call Mrs. Tarkington and let her know you're safe. She was so concerned about you. She was actually going to come and help me look for you.\"\n\nMrs. Forsythe, who moments earlier was alert and talkative, was suddenly quiet and withdrawn.\n\nThe housekeeper hustled the older woman away, leaving Lady Elizabeth and Lady Penelope staring at their hasty retreat.\n\n\"Now, that was odd,\" Lady Penelope said. \"Do you believe her? Do you really believe her family is trying to kill her?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth stared after the retreating ladies. \"I don't know. There's definitely something suspicious going on, and it's clear Eleanor believes it.\"\n\n\"What are you going to do?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth was silent for a moment. \"There's not much I can do about it today.\" She smiled at her niece. \"Now, that I've regained my energy, I'm going to fight my way through the crowd and get the rest of the things on my list. I'll tackle the problem of Eleanor Forsythe tomorrow.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth achieved success and acquired everything on her list. Laden down with packages, she and Lady Penelope hurried to the Knightsbridge station to catch the train which would take them home. The ladies were jostled along by the crowds who'd packed the station. The station bustled with activity as people anxiously awaited the approaching train.\n\nJust as the ladies left the ticket hall with their first-class tickets and hurried to catch their train, they heard the rumble of the train as it pulled into the station. The ground vibrated and the engines roared.\n\nThey queued up to get on the escalator to descend to the platform. The impatient crowds pushed, shoved, and jostled their way onto the metal stairs of the escalators and were carried underground.\n\nLady Elizabeth felt a tug on her sleeve and turned as a woman screamed and then fell headlong down the metal stairs onto the concrete platform below.\n\nLady Elizabeth gasped but then quickly collected herself and hurried down to the platform.\n\nSprawled on the ground lay the body of Eleanor Forsythe. Her eyes glanced up at Lady Elizabeth, who quickly knelt down and attempted to assess the lady's injuries. \"Someone get a doctor,\" Lady Elizabeth ordered. However, it was obvious from the unnatural angle in which she lay, that her injuries were severe. She felt a tug on her arm.\n\nMrs. Forsythe's lips moved, but she was unable to speak loudly. Lady Elizabeth bent close to the woman's face and Mrs. Forsythe whispered into her ear.\n\nAfter a few moments, Mrs. Forsythe's lips stopped and she lay very still.\n\nMrs. Sanderson suddenly appeared and stared at Lady Elizabeth. \"Gracious me. The poor woman must have lost her footing. What did she say?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth stood. \" 'Murder.' She said, 'I was murdered.' \"\n\nChapter 3\n\n\"Sam, pay attention.\" Nana Jo followed up the request with a sharp jab to my side.\n\nI looked up from my writing. \"What?\"\n\nShe pointed toward the front of the bus, where a large man with a potbelly that overflowed the top of his pants and a head full of thick, curly hair stood.\n\n\"Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Sergeant Dominic Davis. I'm sorry for the long wait, but we'll get to all of you as quickly as possible.\"\n\n\"Too late,\" Nana Jo yelled.\n\n\"Shhush.\" This time it was my turn to nudge her, but my elbows weren't as pointy and she simply ignored me.\n\n\"We've been on this bus for hours. We're cold and ready to go home,\" Nana Jo said.\n\nThere were a lot of shouts of agreement from everyone on the bus.\n\nSergeant Davis held up his hands to quiet the rowdy crowd. \"I'm sure you're all very anxious to get home. However, we need to get statements from everyone. As soon as we finish, you'll be on your way.\" He stared at Nana Jo. \"Why don't we start with you?\"\n\nNana Jo climbed over me to get out of her seat. \"Gladly. I'll do anything to get this over with. I need a shower, a stiff drink, and the comfort of my own bed, and not necessarily in that order.\"\n\nThe process for taking statements was slow and methodical. There were four policemen assigned to take statements, of which Sergeant Davis was one. It took two hours to get all the statements. I felt like a youngster compared to some of the other people on the bus, and I was exhausted. Even though most of the residents of Shady Acres Retirement Village were more active than me and enjoyed activities like surfing, martial arts, and their newest obsession, Hip Hop Dancing, I felt guilty about going in front of people who were my elders, at least in years, so I waited until most of the others had gone before I left to give my statement.\n\nWhen it was my turn, I was directed by a rather good-looking policeman to a makeshift office area with a folding chair in the utility closet of the rest area. Sergeant Luis Alvarez was young, probably late twenties, with a clean-cut face, olive complexion, and dark hair, which was shorter on the sides and curly on top. He had blue eyes the color of Lake Michigan in the summer and the whitest teeth I'd ever seen. When he smiled, I was dazzled and found myself staring at him and giggling like a teenager.\n\n\"May I see your driver's license?\"\n\nI stared for a few seconds. He had a very nice accent, which took several seconds for my brain to decipher. I watched his lips moving but wasn't exactly focused on the words coming out of his mouth. When I finally realized he was waiting for a response, heat rushed up my neck and I fumbled in my purse for my wallet. \"Sorry.\"\n\nHe smiled again and I giggled. I needed to pull myself together. This was embarrassing. I took a bottle of water from my purse and concentrated way too much effort into opening the top.\n\n\"Mrs. Washington, did you know the deceased?\" He had a deep voice that was soft and smooth and very sexy. \"Mrs. Washington?\"\n\nUnfortunately, I squeezed the bottle too tightly and when the top came off, water overflowed all over my lap. \"I'm sorry.\"\n\nHe handed me a few napkins he found nearby.\n\n\"What was the question?\"\n\n\"I asked if you knew the victim?\"\n\nI took a deep breath and tried to focus on the dead body and ignore the water seeping down my pants or Sergeant Alvarez's super white teeth, smooth voice, or . . . darn it. This wasn't working. I dug my fingernails into my palm and looked straight at Sergeant Handsome. \"I met him for the first time about two nights ago at the Chicago House of Blues. He was . . . interested in my grandmother's friend, Irma Starczewski.\"\n\n\"You'd never seen him before?\" He asked the question as though he found the fact hard to believe.\n\nI shook my head. \"Noooo. I'm pretty sure I haven't.\"\n\nHe looked at his notes. \"Your grandmother, Josephine Thomas, says you own a mystery bookshop in . . . North Harbor, Michigan.\"\n\nI eased up on the nails in my palm. \"I do. I used to be an English teacher but after my husband, Leon, died, I retired and opened Market Street Mysteries.\" I was rambling, but I didn't know what owning a mystery bookshop had to do with Irma's dead boyfriend.\n\n\"You read a lot of mysteries?\"\n\n\"I used to, although I don't have as much time to read now.\"\n\nHe leaned back and tapped his pen on his thigh. I tried not to look, but I knew my gaze kept going to his thighs. He had very nice thighs.\n\n\"Umm, excuse me. Did you say something?\" I went back to the nails in my palm. Darn. This was a lot harder than talking to Detective Stinky Pitt in North Harbor.\n\n\"I asked about the type of books you read.\"\n\n\"I read a lot of cozy mysteries mostly.\"\n\nHe scowled. \"What's a cozy mystery?\"\n\nNow I was on comfortable footing. I could talk about cozy mysteries for hours. \"Cozy mysteries are mysteries with an amateur sleuth, usually female. There's no sex, violence, or bad language in cozies. Have you ever seen Murder, She Wrote?\"\n\nHe nodded.\n\n\"That's a cozy mystery. The point is to find the clues and figure out whodunit.\"\n\nHe nodded and something in his eyes told me he knew exactly what a cozy mystery was. The thought crossed my mind that I needed to be on my guard, but I had no idea why. So, I sat quietly and waited.\n\n\"Do you read any other types of mysteries?\"\n\n\"Sometimes, but I don't like books with lots of violence, so I usually stick to cozies.\"\n\n\"Are cozy mysteries the only types of books you sell in your store?\"\n\n\"Of course not. Just because I read cozies doesn't mean everyone does. I sell all types of mysteries.\"\n\nHe extended a hand to indicate I should elaborate.\n\n\"I sell cozies, police procedurals, soft- and hard-boiled private detective books, true crime . . . pretty much anything mystery or crime related.\"\n\nApparently, I'd said what he wanted to hear.\n\nSergeant Sparkling Teeth smiled and leaned forward. \"So, you sell true crime books.\"\n\nConsidering I'd just said that, I became instantly suspicious. My left eyebrow lifted on its own. \"Why is it important what types of mysteries I sell in my mystery bookshop? I sell pretty much all types of mysteries and true crime books.\"\n\nHe tapped his pen on his thigh, but I was no longer focused on his thighs . . . well, not much anyway. \"Would you consider yourself an expert?\"\n\n\"On what? Mysteries?\"\n\n\"Your grandmother said you not only read mysteries and sell mysteries, but you write them too.\"\n\nMy grandmother had a big mouth. \"I write cozy mysteries, but I'm not published yet.\"\n\n\"You must do a lot of research for your books.\"\n\n\"That's true. I write cozy mysteries that are set in England in 1938. I do a lot of research, especially on the time period. You have to make sure the details are as accurate as possible.\"\n\n\"What type of research do you do? I mean do you look up weapons?\"\n\n\"I research weapons, but not a lot. Cozy mysteries don't have a lot of violence, so I don't spend much time on weapons.\"\n\nHe chuckled. \"You write murder mysteries. Unless you're an expert on weapons, wouldn't you have to research different types of weapons and wounds?\"\n\n\"In cozies, typically the murder isn't graphic. These books aren't really about the act of murder. Like I said before, it's about the clues and figuring out whodunit.\"\n\nHe looked puzzled.\n\n\"It's like story problems when you were in school. It's a story. The author is writing a story and hopefully, the reader is enjoying the story. The author drops clues in the story. Does the fact that the butler had mud on his shoes mean something? Or is it a red herring, a false clue. The author's job is to weave the clues into the story and hope the reader figures out whodunit at the same time as the detective. That's the best case.\" I shook my head. \"The actual weapon used to murder the victim isn't really that important, unless it's some specialized weapon that only one or two people knew how to use.\" I paused and thought. \"Like a bow and arrow or some rare poison only found in the rain forests of South America.\"\n\nHe nodded and tapped his pen. However, now the pen tapping didn't interest me in the least. \"I just wonder how you read true crime books and you sell true crime books, and yet you say you didn't know Max Franck.\"\n\n\"Who is Max Franck? Was he an author?\"\n\nSergeant Alvarez spread his hands wide.\n\n\"What did he write?\"\n\nHe grinned. \"You've never heard of him?\"\n\n\"Sergeant, mystery is one of the most popular genres of fiction, surpassed only by romance. There are millions of mystery and suspense novels published every year. I'm guessing by your response that Max Franck must have been some type of writer.\" I was frustrated and Sergeant Alvarez's appeal had diminished considerably.\n\n\"Are you saying you've never heard of him?\"\n\n\"I'm saying, I've heard of and read a lot of books. If I have read anything he wrote, I don't remember it at this moment.\"\n\nHe stared.\n\nHowever, my days as a high school English teacher had taught me the value of silence and given me the patience of Job. I waited patiently and quietly, volunteering nothing. We sat in silence for nearly a minute.\n\nIf this was a game of chicken, he blinked first and I could tell by his body language, he wasn't happy about it. \"Max Franck was a writer, like yourself. He wrote true crime.\"\n\n\"Then he was not like me. I don't write true crime.\"\n\nHe waved away the differences. \"He was a Pulitzer Prizewinning journalist.\"\n\nDespite my resolve to remain disinterested, I was very interested in the fact that Irma had picked up such a distinguished date. \"What did he win the Pulitzer Prize for?\"\n\n\"You really have no idea?\"\n\nI shook my head. \"I really have no idea.\"\n\nHe sighed and looked at his notes. \"He earned the Pulitzer Prize for an expos\u00e9 on government corruption, but he was best known for his work on the Kennedy assassination.\"\n\nThat was when the lightbulb went off. I sat up straighter in my seat. \"I remember him now. He's supposed to be writing another book.\" I snapped my fingers, trying to remember. \"There was something in the paper recently, wasn't there?\"\n\nHe nodded. \"Yeah. He was writing another book.\"\n\n\"That's it. He wrote books about JFK's assassination and was about to publish a new book about the assassination of Robert Kennedy. That's Max Franck? That's the man who picked up Irma at the House of Blues?\"\n\nHe nodded. \"And you didn't know any of this?\"\n\n\"Well, obviously I knew it. It must have been buried in my head, but I didn't remember until you brought it up. He certainly didn't talk about it . . . Well, he didn't really talk to me much, anyway.\"\n\n\"He never mentioned his books?\"\n\nI shook my head. \"He barely said anything to me. He spent his time drinking, dancing, and, as my grandmother would say, 'feeling up' Irma.\"\n\nHe chuckled. \"Yeah, I think those were your grandmother's exact words.\"\n\nI nodded. \"Wow. So, Max Franck was a writer.\" I sighed. \"I wish I'd known that. I would have liked to have talked to him about it. His life must have been fascinating.\"\n\nSomething about Sergeant Alvarez's demeanor shifted. His shoulders relaxed and his face muscles were much smoother. He was back to being the charming policeman I'd first thought him. \"Tell me all you know about Max Franck, even if it seems irrelevant.\"\n\nI took a moment to collect my thoughts and told him everything I knew, which really wasn't much. \"He and Irma met at the House of Blues. They flirted and danced and drank and flirted and well, when they were done flirting, they flirted more.\" I told him how he and Irma planned a romantic tryst at Shady Acres and how he ended up on the bus.\n\nHe scribbled in his notebook. When I stopped, he looked up. \"Is that all?\"\n\n\"Well, I don't think it means anything, but we saw him earlier today.\" I described what we saw at Murder Between the Pages.\n\nHe asked quite a few questions about the lady we saw arguing with Max Franck, but, unfortunately, I couldn't provide a lot of information. I described her, but the angle of the loft meant that I couldn't see her face. Surprisingly, he didn't seem nearly as excited about Mr. Big with the mirrored sunglasses and the gun in his waistband as I would have expected. In fact, he didn't seem to be taking notes.\n\n\"Aren't you going to write this down?\"\n\nHe shook his head. \"We've already cleared Mr. Sherman.\"\n\n\"Sherman? Is that his name?\"\n\nHe nodded. \"Sidney Sherman isn't a person of interest in this investigation.\"\n\n\"I don't know why not? He was obviously following Max Franck. Plus, he had a gun.\"\n\nSergeant Alvarez sighed. \"If you don't have any other useful information, I think we're done. I have your address and telephone number. If we have any more questions, we'll get in touch.\" He handed me his business card.\n\nHe stood and ushered me out of the utility closet. Outside, I glanced around the corner and noticed Mr. Big, aka Sidney Sherman, standing around with some of the other policemen, drinking coffee. They looked pretty chummy.\n\nI was one of the last people interviewed, so when I got on the bus, I heard Nana Jo say, \"Thank God. I thought they'd never finish. Maybe we can leave now.\"\n\nSergeant Davis had accompanied me onto the bus. \"Ladies and gentlemen, we appreciate your cooperation. We have all your contact information. If you think of anything else, please feel free to call us.\"\n\nIrma was the last person to board. Irma was the oldest of Nana Jo's friends. She was also the vainest. She dressed and acted years younger and took pride in still being able to attract men of all ages. However, the woman who climbed aboard the bus looked and acted decades older. She looked tired and, while she was already a petite woman, she seemed to have shrunk in the past few hours.\n\nIrma walked toward the same seat she'd had previously. Even though this was a different bus, she stopped just short of her seat, and the color left her face.\n\nI stood up and moved into the aisle, using my body to block the seat that mirrored the one Max had died in earlier.\n\n\"Irma, come over here.\" Nana Jo stood and placed an arm around her shoulders.\n\nIrma allowed herself to be led into the seat I'd just abandoned next to Nana Jo, and I took the seat across the aisle.\n\nI settled into my seat, but I zoned out on the last bits of Sergeant Davis's spiel. Mr. Big had followed me onto the bus. He sat in his seat, mirrored glasses and aloof attitude both securely in place. The glance I had of him with the other policemen told me he wasn't one of us. The question I wanted answered was, who was he?\nChapter 4\n\nThe remainder of the ride home was, thankfully, uneventful. Less than one hour after we pulled out of the rest area, the driver pulled up through the gates of Shady Acres Retirement Village.\n\nThe passengers left the bus quickly, stretching and complaining.\n\nNana Jo stood her nearly six-foot frame and stretched. \"Now I know what Gilligan must have felt like.\"\n\nI grabbed my book and other belongings. \"What do you mean? You feel like a castaway?\"\n\n\"No. What was supposed to have been a three-hour tour turned into three years on that blasted island. The drive from Chicago should have taken two hours. It's been twelve since we left.\"\n\nRuby Mae followed. \"I'm going to bed. What time are we meeting?\"\n\nI stared at her. \"Meeting for what?\"\n\nNana Jo, Dorothy, and Ruby Mae all stared at me as if I'd suddenly lost my mind.\n\n\"What time are we meeting to figure out who killed Max?\" Irma said softly. \"You have to figure out who killed Max.\" She swallowed hard. \"We owe him that much.\"\n\n\"The police are going to find his killer. That Sergeant Alvarez is a lot smarter than Detective Pitt. I'm sure he'll be able to catch Max's killer without our intervention. Besides, do we even know he was killed?\" I looked at their faces. \"Maybe it was natural causes?\"\n\nNana Jo scoffed. \"You've got to be joking. Of course he was murdered.\"\n\n\"Maybe he was. Regardless, it doesn't have anything to do with us.\"\n\nIrma's eyes filled with tears. \"Please, Sam. You don't understand.\"\n\nI stared from her to Nana Jo and the others, looking for help. However, their faces clearly said they were aligned with Irma on this one.\n\n\"Nana Jo?\" I looked at my grandmother.\n\nShe looked at me. \"I'm sorry, Sam. I know you don't like getting involved, but we need you, this time more than ever.\"\n\n\"I don't understand. Why is this time more important?\" I was tired and my voice sounded more whiney than ever. \"I don't think any of those detectives believe you killed Max,\" I pleaded with Irma. \"There's no need for us to get involved this time.\"\n\nRuby Mae supplied the answer. \"Because this time, it's one of us.\"\n\n\"What?\" I stared at her.\n\nNana Jo shook me by the shoulders. \"Sam, I know you're tired, but you have to see this. Max Franck was alive when he boarded that bus. Someone on that bus killed him.\"\n\nRuby Mae nodded. \"It had to be one of us.\"\n\n\"There's a murderer at Shady Acres, and we need to find out who it is,\" Dorothy said.\n\n\"This time the murder is too close for comfort. We need you to help us catch a murderer, Sam.\"\nChapter 5\n\nIt was the early hours of the morning and I was exhausted. I wanted nothing more than to sleep through the remaining three days and into the new year. My loft over my bookshop would be quiet, especially without my dogs, Snickers and Oreo, to help welcome me home. Nana Jo stayed in my guest bedroom most weekdays, but then went to her villa at Shady Acres on the weekends and spent time with her boyfriend. She offered to come back with me, but I knew she was concerned about Irma, so I declined.\n\nWhen my husband, Leon, died, I sold the home we shared and took the proceeds and the insurance money and followed our dream and opened a mystery bookshop. That was over a year ago, and I had no regrets. The building we'd walked by for years and dreamed about \"one day,\" \"when our ship comes in,\" was now the home of Market Street Mysteries and the upstairs was my new home.\n\nI pulled into my garage and noticed the apartment above my garage was dark and uninviting. Not only were my grandmother and my poodles gone, but my tenant, Dawson Alexander, was gone too. Dawson left earlier today with the Michigan Southwest University Tigers, MISU to the locals, football team. MISU had gone undefeated this season and were going to be playing in their first bowl game in over a decade. Dawson was the quarterback as well as my part-time assistant and master baker.\n\nAs I climbed the stairs to my loft, the dark, empty space weighed on me more than ever before. Normally, I relished being alone and wasn't one of those people who needed to be surrounded by people to feel comfortable. However, tonight was different. Tonight, I felt not only alone, but lonely.\n\nThe hours on the bus left me exhausted. It took everything in me to drag my body up the flight of stairs to my loft. I didn't have the energy to drag my suitcase too, so I left it at the bottom of the stairs. I'd get one of my nephews or Frank to help me haul it up the stairs later. Frank Patterson was my not-quite-a-boyfriend-but-more-than-a-friend and I smiled at the thought of him. He was a good man, and I was fortunate to have him in my life. I marveled at the fact I was feeling more comfortable with him. Initially, I'd felt like I was cheating on my husband, even though he was dead. However, I knew in my heart Leon wouldn't want me to be alone and that helped.\n\nUpstairs, I showered and prepared for bed. However, the events of the past few hours had my mind racing in a hundred different directions. My body was fatigued, but my mind refused to shut down. I tossed and turned but couldn't stop thinking about Max Franck. After an hour of restlessness, I gave up and flipped on the lights. Maybe the physical action of flipping on the lamp in my bedroom flipped on the lightbulb in my head. I tossed the covers off, grabbed my robe and slippers, and hurried downstairs.\n\n\"You're right, Sergeant Alvarez. I own a freakin' mystery bookshop.\"\n\nOnce downstairs, I disengaged the alarm system and hurried to fire up my point-of-sale system. It didn't take long to find Max Franck. As luck would have it, I owned one of his books and went in search of it. When I opened the bookstore, I debated how to shelve the books. Should I shelve them by genre and subgenre or by author? In the early hours of the morning, I was extremely thankful I had shelved the books alphabetical by author. The only exceptions were a cozy section that showcased my personal favorites and a newly added children's section.\n\nI hurried to the Fs and grabbed Max Franck's book, The Kennedy Conspiracy. According to the medallion on the cover, the book was a New York Times Best Seller, an Edgar Award winner, and a Booker Prize finalist. Normally, a true crime book with the word \"conspiracy\" in the title, wasn't anything that would grab my attention. However, award-winning books sold well.\n\nI grabbed my book, reset the alarm, and hurried back upstairs. I debated whether I should have coffee while I read. The last thing I wanted in the wee hours of the morning was anything that would keep me awake, but there was something about drinking a warm beverage when I read that always made me feel warm and cozy. I was more than a little curious about Max Franck, but the last thing I wanted was to be awake all night. I compromised. Instead of coffee, I made a cup of Earl Grey, grabbed a blanket, and curled up on my sofa. Best-case scenario, I would learn who wanted to kill Max without leaving my living room. Worst-case scenario, The Kennedy Conspiracy would put me to sleep. Either way, I won.\n\nSeveral hours later I heard the alarm being disengaged. I looked at the time on my cell phone. I had been reading all night or rather, all morning. As was often the case, neither the best-case, nor the worst-case scenario had occurred. Reality had been somewhere in the middle. I hadn't fallen asleep reading nor did I know who killed Max Franck. However, I had spent the night reading a well-written, thoughtful, and extremely well-researched book about the murder of President John F. Kennedy.\n\nI heard the eager clicking of nails on hardwood floors, which let me know Snickers and Oreo were on their way. Knowing they would smell my presence before they saw me, I braced myself.\n\nAt twelve, Oreo was the younger of my two chocolate toy poodles. Despite his age, he was more like a rambunctious toddler than the old dog the charts at my vet's office stated he was. He flew at me like a torpedo, tail wagging and body in constant motion. Snickers, on the other hand, was a distinguished female of advanced years. Nevertheless, she too leapt onto my lap. Oreo's constant movement and eagerness always made me laugh. He had such a zest for life. However, laughing was a mistake I should have been prepared for. Snickers stood on my lap on her hind legs and the moment my mouth opened, she licked.\n\n\"Blaagh. Ack!\" I turned my head and used the blanket to wipe my mouth.\n\n\"Hey, Aunt Sammy. Welcome back.\"\n\nMy nephew Zaq followed the dogs upstairs. He was a twin and I heard footsteps that indicated his brother, Christopher, was on his way. \"Hey.\"\n\nChristopher followed and placed my suitcase in the living room. \"Welcome home.\"\n\n\"Thank you.\"\n\nMy nephews were juniors at Jesus and Mary University (JAMU) and were much more literate than their dialogue demonstrated.\n\n\"Good morning. Thank you both for taking care of the store and please thank your dad for taking care of Snickers and Oreo.\"\n\nSnickers was lying on her back, using her paw to guide my hand while I scratched her tummy with one hand. My other hand was occupied scratching the spot behind Oreo's ear, which made his eyes roll back in his head and always caused his leg to twitch.\n\nThe twins laughed. They were both tall and thin, just like their dad. Even though they were identical twins, their personalities made it very easy to tell them apart.\n\n\"Hey, you're paying us.\" Christopher shrugged. He was the more serious of the two. He liked to dress in what would have been described as \"preppy\" in my day but which he called \"snappy casual.\" Christopher was a marketing major and was great at helping with my displays and promotional campaigns.\n\nZaq punched his brother in the arm. \"He's joking. We'd help even if you weren't paying us.\" Zaq was the technology geek. He loved computers and was a whiz at managing my point-of-sale system and had created an amazing website for the bookstore and was just about done with one for my author platform as well.\n\nThey grinned. I knew their playful banter well after more than twenty years.\n\n\"Dad said someone died.\" Zaq sat on the sofa and Oreo moved from my lap to his.\n\nI told them what I knew, which really wasn't much. \"You going to solve another murder, Aunt Sammy?\" Christopher asked.\n\n\"Of course she is.\"\n\nI was so engrossed in recounting the story to my nephews, I hadn't heard Nana Jo come in.\n\nThe boys got up and gave their great-grandmother a kiss.\n\n\"Now, it's almost time to open up. You two better get downstairs.\" She went to the kitchen and made a cup of coffee in my single-cup coffee maker. \"You planning to lounge around all day or are you planning to do any sleuthing?\"\n\nI wanted to go to sleep, but that ship had sailed. Instead, I took a long, hot shower and got dressed. I got a whiff of two of my favorite things, bacon and coffee, and followed my nose into the kitchen.\n\n\"I knew that would get your attention.\" Nana Jo slid a cup of coffee to me and then handed me the bottle of sweet creamer from the refrigerator.\n\nI climbed onto a barstool and Nana Jo handed me a plate with bacon, eggs, and toast.\n\nNana Jo allowed me to eat and drink my coffee in peace until the moment the last bite of toast and eggs hit my lips. \"I told the girls to meet us at Frank's place for lunch.\"\n\nI didn't respond.\n\n\"Sam, I know you don't want to get involved solving a murder, but we need you. You've got a knack for this stuff.\" She paused. \"I'm not a young woman, and most of the time I'm doing good to remember where I left my keys.\"\n\n\"Don't give me that old, pathetic, woe-is-me song and dance. There's nothing wrong with your little gray cells. You're physically fit and mentally sharp as a knife.\"\n\nShe chuckled. \"True, but everyone has their strengths. I excel as the sidekick. I'm great at coordinating the team, doing the legwork, and acting as a sounding board for you to bounce ideas off. Plus, I'm your muscle.\" She stretched, tilted her head from side to side, and cracked her knuckles like a prize fighter getting prepared to go into the ring.\n\nI laughed and nearly spit out my coffee.\n\nShe smiled. \"Seriously, I'm not the master sleuth. Putting all of the clues together and figuring out how everything fits together, that's what you're good at.\"\n\nI sighed. \"I didn't say I wouldn't help. I was just hoping to relax a bit. We just got through the entire nightmare with Mom's wedding and Lydia Lighthouse.\" I sighed again.\n\n\"Two sighs in less than a minute means there's more going on here. What's wrong?\" She leaned against the counter and waited.\n\nI sat for a few moments and tried to gather my thoughts. \"I miss Lexi and Angelo.\"\n\nNana Jo reached across and drew me into a hug. I placed my head on my grandmother's shoulder and cried.\n\n\"I know you thought the bus trip would help me get my mind off the fact they were leaving, and I know I only had them here for a short time, but . . .\"\n\n\"It's okay to miss them. I miss them too.\"\n\nI looked up. \"You do?\"\n\n\"Of course I do. The twins are grown men now, and it's been a long time since there have been any children around.\"\n\nLexi and Angelo were two orphans Frank found asleep in the back of his restaurant a few weeks ago. They had run away from their foster family in Chicago and made their way to North Harbor. The bruises on their bodies told a tale that I shuddered to think about. However, Lexi and Angelo had family in Italy who had been looking for them. When Frank Patterson found their family, they rushed to the United States for a reunion.\n\n\"It's only been a few days and they need time with their family.\"\n\nI sniffed. \"I know.\"\n\n\"Besides, their grandparents promised to bring them back to say goodbye before they left the country.\"\n\n\"I know.\"\n\nShe held me at arm's length and looked into my eyes. \"Then, what's the real problem?\"\n\nI shook my head. \"I don't know. I just feel in a bit of a funk. Maybe it's the holidays or maybe it's another senseless murder.\" I took several deep breaths. \"I mean, what is wrong with people? Why do people think it's okay to kill each other?\" I shrugged. \"I feel like, what's the point. There's no value for human life anymore.\"\n\nNana Jo looked at me. \"That's why we need you.\"\n\nI looked up at her. \"What do you mean?\"\n\n\"Someone has to care. Look, someone killed that poor man. Too many people don't want to get involved. They go about their lives and try to stay out of trouble. They work and go home. The reason people abuse children, rape, steal, and kill is because they think they'll get away with it. There used to be a time when people looked out for each other.\" She shook her head. \"Now, it's mind your own business or I'm not my brother's keeper. Your fellow man is your business. It's all of our business and, unless more people get involved and become their 'brother's keeper,' nothing changes.\" She paused, taking several deep breaths. \"I'm sorry, honey. I don't mean to preach. It just burns my butt to think about Irma crying her eyes out and this . . . Max Franck getting killed on that bus.\" She shivered. \"The same bus we were on.\"\n\nI stared at her. \"You think the murder was random? That the killer meant to kill someone else?\"\n\nShe paced. \"I don't know what I mean.\" She stopped, turned, and looked at me. \"No, I don't think it was random or that the killer meant to kill someone else.\" She shook her head. \"The killer took a big chance. I find it hard to believe anyone would take that kind of risk unless they were very angry or . . .\"\n\n\"Or very desperate.\"\n\nShe nodded. \"Look, if you really don't want to get involved, then I'll understand. You've got a lot on your plate with the bookstore and your book, and you're entitled to a little romance.\" Nana Jo forced a smile that didn't reach her eyes. \"I'll call the girls and let them know we're leaving this one up to the police. That Sergeant Alvarez was a hottie, but I think he has brains too, at least a lot more than Stinky Pitt. Maybe he'll nab the killer before the new year.\" She reached into her bag and pulled out her cell phone.\n\n\"Wait.\"\n\nShe looked up.\n\nI took a deep breath. \"You're right. More people do need to get involved.\" I sighed. \"I'll help.\"\n\n\"Are you sure?\" She stared into my eyes.\n\n\"Yes. I'm sure.\" I nodded.\n\nShe smacked her hand on the breakfast bar. \"Hot diggity!\"\n\n* * *\n\nShowered, dressed, fed, and caffeinated, I still couldn't sleep. I finished Max Franck's book and spent a little time on Google, trying to find out as much as I could about him. The Internet was an amazing source of information, even though everything on the Internet wasn't true. Nevertheless, there were links to books and articles at the library and other sources I knew were trustworthy. I marveled at all the information available online. No wonder people were paranoid about \"Big Brother.\" It wasn't long after I started surfing for information about Max Franck that I started getting items in my news feed about the Kennedys and conspiracy theories. Following the threads led me from one rabbit hole to another, with tons of information. I found a lot of fascinating information about some of the lesser-known Kennedys. A couple of hours later, I emerged from the last rabbit hole I'd tumbled down. Since sleep remained elusive and I still had time before lunch, I might as well be productive and write.\n\nLady Elizabeth Marsh sat in the first-class compartment of the train that would take her from the lights and the bustling streets of London home to the peace and quiet of Wickfield Lodge in the English countryside. In spite of the darkness, she gazed out of the window as the train raced through the night. Despite the lateness of the hour and the traumatic events she'd witnessed, she sat straight with her back and head held high. The casual observer would never guess the path her thoughts had taken. Like cream rising to the top, breeding and manners always showed through. Only those on the most intimate terms would notice the lines between her normally smooth brow and the firm set of her mouth, usually quick to smile and welcome, but now with a distinct downward curve.\n\n\"Aunt Elizabeth,\" Lady Penelope spoke loudly.\n\nLady Elizabeth shook herself and forced a smile. \"I'm so sorry, dear. I'm afraid I was distracted.\" She turned her gaze toward her niece and waited expectantly.\n\nLady Penelope smiled. \"I shouldn't have roused you, but I suddenly felt in need of conversation.\" She shook herself. \"I don't know. I just felt cold. I can't seem to get that poor woman out of my mind.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth reached across and patted her niece's hand. \"I've been thinking about Mrs. Forsythe too.\"\n\nDespite the fact that they were alone, Lady Penelope looked around as though to make certain they wouldn't be overheard. Then she leaned forward to her aunt, who sat across from her in the compartment, and whispered, \"You don't really believe she was murdered, do you?\" Her eyes searched her aunt's face for the truth. \"You don't honestly believe someone pushed her.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth thought for a moment. \"Actually, I very much believe she was pushed.\"\n\nLady Penelope shivered. \"I suppose it was rather an odd coincidence that not only was Mrs. Sanderson there, but her cousin Desmond, and his wife, Constance, just happened to be in the tube station at the exact time Eleanor tumbled down those stairs.\"\n\n\"That's too many coincidences for me to accept.\"\n\n\"What are you going to do?\" Lady Penelope stared at her aunt.\n\nLady Elizabeth was silent for a long moment. \"I didn't know Eleanor Forsythe. She might just be a balmy old dear.\" She sighed. \"I will admit, for a moment, I was tempted to do nothing. It's none of my business if an old woman I just met falls down an escalator. If there was something sinister going on, then it's up to the police to find the truth.\"\n\n\"I sense a 'but' coming.\" Lady Penelope smiled kindly at her aunt.\n\n\"But, she was a human being. I think our world has far too many people who don't value lives.\" She bowed her head for a moment. \"I keep thinking about Johan, Josiah, and poor little Rivka.\" She swallowed hard. \"Someone needs to care. Bad things are happening to human beings, and it's our duty to do something.\" She paused. \"Besides, I had tea with her.\" She shook herself. \"I think she chose to come to my table because she thought she could trust me, and I'm determined to see that her trust wasn't misplaced.\" She sighed. \"Whatever the situation, she deserved better. I'm going to find out the truth. If she was murdered, then I intend to find the person who murdered her and see that justice is served.\" She looked out the window into the darkness and spoke quietly. \"It's the least I can do.\"\n\n\"Samantha!\" Nana Jo yelled.\n\n\"I'm sorry. I was lost in my writing.\"\n\n\"I could tell that. It's time we leave to meet the girls.\"\n\nI looked at my watch. \"It's noon already?\" My stomach growled. I'd been surfing the Internet and writing for close to four hours. \"Let me grab my coat and I'll meet you downstairs.\"\n\nThe poodles had curled up together in the dog bed I kept under my desk. Nana Jo's entrance had roused them from their slumbers. They stretched several times as though they had been the ones who were awake for more than twenty-four hours instead of me.\n\n\"Come on.\" Nana Jo patted her leg. \"Let's go get a treat.\"\n\nNana Jo knew the magic word that was capable of rousing the poodles from a dead sleep, \"treat.\" I'd always heard that poodles were smart, which was why they were often used in circuses, because they were easy to train. However, it wasn't until I discovered exactly how smart they were that I was able to truly appreciate them. When I looked into their eyes and saw the lightbulb of recognition at the word \"treat,\" that's when I realized these creatures were intelligent beings.\n\nThe poodles followed Nana Jo downstairs, fully aware that a biscuit awaited them if they simply went potty outside rather than inside. It was definitely a cushy life.\n\nOnce the poodles were tended to, Nana Jo and I bundled up and walked down the street to North Harbor Caf\u00e9, the restaurant owned by my friend, Frank Patterson. We promised to bring lunch back for my nephews too.\n\nWhen we walked in the door, I immediately looked toward the bar. Frank was behind the counter. He smiled. He was tall with salt-and-pepper hair, which he wore cut short. Even though he was wearing jeans and a polo shirt, there was something about him that screamed I used to be in the military. I thought it was the haircut that former military and policemen often continued long after they left the service. However, as I stared at him, I wondered if it was something in his bearing. He was lean and fit with a straight posture and confident stride.\n\n\"You gonna stand there gawking all day?\" Nana Jo jostled me, and I realized I was standing in the middle of the floor staring.\n\nI hurried to the tables the staff had pushed together for our group. Ruby Mae, Dorothy, and Irma were already there.\n\nNana Jo and I sat at the two empty seats and removed our coats and hats.\n\nFrank brought a large pitcher of water with lemons in it to the table and placed it in front of me. He greeted everyone and leaned down and whispered in my ear, \"Welcome home. I missed you.\"\n\nThe warmth of his breath tickled my neck and my breathing increased as his lips lightly touched my ear.\n\n\"I missed you too.\" I'd kept him in the loop through a series of texts and phone messages over the past day. Had it really only been one day since Max Franck was killed? It certainly felt like a lot more time had passed.\n\n\"I'm looking forward to hearing all about it tonight. Are we still on for dinner?\"\n\nI'd forgotten we'd arranged to have dinner tonight. \"Definitely.\" I worked to avoid a yawn.\n\nHe stared. \"You look tired.\"\n\nI smiled. \"Thanks. That's just what every woman wants to hear.\"\n\nHe placed a hand over his heart. \"My apologies. Please forgive me.\"\n\nI smiled. \"You're going to need to do better than that.\"\n\n\"Maybe I can make it up to you,\" he whispered, and his lips brushed my ear and sent a shiver up my spine.\n\n\"Ahemm.\" Nana Jo cleared her throat. \"Normally, I would never dream of interrupting my granddaughter's flirtations, but we have a mystery to solve.\"\n\nFrank bowed to Nana Jo, turned, and winked at me.\n\nNana Jo yelled, \"And you're looking rather tired yourself, Frank. You need to hire an assistant.\"\n\nFrank raised an eyebrow and smiled and then hurried back to work.\n\nI could still feel the effects of the gentle caress of his lips and the heat rose up my neck. I took a sip of water and tried to focus my attention on something other than Frank Patterson. My husband, Leon, and I had been married for a long time and after his death, I was out of practice when it came to flirting. However, practice made perfect, so I was just practicing. At least that was what I told myself.\n\n\"Earth to Sam.\"\n\nNana Jo's prompting, and the laughter I heard from the others, forced me to drag my mind back to the task at hand.\n\n\"Sorry.\"\n\nWe gave our orders to the waitress, and I watched my grandmother, determined not to allow my thoughts to drift into dangerous waters.\n\n\"Now, who wants to go first.\" Nana Jo pulled her iPad out of her large purse and prepared to take notes.\n\nIrma raised a hand. \"I think I should go first since I knew him better than the rest of you.\"\n\nWe all nodded.\n\nIrma coughed. \"I didn't know Max long, and, to be completely honest, we didn't spend much time talking.\" She cast her gaze downward and took a deep breath. \"I knew he used to be married. Although, he's been divorced for decades and his ex-wife is deceased. They had one child, a daughter.\" She paused and looked up as though trying to remember. \"I think he said her name is . . . Rosemary.\" Irma paused.\n\n\"Is she married?\" Nana Jo asked. \"Is her last name Franck?\"\n\n\"I don't . . . wait, yes. I think he said she's married and has a daughter.\" Irma paused again. \"I don't think they had a very good relationship. He was a journalist and traveled a lot. I think he and his daughter were estranged, but . . .\"\n\n\"What? Anything he said might prove important,\" Dorothy encouraged her friend and reached across the table and squeezed her hand.\n\nIrma nodded. \"I got the impression that he had seen her recently and wanted to make things right between them, but . . . I don't think it was going well.\" She looked up. \"At least, I got that impression.\"\n\nNana Jo looked at her friend with more compassion than usual. \"That's great, Irma. You've given us a lot to go on.\"\n\nIrma smiled.\n\n\"Now, who's next?\"\n\nI raised my hand. \"Something Sergeant Alvarez said made me think Max Franck was an author, so when\u2014\"\n\nNana Jo smacked her hand against her forehead. \"That's where I knew him.\" She glanced around the table. \"I read in one of those publishing newsletters you subscribe to about a new book deal he had.\" She looked at me. \"I'm sorry, dear. I didn't mean to interrupt.\"\n\nI shook my head. \"It's okay.\" I pulled the book I'd shoved in my bag onto the table. \"Apparently, Max Franck was an investigative journalist.\" I read the back cover of his book, which listed the many awards he'd won. Then I told them about his book about the conspiracy he believed surrounded the assassination of Robert Kennedy.\n\nThe others listened silently. The waitress brought our food and we paused for a few moments to allow her to distribute it.\n\n\"That's fascinating, and I'd love to read the book.\" Dorothy wiped her mouth. \"I just don't see what that could possibly have to do with his murder?\"\n\n\"I don't know that it does. It's just background information more than anything.\" I chewed my BLT, minus the T. \"I think it speaks to the type of person he was . . . his character, more than anything.\"\n\n\"Anything else?\" Nana Jo's voice held a nervous excitement that told me she was eager to share.\n\nI shook my head. \"Not really.\"\n\n\"If no one minds, I'll go next.\" She gave a courtesy glance around the table, but no one objected.\n\n\"I was a little bummed because I didn't have much to talk about, but after hearing Sam's information, I remembered something important. In fact, I may know why Max Franck was killed.\"\n\nAfter dropping that bombshell, Nana Jo, the ultimate performer, waited until surprise showed on everyone's face. \"Like I said, I read one of those publishing newsletters Sam has and I remembered reading about Max Franck.\" She looked around. \"I knew his name sounded familiar, but I couldn't figure out why. There was no picture in the newsletter, so I think I buried the information in the back of my head.\"\n\nDorothy Clark leaned forward. \"Josephine, if you don't hurry up and get to the point, I'm going to brain you. You're starting to sound like Irma.\" She leaned toward Irma. \"No offense.\"\n\nIrma waved away any offense.\n\n\"Well, Max Franck's agent announced that, after years of hiding, Max Franck had written a new book, which would blow the lid off all other books dealing with the assassination of Robert Kennedy.\" She glanced around. \"According to this agent, the book that would name names, answer questions, and forever close the door on all speculation about the assassination of Robert Kennedy had been sold for a six-figure amount.\"\n\nWe gasped and demonstrated the appropriate amount of surprise to satisfy my grandmother, who sat looking as pleased as a cat who'd caught a mouse.\n\nI pondered that information. \"You think he was murdered because he was about to release a book that would identify a murderer?\"\n\nNana Jo shrugged. \"I don't know, but I do know I don't believe in coincidences. I think the moment that announcement about the book was posted, Max Franck was a marked man. That book marked him for murder.\"\nChapter 6\n\nNeither Ruby Mae nor Dorothy had anything to contribute, although Ruby Mae had a third cousin who used to work for the Chicago Sun-Times. She contacted him and was waiting for information about Max Franck.\n\n\"I'm not sure where to start with this one.\" Dorothy gave Irma a sympathetic look.\n\nAll faces turned toward me.\n\nI struggled to find the right words, which must have been evident on my face.\n\n\"Spit it out, Sam. No point in trying to sugarcoat anything,\" Nana Jo said.\n\n\"I think we need to look at everyone on the bus.\" I looked around the table. \"Present company excluded.\"\n\nIrma reached into her purse, which wasn't unusual. However, when she pulled out a sheet of paper rather than her flask, that shocked all of us. \"I thought you might want something like that.\" She unfolded the sheet. \"I wrote down the names of everyone on the bus. Counting the five of us, there were twenty-five.\" She looked up. \"If we divide the names, we could each take four.\" She looked at me. \"If that's okay with you, Sam.\"\n\n\"Of course. It's perfect.\" I was shocked and tried to shake it off. Normally, Irma was much more interested in flirting and having a good time. This murder must have really left her rattled.\n\nThe girls divided the names on the list, and I noticed my names included Mr. Big, whom Irma described as the large hunk with the mirrored sunglasses. I took a pen and wrote Sidney Sherman next to his name so I wouldn't forget.\n\nThe meeting ended with Nana Jo promising to get what she could from her boyfriend, Freddie, who was a retired policeman and whose son was a state policeman.\n\nNana Jo and I walked back to my building after the meeting. I was tired but still not sleepy. I helped out in the bookstore for a couple of hours to allow the twins to eat their lunches, but the traffic after Christmas wasn't nearly as much as it had been prior to the holiday. I puttered around for a while but eventually gave up and went upstairs.\n\n\"Are you still stressing about this murder?\" Nana Jo asked.\n\n\"I don't know.\" I paced. \"I just realized I won't have Stinky Pitt to help with this one.\"\n\nNana Jo snorted. \"I never thought I'd hear the day when you'd be missing Stinky Pitt.\"\n\nDetective Pitt, Stinky Pitt, as he'd been labeled as a child, was a detective with the North Harbor Police and we'd crossed paths several times in the past. Normally, he wasn't a fan of what he referred to as \"nosy amateurs\" meddling in police investigations. However, Detective Pitt, as Nana Jo often said, wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and we'd helped him out several times. Our help hadn't exactly endeared us, but it had forced him to tolerate us.\n\n\"It's not that I miss him, exactly. It's more that I'm missing the access to the police and coroner's report.\"\n\n\"Hmmm. You might have a point.\" Nana Jo poured herself a cup of tea. \"Maybe that sexy Sergeant Alvarez will share his . . .\"\n\nI was shaking my head before the words left her mouth. \"Sergeant Alvarez isn't a small-town policeman who doesn't know how to investigate a murder.\" I followed Nana Jo into the kitchen and poured a cup of tea for myself. \"He doesn't need our help and he's not likely to share any information with us.\" I took a sip. \"In fact, he probably still suspects us of the murder.\"\n\n\"You're probably right.\" She smiled. \"However, you have to admit, he was definitely a hunk.\" She started to walk away but stopped abruptly. \"Are you done with that book?\"\n\nI gave Nana Jo Max Franck's book from my purse.\n\nShe settled onto the sofa with the book and her tea and, within a few moments, was engrossed.\n\nI paced around my bedroom for a few moments, trying to decide what to do. I felt anxious, probably from my lack of sleep. After a few moments, I grabbed my coat and headed out. \"I'll be back.\"\n\nNana Jo grunted an acknowledgment.\n\nI got in my car and drove, something I often did to clear my mind. Despite the cold weather and the snow on the ground, the streets were clear. North Harbor was an economically depressed city situated on prime real estate alongside the Lake Michigan shoreline. The city was separated from its twin city of South Harbor by the St. Thomas River, which flowed out into the Great Lake. In contrast, South Harbor was a prosperous, quaint town of cobblestoned streets, lighthouses, and thriving shops.\n\nPractically on autopilot, I pulled into the lot for the North Harbor Police Department, which was attached to the county courthouse. Memories of an unpleasant experience where an overzealous police officer mistook Nana Jo's iPad for a weapon reminded me to double-check my purse before I got out of the car.\n\nInside, I walked through the metal detectors without incident and breathed a sigh of relief.\n\nI recognized the policeman behind the desk, although I didn't know his name. Apparently, he recognized me too because when he looked up from his computer, he said, \"You here for Detective Pitt?\"\n\nI nodded and he picked up the phone and dialed.\n\nIt didn't take long for Detective Pitt to come up for me. The scowl on his face told me he was as happy to see me as I knew he would be.\n\n\"Whaddaya want?\"\n\nI smiled. \"I'm glad to see you too, Detective Pitt. I'd like a word with you in private, if you can spare the time.\"\n\nHe narrowed his eyes and stared for several seconds. Eventually, he sighed. \"Might as well come on.\" He turned and walked down the hall to the closet he had transformed into an office.\n\nI followed Detective Pitt down the hall, but after many trips to the North Harbor Police Department, I knew my way by heart.\n\nThe office had, indeed, once been a closet, and he had to suck in his stomach and turn sideways to get through the doorway if anyone was sitting in the guest chair. Once inside, he flopped down onto his chair and turned to face me. \"No one's died in the past week, so what brings you out.\"\n\nDetective Pitt was short, fat, and balding. He chose to take the few remaining hairs that still clung to the edges of his head and comb them over the rather large dome on top. The task of covering his egg-shaped skull was too much for the strands that remained and many of them refused to lie quietly and instead stood at various angles as though looking for an escape route. His fondness for polyester was evident from the too-tight polyester pants and shirt he wore to the polyester jacket that he had draped over the back of his chair. His office reeked from the cheap cologne he wore and the half-consumed liverwurst sandwich that lay on his desk.\n\n\"Did I interrupt your lunch?\"\n\n\"Never mind that. Whaddaya want? No one's died. No reason for you and those batty old broads to interfere.\"\n\nI took a deep breath and reminded myself I was asking for a favor and would need to stay on the detective's good side. I forced myself to remain serious and not think of how Nana Jo would react if she heard him refer to her as a \"batty old broad.\" \"Actually, that's not entirely true.\" I took a deep breath.\n\n\"What's not entirely true?\"\n\n\"That one part.\"\n\nHe leaned forward. \"What part?\"\n\n\"The part about no one having died in the past week . . . That's not exactly, ah . . . true.\"\n\nNow I had his complete attention. He smacked his hand on the desk. \"What? Who's dead? Nobody told me!\"\n\nThe flash of anger he'd exhibited moments earlier instantly vanished. Instead, the spark was replaced with a wariness that caused his gaze to dart around the small room. He leaned across and whispered, \"Who was assigned the case?\" He leaned forward. \"It's Wilson, that brownnoser, isn't it?\" He muttered. \"Backstabbing traitor.\"\n\n\"No. It's not Wilson. It's not a local murder.\"\n\nHe stared. \"Whaddaya mean?\"\n\nThe English teacher in me cringed every time he mushed his words together and slurred them into some mutation that barely resembled the English language, but I screwed my smile on tighter. \"The murder happened on a bus trip from Chicago.\"\n\nI could tell by the way he relaxed and leaned back he was about to dismiss me. \"Not my jurisdiction.\" He picked up his sandwich and took a bite. \"Amateurs don't know how these things work.\" He forced the words around his food as he chewed, giving me a good glance of his teeth in action.\n\n\"I understand the murder took place in another state, but the victim was on a Michigan bus, in fact Shady Acres chartered the bus. So, nearly all the passengers were locals. Plus, the bus was en route to Shady Acres. So, it really gives you a better chance of solving the murder since you're already more familiar with the people involved than some out-of-town Chicago policeman coming on your turf and trying to make a name for himself by solving a high-profile murder.\"\n\nHe sat up in his chair. \"High profile?\"\n\nMy bait had worked. I'd hooked my fish. Now, if I could just reel him in. I nodded, took a deep breath, leaned close, and whispered, \"Yes. The victim was a well-known author\u2014a Pulitzer Prize\u2013winning, bestselling author.\"\n\n\"You don't say.\" He rubbed his chin.\n\nI wiped the tears from my eyes. His cologne, combined with the liverwurst, which was obviously covered in onions, and the closeness of the space was overwhelming.\n\nHe reached in a pocket and pulled out a lime-green polyester handkerchief. \"Did you know the victim well?\"\n\nI shook my head. \"Not at all. It's just the thought that Detective Alvarez will come over here and solve a murder and will probably make a name for himself and end up in the newspaper and on television when . . . well, it could be someone local.\" I gave him a pointed stare and blinked to get the tears out of my eyes.\n\nHe leaned back. \"You say the victim won awards?\"\n\nI nodded. \"A Pulitzer. Plus, he was about to publish another book, some big expos\u00e9 about the murder of Robert Kennedy. You know something like that always generates tons of media attention.\"\n\nHe sat up. \"The Robert Kennedy? As in brother to the late president of the United States?\"\n\nI nodded.\n\nDetective Pitt looked up and smiled. After a few minutes he looked at me. \"I'll bet you have some angle on this case.\"\n\n\"Same deal as last time. If you help me get the forensic information and police reports, then when we solve the case, you get all of the credit.\"\n\nHe was silent for a moment. \"It may not be easy to get the forensic information on this one. The Chicago Police Department isn't just going to turn that stuff over to me.\"\n\n\"I was thinking maybe you could ask to be added to the case as a local consultant or something. I mean, I can't believe the Chicago Police Department has the money or the resources to stay in North Harbor. Couldn't you do some of the local . . . legwork or whatever it's called?\"\n\n\"Maybe . . . it's the holidays and most police departments are short staffed around this time of year, including us.\"\n\n\"I'm sure they'd be happy to have your help.\" I hesitated. \"That is, unless you're super busy.\"\n\nDetective Pitt's desk always looked as though a tornado had passed over the papers. However, the magazines he'd tried to conceal under the files told a different story.\n\n\"We're at rather a slow time right now. Most of the college students from MISU are gone for Christmas break, and we don't get many tourists during the winter. So, things are slower than normal at the moment. Just a few domestic disputes and bar fights, but nothing to really sink your teeth into.\" He leaned back. \"I might be able to manage a few hours. You better give me the specifics and I'll see what I can do.\"\n\n\"Great.\" I smiled.\n\nIt took thirty minutes to fill Detective Pitt in on what I'd learned about Max Franck. He surprised me by asking quite a few questions about Sergeants Alvarez and Davis. However, I felt the more information he had, the better, so I told him all I knew.\n\nI drove home and went back upstairs. Nana Jo was in the exact same spot where I'd left her with her nose glued to the book. I smiled and headed to my bedroom. I still wasn't sleepy, so I decided to take a trip to the British countryside.\n\nLord William Marsh sat in the library of Wickfield Lodge and watched. He was accustomed to his wife, Lady Elizabeth, sitting quietly while she knitted. However, there was something different about her silence tonight. He puffed on his pipe and watched through the haze of smoke. Eventually, the silence grew too much for him. \"All right, let's have it.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth looked up. \"What do you mean?\"\n\nHe puffed. \"What's wrong?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth opened her mouth to speak, but Lord William interceded. \"And, don't tell me there's nothing wrong.\" He tapped the ashes from his pipe onto an ashtray the butler, Thompkins, had placed nearby. \"I know when something's wrong. Now, you just tell me. It has to do with that woman . . . Forsythe or some such name. Something about that has you bothered.\"\n\nLord William was a kind, portly older man, a blustery English gentleman who enjoyed his pipe, rich foods, wine, and family. His fondness for rich food and wine had led to a bit of overindulgence during his niece's wedding and the holiday meal that followed and the kindly man was paying for his intemperance with an attack of gout. He sat with one leg wrapped heavily and propped on a cushioned footstool.\n\nLady Elizabeth finished the row she was knitting. \"I don't know what's wrong. I just know something isn't right.\"\n\nLord William took several puffs on his pipe. \"People do fall.\" He tilted his head and stared at his wife. \"You said it was crowded. Isn't it possible she lost her footing and fell?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth knitted. After a few moments, she stopped and looked up. \"It's possible. In fact, it's highly probable.\" She stared at her husband. \"That's what's so darned difficult. It's the type of accident that happens every day. An elderly lady loses her footing on the escalator of a busy tube station and falls to her death.\" She knitted. \"It's on the back page of the paper and no one thinks twice about it.\"\n\n\"Then what's the problem?\"\n\nShe knitted. \"If I hadn't met her earlier. If I hadn't talked to her . . . shared tea and scones with her, I would write her off as some batty old dear who wasn't quite right in the head, but . . .\"\n\nLord William waited. \"But?\"\n\n\"I don't know. She wasn't batty. She was intelligent and she made complete sense. She was scared and she honestly believed someone was trying to kill her.\"\n\nLord William leaned forward and winced. He took a deep breath and patted his leg. \"Isn't that what batty old dears do? They may be normal in every other respect, but they get some bit of nonsense fixed in their heads and they can't let go.\" He sat back. \"Like that chap over in Kent who believed he was a Chinese emperor or that fellow in . . . where was it . . . Torquay who believed he was Napoleon.\" He shook his head. \"Normal in every other respect, except no one could convince him he wasn't Napoleon Bonaparte.\" He shook his head.\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled. \"I understand what you're saying and, in my head, I know you're absolutely right. After all, I'd only known the woman a short time and she may very well have been exactly as you say.\"\n\n\"But, you don't believe it.\"\n\nShe shook her head. \"No. I don't.\"\n\nLord William nodded. \"Well, what are you going to do about it?\"\n\n\"I thought I'd call our friend Detective Inspector Covington at Scotland Yard and invite him down for a few days.\"\n\nLord William smiled. \"Ah . . . I see.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth glanced over at her husband. \"What do you see? He's always been so helpful before when we've had problems. I just wondered if he could find out some information about Mrs. Forsythe and a few of the people in her household.\"\n\n\"Hmmm.\" Lord William smiled and puffed on his pipe.\n\n\"I hope you're not implying there's more to my desire to invite the detective inspector down than my desire to get his help.\"\n\nThe corners of his lips twitched as he tried to conceal a smile. \"Of course, dear.\" He took several puffs on his pipe. There was a long pause. \"I'm sure your invitation has nothing at all to do with the fact you've received a request from your cousin Mildred to put up her daughter, Clara, for a few weeks.\" His lips twitched with the effort to keep from smiling. \"Clara just happens to be about the same age as Detective Inspector Covington, isn't she?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth glanced at her husband for several seconds and then smiled. \"She is indeed.\"\n\nBefore Lord William could respond, Thompkins, the Marsh family butler, quietly entered the room. He stood tall and erect and gave a discrete cough. \"I beg your pardon, but there's a phone call for your ladyship.\"\n\nDespite the fact that the Marshes' prim and proper servant rarely displayed emotions, he was able to convey his displeasure quite well.\n\n\"Who the dickens would be calling at this time?\" Lord William pulled out his pocket watch and frowned when he saw the lateness of the hour.\n\nLady Elizabeth looked concerned as she glanced at the clock over the mantle. \"I hope everything is okay with Daphne and James.\" She clutched at the pearls around her neck.\n\n\"I'm sorry, m'lady. I didn't mean to distress you. It's a person named Desmond Tarkington.\" Thompkins hurried on. \"I asked if there was a message I could convey and have your ladyship return the call tomorrow, but he was insistent.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth breathed a sigh of relief. \"Thank goodness.\" She stood. \"It's . . . okay, Thompkins. I'll take the call.\"\n\nThe butler bowed stiffly.\n\n\"Who in the blazes is Desmond Tarkington?\" Lord William asked.\n\n\"That's the cousin of Mrs. Eleanor Forsythe, the woman who died today.\"\n\nLord William was momentarily stunned. \"What could he possibly want at this hour?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth shook her head. \"I have no idea.\" She turned to walk out of the door. \"However, I intend to find out.\"\n\n\"Snickers. Oreo. Wanna treat?\" My nephew Zaq called from the living room and my two companions, who were just, moments earlier, sound asleep in a dog bed, hopped up and ran barking into the living room.\n\nI glanced at the clock on my computer and realized it was later than I thought. Frank and I had a date and I needed to get dressed.\n\nI stretched and tried to figure out the answer to Lord William's question. What could Desmond Tarkington possibly want? Nothing came to mind, so I tucked the question back into the recesses of my brain and focused on a more important question. What was I going to wear for my date?\n\nDespite a warm, invigorating shower, the best my brain, and my limited closet selection, could come up with was a black dress and black boots. I stared at my reflection in the mirror and knew this wasn't my best effort. My dark hair was curly and today was one of the days it decided to rebel. Instead of laying down when I combed it, the static electricity gave it a life of its own and it stuck out like Albert Einstein's. I grabbed a can of what I thought was hair spray but, after a few spritzes, I realized was starch, which made my hair stiff and sticky. The comb was barely able to make it through the strands. As the starch dried, it acted like glue. My comb was now glued to my hair. I gave it a yank and it broke off. I'd need to go get scissors and cut it out. This wasn't going well. I took another look at my drab reflection in the mirror and grabbed a colorful scarf Lexie and Angelo gave me for Christmas, to keep from looking as though I was going to a funeral. The lack of sleep had finally caught up with me and, as much as I wanted to see Frank and spend time with him, I couldn't muster up the energy to make a greater effort at looking date worthy. Tonight, I was a dating fail. My boots weren't even the high-heeled fashion boots I'd bought in Chicago. One glance at the snow outside confirmed if I tried to walk in those boots, I'd end up flat on my backside before I made it to his car. Besides, those boots cost a small fortune and as a native Michigander, I knew very well the effect snow and salt had on leather boots. My feet would be wet and the boots would be ruined from the white salt residue, and I'd have a broken ankle from the attempt. Nope, those babies would get worn indoors or only when the weather was dry and boots were a fashion accessory rather than a mobility requirement.\n\nI went to the main living area to wait. Nana Jo was still reading on the sofa. She looked up from her book at my entrance and I gleaned her appraisal of my ensemble in her silence and a single raised eyebrow.\n\n\"Don't start.\" I flopped down on the sofa next to her.\n\n\"I didn't say a word.\"\n\n\"No, but your eyebrow spoke volumes.\"\n\nShe flipped the page of her book. \"Going to a funeral?\"\n\n\"I haven't slept in twenty-four hours and I'm dead on my feet. It's going to take all the energy I can muster to eat, make polite conversation, and keep from dozing off during the soup course.\"\n\nShe patted my leg. \"I'm sure Frank will understand if you postpone your date. You're beat.\"\n\nI picked up one of the magazines on my coffee table and flipped to a survey. \"Are you pushing your man into the arms of another woman?\" I waved the magazine at her. \"According to this magazine, I'm a pathetic excuse for a date. I fail in practically every category except keeping date night.\"\n\nNana Jo took the magazine and glanced at the survey. \"This is rubbish and if you weren't so tired, you'd realize it too. Any man would be lucky to have you and if Frank Patterson doesn't recognize what a prize you are, then he doesn't deserve you.\"\n\nI smiled and leaned over and kissed my grandmother. \"Thank you. You're sweet, although you may be slightly biased.\"\n\n\"I'm more than slightly biased. However, it's true, regardless. Frank Patterson, or any man, will be lucky to have you . . . although.\"\n\nI waited for the other shoe to drop. \"Although?\"\n\n\"You should probably take the comb out of the back of your hair.\"\n\nI felt the back of my hair and realized that I'd forgotten the comb glued and tangled in my hair. I forgot the scissors. I fiddled with it but only got it more entangled.\n\nNana Jo reached over. \"Here, let me help you.\" She grabbed at the plastic comb and gave it a hard yank. \"What's in your hair, glue?\" She pulled the plastic out and handed it to me.\n\nI wiped the tears from my face and tried not to notice the strands of hair fused to the comb. \"I mistook the starch for hair spray.\"\n\nNana Jo stuck her head behind her book to hide her face, but the laughter rang out anyway. She gave up trying to conceal the fact she was laughing at me and put down her book and laughed heartily until she had to wipe tears from her eyes.\n\n\"I'm glad one of us is able to enjoy themselves at my expense.\"\n\n\"Sam, I'm sorry, but you're exhausted. I don't care what that magazine says. Canceling a date when you haven't slept in over twenty-four hours isn't a dating fail. It's common sense and Frank will understand.\"\n\n\"Understand what?\" Frank walked up the stairs.\n\nI hopped up and grabbed my coat. \"Nothing. I didn't hear you come in.\"\n\n\"One of the twins let me in.\" He came up and gave me a kiss. \"You look . . . nice.\" He lied and I appreciated him for that. Although, his eyes kept staring at my hair.\n\n\"What's wrong? Don't tell me there's more of that blasted comb in there?\"\n\nHe shook his head. \"No, but your hair just looks different tonight.\"\n\n\"She's trying a new product . . . sizing.\" Nana Jo laughed.\n\nFrank frowned. \"Starch?\"\n\nI handed him my coat so he could focus on something other than the fact that my grandmother was intent on sharing my humiliation. \"Yeah, well, we'll see you later.\"\n\nI hurried downstairs before Nana Jo could respond and felt Frank's presence behind me. He was a gentleman who liked to open doors and I knew he wouldn't linger once I started. Thankfully, I was right. At the bottom of the stairs, he turned me toward him and looked into my eyes. \"You okay?\"\n\nI stifled a yawn. \"Of course.\"\n\nHe hesitated but gave up and opened the door for me. The bookstore was a brownstone in downtown North Harbor. The front of the building was on Market Street. Like most of the buildings on Market, the building backed up to an alley. Unlike the other buildings, this building wasn't as deep as the others and occupied a corner lot. The previous owner had built a garage at the back of the property and enclosed the lot with a fence, which created a courtyard. So, I was able to drive through the alley and enter the garage. There was a door that led to the back courtyard from the building and a side door that led out to a parking lot, which separated my building from the others on the street on one side. Technically, I owned the parking lot, but when I purchased the building, I continued the \"gentlemen's agreement\" the previous owner had and shared the parking lot with the church, which worked out well since the church mostly used the lot on Sundays.\n\nFrank had parked his Porsche Cayenne in the parking lot near the side door. He went out and pulled the car as close as possible to the side door and kept the engine running so I only had a few steps on concrete before getting into the warm interior.\n\nI slid onto the soft, supple leather seat and ran my hand across the leather, always amazed at the softness.\n\nFrank came around the back of the car and got in. \"Any place in particular you want to go?\"\n\nI shook my head. \"No, I'm game for whatever.\"\n\n\"Great. There's a great little Greek restaurant in South Haven I've been dying to try.\" He glanced at me. \"Are you up for the ride?\"\n\nI nodded. \"Sounds great.\"\n\nHe pulled out of the parking lot and I prepared to enjoy the ride.\n\nFrank's car was luxurious in every respect, and the smooth ride felt like you were floating on clouds. The seats were warm, and I adjusted the thermostat so I was warm and toasty. He had satellite radio and smooth jazz played through the speakers as we drove through the dark.\n\nI leaned my head back onto the headrest and thought about Max Franck. There were no easily identifiable signs to indicate the method of his death. As far as I could tell, there were no gunshots, at least not visible. There hadn't been a lot of blood that would indicate a stab wound. He could have been poisoned, but I didn't recall seeing him eat or drink anything on the bus. Although, it could have been administered while we were at the rest area. Someone could have come back onboard and given him something laced with poison and then removed the evidence afterward. It was clear the timeline would be critical. We'd need to find out where everyone was and verify.\n\n\"Sam.\" Frank shook my shoulder.\n\nI opened my eyes. For a split second, I had no idea where I was. I looked around and saw Frank staring at me.\n\n\"I'm sorry. I must have dozed off.\" I reached down to remove my seat belt.\n\nFrank reached his hand over and clasped my hand. \"We don't have to do this\u2014\"\n\n\"I want to . . . I'm sorry about falling asleep, but your car is so comfortable and\u2014\"\n\n\"And you haven't slept in more than twenty-four hours.\" He smiled. \"I should have realized you were exhausted.\" He leaned over and kissed me. \"I'm sorry. Let's do this another time.\"\n\nI started to protest but realized opening my eyes had been a huge struggle. I glanced over at Frank, who had backed the car out of the restaurant parking lot and was turning around. \"I'm sorry. I didn't want to disappoint you.\"\n\n\"You could never disappoint me.\"\n\nI could tell by his voice he was smiling, even though it was dark in the car and I couldn't see his face. \"Are you sure?\"\n\n\"Of course. We can go another night.\"\n\n\"I'll make it up to you.\"\n\nHe stopped at a stoplight, leaned over, and kissed me. \"Now that sounds promising.\"\n\nI managed to stay awake for the ride home, but I was grateful when we arrived. He pulled up to the side door and hurried around the car to open my door. I unlocked the building and turned off the security system. I turned to Frank and we made our good night brief.\n\nInside, I rearmed the security system, called on the last dregs of energy, and climbed the stairs. Nana Jo must have finished the book because she had vacated the sofa and her bedroom door was closed.\n\nSnickers and Oreo were asleep in my bedroom. I should have taken them downstairs to take care of their business, but I knew there was no way I'd be able to tackle those stairs again. I didn't even have the energy to undress. Instead, I flopped down on the bed, boots and all, and fell fast asleep.\n\nI woke up once during the night with a ten-pound weight of a poodle on my chest. I opened my eyes and Snickers was staring into my eyes. I rolled over onto my side, forcing her off. \"You're just going to have to go potty in the house. I'll clean it up later.\"\n\nShe marched around for a few more moments but eventually must have decided she could hold it. She walked in circles a couple of times and then curled into a ball near my chest. Within moments, I heard a gentle snore coming from her.\n\nOreo was in his crate near the foot of my bed. The only sound from him was a soft, \"woof.\"\n\nI wasn't sure if he was dreaming about chasing squirrels or ripping the stuffing out of his stuffed toys. Whatever the source of his dreams, he was a happy dog. My last thought was of Oreo running free in a field with his ears flapping in the wind and it made me smile. I snuggled close to Snickers and fell back asleep.\n\nThe next time Snickers woke me up, she not only walked on my chest, but this time, she followed it up with a lick to my nose.\n\n\"All right. I'm getting up.\" I stretched.\n\nSnickers jumped off the bed and ran to the door. Oreo was sitting up in his crate.\n\nI was still wearing the clothes I'd worn last night, boots and all. So, I opened the bedroom door and hurried the poodles downstairs to take care of their business.\n\nBoth dogs were anxious to go and barely made it over the threshold.\n\nI appreciated the fact that they hadn't gone in the house and planned to reward them with extra treats when we got back upstairs.\n\nIt snowed overnight and the ground was covered by another blanket of snow. Snickers wasn't a fan of the cold Michigan winters. She hurriedly took care of the call of nature and was back inside before her paws got too cold. Oreo, on the other hand, liked to run and play in the new snow and was halfway across the small yard before his under belly registered the cold. Then he quickly ran to the door, expecting entr\u00e9. However, I'd learned from experience to watch and make sure he had not just peed but had also pooped before letting him back inside.\n\nHe stood at the door and looked at me with sad eyes that seemed to ask, aren't you going to let me inside too?\n\nI steeled my heart and kept the door closed and waited. Eventually, he wandered to the side and pooped. This time, I had the door open wide to welcome him.\n\nHe shook, and snow flew everywhere. I grabbed the towel I kept at the back door and wiped as much of the excess snow from his underbelly and paws as possible for both of our comfort and well-being. Snow beaded up on his belly, which I was sure was cold. When the snow melted, it left trails across the floor, which I stepped in whenever I walked around without shoes. Snickers rarely ventured too far away from the shoveled path and rarely needed the towel. Instead, she stood by and watched while I dried off Oreo, and looked at me with an expression that said, he's not the brightest dog in this pack, is he?\n\nI ignored her.\n\nUpstairs, I stripped off the clothes I'd slept in, showered, and allowed the warm water to pelt my skin. I washed the starch out of my hair, which took longer than I'd expected. However, perseverance and a lot of shampoo did the trick. When I finally emerged, dressed and thoroughly refreshed, I sniffed the air. Coffee, sausage, and something cinnamony drew me to the kitchen.\n\n\"Hmmm. What is that wonderful smell?\"\n\nNana Jo smiled. \"Dawson left us a gift.\" She placed a bubbling cheesy dish on the counter beside a plate of warm cinnamon rolls.\n\n\"How? He's in Florida getting ready for his bowl game.\"\n\nShe took two plates from a cabinet and placed them on the counter. \"He called when you were in the shower and said he made us a breakfast casserole and put it in the back of the refrigerator. He also made homemade cinnamon rolls.\"\n\nI breathed in the delicious aroma and my stomach growled in response.\n\n\"It's supposed to sit for ten minutes, but I can't wait.\" Nana Jo grabbed a spatula and cut into the casserole, which sizzled and bubbled. She scooped out servings for each of us. I burned my fingers grabbing a cinnamon roll with hot icing, but it was well worth it.\n\nWe both tucked into our breakfast and didn't speak for several moments.\n\n\"That's so good.\" I sloshed down some hot coffee.\n\n\"How was your date last night? You were back pretty early.\"\n\nI was tempted to fib and tell her the restaurant was closed and we decided to make an early night of it, but I was a horrible liar. When I finished explaining that I fell asleep in the car and Frank brought me home, she laughed, making me wish I were better at lying. At least she refrained from saying, \"I told you so.\" However, the smug look she cast over her coffee cup said what her mouth didn't.\n\nWe sat in blessed silence for several moments.\n\n\"What are your plans today?\" she asked.\n\n\"I think I'll go to Shady Acres and tackle the people on my list.\"\n\n\"Great idea. I'll go with you and work on mine.\" She walked over to her purse and pulled her iPad out and brought it back to the kitchen. She swiped a few times and then asked, \"Who do you have?\"\n\nI unfolded the paper I'd stuck into my pocket before coming out for breakfast. I glanced over the list. \"I've got the activities director, Caroline Fenton, Sidney Sherman\u2014\"\n\nNana Jo frowned. \"Who on earth is Sidney Sherman?\"\n\n\"Mr. Big.\"\n\nShe nodded. \"Aww. Okay.\"\n\n\"Lady in the big floppy hat, Bob the bus driver, and Sara Jane Howard.\" I paused. \"Why does that name sound familiar?\"\n\nNana Jo smiled. \"Because Sara Jane Howard is the nosiest woman in Michigan.\"\n\nI tilted my head back and smacked my leg. \"I remember now. When we were investigating the murder of Maria\u2014\"\n\n\"Yeah, that's her.\" Nana Jo had a lot of bad memories about Maria Romanov's murder, especially since the police thought she'd had a good reason for wanting her dead. Sara Jane Howard hadn't helped matters. \"Looks like Irma gave you the people she doesn't know well and the ones she doesn't like.\"\n\n\"I was thinking the same thing, although, maybe that's good. If it's someone she knows, it'll be easier for her to talk to them. Plus, if she leaves the ones she doesn't like to someone else, then it should help eliminate any biases.\"\n\n\"Good point.\"\n\n\"Who do you have?\"\n\nNana Jo read off her list of bus patrons. Most were names I'd heard mentioned but weren't people Nana Jo or the girls had mentioned a lot. The only person who would prove interesting was Velma Levington.\n\nWe finished eating just as my nephews arrived. They finished off the rest of the cinnamon rolls and began working on the breakfast casserole like locusts.\n\n* * *\n\nThe drive to Shady Acres was short and uneventful. I made a detour on the way and stopped at one of my favorite bakeries and picked up a few pastries. There was nothing like fruit tarts from A Taste of Switzerland Bakery to help put people in the mood to chat.\n\nWe pulled through the gates into the parking lot of Shady Acres Retirement Village. The development sat on the Lake Michigan shoreline and contained single-family detached homes, referred to as villas, that were painted pastel colors and sat with views of the lake. There was also a large building that housed condos that could be purchased or rented. Nana Jo bought into the village in the early stages and had a great villa with lake views. Dorothy, Irma, and Ruby Mae all lived in condos. Dorothy owned her unit, while Irma and Ruby Mae rented. Although, now that Ruby Mae had moved into one of the larger apartments, she was contemplating purchasing too. The village was restricted to people sixty and over and the wait list was always very long.\n\nI let Nana Jo out at the main building. She took the large boxes of pastries inside while I found a parking space.\n\nOnce inside, I looked around. There was a guard at the front desk, Larry Barlow, who was a friend of Nana Jo's boyfriend, Freddie. They'd been on the police force together. He was eating a pecan roll and talking to Nana Jo. I decided not to disturb them.\n\nI walked into the main public living space, which was comfortable with a large fireplace and comfortable chairs and sofas placed to provide conversational areas. Ruby Mae sat on the sofa with her knitting and was talking to another woman. She nodded when she saw me, but I could tell she was engrossed in conversation and didn't want to stem the flow of information.\n\nBack in the lobby, Nana Jo had finished talking to Larry and motioned for me to join her. \"I've got good news and bad news. Which one do you want?\"\n\n\"I need some good news.\"\n\n\"You're in luck. Larry said Earl is still here.\"\n\nI scoured my brain, but eventually gave up. \"Who's Earl?\"\n\n\"Earl was our original bus driver. I was afraid he'd have hightailed it back to Chicago.\"\n\n\"So was I.\" I pondered for a moment. \"I wonder why he's still here.\"\n\n\"According to Larry, he's staying for a few days.\" She raised an eyebrow and gave me a look that suggested she questioned Earl's intentions for staying on.\n\nI ignored her look. \"What's the bad news?\"\n\n\"Mr. Big went back to Chicago last night.\"\n\n\"Darn it.\"\n\n\"No need crying over spilled whiskey. Let's just be thankful for what we have and we'll figure out the rest later.\" Nana Jo looked at her watch. \"Jujitsu starts in ten minutes. If I hurry, I can get changed and join in.\"\n\n\"Aren't you supposed to be investigating, not practicing your martial arts?\"\n\n\"Velma Levington has a green belt in jujitsu. I'll bet my vintage Colt .45 she's in that class.\"\n\n\"I'm sure cornering Velma Levington is your only motivation for getting to jujitsu class and has nothing to do with the fact you're hoping to go for your brown belt next month?\"\n\nShe winked. \"Two birds, one stone. Don't knock it.\"\n\nNana Jo hurried to the jujitsu class and I followed the signs that directed me to the office of the activities director.\n\nCaroline Fenton's office door was open. She was pacing in her office. She was a husky woman with dark hair, which she wore cropped at her shoulders, brown eyes, and bushy eyebrows.\n\nI rapped on the door.\n\nShe turned around. \"Come in.\"\n\nI extended my box of goodies. \"Hello, I hate to bother you, but I was hoping you had time for a coffee break.\"\n\nShe craned her neck. \"Are those from A Taste of Switzerland?\"\n\nI nodded.\n\nShe closed her eyes momentarily and her face took on a look I'd seen many times from people who thought they could resist the pastries. However, resistance was futile and she opened her eyes and nodded vigorously.\n\nI should have felt bad for tempting her, but all was fair in love, war, and coercing people to talk and give up information when you had no legal authority. So, I did what I had to do.\n\nIn her office, she had a small personal coffeemaker. She grabbed two individual coffee pods and two coffee cups and made coffee for both of us. Once the coffee was made, she settled behind her desk and stretched her neck to look over the options in my glorious white box. Her eyes lit up when she saw the lemon tarts. She reached for one and stopped and looked up at me.\n\n\"Go ahead. It's all yours.\"\n\nShe reached over and grabbed the tart. She bit into it and moaned as the gooey yellow filling squirted out the sides of her mouth.\n\nI was tempted to hand her a napkin, but experience had told me she'd rather use her tongue than waste any of the lemony goodness.\n\nI knew I was right when I saw her lick the powdered sugar and lemon filling from the sides of her mouth and her fingers.\n\nShe glanced at me once, but, at the time, I was having a spiritual moment of my own with a caramel apple tart.\n\nWe sat and ate in silence for several moments. When we finished, we both sat back and drank our coffees. I suspected she was doing the same thing as me, swishing the liquid around in her mouth to get the crumbs, but I couldn't be sure.\n\n\"Okay, you've tamed the savage beast.\" She smiled. \"What can I do for you?\"\n\nI'd thought a lot about how to approach her on my drive to Shady Acres. \"Irma was really upset about the sudden death of her friend the other night. I know he wasn't a resident at Shady Acres, but I wondered if anyone was planning a memorial or any type of funeral services?\"\n\nShe sighed. \"I hadn't really thought about a memorial since he didn't live here.\" Her gaze darted around the room and she reluctantly put down her cup and picked up a pen and started to make notes.\n\n\"I really want to help. I know you're busy and I'm sure there have to be a hundred things on your to-do list. Would it be okay if I helped? I'm more than willing to organize it.\"\n\n\"That would be great. There are a lot of things to do and I'm a bit short staffed at the moment with . . . well, you know, they haven't replaced Denise Bennett, the administrator.\" She blushed. \"You know what happened to her.\"\n\n\"Yes, I definitely remember her.\"\n\nShe cleared her throat. \"Anyway, I'm doing both jobs at the moment.\"\n\nI scooted to the edge of my seat. \"I'd love to help.\"\n\nShe smiled. \"Great.\"\n\n\"Would we be able to have the memorial observance here?\"\n\nShe nodded and pulled a calendar up on her computer. \"I'm sure we can arrange that. The only events we've got planned for the next week are the New Year's Eve Dance and a tailgate party to watch the MISU bowl game and cheer the Tigers on to victory.\" She smiled at me.\n\n\"I don't think we'll need much. Do you think Gaston could provide a few . . . snacks?\"\n\nShe nodded. \"I'm sure that won't be a problem.\"\n\n\"Then the only other thing I need would be a few names.\"\n\nShe tilted her head. \"Names?\"\n\n\"For the invitations.\"\n\n\"I have a mailing list for the residents, I can\u2014\"\n\n\"I'm not concerned about the residents, actually. I'm sure between my grandmother and her friends, they can get the word out to those who live here. I was thinking about some of the people who were on the bus who don't live here.\"\n\nShe leaned back. \"Most of those people probably didn't really know Mr. Franck. I can't believe they'd want to come back to Shady Acres to attend a memorial service for a complete stranger.\"\n\n\"You may be right, but well . . . we spent several long hours together at that rest area and developed a bit of a bond. Plus, being on the bus when someone dies is a traumatic event. It might actually provide closure for some of them . . . us.\" I didn't want to lay it on too thick, but I needed to make it personal.\n\nShe reached across the desk and patted my hand. \"I'm very sorry. I didn't really think about it from that angle.\"\n\nI sniffed and bit the inside of my cheek to bring a tear to my eyes. It worked.\n\nShe opened a drawer and pulled out a box of tissue and slid the box toward me.\n\nI pulled two tissues from the box and dabbed at my eyes. \"Thank you.\"\n\n\"I guess there's no harm in giving you the names and contact information for the people who were on the bus.\" She tapped the keys of her computer.\n\nAfter a few seconds, the printer on the file cabinet behind her came alive and spit out several sheets of paper.\n\nWhen it finished, she reached around and collected the sheets. She glanced at them and then folded them and handed them to me.\n\n\"Thank you.\"\n\n\"No, thank you for thinking of this. I'm afraid I've only been thinking about the paperwork from our corporate office and filling out the insurance paperwork. I hadn't really thought about it from the people side.\" She shook her head. \"I'm sure Mrs. Starczewski must be really upset.\"\n\n\"She is. Irma really liked Max Franck a lot.\"\n\nShe scooted her chair back in preparation of rising. \"I wish I'd gotten to know him better.\"\n\n\"Did you?\"\n\nShe looked puzzled.\n\n\"Did you know him?\"\n\nShe shook her head. \"No, not really. I only met him that day on the bus for the first time.\"\n\nSomething about the way she avoided eye contact made me think there might be more to it than Caroline Fenton was letting on. I waited, allowing the silence to work its magic. Eventually, she gave in to the pressure of silence.\n\n\"Well, I wouldn't say I knew him. I knew of him, of course. I was born and raised in Chicago.\" She picked at an invisible piece of lint on her sleeve. \"You couldn't grow up in Chicago without hearing of the great, renowned Max Franck.\" Her tone implied she thought Max Franck anything but great.\n\nI waited silently and worked to make my face appear as sympathetic as possible, but the inside of my cheek was pretty sore and I wasn't sure the expression was working. What I hoped was a sympathetic smile felt like a lopsided grimace. Nevertheless, she must have felt some type of compassion because she caved in.\n\n\"I don't know why I'm hesitating.\" She sighed. \"It'll probably come out anyway.\" She looked at me. \"I didn't know Max Franck, not personally, but I knew who he was.\" She swiveled around in her chair so she could look out of the window, which had a view of Lake Michigan. \"Max Franck was a mean, vicious, cruel man\u2014a crusader.\"\n\n\"That's different from what I've read about him.\" I tried to hide the shock on my face. \"Everything I've read indicated he was a highly thought of journalist who dedicated his life to exposing government corruption.\"\n\nShe snorted. \"That's what the newspapers said. The great Max Franck, investigative journalist intent on uncovering corruption at all costs.\" She took a deep breath. \"Even if it cost a man's life.\"\n\n\"What man?\"\n\n\"My father. Max Franck killed him. He killed my father.\"\nChapter 7\n\nI was dazed by her response and sat gaping for several seconds. I pulled myself together and asked, \"How? What?\"\n\nShe sat still for so long, I thought she wouldn't answer the question. However, eventually, she took a deep breath and gazed out the window as though watching a movie. \"My father was a good man. He was kind and gentle and loved his family.\" She swallowed hard and paused. \"He worked hard . . . so hard. He was a cop. He worked the southside of town. He was loyal and he never took a bribe. He believed in doing everything by the book.\" Tears streamed down her face.\n\n\"So, what happened?\" I asked softly.\n\nShe swiveled her chair around and pulled tissues from the box she'd offered me earlier. \"Twenty-two years on the force and he never had one black mark against him. His one fault was his loyalty. His boss, Chief Roland Waters . . . Uncle Rolly, I called him.\" She scoffed. \"Chief Waters was on the take. When Max Franck's story first broke, my dad wouldn't believe it . . . he couldn't believe it. He'd known Roland Waters for years. They started on the force together.\" She returned her gaze to the window. \"Uncle Rolly's career skyrocketed and he was promoted rapidly. My dad wasn't jealous.\" She looked earnestly at me. \"He was glad, happy for his friend. He believed him to be a good man and Chief Waters promised to always take care of my dad.\" She snorted. \"He looked out for him all right.\"\n\n\"What happened?\"\n\n\"Max Franck went undercover. He found the information he needed and he approached my dad for corroboration, but my dad refused.\" She turned and held her hands out. \"How could he corroborate? He hadn't known. He believed his friend was honorable, but Max Franck wouldn't believe him. When the story broke, he painted my dad and anyone who supported the chief with the same brush of corruption.\" She bowed her head. \"It crushed my dad. He was investigated by internal affairs and cleared of any wrongdoing, but the court of public opinion wasn't so forgiving. People who had been his friend and looked up to him, treated him like dirt and it broke my dad.\" She cried in silence for several moments. Eventually, she wiped her eyes and pulled herself together. \"Something died in him after that. So, when the doctors diagnosed him with cancer, he just gave up. He refused treatment and refused to fight. He died within six months of the diagnosis. My mom died a month later.\" She sniffed. \"So, Max Franck took both of my parents from me.\"\n\n\"Your father died of cancer,\" I said softly. \"Surely, you can't\u2014\"\n\n\"I can't what? Blame Max Franck? But I do. I do blame him. My dad used to be strong. He was a fighter. The cancer wasn't advanced. It hadn't spread. With surgery and chemo, he could have beaten it, but he didn't have the will to fight after Max Franck destroyed his life. I had to move to this two-bit town to escape the scandal while the mighty Max Franck was exalted as a champion of justice . . . a man of the people.\" She pushed her chair back, hopped up, and paced around her small office like a tiger in a cage.\n\n\"Did you confront him?\"\n\nShe took several short trips back and forth across the room before she stopped and folded her arms across her chest. \"I waited for everyone to leave the bus. Velma Levington was asleep in the back, as was that woman . . . Rosemary.\"\n\n\"Rosemary?\"\n\nShe waved her hand. \"The woman in the floppy hat.\"\n\nI nodded and made a mental note to write Rosemary beside the floppy-hatted woman on my list. \"Were those the only two people who stayed on the bus?\"\n\nShe paused in her pacing. Then she shrugged. \"I think so. Those two and his bodyguard.\"\n\n\"Bodyguard?\"\n\nShe sighed. \"The big guy with the sunglasses. You couldn't miss him.\"\n\nI nodded. So, Sidney Sherman was Max Franck's bodyguard. Another mental note to see what I could find out about him.\n\nCaroline Fenton seemed anxious to finish her tale now that she'd started. \"He finally got off the bus to smoke a cigarette.\" She laughed. \"A cigarette, can you believe it? My dad died of lung cancer and this idiot was smoking a cigarette with no ill-effects.\" She shook her head at the irony. \"Anyway, he got off and lit his cigarette. That's when I confronted him. I told him exactly what I thought of him and how I held him personally responsible for the death of my parents.\"\n\n\"What did he say?\"\n\nShe huffed. \"Nothing. The cretin just stood there puffing on his cigarette. When I was done, he flicked his cigarette away and turned and got back on the bus.\" She was breathing heavily with anger. \"Can you believe it? He just turned his back on me as though none of it mattered.\" She paced, her steps filled with anger. \"I was furious.\"\n\n\"What did you do?\"\n\n\"Do? I didn't do anything. I was too angry to do anything.\" She looked away. \"I walked around the parking lot to give myself time to cool off.\" Her eyes blazed and she snarled. \"But I wish I'd been the one to kill him. I wish I'd had a gun and could have shot him dead right there.\" She stopped and turned away toward the window. \"I'd have slept well knowing I'd performed that community service.\"\n\nI left Caroline Fenton steaming in her office and went in search of my grandmother. One glance at my watch told me Nana Jo's jujitsu class was over. I found her, Ruby Mae, Dorothy, and Irma waiting for me in the living room.\n\n\"There you are, Sam. We were just talking about whether we should stay here for lunch or go out.\" Nana Jo tilted her head. \"Are you okay?\"\n\n\"Sure. I'm thinking maybe we should stay here for lunch and talk to a few more people.\" I looked around at the girls. \"Unless you're all finished?\"\n\n\"Lawd, no. I still have a few more people on my list,\" Ruby Mae said.\n\nThe others nodded.\n\n\"Good. I need to talk to Gaston about catering the memorial too, so maybe we should eat here and push our meeting back to dinner.\"\n\nEveryone agreed.\n\n\"Great.\" Nana Jo fanned herself. \"I, for one, need a shower. That jujitsu class wore me out.\"\n\n\"I know a better way to work up a sweat.\" Irma glanced at a white-haired gentleman who walked down the hall. \"I'm going to track down Melvin Cooper. That man has buns of steel. You could bounce a penny off his a\u2014\"\n\n\"Irma!\" we all shouted.\n\nIrma burst into a coughing fit. \"Sorry.\" She fumbled in her purse for her flask and took a swig and returned the flask to her bag. She made a few adjustments to her blouse, patted her beehive hairpiece into place, plastered a smile on her face, and then waved. \"Melvin.\" She stood up and pushed her chest out and glided in the direction of her prey, like a lioness about to pounce on a gazelle.\n\n\"Looks like Irma's back to normal.\" Dorothy smiled.\n\n\"Heaven help us,\" Nana Jo said.\n\nNana Jo went to her villa to shower. Dorothy and Ruby Mae spotted others on their lists to question and managed a seemingly random encounter.\n\nI headed in the direction of the dining room in search of Gaston Renoir, Shady Acres' chef. A graduate of France's Le Cordon Bleu, he relocated to Michigan and found his way to the kitchens of Shady Acres. His love of cooking prevented him from merely sitting back and enjoying retirement. Instead, he had negotiated a reduced rate for staying at the retirement village in exchange for the opportunity to do what he enjoyed most, sharing his love of food and cooking skills with the residents. Prior to Gaston's arrival, the meals provided at Shady Acres were okay, but they were certainly nothing to write home about. Since his arrival, his wonderful meals were the subject of conversations not only with Shady Acres but in the surrounding community. He'd won an award in a local competition, and I knew, from my connections with Frank, he'd been approached by local restaurants seeking to coerce him out of retirement.\n\nFinding the chef proved relatively easy. I merely followed my nose to the kitchen where the smell of a lemon garlic roasted chicken was making my stomach growl and my mouth salivate.\n\nThe kitchen at Shady Acres was an industrial space with lots of stainless steel. It was busy but exceptionally clean. Several young people manned various workstations and Gaston moved effortlessly from one station to the other, tasting, stirring, chopping, and throwing out instructions.\n\n\"Ah . . . the beautiful Samantha.\" Gaston hurried to my side and kissed both of my cheeks. \"What an honor it is to see you. What can I do for you?\" He smiled broadly.\n\nGaston Renoir was a man who was happy, confident, and flirtatious. \"Aw . . . where is that nice man of yours? If I were a couple of years younger, I might try to steal you away from him.\"\n\nI giggled. \"You're a terrible flirt, you know that.\"\n\n\"What is the fun in life if a man cannot eat what he wants, drink wine, and flirt with a beautiful woman.\" He shook his head. \"He might as well be dead.\" He laughed.\n\n\"You have a lot more people working back here now.\" I looked at the younger people who rushed around the kitchen.\n\n\"Oui. I am now an instructor.\" He puffed out his chest. \"You must call me Professor Gaston now.\" He laughed. \"The Hospitality Program at MISU, they contact me. They ask if I will consider teaching at the school.\"\n\n\"Wow. That's impressive.\"\n\nHe smiled. \"I say, NO. I can't possibly leave my kitchen here. But, if you want to send your students to me, then I will teach them here.\" He spread his arms out wide. \"And, what do you think? They say yes. So, now I have students who come here to learn from me.\" He proudly patted himself on the chest. Then he turned to me. \"But you did not come here to listen to me talk. No, you come here to eat, yes?\"\n\nI laughed. \"No. I came to ask a favor.\"\n\nHe hurried to the stove and dipped a spoon into a sauce one of the students was stirring. He rushed over to me and held it out. \"You taste and give me your opinion.\"\n\nI tasted the sauce, which was creamy and delicious. \"Hmm that's yummy. What is it?\"\n\n\"Ah . . . that I cannot tell. It is a secret. I don't even tell my students all of my secrets.\" He laughed. \"However, you will have it tonight if you dine here.\"\n\n\"I'm definitely planning to dine here.\"\n\nHe clapped his hands. \"Magnifique.\" He leaned close and smiled. \"Now, what favor do you need? If it is at all in my power, you will have.\"\n\nI smiled. \"I think this will be an easy one.\" I explained about the memorial service for Max Franck.\n\n\"Ah. I heard of the death. Although I did not go on the trip to Chicago, I heard of this. I will be honored to cook.\"\n\nWe discussed a few simple foods, which he assured me he would be happy to provide. I promised to confirm once I'd checked with Caroline Fenton and left.\n\nAs luck would have it, when I left the kitchen, I spotted another one of my assignments sitting in the dining room looking out of the window, Sarah Jane Howard.\n\nSarah Jane Howard was a big woman. She wasn't fat but was what my mom called, \"big boned.\" Her features were big and whenever I saw her, I was reminded of the lines from Little Red Riding Hood when Red says, \"Oh, Grandmother, what big ears . . . eyes . . . hands . . . and teeth you have.\" Sarah Jane Howard was big and when she smiled, I knew what poor little Red must have felt when faced by the talking wolf dressed up to look like her grandmother. Nevertheless, there was a murder to solve, so I took a deep breath, stood tall, and prepared myself.\n\n\"Samantha, what a pleasure to see you.\" She smiled big and flashed her large teeth at me.\n\n\"Hello, Mrs. Howard.\"\n\n\"Why don't you call me Sarah Jane. Everyone else does.\" She smiled again. I tried to focus on some part of her face that wasn't big and didn't remind me of a wolf ready to pounce, but her nose was also big and rather bulbous on the end. I focused instead on the mole on her chin. It was big too but didn't seem the least bit threatening.\n\n\"How are you today?\" I sat down across from her and smiled.\n\n\"I'm doing rather poorly today, I'm afraid.\" She preceded to tell me about her racing pulse, blood pressure, heart fluctuations, and bowel disorder that completely turned my stomach.\n\n\"I'm sorry to hear you're unwell.\"\n\n\"Thank you, dear, but I suppose every day above ground is a blessing.\"\n\nI nodded to the mole. \"You're right. Things could always be worse, like that poor man who died on the bus.\"\n\nThat intro was all it took to divert her attention away from her personal maladies so she could talk about Max Franck.\n\n\"Dear me. I was so shocked to have something like that happen and see that poor man dead on the bus. It practically rattled my insides and, I tell you, my digestion hasn't been the same since.\"\n\nClearly, I was wrong about diverting Sarah Jane Howard away from her digestive issues and was forced to listen to several more minutes of the complaints that occurred because of the death. When she slowed talking long enough for me to interject, I tried again. \"The death was definitely a distressing ordeal. Did you by any chance know Max Franck?\"\n\nShe reluctantly shook her head. \"No. I'd never met him before. But I had heard he was famous.\"\n\n\"He was a famous journalist and author.\"\n\nShe shook her head. \"I wish I'd had time to talk to him.\"\n\n\"I don't suppose you noticed anyone who did talk to him?\"\n\n\"Well, funny you should mention that.\" She leaned closer and smiled her big smile. \"I returned to the bus a little early because I'd forgotten my gloves and it was bitterly cold outside and those winds are terrible for my rheumatism.\"\n\nI prayed silently the story of her rheumatism was a short one. Thankfully, she merely spent two minutes describing the pain.\n\n\"Now, where was I?\"\n\n\"You returned early to the bus.\"\n\n\"Yes, that's right. As I got there, I saw that man . . . Max . . . arguing with a woman.\"\n\nMy heart sank and I tried not to let my disappointment show. \"That must have been Caroline Fenton. She had words with\u2014\"\n\n\"No, dear, not Caroline. I know her. It was another woman.\"\n\nI stared. \"Do you remember who?\"\n\n\"I didn't recognize the woman. She had a large floppy hat on, and I couldn't see her face.\" She shook her head in disappointment. \"I don't think I knew her anyway. She wasn't from the Harbor.\" She sniffed.\n\nI sat up eagerly. \"I don't suppose you remember what they were arguing about?\"\n\nSarah Jane Howard smiled slyly. \"Well, I'm not one to eavesdrop on conversations that don't concern me, mind you.\" She looked at me with the most serious expression.\n\nI stifled a desire to laugh. \"No, of course not.\"\n\n\"However, they were arguing and I just thought it was unseemly and perhaps I should stand nearby in case the gentleman got rough and the lady might need assistance.\" She opened her big eyes even larger.\n\n\"What a wonderful idea.\" I made a mental note to add lying through my teeth to the list of things I needed to seek forgiveness for when I said my nightly prayers. \"You never can tell these days.\"\n\n\"My thoughts exactly.\" She leaned even closer. \"That woman called him a good many names that nearly curled my hair, I can tell you.\"\n\nI'll bet they did. \"Shocking.\"\n\n\"It was indeed. I'm a woman of a delicate constitution, and I wasn't raised to use such language.\" She fanned herself. \"Then she said she'd never asked him for anything in her whole life and wouldn't be asking now if it wasn't a matter of life and death, but there was nothing she wouldn't do for Isabelle.\"\n\n\"Really?\"\n\nShe nodded vigorously.\n\n\"What happened next?\"\n\nHer expression changed to one of disappointment. \"That's when the man, Max, noticed me standing near the bus and called me a busy old broad and accused me of deliberately listening in on his conversation.\"\n\n\"The nerve of the man.\" I managed to avoid laughing by digging my nails into my palms.\n\nShe nodded. \"My thoughts exactly. Why, I was just minding my own business and they were the ones fighting in the streets like common hooligans.\"\n\nI nodded my agreement.\n\n\"Did you tell the police about this?\"\n\nSarah Jane Howard looked as though I had slapped her. \"Of course not. I'm not one to gossip and I certainly was never raised to have dealings with the police, especially after the last time when that man was murdered here. Why, I had people call me a nosy busybody.\" She bristled. \"I can tell you, I made up my mind then and there, that I would never get involved with the police again.\"\n\nApparently, Max had waved her off and she hadn't even been able to get on the bus and get her gloves, which she attributed to her current arthritic distress. She didn't have anything else of value to add and I managed to slip away with the excuse I needed to find my grandmother.\n\nI walked away to find a quiet place to think. All the time, I wondered who the lady in the floppy hat really was and who was Isabelle? Could the floppy hat lady have actually threatened to kill Max Franck? Was it his death she was talking about? Or, was someone else in danger?\nChapter 8\n\nMy mind was reeling with all of the information I'd found and I needed to think. I sent Nana Jo a text message and learned she had just tracked down Velma Levington and would \"corner her,\" her words, not mine, to get what she could out of her.\n\nI walked the short distance to Nana Jo's villa and let myself inside. As much as I enjoyed Gaston's food, I needed a little quiet to sift through everything I'd heard.\n\nAt Nana Jo's, I found a can of vegetable soup in the cabinet. I heated it and made myself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Nana Jo's beverage selection was limited to alcohol, coffee, and Coke, but I found a shriveled-up lemon and made a glass of lemon ice water. One of the best features of Nana Jo's house was the unobstructed view she had of Lake Michigan. I put my food on a tray and sat in the sunroom at the back of the house where I could curl up on the window seat and eat and enjoy the view and think.\n\nBefore I could take my first spoonful of soup, my phone rang. When I glanced at the picture that popped up, I smiled. Lexi and Angelo stared back at me.\n\nI quietly swiped the phone and smiled. \"Hello, how are you doing?\"\n\nLexi and Angelo were both excited and talked quickly and simultaneously, so it was hard to distinguish what they were saying, but it didn't really matter. The sound of their voices was far more important to me than the actual words being spoken. Both were happy and that was the important thing.\n\n\"You've met your cousins, already?\"\n\nLexi and Angelo were orphaned when their parents were killed several years ago in a car accident while on a trip from New York to Chicago. Unfortunately, their relatives in Italy had no idea where the children were. Both were too young to remember their family roots extended to Italy, although they both spoke Italian. When the pair landed in Frank's restaurant, he'd used his connections to discover the history none of the governmental agencies had been able to find. The grandparents had been so excited when they learned the children were alive and well. They had immediately flown to the States. The plan was the grandparents would spend the week in the States getting reacquainted with them before taking them back to Italy after the new year. However, it appeared, the grandparents weren't the only ones who'd traveled to the United States. If Angelo was to be believed, he had lots of cousins who had flown over, and he was enjoying playing with them and teaching them English.\n\n\"That's great. I'm so excited for you both.\" I tried to keep the sadness out of my voice. It really was a wonderful thing that the pair would be reunited with family. Their foster family in Chicago had been horrible and I didn't relish the idea that they would ever have to see that couple again.\n\nOur call was short. Both children merely wanted to say hello and it warmed my heart to hear their voices.\n\nWhen we disconnected, I cried a bit and then pulled myself together and reheated my soup in the microwave.\n\nAfter I ate, I sat on the window seat, looking out the window, and pulled my notepad out of my purse. I jotted down notes from my conversations with Caroline Fenton and Sarah Jane Howard, while they were still fresh in my mind. I tried to make sense of what I'd learned, but, after about twenty minutes of doodling, I gave up and decided to do something else to help organize my thoughts.\n\nWriting British historic cozy mysteries had been a dream of mine for a long time. After my husband's death, I realized life was too short to keep dreams bottled up and had pursued not only our shared dream of opening a mystery bookstore but my dream of being a published author. Nana Jo was the one who first helped me realize that writing allowed my subconscious mind to sort through the details of what I was dealing with in real life. So, I decided a little writing might help me make sense of things.\n\nLady Elizabeth Marsh picked up the receiver of the telephone and had barely finished with her greeting before Desmond Tarkington interrupted.\n\n\"Lady Elizabeth, I hate to bother you at this late hour, but as you can imagine, the tragic accident that has led to the death of my beloved cousin has left me bereft.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth struggled to keep the irritation out of her voice. \"I'm very sorry to hear that, but I hardly see how I\u2014\"\n\n\"I've heard from Mrs. Sanderson, how incredibly helpful your ladyship was during the last hours of her life. I was hoping you might be able to provide some comfort during our time of mourning and would consider a trip to Battersley Manor.\" He paused briefly before hurrying on. \"Or I would be more than happy to make a trip to Wickfield Lodge, if that would be more convenient.\"\n\nShe was silent for several moments. \"Actually, I promised Eleanor I'd stop by Battersley, and I like to keep my word. So, if it's convenient, I'd prefer to come there.\"\n\nDesmond Tarkington was ecstatic to entertain her ladyship and spent several minutes thanking her for her kindness, generosity, and compassion to condescend to visit his humble abode.\n\nLady Elizabeth confirmed the plan to visit Battersley Manor the next day and hung up the phone. She paused for a brief moment before entering the library. She searched for a few moments until she found the book she wanted and then pulled it down from the shelf. It was a favorite by Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice. Lady Elizabeth flipped through the pages of the much-read novel until she found the passage she wanted. She smiled to herself while she read.\n\nLord William watched his wife in silence. When she was done, he asked, \"What could that Desmond Tarkington fellow possibly want at this time of night that would draw you to Jane Austen?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth returned to her seat and picked up her knitting. \"He called to invite me to Battersley Manor.\"\n\nLord William stared at his wife in shocked silence for a moment before blustering. \"You can't be serious. What nerve. I hope you sent him away with a flea in his ear.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled. \"Actually, I accepted his invitation.\"\n\nShocked speechless, Lord William stared at his wife in disbelief. \"You can't go . . . why . . . this is ridiculous. I won't stand for it.\" He slapped his leg, which was propped on the footstool, causing the duke to clench his jaw in pain.\n\n\"I'll be fine, dear. No need to worry. I shan't go alone, and I certainly won't be staying in that house. I looked up Battersley Manor, and it's very close to Dinsmore.\" She stared at her husband. \"You remember Dinsmore is where Lady Alistair goes to take the waters. I think I'll ask her to accompany me.\" She stopped knitting and thought for a moment. \"Maybe I'll even take Clara with me.\"\n\n\"Disgusting odor.\" He frowned.\n\n\"I know the mineral baths do have a rather potent odor, but many people swear by them.\"\n\nLord William was familiar enough with his wife to realize when she'd made up her mind. \"Well, it's clear you can't go unaccompanied. I'll just have to go with you.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled fondly at her husband. \"Don't be ridiculous, dear. You can't possibly travel with your gout.\"\n\n\"Maybe I'll take the waters,\" he blustered.\n\n\"Excellent idea. We can ask Thompkins to come and bring a chair to wheel you to the baths.\" She smiled at her husband.\n\nLord William muttered and folded his arms.\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled fondly at her husband. She knew her husband would rather have his leg amputated before he would allow himself to be wheeled around.\n\nLord William started to protest but was stopped when Lady Elizabeth said, \"However, I may ask Detective Inspector Covington to join us. I'm sure even policemen must be able to take a holiday sometimes.\" She knitted while smiling.\n\n\"If you're going to do this, maybe you can at least humor me and tell me what that young man could possibly have said to you that caused you to consult Pride and Prejudice?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled. \"Nothing, really. I just thought I recognized some of the flowery language used by Desmond Tarkington as belonging to Mr. Collins.\"\n\nLord William gaped at his wife. \"Mr. Collins?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth nodded. \"Yes, I think Mr. Desmond Tarkington must be, like Mr. Collins, one of the stupidest men in England.\"\n\nChapter 9\n\n\"Sam,\" Nana Jo yelled in my ear.\n\nI nearly jumped out of my skin. \"My God.\" I placed my hand over my heart in an attempt to slow its rapid pace. \"I didn't hear you come in.\"\n\n\"I gathered as much.\" Nana Jo smiled. \"Especially since I've been calling you for a good five minutes.\"\n\nI felt confident Nana Jo was exaggerating, but I was still unnerved from the scare she'd given me, so I didn't take the time to argue.\n\n\"We're picking up the girls in front of the main building in fifteen minutes.\" She stood over me. \"You better shake a leg.\"\n\nI took my dirty dishes into the kitchen and prepared to wash them when Nana Jo stood over my shoulder. \"What're you doing?\"\n\nI wondered if this was a trick question. \"I'm washing my dishes.\"\n\n\"I know that.\" She swatted my arm. \"Why are you washing dishes when I have a machine built for that exact task.\" She waved a Vanna White hand in front of the dishwasher and then opened the door.\n\n\"It's just a couple of things. It hardly seems worth it to run a full load and waste water for these few items.\"\n\nNana Jo grabbed the items and loaded them into the dishwasher. \"I don't have to waste water. I just load the dishes and when the dishwasher is full, I turn it on.\"\n\nThere were already a few items in the dishwasher, so I shrugged and packed up my notebook.\n\nI walked to the car and drove to the front and picked up the others, who were waiting in the lobby.\n\n\"Where to?\" I glanced in the rearview mirror as I pulled away from the building and headed toward the gate.\n\n\"I've got a taste for seafood. Let's go to The Catch,\" Nana Jo said.\n\nThere were no disagreements, so I headed toward downtown. The Daily Catch was the restaurant's real name, but locals always shortened it to \"The Catch.\" It had good food and a 1970s-themed d\u00e9cor, which was somewhat off-putting to tourists until they tasted the food. It was located on the inlet where the St. Thomas River met Lake Michigan. Inside, if you looked in one direction, you saw the boats docked on the river. If you looked in the other direction, you had an excellent view of the beach and the Lake Michigan shoreline. The restaurant needed an update. However, every time I went, I was glad it hadn't been done. I loved the retro style.\n\nI let my passengers out at the door and parked. Timing was everything, and I lucked into a parking space near the door. Inside, I saw Nana Jo and the girls seated near the window that faced the river. The booths were large, with high-backed wooden seats that resembled church pews. The seat backs were so tall, it was impossible to see people behind you, but conversations could easily be overheard if you weren't careful. During my last visit, I left with bruises from banging my head and elbow on the wood benches while trying to eavesdrop on someone I suspected might have been a murderer.\n\nOne of The Catch's signature attractions was their handmade onion rings, which they brought out on a large spindle. Nana Jo usually ordered two spindles whenever we came. So, when the waiter came, I just ordered an ice water with lemon.\n\nOnce I was settled, Nana Jo pulled out her iPad. \"Now, I know we all collected a lot of information so we better get started.\"\n\nI raised my hand and relayed the information I learned from Caroline Fenton, along with the information from Sarah Jane Howard.\n\nNana Jo took notes. \"Do you think the woman Sarah Jane saw arguing with Max was the same woman we saw him arguing with in the bookstore?\"\n\nI shrugged. \"I have no idea. Part of me thinks it has to be the same woman. How many different women could he have ticked off in one day?\"\n\nNana Jo smiled. \"At this rate, that list could be fairly long.\"\n\nRuby Mae raised her hand to go next. \"I didn't learn much from any of the people from Shady Acres who were on my list.\" She pulled out the knitting she was rarely without. Tonight, she was knitting a pink baby blanket for one of her countless relatives. Ruby Mae Stevenson was my favorite of all of Nana Jo's friends. In her mid-sixties, she was also one of the youngest. Ruby Mae was an African American woman with dark skin that reminded me of coffee with a touch of cream. She had salt-and-pepper hair that she wore pulled back at the nape of her neck in a bun. Nana Jo said when she let her hair down, it reached down so far, she could sit on it, but I'd never seen it down. Ruby Mae was born in Alabama and had a soft Southern accent. Her story was an interesting one. She moved to Chicago in the early sixties to live with her older sister when both of her parents were killed in one of the civil rights marches. She had just graduated from high school. She met and married a plumber who walked out and left her to raise their nine children single-handed. Ruby Mae cleaned houses to feed, clothe, and educate her children. She was proud of the fact that all nine of them had graduated from college and were very successful. While I knew she was proud of all of them, I suspected her youngest daughter held a special place in her heart as she had started her own cleaning business. Ruby Mae was retired, but she had a host of grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and friends who always stopped to talk to her wherever we went. Tonight was no different. One of the cooks came over to the table and gave Ruby Mae a big hug. They chatted for a few minutes and Ruby Mae introduced him as her cousin's boy Carl. Carl greeted us and quickly hurried off to continue working. However, when several plates of appetizers showed up, which we didn't order, we knew Carl had been busy.\n\nThere were so many appetizers that we didn't bother to order entrees. Instead, we munched on seafood tacos, onion rings, crab cakes, crab stuffed mushrooms, calamari, and a few other items that looked and smelled delicious, but I was too full to try.\n\nRuby Mae put away her knitting while she ate, but when she was full, she wiped her hands and pulled out her knitting, which I suspected helped her think. She picked up the conversation right where she left off. \"Like I said, I didn't get much out of the people on my list from Shady Acres. None of them saw or heard anything. But remember I told you my third cousin Darius worked at the Chicago Sun-Times.\" She knitted a row and updated the row counter on the end of her needles. \"Darius knew exactly who Max Franck was. Apparently, the man was a legend around Chicago. We've already found out most of what Darius told me. He won a lot of awards and had written several books. But Darius found someone who knew Max personally and he found out he had a tumultuous relationship with his ex-wife and his daughter, Rosemary.\"\n\n\"Great. I sure hope he gave you a description of the girl.\"\n\nShe shook her head. \"No, but he's going to email me some articles from the newspaper, so if there's a description or picture of her in any of them, I'll send them to everyone.\"\n\nWe nodded.\n\n\"Apparently, Max Franck was so obsessed with his career, he neglected his family. His wife divorced him and moved out with their daughter.\" She looked over her glasses at us. \"According to Darius, it took Max about six months before he even noticed.\"\n\n\"That's horrible,\" Irma said. \"That dirty piece of sh\u2014\"\n\n\"Irma!\" we all said.\n\nIrma coughed.\n\nWhen the commotion died down, Ruby Mae continued, \"Well, recently, Rosemary reached out to someone at the newspaper, asking if they knew where her father was.\"\n\n\"How sad she had to ask someone,\" Dorothy said.\n\nRuby Mae nodded. \"They didn't know but, apparently, she said her daughter has some rare disease and needs a bone marrow donation. Neither she nor her husband are matches.\"\n\n\"The poor little girl. Where's the mother, Max's ex-wife?\" Nana Jo asked.\n\n\"Dead.\" Ruby Mae shook her head. \"So, out of desperation, she was trying to track down her father to see if he would consent to be a donor.\" She pursed her lips. \"Although, he seemed like the type who was too wrapped up in his own career to think about anyone else. The poor child.\" Ruby Mae shook her head.\n\nWe sat in stunned silence for several moments.\n\n\"Well, on that sad note, I might as well go next,\" Dorothy said. \"I didn't have a lot of luck with my Shady Acres list either. However, I did get one bit of information from Earl.\"\n\nRuby Mae frowned. \"Who's Earl?\"\n\n\"Earl, the bus driver who drove us to Chicago.\" Dorothy fidgeted with her napkin.\n\n\"And how did you happen to run into Earl?\" Nana Jo asked.\n\nDorothy blushed. \"Well, Earl and I spent some quality time together one night in Chicago.\"\n\nNana Jo clucked her tongue but said nothing else.\n\n\"Anyway, I was curious what happened to him. He did have a family emergency. His brother's appendix burst and he had to be rushed to the hospital.\"\n\n\"Is he okay?\" I asked.\n\n\"Fortunately, he is.\" Dorothy released a sigh of relief. \"Anyway, he was in a real pickle about driving us home. So, they had to get someone at the last minute to fill in.\" She paused.\n\n\"Well, what's wrong with that?\" Nana Jo looked up.\n\nDorothy smiled. \"The problem was, they didn't have time to go through all of the new procedures the board put in place after the debacle with the former administrator, Denise Bennett. She hired him, but no one double-checked his background until after he got back. Turns out Bob, our replacement driver, is an ex-con.\"\n\n\"Good Lord. Did Denise Bennett hire anyone who wasn't a criminal?\"\n\nWe all shrugged.\n\n\"What was he in jail for?\" I asked.\n\nDorothy leaned forward. \"Armed robbery and murder.\"\nChapter 10\n\nDorothy dropped that bombshell and everyone immediately started firing questions at her. She held up her hands to fend off the onslaught. \"Hold on.\" She turned to each person and responded to the questions she'd heard asked. \"I don't know who he murdered. I don't know how long he was in prison. Nor do I know why Shady Acres would hire a murderer to drive our bus.\" She took a deep breath and turned to Nana Jo. \"I was hoping Josephine could get Freddie to look it up.\"\n\nNana Jo, normally anxious to volunteer Freddie to use his influence or his son's to get information, was abnormally quiet. \"I'll try, but his son, Mark, had to take the family to his in-law's in upstate New York for the holidays.\"\n\nI raised my hand. \"I might be able to help.\"\n\nEveryone turned to me.\n\n\"I forgot to mention it, but I stopped by the police station and talked to Detective Pitt.\"\n\n\"What's Stinky Pitt been up to?\" Nana Jo asked.\n\n\"I think he's a bit bored.\" I told them about my conversation and our deal.\n\n\"Why, the lazy parasite,\" Nana Jo said. \"He's going to sit back and let you solve another murder for him while he takes all of the credit.\"\n\nI could feel my grandmother's blood pressure rising. \"Hold on. Let's be fair. Technically, this isn't his murder. It didn't even happen in the state of Michigan.\"\n\nNana Jo reluctantly agreed.\n\n\"Plus, he's going to be providing us with information we probably couldn't get anywhere else.\" I stared at her. \"Besides, the last thing I want is 'credit' for solving anything.\"\n\n\"Well, okay, if you're going to put it like that, then I take back what I said.\" Nana Jo huffed.\n\nI pulled out my notepad and made a note to ask Detective Pitt about Bob the bus driver.\n\nNana Jo was the last to report. \"I didn't find out a lot of information. Most of the people on my list were too busy answering the call of nature and didn't go near the bus until it was time to board.\" She looked disgusted.\n\n\"Well, you can't blame them for that,\" I said.\n\n\"Pshaw.\" She snorted. \"I certainly do blame them. People should be more interested in their surroundings and their fellow man.\"\n\nI took a sip to avoid laughing.\n\n\"I didn't get much from Velma.\" Nana Jo sighed. \"Actually, I didn't get anything from Velma.\"\n\nIrma snorted.\n\n\"Did you say something?\" Nana Jo turned to Irma.\n\nIrma muttered something that sounded like \"cheap man-stealing witch,\" but she broke out in a coughing fit and I didn't want to aggravate her throat unnecessarily by asking her to repeat herself.\n\n\"I thought you went to the jujitsu class specifically so you could talk to her?\" I asked.\n\n\"I did.\" Nana Jo raised her hands.\n\n\"Well, what happened?\" I asked.\n\nShe shrugged. \"I tried several times to partner with her, but she always had another partner before I could get to her. Then, when we had our break, I made sure I was right beside her and I tried to strike up a conversation, but the woman is deaf as a doormat. She couldn't hear one single word I said. When class ended, she rushed out of that room so fast, I nearly got whiplash from watching her.\"\n\n\"Harrumph.\" Irma grunted. \"There's nothing wrong with that woman's hearing. She's got ears like a bat.\"\n\nNana Jo looked skeptical.\n\n\"I'll bet if a single man whispered his telephone number in the middle of gale force winds, she'd catch every digit.\" Irma folded her arms and glared.\n\nRuby Mae grinned.\n\n\"Sounds like someone else we know,\" Dorothy joked.\n\nNana Jo narrowed her eyes and stared at Irma. \"Are you sure?\"\n\nIrma nodded. \"I promise you. There's nothing wrong with Velma's hearing.\" She used her finger to cross her heart and then confirmed her pledge by holding up three fingers in the Girl Scouts' salute.\n\n\"I guess I'm going to have to work harder to corner Velma.\" Nana Jo looked thoughtful.\n\nI recognized that look and felt a momentary pang of pity for Velma. My grandmother was taking this as a challenge and Josephine Thomas was a competitive woman who didn't like losing; even if the loss was only in her mind. I suspected Nana Jo's next encounter would end very differently than the last one.\n\n* * *\n\nWe chatted a bit, and then I drove back to Shady Acres. Irma wanted to go to a bar to have a drink to memorialize Max, or so she said, but I suspected that was merely an excuse to party a bit. However, maybe I was being uncharitable. We vetoed Irma's request and I drove them back to Shady Acres.\n\nI pulled up to the main building as usual and let the girls out, which was expected, but my surprise came when Nana Jo got out.\n\n\"Are you staying at your place tonight?\"\n\n\"I'm going to corner that Velma Levington if it kills me.\" She stared at me. \"Do you need my help at the bookstore?\"\n\nI shook my head. \"No. Zaq and Christopher have everything under control.\"\n\nShe nodded, then looked closely into my eyes. \"Are you sure you don't need my help?\"\n\n\"I'll be fine. I'll probably talk to Stinky Pitt and see what I can find out. I'll see you at the meeting tomorrow night.\"\n\nWe had agreed to skip our noon meeting and meet for dinner instead. Shady Acres was preparing for the big New Year's Eve party and everyone was signed up to help. They were going to use that as another opportunity to collect information.\n\nNana Jo accepted my response, and we parted with me promising to call if I needed her.\n\nAs I pulled away, I got a call from Frank. One of the things I loved about my new-to-me Ford Escape was Bluetooth, which enabled me to talk without holding my phone.\n\n\"Hey, beautiful.\"\n\nI smiled even though he couldn't see me. \"Hey, yourself.\"\n\n\"I'm thinking about taking a day off tomorrow and wondered if I could cash in that rain check you gave me.\"\n\n\"Time off during the day? I don't think you've done that since I met you.\" I laughed.\n\n\"I think I'm getting burned out working such long hours. I took Nana Jo's advice and hired an assistant.\"\n\nI laughed. \"Nana Jo was joking, but I think it's great. I knew you were looking for someone, but I didn't know you'd finally found someone you could trust.\"\n\n\"It wasn't easy, but actually, an old buddy of mine from my military days reached out and mentioned he was looking for a new start. He's a Catholic priest but needs a break, so . . . he's looking for someplace quiet where he can think.\"\n\nFrank didn't talk much about his time in the military, and I knew better than to ask too many questions. However, I hoped I'd have an opportunity to meet his friend. \"So, you're starting him tomorrow?\"\n\nHe laughed. \"No. I wouldn't do that to him. The mornings are pretty light, so I hoped I could spend a little time with you and then I'd work the evening shift. He'll be at the restaurant tomorrow, but just as an observer.\"\n\n\"Sounds great.\" I got an idea. \"Hey, how do you feel about a quick trip to Chicago? There are a few people I need to talk to.\"\n\n\"I can't believe it. You're finally going to let me go sleuthing with you?\" he joked.\n\n\"Well, usually I have Nana Jo with me, so you'll have some big shoes to fill.\"\n\n\"I'll do my best to live up to the high standard your grandmother has set.\" He laughed. \"Actually, if you don't mind making a few extra stops, that would work out great. There's a restaurant distributor in Chicago and I could pick up a few things.\" He hesitated. \"That is, if it's okay with you?\"\n\n\"Of course.\"\n\nWe talked a bit more about tomorrow. By the time we hung up, I had made it home.\n\nI took care of Snickers's and Oreo's immediate needs, which included a potty break and treats, and then I went upstairs.\n\nI checked my email and was pleasantly surprised and a bit terrified to see an email from my agent, Pamela Porter, at Big Apple Literary Agency. For some reason, whenever I opened emails from her, my heart raced. I took a deep breath and clicked open.\n\nThe email was an update letting me know she'd just heard from one of the editors she'd sent a query about my manuscript. He requested a full. I met my agent briefly when I was in New York after Thanksgiving and received a crash course in the lingo. She'd explained a query was a high-level pitch about my book. If an editor was interested, they might request to read a partial, a specific number of pages or chapters, or a full, which was a request to read the entire manuscript. She cautioned me that this was a good thing but not to get too excited. He may still reject the manuscript and the timing was horrible because most of the publishers were closed for the holidays. However, she told me to remain \"cautiously optimistic.\"\n\n\"Cautiously optimistic?\" I picked up Snickers. \"She has got to be joking.\" I spun around in a circle and did a happy dance. Oreo pawed at my leg, but he wasn't nearly as good a dancer as Snickers. Nevertheless, I picked him up and did a two-dog happy dance. As soon as I stopped, he leapt out of my arms and gave himself a shake.\n\nSnickers clung to my shirt for dear life. When she was sure I'd stopped spinning, she gave my face a lick.\n\nI put her down and went back to my laptop. \"My first full.\" I couldn't stop smiling, and knew I was too excited to sleep now. I said a silent prayer he, whoever he was, would like my manuscript and decided to spend a few hours in the British countryside. Maybe a few hours with Lady Elizabeth Marsh would help me make sense of Max Franck's murder.\n\n\"Aunt Elizabeth!\" Lady Clara Trewellen-Harper ran to her cousin and engulfed her in a warm embrace.\n\nLady Clara was tall, slim, and stately. She had light brown curly hair, intelligent eyes, and a quick smile.\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled. Her cousin Mildred's daughter had always called Lady Elizabeth, Aunt Elizabeth. She'd grown up with Daphne and Penelope and picked up the habit from them. Lady Elizabeth hadn't minded and the familiar moniker had continued into adulthood.\n\nShe embraced her cousin warmly. \"Hello, Clara. I'm so glad you were able to come.\"\n\n\"Wild horses couldn't have prevented me from joining in on the fun.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth withdrew from her young cousin and smiled broadly. \"Detective Inspector Covington. Thank you so much for coming.\"\n\nThe detective inspector stepped forward and tipped his hat. \"I had holiday time to use by year's end, so it worked out well.\" He smiled. \"Plus, I like to keep an eye on things.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth turned to her cousin. \"Clara, dear. I want you to meet a good friend of mine.\" She smiled warmly. \"This is Detective Inspector Covington.\" She turned to the detective. \"This is my cousin Lady Clara Trewellan-Harper.\"\n\nLady Clara's eyes widened and she smiled warmly at the detective. \"A real policeman. How delicious.\"\n\nDetective Inspector Covington smiled, tipped his hat, and bowed slightly. A careful observer would note the detective's eyes held a sparkle and a slight blush rose up his neck.\n\nLady Elizabeth was just such a careful observer.\n\n\"Please call me Clara.\" Lady Clara extended her hand to the detective.\n\nThe detective inspector shook her hand but said nothing.\n\nAfter an awkward moment of silence, Lady Elizabeth turned to her cousin. \"Do you have luggage?\"\n\nLady Clara turned and noted a porter struggling with several large pieces of luggage. \"There's the porter now.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled and led the small party through the small Dinsmore rail station and outside to the curb, where a car waited. Standing stiffly beside a Rolls-Royce Wraith was Thompkins, the Marsh family butler. He opened the rear car door.\n\nLady Clara smiled at the butler as she folded herself into the back. \"Thompkins, I didn't know you were coming on this adventure too.\"\n\nThe butler bowed. \"Lady Clara.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth instructed the porter to load the luggage into the boot of the car. She then turned to the detective inspector. \"You're able to drive this beast, right?\" She extended a set of keys.\n\nDetective Inspector Covington looked stunned but nodded as he tossed his small duffle next to the driver's seat and accepted the keys. \"Yes, m'lady.\"\n\n\"Thank heavens. I don't think Thompkins's nerves can handle much more of my driving.\" She scooted into the back seat next to her cousin.\n\nOnce all the luggage was loaded, Thompkins tipped the porter and got into the front passenger seat of the car.\n\nDetective Inspector Covington started the car and took one moment to caress the wood dashboard, then he turned to the back. \"Where to?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth pulled a notepad out of her purse and read. \"I intended to stay at Dinsmore Inn, but as it turns out, Lady Alistair keeps a cottage here.\" She glanced at the notes. \"Hapsmere Grange.\" She looked up. \"She's graciously invited us to stay with her.\" She passed the directions up to the detective, who read them, put the car in gear, and pulled away from the curb.\n\nThe drive to Lady Alistair's cottage was short, only two miles from the train station. Despite the diminutive name of \"cottage,\" Hapsmere Grange was a seven-bedroom, three-storied mansion spanning over ten thousand square feet on fifty acres of land.\n\nWhen the car pulled up to the front, Lady Alistair Browning opened the front door and came outside to greet her guests.\n\nLady Alistair Browning was a tall, slender woman with piercing blue eyes and unnaturally blonde hair. She was always fastidiously dressed. Today she wore an elegant, and undoubtedly expensive, navy-blue, fur-trimmed suit with a matching cloche hat. The outfit was tubular with a drop waist. By her side was her companion, a Chihuahua named Bitsy.\n\nThompkins hopped out of the car as soon as the motor stopped and opened the back door to assist Lady Elizabeth and Lady Clara out of the car.\n\nDetective Inspector Covington stared at the large estate and whistled.\n\nThe women embraced and headed toward the door. Lady Alistair turned to Detective Inspector Covington. \"Nice to see you again, Detective Inspector.\"\n\nDetective Inspector Covington tipped his hat. \"Lady Alistair.\" He followed slowly behind, allowing Bakerton, Lady Alistair's stately but elderly butler to take his bag.\n\nLady Clara walked slowly behind the older ladies, allowing Detective Inspector Covington to catch up to her. \"I do hope you're going to be reasonable and at least talk to me.\"\n\nDetective Inspector Covington blushed. \"Of course, your ladyship. What would you like to talk about?\"\n\nLady Clara giggled. \"Why murder. What else?\" She stopped and grabbed the detective inspector by the arm. \"I intend to be a world-famous writer some day and this could be just the thing for me to write about. Everyone loves a good murder.\"\n\nDetective Inspector Covington smiled. \"Hardly a proper topic for a lady to write about.\"\n\nShe huffed. \"I can see you're going to be tiresome about that title.\" She dropped his arm and hurried ahead.\n\nStanding at the top of the steps, talking, were Lady Elizabeth and Lady Alistair. They chatted while inconspicuously glancing at the younger people.\n\nLady Clara flounced through the door. Moments later, Detective Inspector Covington followed, nodding to the ladies as he entered the house.\n\nHelene, Lady Alistair Browning, was the mother of James FitzAndrew Browning, the 15th duke of Kingfordshire and recently married husband of Lady Elizabeth's niece, Daphne. The women had known each other a long time, but the courtship and wedding had reconnected the women. Lady Alistair gave her friend a meaningful look.\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled. \"Give them time.\"\n\nChapter 11\n\nI woke up next morning with my head lying on my keyboard. I panicked for a moment, afraid I'd lost my manuscript. Thankfully, the document was still there, but there were 819 pages of gibberish where my chin rested on the keyboard. I deleted the excess pages and saved again to be safe.\n\nI looked at the time. I had about thirty minutes until the time Frank and I had arranged to meet. Strapped for time, I hurried the poodles downstairs and put them out. It was chilly, but they were wearing sweaters and I knew Christopher and Zaq would be here shortly. So, I left them out while I showered. By the time I was out of the shower, I heard them barking and knew the twins had let them inside.\n\nI still felt guilty about falling asleep on our date and considered putting on a skirt until I checked the weather app and saw it was eight degrees in Chicago. Instead, I put on jeans and a warm sweater. I took extra care with my hair and makeup. You could catch pneumonia trying to look cute in the winter in the Midwest.\n\nWhen I emerged from my bedroom, Frank was having coffee with Nana Jo at the breakfast bar.\n\nHe winked. \"Good morning, gorgeous.\"\n\n\"Good morning, handsome.\"\n\nNana Jo rolled her eyes. \"Good grief. Let's not start that again.\" She sipped her coffee. \"I can feel my blood sugar rising.\"\n\n\"Speaking of sugar.\" I turned to Frank. \"Did you remember to bring the cake?\"\n\nFrank helped me on with my coat. \"Yes. It's in the car.\"\n\n\"Cake?\" Nana Jo looked up with a hopeful expression.\n\n\"Sorry. It's spoken for, but Dawson left some cookie dough in the freezer.\" I turned to leave.\n\n\"Wait.\" I turned back around at the stairs. \"What are you doing here? I thought you were staying at Shady Acres to talk to suspects?\"\n\nShe sipped her coffee. \"When I got home, I remembered I had arranged to meet Elliott this morning. Your place is closer to MISU's library.\"\n\nElliott was a research librarian and one of Nana Jo's old beaus. He still held a torch for her, even though Nana Jo had moved on.\n\nI wished her well and hurried downstairs.\n\n* * *\n\nFrank navigated the Chicago traffic like a pro. About halfway there he asked, \"Where to first?\"\n\n\"Well, there's this mystery bookstore I'd love to visit. Then we can hit the restaurant supply store.\"\n\nFrank smiled. \"Let me guess. It's the mystery bookstore your grandmother pulled you out of the last time you were here.\"\n\nI smiled. \"Right the first time.\"\n\nFrank navigated city traffic much easier than our taxi driver and dropped me off around the corner from the Murder Between the Pages bookstore. He drove around in search of a parking space.\n\nInside, the building was warm and the smell of books and freshly brewed coffee greeted me like an old friend. I stopped and inhaled the familiar aroma as my gaze traveled around the store. The mystery lover in me admired the colorful stocked shelves and something deep inside my soul rejoiced at seeing the shelves full of tales of mayhem and suspense. I smiled. The bookstore owner inside me couldn't stop myself from looking critically at the dusty shelves, dimmed lighting, and water-stained roof. However, the allure of books overpowered the bookstore owner and I got lost.\n\n\"Can I help you find anything?\"\n\nI nearly jumped out of my skin. \"Dear God, you scared me.\" I was miles away in an Irish cottage following Alexia Gordon's enchanting sleuth, Gethsemane Brown, through the twists and turns of solving a murder.\n\n\"I didn't mean to frighten you.\" Linda Herald, the bookstore owner I met on my first visit, apologized.\n\nWhen my heart stopped racing, I smiled and reassured her I was fine.\n\n\"Samantha, right?\"\n\n\"You have a great memory.\"\n\n\"Not really. It's just that I don't meet many mystery bookstore owners.\" She smiled. \"Anything in particular you're looking for?\"\n\nI shrugged. \"I'm just browsing.\" I looked around. \"You have a lovely shop and I may steal some of your ideas.\"\n\nShe laughed. \"Feel free. I've probably stolen them from someone else.\"\n\n\"Do you remember a man and a woman having an argument in your loft the last time I was here? They got quite heated.\"\n\n\"Pity. That must have been Max Franck and his daughter, Rosemary.\"\n\n\"You know them?\" I tried to hide my surprise.\n\nShe nodded. \"Max Franck is a bestselling crime writer. He's done several book signings here.\"\n\nI leaned closer. \"You know he was killed?\"\n\nShe nodded. \"I saw it in the newspaper. I think he expected something like that. Well, maybe not murder, but he must have expected some type of trouble.\"\n\n\"What makes you say that?\"\n\n\"Why else would he have hired a bodyguard?\" She shrugged. \"You must have seen him. He was here at the same time Max and Rosemary were arguing. The big guy with the mirror sunglasses.\"\n\n\"I saw him. He was pretty hard to miss.\"\n\nShe gave a half shrug and adjusted some books on a nearby shelf. \"Actually, I think his agent or editor hired him, but I thought it was all just a big hoax.\"\n\nI must have looked as puzzled as I felt because she colored slightly and shrugged. \"Max was here for his last book signing about a week ago. His editor made a big deal about Max's next book. She stuck out her chest and puffed up her cheeks. 'This next book is going to blow the lid off the theories about who killed Robert Kennedy.' \" Linda tilted her head and gave a cocky chuckle. \" 'Max is in so much danger. I'm concerned for his safety. I've gone so far as to hire a professional bodyguard to protect him.' \"\n\nI stared for a few seconds and then realized my mouth was open and closed it.\n\nShe nodded. \"That's the same expression I had.\"\n\n\"You didn't believe him?\"\n\nShe thought for a moment and then shook her head. \"Honestly, I didn't believe him. At the time, I remember thinking it was a gimmick to get publicity and increase book sales.\" She sighed. \"I mean, if you wanted to hire a bodyguard, why hire someone so . . . I don't know . . . so . . .\"\n\n\"Obvious,\" I volunteered.\n\n\"Exactly. I mean, he was so big and those mirrored sunglasses were over the top.\" She paused. \"I guess maybe he was right. Maybe it wasn't just hype.\"\n\n\"Max was here a week ago?\"\n\n\"Christmas Eve.\" She hurried to the counter and came back with a brochure. \"This is the brochure advertising the book signing.\"\n\nI quickly read over the brochure. \"May I keep this?\"\n\n\"Of course. They'll just go in the trash now.\"\n\n\"So, if Max was here Christmas Eve, why was he back the day I saw him here?\"\n\n\"He said he forgot something,\" she said hesitantly.\n\n\"He said? You didn't find anything?\"\n\nShe shrugged. \"Only the brochures. I offered to mail whatever it was to him, but he wanted to get it himself.\"\n\n\"Did he say what it was?\"\n\nShe shook her head. \"No, but when he came in, he went up to the loft area.\" She pointed to the area where I'd seen Max on the day he died.\"\n\n\"Why was he arguing with his daughter? Rosemary is his daughter, isn't she?\"\n\nShe nodded.\n\nSomeone entered the store and she excused herself to go and check on her customer. However, they must not have needed assistance because she returned quickly. \"Sorry about that.\"\n\n\"No need to apologize. Customers come first.\"\n\n\"Where were we?\" She was silent for a moment. \"Rosemary. I think he must have arranged to meet her here because she came not long after he arrived.\"\n\n\"Do you know why they were arguing?\"\n\nShe shook her head. \"Honestly, I wasn't paying attention.\"\n\nWe chatted a little longer, but her customer selected a book and was waiting at the counter.\n\nFrank had entered the store while Linda and I were talking but had maintained a discrete distance. I found him glancing through a thriller near the back of the store.\n\n\"Find something you like?\"\n\nHe grinned and the look he gave me made the heat come up my neck.\n\nI giggled. \"I'm talking about the book.\"\n\nHe returned it to the shelf. \"I like to patronize my local mystery bookstore.\" He leaned close and whispered, \"I'm kind of sweet on the owner.\"\n\nI grinned. \"I hear she's kind of sweet on you too.\"\n\nI waved at Linda Herald as we left the store.\n\nFrank had found a great parking space a block away and we were quickly on our way to the restaurant supply store.\n\nSimilar to the way I could spend hours in a bookstore, Frank could spend hours looking at ginormous pots, pans, and commercial bakeware. I wandered around while he picked out the items he wanted. Surprisingly, we were on our way in less than an hour.\n\nBack hatch fully loaded, Frank got into the car and turned to me. \"Where to now?\"\n\nI pulled out the list Caroline Fenton gave me with the names and addresses of the bus passengers. I looked for Rosemary Lindley's name and saw she lived in Lake Forest. I went to college in Evanston, Illinois, so I was familiar with many of the suburbs and recognized the city as one of the more exclusive areas where a lot of professional athletes bought large homes. \"Rosemary Lindley is Max Franck's daughter.\" I glanced down the sheet.\n\n\"How are you going to question her?\"\n\nI smiled. \"That's why I asked you to bring your delicious sour cream cake.\"\n\nHe chuckled. \"I should have known you weren't planning snacks for us to enjoy.\"\n\n\"If we run into traffic like we did the last time I left Chicago, we might have to dig into that cake and pick up some flowers for the grieving daughter,\" I joked.\n\nTraffic cooperated and we made it to Rosemary Lindley's home midmorning.\n\nAs I suspected, the suburb was north of Chicago, not far from the northern border of the state. The street was called Lake Road, and we got a glimpse of Lake Michigan through the trees as we drove.\n\nFrank pulled his car in front of the address his GPS indicated was our final destination, and we sat outside and admired the architecture. Rosemary Lindley lived in what I could only describe as a large brick mansion. The homes on this street were all massive and set on enormous lots well away from the street. Mature trees shaded the yards and, combined with the lush landscaping, created an atmosphere that screamed wealth. Unlike Chicago and the immediate suburbs, where houses were conjoined to each other or so close together you could stand between them, extend your arms and touch them, these homes were much farther apart. The lawns were vast and landscaped to provide maximum privacy from prying eyes, while providing the owners with plenty of elbow room.\n\nRosemary Lindley's house had a semicircular drive with brick pavers that looked wider than the interstate we'd just exited. The front fa\u00e7ade had three arches, which welcomed invited guests and intimidated the uninvited.\n\nI wasn't easily awed by ostentatious demonstrations of wealth, but this house was impressive. I was grateful Frank drove. His Porsche fit perfectly with the neighborhood whereas my Ford Escape would have been a red flag to the neighbors that we didn't belong and to call the police.\n\nHe whistled. \"Looks like Max Franck's daughter did pretty well for herself.\"\n\nI stared at the brick and stone mansion for a few seconds and then took a deep breath and opened my door. \"Let's do this before I lose my nerve.\" For a half second, I wondered about the many ways money could intimidate but decided it would only work if I allowed it to.\n\nWe got out of the car and Frank handed me the cake he had brought. Together, we walked through the middle archway to the large, double front door. Once there, I quickly rang the doorbell before my nerves came back.\n\nI expected a butler or maid to answer but was pleasantly surprised when a woman, who was obviously the homeowner, answered.\n\n\"May I help you?\"\n\n\"My name's Samantha Washington and this\"\u2014I pointed to Frank\u2014\"is Frank Patterson. We were acquainted with your father and\u2014\"\n\n\"If you're friends of my father, you can just go to hades, where I'm sure you'll no doubt run into him.\" She stepped back and prepared to push the door closed but was halted as Frank put out a hand and stopped the door.\n\nShe flushed from her angry outburst and, like the steam in a teakettle, looked as though she was revved up for an explosion.\n\nI quickly collected my wits. \"Mrs. Lindley, I didn't say I was friends with your father. In fact, I barely knew him. However, I was acquainted with him and I wanted to provide my condolences to you and your family.\" I extended my peace offering. \"I hope you'll accept this cake.\" I turned to Frank. \"Frank Patterson is an excellent chef and owns a small restaurant in North Harbor, Michigan.\" I thrust the cake into her hands. \"Or, if you prefer not to eat it, maybe you would give it to someone else at a hospital or nursing home rather than let it go to waste.\" I nodded to Frank and turned to leave.\n\nWe were down the stairs before she spoke.\n\n\"Wait. Please. I'm so sorry.\"\n\nWe turned around.\n\n\"Please, I'm sorry. Won't you come inside?\"\n\nFrank looked at me. I shrugged and we returned to the door.\n\nShe stepped aside and we entered.\n\nIf I thought the house was impressive on the outside, the inside was even more so. We entered the two-story foyer with black and white marble tile floors and a chandelier overhead. There was an elegant curved staircase that led upstairs and, to the right, a curved doorway led to a wood-paneled room that looked like a study. I would have loved to explore the library but followed my host to the left to a formal living room.\n\nThe first home that Leon and I bought would have fit in that one room. The room was furnished with traditional sofas, chairs, and dark wood tables. A marble fireplace was centered in the middle of one of the walls, with doorways on either side. The back end of the room had a curved window and built-in window seat that looked out onto the backyard, pool, and, through the distance, the faint blue of Lake Michigan.\n\nAs we were about to sit, a faint voice called, \"Mom.\"\n\nMrs. Lindley paused. For a split second, she hesitated, but only for a split second. Her loyalties were clear. She handed me back my cake. \"Excuse me.\" She hurried out of the back of the room.\n\nFrank and I glanced at each other.\n\n\"I'm going after her.\" I passed the cake to him and hurried after Mrs. Lindley, straining my ears to hear conversation. The house was so large; I was afraid I'd get lost. I went through a massive kitchen, which would have made Frank drool with envy, before I heard two voices.\n\nI peeked into a long, narrow sunroom on the back of the house. The room had one wall of windows and French doors that led outside. The floor was blue and white tile, and the d\u00e9cor continued the theme with blue-and-white striped sofas and comfortable chairs. Sitting on one of the sofas, covered in blankets, was a small, thin little waif of a girl with large, dark eyes. She looked very pale and frail.\n\nThe girl was connected to several machines. One provided a drip that went into her arm. Oxygen tubes went into her nose.\n\nMrs. Lindley adjusted one of the machines, which was beeping, and had her back to me.\n\nThe girl looked up and caught sight of me. I backed up and turned to leave.\n\n\"No, please.\"\n\nI turned and saw the girl smiling at me.\n\n\"Please. I don't get much company.\"\n\nI smiled and took a few steps into the room. I hesitated and looked to Mrs. Lindley. \"I'm sorry. I didn't mean to intrude. I . . . I was just really curious about your beautiful house and I let my curiosity take control over my manners.\"\n\nMrs. Lindley shrugged. \"It's okay.\"\n\nI decided to take that as an invitation to stay and walked over toward the girl and smiled. \"Hello. My name is Samantha but everyone calls me Sam.\"\n\nShe smiled. \"I like that. My name's Isabelle, but everyone calls me Isabelle.\" She giggled. \"I wish I had a nickname.\" She glanced at Mrs. Lindley, who was replacing one of the fluid bags. \"Why don't I have a nickname, Mom?\"\n\nMrs. Lindley glanced lovingly at the girl. \"Don't you like your name? Isabelle was your grandmother's name.\" She placed the bag onto the hook and stood. \"Every time I say your name, it reminds me of her.\" She gently caressed the young girl's cheek.\n\n\"That's okay, then. I don't mind not having a nickname.\" She leaned back against her cushions. \"Can you stay a bit and talk to me?\"\n\n\"I'd love to.\" I looked at Mrs. Lindley.\n\nShe nodded.\n\nI smiled and moved to one of the comfortable chairs and sat down. \"Great.\" I looked at Isabelle and, for a moment, I was unable to think of anything to say. After spending more than two decades as a high school English teacher, I usually felt very comfortable talking to young people. However, this little girl with the big eyes had me dumbstruck.\n\nShe smiled at me again. \"Are you friends with my mom? Have we met before?\"\n\n\"No. Actually, I've just met your mom.\" I started to tell her I came to give my condolences but didn't know if hearing her grandfather was dead would upset her. I hurriedly shut my mouth.\n\nMrs. Lindley must have sensed what I was thinking because she relieved my mind by stating, \"Samantha came to tell me how sorry she was about your grandfather.\" She swallowed hard. \"She even brought a yummy cake.\"\n\nIsabelle's eyes got even larger and a huge smile illuminated her face. \"CAKE.\" She clapped her hands.\n\nFrank stuck his head around the corner. \"Did I hear someone say cake?\" He held up his cake.\n\nI looked to Mrs. Lindley, and she smiled and nodded.\n\n\"Why don't I take that and bring us some tea.\" She reached out her hands and Frank handed over the cake.\n\n\"This is my . . . friend Frank.\"\n\nFrank smiled and bowed to Isabelle.\n\nShe giggled.\n\nHe looked around and noticed a chessboard in the corner. \"Do you play chess?\"\n\nIsabelle nodded vigorously. \"I love chess, but my mom doesn't play and my dad isn't here.\" She looked sadly at the chessboard. \"My granddad played, but he's in heaven with my grandmother now. So, I don't have anyone to play with.\"\n\nFrank smiled and went to the corner, picked up the chessboard, and brought it to the table next to Isabelle. \"Well, you do now.\" He sat down and smiled. \"Black or white?\"\n\n\"White.\"\n\nHe spun the board around so the black pieces were in front of him. Then he removed his jacket.\n\nThe two of them talked quietly and were quickly engulfed in a game I never learned to appreciate. After watching for a few moments, I removed my jacket and went in search of our somewhat-reluctant hostess.\n\nI followed the clinking of dishes and the familiar sounds of water filling a teakettle back to the kitchen.\n\nMrs. Lindley opened multiple cabinets as she searched for the items she needed to fill the large tea cart on the granite counter.\n\nThe kitchen would have made a commercial chef like Frank extremely happy. While I was no expert, I recognized the distinctive red knobs that adorned the massive eight-burner stainless steel gas stoves. There were two of them. Glancing around the kitchen, I noticed there were also two refrigerators and an incredible amount of cabinets.\n\nA large island was situated in the center of the space, and I pulled out a barstool and perched on one of the stools. \"Your house is beautiful, Mrs. Lindley.\"\n\nShe continued collecting coffee mugs. \"Please, call me Rosemary.\"\n\n\"Thank you, Rosemary. I hope you'll call me Sam.\"\n\nShe put the kettle on the stove and turned to face me. \"I'm very sorry for the way I behaved earlier.\" She leaned against the cabinet. \"My father and I didn't have a very good relationship, but that's no reason for me to take out my anger on you.\"\n\n\"No apologies necessary.\" I thought for a brief moment. \"I didn't know your father. I only met him a few days before he died. However, he was very friendly with one of my grandmother's friends . . . with my friend Irma.\" I smiled. \"She was the reason he was on the bus to North Harbor. They were going to . . . spend some time together.\"\n\nRosemary laughed. \"You don't have to sugarcoat it. I know my dad fancied himself as a Don Juan. It's the reason he and my mother divorced.\" She smiled. \"My mom called him a tomcat.\"\n\nI smiled. \"My students would have called him a playah.\"\n\nShe laughed for a long time. \"I haven't laughed in a very long time.\" She sighed. \"I find it hard to think of my dad as anything as hip as that, but I suppose the label fits.\"\n\nThe kettle whistled and she turned off the stove and filled a teapot. \"Would you or . . . Frank, prefer coffee?\"\n\nI shook my head. \"Tea's fine.\" I hesitated. \"We're planning a bit of a memorial for your dad at Shady Acres. We're hoping it will help Irma and some of the other people who were on the bus get some closure.\" I took a deep breath. \"I was hoping you might have seen or heard something that might help.\"\n\nShe tilted her head and stared. \"Help how?\"\n\n\"Help figure out who might have wanted to murder your dad.\"\n\nShe laughed. \"That list would be way too long.\"\n\nI was silent for a moment. \"Well, maybe you noticed something that seemed . . . odd. It might be able to lead the police to the killer.\"\n\nShe turned away and fidgeted with the cups on the tray. She took the kettle from the stove and started to fill the cups.\n\nOn a whim, I asked, \"Why were you arguing with your dad at Murder Between the Pages, and why were you on the bus?\"\n\nHer hand pouring the water into the teapot faltered and she spilled water onto the counter, but she quickly recovered.\n\nI hopped off the barstool and got a paper towel and helped to clean up.\n\n\"How did you know about the bookstore?\"\n\n\"My grandmother and I were there.\"\n\nShe sighed. \"I called him to talk . . . about Isabelle.\" She swallowed hard and paused. \"He said he couldn't meet me because he was going out of town on this bus trip and needed to pick up something from the bookstore. I thought I could talk to him . . . reason with him.\" She stopped. \"Plead with him, but it didn't do any good.\"\n\n\"Why did you need to plead with him?\"\n\n\"Isabelle is sick. She has aplastic anemia.\"\n\nI must have looked puzzled because she sighed. \"I recognize that look. Most people have never heard of it. Basically, her body doesn't produce enough red blood cells.\" She paused. \"She needs a bone marrow transplant.\" She looked at me. \"That's why I was arguing with my dad. Neither my husband nor I are matches. I pleaded with him to get tested.\" She sniffed. \"For Isabelle's sake.\"\n\n\"He wouldn't?\"\n\nShe shook her head. \"At first he said he would, but he never did.\" She rolled her eyes and slammed the kettle on the stove. \"He was too busy. Too busy? Can you imagine? He was too busy to take a quick test that might possibly save his granddaughter's life.\" She cried.\n\nFor a brief moment, I looked on in disbelief. Then, I collected my wits, walked over, and hugged Rosemary Lindley. Initially, she stood very stiffly, but, after a few seconds, her shoulders shook and she sobbed. We stood that way for several minutes while she cried. Eventually, she pushed away.\n\nShe walked to the sink, turned on the faucet, and splashed water on her face.\n\nWhen she turned the water off, I handed her a paper towel.\n\n\"Thank you.\" She wiped her face. \"I'm sorry. It's been a while since I've cried like that. I didn't think I had any tears left.\"\n\nWe heard laughter from the sunroom and she smiled. \"We better get this tea into our chess masters before it gets cold.\"\n\nShe picked up the tray and carried it through the entry toward the sunroom at the back of the house, and I followed.\n\nAt the entry to the sunroom, Rosemary paused. We stood for a moment and listened. Isabelle was laughing.\n\n\"Wait. How did you do that?\" Frank asked.\n\nIsabelle laughed. \"It's called winning.\"\n\nThe two laughed.\n\n\"It's been a long time since I've heard her laugh like that,\" Rosemary whispered.\n\n\"It's not too much excitement for her, is it? Maybe we should go.\"\n\nShe shook her head. \"No. It's not too much.\" She whispered, \" 'A merry heart doeth good like a medicine.' \"\n\n\"Proverbs, seventeenth chapter, twenty-second verse.\" I released a heavy sigh. \"That was one of my husband's favorite scriptures.\"\n\nShe tilted her head toward the sunroom.\n\nI shook my head. \"No, my husband, Leon, died of cancer.\" I pointed toward the sunroom. \"Frank is a new . . . friend.\" I smiled.\n\nShe nodded knowingly. \"You're a lucky woman.\" She walked into the sunroom.\n\nI thought for a few moments and smiled. It was true. I was a lucky woman. I followed her into the room.\n\nWe stayed another hour talking, eating cake, and laughing. Frank requested and was granted a replay, which he also lost.\n\nIsabelle yawned and we made our exit.\n\nRosemary walked us to the door, where she thanked us, profusely. \"It's been a long time since I've seen Isabelle that happy. Thank you.\"\n\nFrank looked confused. \"No thanks necessary. I enjoyed myself.\"\n\nRosemary's eyes and her body language reflected an internal conflict. One second, she looked as though she wanted to talk, but then a few seconds later, like she had changed her mind. I was curious how the battle would end. Eventually, she took a deep breath and blurted out, \"You asked if I saw anything unusual on the bus.\"\n\n\"Yes.\" I didn't want to seem too eager, but I sure hoped she was going to tell me she saw someone murdering her father.\n\n\"I did notice something.\"\n\n\"Anything that seemed odd to you might be important.\" I gave her my most encouraging smile.\n\n\"It's just that when I walked down the aisle to my seat, I noticed his face and something struck me as odd.\" She pondered for a moment and eventually shook her head. \"It was an impression more than anything. I felt like he saw someone he recognized.\"\n\nI waited, but that was all she said. She shrugged and shook her head. \"I know it's probably nothing, and I almost\u2014\"\n\n\"No, I'm glad you mentioned it.\"\n\nShe sighed. \"It was probably me.\" She laughed. \"I thought I was so clever in that floppy hat with the big glasses, but I guess he saw right through me.\"\n\nShe was probably right, but I didn't want to discourage her. \"Well, if you remember anything else, please call me.\" I gave her one of the business cards my nephew Christopher had created for Market Street Mysteries, and we made our exit.\n\nIt didn't take long to get back on the interstate. We drove a few miles in silence before Frank added, \"That little girl is a chess shark.\"\n\nI laughed. \"You're going to have to learn to lose gracefully.\"\n\nHe grumbled, \"Easy for you to say.\"\n\nOur last stop was to the address listed for Sidney Sherman. When Frank pulled up to the address, it was a small commercial storefront on the south side of town. The lights were out and the building had bars across the windows and doors. It was obvious it was closed, so we quickly moved on.\n\nI filled Frank in on my conversation with Rosemary Lindley. He listened quietly.\n\n\"Sounds like Max Franck was a real piece of work.\"\n\nI was glad he'd come to the same conclusion I had. \"I know. It seems so bizarre. I mean, I didn't know him long, but he didn't seem like a jerk.\"\n\nHe smiled. \"Sometimes it's not easy to tell how big of a jerk someone is until they say or do something . . . or, in this case, fail to do something important.\"\n\nDespite the cake and tea we'd eaten, we were both hungry and decided to stop for a late lunch in Michigan City, Indiana.\n\nSenior Kelly's was a Mexican\/Irish pub. Neither ethnic group was authentic, but the margaritas were large and the atmosphere was always festive. Just as we finished eating, I got a call from Nana Jo.\n\n\"Sam, you better get back here.\"\n\n\"What's happened?\"\n\n\"Someone just tried to kill Irma.\"\nChapter 12\n\nA few probing questions revealed that Irma had taken a tumble down a flight of steps. I tactfully questioned whether Irma's tumble down the stairs could have been an accident. After all, she did wear six-inch hooker heels on a daily basis, and it was possible she merely tripped.\n\nNana Jo's response was that Irma'd been wearing stilettos for more years than I'd been alive and she would fill me in more when I got back.\n\nI relayed the conversation to Frank and we quickly left and headed back. During the short ride from Michigan City, Indiana, to North Harbor, Michigan, we discussed the latest developments.\n\n\"Do you think someone really tried to kill Irma?\" he asked.\n\n\"I don't know why they would. It seems so far-fetched.\" I shook my head. \"If anyone other than Nana Jo told me someone tried to kill Irma, I wouldn't have believed it, but . . .\"\n\n\"Your grandmother is usually a very reliable source.\" Frank turned into Shady Acres.\n\nOne glance at the parking lot sent my heart racing. There were at least four fire trucks, two police cars, and several ambulances. I gasped.\n\nFrank reached over and gave my hand a squeeze. Then he navigated around the vehicles and pulled up as close to the curb near the door to the lobby as he could and let me out.\n\nI hurried inside. The scene in the lobby was pure chaos. Irma was strapped onto a gurney in the lobby. Dorothy and Ruby Mae were shouting orders at the emergency technicians. Caroline Fenton looked as though she'd been crying. If she'd had a run-in with my grandmother, then she probably had. There was a crowd of residents gawking nearby. I recognized Sarah Jane Howard, who seemed as though she was trying desperately to get Nana Jo's attention. However, Nana Jo and Velma Levington had Bob the bus driver in a choke hold. Sidney Sherman was arguing with Detective Pitt, and the decibel level was unreal. Everyone was shouting.\n\nI stood for a few seconds and watched in openmouthed wonder.\n\nFrank whispered in my ear, \"What's going on here?\"\n\nI shook my head. \"I have no idea, but I'm going to find out.\" I reached into my purse and pulled out a whistle Nana Jo had given me when we went to New York for Thanksgiving. My grandmother was amazed to learn I had never learned to whistle, so she'd picked up a police whistle to help me hail a taxi.\n\nI gave the whistle a long blow, which produced an eardrum-bursting sound that stunned the crowds into silence and had the desired effect of stopping the commotion.\n\n\"What on earth is going on here?\" I asked.\n\nUnfortunately, everyone started talking at once and I was forced to give the whistle another toot. \"One at a time.\"\n\nNana Jo started. \"Velma and I caught the murderer when he tried to kill Irma.\"\n\n\"I didn't kill anyone,\" Bob croaked, and squirmed under the pressure applied around his neck by the two women.\n\nIrma moaned from the gurney. \"Someone pushed me.\" She pointed her finger at Bob. \"Why'd you do it? Why'd you kill poor Max?\" She burst into tears, and Ruby Mae handed her a handkerchief.\n\nFrank walked over to the EMTs and had a quick word and then they moved forward and wheeled Irma out of the building.\n\nDorothy and Ruby Mae followed hot on their tails. \"We're going too.\"\n\nI turned to Detective Pitt.\n\nHe stared at me. \"Don't look at me. I just got here.\"\n\nI tilted my head and narrowed my eyes and gave him a look that said, aren't you going to take control?\n\nA tall, handsome African American man dressed in full firefighter gear came up and whispered something to Detective Pitt.\n\nI recognized the man as the North Harbor Fire Chief. Something in the way he glanced around the lobby made me wonder if he was another of Ruby Mae's relatives. After a few moments, he motioned for the other firefighters to leave and gave the all-clear for the residents to go back to their rooms.\n\nLarry Barlow, the security guard, helped usher the residents, many of whom were wearing lightweight clothing and slippers, which explained a bit of the chaos. It was too cold to go outside without proper winter wear, and, from my days dealing with fire drills as a teacher in the public schools, I was aware the firemen weren't going to allow anyone to return to their rooms for appropriate clothing.\n\nApparently, even Detective Pitt was constrained by the fire department. Only after the whispered conversation from the fire chief did he act. \"All right, everyone is clear to return to your rooms. Clear the lobby.\" He glanced at Bob, still under the control of Nana Jo and Velma Levington. \"Everyone except you.\" He motioned for one of the uniformed officers to take control of their prisoner. Then he looked around. His gaze landed on Caroline Fenton.\n\nCaroline Fenton's eyes looked wild. She looked on the verge of collapse, and I hurried to her side just in time. She collapsed and would have crumpled to the ground if Frank hadn't been there.\n\nFrank scooped the woman up and looked around for a place to take her.\n\n\"In here.\" I led him to her office.\n\nHe placed her on the small sofa.\n\nNana Jo and Velma followed us into the room.\n\nVelma announced she'd been medically trained in the military and immediately sat down and checked her pupils. \"She fainted.\" She turned to Frank. \"Get a cold compress and a glass of water.\" She grabbed a pillow and propped it under her legs to elevate them.\n\nFrank hurried out of the room. He was back so quickly with the items requested, I knew someone must have anticipated the orders and had them already prepared.\n\nVelma put the compress on Caroline's forehead and gave her cheeks a light tap.\n\nCaroline's eyes fluttered.\n\nI glanced around at Nana Jo as she breathed a sigh of relief.\n\n\"Drink this.\" Velma reached behind her neck to help Caroline lift up enough to drink the water.\n\nAfter a few sips, Caroline Fenton laid her head back against the cushions. \"I'm sorry. It's just been such a crazy day, and I don't even remember if I ate anything.\"\n\n\"Well, that's the first thing we need to take care of.\" Nana Jo turned to Frank. \"Would you ask Gaston to prepare some scrambled eggs and toast?\"\n\nFrank nodded and hurried out of the room.\n\nI glanced at Detective Pitt, who looked a bit pale. I remembered how he panicked the last time a woman fainted and had to turn away to keep him from seeing the twitch of my lips as I struggled to keep from smiling. Once I had control of my face, I turned back around. \"Detective Pitt, is it true that he tried to kill Irma.\" I pointed at Bob, who was handcuffed.\n\nThe prisoner struggled. \"I didn't try to kill anyone.\"\n\nNana Jo looked as though she would wring the bus driver's neck. She took a step in his direction. \"Maybe I should have walloped you a bit harder to help jar your memory.\"\n\nI stepped in front of my grandmother.\n\n\"That's enough of that.\" Detective Pitt pulled a notepad out of his pocket. \"The district attorney frowns on prisoners coming in bruised.\"\n\nI detected the first glimpse of humor in the detective's eyes.\n\nHe sat behind the desk and looked from the handcuffed man to Nana Jo and then to Velma Levington. \"Now, does someone want to tell me what happened?\"\n\nNana Jo opened her mouth, but Velma Levington beat her to it. \"He pushed her. I saw it.\"\n\nDetective Pitt held up his hands to stop the flood of words. When he had quiet, he turned to Nana Jo. \"Perhaps Mrs. Thomas can explain what happened.\"\n\nNana Jo nodded. \"We were upstairs. I was . . . hoping to talk to Velma about what she saw on the bus.\" Nana Jo blushed and I knew there was more behind her words, but I'd ask her about it later. \"I had just approached her when we heard Irma scream. Her apartment is down the hall from Velma's.\"\n\n\"Was that when he pushed her?\" Detective Pitt asked.\n\n\"I never pushed anyone. I swear, I\u2014\"\n\nDetective Pitt held up a hand. \"Allegedly pushed.\"\n\n\"No. Actually, that happened later. I rushed down the hall when I heard Irma scream.\" Nana Jo scowled at Bob. \"Someone had broken into her room and ransacked it.\"\n\n\"What?\" Detective Pitt stood up. \"No one mentioned there had been a break-in.\"\n\n\"In all of the commotion, we forgot,\" Nana Jo said.\n\nDetective Pitt walked over to the door and yanked it open. \"Cooper.\"\n\nThe uniformed policeman who'd handcuffed Bob hurried to the door. Detective Pitt whispered something to him and he nodded and hurried off.\n\nDetective Pitt closed the door and returned to his seat. \"You amateurs have probably trampled all over the evidence,\" he mumbled.\n\nNana Jo narrowed her eyes. \"We didn't touch anything.\" She took a deep breath. \"Every dodo knows better than to interfere with a crime scene.\"\n\nDetective Pitt muttered, \"Dodo is about right.\"\n\nThe look in Nana Jo's eyes made me reach out a hand to prevent my grandmother from throttling a policeman.\n\nDetective Pitt must have sensed his life was in danger because he thankfully stopped the insults. \"Now, anything else important you want to tell me.\"\n\nNana Jo cleared her throat. \"As I was saying, Irma's apartment had been ransacked. Just as we were about to enter, the fire alarm went off.\"\n\n\"The fire department should be able to tell us which alarm was pulled,\" Detective Pitt said.\n\n\"Yes, they can do that,\" Caroline Fenton mumbled from the sofa. \"Plus, Larry can check the security cameras.\"\n\nDetective Pitt made notes. \"I'll get Cooper on that as soon as he finishes with the break-in.\"\n\nBob started to speak and Detective Pitt added, \"Alleged break-in.\" He looked at Nana Jo.\n\n\"When did the attempted murder occur?\"\n\nShe sighed. \"A crowd gathered in the hallway after Irma screamed. So, it was a bit chaotic. When we heard the alarm, we all headed for the stairs.\" She glanced at Caroline Fenton. \"The elevators don't work when the fire alarm goes off.\"\n\n\"It's the law,\" Caroline Fenton said.\n\nThere was a knock at the door.\n\nDetective Pitt tapped his pen in frustration. \"Enter.\"\n\nFrank returned with a Styrofoam container, which smelled delicious. He walked over to Caroline Fenton, who was sitting up on the sofa now.\n\nShe thanked him and took the container. She opened the lid. Gaston had outdone himself. Inside was an omelet, toast, and a few slices of fruit. She tucked into the food.\n\nDetective Pitt glanced in her direction with a bit of envy. Perhaps he was remembering the delicious breakfast he'd had when he investigated a murder here previously. However, he sighed and quickly returned to the task at hand. \"What happened after the alarm went off?\"\n\nNana Jo shrugged. \"We all hurried to the stairs. We were just headed down the stairwell when Irma went careening down the stairs.\" She glared at Bob.\n\n\"Did you see him push her?\" Detective Pitt asked.\n\nNana Jo paused. \"No, but Velma did.\" She turned to Velma Levington, who was standing quietly in a corner.\n\n\"That's right. I was standing very close to Irma and I saw his hand extended toward her back. That's when I reached out and grabbed his arm,\" Velma Levington said.\n\n\"I reached out to catch her. I saw the lady flying down the stairs, and I reached out my hand to catch her. That's when these crazy old bats tackled me.\" Bob tilted his head to indicate Nana Jo and Velma.\n\nDetective Pitt wrote in his notepad. \"So, you saw him actually reach out his hand and push Mrs. Starczewski down the steps?\"\n\n\"Well . . .\" Nana Jo stammered. \"I didn't see it, but Velma did. She was a lot closer to Irma than I was.\"\n\n\"Yes. I saw him. He reached out his arm and shoved her in the back,\" Velma Levington said with confidence. \"And furthermore, I'm sure he must have been the one who killed Max Franck. I fell asleep on the bus and was one of the last ones to get off when we stopped. When I did, I saw him standing over Max Franck. He jumped when he saw me.\"\n\n\"You're crazy.\" Bob tried to stand. \"It's a setup. I didn't kill anyone.\"\n\n\"Well, we know that's not true,\" Nana Jo said. \"You went to jail for murder.\"\n\n\"WHAT?\" Detective Pitt smacked his notepad down on the desk.\n\nI explained what Dorothy had found out from her friend Earl.\n\nDetective Pitt looked from me to Nana Jo to Caroline Fenton. \"Why didn't someone tell us sooner?\"\n\n\"I didn't hire him.\" Caroline Fenton swallowed hard. \"That was my predecessor's doing, Denise Bennett.\"\n\nDetective Pitt groaned. \"Not her again.\"\n\n\"I was going to tell you when we met,\" I whispered.\n\nHe scowled at me and then turned to Bob.\n\nThe blood drained from Bob's face, and he sat still for a second. \"I was set up before and now it's happening all over again.\"\n\n\"It's always a setup with you people.\" Detective Pitt leaned across the desk. \"Everyone is innocent. You never killed anyone.\"\n\n\"Wait.\" Bob shook his head. \"It's not like that.\" He scooted to the edge of his seat. \"I was young and stupid. I fell in with the wrong crowd and when they suggested we rob a bank, I agreed.\" His voice shook. He paused for a moment. \"No one was supposed to get hurt. We were just going to take the money and get out.\"\n\n\"But, that's not what happened, is it?\" Detective Pitt added sarcastically.\n\nBob shook his head. \"No. There were four of us. Lenny drove the get-away car. Jack and Carl were brothers.\" He shook his head. \"Carl was the brains. He planned the entire thing.\" He sighed. \"Carl and I were supposed to burst in and wave our guns around. Jack was supposed to get the money.\"\n\nI looked at the pitiful creature in the chair. His eyes filled with tears. \"One of the tellers pushed the silent alarm, and Jack flew into a rage. He pistol-whipped her.\" He looked at me. \"He hit an old woman.\" He swallowed hard. \"I was in shock. I couldn't move. That's when Carl started yelling. 'Get out! We gotta get outta here,' but I couldn't move. The security guard reached for his gun and Jack raised his arm. He pointed his weapon. He was gonna shoot him.\"\n\n\"What did you do?\" I asked.\n\nHe shook his head. \"I couldn't let him shoot that man. I saw the look in his eyes, and I knew he was going to shoot.\" He lowered his head. \"I don't even remember raising my gun. I just remember the sound it made.\"\n\n\"You shot your partner?\" Detective Pitt asked.\n\nHe nodded. The tears flowed down his face. \"He was a hothead. He had a record and had been in and out of jail. He said he'd never go back inside. So, that's how I knew he'd kill them rather than go back to prison.\"\n\n\"You killed him?\" I asked.\n\nHe nodded. \"Carl and Lenny got away, but I just stood there. I couldn't move.\"\n\n\"So, you went to jail for murder?\" Nana Jo asked.\n\nHe nodded.\n\n\"Doesn't sound like an innocent person getting set up to me. It sounds like cold-blooded murder.\" Detective Pitt scowled.\n\nBob sat in the chair and cried.\n\nDetective Pitt closed his notebook. \"I've heard enough.\" He walked over to the crying man. \"Come on. I'm arresting you for the attempted murder of Irma Starczewski and suspicion of the murder of Max Franck.\" He grabbed him by the arm. \"Let's go.\"\n\nBob's gaze traveled around the room like a trapped animal. \"Please, I swear I didn't do it. Please.\" He gazed into my eyes. \"Please. You have to believe me.\"\n\nDetective Pitt led him out of the room, none too gently.\n\nFor a few moments, we all looked on in shock.\n\nAfter a few seconds, Velma walked toward the door. \"I'm glad they were able to catch that dangerous killer before he killed anyone else.\" She grabbed the doorknob and then walked out of the room.\n\nCaroline Fenton swiveled her legs off the sofa and stood. \"I've got a ton of paperwork to fill out. Today has been one crazy day, and we have that memorial service tomorrow.\" She moved over to her desk, and we all took the message and made our way out of her office.\n\nOutside, Nana Jo turned to me. \"What are you thinking?\"\n\n\"I'm thinking something doesn't feel right.\"\n\nShe nodded. \"I'm thinking the same thing.\"\n\nFrank shook his head. \"You two just feel sorry for him because he seemed remorseful, but Detective Pitt had no choice. There's a lot of evidence against him.\"\n\n\"What evidence?\" Nana Jo asked.\n\nFrank ticked off the answers. \"He was seen on the bus standing over Max Franck. He was on the stairs when Irma fell. He was seen with his arm outstretched toward her just as she tumbled down the stairs.\"\n\n\"Circumstantial evidence,\" Nana Jo added.\n\nFrank shrugged. \"It may be circumstantial, but it may be enough to convict him.\" He paused. \"Plus, he's a convicted murderer.\" He looked from me to Nana Jo. \"He may just be a great actor. He may have turned on the tears to make himself seem innocent.\" He reached out a hand and rubbed my arm. \"He might be playing on your emotions.\"\n\nNana Jo looked at me. \"What do you think?\"\n\nI thought for a moment. \"I think I believe him.\" Frank started to speak, and I hurriedly continued, \"Look, I may be wrong. He may be a cold-blooded murderer, but something about this whole thing doesn't feel right.\"\n\nFrank smiled. \"Then let's get to work.\"\nChapter 13\n\nIrma's tumble down the stairs wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been. Thankfully, she only had some bumps and bruises and a badly sprained ankle. However, the hospital decided to keep her overnight for observation.\n\nFrank dropped Nana Jo at the hospital and then took me home. We were gone a lot longer than we originally planned. There was still a couple of hours before the bookstore closed, but traffic was light. I needed to distract my mind and had been missing time in the bookstore, so I let my nephews leave early and took over. It was wonderful to get back into the swing of things. I loved walking around my bookstore and helping customers, especially new customers, find just the right book, which I hoped would open their minds to the genre I loved.\n\nDuring a lag in customer traffic, I reshelved books and couldn't help thinking about how much my life had changed since I opened Market Street Mysteries.\n\n\"Mrs. Washington.\"\n\nI jumped at the unexpected intrusion into my dream world. \"My goodness. You scared me.\" I turned around and saw a familiar face. \"Taylor?\"\n\n\"I can't believe you remembered my name.\" Taylor smiled.\n\n\"You're hard to forget.\" I smiled. \"You have such a beautiful face.\"\n\nShe blushed.\n\nI looked at the Goth goddess dressed in black from head to toe, with black lipstick, black fingernails, and hair dyed so deeply it looked purple under the lights. \"Come for more Charlaine Harris?\"\n\nTaylor was a student at MISU and a member of a book club started by a couple of students, Jillian Clark, who was Dorothy's granddaughter and was dating my assistant Dawson, and Emma Lee, who was dating my nephew Zaq.\n\n\"I can always use more Charlaine Harris.\" She laughed. \"But the main reason I came was to thank you.\"\n\nI had just reached up to get the latest book in the Harper Connelly Mystery series, which had enough paranormal activity that I knew Taylor would love it, when her words sunk in. \"Thank me? For what?\"\n\nShe smiled. \"You suggested I talk to my guidance counselor about combining my love of writing and video games with my dad's desire for me to become a computer programmer.\" She grinned so large and rocked on the balls of her feet.\n\n\"And?\"\n\nShe squealed. \"It's so awesome. There's this special course I can take and get a certificate and my guidance counselor actually knows one of the founders of Vamps.\" She waited expectantly, as though the name would mean something.\n\nI shook my head. \"Sorry. I've never heard of Vamps.\"\n\nShe jumped up and down. \"Ohmygodohmygod. Vamps is the number one gaming company. They have the best graphics. I absolutely love their games.\" She took a deep breath and steadied herself. \"It's just too amazing for words.\"\n\nShe was so excited; I was afraid she'd pass out. There'd been enough of that for one day, so, I suggested we go to the back of the store and sit down.\n\nThe store traffic was virtually nonexistent, and I knew the seat that would give me a clear view of anyone entering or leaving. We went to the back and I brought two cups of tea to a small bistro table. Dawson had prepared a host of goodies to keep the store stocked before he left. Today, my nephews had defrosted the dough for peanut butter cookies, Zaq's favorite. A few cookies had escaped the twins' notice, and I brought them over to the table.\n\nBy the time I sat down, Taylor had calmed down enough to tell me her news.\n\n\"My guidance counselor, Mr. Leonard, knows one of the guys who started Vamps. So, when he found out what I wanted to do, he called him.\" She started breathing heavily again.\n\nI reached out a hand. \"Breathe.\"\n\nShe stopped and took a deep breath. \"Bottom line, he's going to give me a summer internship with the company.\"\n\n\"That's fantastic. How did your dad take it?\"\n\nShe smiled. \"At first, he thought I was crazy. He said, 'It's just a fad and it'll die out like the' \"\u2014she used air quotes\u2014\" 'dot com bubble.' \" She puffed up her chest and tilted her head in a cocky manner. Then she laughed. \"That was until he heard how much money I'm going to be making.\"\n\n\"I'm really happy for you, Taylor. I hope you have a great internship.\"\n\nShe spent a few minutes gushing about Vamps and how jealous her boyfriend was when he heard where she was going to be working.\n\nWhen she finished, we chatted about books for a bit and then she selected and paid for some and left.\n\nI couldn't help smiling as I closed the shop and tidied up. Taylor was a smart young girl, and I was glad she was having an opportunity to pursue her dream. Working with kids and seeing them achieve things they never knew they could was one of the things I missed about teaching. Seeing the excitement on Taylor's face filled a void I didn't know I had.\n\nChristopher and Zaq had let the poodles outside before they left, but I took them down again. Snickers was old and took advantage of the opportunity to go potty every time it presented itself. Oreo took the opportunity to play in the snow until his underbelly and paws were cold. Then he tried to get back inside. However, I had learned to harden my heart against his sad poodle eyes and stood firm behind the closed door until he gave up, went to a nearby bush, and hiked his leg.\n\nMission accomplished, I opened the door and wiped the excess snow from him. Thankfully, Oreo didn't hold a grudge and gave my hand a lick.\n\nUpstairs, I wasn't hungry. The events from earlier today were tumbling around in my mind, and I needed a way to sort through everything.\n\nSo, I sat down and fired up my laptop.\n\nDespite the massive size of the house, the drawing room of Hapsmere Grange was small. There was an oversized marble fireplace on one wall and a crystal chandelier that hung from the center of the coffered ceiling. There was also a large overstuffed sofa and several cushioned chairs\u2014too many chairs.\n\nBakerton, the ancient butler who'd served the duke's family for decades, opened the double doors that led into the room and Thompkins pushed in a tea cart laden full of cakes, pastries, sandwiches, and tea.\n\nOnce the items were distributed, Bakerton and Thompkins turned to leave.\n\n\"Thompkins, I would appreciate it if you'd stay,\" Lady Elizabeth said.\n\nBakerton bowed and left while Thompkins, who was accustomed to her ladyship's odd requests, walked over to a corner and stood stiffly.\n\nLady Elizabeth knew Thompkins well enough to know he would never sit in her presence, so she smiled and hurried on. \"Now, I think we all know why we're here.\" She looked around.\n\nEveryone nodded, although Detective Inspector Covington frowned. The tall, gangly man looked puzzled. \"Well, your ladyship. To be completely honest, I know why I'm here.\" He looked around. \"You think Mrs. Forsythe's death may have been murder rather than an accident.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth nodded.\n\n\"I'm a policeman, so it makes sense for me to be here. I get paid to investigate things like this.\" He leaned forward and scratched the back of his neck. \"What doesn't make sense to me is why the rest of you are here.\"\n\nLady Clara huffed and made a very unladylike snort. \"It's rather obvious why we're here.\" She leaned toward the detective inspector and glared. \"We're here because your bloody lot didn't believe Aunt Elizabeth when she said she thought poor Mrs. Forsythe had been murdered. Now, she's here to find the evidence to prove that she was. She's doing the job you should have done in the first place.\"\n\nBlood rushed to Detective Inspector Covington's cheeks and he looked like a teakettle about to blow.\n\nLady Elizabeth raised her hands and halted the storm, which looked about to explode in the Hapsmere Grange drawing room. \"That's not entirely true, dear.\" She turned to her cousin. \"The police at the tube station were very kind and attentive; however, they have to work with facts.\"\n\nLady Clara snorted.\n\n\"Scotland Yard does a wonderful job and we've had the pleasure of working with Detective Inspector Covington several times in the past. He's always been very good about listening to our ideas.\" She turned to the young man. \"There's absolutely no evidence that Mrs. Forsythe was murdered. Nothing, but a . . . feeling.\"\n\nLady Alistair reached across and squeezed her friend's hand. \"Your feelings have been pretty accurate.\"\n\nDetective Inspector Covington gave Lady Elizabeth a sheepish look. \"Your feelings have been pretty bang on, and I'm sorry.\"\n\nShe smiled. \"Thank you, Detective Inspector. That means a great deal coming from you.\" She paused for a moment. \"However, the truth of the matter is, we don't have any proof whatsoever that Mrs. Forsythe didn't have an accident.\" She put down her teacup and picked up the knitting bag she'd set by her side. She took out a ball of pale yellow wool and a pair of knitting needles. \"Mrs. Forsythe might be exactly what Mrs. Sanderson accused her of being, a batty old dear.\"\n\n\"You don't believe that.\" Lady Clara stared at her cousin.\n\nLady Elizabeth knitted a few stiches and then smiled. \"No. There was something about her that didn't seem like she'd lost her wits. No. In fact, I think she was quite clever.\" She knitted a few more stiches. \"The way she managed to sneak away from the house when her cousin and his wife were out and how she slipped away from Mrs. Sanderson. That took some cunning.\"\n\n\"Okay, what do you want us to do?\" Lady Clara asked eagerly.\n\nLady Elizabeth knitted. \"We don't have much time. The cousin wants something.\" She paused. \"I don't know what, but I intend to find out.\"\n\n\"What do you want the rest of us to do?\" Lady Alistair asked.\n\n\"Well, I was hoping we could divide and conquer.\" She smiled. \"I couldn't help but notice Mrs. Sanderson seemed a bit . . . awed by my title.\" She glanced at Lady Alistair. \"I was hoping we could both tackle her.\"\n\nLady Alistair took a bite from her scone. \"Shall I pull out one of my tiaras for the occasion?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled. \"I don't think we'll need to go to that extreme, but if you have your chauffeur, I think we could definitely borrow him.\" She looked from Detective Inspector Covington to her cousin. \"Now, I have noticed that men are often more receptive to a pretty woman.\" She turned to Detective Inspector Covington. \"While women are often more responsive to a handsome young man. I was hoping that you\"\u2014she looked at her cousin\u2014\"if the opportunity presented itself, could talk to Desmond Tarkington alone.\" She turned to the Scotland Yard detective. \"While you could have a talk, informally of course, with his wife, Constance.\"\n\nDetective Inspector Covington frowned. \"I've noticed that murderers aren't usually very forthcoming with information when they find out I'm with Scotland Yard.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled. \"Exactly. Which is why I was hoping we could introduce you as a friend of the family.\" She looked slyly at her young cousin. \"I hoped we could explain your presence as a close friend of Lady Clara.\"\n\nThe two young people glanced at each other and color rose up both of their necks. However, neither objected.\n\nLady Elizabeth turned to the butler. \"Thompkins, I was hoping you might see what you could find out about Mrs. Forsythe's maid, Dora.\"\n\nThompkins bowed.\n\nShe smiled. \"Mrs. Forsythe mentioned they'd had to cut back on expenses. I gathered they may not have many servants, so I was hopeful that tomorrow you would accompany us and . . . well, perhaps you could help find out what's going on below stairs.\"\n\nThompkins nodded stiffly.\n\nLady Elizabeth knitted. \"I want to caution everyone to be very careful. If I'm right and Mrs. Forsythe was murdered, then someone believes they got away with murder. If they think there's someone nosing around who suspects the truth, well . . . he or she could prove very dangerous.\" She paused and gazed into the fireplace. \"Yes. It could prove very dangerous indeed.\"\n\nChapter 14\n\nOften, writing provides clarity and helps me put things into perspective. Tonight's writing didn't accomplish this task. In fact, if anything, I felt more confused. However, I had learned to try not to force things. Instead of staying up worrying, I went to bed and surprised myself by sleeping through the night. It was only when Snickers pounced on my chest, causing momentary panic and temporary loss of breath, that I woke up.\n\nI rolled over, forcing the poodle off my chest, remembering to keep my mouth closed to prevent her attempts to lick my teeth.\n\nI took care of my call of nature first and then quickly took the poodles downstairs to allow them to answer theirs.\n\nSnickers stepped over the threshold and executed a circus-worthy maneuver where she balanced all of her weight on her back right leg, enabling her to keep three paws off the ground while she took care of her business.\n\nYet again, Oreo jumped around in the snow for several moments and spent extra time playing before he remembered why he was there and went over and hiked his leg.\n\nInside, I cleaned the excess snow off his belly and looked him in the eyes. \"You might want to skip your romps through the snow and follow your sister's lead.\"\n\nHe gave my hand another lick, similar to the previous night, and I couldn't help but laugh. \"You have such a zest for life, don't you, boy.\" I dried him and scratched that place behind his ear that made his eyes roll back into his head and caused his leg to jiggle.\n\nEventually, Snickers had had enough of me playing with the boy dog and gave my legs a scratch.\n\nI hadn't bothered to put on pants, so it was a painful lesson to learn. Don't keep the girl poodle waiting while I played with the boy poodle. \"Message received.\" I put the dogs down and hurried upstairs, making a mental note to take them to get their nails trimmed.\n\nI showered, dressed, and cooked breakfast. By the time I finished, I heard Christopher and Zaq coming upstairs.\n\n\"Hey, Aunt Sammy,\" Zaq said.\n\n\"You boys want some bacon?\" I asked the question even though I already knew the answer. It wouldn't matter how many times or how much my nephews ate, the answer was always going to be yes when the question involved bacon. Nana Jo said we had a bacon gene.\n\nI took three pieces of bacon and left the rest for the twins. They each grabbed bread and stacked it with the remaining bacon. Mouths full, they descended the stairs, mumbling, \"Thanks.\"\n\nI was just about to load the dishwasher when I heard my nephew's call. \"Aunt Sammy!\"\n\nOne glance at my watch showed me the store wasn't opened yet, and I gave a silent prayer of thanks that my nephews hadn't yelled for me with a store full of customers. Rather than yelling back, I went downstairs.\n\n\"You yelled?\" I joked as I walked around the corner. I stopped with the smile frozen on my face when I saw Detective Pitt. Based on the scowl on his face, and the pacing he was doing around the small bistro tables in the back of my bookstore, he wasn't happy.\n\n\"Detective Pitt, I wasn't expecting\u2014\"\n\nHe marched to within inches of me and pointed his finger in my face. \"You're behind all of this. What have you gotten me involved in?\"\n\nI was shocked into silence for several seconds. Detective Pitt and I hadn't always gotten on like best friends, but he'd never taken such a hostile attitude toward me. From behind the steaming detective, I saw my nephews watching. Both were over six feet and, based on their stances and the frowns on their faces, they were prepared to protect me. It was clear to me that this situation was about to get out of hand quickly.\n\nI channeled my school teacher attitude and stood tall and straight. \"Detective Pitt, stop shaking your finger at me and sit down.\"\n\nThe detective dropped his hand instantly. He took a deep breath and pulled out a chair and flopped down.\n\nMy nephews' shoulders relaxed, although their eyes indicated they were still on high alert.\n\n\"It's okay, boys. I'm fine. Detective Pitt and I are going to have a friendly conversation. You both can get back to work.\"\n\nThe boys hesitated for a moment. Zaq nodded and turned and walked away first.\n\nChristopher stayed a few seconds longer. \"We'll be right up front if you need us.\"\n\nI nodded. When they were both up front, I turned my attention to the detective. I glared at him. \"Now, it's obvious you're upset and your mind isn't functioning properly or you would never have marched in here and yelled at me like that.\" I took a deep breath. \"I know you've got better manners than that, so I'm going to excuse your behavior.\"\n\nA flush rose up his neck, and his eyes flashed. However, the spark quickly vanished and the detective took a deep breath. \"I'm sorry.\"\n\nI pulled out the chair across from the detective and sat. \"Would you like a coffee?\"\n\nHe shook his head. \"No . . . thank you.\" He ran his fingers over his head. Unfortunately, this action served to dislodge the hairs he'd combed over his bald spot and now, rather than bending over his dome, they stood straight up.\n\nI tried not to stare, but the hairs were so rigid, it took a lot of control not to stare. \"What can I do for you?\"\n\nHe leaned forward. \"You got me involved in this murder business and now, I've got Sergeant Alvarez, the district attorney, and the Justice Department asking questions.\n\nI raised an eyebrow. \"Really? Why so much interest?\"\n\nHe banged his hand on the table. \"You tell me.\"\n\n\"Well, I told you it would be a high-profile case, but\u2014\"\n\n\"High profile is one thing, but the bleeding Justice Department is another thing altogether.\"\n\nI stared across the table. \"What's the real problem?\" Detective Pitt glanced at me but then reached inside his coat and pulled out a folder. He slid the folder across the table while looking over his shoulder. \"That's the coroner's report about Max Franck, and getting a copy of that nearly cost me my job.\"\n\nI suspected the detective was exaggerating. His job had been in jeopardy for quite some time, if my sister, Jenna's, sources were to believed. I scanned the file. However, Detective Pitt leaned across the table and stared the entire time. I found myself distracted not only by his eyes but the strands of hair, which seemed to stand at attention, atop his head, as well as the scrambled eggs that he'd dropped on his shirt. \"Look, I can't read this if you're going to stare at me. Why don't you get yourself a cup of coffee and a cookie?\" I pointed to the counter.\n\nDetective Pitt walked over to the counter, giving me a little breathing room.\n\nI sighed and read through the report as quickly as possible. Max Franck had been killed by a thin knife to the kidneys. I reread that several times to make sure I understood.\n\n\"What's got you so engrossed?\" Detective Pitt said around a mouthful of chocolate chip cookies and dropped crumbs on my shoulder.\n\n\"The murder was caused by a thin stiletto-type knife wound to the kidneys.\" I flicked the crumbs off my shoulder and the table. \"Would that cause a lot of blood?\"\n\nHe shrugged. \"Beats me.\"\n\nI sighed. \"Does this mean they're going to let you work the case?\"\n\nHe flopped back down in his seat and leaned close. \"That Alvarez wants to take me prisoner. He's madder than a wet cat.\" He grunted. \"I'd be fine if it was just a matter of Alvarez, but the Justice Department is an entirely different matter. I've got a meeting with my chief in\"\u2014he pulled up his sleeve and glanced at his watch\u2014\"in an hour.\" He looked at me. \"What am I supposed to say? Did this bus driver . . . Bob Marcus . . . did he kill Franck? If so, why?\"\n\nI thought for a few minutes. \"I don't think he did kill Max Franck. I'm not even convinced he pushed Irma down a flight of stairs.\" Detective Pitt started to talk and I held up a hand to stop him. \"Look, I don't think Sergeant Alvarez has anything connecting Bob Marcus to Max Frank's murder. If he did, he would have arrested him at the rest stop.\"\n\nHe rubbed his chin. \"Yeah, that's a good point.\"\n\nI nodded. \"Look, if it were me, I'd go into this meeting and say you were just responding to a call for an attempted murder. If Sergeant Alvarez believes the attempt on Irma's life is connected, then it makes sense for you to investigate. It's your territory, after all.\"\n\nHe nodded. \"Yeah, you're right.\"\n\nIt took a little more pumping up, but, by the time I finished, Detective Pitt was chomping at the bit and ready to take on Sergeant Alvarez and the entire United States Justice Department.\n\nI, on the other hand, felt drained. Something about the coroner's report bothered me, but I couldn't figure out what it was. I sat for a few moments, but customers started to come in.\n\nI helped my nephews for a few hours. When it was close to lunchtime, I went upstairs and put on my winter gear and then walked down the street to Frank's restaurant to pick up lunch for my nephews.\n\nWhen I walked into Frank's place, he was behind the bar. He smiled and I walked over and hopped onto a barstool.\n\nHe finished providing beverages for one of his waitresses. There was another man behind the counter who came over. However, before he could ask for my drink order, Frank sidled up next to him. \"Sorry, Benny, I've got this one.\" He leaned across and kissed me on the cheek.\n\nBenny grinned. \"I'm sorry. I get it.\" He held up both hands. \"Off limits. I got it.\" He winked at me.\n\nFrank laughed. \"Exactly.\"\n\nHeat rose up my neck, but I smiled and extended my hand. \"Hello, Father. I'm Samantha, but everyone calls me Sam.\"\n\nHe looked at Frank. \"Is it okay if I shake?\"\n\nFrank gave him a playful punch.\n\nBenny wiped his hands on a towel and then shook my extended hand. \"Hello, Sam. I'm Bernard Lewis. You can drop the 'Father.' Just call me Benny.\"\n\n\"Nice to meet you, Benny.\"\n\nHe smiled and then walked a discrete distance away.\n\nFrank poured me a glass of lemon water. \"Are you here for lunch?\"\n\n\"Yes, and I need lunch for my nephews too.\"\n\nHe nodded and took our orders. Once he placed those, he leaned across the counter and smiled. \"It's great to see you.\"\n\nI smiled. \"It's great to see you too, but . . .\"\n\nHe stood up. \"You've got that look in your eyes.\"\n\nI tilted my head. \"What look?\"\n\nHe leaned closer. \"The look that says you're investigating and need information.\" He whispered, \"When I was hoping you just wanted me for my body.\"\n\nI had just taken a drink of my water and spit it out as I laughed.\n\nFrank laughed and grabbed a towel and wiped up the water I'd spewed across the counter. \"What can I do for you?\"\n\nOnce I was able to talk again, I looked around. Thankfully, the restaurant wasn't very crowded and we had a bit of privacy. \"I just saw the coroner's report on Max Franck.\" I quickly explained the little bit of information I'd gleaned from the file. \"I remember you mentioning once that the best way to kill someone quietly was a knife to the kidneys.\"\n\nHe nodded. \"It's a technique that was used by military during World War II.\"\n\n\"Is that something that's common knowledge? Or is it specialized.\" I noted the confused look in his eyes and tried to explain. \"I guess what I'm asking is, whether this is something you'd have to be in the police or military to know? Or, is that something that anyone could know?\"\n\nHe stood still for a moment and then shrugged. \"Honestly, in this day and age, anyone with access to the Internet could figure it out. Heck, there's probably a video demonstrating the technique if you look long enough.\"\n\nI sighed. \"Well, that's a bummer.\"\n\nFrank's brow was furrowed.\n\n\"What?\"\n\nHe took a deep breath. \"It's just that most of the people on that bus trip were seniors. Many of them may have been in World War II or Korea, Vietnam . . . anything. Men and women all served and were trained to kill silently. Between that and the Internet, your killer could have been just about anyone.\"\n\nI sighed. \"That's what I was afraid of.\"\n\nWe chatted until my order arrived.\n\n\"Will I see you tonight?\" He smiled. \"You still owe me dinner.\"\n\n\"I'm going to the memorial service for Max Franck. Wanna come?\"\n\nHe grinned. \"Not exactly the romantic evening I was thinking about.\"\n\n\"Well, we're still on for New Year's Eve, right?\"\n\nHe nodded. \"Definitely.\"\n\n* * *\n\nI worked in the bookstore while my nephews ate lunch, although there weren't very many people. Afterward, I went upstairs and ate my lunch while I sat at my laptop.\n\nI tried to make sense of the information, but nothing made sense. It would be so easy if Bob was the murderer, but no matter how much I wanted it to be over, I knew in my heart he wasn't the murderer. He wasn't cold and calculating enough to have stabbed Max Franck in the kidneys. If he was the killer, that would eliminate Rosemary as a suspect. She'd fought with her father twice and seemed like a really good suspect, but she was in Chicago when the attempt was made on Irma. Although, I had to wonder, why try to kill Irma? Was it attempted murder? Or did she simply lose her balance and stumble? I really wanted to believe Irma tripped and the entire thing was merely an accident. Because if it wasn't an accident, if someone really had tried to kill Irma, then the killer must believe she knew something, and her life was in danger.\nChapter 15\n\nI couldn't stop thinking about Irma. Was she really in danger? Why was her room searched? I never asked if anything was stolen or not. Why Irma's room? I made a mental note to ask Nana Jo if any other rooms were broken in to. As I thought about my grandmother, my cell phone rang and her picture appeared on the screen.\n\n\"Sam, I'm at the hospital. They're releasing Irma in a couple of hours.\"\n\n\"Would you like a lift?\"\n\nNana Jo released a breath and I could hear the smile through the phone. \"That's what I was hoping you'd say.\"\n\nShe promised to text when it was time to go and then said she needed to go stop Irma from flirting with the medical students making rounds with the doctor and hung up.\n\nI took out a notepad and wrote down what I remembered from the coroner's report so I could fill Nana Jo and the girls in when I saw them later. I also jotted down a few questions that kept running through my mind. Was the break-in at Irma's apartment a coincidence? If not, what was the killer looking for? Was she pushed? Or, did she trip? If she was pushed, why? What does the killer think Irma knows?\n\nI looked over my notes. \"Those are good questions. I wish I had the answers.\"\n\nOreo barely glanced up from his nap. Snickers yawned, stood, turned around in a circle, and lay down with her back to me. I guess my talking was disturbing her nap. Perhaps a little writing would help.\n\nBattersley Manor was a large home but looked quite demure when compared to Hapsmere Grange. The house sat back from the road, and Lady Alistair's chauffeur pulled the Rolls up to the front steps. Before he could get out, Thompkins, who was on the front seat, promptly hopped out and opened the doors for Lady Alistair and Lady Elizabeth.\n\nDetective Inspector Covington pulled up behind. Lady Elizabeth felt it would be better if the two younger people arrived together.\n\nThe front door of the manor was opened, and Mrs. Sanderson hurried down the steps to greet the guests.\n\n\"Your ladyship.\" She curtsied and nervously bounced around as though unsure if she should walk in front, behind, or simply stand silently.\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled fondly and offered her hand. \"Mrs. Sanderson, let me introduce you to my dear friend, Lady Alistair Browning.\"\n\nMrs. Sanderson bobbed and smiled. \"Your ladyship.\"\n\nLady Alistair smiled. \"I was so sorry to hear of the death of Mrs. Forsythe. Please accept my sincere condolences.\"\n\nMrs. Sanderson blushed and nervously turned from one woman to the other.\n\nDetective Inspector Covington and Lady Clara approached the small party.\n\n\"This is my cous . . . ah, niece, Lady Clara Trewellen-Harper and her friend, Peter Covington.\" Lady Elizabeth hoped her faux pas went unnoticed. They'd agreed previously it would be easier to introduce Lady Clara as her niece, especially since Lady Clara had the habit of calling her \"aunt\" anyway. They'd also agreed to say as little as possible about the detective inspector. He was a close friend of Lady Clara's, spending his holiday with them.\n\nMrs. Sanderson seemed overwhelmed by the number of visitors but bobbed to Lady Clara and the detective inspector.\n\nWhen it seemed Mrs. Sanderson had met everyone, she looked up and noticed Thompkins.\n\n\"This is my butler, Thompkins,\" Lady Elizabeth announced.\n\nAnother decision made previously was to say as little as possible about Thompkins' presence. The butler had, in fact, suggested people might not question his presence. He reminded them it had been quite common in the past for aristocrats to travel with maids, valets, and butlers.\n\nApparently, the butler had been correct because Mrs. Sanderson merely nodded to the butler and asked no other questions.\n\nA dark-haired woman with a birdlike face stood in the doorway. \"Sanderson, don't leave our guests waiting outside in the cold.\"\n\nEveryone followed Mrs. Sanderson up the stairs. At the door, the introductions were made again.\n\nThe woman introduced herself as Constance Tarkington. She was a large-boned woman with an athletic build. She looked to be the type who spent a great deal of time outdoors and was more comfortable in the company of horses than people.\n\nOn the outside, Battersley Manor was a classic English Edwardian manor house. The inside was a completely different matter. Once you stepped over the threshold, you stepped into the Orient. From the large Oriental rugs that covered the floors to the silk screen, blue and white vases, and silk draperies. There were large collections of swords, teacups, and even what appeared to be a collection of Buddhas, which varied in size from tiny miniatures to a massive one near the front door.\n\nConstance led the group into a dark, dusty sitting room, where they were joined by her husband, Desmond Tarkington. Desmond was a dark-haired man with a weak chin. He had dark eyes and a theatrical air. He wore a smoking jacket and cravat and carried a pipe, although it wasn't lit and was clearly for effect.\n\nDesmond struck a thoughtful pose and leaned against the fireplace. \"Welcome to Battersley Manor.\" He nodded.\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled. \"Thank you, Mr. Tarkington. I'm so glad you were able to accept a visit during your time of mourning.\"\n\nDesmond looked confused for a few seconds but quickly regained his composure. \"Yes. Yes, well, the old dear was rather old and we knew it was coming.\"\n\n\"You knew she'd fall down the stairs?\" Detective Inspector Covington asked innocently.\n\n\"Well, no, of course we didn't know that.\" He waved away the comment. \"However, she'd been sick and she was subject to . . . well . . . to . . . accidents,\" he said casually. \"These things happen when people get old, don't they?\"\n\nConstance Tarkington frowned at her husband but soon turned back to her guests. \"Did you know Eleanor long? We never heard her mention you.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth sat very straight and forced a smile. \"Your cousin was a very old and dear friend.\" She paused as though trying to remember but, after a few seconds, she simply shook her head. \"It's no use. I can't recall the last time we saw each other.\"\n\nConstance smiled. \"What a coincidence you two running into each other that way.\"\n\n\"A coincidence?\" Lady Elizabeth asked.\n\n\"Of all the days of the year, what are the chances that two old friends who haven't seen each other in . . . a long time would both be at Harrods having tea at the same time.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled. \"I don't know that it's too much of a coincidence. Not really.\" She smiled. \"After all, who wants to miss a Boxing Day sale at Harrods?\" She laughed.\n\nLady Alistair smiled. \"I intended to go myself, but, at the last minute, something came up.\"\n\nThere was an awkward silence for several seconds. Lady Clara stared at Desmond Tarkington and then scooted to the edge of her seat. \"Haven't I seen you someplace before?\"\n\nDesmond Tarkington hemmed and blustered for a few moments. \"I've had the great pleasure to be featured in several . . . small roles on the stage.\"\n\n\"That's it. I knew your face looked familiar.\" She smiled. \"How exciting to meet a real-life actor in the flesh.\"\n\nDesmond puffed out his chest.\n\nConstance rolled her eyes.\n\nLady Clara stood. \"Would it be possible for me to get your autograph?\"\n\nDesmond smiled. \"Of course, my dear girl.\" He turned to leave. \"If you'll accompany me to my office, I'm sure I have a photograph that I'll be more than happy to sign to you.\"\n\nLady Clara gushed and followed Desmond out of the room.\n\nTaking his cue, Detective Inspector Covington turned his attention to Constance Tarkington. \"I couldn't help but notice your stables when we drove up. Do you ride?\"\n\nConstance Tarkington gave the first real smile since their arrival. \"We do have some rather fine horses. Would you care to . . . ?\"\n\nDetective Inspector Covington nearly leapt from his chair. \"I'd love to see them.\"\n\nConstance headed out of the room but turned back to her guests. \"If you'll excuse us, we're just going to run down to the stables unless. . .\"\n\n\"Don't mind us. We'll be perfectly fine here talking to Mrs. Sanderson.\" Lady Elizabeth smiled.\n\n\"Yes. Please take your time,\" Lady Alistair said.\n\nConstance Tarkington and Detective Inspector Covington left, and Mrs. Sanderson looked nervous and picked imaginary pieces of lint from her skirt.\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled at the woman. \"Now we can have a nice chat.\"\n\nIn the kitchen, Thompkins met Dora, the maid. She was a plump, freckled girl. She wasn't attractive, but she had an honest face.\n\nThompkins stood stiffly in the kitchen and watched as the girl worked. She appeared to be cooking over an ancient wood-burning stove while tending to a kettle. \"Are you the only servant?\"\n\nDora chopped vegetables. \"Yaw.\"\n\nThe butler removed his jacket and rolled up his sleeves. He reached out and removed the knife from the young girl's hand. \"Let me.\"\n\nDora stood back in shocked silence. She watched as the butler expertly peeled and then chopped the carrots.\n\nAfter a few seconds, she nodded her approval and went over to the pot simmering on the stove. \"Well, I thank you for that.\" She stirred.\n\n\"Don't tell me they expect you to cook and clean.\"\n\nShe nodded. \"Plus, I tended to Mrs. Forsythe when she was alive. May she rest in peace.\" She stirred. \"But I didn't mind because the mistress was a wonderful woman. Always saying please and thank you.\" She snorted. \"Not like that other one.\"\n\nThompkins glanced back at the maid. \"Mrs. Sanderson?\"\n\n\"Pshaw. Good Lawd, no. That other one. Mrs. High and Mighty Tarkington.\"\n\n\"Not a very good mistress?\"\n\n\"Naw, and I won't be staying much longer now that Mrs. Forsythe is gone. I won't be staying to work for that stingy cow.\"\n\nThompkins continued peeling and cutting. \"Tell me about your mistress.\"\n\nDora's face lit up as she talked about Mrs. Forsythe's kindnesses to her, which included a lot more than just saying please and thank you. Apparently, Mrs. Forsythe was generous and sent old clothes to Dora's ailing mother and often paid her younger brother to do odd jobs around the house. \"But, when Mr. Desmond came, he put a stop to that.\" She stirred the pot and then set a tray with cups for tea. \"Fired all of the other servants. We used to keep a cook and manservant and then there was Mrs. Bolton, who came in twice a week to do the washing.\"\n\n\"Don't tell me they expect you to do that too?\"\n\nShe nodded.\n\n\"What about Mrs. Sanderson. Doesn't she help?\"\n\nDora laughed. \"That one? She couldn't tell a chicken from an egg unless someone gave her instructions.\" She shook her head. \"She wasn't hired to help with the work. She was hired to keep an eye on the mistress. She's some distant cousin or something.\" She shook her head. \"No, she's just one more mouth to feed as far as I'm concerned.\"\n\nThompkins stared. \"But why would you put up with that? Why stay?\"\n\nShe sighed. \"I stayed for her . . . for Mrs. Forsythe. I could see clear enough they wanted to get rid of me too, but that was where the mistress put her foot down. 'No,' she said. She wouldn't allow them to fire me.\" She smiled. \"So, they went about trying to force me to quit. More and more work they piled up on me, but I did it.\" She sighed. \"But, now that the mistress is gone, well, I don't have to put up with the likes of them no more.\" She took a kettle of boiling water off the stove and filled the teapot. \"I've given my notice and I'll stay my thirty days so she can't try to send me off without a notice.\"\n\nThompkins finished the chopping. He watched while the maid prepared the tea tray and transferred the vegetables to the pot. \"Was Mrs. Forsythe . . . a bit addled?\"\n\nDora slammed the teakettle onto the table, spilling hot water onto the table. \"No, she was not and don't you dare say she was.\"\n\nThompkins stepped back. \"I didn't mean any offense. It's just I heard my lady say someone told her that she was.\"\n\nDora wiped up the water she spilled. \"Well, whoever said the mistress was daft musta been daft themselves, that's what. Mind, she was a bit queer about her Oriental treasures.\" She smiled. \"That's what she called them, her treasures, but that don't mean she was balmy. It's just that China was where she and her husband were happy.\"\n\n\"They weren't happy here?\"\n\nDora sighed. \"I don't think so. Not like they was in China. Missionaries they was.\" She paused for a few moments. \"But I think it was more about being free. They didn't have nobody telling them what to do and which way to go when they was in China, but then Mr. Forsythe's father got sick and they had to come back.\" She shook her head. \"I don't think they was ever really happy again, not really. But if you asked me, wasn't nothing wrong with her, except too much money and too many relatives.\"\n\n\"Was Mrs. Forsythe wealthy?\"\n\n\"She wasn't as wealthy as your ladyship out there, with her fancy car and that fur coat and all them jewels.\" Dora tilted her head toward the sitting room. \"But her husband left her real comfortable and she was generous, but she wasn't wasteful. She was always careful with her money.\" She smiled. \" 'Dora,' she used to say to me. 'One day, I'm gonna take care of you because you've done such a good job taking care of me.'\" Dora sniffed. \"But that was before Mr. Desmond arrived.\"\n\n\"Maybe she left you something . . . a legacy in her will.\"\n\nDora sniffed. \"That's just the thing. She didn't leave a will.\"\n\n\"No will? Surely her solicitors . . . have a copy.\"\n\nDora shook her head. \"You better believe Mr. Desmond called the very day she died. But Mr. Danvers, that was her family solicitor, he said she didn't leave a will with him.\" She paused. \"Which is really odd considering her husband used to be a solicitor. You'd have thought she would have been sure to make a will.\"\n\n\"Her husband was a solicitor?\"\n\nDora nodded. \"When he come back from China, his mother talked him into doing something 'sensible.' Well, I ask you, what could be more sensible than helping heathens in foreign parts?\"\n\nThompkins shrugged.\n\nDora nodded. \"Anyways, he studied to become a solicitor and they became sensible about everything, except their Oriental treasures. Crazy about their Oriental knickknacks and furniture they was.\" She shook her head. \"Mr. Forsythe goes into business with his friend. It used to be called Forsythe and Danvers, but after Mr. Forsythe died, he chucked the Forsythe and shortened it to Danvers.\"\n\n\"What happens to her money without a will?\"\n\nDora shrugged. \"I don't know. I guess Mr. Desmond gets it. The house is . . . some funny name . . . like fairy tales.\"\n\n\"You mean entailed?\"\n\n\"Yaw, that's it.\" She stared. \"That means Mr. Desmond gets it?\"\n\n\"It means, the house goes to a particular relative, usually a male.\"\n\nShe nodded. \"I thought so. More's the pity.\" She shook her head. \"That's the last person she would have wanted to have it. 'Dora,' she says to me. 'I think I'd rather burn my money in a bonfire than see Desmond and his greedy wife get it.' \"\n\n\"What makes you think they're greedy? I mean, if Mrs. Forsythe was family, then it would make sense for the money to stay in the family.\"\n\nDora snorted. \"I ain't saying that's not true, but that Mrs. Tarkington was always trying to get Mrs. Forsythe to spend money on them horses and redo the stables and such. One day I admired a pretty red box with one of those dragons on it that Mrs. Forsythe had. She collected the boxes . . . Chinese puzzle boxes they was. Well, Mrs. Forsythe gives it to me. Says she wants me to have it. I was showing it to Cook before they let her go and Mrs. Busybody comes in and accuses me of stealing and gives me the sack.\" She huffed. \"Well, I tells her Mrs. Forsythe gave me that box. I ain't never stole nothing in my life.\" She took several deep breaths to steady her nerves. \"Well, just then, Mrs. Forsythe come down the stairs and tells her she did give me the box and she didn't have the authority to fire me, not so long as she was alive.\" Dora smiled at the memory.\n\n\"I'll bet that didn't sit very well with Mrs. Tarkington.\"\n\nDora laughed. \"You got that right. She was furious. Stomped out of the room. Well, the next thing you know, that box comes up missing. Well, I didn't think too much about it, but then later that night, in waltzes Mrs. Tarkington smiling like the cat that got the last of the cream. She plops that box on the table and says she took it into town to a friend of hers. Says it's just a cheap piece of junk and not worth more than two quid.\" She stared at the butler. \"I tells her plain as day, I don't care if it wasn't worth but two pence, it was a gift and she didn't have no right to take it.\"\n\n\"What did she do then?\"\n\n\"She just laughed and waltzed out.\" She shook her head. \"The house was entailed and he gets that regardless, but the money doesn't go with the house. It was Mrs. Forsythe's money, not her husband's.\" She shrugged. \"Well, I guess Mr. Desmond and that woman is gonna get Mrs. Forsythe's money regardless of what she wanted.\" She sighed. \"It's a pure shame too, but I guess if she didn't want him to get the money, then she shoulda made a will.\"\n\nThompkins watched the maid finish the tea and wondered. That was very odd indeed.\n\nChapter 16\n\nNana Jo texted that Irma had been discharged and I needed to get my butt to the hospital before she ended up committed to the psychiatric ward for being a nymphomaniac. I grabbed my notebook and hurried downstairs.\n\nMy nephews had things well under control and promised to lock up and take care of the poodles before they left.\n\nWhen I arrived, Nana Jo, Irma, Dorothy, and Ruby Mae were waiting in the lobby. Irma was in a wheelchair, being pushed by a small, dark-skinned woman with a short afro. She was petite with smooth skin and had a big smile.\n\nRuby Mae got in the car. \"Sam, this is my granddaughter Francesca. She's a medical student at JAMU.\"\n\nI smiled. Ruby Mae had nine children and her extended family was larger than the population of North Harbor.\n\nThe ride to Shady Acres was uneventful, apart from the bickering between Nana Jo, Irma, and Dorothy.\n\nI pulled up to the front of the main building and let everyone out and then parked and went inside to check on the arrangements.\n\nA memorial service was a fairly simple affair to arrange. Gaston was providing some appetizers and light refreshments. Most of the residents weren't familiar with Max Franck, but they would attend for the refreshments, if nothing else.\n\nCaroline Fenton had reserved the main living room area and several people were already there. Irma had a compression boot on her left foot, which was only slightly shorter than her hooker heels. She had one arm in a sling. Other than that, she looked pretty much the same. However, she walked up to the first man she saw and stared up with large doe eyes and milked her injuries for all she was worth.\n\n\"Gerald, would you help me to the sofa, please. I'm not used to this boot, and I need a strong man to hold on to.\" Irma grabbed hold of Gerald's arm.\n\n\"That poor man should have run. With one good leg and an arm in a sling, she could still calf wrestle a grown man to the ground in less than five seconds,\" Nana Jo said.\n\nThere were a couple of lovely floral arrangements near the picture of Max at the front of the room.\n\n\"Who sent flowers?\" I asked.\n\n\"My sister's art gallery is next to that florist shop, so I ordered one arrangement, but I have no idea who the other one is from.\" She walked over to the flowers and looked at the card. When she returned, she said, \"Rosemary Lindley.\"\n\nI hadn't had an opportunity to fill them all in on everything I'd learned in Chicago, but we planned to get together for drinks following the memorial.\n\nThe girls split up and mingled. One thing I'd learned from these ladies was that the best way to get information was to divide and conquer. Ruby Mae took her knitting and sat down on the sofa. It wasn't long before someone came and sat down next to her. She had one of those faces that people felt comfortable confiding in. Irma was flirting with Gerald on the sofa at the other end of the room. Irma was the world's biggest flirt, but she wouldn't forget to pump Gerald for information. Dorothy was also a flirt, but she was subtler than Irma, which wasn't saying a lot. At close to six feet, Dorothy managed to attract men of all ages.\n\nNana Jo had a steady boyfriend, Freddie, but he was nowhere to be found. She headed toward Velma Levington. \"I never did get a chance to question Velma.\"\n\nThat left me standing alone. I was probably the most awkward of the bunch. I smiled as I remembered the first time I went with my grandmother to a reception after a funeral and drank several glasses of champagne on an empty stomach and ended up puking and humiliating myself. I bypassed the glasses of white wine and grabbed a small plate of appetizers. I spotted Sidney Sherman standing nearby and casually walked over so I was standing next to him. \"I remember you from the bus. You were the bodyguard.\"\n\nSidney Sherman stood in his tight jeans and leather jacket. Although he wasn't wearing the mirrored sunglasses, he might as well have been. His face and his eyes were stone and gave away nothing of his thoughts or feelings.\n\n\"Perhaps I should introduce myself.\" I wiped my hand on my napkin and extended it. \"I'm Samantha Washington.\"\n\nSidney Sherman barley glanced at my hand.\n\nAfter a few moments, I dropped it. \"If you weren't going to talk and just wanted to stand around and be rude, why did you bother to come?\"\n\nHe barely moved, but a muscle at the corner of his jaw pulsed.\n\n\"Surely now that the person you were guarding is dead, your assignment is over.\"\n\nThe jaw clenched and a slight flush of color rose up the side of his neck.\n\n\"Unless, of course, you're the one who killed him.\"\n\nThe blood from his neck hit his ears and he turned to face me. His eyes were slits and the muscle on the side of his face was pulsing like crazy. He pushed a finger in my face and glared. \"Are you accusing me of murdering my client?\"\n\nNana Jo walked up beside the bodyguard. She was taller than him and she looked like a mother bear protecting a cub. \"I've got a .38 pointed at your side, and I'm a darned good shot. Now, you've got three seconds to get your finger out of my granddaughter's face before I redecorate this room with your guts.\" She pushed the barrel of the gun into his side. \"And, just in case you're wondering, I wasn't making a pass. I removed your gun from your waistband.\" She smiled and passed me her purse and another gun, which I assumed from the look in Sidney Sherman's eyes, he recognized.\n\nSidney Sherman lowered his fingers from my face. He gritted his teeth. \"What do you want?\"\n\n\"My granddaughter wants to ask you a few questions. So, we're going to sit down in these chairs, nice and friendly, like human beings. She's going to talk and you're going to answer.\" Nana Jo inclined her head toward several Queen Anne chairs in a quiet corner of the room.\n\nWe walked over slowly, smiling the entire time. Nana Jo walked next to Sidney Sherman with her gun in his side. She used her body to conceal the weapon from view.\n\nSarah Jane Howard approached us, but Nana Jo turned. \"Not now, Sarah.\"\n\n\"I really need to talk to you, Josephine.\"\n\n\"Sure. I just need to talk to this gentleman first. Why don't you wait for me over there?\" She inclined her head to the lobby. \"I'll be there in just a minute.\"\n\nSarah Jane Howard looked reluctant but eventually left.\n\nOnce we were seated, she glanced at me. \"Now, Sam, why don't you ask your questions?\"\n\nI took a deep breath. \"Who hired you to guard Max Franck?\"\n\nSidney Sherman clamped his jaws closed, but, after a few seconds, he said, \"I was hired by Mr. Franck's agent, John Goldberg.\"\n\n\"Why?\" I asked.\n\nHe sighed. \"Obviously, he believed he was in danger. Why else would he hire a bodyguard?\"\n\n\"In danger from whom?\"\n\nHe was silent but eventually shrugged. \"I don't know.\"\n\nNana Jo's eye narrowed. \"Now, why do I get the impression you didn't take this threat seriously?\"\n\nHe shrugged. \"I dunno what you're talking about.\"\n\n\"Look, you were hired to protect Max Franck and someone killed him. That can't be good for business,\" Nana Jo said.\n\nHe huffed. \"Okay. You're right. I didn't believe he was in danger.\" He paused but rushed on. \"I thought it was a publicity stunt.\" He adopted an attitude. \" 'Mr. Franck's next book is going to rock the world. It's so dangerous I'm hiring a bodyguard to protect him.' \" He shook his head. \"He was just trying to sell more books.\"\n\n\"Well, obviously, not, since the man is dead,\" Nana Jo said.\n\nSidney Sherman turned and Nana Jo leveled her gun.\n\nSherman stopped and raised his hands. \"All right. Could you drop the gun? I'm talking. I'm answering her questions. I don't want you getting nervous and that thing going off and killing someone.\"\n\nNana Jo smiled. \"Look, I'm not suffering from the palsy and my hands are still steady. So, as long as you don't make any sudden movements, you'll be safe.\"\n\nHe sighed.\n\n\"Why do you think hiring you was merely a publicity stunt?\" I asked.\n\n\"Because he told me it was. He said I just needed to look the part and stay close to him for a couple of days.\"\n\n\"Why didn't you?\" I asked.\n\n\"Why didn't I what?\"\n\n\"Stay close to him? What happened?\"\n\nHe sighed. \"When everyone got off the bus, he said he wanted to stretch and take a leak. When I got up to go with him, he said he didn't need help.\" He sighed. \"He got off the bus. There was one old lady asleep in the back and then he got into an argument with his daughter. I hung around for a bit, but I could see she wasn't a threat.\" He paused for a few minutes. \"So, I went to the bathroom and, by the time I got back . . . well, you know.\"\n\nI couldn't think of anything else to ask. I turned to Nana Jo.\n\n\"Why are you here now?\" she asked.\n\nHe sighed. \"I wanted to pay my respects.\" He looked down. \"I thought maybe I could remember something that would help the police.\"\n\n\"Did you?\" I asked.\n\nHe shook his head. \"Nothing.\"\n\nNana Jo looked at him for several seconds. Then she lowered her gun. \"Sam, you can return his gun.\"\n\nI made sure no one was watching and then slid the gun across.\n\nHe took it and slipped it inside his jacket. \"Are we done?\"\n\nI nodded.\n\nHe stood. He glared at Nana Jo and then turned and walked out.\n\nA few seconds later, we heard a scream.\n\n\"That sounded like Irma.\" Nana Jo stared at me.\n\nWe rushed toward the direction of the scream. In a corridor off the lobby near the elevators, lying in a heap, was the body of Sarah Jane Howard.\n\nIrma screamed once more and then fell down in a dead faint.\nChapter 17\n\nIf I thought the murder of Max Franck on a chartered bus between North Harbor, Michigan, and Chicago, Illinois, was chaos, I was wrong. Between the police and the ambulance and Irma's hysterics, this was an absolute circus.\n\nDetective Pitt marched through the lobby and glared at me as though I was responsible for murdering Sarah Jane Howard. He glowered. \"Come with me.\"\n\nHe marched off in the direction of Caroline Fenton's office.\n\nI looked around for Nana Jo but remembered she was comforting or threatening Irma, depending on what the situation called for. After a brief moment's hesitation, I decided to suck it up and followed Detective Pitt to the office.\n\nIn Caroline Fenton's office, he paced. \"Shut the door.\"\n\nI closed the door behind me and stepped up to the desk. \"Detective Pitt, you seem to be angry, but, for the life of me, I can't\u2014\"\n\nHe halted. \"Angry? Angry? You think I'm angry?\" He glared. \"I haven't even begun to get angry. What the\u2014\"\n\nI held up a hand. \"I didn't kill her. For some reason, you seem to believe this is all somehow my fault, but you're wrong. All I did was arrange a memorial for Max Franck.\"\n\nHe paced, but I could tell he'd lost some of his steam. \"I don't know how, but I'm sure you or your nutcase of a grandmother are somehow responsible for this mess.\" He paced a bit more and then flung himself into a chair. He leaned back and then made a sweeping gesture indicating I should sit.\n\nI sat down on the guest chair across the desk from the detective.\n\n\"Now, will you tell me what's going on?\"\n\nI took a deep breath and recounted what I knew of the events.\n\nDetective Pitt watched me but said nothing until I was done. \"That's it? That's all you've got?\"\n\nI nodded. \"That's all I've got.\"\n\nHe rubbed his hand through his comb-over. Just like before, the few strands stood at attention as though electrified. \"Well, I'm going to need something to go on. When the chief heard there was another murder here, he went crazy. He insisted I call in Sergeant Alvarez.\"\n\n\"Why? I thought Sergeant Alvarez thought Bob Marcus was responsible for Max's death? Since you have him in custody, it can't be him and that blows his theory out of the water.\" I smiled. However, I should have known better than to get excited too early. One look at Detective Pitt's face told me my assumptions were wrong.\n\nDetective Pitt shook his head. \"Had to let him go.\"\n\nI dropped my head. \"You let him go? Why?\"\n\n\"He made bail.\"\n\nI stared openmouthed. \"Does Sergeant Alvarez . . .\"\n\nHe was nodding before the words left my mouth.\n\n\"Well, fiddle sticks.\"\n\nDetective Pitt smiled. \"You better be careful. Your grandmother might just wash your mouth out with soap.\"\n\nI tried to smile at the detective's joke, but my heart wasn't in it. \"If Bob left jail and came here, I haven't seen him.\" I thought for a moment. \"Are you sure it was murder?\"\n\nHe nodded. \"We'll have to wait to hear from the coroner, but she's got the same type of wound.\"\n\n\"That wound seems rather specialized, don't you think?\"\n\nHe shrugged. \"A sharp object to the kidneys is pretty effective.\" He looked hopeful. \"Are you asking if the murderer would have had medical training?\"\n\nI told Detective Pitt what I'd learned from Frank about quiet kills.\n\nA flash of what I would call respect crossed his face but was quickly replaced by the anxious expression he'd started this round of conversations with. \"So, basically anyone with any type of medical or military experience or anyone who has access to the Internet would have known how to kill quietly.\"\n\n\"True, but . . . why would they?\"\n\nHe stared. \"What do you mean?\"\n\n\"Okay, so maybe Max Franck knew something. Maybe during the course of researching his next book, he stumbled across something that made him dangerous to someone. Or maybe he made his daughter angry for not getting tested or maybe he was just a plain jerk who was responsible for someone committing suicide. Whatever the killer's motive for killing Max Franck, why kill Sarah Jane Howard?\" I paused.\n\n\"I remember her from that other murder, when that Romanov woman was murdered.\" He colored slightly.\n\nI guessed he was remembering how he nearly arrested my grandmother for that one but chose to remain silent.\n\nHe hurried on. \"That Sarah Jane Howard was a nosy old busybody.\"\n\n\"Exactly.\"\n\nHe looked surprised. \"What?\"\n\n\"She was nosy. Nana Jo said Sarah Jane Howard was the nosiest person she'd ever met.\" I thought back for a moment. \"I remember Ruby Mae saying she used to sit at her window with binoculars and spy on people.\" I paused, but Detective Pitt didn't seem to be catching on.\n\n\"What are you saying?\"\n\nI sighed. \"I'm saying, maybe Sarah Jane Howard was being her normal, nosy self. And, what if she saw something she wasn't supposed to see?\"\n\nHe shook his head. \"Naw, that's no good.\"\n\nI was crestfallen. \"Why not?\"\n\n\"Because busybodies like that Howard woman are all the same. What's the good of knowing something if no one knows you know it?\" He gave me a knowing look.\n\nI thought about what he was saying.\n\nHe leaned across the desk. \"Trust me. If that woman knew something, or even if she thought she might possibly know something, she would have told someone. She would have reported it.\"\n\nI scooted to the edge of my seat in excitement. \"What if she didn't know she knew something?\"\n\nHe rubbed his forehead. \"You're making my head hurt.\"\n\n\"Stay with me. What if she didn't realize what she saw until later?\" I gasped in excitement. \"Or, what if she didn't know anything about Max Franck's murder, but what if what she knew was related to the attempt on Irma's life?\"\n\n\"I thought you didn't believe Irma was pushed?\"\n\nI thought about it. \"I don't believe Bob pushed Irma. But what if it wasn't Bob? What if she saw the person who really did push Irma?\"\n\nHe shook his head. \"She still would have wanted someone to know. She would have told someone.\"\n\nI nodded. \"What if the person she told was the real killer?\"\nChapter 18\n\nDetective Pitt didn't look convinced, but he shrugged. \"Okay, I'll bite. Who did she talk to?\"\n\nHeat rose up my neck. \"I don't know that she actually talked to anyone.\"\n\nHe squinted. \"Who did she attempt to talk to?\"\n\nI squirmed in my seat. \"I don't know who she talked to, but I do know she wanted to talk to Nana Jo.\"\n\nLuckily, Nana Jo had an ironclad alibi for the time of the murder. Although she wasn't thrilled when Detective Pitt pulled her into the tiny office to ask her about her movements.\n\n\"Listen here, I was too busy putting the drop on that Sidney Sherman character and preventing him from getting violent with my granddaughter to be going around killing Sarah Howard,\" Nana Jo exaggerated.\n\nAfter a good fifteen minutes of yelling, Nana Jo made her point and stomped out of the office.\n\nDetective Pitt looked as though he'd been working out. He had beads of sweat on his forehead and, unfortunately, under the pits of his arms.\n\nIt was several hours later before we were released to leave. By the time I got home, I was exhausted. It wasn't until I made my way upstairs that I realized part of my problem was that the only thing I'd had to eat was appetizers.\n\nI looked in my refrigerator and smiled when I saw a pint of Frank's taco soup. He must have dropped it off earlier. I smiled as I put a generous serving into a bowl and heated it in the microwave while I changed into yoga pants and a warm sweater. By the time I was comfy, my food was ready.\n\nI crushed several saltines and dumped them into the soup. While I sat at the breakfast bar and ate, I marveled at the wonders of technology, which allowed me to heat dishes in seconds and send text messages of gratitude, which I knew would be received almost instantly. Technology was a wonderful thing. At least it was when it worked. Unfortunately, the cameras in the stairwell at Shady Acres hadn't been working. Although, it wasn't necessarily that the cameras weren't working but that they weren't pointed in the direction to capture Sarah Jane Howard's murder. Which I found interesting. Either the killer knew the exact location where he or she could murder someone without being caught on camera or our murderer was extremely lucky. The truth was probably a combination of both.\n\nAfter dinner, I let the poodles outside and decided to spend some time writing in the hopes that I could collect my thoughts.\n\nDetective Inspector Covington traipsed through the cold, damp ground to the stables and tried to smile and not think of his wet shoes, although the squishing he heard each time his foot hit the ground made it extremely difficult to think of anything else. In the stables, he was assaulted by the stench of damp horse flesh and manure. He tried not to think of Lady Clara sitting in the office with smiling Desmond Tarkington or even Lady Elizabeth sitting in front of a warm fireplace sipping tea.\n\nConstance Tarkington walked up to a tall beast of a horse that seemed taller than any horse he'd seen. Although, granted, growing up in the streets of London meant he hadn't seen many. Not up close and personal, anyway. He forced a smile and took several deep breaths to steady his nerves. He'd always heard animals could sense fear.\n\n\"What a magnificent animal,\" he said with what he hoped was the right amount of enthusiasm in his voice.\n\nConstance opened the stall door and led the beast out.\n\n\"What's his name?\" He asked more for something to say rather than a desire to know. He had no intention of addressing the creature.\n\n\"Satan.\"\n\n\"Excuse me?\"\n\nConstance laughed. \"His name is Satan.\" She caressed the animal's back. \"My husband's idea of a joke.\"\n\nThe animal stomped his feet and snorted in a manner that indicated the name might not have been a joke after all.\n\n\"I know what you want.\" She reached into her coat pocket and held up a carrot, which the beast quickly chomped. When he finished, he used his head to push her forward. She would have fallen had Covington not reached out to catch her.\n\nHe helped to right Constance, who clutched his arms, forcing him to hold her closer and longer than necessary. When he looked at the woman, he recognized a hungry look in her eyes.\n\nThe detective forced himself to smile and hoped the smile extended to his eyes. \"Mrs. Tarkington.\"\n\n\"Constance.\"\n\nHe looked around. \"You have very nice stables . . . Constance . . . but I don't see any helpers. Surely your husband doesn't do all of the work himself.\"\n\nShe snorted. \"Him? You must be joking. Desmond isn't into horses or riding or anything fun.\" She released the detective's shoulders and walked around the stables. \"This is all mine.\" She raised her hands to encompass the entire stables.\n\n\"But surely it's too much for one woman . . . even a woman such as yourself.\"\n\nShe smiled, accepting the comment as a compliment. \"My husband doesn't believe in 'wasting money.'\" She used air quotes. \"At least not on anything that interests me. However, he can waste plenty of money on plays.\"\n\nThe detective tsked. \"Surely your husband's cousin could afford to pay for someone to run your stables.\"\n\n\"Eleanor wasn't fond of horses either.\" She sighed. \"More's the pity.\"\n\nThe detective inspector chuckled. \"Well, now that she's gone . . .\"\n\nConstance smiled. \"Yes, now that she's gone, we shall be able to afford some improvements.\"\n\nConstance Tarkington glowed. She spent the next five minutes telling the detective inspector exactly what improvements she planned for the stables. Even to someone unfamiliar with animals or construction, the plans sounded expensive. Clearly, Constance Tarkington had put a lot of thought into how she would spend Eleanor Forsythe's money. The question that crossed the young detective's mind was how long she'd been making plans.\n\nLady Clara Trewellen-Harper sat in Desmond Tarkington's study. The conceited old bore had been talking for what felt like hours about his roles in various theatrical performances. Fortunately, Desmond Tarkington, like many men, didn't really need or expect much from her, other than the occasional coos of awe and \"Oh my, aren't you amazing,\" and \"How fascinating.\" Recalling her days in finishing school, she was highly skilled at small talk and pretending to listen to conversations she knew nothing about.\n\nLady Clara glanced out the window and wondered what Detective Inspector Covington was talking about with Constance Tarkington.\n\n\"Is anything wrong?\"\n\n\"No, why do you ask?\"\n\n\"You were frowning and I wondered if I'd said something to offend you.\"\n\nLady Clara laughed. \"I'm sorry. I was just thinking about your wonderful career. I find it so fascinating, and I was thinking how wonderful that you can live in such a grand home and go on the stage and meet fascinating people.\"\n\nDesmond Tarkington chuckled. \"Well, I suppose it is fascinating to an outsider.\"\n\nLady Clara nodded. \"Indeed, I mean, if I lived in a beautiful house like this, I don't think I would ever want to leave.\"\n\nThe frown on Desmond Tarkington's face indicated that wasn't exactly the direction he expected the conversation to go. \"Yes, well, the house is rather nice, I suppose. Although, it's not really my taste.\"\n\n\"I suppose a famous actor like you would rather be in a modern house in London or . . . Hollywood,\" she whispered with enthusiasm.\n\nHe sat straighter in his seat. \"I suppose so . . . One of these days I'll make a film or two, but I have to say, I prefer the stage. There's nothing like a live audience to bring out the best in an actor's performance.\" He stuck his prop pipe in his mouth and put his other hand inside the front of his smoking jacket.\n\nLady Clara thought he looked like Napoleon and found it rather difficult to take him seriously. But she'd been entrusted with the task of getting Desmond Tarkington to talk and she refused to go back and have that arrogant Scotland Yard detective providing clues and solving the murder while she sat listening to dreary Desmond Tarkington talk about his glory days on the stage. \"I suppose now that your cousin has died, you'll be famous and rich.\"\n\nDesmond Tarkington frowned. \"Well, I hardly think that's a proper conversation to have.\" He looked at Lady Clara but eventually smiled. \"However, I suppose it's true that I'll inherit. My cousin was very wealthy, and I am her closest relative.\" He bit the end of his pipe. \"We were very close.\" He smiled but quickly looked away and frowned.\n\nLady Clara batted her eyelashes. \"Why, Mr. Tarkington, is there anything wrong?\"\n\nAt first, Desmond Tarkington denied anything was wrong, but with just the slightest bit of prodding from Lady Clara, he admitted something was bothering him.\n\n\"Desmond . . . you don't mind if I call you Desmond?\" She smiled.\n\nDesmond smiled in a way that indicated he didn't mind the least bit that Lady Clara called him by his first name. \"Well, there's nothing wrong . . . not really. I've just been concerned about my cousin's will.\"\n\n\"Her will? You don't mean to tell me she's done something silly and left all of her money to a cat or something?\"\n\nDesmond chuckled. \"No. Nothing like that. It's just that she indicated she had a will but no one can seem to find it. In fact, I rather hoped she might have said something to your aunt, Lady Elizabeth, when they were in London.\"\n\nSuddenly, all was clear to Lady Clara. \"Did you indeed?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth and Lady Alistair sat in the sitting room with Mrs. Muriel Sanderson. The woman had barely said anything and spent the majority of the time gaping at Lady Alistair's jewels and the fox stole she wore around her neck.\n\n\"How long have you been with Eleanor?\" Lady Alistair asked.\n\n\"About two months.\"\n\n\"What brought you here?\" Lady Alistair smiled at the tedious manner they were having to pull information out of the frightened woman.\n\n\"Eleanor was my cousin,\" the woman mumbled. \"A distant cousin, but . . . family.\"\n\n\"So nice to have family.\" Lady Elizabeth, who was highly skilled at small talk, smiled and took a sip of the tea Thompkins had brought them. \"Now that Eleanor is gone, will you stay on here?\"\n\nMuriel Sanderson dropped her spoon. She reached down and picked it up. \"I . . . don't . . . I suppose . . .\" She dropped her napkin. \"It depends on the . . . I mean . . . I'm sure they wouldn't . . .\" She choked back a cry and pulled a handkerchief from the sleeve of her dress and dabbed at her eyes.\n\nLady Alistair and Lady Elizabeth exchanged glances.\n\n\"Surely Eleanor provided for you? Some type of . . . legacy perhaps?\" Lady Elizabeth asked.\n\nMuriel Sanderson choked back tears. \"I don't know. I just don't know. I assumed there would be something, but with no will . . .\"\n\n\"No will?\" Lady Alistair asked. \"You don't mean to say she died without making arrangements for her family and the servants?\"\n\nMuriel nodded. \"Nothing. If she had a will, no one knows where it is. There's only one servant, Dora, and she's going to give her notice.\"\n\n\"I suppose you've tried her solicitor?\" Lady Elizabeth asked.\n\nMuriel nodded. \"Desmond called him first thing.\"\n\n\"How odd.\" Lady Alistair sipped her tea.\n\n\"We wondered if maybe she hid it somewhere or . . .\" She stared at Lady Elizabeth. \"Or perhaps, she gave it to someone close to her.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth sipped her tea. \"I wonder the same thing.\"\n\nChapter 19\n\nAt some point during the night, I stopped writing and got in bed. Although, I couldn't remember actually going through the motions. I knew it must have happened since I was in bed. I received a jolt when I recognized the noise that woke me was the sound of snoring in my ear. I sat up straight in my bed, wide-awake. When I realized the snoring was coming from Snickers, who was curled up asleep on my pillow, I relaxed. Apart from Snickers' snoring, which was amazingly loud for a ten-pound poodle, the house was quiet. Nana Jo had wanted to keep Irma company, so she spent the night at Shady Acres. Regardless of whether I believed Irma was pushed down a flight of stairs or tripped, she had found two dead bodies, sprained an ankle, and fainted twice. That was a lot for anyone.\n\nA hot shower provided some time for me to think through recent events. I kept going back to my conversation with Detective Pitt and asking, why would someone want to kill Sarah Jane Howard? It seemed obvious that the murder was connected to Max Franck's murder in some way. The method used to kill both people was too similar for the two deaths not to be connected. By the time I finished my shower, dressed, and took the dogs downstairs to take care of their business, I still didn't have any answers.\n\nI wasn't in the mood to cook today, so when my nephews arrived, I sent a message to my sister, Jenna, asking if she wanted to meet me for breakfast. I even offered to treat. Being the trusting soul that she was, her reply was, What do you want?\n\nI took her snarkiness as acceptance and typed the location of her favorite breakfast spot.\n\nAs usual, I arrived before my sister, who was known for always being ten minutes late, and she didn't disappoint.\n\nJenna and her husband, Tony, were both attorneys, although Jenna was a criminal attorney and Tony practiced corporate law. Roughly the same height as me, Jenna was four years older, although you couldn't tell by looking at her. She was also known within law enforcement circles as \"The Pit Bull,\" a label she embraced.\n\nJenna flew into the restaurant wearing her lucky suit, which indicated she would be heading to court when she left the restaurant. She sat down and the waitress immediately brought her a cup of hot tea. \"Can I have a butter croissant to go and a take-out cup, please? I won't be staying long.\"\n\nThe waitress smiled. \"You just enjoy that one and I'll bring you a fresh tea in a to-go cup. Same kind as usual?\"\n\nJenna nodded. \"Yes, English Breakfast.\"\n\nThe waitress nodded and hurried to take care of Jenna's order.\n\nMy sister sipped her tea and looked at me. \"What's up?\"\n\n\"Nice to see you too.\"\n\nShe looked at her watch. \"I have to be in court in thirty minutes. Make it quick.\"\n\n\"I'm offended that you think the only reason I would call you is because I want something. I've left you alone because I know you've been busy, but maybe I just missed spending time with my older, wiser big sis.\"\n\nJenna glanced over her cup. \"My clock is ticking. In ten minutes, I'm going to be walking out so I can get to work. If you want something, you better make it quick.\"\n\n\"All right.\" I knew my sister and she'd walk out in ten minutes regardless of what I said. I quickly told her about Bob Marcus.\n\nThe waitress brought Jenna's croissant in a bag along with another tea, this time in a paper cup.\n\nJenna stood. \"What do you want me to do?\"\n\n\"I don't think Bob killed Sarah Jane Howard, and whoever killed Sarah Jane Howard more than likely is responsible for killing Max Franck. Sergeant Alvarez wants to wrap this thing up, and I'm afraid he's going to arrest Bob and charge him with both murders. He'll take him to Chicago and no one will do anything, and an innocent man will spend more time in jail.\"\n\nShe glared. \"So, how does this affect me?\"\n\n\"You're a lawyer . . . a pit bull. Don't let them railroad an innocent man. At the least, don't let them take him to Chicago until we can find the real killer.\"\n\nJenna stared for several seconds and then lifted her cup. \"I've gotta go. Thanks for breakfast.\" She held up her cup and the bag with the croissant, turned, and walked out.\n\nMy sister got into her car and I wondered why I had bothered. Obviously, I didn't know my sister as well as I thought. I slumped down in my seat but nearly jumped when my phone vibrated, indicating I'd gotten a text message. I lifted my head and pulled my cell phone out of my pocket.\n\nThe text was from Jenna. Text me Bob's full name. No promises.\n\nA smile spread across my face as I replied. Maybe I knew my sister after all. The waitress returned and I smiled. \"I'm ready to order.\"\n\nAfter I left the restaurant, I went back to the bookstore. Today was New Year's Eve, and I planned to close the store early. The twins would be going out to celebrate later, so I thanked them for helping out, paid them, so they'd have plenty of spending money, and let them go. Traffic in the store was light, and I was well able to handle things myself until noon, when I closed down.\n\nI got a text message from Nana Jo instructing me to meet at her house for a noon meeting. Her message was immediately followed by a message from Frank saying Nana Jo had ordered lunch and told him I'd bring it with me. Unlike the mystery-book shoppers, his customers were there in droves. He didn't have a lot of time, but if I pulled up to the back of his restaurant, he would load the food into my truck. He was a good man.\n\nI went upstairs and noticed Snickers and Oreo asleep in their beds. My poodles were getting older. Their muzzles were filled with white and their once-dark chocolate coats were now more caf\u00e9 au lait than espresso. I also noted they spent a lot more time sleeping and wondered how many more years I'd get to spend with them.\n\nThose dark thoughts made me sad, and I picked up Snickers and gave her a tight squeeze. She was the older of the two and held a special place in my heart. \"I need to spend more time with you, girl, don't I?\"\n\nShe yawned and then licked my nose.\n\nNana Jo and the girls would want to ring in the new year with drinks, dancing, and fun, which meant a late night for me. \"Wanna go to Nana Jo's house?\"\n\nShe yawned again. Obviously, she'd had a busy day.\n\nOreo scratched at my legs. I'd neglected to make their grooming appointment.\n\nI grabbed my coat and purse and a handful of dog biscuits. \"Come on.\" I needn't have bothered speaking. The treats were enough to get them to follow me. Outside, I waited while they took care of business. Today was one of those days where I was grateful for automatic start. I used it to make sure the car and the seats were nice and warm by the time the poodles finished and we were ready to leave. I might not have a luxury vehicle like Frank, but I was definitely fond of my Ford Escape with its bells and whistles.\n\nI loaded up the poodles and sent Frank a text before I pulled out of the garage, letting him know I was on my way.\n\nIt was a short drive to his restaurant, and he was waiting as soon as I pulled up, which let me know he had been looking out for me.\n\nOne button on the dashboard opened my back hatch and I didn't even have to get out of my car. Frank had a large cardboard box, which he quickly loaded into the rear, and then pressed the button to close the hatch.\n\nI pushed the button that rolled down the window when he hurried toward my window. \"Thank you, but you'll catch a cold out here with no coat.\"\n\nHe stuck his head inside and kissed me. After a few seconds, when he pulled away, I felt a bit dizzy.\n\nHe smiled. \"I'm warm enough now.\"\n\nI grinned like a silly schoolgirl. \"I wish you didn't have to work tonight, but I understand.\" We'd talked about not being able to ring in the new year together.\n\nFrank released a heavy breath. \"I know it's our first New Year's Eve, but I don't want to leave Benny here alone or\u2014\"\n\nI held up a hand to stem the explanation. \"I know. It's okay. I absolutely understand and it's okay.\"\n\nHe gazed into my eyes with intensity. \"Are you sure?\"\n\nI smiled and nodded. \"I'm very sure.\"\n\nBenny came to the back door of the restaurant. \"Frank, we have a problem.\"\n\n\"You better get back to work.\" I crooked a finger and beckoned for him to lean close. When he did, I kissed him again. \"Thank you.\"\n\nHe fanned himself. \"You're welcome.\"\n\nI smiled most of the way to Nana Jo's. In fact, I was so distracted by Frank Patterson, I nearly forgot that Snickers and Oreo were in the car until I glanced in the rearview mirror and saw them cuddled up together in their dog bed on the back seat of the car.\n\nAt Nana Jo's I pulled into her driveway and blew the horn. After a few seconds, the door lifted and I pulled into the garage.\n\nNana Jo helped me bring the food from the back of the car into the house, where the others were waiting. Snickers and Oreo trotted in like they owned the place. Of course, everyone petted them, so they were very happy. Eventually, Nana Jo found the extra food dishes that we kept at her house and the poodles were distracted by food.\n\nWe took thirty minutes and ate lunch without talking about murders or crime. However, when everyone had finished eating, Nana Jo picked up her iPad, which signaled it was time for business.\n\nI got up and let the dogs out to take care of business and quickly came back inside and got them settled down by my feet.\n\n\"Okay, who wants to go first?\" Nana Jo looked around and her gaze landed on Irma. \"Irma, maybe you should go first. I think you should tell us everything that happened.\"\n\nIrma was wearing a lot more makeup than usual, which was saying a lot. \"I told Gerald I wanted a throw and he'd gone to get one.\" She smiled demurely. \"He's such a thoughtful man.\"\n\nNana Jo squinted and looked as though she would strangle Irma.\n\n\"Actually, I'd like you to go back to the other day, when your room was searched and you fell down the stairs,\" I said.\n\nIrma nodded. \"Of course. I forgot you weren't there when the killer made the first attempt on my life.\"\n\nNano Jo rolled her eyes at Irma's first attempt.\n\nIrma recapped the incident from the other night, which was very similar to what Nana Jo had said.\n\n\"Who was in the stairway?\" I asked.\n\nEveryone exchanged glances. Irma shrugged. Nana Jo frowned for several seconds as she tried to remember. \"Sam, honey, everyone was in the stairwell. The fire alarm was blaring and flashing like a strobe light at a disco.\" She paused. \"I know all of us were there. I'd just been trying to track down Velma Levington.\" She shook her head. \"That is one woman who's hard to reach. I spotted her down the hall and headed that way, and that's when I got distracted because Irma screamed.\" Nana Jo frowned at Irma. \"You've been doing a lot of screaming lately.\"\n\nIrma sniffed. \"The next time you find two dead bodies and someone tries to kill you, we'll see if you scream.\"\n\n\"Don't get your panties twisted in a wad.\" Nana Jo tapped her stylus on the table for several seconds but eventually gave up and shook her head. \"I'm sorry, but I can't remember who was in the stairwell.\"\n\n\"Where was Bob?\" I looked around. \"Was he near Irma's room?\"\n\nEveryone looked around. Eventually, Dorothy shook her head. \"No, I don't think he was.\"\n\nRuby Mae looked up from the knitting she had just taken out of her bag. \"I know he wasn't because Bob came upstairs with me.\"\n\nEveryone turned to Ruby Mae and started hurling questions at her. \"Are you sure?\" \"How do you know?\" \"Why didn't you say something sooner?\"\n\nShe huffed. \"Now, y'all are gonna need to stop firing questions at me and let me tell you.\" Ruby Mae took a few deep breaths. \"I had been downstairs talking to Melvin.\"\n\n\"Melvin Cooper?\" Irma asked. \"He's so handsome. I didn't know you were interested in Melvin.\"\n\nRuby Mae looked at Irma out of the side of her eyes. \"Honey, I ain't interested in no pretty boys like Melvin Cooper. Ain't no way a man that good looking is going to be satisfied with one woman, and I don't believe in sharing.\" Ruby Mae looked down her nose at Irma. \"I was talking to Melvin Cooper to see if he had any information about Max's murder.\" She glanced at Irma again. \"You remember him. Max, the man you were gushing over just a few days ago.\"\n\nIrma stuck out her tongue but started coughing. She reached into her purse. Usually, she pulled out a flask, but she felt around and didn't seem to find one. Eventually, she dumped the contents of her purse on the table and started sorting through them.\n\nRuby Mae continued, \"We were in the elevator together. We had just gotten off the elevator when we heard Irma scream and we rushed to your room to see what had happened.\" She turned to me. \"Does that help?\"\n\nI thought for a moment. \"Not really. Unless Bob was with you the entire time, it doesn't mean he couldn't have ransacked Irma's apartment earlier.\"\n\n\"What's this?\" Irma held up a key.\n\n\"I know you pretend to be a ditz sometimes, but now isn't the time.\" Nana Jo turned away from Irma.\n\n\"I know it's a key,\" she said sharply. \"I mean why is it in my purse?\"\n\nI stared at Irma. \"Isn't it yours?\"\n\nShe shook her head. \"I've never seen it before.\"\n\nI held out my hand and Irma gave me the key. I turned it around. \"It looks like a key to a locker.\" The key had a cheap circular tab with a number written on it. \"Eight one nine.\"\n\nNana Jo leaned across the table. Then she looked at me. \"You don't suppose Max put it in her purse.\"\n\nI shrugged. \"Who had access to your purse?\"\n\nIrma thought for several seconds but then shook her head. \"Beats me.\"\n\n\"Did you leave it on the bus when we stopped at the rest area?\" I asked.\n\nIrma's eyes grew larger and she nodded. \"I left it on the bus because Max said he wasn't going and I knew it would be safe\"\n\nThe excitement grew as we examined the key.\n\n\"Anything else in there?\" I asked.\n\nIrma sifted through the items scattered across the table.\n\nMy gaze landed on a picture. I pointed. \"What's that?\"\n\nIrma leaned across. She picked it up and stared. \"It looks like a picture of Robert Kennedy.\"\n\nThat got our attention. We all crowded around Irma and stared at the picture for several seconds.\n\n\"Who's that with him?\" Ruby Mae asked.\n\nWe stared harder. It was an old black-and-white Polaroid photo that had seen better days. The photo was approximately three and a half inches by four. There was a white border around the outside. One corner was missing, and the photo had a bend that went straight across. However, the image showed Robert Kennedy lying on the floor of the kitchen in the Ambassador Hotel in California where he had been shot. I had seen a similar photo in textbooks. However, something was different about this photo. I couldn't figure out what. It appeared to have been taken immediately after he was shot, which would have been in June 1968. Crouched beside the body was the busboy who had been shaking Kennedy's hand when he was shot. However, this photo showed several people standing nearby.\n\nWe passed around the photo, but no one recognized anything particular about the photo.\n\nNana Jo stared at the photo for a very long time. \"Something seems familiar about this, but I just can't put my finger on it.\"\n\n\"Are photos like this rare?\" I asked.\n\n\"I can ask my sister. She'd know.\" Dorothy shrugged. Her sister owned a gallery in downtown South Harbor and she'd been instrumental in finding information previously.\n\nI sighed. \"Most likely he had it for research for his book. He was writing a book about Robert Kennedy's assassination.\"\n\n\"What do you think we should do with it?\" Ruby Mae asked.\n\nI looked around the table. \"As much as I hate to say it, I think we need to give the key and the photograph to Sergeant Alvarez or at least Detective Pitt.\"\n\nEveryone started talking at once, which made it hard to understand.\n\n\"I don't see why we have to turn this stuff over to the police,\" Irma said. \"It was in my purse.\"\n\n\"Besides, we don't know for certain Max is the one who put those items in Irma's bag,\" Nana Jo argued.\n\n\"Right. I mean, she's had that bag in a lot of places. Anyone could have put that stuff in there,\" Dorothy said.\n\n\"We don't even know what the key opens,\" Ruby Mae said.\n\nI scowled. \"You've got to be joking. Who else would put a picture of Robert Kennedy on the day he was assassinated in Irma's purse, along with a locker key, except the man who was writing a book about the subject?\"\n\nI looked from one of them to the other. \"Look, you may be right. Maybe it is some grand coincidence. Maybe the key fell into her purse and it has absolutely nothing to do with his murder, but if it is important, then it's against the law to withhold evidence to a crime.\"\n\n\"But we don't know it's evidence. So, if you don't know it's evidence, then you can't be held accountable.\"\n\nSomething about the way Nana Jo looked when she said that made me wonder if she was serious. I stared at her. \"Are you making that up?\"\n\nShe hesitated for a few seconds but eventually shrugged. \"I'm sure I saw it on Law and Order or maybe it was Perry Mason.\"\n\nI sighed. \"I tell you what, I'll run it by Jenna and see what she says.\" I glanced around the table.\n\nThey weren't happy, but eventually everyone agreed.\n\nI held out my hand and Irma turned over the key and the picture.\n\nThe rest of the meeting was relatively uneventful. I updated everyone on my conversation with Detective Pitt and my conversation with Jenna.\n\nNana Jo filled the group in on our conversation with Sidney Sherman.\n\n\"Do you think he's telling the truth?\" Ruby Mae asked.\n\nI glanced at Nana Jo, and we both shrugged. After a few minutes, though, I added, \"I think he was telling the truth. I mean, if he was going to lie, he would have tried to make himself look better, don't you think?\" I glanced around.\n\n\"Well, he sure didn't help his reputation as a bodyguard to admit he permitted his client to get murdered while under his protection, did he?\" Nana Jo tapped her stylus.\n\nIrma turned to me. \"You do believe the two murders are connected, don't you?\"\n\nI nodded. \"I do. I can't see why anyone would kill Sarah Jane Howard unless she knew something about the first murder.\"\n\n\"Well, heck, I can think of a lot of people who would want to murder that nosy busybody,\" Nana Jo said.\n\n\"Me too,\" everyone added.\n\n\"She was a nosy busybody, that's true, but she's been at Shady Acres for how long?\" I glanced around.\n\n\"Ten years?\" Nana Jo looked at the others, who nodded.\n\n\"Well, I think that means you all found a way to either ignore her or shun her, but, in the past ten years, no one has killed her.\"\n\n\"I sure wanted to,\" Nana Jo mumbled.\n\n\"Especially after the way she tried to cast suspicion on you after Maria Romanov's murder,\" Dorothy said.\n\n\"That's all true, but you didn't murder her.\" I looked at Nana Jo.\n\nShe sighed. \"I get what you're saying.\"\n\n\"Good. So, back to Irma's original question. Do I believe the two murders are connected?\" I looked around. \"My answer is yes. I do.\"\n\nNana Jo read back through her notes from the conversation I'd had with Sarah Jane. \"What about the argument she overheard between Rosemary and Max?\" She looked up. \"I mean, the woman was furious about him not at least getting tested to see if he could donate bone marrow. I know I would have killed someone if I thought it would help my daughter.\"\n\nI looked at my grandmother, who had the mother bear look in her eyes again. \"I know that just sounds so coldhearted. Christopher and Zaq aren't my children, but I think I could easily kill if it meant saving their lives.\" A chill ran down my spine, and I shuddered.\n\nEveryone agreed, although Ruby Mae seemed distracted.\n\n\"Ruby Mae?\"\n\nShe knitted a few more stitches before she looked up. \"I agree with what everyone said. Y'all know I have nine children and I would do whatever I have to do to make sure my children are safe. I was just wondering . . . is this Rosemary a smart woman?\"\n\nI squinted and stared at Ruby Mae. \"Yes. She seemed like a very intelligent woman.\"\n\nShe nodded. \"I thought so too. I can't see her killing him and not getting the bone marrow.\" She glanced around. \"I mean, if you're going to kill him, at least make sure you take his body to the hospital and get what you need.\"\n\n\"I'm not sure you can take someone's bone marrow without their permission. Even if they're dead,\" I said.\n\n\"I know that.\" Ruby Mae knitted a few stitches. \"But, if it were me, I'd make sure there was a note or something that gave me permission to take the bone marrow.\"\n\nI thought about it. \"I think you're right.\"\n\nThe only new information anyone had learned was that Caroline Fenton had submitted her resignation and was planning to leave Shady Acres. Rumor had it, she said her nerves were shot after all of the murders, but no one knew for sure.\n\n\"I don't think Caroline Fenton's the only person who thinks Shady Acres is dangerous. I've heard several people are planning to leave.\" Ruby Mae knitted.\n\n\"Anyone we care about?\" Nana Jo asked.\n\nRuby Mae glanced at Irma. \"I've heard Melvin Cooper is one.\"\n\nIrma gasped. \"Why that dirty son of a\u2014\"\n\n\"Irma!\" everyone yelled.\n\nIrma coughed and began looking for her flask in the dumped contents of her purse. She sifted through all of the items on the table. When she found it, she took a swig.\n\n\"I heard Velma Levington was another one,\" Dorothy said.\n\nNow it was Nana Jo's turn to look surprised. \"Velma Levington? That is one busy woman. Every time I try to get close to the woman to talk to her, something happens. Either fire alarms go off or people are murdered.\"\n\n\"Maybe you need to stop trying to talk to her.\" Ruby Mae shuddered. \"I can't handle no more murders right now.\" She looked down her nose at Nana Jo. \"I know that isn't grammatically correct, but you know what I mean.\"\n\nWe chatted a bit longer, and then Irma said, \"It's New Year's Eve and I want to go party.\"\n\n\"I thought Shady Acres was having a New Year's Eve party?\" I asked.\n\n\"Caroline Fenton canceled it,\" Dorothy said.\n\nI must have looked puzzled because Nana Jo added, \"She said, with Sarah Jane's murder and the police crawling around everywhere looking for clues, it was irreverent and too much of a hassle.\"\n\nI blinked to try to clear my confusion. \"But today is New Year's Eve. How can she wait 'til the last minute to cancel your party?\"\n\nEveryone shrugged.\n\n\"Let's go to the casino,\" Irma suggested.\n\nI wasn't ecstatic about a trip to the casino. My hair and clothes always reeked of cigarette smoke afterward, however, the idea of sitting home and watching the ball drop on Times Square wasn't appealing this year either, especially alone.\n\nI nodded and the girls packed up their belongings.\n\nIt had been quite a while since the poodles had stayed at Nana Jo's, but, in addition to extra food and water dishes and dog food, she also kept an extra crate and dog bed for what she referred to as her \"great-grand poodles.\" So, we made another trip outside. When they were done, I cut a piece of string cheese into small toy poodle-sized pieces and put them in one of Nana Jo's spare bedrooms. I turned on the radio and gave them the treats. Then I quickly left and closed the door, a habit I'd developed since they were puppies. If they had an accident in the house, at least it would be contained. Thankfully, Nana Jo didn't stress about the dogs the way Jenna did. She had a host of rules, which included no poodles on the furniture, no accidents in the house, and no table food for the dogs. I suspected between Jenna's husband, Tony, and the twins, they'd broken nearly every rule. However, at least at Nana Jo's, I knew I wouldn't hear about it.\n\nOnce the poodles were taken care of, I found Nana Jo and the girls waiting for me in the car.\n\nThe drive to the Four Feathers Casino wasn't far. The casino was located in a small nearby town, with a population less than two thousand five hundred people. For a small town, the Four Feathers Casino and Resort, owned by the Pontolo-mas, a recently recognized Native American Tribe, was surprisingly grand. Just off Interstate 94, the uninformed traveler might have passed by the casino without giving it a second look. It appeared to be in the middle of nowhere. A winding road snaked around a picturesque woodland environment, which was the home to many deer and other animals that drivers learned to watch for as they traveled the winding road. There was a man-made lake and the drive was designed to showcase the natural landscape. At the end of the drive, there was a massive pillared entrance that led to the 150,000-square-foot casino and 500-room luxury hotel and resort. Inside, the casino had three bars, seven restaurants, retail shops, and an event center that drew big-name entertainers from all over the world.\n\nNormally, I parked in the attached parking garage. However, I was concerned the crowds would be large and parking might be challenging. Instead, I pulled up to the valet parking lane and let the casino deal with parking.\n\nOnce we were inside, we had a set routine that involved eating at the buffet and then splitting up for a few hours of gambling. Ruby Mae's expansive family generally meant we didn't have to pay for our meals. Tonight was no different. Ruby Mae had sent a text message to a niece, great-niece, cousin, or some other relation while we were traveling. So, when we arrived and approached the hostess station, our names mysteriously had already been added to the list and our table was ready and waiting for us.\n\nI didn't glance at the crowds of people standing waiting for tables.\n\nOnce we were seated in a prime location, close to Ruby Mae's favorite buffet table, I leaned across the table and whispered, \"Don't you feel bad about getting in front of all of those people?\"\n\nAll of the girls looked at me with the same, \"you must be joking\" expression and said in unison, \"No.\"\n\nI'd eaten a big lunch just a couple of hours ago, so I wasn't starving, but I did enjoy the casino's fried chicken and the smell enticed me to load up my plate. I also loved the casino's dessert bar. They had lime tarts that were amazing.\n\nWhen we were done, the hostess told us they had some bags for us that we could pick up when we were ready to leave. Normally, I would haul everyone's boxes to the car. However, Ruby Mae must have sent a message to her grandson, third cousin twice removed, or nephew-in-law, letting them know I valet parked. For that, I was grateful.\n\nThe casino was elaborately decorated, and I marveled at the hours and manpower it must have taken to transform the space into what appeared to be a mystical wonderland.\n\nNana Jo enjoyed playing poker and headed to find a game. Dorothy, who was wealthier than the rest of us, liked to play blackjack or high-limit slots. She went in search of a blackjack seat. Irma, as usual, went to the bar to pick up men. Ruby Mae, who was rarely without her knitting bag, ran into someone she knew as we were leaving the buffet and they went off to catch up on old times.\n\nI wandered around the penny slots, looking for an interesting game with an empty seat. I wouldn't call myself a big gambler; although, since I'd started hanging out with my grandmother and her friends, I'd certainly gambled a lot more than I had before. I found a seat near a game I recognized, with cute panda bears, and sat down and put twenty dollars in the machine. I could bet a minimum of fifty cents, and that was just about my limit. I set a maximum of fifty dollars and, at fifty cents per spin, I could play for quite some time.\n\nIn addition to the New Year's Eve festivities, the Four Feathers was also giving away a thousand dollars every hour, and, at the end of the night, they would give away two sports cars parked in the lobby. This meant there was a lot more noise and excitement as the announcer randomly selected names of people who had their Four Feathers's Rewards cards in the machines. Names were called and people were given five minutes to make their way to one of the stations to claim their prize. Failure to claim your prize in the allotted time meant another name would be selected.\n\nYou didn't have to be a statistician to realize you stood a better chance of getting struck by lightning than having your name called. So, I tuned out the buzz and enjoyed the monotony of pushing the button. Honestly, playing the slot machine required very little brain power since the machine did all of the work. If I went into a bonus, the machine told me. After a while, I was lost in the spin of the wheels and the routine of pushing the button. There was something therapeutic about watching the wheels spin, and I allowed my mind to wander. I thought about Max Franck and Sarah Jane Howard. Solving one murder was challenging. Solving two murders should be more challenging. However, part of me felt the second murder helped to narrow things down. Instead of just figuring out who murdered Max Franck, I could eliminate people who wouldn't or couldn't have also murdered Sarah Jane Howard. I thought through the list of suspects.\n\nI thought about Bob Marcus, the bus driver. Technically, he could have killed Max and since he'd been released from jail, he could have also killed Sarah Jane Howard. I made a mental note to check with Jenna on his alibi for the second murder. He didn't really have a reason that we knew of for killing Max. Just because he'd killed before didn't automatically mean he'd kill again. Besides, deep inside, I didn't believe he killed Max and, try as I might, I couldn't picture him killing an old woman.\n\nSidney Sherman was next. Him, I could imagine killing both Max and Sarah Jane Howard, but I couldn't believe he'd be so sloppy as to do it when he knew it would reflect negatively upon him. Sidney Sherman seemed like the type of man who would always look out for number one. Besides, I didn't see a motive.\n\nCaroline Fenton was a tough one. She definitely had a strong motive and desire for killing Max Franck. She believed him responsible for her father's downfall and death. She admitted she hated the man. But, could she kill him? Could she kill Sarah Jane Howard? I thought and thought about that one through multiple spins and several bonus games. Still, in my mind, the answer was no. Although, I couldn't deny the fact she was leaving was suspicious. Something flashed across my mind and, for an instant, I felt a jolt like lightning. However, just as quickly as the jolt appeared, it vanished. Try as I might, I couldn't get whatever thought had appeared to reappear. I knew better than to keep trying. I pushed the button for my slot machine and nothing happened. When I checked my balance, I realized there was nothing left. No need putting more money into a losing machine. So, I got up and wandered around. The next machine that caught my eye advertised X-Men. I sat down and inserted twenty dollars. I'd never played the game before, but, again, it wasn't rocket science and the machine did all of the work. I was intrigued by the graphics and thought briefly about Taylor, the MISU student who'd be working for the video game company, Vamps. I shook my head.\n\n\"Did you say something?\" the lady sitting next to me asked.\n\n\"No. I'm sorry. I was just trying to figure out how this machine works,\" I lied.\n\nShe smiled. \"It's very simple. If you get three Xs, then you get into the Free Spin bonus.\"\n\n\"Thank you.\"\n\nI pushed the button and watched reels of X-Men characters like Magneto, Charles Xavier, Wolverine, and Storm appear. After a few spins, I was able to allow my mind to wander again.\n\nRosemary Lindley was harder for me. She had the best motive for wanting to kill Max Franck. But I couldn't see her killing Sarah Jane Howard. Plus, Ruby Mae was right when she said Rosemary would have made sure, if she did kill her father, she could have gotten his bone marrow.\n\nWho was left? I pushed the button and three Xs appeared on the screen.\n\n\"You've gotten into the bonus now. It'll keep giving you free spins, but if you get a wild on the middle reel, then it switches in between heroes and villains,\" my helpful neighbor explained.\n\nI stared at the Xs and again felt that jolt of lightning through my mind. X . . . who was X? Could there be another person, someone else on the bus that we just hadn't found yet? I pushed the start button and watched the reels roll by. Who were we missing? Nana Jo and the girls had interviewed everyone. Well, everyone except Velma Levington. Nana Jo had yet to corner her. We'd have to make sure we questioned her. My phone vibrated. I had a text from Frank.\n\nWhere are you?\n\nFour Feathers Casino.\n\nI miss you.\n\nDitto.\n\nI waited, but there wasn't another text. So, I put my phone back in my pocket. I had won two hundred fifty dollars in my bonus spin, and that was good enough for me. I cashed out and took my ticket, indicating I'd won.\n\n\"You're smart to leave while you're ahead,\" my helpful neighbor said.\n\nI smiled. \"I think this noise has given me a headache. I'm going to find a quiet place to sit and think.\"\n\nI passed one of the waitresses dressed like a stereotypical Hollywood rendition of an Indian squaw in a short brown dress and got a Diet Coke. Then I walked to the hotel section of the resort, which I knew from past experience was quieter and a lot less smoky.\n\nI found a comfortable seat and sat down. After a few seconds, I pulled out my notepad and a pen and started to write.\n\nLady Elizabeth sat on the sofa in the drawing room at Hapsmere Grange. Lady Alistair sat next to her. Detective Inspector Covington warmed his hands in front of the fireplace. Lady Clara stood nearby.\n\n\"You look dreadful,\" Lady Clara declared. \"Your face is flushed and\u2014\"\n\nDetective Inspector Covington sneezed. \"Thank you, Lady Clara. I get the picture.\"\n\n\"I was only trying to be helpful. You shouldn't have gone traipsing through those fields out to the stables with Mrs. Tarkington without wellies.\" Lady Clara glanced at the detective's feet. \"Your shoes are ruined, and your feet must be soaked.\"\n\nThe detective inspector sneezed again. \"Yes, I have realized that, but I didn't know I'd have to walk through wet grass when I agreed to holiday here, so I didn't pack my Wellingtons.\"\n\nLady Clara pushed the bell, which summoned Bakerton. When the butler arrived, she gave an order. \"Please bring a large tub of hot water, towels, a warm blanket, and a huge pot of hot tea and lemon.\"\n\nBakerton bowed. \"Yes, m'lady.\"\n\n\"Look, I'll be\u2014\" Detective Inspector Covington sneezed again.\n\nLady Clara pulled a handkerchief from her sleeve and handed it to the detective inspector.\n\nHe took the dainty handkerchief and promptly put it to use. When he was done, he looked sheepish. \"Thank you.\"\n\nLady Clara pushed a chair behind his knees. \"Now, sit down and take off those wet shoes and socks and put your feet in front of the fire.\"\n\nThe detective gave Lady Elizabeth an alarmed look that begged for assistance.\n\nHowever, Lady Elizabeth merely shook her head. \"I think you'd better do as you're told. You'll catch your death of cold and I'll never forgive myself.\"\n\nLady Clara gave the detective inspector a stern look, and he sneezed three times in succession and then sat down and did as he was told.\n\nLady Elizabeth and Lady Alistair exchanged a triumphant glance.\n\nThompkins opened the doors and entered, carrying towels and a blanket. He glanced at Lady Elizabeth, who gave a slight nod in the direction of Lady Clara, who promptly took the blanket and ordered Thompkins to assist the detective inspector.\n\nThompkins placed the wet shoes and socks in front of the fireplace to dry and put the towels down near the hearth. By the time they were done, Bakerton entered with a large plastic tub filled with steaming water. He and Thompkins placed the tub in front of the detective.\n\nThe embarrassed detective attempted to get up. \"Maybe I should take the train back to London. I don't want to inconvenience anyone. I'm\u2014\"\n\nLady Clara glared. \"Sit!\" She pointed to the chair.\n\nThe detective inspector sat.\n\n\"Now, put your feet in that water, or so help me, I'll have Thompkins tie you to that chair.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth nearly burst out laughing at the look on the detective inspector's face but covered it by coughing.\n\nThe defeated Scotland Yard detective did as he was told.\n\nBakerton turned to Lady Alistair. \"Tea for everyone?\"\n\nLady Alistair nodded. \"Yes, that would be nice.\"\n\nBakerton left.\n\nThompkins turned to go but was halted when Lady Elizabeth said, \"Thompkins, I'd like for you to stay.\"\n\nThe butler bowed. \"Yes, m'lady.\"\n\nBakerton brought the tea and left, closing the doors behind him.\n\nLady Alistair poured and Thompkins assisted in distributing the tea. When everyone was served, the butler stood quietly near the wall.\n\n\"Now, who would like to go first?\" Lady Elizabeth asked.\n\nDetective Inspector Covington sneezed twice and then pulled out his notepad. \"Maybe I should go before I'm sent to my bed like a child.\" He glanced at Lady Clara, who merely raised an eyebrow but remained silent.\n\nHe told them about the conversation he'd had with Constance Tarkington and her desires to expand the stables.\n\nLady Clara picked at an imaginary piece of lint on her skirt. \"Is that all that you two talked about?\"\n\nIf Detective Inspector Covington hadn't been ill, he might have noticed that Lady Clara avoided making eye contact and had a very pretty flush in her cheeks. However, the detective didn't seem as observant as usual. Instead, he merely said, \"Pretty much. The woman is obsessed with horses and riding. She hardly talked of anything else.\" He shivered. \"She's got some beast of a horse named Satan, who she's particularly attached to.\" He muttered silently, \"Which seems fitting.\"\n\nLady Clara smiled and glanced at the detective. \"Well . . . that's . . . why that's splendid,\" she said a bit breathy.\n\nDetective Inspector Covington sneezed again. \"What did you find out from Desmond?\"\n\nLady Clara sighed. \"Not much. He's such a bore. I sat there for what felt like hours while he nattered on about himself and his career on the stage. No one understands him. His wife doesn't appreciate him. His cousin didn't understand the artistry involved in going onstage and wouldn't shell out money to put on productions, which would guarantee him good roles and gain him the recognition he deserved.\" She recited. \"However, he has high hopes that things will change now that Mrs. Forsythe is dead.\"\n\n\"Did he say that?\" Lady Alistair paused with her cup midway to her mouth.\n\nLady Clara shook her head. \"No. He was careful.\" She bit her lip. \"But he does seem concerned about the fact that no one can find Mrs. Forsythe's will. He thought she might have given it to you.\" She turned to Lady Elizabeth.\n\n\"Does he indeed?\" Lady Elizabeth knitted.\n\nLady Elizabeth shared the information she and Lady Alistair heard from Mrs. Sanderson.\n\nLady Clara paced. \"What do you suppose it means? I mean, why would they kill the old lady if they didn't know for certain they'd get the money? I wonder where she hid the will.\"\n\nThompkins coughed discretely. \"M'lady, I think I might be able to shed some light.\" He recounted what he'd learned from the maid and told them about the red lacquered box.\n\nLady Elizabeth sat up straighter in her chair. \"That's very interesting. Those boxes often have multiple hiding places.\" Lady Elizabeth stared into space for several moments.\n\nDetective Inspector Covington stared at Lady Elizabeth. \"You're concerned about something. What is it?\"\n\nShe sighed. \"To be completely honest, I'm worried. I'm very worried about that maid, but as long as none of the others realize that the lacquered box could have multiple hiding places, she should be safe.\"\n\nLady Clara gasped and covered her mouth with her hand.\n\n\"What is it, dear?\" Lady Elizabeth asked.\n\n\"When I was in the study with Desmond, I noticed the collection of Chinese boxes.\" She paused and her eyes went from one person to the other. \"I went to a lecture about Chinese artifacts at the National Museum, and I mentioned about the different hiding places.\" She stared like a deer caught in headlights at Lady Elizabeth.\n\nLady Elizabeth turned to Detective Inspector Covington. \"We need to get to Battersley Manor at once.\"\n\nThe Scotland Yard detective stood up. \"You believe the maid's in danger?\"\n\n\"I'm afraid I do. I believe she may be in a great amount of danger.\"\n\nThe detective dried off his feet and grabbed his socks from the mantle.\n\n\"I believe if we don't act quickly, that poor girl will be murdered,\" Lady Elizabeth said.\n\nLady Clara looked stricken but stared at Detective Inspector Covington. \"You can't possibly put those wet things back on.\"\n\n\"If you think I'm staying here\"\u2014he sneezed\u2014\"while you all go after a murderer, then you're batty.\"\n\nThompkins walked over. \"Perhaps you would permit me.\" He handed the detective a pair of clean, but more importantly, dry socks. \"I believe I can find you a pair of dry boots, but, if you will permit, I have a bit of information to report.\" He turned and left.\n\nThompkins returned with the boots and the detective donned them. He sneezed several more times. Thompkins also reached inside his jacket and pulled out a red lacquered box with a gold filigree dragon on top.\n\nLady Elizabeth took the box the butler extended to her. \"How did you get this?\"\n\nThompkins coughed. \"When Dora mentioned the box, I wondered if there might be more to it and asked if she would permit me to borrow it for a short time.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth stared at the butler with wide eyes filled with admiration. \"Thompkins, you're wonderful.\"\n\nThe door to the drawing room opened and Bakerton entered slowly. The butler seemed stiffer than normal. He stood silently for several seconds.\n\nLady Alistair looked with confusion. \"Bakerton?\"\n\nThe door opened wider to reveal Constance Tarkington with a gun pointed at Bakerton's back. \"You can hand over that box.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth stood very still. \"Where's Dora?\"\n\nConstance Tarkington gave a mad laugh. \"Sleeping, very soundly at the moment, thanks to a double dose of sleeping draught.\"\n\nDetective Inspector Covington moved toward Constance Tarkington, who pushed the gun into Bakerton's back. \"Keep moving and I'll be forced to use this relic as a shield.\"\n\n\"Please, don't,\" Lady Alistair pleaded.\n\n\"Then give me what I want and no one will get hurt.\" She extended her hand to Lady Elizabeth.\n\n\"I don't believe that,\" Lady Elizabeth said. \"You pushed Eleanor Forsythe down a flight of stairs. Why should we believe you won't kill us too?\"\n\nConstance Tarkington sneered. \"That old woman had it coming. Her and all her blasted Chinese vases and boxes. She didn't care about anything except her Oriental treasures. The bloody cow didn't give two pence for me and my comfort. I asked . . . no, begged her to upgrade the stables, but no. She wouldn't and Desmond doesn't care about anything but the theatre and trying to pursue a career on the stage.\" She turned to Lady Elizabeth. \"Do you know that sniveling idiot had the nerve to tell me he plans to sell the house as soon as he can.\" She took a step into the room toward Lady Elizabeth. \"After all the years I've put up with his droning on and on about the stage . . . I've put up with living in that damp, dark mausoleum and all I asked was for a little money to go into the stables and the horses.\" She was now standing directly in front of Lady Elizabeth.\n\n\"Surely, you didn't have to kill her,\" Lady Alistair said.\n\nConstance Tarkington shrugged. \"I'd waited long enough and I'm done waiting.\" She leveled her gun at Lady Elizabeth. \"Now, give me that box.\"\n\nDetective Inspector Covington inched closer to Constance. One of the floorboards squeaked and Constance Tarkington turned her gaze to the side.\n\nLady Elizabeth tossed the red box across the room to Lady Clara, who reached up and caught it.\n\nConstance Tarkington turned toward Lady Clara just as Detective Inspector Covington leapt across the room. He wrestled the gun away from Constance Tarkington, who wiggled and squirmed. Eventually, the detective inspector managed to wrap both arms around the woman and hold her until she stilled.\n\nLady Elizabeth turned to Thompkins. \"Please call the police to come pick up Mrs. Tarkington and send the doctor to Battersley Manor to check on Dora.\"\n\n\"Yes, m'lady.\" Thompkins turned to leave.\n\nBakerton, who was visibly shaking, did the first unprofessional thing in his entire career. He sat down in the presence of his mistress.\n\nChapter 20\n\nMy phone vibrated and brought me away from 1938 England. I glanced down and saw a message from Frank. What are you doing?\n\nSitting in the hotel lobby, writing.\n\nI waited, but there was no response. I stretched and glanced down at the time. We always met in the lobby, but tonight, we would wait until after the New Year's festivities. I yawned.\n\n\"Tired?\"\n\nI looked up. \"Frank? What are you doing here?\" I stared in shocked surprise.\n\n\"I really wanted to ring in the New Year with you. So, I left Benny in charge and drove here.\" He stared into my face. \"Is that okay?\"\n\nI sprang from my seat, threw my arms around his neck, and squeezed him.\n\nHe nuzzled my neck. \"I'll take that as a yes.\"\n\nI responded with a passionate kiss.\n\nFrank pulled away. \"Wow.\" He tugged at his shirt collar. \"Is it just me or did it suddenly get warm in here?\"\n\nI laughed. I reached down and grabbed my purse and notebook. \"How about I buy you a drink with my winnings?\"\n\nHe raised an eyebrow. \"If you think you can ply me with liquor and then have your way with me, then I just have one thing to say.\"\n\nI waited. \"Well?\"\n\n\"Don't waste your money on the liquor.\"\n\nWe laughed and walked hand in hand.\n\nThe Four Feathers had recently added a piano bar to the hotel area of the resort. This allowed those staying at the hotel, who wanted a drink in a slightly quieter locale, to relax. We headed there in the hopes that it would be a little less congested.\n\nAt the bar, we found Irma leaning against the bar with men on either side of her. Dorothy was perched atop a baby grand piano belting out a song while a middle-aged man with vibrant red hair and a beard, who was dressed in a tuxedo, accompanied her.\n\nFrank paused for a moment when he recognized Dorothy. He stopped and looked at me.\n\nI shrugged and hurried toward a small table I spotted in the corner.\n\nSeated, he leaned over. \"I knew you said your grandmother's friends were a bit . . . uninhibited, but I didn't expect . . . I mean, are they like this all the time?\"\n\nI shook my head. \"No. They aren't like this all the time, but you should see them when they really get revved up.\"\n\nHis eyes widened, but he merely smiled.\n\nDorothy was a surprisingly good singer. She had a deep, throaty voice, and her style matched the bar's atmosphere. When she finished, everyone applauded.\n\nIt looked as though Dorothy was going to slide down off the piano, but her audience was having none of it. The small crowd applauded and yelled and cajoled until she agreed to sing more. Her response was met with enthusiastic applause. Dorothy and the pianist consulted for a few seconds and then decided on their next song, which was Nat King Cole's \"Unforgettable .\"\n\nWe sat in silence for a few seconds and listened along with everyone else. Then our waiter broke the spell by asking what we wanted to drink.\n\nFrank ordered a bottle of champagne, which I recognized as being expensive. Our waiter smiled and left to get the order with a bit more pep in his step than when he'd first come to our table, perhaps sensing the expensive bottle of champagne meant a higher tip.\n\nI raised an eyebrow, but Frank merely shrugged. \"You only live once. This is our first New Year's together, I thought it should be special.\"\n\nI smiled at the thoughtfulness and wished I'd taken more care in my attire. However, I decided to let those thoughts of insecurity stay in the past and focus on the moment and the future.\n\nThe waiter returned quickly with our champagne, a bucket of ice, and two glasses. He popped the cork, which made a momentary interruption to Dorothy's song, and then quickly filled our glasses with the bubbling elixir before rushing away.\n\nWe toasted to the future and then sipped our champagne.\n\nWe talked about nothing important, drank champagne, held hands, and enjoyed each other's company until the announcer announced five minutes until the new year. Frank quickly paid the bill, poured the remaining champagne into our glasses, and indicated we should leave.\n\nI grabbed ahold of his arm and followed. I was surprised when he led me outside. It was December in Michigan, which meant cold, but I followed.\n\nOutside of the main doors was a covered porch with large overhead heat lamps. He guided me there, then passed me the glasses. He took off his jacket and put it around my shoulders and held me close and rubbed my arms to keep my blood circulating. He leaned down and whispered in my ear, \"You okay? If you're freezing, we can go back inside, but I love to watch the stars every New Year's Eve.\"\n\nI smiled. \"Actually, I feel rather warm.\"\n\nI felt his laughter and he held me tightly to his chest with his arms around me.\n\nWe heard the announcer and everyone in the casino begin the countdown. When they got to five, I handed Frank a glass of champagne.\n\nI looked at the night sky and marveled at the vastness of space. The countdown continued. When they reached one, there was an uproar of cheers, noisemakers, and what sounded like fireworks. I looked at Frank, prepared to toast, but the look in his eyes indicated he had other ideas. He bent down and kissed me. When he pulled away, he smiled. \"I hope we can spend every New Year's Eve this way.\"\n\nI nodded. \"Me too.\"\n\nWe toasted the new year and watched the stars a bit longer until some of the casino patrons started to wander outside, breaking the lovely mood.\n\nWe finished our champagne and then went back inside.\n\nRuby Mae was sitting by one of the enormous fireplaces that flanked either side of the casino lobby. She was surrounded by several people, who I assumed were relatives. We decided not to disturb them and waited near the other fireplace.\n\nEventually, Nana Jo made her way to the lobby. She was wearing a paper hat and had a noisemaker. She smiled when she saw Frank. \"Glad you made it.\" She looked around. \"Where are Irma and Dorothy?\"\n\nI told her we left them in the piano bar and she left to go get them.\n\nFrank looked concerned. \"Maybe I should go give her a hand. I don't think Irma and Dorothy may be too anxious to leave.\"\n\nI smiled. \"Trust me, Nana Jo will drag them out if she has to.\"\n\nAbout five minutes later, Nana Jo returned. She and Dorothy were on either side of Irma, who was quite tipsy.\n\nFrank took Nana Jo's place as Irma's prop while Nana Jo took our tickets to the cash machine to cash out. Irma flirted with Frank, who looked uncomfortable but endured.\n\nWhen Nana Jo returned, she divided up the winnings, which amounted to five hundred dollars each. I gasped at the money when she handed it to me.\n\n\"Somebody won big tonight. I only contributed two hundred and fifty to the pot.\"\n\nWe always pooled our winnings at the end of the night and divided them. That way, everyone usually left with something. If one person lost, someone else usually won. Rarely had we ever left with nothing.\n\n\"I had a great night on the poker table and Dorothy hit it big on the blackjack table.\"\n\nSince I valet parked, I gave the parking ticket to the attendant so they would bring my car around.\n\nRuby Mae's family had made sure our to-go bags were brought to the front and before long, we loaded up and prepared to go.\n\nFrank saw us all into the car. He bent down and kissed me. \"Are you okay to drive home?\"\n\nI smiled. \"Absolutely.\"\n\n\"Maybe I should follow you.\"\n\nI shook my head. \"That's sweet but completely unnecessary. I'm fine.\"\n\nThe drive back to Shady Acres was uneventful. Irma slept the entire way. The others were tired and talked about the fun they'd all had at the casino. When I complimented Dorothy on her singing voice, she explained she used to sing at nightclubs on the weekends while she was in college to earn extra spending money.\n\n\"I guess that's where Jillian gets her talent.\" I glanced in the rearview mirror and was rewarded by Dorothy's smile.\n\nI went inside Nana Jo's to collect my poodles, who were fast asleep in the guest room. In fact, turning on the lights didn't even wake them. I had to shake them.\n\nSnickers looked around as though confused and yawned.\n\n\"Some watchdog. I could have been a robber and neither of you bothered to bark,\" I joked.\n\nSnickers stretched several more times and yawned.\n\nOreo stretched and pranced around as though to say, I wasn't sleeping.\n\nI let them outside to potty and went back in to say goodbye to my grandmother.\n\n\"It's almost two in the morning. Why don't you all just sleep here tonight. You can go home later.\" She yawned.\n\nI thought about it but decided I'd rather sleep in my own bed. I was grateful I'd made that decision when, just a few seconds later, we heard a key in the lock.\n\nFreddie, Nana Jo's boyfriend, walked in. \"Is everything okay? I saw the light on.\"\n\n\"When did you get back?\" Nana Jo asked.\n\nHe released a deep breath. \"Just now. I'm worn out.\" He glanced over at me. \"Hi, Sam.\" There was a moment of indecision when he looked as though he was going to leave.\n\nI smiled. \"Hello. I'm glad you're back. I was just leaving.\" I turned and gave my grandmother a kiss. \"Happy New Year.\"\n\n\"Happy New Year.\"\n\nThe poodles and I drove home. When we left the garage, I couldn't help pausing to look at the stars. I smiled as I remembered the moment outside of the casino, looking up into that same night sky with Frank. It was a lovely memory. Snickers took advantage of being outside to answer the call of nature, while Oreo sniffed and played in the snow.\n\nInside, I dried off the poodles and we hurried upstairs.\n\nI was exhausted and got ready for bed. However, something kept tickling the back of my mind. Just as I dozed off to sleep, I remembered what it was. I picked up my phone and dialed my sister. The phone rang several times before she answered.\n\n\"Are you in jail?\"\n\nI paused. \"No.\"\n\n\"The hospital?\"\n\n\"No.\"\n\nShe sighed. \"Then you better have a really good reason for calling at this time of the morning.\"\n\nI glanced at the clock. \"Sorry.\"\n\nShe grunted. \"What do you want?\"\n\nI quickly explained about finding the photograph and the key.\n\nShe was silent for a long time and I was afraid she'd fallen asleep.\n\n\"Jenna?\" I whispered. \"Are you still there?\"\n\n\"Yes. It's evidence and you need to turn it over to the police.\"\n\n\"Okay, but we were hoping maybe we could . . . Jenna?\" I glanced down. The phone was black. She'd hung up. \"Happy New Year.\"\n\nI called Nana Jo. I knew she'd be awake. She picked up after just a couple of rings.\n\n\"Did you ever get a chance to interview Velma Levington?\"\n\n\"Not yet, but I plan to tackle her first thing.\"\n\n\"Well, maybe you should get to it. Remember what Ruby Mae said.\" I paused. \"Or was it Dorothy? Well, one of them mentioned that several people were planning to leave Shady Acres.\"\n\n\"You think she knows something?\"\n\nI paused. \"I'm working on an idea . . . it's a crazy idea, so I want to think it through a bit more.\"\n\nI heard Freddie ask a question and Nana Jo whispered a response, which reminded me of the time.\n\n\"Look, I want to mull this idea over a bit more. In fact, I might bounce it off Detective Pitt first. I'll call you in a few hours and let you know.\"\n\nI needed to make one more call, but Chicago was an hour behind and decided I had better wait. I put my cell phone down and thought over what I knew of Max Franck and the other suspects. I thought I was right, but how to prove it?\n\nAs tired as I was just a short time ago, there was no chance of sleep now. I was wired. I tossed and turned for close to an hour before I gave up on sleep and went to my computer to write.\n\nDetective Inspector Covington kept a firm hand on his captive, but Constance Tarkington had spent all of her energy and sat quietly in the chair.\n\nWhen Thompkins returned, he brought a tea cart.\n\nLady Elizabeth smiled. \"I think Bakerton might need something a little stronger than tea.\" She turned to Lady Alistair, who nodded. \"In fact, I think we might all do with something a bit stronger.\"\n\nThompkins nodded. He left the room and returned with a bottle of brandy and several glasses. He poured a bit of the amber liquid into the glasses and turned to leave.\n\n\"I think you should stay, Thompkins.\" Lady Elizabeth sipped the liquid. \"After all, if it weren't for your quick thinking, Constance Tarkington might have gotten away with this.\"\n\nThe butler bowed stiffly and stood silently in the corner.\n\n\"Nice catch, by the way.\" Lady Elizabeth smiled at Lady Clara. \"Do you think you can open the box?\"\n\nConstance Tarkington looked up but said nothing.\n\nLady Clara turned the box around in her hands while she talked. \"Well, I've been looking at this dragon on top and I think if you . . .\" She put the box onto a table and pushed down on both of the eyes of the dragon and a panel opened. She looked inside, frowned, and continued to stare at the box. After a few seconds, she slid the dragon's tail and another panel flipped down.\n\nConstance Tarkington gulped.\n\nLady Clara examined the opening. After a few seconds, she reached in and pulled out a folded sheet of paper. She passed the paper to Lady Elizabeth.\n\nLady Elizabeth unfolded the paper and read it. \"Eleanor Forsythe's will.\" She perused the document. \"Desmond Tarkington gets the house, but that's it. She left her favorite red lacquered Chinese puzzle box and a small legacy to her maid, Dora . . . Bakerton.\" She turned to the butler.\n\n\"Dora's my granddaughter,\" he said with a quiver in his voice. \"I nearly passed out when she said she'd put her to sleep.\"\n\nThere was a timid knock on the door and a maid stuck her head inside. \"Constable Redmond.\" She stepped back and the door opened to a constable, who looked around nervously. He spotted Detective Inspector Covington and walked over to him. He whispered something to the Scotland Yard detective.\n\nDetective Inspector Covington smiled. \"The maid is okay. The doctor said she'll be fine.\"\n\nBakerton put his face in his hands and wept.\n\nThe Scotland Yard detective handed Constance Tarkington over to the constable and announced, \"I'm going into the village with Constable Redmond.\" He glanced around the room, but his gaze lingered longest on Lady Clara. Then, the two policemen left with their prisoner.\n\nAfter a few minutes, Bakerton pulled himself together and stood. \"I'm terribly sorry.\"\n\n\"No apologies necessary,\" Lady Alistair reassured the butler. \"Thompkins, perhaps you could\u2014\"\n\n\"Of course, your ladyship.\" Thompkins bowed and then assisted the older butler out of the room.\n\nLady Clara continued to examine the red lacquered box.\n\nLady Alistair sipped her brandy. \"That was certainly astonishing.\" She turned to her friend. \"What on earth put you on to her?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth took a sip of her brandy and then placed her glass on a nearby table and picked up her knitting. \"Several things, actually. First, I thought it was suspicious that Constance just happened to be in the subway at the same time when Eleanor Forsythe had a fatal fall. Mrs. Sanderson mentioned she'd called them, but it bothered me she had the fall after she'd talked to me. I also thought it odd Mrs. Forsythe mentioned she'd had an accident with the soap. She might have fallen, if it hadn't been for Dora. At the time, I didn't put together the fact that Desmond had been gone.\" She pursed her lips. \"Maybe, if I'd been quicker . . .\"\n\nLady Alistair reached across and squeezed her friend's hand. \"You can't blame yourself.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth sighed and smiled weakly. \"I know you're right, but . . .\" She shuddered.\n\n\"Is that all?\" Lady Clara asked while she continued to examine the lacquered box.\n\nLady Elizabeth knitted. \"I remembered Eleanor Forsythe mentioned how much she loved puzzles and Chinese artifacts.\" She paused and thought for a few moments. \"She kept saying how she loved puzzles when we were at tea. Then, when Thompkins mentioned how Constance Tarkington always seemed to be listening, well . . . I just felt it had to be her. Desmond seemed too timid to have killed his cousin.\" She glanced over at Lady Clara. \"Clara, you seem absolutely intrigued by that box.\"\n\nLady Clara picked up the box and stared at it. \"There's a very strange symbol on the corner that really seems out of place.\" She reached out a finger and pressed. \"I just wonder if we've uncovered all of the box's secrets.\"\n\nA very small drawer popped open and Lady Clara gave a small cry of surprise. Her eyes grew wide and she tilted the box and out came several brightly colored stones. \"My goodness.\"\n\nLady Elizabeth nodded. \"If I'm not mistaken, that's the real treasure Eleanor Forsythe and her husband had. She couldn't leave the house to Dora because it was entailed to Desmond. However, if you recall what Dora said to Thompkins, Eleanor Forsythe and her husband loved China, but his family wanted him to be sensible.\" She smiled. \"This was their way of rebelling. They took their money and put it into gems and hid them in that box, which she knew neither Desmond nor Constance would appreciate.\"\n\n\"Goodness gracious.\" Lady Clara held up one of the stones. \"This appears to be jade.\"\n\nLady Alistair said, \"Do you think Dora will get to keep them?\"\n\nLady Elizabeth nodded. \"I believe that's what Eleanor intended.\" She nodded. \"I think Dora will be an excellent steward.\"\n\nChapter 21\n\nAs soon as the clock hit a decent hour, I called Detective Pitt. There was so much to go over, I asked if he would come to the store so I could fill him in. My second call was to Rosemary Lindley. I had two pressing questions. The first one was easy. Did she know if her father had a gym membership or if he had a locker anyplace?\n\nSurprisingly, she didn't ask why I wanted to know. The idea of her father working out made her laugh, but eventually she sobered up and thought for a few minutes.\n\n\"When I was small, he used to like to box. If he went anywhere, it would have been the gym. There used to be one near the newspaper where he worked. It was a terrible neighborhood, but he loved it.\"\n\n\"Great.\" My second question was a little harder. I filled her in on the events that happened at her father's memorial. I asked if she would call and ask Caroline Fenton if she would be willing to try again, this afternoon, with a brief Mass. Even her silence sounded reluctant, but I'd had hours to work up a counter. \"I know it's a holiday and last minute. However, I think it's important. In fact, I think it would be really awesome if you could come too.\"\n\n\"It's New Year's Day. Can't this wait until tomorrow?\"\n\n\"Actually, there are several people who I know are planning to leave and won't be here tomorrow. I know it's a huge inconvenience, but I wouldn't ask if it wasn't important.\" I waited.\n\nShe was silent for so long I actually looked at my cell to make sure she hadn't hung up, but the call was still engaged. Eventually, she said, \"Yes. I'll do it.\" She released a heavy sigh. \"But you need to know something. I'm not doing it for him or for me. I'm doing it for Isabelle. I think she needs this. She needs to say goodbye.\"\n\nI said a silent prayer of thanks and worked to keep the glee from my voice. \"Great. Leave the details to me. I'll take care of it, but I need you to call Caroline Fenton to get permission. It'll hold more weight coming from you.\"\n\nWhile I was on a roll, I called Frank. \"Happy New Year. Can I borrow Benny for a few hours today?\"\n\n\"Happy New Year to you.\" I could hear the laughter in his voice. \"If I didn't know you better, I might be worried about that request.\"\n\n\"Don't be silly. I just need a priest to do a Mass at the last minute, and he's the only one I know.\"\n\n\"Should I ask why?\"\n\n\"You probably don't want to know. Can you check and text me and let me know?\"\n\nWe chatted for a few minutes about nothing, but my cheeks got warm and I remembered I needed to get showered before Detective Pitt arrived.\n\nI hung up with Frank and showered, dressed, and grabbed a cup of coffee and some scones from the freezer and headed downstairs. The poodles trotted along beside me and, by the time Detective Pitt arrived, we were all set.\n\nFrank sent a text message while I was walking downstairs that Benny agreed. So, I gave him the time I'd worked out with Rebecca Lindley for the Mass and told him I'd meet him there.\n\nWhen I opened the door, Detective Pitt growled, \"This better be good.\"\n\n\"Happy New Year.\"\n\nHe grunted and walked to the back of the store.\n\nSince we were officially closed, I locked the door and followed him to the back.\n\n\"Coffee?\"\n\nHe grunted again.\n\nI took that grunt to mean yes and handed him a mug of coffee and a scone.\n\nI waited for him to sit before I started.\n\n\"I think I know who killed Max Franck and Sarah Jane Howard, but I'm going to need your help to prove it.\"\n\nHe glared over the top of his coffee mug but said nothing.\n\nHe was definitely grumpy in the morning.\n\n\"What I'd like to do is have a big reveal, like in Hercule Poirot books, where you bring all of the suspects together and then the sleuth\"\u2014I pointed to him\u2014\"can reveal whodunit.\"\n\nThe glare he gave me earlier became a scowl. \"Why don't you tell me whodunit and I'll go arrest them and we can skip this 'big reveal.'\"\n\nI was afraid he'd go there. \"Because I don't really have any proof.\"\n\n\"What good is bringing people together and accusing someone with no proof?\"\n\nI took a deep breath. \"Well, I'm hoping someone will remember something or say something to help. Or maybe the killer will say or do something to give themselves away.\"\n\nHe laughed. \"Are you joking? This isn't television. Real killers don't crack under the pressure of hearing the evidence against them. Real killers laugh in the face of overwhelming mountains of evidence and deny to their dying day that they're guilty.\"\n\n\"If that's the case, then I doubt you'll ever be able to arrest the killer.\"\n\nThe scowl came back. \"Who's the murderer?\"\n\nI hesitated. \"Before I tell you that, I need to give you something.\" I reached in my pocket and handed over the locker key and the photograph.\n\n\"What's this?\"\n\n\"Irma found them in her purse.\"\n\nLike a pot that bubbled up on the stove, I could see the steam bubbling up inside. His face grew red. His eyes were huge, and his nostrils flared.\n\nBefore he blew a gasket, I held up a hand. \"Look, we weren't withholding evidence in a murder investigation. She just found these items last night.\"\n\nHe huffed. \"How is it possible she had these items in her purse for an entire week and just now noticed them?\"\n\n\"Have you seen the inside of her purse? Nana Jo says it's where sick elephants go to die. Honestly, you're lucky she found them at all.\"\n\nHe took several deep breaths. \"Okay,\" he said slowly. \"What are they?\"\n\nI reminded Detective Pitt that Max Franck was a writer. \"I suspect the photograph was research for his book.\"\n\nHe picked up the photo and stared at it for several seconds and then put it down and picked up the key. \"And this?\"\n\nI shrugged. \"I called Rosemary Lindley this morning and she said her dad used to have a locker at the gym near his newspaper.\" I gave him the address I'd googled after talking to Rosemary. \"I don't know if he still has a locker there or if this key is even Max Franck's key.\" I stared at him. \"However, I think someone\"\u2014I looked pointedly at Detective Pitt\u2014\"should go and check the locker.\"\n\n\"It's New Year's Day. Can't this wait until tomorrow? I have plans.\"\n\n\"We don't have time to wait. Caroline Fenton is leaving and so is Velma Levington. Sergeant Alvarez is trying to extradite Bob Marcus to Chicago, and Sidney Sherman could be in Timbuktu in a couple of days.\"\n\nDetective Pitt stared at me and then ran his hand over his head and ruined his comb-over. \"Fine.\" He took the key and put it in his pocket, finished his coffee, and shoved the last bits of scone into his mouth. Then he got up and walked out.\n\nI called Nana Jo and gave her instructions and then hurried upstairs. I was antsy and nervous. I'd never tried anything like this before, and it could end up being a big mess. However, no matter how I played things in my mind, I couldn't think of any other way to prevent the killer from getting out of town without at least trying.\n\nI let the poodles outside and gave them treats when they came in. I then grabbed my purse and left. I stopped at the grocery store and picked up the food I'd ordered for the MISU football tailgate party we'd planned for Nana Jo's. There was plenty of food, and I was able to buy extra chicken wings, dip, and chips. The food would have to do double duty\u2014tailgate\/memorial Mass.\n\nCaroline Fenton was clearly not happy about the last-minute Mass for Max Franck and Sarah Jane Howard. However, rejecting the request of a bereaved daughter would have reflected very poorly not only on Caroline Fenton but Shady Acres. Regardless of her feelings about the man, Sarah Jane Howard was a resident of Shady Acres. She deserved to be remembered. Plus, I was providing the food and the drinks, and I was even providing my own priest. How could she say no.\n\nNana Jo and the girls were there, and they'd enlisted the help of several others to unload everything from my car.\n\nGaston stopped me and gave me a pouty look. \"Store-bought chicken wings? Samantha, you have wounded my soul. You know I can provide herb marinated chicken wings with a scallion goat cheese dip that would make your soul sing.\"\n\nI laughed. \"I know you're an excellent chef, but this was rather last minute.\"\n\nHe shook his head. \"I forgive you this time, but next time, you call me.\"\n\nI promised him I would.\n\nThe lounge was decorated in MISU colors, with streamers hanging from the ceiling, in preparation for the tailgate party, but we would have to ignore that.\n\nFrank and Benny arrived shortly afterward. This time, Benny looked very clerical with his black shirt and white cleric collar. He had a beautiful embroidered stole, which he wore around his neck.\n\n\"Thank you so much for agreeing to do this, especially last minute.\" I shook his hand.\n\nBenny smiled, but the smile didn't reach his eyes. \"Anything for Frank. I owe him so much.\"\n\nI felt horrible using my relationship with Frank, but I didn't have much time to dwell on my feelings. People were starting to fill the lounge.\n\nRosemary Lindley arrived with Isabelle in a wheelchair. The fragile girl looked tired, but her eyes were bright.\n\n\"Thank you so much for coming.\" I looked at Isabelle. \"Both of you.\"\n\nShe smiled. \"It's a sad occasion, but I'm glad Mom let me come.\"\n\nRosemary wheeled her daughter into the lounge.\n\nI glanced at my watch. Detective Pitt had yet to arrive, but I didn't think we could wait any longer.\n\nTen minutes after the appointed time, I gave Benny a nod to get things started and went into the lounge for the Mass.\n\nI wasn't Catholic, so I hadn't attended very many Masses, but the ones I had attended always impressed me. I remember wondering how the congregation knew how to respond and when. \"Peace be with you. And also with you,\" threw me for a loop the first time I attended Mass. The service was short, but Benny made it very meaningful.\n\n\"Are you sure this is going to work?\" Nana Jo asked.\n\n\"No.\"\n\n\"Well, okay.\"\n\n\"How did you get Velma Levington to agree to stay?\"\n\n\"I did what you suggested. I told her we might need her help with security. Since she was so skilled in aikido, I asked her to be part of the security team.\" She chuckled. \"Don't worry. Dorothy and I will be nearby.\"\n\nI nodded. I looked around and was relieved when Detective Pitt arrived with Bob Marcus in tow. That had been the trickiest part of the entire plan, but Detective Pitt came through.\n\nBob sat near the door. Detective Pitt walked up to me and handed me a large envelope.\n\nInside the envelope were articles and notes, receipts, and even napkins with information scribbled on them. There was an envelope addressed to Rosemary and a flash drive. I wished I'd had time to check the drive, but instead, I quickly flipped through the notes.\n\nThe stage was set.\n\nWhen Benny finished the Mass, he asked if anyone had anything to say. That was Detective Pitt's cue. He walked to the front of the room and looked around at everyone.\n\n\"Hello . . . I'm . . . um . . . I'm . . . my . . . ah . . . name,\" he stammered and stumbled.\n\n\"Dear God, the man's afraid of public speaking,\" Nana Jo whispered.\n\nThe crowd's energy and interest began to waver and the impact of the detective's performance was lost.\n\n\"Do something,\" Nana Jo said.\n\nI sighed. \"Detective Pitt has been battling a bit of a cold, and I think he could use some water.\" I grabbed a bottle of water and walked to the front. I handed the bottle to the detective, who immediately feigned a coughing fit and stepped back to allow me to talk.\n\n\"I think Detective Pitt wanted to thank all of you for coming out to honor and remember Max Franck and Sarah Jane Howard.\" I looked up and saw that Velma Levington, Dorothy, and Nana Jo had moved closer to Bob.\n\nI took a deep breath. \"Many of us didn't know Max Franck long. In fact, many of you may not have known Max Franck had been an investigative reporter for many years. He won many prizes over the course of his long career.\"\n\nCaroline Fenton snorted.\n\nI ignored her outburst. \"He was a published author. In fact, he was in the process of writing another book.\" I held up the envelope Detective Pitt gave me. \"He had information that would send a murderer who has gone unpunished for decades to prison.\" I took a deep breath. \"That's why he was killed, to prevent him from revealing the truth.\"\n\nDetective Pitt stepped forward and whispered in my ear. \"What are you doing? This wasn't part of the script. The murderer's going to think . . .\"\n\nI nodded. \"Yes, exactly.\"\n\n\"But you're making yourself a target.\"\n\n\"It's the only way.\"\n\nI stepped forward and announced loudly, \"Sarah Jane Howard knew who murdered Max Franck, and that's why she was killed. Once the police get a chance to look through this evidence, they'll know what I do.\" I took a deep breath. \"But, we're here to honor Max Franck and Sarah Jane Howard. So, please bow your heads for a moment of silence.\"\n\nEveryone looked stunned, but they bowed their heads. I waited several seconds and then said. \"Amen. Now, please help yourself to refreshments.\"\n\nI walked toward the back of the room. Frank was beside me by the time I got to the lobby. \"Just what do you think you're doing?\"\n\nI looked at him. \"I need you to trust me.\"\n\nHe stared at me as though I'd lost my mind. \"This isn't about trust. This is about your safety.\"\n\n\"I need you to trust me. Please?\"\n\nI could see the internal struggle, but, after a few seconds, he let go of my arm and allowed me to walk out alone.\n\nI walked to the back of the building and stood near the door and waited. It didn't take long. I heard a crunch of a foot in the snow.\n\n\"You're one gutsy broad.\" Velma Levington slipped around the corner of the building. She had a large gun leveled at me.\n\nVelma Levington laughed. \"How did you know it was me?\"\n\n\"It was something Sarah Jane Howard said. She noticed everyone and she mentioned that you stayed on the bus, supposedly asleep. She also said she was the first one back on the bus and you were already there. Several people said you were on the bus . . . asleep. No one saw you get off. I found it hard to believe you could have slept through a man getting stabbed in the kidneys.\"\n\nShe frowned. \"That's it?\"\n\n\"Then you said Bob stabbed Max and Sarah Jane, but the police hadn't released the cause of death. There's no way you could have known that, unless you were the one who stabbed them. You were the only one who said you saw Bob standing over Max's body. You were the one who saw Bob push Irma.\" I tried to regulate my breathing so I didn't sound as nervous as I felt. \"Then, when Caroline Fenton fainted, you said you had medical training from when you were in the military.\" I took a deep breath. \"Is that where you learned how to kill silently with a knife to the kidneys?\"\n\nShe nodded. \"I saw plenty of silent kills in my time. After a while, you get desensitized to it.\"\n\nI saw a slight movement in the distance but tried not to focus on it and focused on keeping Velma talking. \"How'd you get into killing for money?\"\n\nShe laughed. \"When I left the military, I was broke. I had no money. No job. Nothing. The war was supposed to make things better, but it wasn't long before I realized nothing had changed.\" She sneered. \"Well, nothing outside had changed, but I had. I was different. I wasn't the same bright-eyed, na\u00efve girl who had gone into the military. I'd seen too much.\" She shrugged. \"Done too much. Then, I met a man who asked if I wanted to make a lot of money.\" She paused. \"Give me the envelope.\"\n\nI clutched it to my chest. \"If I give you the envelope, you're going to shoot me.\"\n\nShe nodded. \"You're right.\"\n\n\"Why don't I leave the envelope on the ground.\" I bent down. \"I'll step away and you can take it and get away.\"\n\nShe shook her head. \"I can't do that. I don't believe in loose ends. That's why I had to kill Sarah Jane. Sooner or later, I knew she would remember something that could lead the police to me. She was a loose end.\"\n\n\"And, Irma?\" I whispered.\n\n\"She's a dingbat, but I couldn't take a chance that she'd have an epiphany and realize it wasn't Bob who pushed her.\" She shrugged. \"She was another loose end. You'd be another one.\" She held out her hand. \"Give me the envelope.\"\n\nI shook my head. My throat was too dry to talk.\n\nShe leveled her gun. \"Have it your way. I'll have to shoot you first and then take the envelope.\"\n\nNana Jo moved out from the shadows. She had a gun pointed at Velma Levington, and her eyes looked like black ice cubes.\n\n\"Josephine, I wouldn't if I were you. I've got this gun pointed straight at your granddaughter. I'm just as good of a shot as you are and I suspect I've got less of a conscience about killing people than you.\"\n\n\"I wouldn't be so sure about that,\" Nana Jo growled. \"I don't think I'd lose much sleep about taking you out.\"\n\nVelma Levington laughed. \"Maybe, but, either way, your granddaughter will be dead.\"\n\nThere was a noise from behind and, in the split second that Velma Levington's eyes moved to see what was behind her, Nana Jo fired.\n\nVelma Levington's gun flew out of her hand.\n\nStrong arms grabbed me and pushed me behind what felt like a solid wall but was actually, Father Benny.\n\nNana Jo spun around and drop-kicked Velma Levington and then Irma pounced on Velma's chest and started to pummel her with her fist.\n\nFrank picked up Velma's gun and pointed it at her head.\n\nIt took both Ruby Mae and Dorothy to pull Irma off of Velma, all the while, Frank kept the gun pointed at her head. His confident stance, the way he held the gun, and the steely look in his eyes told me this wasn't the first time he'd been in this position.\n\nEventually, Detective Pitt came around the corner. It wasn't until Velma was handcuffed and lying on the ground that I breathed.\n\n\"You okay?\" Frank asked.\n\nI nodded. The words wouldn't come.\n\nHe turned Velma's gun over to Detective Pitt and then walked over and grabbed me by the shoulders. \"That was the craziest thing you have ever done and if you do anything like that again, I'll . . .\" His voice shook. He pulled me to his chest and held me tightly. His body shook, and I felt guilty for the scare I'd given him.\n\nMy legs were jelly, so I was grateful for Frank's strength. He led me inside to the lounge.\n\nMost of the residents weren't sure what had happened, but word spread quickly and the room was abuzz.\n\nDetective Pitt took statements and arranged for his prisoner to be picked up.\n\nRosemary Lindley thanked me. \"I still don't understand what happened. Why did she kill my father?\"\n\n\"While researching his book about the assassination of Robert Kennedy, your father recognized Velma in a photo and discovered she was a contract killer.\"\n\nShe looked surprised. \"But I thought that man . . . Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy.\"\n\nI nodded. \"There have been a lot of theories.\" I smiled. \"I wasn't even aware of them until I read your father's book. He found a photo of a woman he recognized. After some digging, he believed the woman was a paid assassin responsible for killing some politicians in Chicago.\"\n\nShe folded her arms across her chest. \"It just seems so cold.\"\n\n\"She was cold.\" I handed her an envelope.\n\n\"What's this?\" She looked puzzled.\n\n\"Detective Pitt said it was okay for you to read this. It was in your father's locker.\"\n\nRosemary Lindley looked puzzled but opened the envelope and took out the paper. She started to read, and I saw a wave of emotions cross her face. Plus, surprise at seeing her father's words. That was followed by shock and disbelief. Then tears of joy flooded her eyes. She looked at me. \"He was tested.\" She covered her mouth and cried silently. When she was able to talk, she said, \"He found out, not only wasn't he a match for Isabelle, he wasn't my father.\"\n\nI hadn't expected that and watched her closely to see if I could sort through all of her emotions. \"Are you okay?\"\n\nShe nodded. \"Yes. I don't care about that.\" She took several breaths. \"He got tested. I have had so much hatred in my heart when I thought he wouldn't even get tested when he knew it could save Isabelle.\" She glanced around at her daughter, who was chatting with Frank and Melvin. \"That was so . . . cold. But now I know he did care. He got tested. I can accept that he wasn't my biological father. I couldn't accept that he wouldn't at least try.\" She cried, but there was joy and relief in her tears. She hugged me. \"Thank you.\"\n\nWe both cried for several moments. Eventually, she pulled away and wiped her face with the sleeve of her coat. \"I better get Isabelle home.\" She looked at her daughter, who appeared to be having a serious game of chess with Melvin, Irma's new friend.\n\nWe said our goodbyes.\n\n\"You ready to go home?\" Frank whispered.\n\n\"I'm not going home. We have a tailgate party.\"\n\nHe stared at me as though he didn't recognize me. \"You're joking. After everything you've been through?\" He felt my forehead. \"Maybe you're sick. You could be suffering from shock.\"\n\nI shook my head. \"I'm not suffering from shock. I'm fine.\" I struggled to find the right words. I looked around. Nana Jo and Freddie were arguing over the remote control. Irma had recovered from her hysterics earlier and was flirting with Melvin while he played chess. Ruby Mae had her knitting out and was sitting on the sofa, and Dorothy was engrossed in conversation with Benny. \"These people have become my family, just as much as Jenna, Tony, the twins, and my mom. When Leon died, I thought my life was going to be so empty without him. He'd been such a big part of me, but now I've got you and all of them.\" I waved my arm around. \"I've got Dawson and so many people in my life. I want to start this new year surrounded by the people I care about.\"\n\nHe pulled me close and I smiled at him. \"There's only one thing that could make this day more special.\"\n\nHe raised an eyebrow. \"What?\"\n\n\"If the MISU Tigers win the Appliance Bowl.\"\n\nHe smiled. \"Go, Tigers!\"\n\n# Contents\n\n  1. Also by\n  2. Title Page\n  3. Table of Contents\n  4. Copyright Page\n  5. Acknowledgments\n  6. Chapter 1\n  7. Chapter 2\n  8. Chapter 3\n  9. Chapter 4\n  10. Chapter 5\n  11. Chapter 6\n  12. Chapter 7\n  13. Chapter 8\n  14. Chapter 9\n  15. Chapter 10\n  16. Chapter 11\n  17. Chapter 12\n  18. Chapter 13\n  19. Chapter 14\n  20. Chapter 15\n  21. Chapter 16\n  22. Chapter 17\n  23. Chapter 18\n  24. Chapter 19\n  25. Chapter 20\n  26. Chapter 21\n\n","meta":{"redpajama_set_name":"RedPajamaBook"}}
+{"text":" \nALSO BY **MARSHALL DE BRUHL**\n\n_Sword of Jacinto: A Life of Sam Houston_\n\nCopyright \u00a9 2006 by Marshall De Bruhl\n\nAll rights reserved.\n\nPublished in the United States by Random House, an imprint of The Random House Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc., New York.\n\nRANDOM HOUSE and colophon are registered trademarks of Random House, Inc.\n\nAll photographs, with the exception of the image of the reconstructed Frauenkirche, are from the collection of the S\u00e4chsische Landesbibliothek-Staats-und Univerit\u00e4tsbibliothek Dresden\/Abt. Deutsche Fotothek. Photographers are listed with their individual works.\n\nLIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALO GING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA\n\nDe Bruhl, Marshall.  \nFirestorm: Allied airpower and the destruction of Dresden\/by Marshall De Bruhl.  \np. cm.  \neISBN: 978-0-307-76961-9  \n1. Dresden (Germany)\u2014History\u2014Bombardment, 1945.  \nI. Title.  \nD757.9.D7D4 2006 940.54'2132142\u2014dc22 2006041059\n\nwww.atrandom.com\n\n_Title-page photograph, Mathildenstrasse, by Paul Winkler, Stadtmuseum, Dresden, 1945_\n\nv3.1\nFOR BARBARA\n\n# PREFACE\n\nD **uring a visit to the coast of France in the summer of 1984** , I found myself standing on a platform at the top of a stairway that led down to a beach. It was a beautiful day, warm and sunny. From far below I could hear the squeals of children splashing in the mild surf, young men shouting to one another as they kicked a soccer ball around, and, occasionally, music being borne along on the slight breeze.\n\nIt was a very different scene from that of four decades earlier, when the sounds coming from the beach below were those of one of the most desperate struggles of modern times. For this was Normandy and that place was Omaha Beach.\n\nI was on my own pilgrimage, just a few days after thousands of veterans and world leaders had come to this site for the fortieth-anniversary celebrations of the Allied invasion. I was just a boy in a small town in North Carolina when the Allies landed here to free Europe from the Nazis, but I vividly remember how my family gathered around the radio in our living room and listened to the live broadcasts from the landing sites.\n\nMy thoughts that morning in June 1984 were of the cousins and uncles who had been with the invasion force. One of them, an infantry officer, saw his promising professional baseball career ended by a German bullet in the left lung. Another, the executive officer of a paratroop unit, was killed just a few days after landing behind the beaches\u2014coincidentally, not far from where his father was killed in World War I.\n\nMy sad but proud reflections were interrupted by the laughter of a young woman and two young men who were making their way up the long stairway from the beach. As they reached the landing where I stood, the girl suddenly exclaimed, \"My God. What is this place?\" The three of them fell silent.\n\nSpread out before them in perfectly ordered rows were the 9,387 marble Christian crosses and Stars of David of the United States Military Cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer. Most of the men buried there were about the ages of these young people when they died on the beach below, or fighting their way up the very same steep bluff, or during the bloody advance inland after D-day.\n\nThose young people had come to spend a few hours at the beach, not to visit a battlefield or a war memorial, but they listened attentively to my brief but emotional account of the Normandy invasion, of which they knew nothing. It was as distant to them as the wars of ancient Greece. They then quietly took their leave to wander among the graves.\n\nThe ravages of the Second World War are hardly to be seen today as one travels through the cities and countryside of Europe. There are war memorials to be sure\u2014obelisks, vast monuments to the dead, eternal flames, and in some cities the hulk of a burned-out building left untouched as a reminder to the passersby that something terrible happened here over a half century ago.\n\nMost Americans, however, are so inured to seeing cities being torn down and rebuilt that they are like those carefree students on their holiday. They seem not to be aware, or much care, that the lovely beaches, the beautiful orchards and vineyards, and the rolling fields of France and Belgium and Germany were once soaked with the blood of hundreds of thousands of young men.\n\nFor a truer picture of the carnage of World War II, one must look to the cities, not the battle sites, which, often as not, now resemble well-tended parks. The healing power of nature is evident in the countryside. Vines, wildflowers, and grasses cover the shell holes and bomb craters. Bones of unknown war dead still work their way to the surface or are accidentally turned up by plows and spades, and hapless farmers still occasionally fall victim to the random unexploded shell or land mine long buried in the soil. But instead of ravaged farmlands and the lanes and byways ripped up by the passage of thousands of tanks and trucks and armored vehicles, the fields are much as they were before total war came to these bucolic regions.\n\nMan-made structures can be restored and reconstituted only by other men, however, not by nature. And it was the urban environment\u2014with its villas, houses and palaces, apartment blocks, factories, government buildings, churches and cathedrals, schools, and shops\u2014that was the scene of the greatest devastation. This sort of destruction could never be imagined until the twentieth century and the birth and development of a new form of warfare.\n\nThis new war bypassed the armies clashing in the field. It was waged hundreds, often thousands, of miles from any battlefront. This campaign was against the civilian population, which, as war has become more brutal, has increasingly become the target and borne the brunt of military operations.\n\nIn the great cities of Germany, visitors are largely oblivious to what predated the ubiquitous glass towers, the pedestrians-only shopping areas, and the almost too wide streets and expressways. To be sure, many historic structures, indeed whole areas of cities, have been reconstructed exactly as they were. But prewar urban Germany\u2014that congested, vibrant, thousand-year-old architectural museum\u2014was washed away in a rain of bombs and could never be wholly reclaimed.\n\nFor some cities, such as Berlin, the rain of fire was constant, day after day, night after night. But for one city, there had been only two raids in the more than five years that Germany had been at war. Both had been relatively minor attacks, so the people of Dresden were lulled into that false security that is often a prelude to a great disaster. When their storm came, it was a firestorm, and the destruction and death were on a scale not hitherto imagined in warfare.\n\nThe Dresden raid, on 13\u201314 February 1945, by an Anglo-American force of over a thousand planes, has been a source of controversy, debate, and denial for six decades. It is one of the most famous incidents of the war, yet one of the least understood. It has led to rumors and conspiracy theories, to wrecked reputations, and to charges of war crimes. And it is another reason for the question that has been asked millions of times after the battlefields have been cleared, the wounded gathered up, the dead buried, and the monuments raised. It is a simple question: Why?\n\nThe Dresden story is one with particular relevance to our own era. The moral issues presented by war and, especially, aerial bombardment are timeless. The efficacy of bombing continues to be an article of faith among not only leaders of armies but leaders of nations\u2014even though noncombatants, people far from the lines of combat, are most often the victims. In Germany, hundreds of thousands of civilians\u2014mostly women, children, and old men\u2014died as the cities were blasted away.\n\nSince the advent of airpower in World War I, the bombardment of civilians has been decried but never stopped. Indeed, as historian Michael Sherry has put it, \"Limited or ambitious men, both in and out of the military, often sanctioned a kind of casual brutality.\" For almost a century, military planners and political leaders have been beguiled by this particular form of warfare\u2014believing that it holds the promise of a quick and speedy end to hostilities.\n\nThe lessons of Guernica, London, Rotterdam, Coventry, Hamburg, Berlin, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nanking, Nagasaki, and Shanghai are consistently ignored. More recently, the massive bombardments during the Vietnam War and the reprisal bombing in Cambodia, the destruction of Afghanistan, the bombing of Iraq in the two gulf wars, and the devastation of the cities and villages of the former Yugoslavia remind us that airpower still reigns supreme among the planners.\n\nHowever, there have been raids so controversial as to raise serious doubts about the usefulness and certainly the morality of the bombing of cities. Since 1945, the debate has centered for the most part on the atomic bombing of two Japanese cities\u2014Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The horror of those two events has overshadowed the destruction of dozens of other cities by more conventional means. Nagasaki and Hiroshima served for the last half of the twentieth century as the greatest symbols of the horrors of nuclear warfare, and the result has been rather a tolerance of bombing as long as it is not nuclear. However, the great air raid and firestorm that consumed Dresden, Germany, was as awesome and dreadful as any raid of the war. Both the physical destruction and the casualties were truly horrific.\n\n**I first became interested** in the Dresden raid in the summer of 1965, when I made a trip to Coventry to see the new St. Michael's Cathedral, designed by Sir Basil Spence. The medieval church was destroyed in the famous raid by the German Luftwaffe in November 1940. Early on, it had been decided to leave the ruins and tower of the old church as a memorial and build a new, modern St. Michael's immediately adjacent.\n\nDuring my tour through the church much was made of the comparison between the bombing of Coventry and the raid on Dresden four years later. And in spite of the fact that we were then in the midst of the Cold War and Dresden lay in one of the most extreme of the Soviet satellites, a certain understanding had developed between the two cities. The new cathedral, in fact, featured a cross made from melted and twisted metal from the ruins of Dresden.\n\nThe next summer I went to Dresden. Even after two decades, signs of the war were still evident everywhere. What had once been one of the busiest thoroughfares in the world\u2014the Pragerstrasse, which ran from the central train station to the city center\u2014was still a vast open field, through which one walked to the rebuilt Zwinger, that rococo exuberance that houses one of the world's greatest art collections. The museum had been faithfully restored and reopened as both a symbol of civic pride and propaganda for the Communist regime.\n\nRuins can inform, and it was not too difficult to reconstruct, in the mind's eye at least, the grandeur that was Dresden. And, of course, to mourn its loss. The blackened ruins of the royal palace, the opera house, the theater, the Albertinum museum, the great cathedral, or Hofkirche, along with dozens of other ruined buildings lay behind chain link and board fences, where they awaited a promised restoration\u2014which, in some cases, would not be done for decades. Indeed, the restoration still continues, most recently with the reconstruction of the symbol of Dresden, the Frauenkirche. The ruins of the Church of Our Lady\u2014a vast pile of rubble in the Neumarkt\u2014served for fifty years as a war memorial and the center of the annual commemoration of the bombing.\n\nThe questions that have since 1945 swirled around the great raid that destroyed what was arguably the most beautiful city in Germany and for many the most beautiful in Europe have never been satisfactorily answered.\n\nI can only hope, as all chroniclers of history must hope, that my work contributes to a better understanding of those times when no weapon was considered inappropriate and all targets\u2014whether persons or places\u2014were considered appropriate.\n\n# CONTENTS\n\n_Cover_\n\n_Other Books by This Author_\n\n_Title Page_\n\n_Copyright_\n\n_Dedication_\n\nPREFACE\n\nPROLOGUE\n\nCHAPTER ONE \" **THE BOMBER WILL ALWAYS GET THROUGH\": Aerial Bombardment: Theory and History**\n\nCHAPTER TWO **THE ARCHITECTS OF DESTRUCTION** **The Bomber Barons and Total Air War**\n\nCHAPTER THREE **WEAPONS FOR THE NEW AGE** **OF WARFARE: The Race for** **Aerial Superiority**\n\nCHAPTER FOUR **THE FATAL ESCALATION** **Air War Against Civilians**\n\nCHAPTER FIVE **_VERGELTUNGSWAFFEN_** **The V-Weapons**\n\nCHAPTER SIX **OPERATION THUNDERCLAP** **Run-up to the Inferno**\n\nCHAPTER SEVEN **THE TARGET** **Florence on the Elbe**\n\nCHAPTER EIGHT **SHROVE TUESDAY, 1945 Dresden on the Eve of the Apocalypse**\n\nCHAPTER NINE **PILLAR OF FIRE BY NIGHT Bomber Command Takes the Lead**\n\nCHAPTER TEN **A COLUMN OF SMOKE BY DAY** **The American Third Wave**\n\nCHAPTER ELEVEN **ASH WEDNESDAY, 1945** **A City Laid Waste**\n\nCHAPTER TWELVE \" **MR. PRIME MINISTER?\"** **Questions in Parliament and** **World Opinion**\n\nCHAPTER THIRTEEN **FROM THE ASHES** **Dresden Is Reborn**\n\nEPILOGUE\n\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n\nNOTES\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n# PROLOGUE\n\n**\"A sh Wednesday and St. Valentine's Day, an inharmonious combination**,\" confided Prime Minister Winston Churchill's private secretary to his diary on 14 February 1945. A thirty-year-old former diplomat\u2014he had been transferred from the Foreign Office to Downing Street in 1939\u2014John Colville wrote those words from the relative comfort of London. He had not been included in the British delegation to the Yalta Conference, which had ended, for better or worse, three days before.\n\nChurchill himself was now en route home from the Crimea, and on this \"inharmonious\" day he was in Athens. As his motorcade made its way through the streets of that ancient city, he gloried in the adulation of hundreds of thousands of Greeks, who hailed him not only as their liberator from the hated Germans but also as a bulwark against a Communist takeover of the country.\n\nIt was one of Churchill's greatest public triumphs, and there had been many. \"Were you there, Charles?\" he said to his physician, Lord Moran, after the group reached the British embassy. \"I have never seen a greater or more demonstrative crowd.\"\n\nTwelve hundred miles away, in the streets of another city, the sounds were not those of a cheering throng but the insistent klaxons of fire engines and ambulances, the crash of collapsing buildings, and the screams of the wounded and the dying. The sun had risen on this combined Ash Wednesday and St. Valentine's Day in Dresden, Germany, to reveal a city laid waste.\n\nBaroque bell towers stood silently over smoking and burned-out shells of eighteenth-century churches that just hours before had seemed to owe more to the art of the confectioner than to that of the architect. The Altmarkt and the Neumarkt, the ancient city squares, were now surrounded by roofless, gutted buildings and littered with the burned, twisted, melted-down hulks of cars, trucks, and streetcars.\n\nThe Br\u00fchl Terrace\u2014the so-called balcony of Europe, that great esplanade overlooking the river Elbe\u2014had been turned into jagged bits of masonry and broken statuary. The adjoining avenues and boulevards were obliterated. Only charred stumps marked the location of century-old plane and linden trees. The narrow streets of the Altstadt, the Old City, had simply disappeared. Palaces, museums, and galleries were now unidentifiable heaps of smoking rubble.\n\nIn the great public park called the Grosser Garten, high-explosive bombs had plowed up the ground and created hundreds of deep craters. The ancient trees were leveled or splintered. And everywhere in the park lay thousands more of the dead and dying\u2014refugees from the east who had sheltered there in their flight to the west, as well as native Dresdeners who had fled to this oasis to escape the bombs and the flames. For two centuries people had found refuge here amidst nature. This time, they had met their end.\n\nThe monuments and statues in every square and park in the city had been replaced by mounds of corpses. Thousands and thousands of the dead were carried out of the ruined buildings, to any available open space. There the survivors attempted the impossible task of identification. But when entire families, entire neighborhoods have died, who remains to identify the dead?\n\nTwo waves of bombers from British Bomber Command had attacked the unsuspecting and undefended city\u2014the first at just past ten o'clock on the eve of St. Valentine's Day and the second a little after one o'clock the following morning. The initial raid created the firestorm, and the second, as designed, helped spread the conflagration that destroyed everything in its path.\n\nAt midday, as Churchill was being hailed in Athens, a third wave of planes, from the U.S. Eighth Air Force, appeared over the stricken capital of Saxony. The American raid, which lasted just ten minutes, has been called the most cruel element of the triple blow against Dresden. Such a series of closely spaced and coordinated raids against a major German city\u2014code-named Operation Thunderclap\u2014had first been promulgated by air planners in the summer of 1944. And the results of the raids of 13\u201314 February against Dresden were precisely as envisioned by the planners of Thunderclap.\n\nThe two nighttime British raids had been spaced so as to cause maximum damage and chaos and create the unusual but longed-for phenomenon of a firestorm. Now the bombs from the American B-17s fell on emergency workers and rescuers as they struggled to put out the fires and extricate victims from the rubble.\n\nWhen this third wave departed, the great city that was known as \"the Florence on the Elbe\" was already only a memory. In less than fourteen hours the work of centuries had been undone.\n\n# CHAPTER ONE\n\n**\"THE BOMBER WILL ALWAYS GET THROUGH\"**\n\nAerial Bombardment: Theory and History\n\n**W ar, despicable and despised, has nevertheless been one of** mankind's most widespread and popular activities. \"Human history is in essence a history of ideas,\" said H. G. Wells, a noble idea in itself. However, human history is more realistically described as a history of warfare. The chronicles and annals, century after century, millennium after millennium, are dominated by war.\n\nMercifully, there have been periods of peace; but, for the most part, they have been brief. The era beginning with the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914 was relatively calm. To be sure, there were smaller wars aplenty\u2014the Mexican War, the Franco-Prussian War, the Sino-Japanese War, the Boer War, and the Spanish-American War\u2014and one large one, indeed: the American Civil War.\n\nHowever, for a full century there was no great multinational conflagration such as the Seven Years' War or the Napoleonic Wars. Then came a period of hitherto unimaginable ferocity. The three decades from 1914 to 1945 might well be regarded as a modern Thirty Years' War, interrupted by a turbulent recess before the principals returned to the battlefield and even greater bloodletting.\n\n**The frightful and bloody** battles of World War I remained fresh in the minds of both victor and vanquished throughout the 1920s and 1930s. Time did nothing to erase the memories. The contests for small patches of ground in France and Flanders and the Eastern Front had resulted in millions of dead and maimed. Families around the world grieved for their dead sons, brothers, and fathers and recoiled at the idea of another such conflict. It was inconceivable to most civilized people that the world would ever again witness such carnage.\n\nBattle deaths among the Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, and the Ottoman Empire) were 3,500,000. Among the Allies, who lost 5,100,000 soldiers, the French nation was scarred like no other. Most of the Western Front was on French soil, and over 1,380,000 Frenchmen died on the battlefield or from war wounds, almost 3.5 percent of the entire population of the country. Twenty-five percent of all Frenchmen between the ages of eighteen and thirty died in World War I.\n\nThe other Allies suffered great casualties as well. Britain, with 743,000 deaths, and the commonwealth, with another 192,000, were particularly stunned by the losses, as was Italy, with 615,000 dead.\n\nUnited States battle-related deaths were nowhere near those of most of the other belligerents. Just 48,000 Americans died in battle in World War I. Disease caused the greatest number of deaths; more than 62,000 Americans were carried off by the great influenza epidemic of 1918.\n\nWhile America has honored its war dead\u2014indeed, the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington are major tourist attractions\u2014its wars have generally faded from memory. The simpler monuments in the cities, towns, and villages of America have become a familiar part of the background of everyday life and eventually are barely noticed as people go about their daily tasks. Memorial Day is now more than likely a day devoted to pleasure than to remembering the dead or decorating their graves. As each generation of veterans dies out, their contributions slip into history.\n\nThis has been so from the American Revolution to the First Gulf War. Each war and the reasons for fighting it become hazy with time. For decades after the Civil War, veterans' reunions, stirring speeches, and grand parades kept the memories and the sacrifices fresh in both the North and the South. Today, few people notice the bronze or granite Union or Confederate soldier who keeps watch over countless village greens and courthouse squares.\n\nIn Europe, which has suffered the devastations of centuries of warfare, memory has not been so quick to fade. War memorials and burial grounds have not been allowed to disappear into the background. This is especially true in France and Belgium, the scene of so much carnage. One cannot ignore the perfectly maintained burial grounds that dot the landscape and that reflect the nationalities of the dead interred there. There are the somber Germanic memorials, the rather more nationalistic American tributes, the sad formalism of the French, and the tranquillity of the English cemeteries. In the latter, the flower of an entire generation lies at peace in gardens much like those in Kent or Surrey or the Cotswolds.\n\nThe Great War stayed fresh in the memory of the survivors, and in the interwar years thousands of people from both sides made pilgrimages to decorate the graves of the dead in France and Belgium. The senseless battles, the mindless charges and assaults, and the mountains of dead hovered over every postwar conference, every planning session, every strategic discussion. Diplomacy, however misguided, had as its end the avoidance of any repetition of the Great War.\n\nThe memories of World War I did not serve just to underscore the need for a permanent peace. In the defeated countries, memory also fostered revanchist emotions, a desire for revenge. \"The world must be made safe for democracy,\" the American president had said in his message asking Congress to declare war on Germany in 1917. No sooner had the war ended than Wilson's words began to echo with a hollow sound. Absolutism rose instead: Communism in Russia, Nazism in Germany, Fascism in Italy, and a virulent militarism and expansionism in Japan.\n\nAnother war seemed inevitable to many, and when it came it would prove to be the most devastating conflict in the history of mankind. And there was one great difference between World War II and any preceding war. Because of a new method of warfare, with its more powerful weapons, great numbers of the dead would be noncombatants, far from the front lines.\n\nAmong less traditional military planners of the major powers, this new weapon was of particular interest in that it was potentially capable of such power and destruction that it might ensure permanent peace. The airplane might well prove to be the weapon that would put an end to warfare itself.\n\n**In 1914, when** World War I began, powered flight was still in its infancy. The Wright brothers' first flight had been just a little more than a decade before, in December 1903. The infant was a robust one, however, and grew so quickly that there seemed to be some new breakthrough almost daily.\n\nIn 1908, the Wrights shipped one of their aircraft to France, where Wilbur flew a series of demonstrations of the plane at the racetrack at Le Mans. In the delirious crowd was Louis Bl\u00e9riot, a French aviation visionary who would make history himself in less than a year. On 25 July 1909, Bl\u00e9riot flew the English Channel from Calais to Dover. The flight was short, only thirty minutes, but it was a powerful portent.\n\nGovernments immediately began buying aircraft for their militaries. By the beginning of World War I, the French air force comprised 1,000 planes. The British had an equal number, and the Germans 1,200.\n\nBut the birthplace of aviation lagged far behind the European countries' exploitation of aircraft for their militaries. The isolation from Europe and its gathering problems was a strong argument against increased spending for any arms, least of all aircraft, and the American isolationist politicians were aided and abetted by the military traditionalists. Many of the ranking generals were veterans of the Indian wars of the 1880s and were blind to the importance of the airplane; and the admirals, naturally, were wedded to the doctrine of invincible sea power and its most visible component, the battleship. Consequently, when war came, the U.S. Army Air Service had less than 250 aircraft, few of them combat-worthy.\n\nEven in those nations with a relatively advanced air force, airplanes initially were used almost exclusively for reconnaissance over enemy lines. In short order, however, other, more aggressive uses recommended themselves. The first recorded aerial bombardment occurred as early as 1911. In the Italo-Turkish War, Italian pilots dropped small bombs on Turkish troops in Tripoli. The next year, in the First Balkan War, two Bulgarian airmen leaned out of their cockpit and dropped thirty bombs, weighing just a few pounds each, on Edirne, Turkey.\n\nThese two minor engagements, with just a handful of bombs and only minor damage, did little to advance the cause of aerial bombardment, and little more was thought about it by most military planners.\n\nThere were a few isolated bombing incidents at the beginning of the war\u2014all but two on the Continent\u2014but they were little more than calling cards. Then, on 19 January 1915, the first fatalities occurred. A German dirigible raid, the first of fifty-two in World War I, killed four people in England. In the next three years, another 556 people were killed from bombs dropped from German zeppelins. The first raid on London was on 31 May 1915.\n\nThe zeppelin raids were by no means a strategic threat to England, and the casualties were minuscule, at least compared to what was occurring across the Channel. It was not lost on the populace and the politicians, however, that 90 percent of the casualties were civilians.\n\nTwo years after the commencement of the dirigible raids, the Germans increased the pressure on English civilians. Gotha bombers began dropping 1,000-pound bomb loads on the British Isles. The first raid, on 25 May 1917, killed 95 people, 80 percent of them civilians. On 13 June the bombers attacked London. Not surprisingly, the attacks on the congested British capital caused a far greater number of deaths and injuries than other German air raids, and as would be the case in World War II, the attacks caused a great public outcry.\n\nThere were other parallels with the great conflict that was to come. British defensive measures forced the Germans to give up daylight bombing by August 1917, and the following May they ended their aerial bombardment of England. While they were active in the skies over England, the German raids totaled just 27. There were 836 deaths, however, and 72 percent of them were civilians.\n\nThe British also were active in aerial bombardment in World War I, and they had the honor of staging the very first long-range air raid. Three two-seater Avro 504s bombed the zeppelin sheds at Friedrichshafen on 21 November 1914. The raid accomplished little\u2014one of the planes was shot down and the pilot almost murdered by an enraged mob\u2014but it proved that long-distance aerial bombardment was not just theoretical. It was practicable.\n\nTotal civilian and military deaths in the three years of dirigible and bomber attacks on Great Britain were, according to historian John Terraine, \"less than those sometimes suffered by a single division of the citizen army on the Western Front in _one day.\"_\n\nThe effect of the German bombing cannot be measured in lives lost or property destroyed. Neither of those measures was of much consequence. The aerial bombings ushered in a whole new way of looking at war. By May 1918 it was clear that morale bombing would henceforth be a powerful force in military planning. Aerial theorists soon appeared to codify and give philosophical weight to the arguments of the men in the field.\n\n**The first great proponent** of airpower, the preeminent theorist, was Giulio Douhet, an Italian general and aviator. Douhet was no stranger to controversy. In World War I, he was court-martialed\u2014and imprisoned\u2014for exposing the weakness of Italy's air force. Vindicated when the Italians were defeated at Caporetto, he subsequently became head of the Italian army aviation service. In 1921, Douhet published _II dominio dell'aria_ (The Command of the Air), which soon became the bible of airpower apostles, priests, and converts. Early in his work, in a few well-chosen words, Douhet laid out the essential elements of his thesis.\n\n\"As long as man remained tied to the surface of the earth, his activities had to be adapted to the conditions imposed by that surface,\" said Douhet. \"Since war had to be fought on the surface of the earth, it could be waged only in movements and clashes of forces along lines drawn on its surface.\" Far removed from these lines of combat, civilian populations had good reason to feel distant from the battlefield. \"The majority went on working in safety and comparative peace to furnish the minority with the sinews of war,\" he said.\n\nThis state of affairs arose from the fact that _it was impossible_ to invade the enemy's territory without first breaking through his defensive lines.\n\nBut that situation is a thing of the past; for now _it is possible_ to go far behind the fortified lines of defense without first breaking through them. It is airpower which makes this possible.\n\nThe airplane has complete freedom of action and direction; it can fly to and from any point of the compass in the shortest time\u2014in a straight line\u2014by any route deemed expedient. Nothing man can do on the surface of the earth can interfere with a plane in flight, moving freely in the third dimension. All the influences which have conditioned and characterized warfare from the beginning are powerless to affect aerial action.\n\nBy virtue of this new weapon, the repercussions of war are no longer limited by the farthest artillery range of surface guns, but can be directly felt for hundreds and hundreds of miles over all the lands and seas of nations at war. No longer can areas exist in which life can be lived in safety and tranquility, nor can the battlefield any longer be limited to actual combatants. On the contrary, the battlefield will be limited only by the boundaries of the nations at war, and all of their citizens will become combatants, since all of them will be exposed to the aerial offensives of the enemy. There will be no distinction any longer between soldiers and civilians.\n\nIn yet another bold break with tradition, Douhet also called for separate, autonomous air forces. These independent air arms might coordinate their activities with the army and the navy, which might, indeed, have their own planes; but they would in no sense be subordinate.\n\nSoon, the English military historian and theorist B. H. Liddell Hart provided powerful support for the Douhet doctrine. Great destruction could be visited on urban areas and the civilian population if the bombs and the means of delivering them were developed. There would be no front lines, with great armies throwing themselves against each other. Instead, said Liddell Hart, fleets of bombers would \"jump over the army which shields the enemy government, industry, and the people and so strike direct and immediately at the seat of the opposing will and policy.\"\n\nHowever, the theorists surmised, these new weapons would never actually be used. They were to be deterrents to war. Indeed, the very threat of such terror would lead to the quick end of any war\u2014if, indeed, diplomacy between potential adversaries had allowed the situation to deteriorate to that point. But if war did come, said Liddell Hart, and cities such as London were bombed, \"Would not the general will to resist vanish...?\"\n\nAnother airway theoretician, J. F. C. Fuller, was more quantitative, assigning an acceptable number of dead that might be necessary to achieve a greater goal. \"If a future war can be won at the cost of two or three thousand of the enemy's men, women and children killed... then surely an aerial attack is a more humane method than the existing traditional one.\"\n\nThe men who flew in the fledgling air forces of World War I quickly embraced the new theories. Douhet was hailed as one of the great military thinkers, for he had given airmen a philosophical underpinning\u2014as, in the nineteenth century, Alfred Thayer Mahan had done for the admirals and Carl von Clausewitz for the generals. It is not such a large step from theory to dogma; early on, minds were set in a strategy that would govern thinking about aerial warfare.\n\nA new era in warfare thus began. The unthinkable would prevent the unimaginable. In the event, warfare did not change, of course. The weapons being extolled by Douhet and Liddell Hart not only did not prevent another world war but would themselves cause even more destruction and death\u2014particularly among the noncombatants. Even greater armies contested the field, and those bombers that were supposed to have deterred the war or to bring it to an early end instead flew over them night after night, day after day, year after year, taking the war, as predicted, to the ground combatants' homes, far from the battlefield.\n\n**Few branches of** the military forged such close bonds as the flying corps. The other services had distinguished themselves in World War I and served just as heroically, but the pilots were different. They were an elite group, few in number, better paid, and isolated by their mastery of a still unusual, even unique skill. In addition, they benefited from their messianic zeal. For them, airpower had become a new religion.\n\nThe bonds formed by these pioneers would be lasting and help them build a devastating war-making machine in the decades ahead. Much has been said in condemnation of so-called old-boy networks, but such networks went far in defeating Axis tyranny.\n\nHowever, upstarts too can soon become the old guard, with an entrenched doctrine and calcified thinking. When the admirals and generals insisted that the airplane was just another weapon, not a revolutionary method of waging war, the airpower enthusiasts were quick to circle the wagons. And just as quickly they began to overstate the effectiveness of their new weapon and create inter- and intraservice rivalries that would last for decades.\n\nGeneral Jan Christian Smuts and Major General Hugh Trenchard were among the chief proselytizers in the United Kingdom. As Smuts wrote to Prime Minister Lloyd George on 17 August 1917:\n\nAir power can be used as an independent means of war operations.... Nobody that witnessed the attack on London on 7th July, 1917, could have any doubt on that point. Unlike artillery an air fleet can conduct extensive operations far from and independently of both Army and Navy. As far as can at present be foreseen there is absolutely no limit to the scale of its future independent war use. And the day may not be far off when aerial operations with their devastation of enemy lands and destruction of industrial and populous centres on a vast scale may become the principal operations of war, to which older forms of military operations may become secondary and subordinate.\n\nOn 1 April 1918, these two visionaries saw their dream realized. The Royal Air Force, the RAF, was founded, with Trenchard himself as chief of the air staff.\n\nThe views of Trenchard, Smuts, and the other early apostles of airpower and their glowing predictions of the future of airpower continued to rankle the old-line admirals and generals in both England and America who saw the airplane as little more than a toy and pilots as a brash group of show-offs. In 1919, the American secretary of war, Newton D. Baker, reflected this mind-set. Of aviation, he said, \"the art itself is so new and so fascinating, and the men in it have so taken on the character of supermen, that is difficult to reason coldly.\"\n\n**Oddly, it was** an advocate of disarmament who gave the pro-bomber proponents their most potent axiom. On 10 November 1931, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin said in the House of Commons, \"I think it is well also for the man in the street to realize that there is no power on earth that can prevent him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through. The only defence is offence, which means you have to kill more women and children more quickly than the enemy if you want to save yourselves.\"\n\nBaldwin was, of course, denouncing aerial bombardment and what he perceived, correctly, as its inevitable escalation. But in one of those not unusual twists that result in a speaker's words being used in a way he never intended, the prime minister's statement was taken up by the proponents of the invincible, self-defending heavy bomber. \"The bomber,\" they cried, \"will always get through.\"\n\nThe opposing group was equally mistaken in their expropriation of the prime minister's remarks, although they at least were in philosophical agreement. The fear of aerial bombardment led many in his and later governments, as well as the public, to attempt to placate Hitler and then to acquiesce in his designs on neighboring states.\n\n**Wise military leaders** learn from their mistakes and are quick to embrace new weaponry and technology. They always seek to devise more effective methods for fighting the next round of engagements. Not for them the adage that military men always seem prepared to fight the last war. Prescience is not without its price, however.\n\nThe military landscape is littered with the wrecked careers of revolutionaries who ran afoul of the system when they tried to institute new and untried tactics or weapons of warfare. Billy Mitchell, that brilliant but impolitic apostle of airpower, is perhaps the twentieth century's most resonant example.\n\nGeneral Mitchell, who had learned firsthand the effect of airpower as head of the American air service in France in 1917\u201318, was the most visible and voluble of the alleged air supermen, and he carried on a ceaseless and often intemperate campaign for airpower and an air service. In this he was supported by other zealots, several of whom, in the next two decades, would carry Mitchell's plans to fruition. They included Henry (Hap) Arnold, Carl Spaatz, and Ira C. Eaker, among others.\n\nMitchell's ideas were anathema to the traditionalists in the army and the navy, who were quick to protect their territories, but it was the latter service that was his particular target, and eventually the navy rose to his challenge that airplanes could sink capital ships.\n\nA demonstration was set up off the Virginia Capes in July 1921. As Mitchell predicted, air service planes sank a captured German destroyer, a cruiser, and, to everyone's consternation, the battleship _Ostfriesland_.\n\nTo further drive home his point and to prove that the first engagement was not just a fluke, Mitchell repeated the lesson in September. Army planes bombed and sank the decommissioned battleship _Alabama_.\n\nEven so there were still doubters, and in September 1923, Mitchell sought to convert them as well. He arranged for the destruction of two more old battleships\u2014the _Virginia_ and the _New Jersey_.\n\nBut the bombs that sank obsolete warships were not the only ones dropped by Billy Mitchell. In a series of articles for the _Saturday Evening Post_ , he went all out in his advocacy of airpower and his criticism of those who could not see that it was the future of warfare. He accused the military's top brass of muzzling their subordinates and preventing them from telling the truth.\n\nMitchell had crossed the line between advocacy and insubordination. He was demoted to colonel and transferred to a remote base in Texas. He had, of course, become the darling of the press, and before his departure he pulled off another coup\u2014or stunt. He took arguably the most popular and widely read American of his time, Will Rogers, for a much reported first airplane ride.\n\nBut Mitchell was not just a publicity hound. He was genuinely concerned with aviation and was determined to overcome the American reluctance to build an air force. Even from his exile in the outback he would not be silenced, particularly when he was given two spectacular disasters as a springboard.\n\nOn a misconceived public relations mission to Hawaii, a navy flying boat, the PN-9 No. 1, ran out of fuel and ditched at sea. The crew was rescued after ten days adrift in their plane, but the navy was accused of dereliction. Worse was the destruction of the dirigible _Shenandoah_ , which went down while the search for the missing flying boat was still going on. The aircraft had been ordered to fly into a severe thunderstorm to maintain its schedule of public appearances in the Midwest.\n\nMitchell's response was immediate and scathing. He charged that the loss of the _Shenandoah_ was \"the result of incompetency, criminal negligence, and the almost treasonable negligence of our national defense by the War and Navy departments.\"\n\nIronically, the flying boat and the dirigible had both been dispatched in order to gain publicity for navy air and as an effort to counter Mitchell's charges that the air arm was being ignored.\n\nThe Coolidge administration and the military could not ignore such a broadside from a military officer, and their response was swift. Mitchell was court-martialed.\n\nBoth Carl Spaatz and Hap Arnold testified for the defense, which the country knew was a defense of airpower as well. Though Mitchell's point was made, his career was over. He was given a five-year suspension, but he chose to resign from the army and continue his crusade as a civilian.\n\nForty years later, Spaatz made it clear that his testimony at the trial had to do with advocating airpower. Mitchell's insubordination was, indeed, actionable by a military court. Spaatz said that he and Arnold and Mitchell's other friends \"had no quarrel with the administration of military justice as it applied to him.... He brought it upon himself and I think he did it deliberately.\"\n\nMitchell is mostly remembered for his advocacy of aerial bombardment, and bombers were, to be sure, the mainstay of his envisioned air force. But he also believed in fighter planes. Indeed, he felt that 60 percent of any air force should be pursuit planes\u2014small defensive fighters that would be employed to destroy an enemy's air force.\n\nClaire Chennault was another advocate of fighter planes. His public stance also angered his superiors, but he left the army quietly in 1937 for medical reasons. The next day, however, he traveled to China, where he organized and trained the Chinese air force.\n\nWork on fighter planes had been effectively halted, and the United States aircraft industry did not develop a first-rate fighter, either for escort or pursuit, until 1940\u2014for the British Royal Air Force.\n\nSome good did come from the Mitchell scandal. Both the public and Congress benefited from the discussion, and at least one important step was taken in regard to airpower. The Morrow Board, an investigative body appointed by Calvin Coolidge, recommended the creation of the Army Air Corps, and Congress passed the Air Corps Act of 1926. For airpower advocates it was only half a loaf\u2014there would be no separate and autonomous air force\u2014but it was clearly better than none.\n\nThe chief objection to building up this new force was in no small degree a moral one in the eyes of many congressmen and the public. Building more planes and a greater air force directly contravened the recently negotiated naval treaties. What use was it, detractors argued, to limit the tonnage of capital ships and go all out in building planes and an air force?\n\nMilitary opponents of the Army Air Corps were, of course, willing to embrace any argument to limit its growth, and thus the new aviation branch of the army remained a stepchild\u2014underfunded, understaffed, and shunted aside by the traditional services.\n\nAccording to the findings of the Morrow Board, \"The next war may well start in the air, but in all probability it will wind up, as the last one did, in the mud.\" Events justified this statement, at least in Europe. Adolf Hitler began with air attacks, but the war ended with ground troops fighting street by street in Berlin. In the Pacific it was otherwise. The Japanese began their expansion with air attacks\u2014the raid on Pearl Harbor, while certainly the most well known, was just one of many\u2014and the war was brought to a rapid conclusion by the Americans with the most famous air raids in history, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.\n\n**The Morrow Board notwithstanding** , aviation could not be ignored. The thought of flight has always engaged the imagination of mankind, and in 1927 Charles Lindbergh's solo flight across the Atlantic galvanized the world. While the civilian population was celebrating Lindbergh's singular accomplishment and was set to dreaming of a new age of travel and communication, the more prescient of the military establishment saw his flight as further proof of a theorem.\n\nTo be sure, other pilots had flown long distances before Lindbergh\u2014as early as 1919 a U.S. Navy crew had flown a seaplane across the Atlantic\u2014but his nonstop, solo feat brought hitherto unimagined interest in the possibility of flights across oceans and continents.\n\nAnd clearly long-distance planes could be used for something far more sinister than aerial stunts. They were obvious vehicles for the delivery of weapons of destruction. Bombers were the ideal machines for terrorizing the civilian population and destroying the manufacturing centers of an enemy nation. Theory could indeed be joined with practice. Wars could be fought and won without the use of invading armies.\n\nTradition dies hard, and nowhere does it take as long or succumb as slowly as in the military. In Germany, also, the old-line generals and admirals were just as suspicious of and patronizing toward this new form of warfare as their French, British, and American counterparts. But if airpower was indeed to prove to be the weapon of the future, they were just as determined to control its growth and its deployment, and until Hitler came to power they did just that.\n\nDictators do not suffer the constraints of a congress or a parliament, and they can also overrule objections from the general staff. Hitler saw the terroristic advantages of bombing or the threat of bombing, and the buildup of the German air force, the Luftwaffe, was given high priority in his plans to rearm Germany. By 1937\u201338, almost 40 percent of the German defense budget was allocated to the Luftwaffe.\n\nJoseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister, began to trumpet the legend of the invincible Luftwaffe, and his half-truths and outright lies went unquestioned by foreign air ministries and visiting dignitaries who were beguiled by the Nazi regime and who swallowed whole the propaganda.\n\nNone of the visitors to Nazi Germany was as credulous or as influential as that quintessential American hero Charles Lindbergh, who on his return to America after visiting Nazi Germany naively extolled the myth of German airpower. In 1939, the Lone Eagle made two radio addresses and wrote an article for _Reader's Digest_ , in which he cautioned his fellow Americans against involvement in any European war and reminded them of the special obligation that Anglo-Saxons owed to one another.\n\nLittle wonder that Roosevelt responded with hostility to such rhetoric, which gave the isolationists a powerful weapon. \"I am absolutely convinced that Lindbergh is a Nazi,\" he said to his secretary of the treasury, Henry Morgenthau.\n\nLindbergh was wrong in other ways as well. His projections of the Luftwaffe's strength and aircraft production were incredibly wide of the mark. However, unlike his political pronouncements, they had a salutary effect. They spurred the administration to action.\n\nThe myths of the German war machine and German technological superiority were strong, and remain so still. They are not easily dispelled. Perhaps it would be wise to heed historian A. J. P. Taylor: \"The decisive difference between the British and the Germans is the British... knew what they were doing and the Germans did not.\"\n\nHowever, in the 1930s the threat of the German air force was very real to the more immediately endangered Czechs, Poles, French, and British, who would have to bear the first onslaught of any German moves east or west. Most Americans were content to go about their business, protected by the great moat of the Atlantic Ocean.\n\nThe isolationist sentiments that prevented America from joining the League of Nations had grown stronger. If Americans needed proof that the United States should stick to the affairs of the Western Hemisphere, what better examples were there than the rise of Hitler, Mussolini, and the Japanese warlords?\n\nAmerican involvement in World War I had come to be seen by millions of Americans as a futile exercise. Indeed, the American public had begun to question the aims and the results of World War I as soon as it ended. Now the general feeling seemed to be \"We bailed them out, and here they are\u2014at it again.\"\n\nIn just fifteen years the war clouds that had been dispersed in 1918 began to gather again, but the new storm threatened to be much more violent. However, none of the American armed services was preparing itself for a modern war. Tactics were still based on those of World War I. The navy paid little attention to the U-boat threat, the army was deficient in knowledge and training in the new mechanized warfare, and the air corps, in spite of its gains in acceptability, still was mired in the strategy of another era. This was to be expected; after all, their equipment was of an earlier era.\n\n**Events, however, soon began** to dictate strategy. By the fall of 1938 only the most obtuse could not, or would not, admit to the evil designs of the National Socialists in Germany and the inevitability of a new, or resumed, world war. Franklin Roosevelt certainly was under no illusions about the nature of Hitler's government. On 14 November 1938, in response to the Nazi pogrom against the Jews known as Kristallnacht, or the Night of Broken Glass, he recalled the American ambassador from Berlin. There was no break in diplomatic relations, however, and much to the dismay of his admirers and future chroniclers, there the matter rested.\n\nAs historian and Roosevelt biographer Kenneth S. Davis stated, \"He was determined to conserve every bit of his depleted political capital for expenditure on matters he deemed of supreme importance, and the Jewish refugee crisis was not one of these.... National defense on the other hand was paramount.\"\n\nThat same day, Roosevelt assembled a group of close advisers at the White House to discuss his plans for expanding the American air force. Among them was the new chief of the U.S. Army Air Corps, Hap Arnold, who was now a major general. The president immediately made known his concern about the woeful state of the air corps. The total number of operational planes was about 1,600, and fewer than 90 were being built each month. Roosevelt wanted an air force of 20,000 planes and a production capacity of 2,000 planes a month.\n\nThe American president, like the German F\u00fchrer, believed in the power of numbers. He seemed not to have concerned himself with the equally important training and operations of an expanded air corps. When he was challenged on this he bristled that he \"had sought $500,000,000 worth of airplanes, and he was being offered everything except airplanes.\"\n\nRoosevelt did listen to the objections, especially those of General George Marshall, who, as usual, was able to rise above the army's natural but parochial opposition to the huge new expenditure for a competing military arm and support the plan\u2014if it included training and operations. Otherwise, America, too, would have only a \"shop-window\" air force. The president acquiesced, but he made it clear that any such additions to the program would have to come from the original appropriation.\n\nThe American public had bought the argument that warplanes represented real power to a potential enemy. Had not Hitler proved that at Munich? Even fervid isolationists might endorse the buildup of an air force\u2014as a deterrent. And if deterrence failed and war did come, then the planes could be used as offensive weapons. But the battle would be far from America's shores.\n\nAs Michael Sherry has said, the new aerial policy put forth by Roosevelt \"squared with the dominant prejudices and priorities of Americans: alarm over fascist aggression, aversion to military expeditions abroad, desire to preserve American isolation, and faith in aviation as a benign technology.\"\n\nEven though a public opinion poll in 1938 showed that 90 percent of Americans thought there should be a larger air force\u2014in almost the same numbers the public felt that there should be a larger army and navy, as well\u2014Roosevelt knew that he could not hope to have a force anywhere near the scale he envisioned. His plans were just too ambitious for the new Congress and the country. The president scaled back his request to a total of 10,000 planes and a monthly production of fewer than 1,000.\n\nHap Arnold moved immediately to bring in his old friend to help him implement the new presidential directive. Carl Spaatz was transferred to Washington in late November 1938, on temporary assignment from nearby Langley Field, in Virginia. Early in the new year the job became a permanent one. He was now chief of planning of the office of the chief of the air corps.\n\nSpaatz soon learned the vast distance between the president's wishes, no matter how urgent and well-founded, and the Congress, which had to grant the wishes. Even in times of international crisis, the adage still applies: \"The president proposes, but Congress disposes.\" And Congress was still not in an internationalist mood.\n\nThe final air corps plan was nowhere near what the president had in mind, but at least it was a start. Congress appropriated $180 million with a ceiling of 5,500 planes.\n\nEven this modest number of aircraft was not practicable. Foreign governments were desperately seeking to build up their own air forces, which they could do only with the aid of the American aircraft industry. The Americans clearly could not supply both the army air corps and the Allies.\n\nTo Arnold's chagrin, Roosevelt came down on the side of those most directly threatened by a rearmed and aggressive Germany. The American military had to give its place in line to England and France. And, perhaps even more galling, a hundred scarce fighter planes were earmarked for Claire Chennault's Chinese operations, the famous Flying Tigers.\n\nMany have argued that Roosevelt's plan all along was not to build up the American air forces\u2014which would account for his disregard for support and training facilities\u2014but to manufacture airplanes for the Allies.\n\nIn spite of the clear threat posed by a rearmed and aggressive Germany, the war in Europe still did not engage the attention of the American military, which continued to deal primarily with hemisphere defense. Indeed, at a 1940 conference that discussed the various options that the U.S. military might face in the foreseeable future, an offensive war in Europe was ranked fifth.\n\nThere was, however, real fear that Germany and Italy might establish bases in South America, not a far-fetched idea at all since both countries already had commercial air service to Latin America. The tiny American bomber fleet had the range to reach South America, but no fighter plane had anywhere near that range, which made little difference to the planners. Fighters were still considered as interceptors only, not escorts. Self-defending bombers were still an article of faith among air planners.\n\nIn a 31 October 1939 memo to Ira Eaker, H. S. Hansell said that \"long range bombers must rely on their own defensive power to get them out of trouble.\" Hansell's view was not particular to him. At the time he was assistant executive officer for public relations for Hap Arnold.\n\nThis particular orthodoxy of the airpower enthusiasts\u2014that bomber formations, with their multiple guns covering every part of the sky, were therefore invincible\u2014went down in flames over the North Sea in just a few weeks, but it took years for the lesson to be fully absorbed.\n\nThe question as to why American or British fighters could shoot down German bombers over Great Britain but German fighters would presumably be ineffective over the Reich, or at least enough so that Allied bombers would get through, was never seriously raised. But startling proof came that the theory was false came on 14 December 1939.\n\nFive of twelve Wellington bombers were shot down by Luftwaffe fighters off Wilhemshaven, the great German naval base. Bomber Command maintained that it was flak that did the damage, and therefore in a follow-up raid on 18 December the twenty-four Wellingtons dispatched were ordered to maintain an altitude of 10,000 feet. Two of the planes turned back, but out of the twenty-two effectives, twelve were shot down by German fighters. And worse, all of the action was miles out to sea. No plane had reached Germany itself.\n\nTheorists and supporters of the self-defending bomber formation immediately searched for reasons for the disaster that would not call into question the underlying strategy. The major cause of the catastrophe, stated a report, was poor leadership. The pilots had not maintained the tight formation necessary for mutual defense.\n\nTwo other contributing factors, both technological, were admitted to and would be addressed. The fuel tanks were not self-sealing, and the gun turrets on the Wellington had a field of fire of only eighty degrees. New fuel tanks were ordered and waist guns installed. But the strategy of the self-defending bomber fleet remained unquestioned\u2014until 12 April 1940.\n\nOn that day, disaster struck again. Nine out of eighty-three aircraft were shot down in a daylight raid on Stavanger, Norway. However, only sixty had been attacked by the German fighters, which elevated the loss rate considerably\u2014from an unacceptable 11 percent to a catastrophic 15 percent.\n\nPlanners began to entertain the possibility that perhaps the bomber would not always get through\u2014at least not in daylight. There now occurred what RAF historians Martin Middlebrook and Chris Everitt have called \"undoubtedly the most important turning-point in Bomber Command's war.\" Henceforth, the Wellingtons and Hampdens and their four-engine successors would fly only at night.\n\n**In America, meanwhile** , the master politician Franklin Roosevelt kept his eye on the voters. Given public opinion and political opposition, Roosevelt could never have placed the country on a war footing. He could, however, maneuver to place the country in a position to aid its allies, particularly Britain.\n\nRoosevelt met with Winston Churchill on 9\u201312 August 1941 at the Atlantic Conference in Newfoundland. They were attended by high-ranking officers from all of the services and the heads of the civilian planning agencies. As Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate observed, it was \"obvious to any literate citizen that those officers had not boarded the _Prince of Wales_ [Churchill's flagship] to discuss the Four Freedoms.\"\n\nThe two leaders did release a manifesto called the Atlantic Charter, which called for the renunciation of territorial expansion or territorial changes not sanctioned by the people affected. In the postwar world, people would be guaranteed self-determination, equal access to trade and raw materials, international economic cooperation, improved labor standards and social security, freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom of the seas. Further, aggressor nations would be disarmed.\n\nThe charter would later serve as the basis for the United Nations, but, as Craven and Cate rightly said, Roosevelt and Churchill had more immediate concerns on their minds in Newfoundland. Their main purpose was to move neutral America closer to war with Germany, which Roosevelt correctly perceived to be an immediate threat to the United States.\n\nIndeed, a month earlier Roosevelt had requested the secretary of war to provide him with \"the overall production requirements required to defeat our potential enemies.\" The air corps estimates were assigned to the new Air War Plans Division. In early August, Lieutenant Colonel Harold George, Major Kenneth Walker, Major H. S. Hansell Jr., and Major Laurence Kuter produced the famous document AWPD-1, which set forth the initial air force policy for the bombing of Nazi Germany\u2014four months before the United States was at war with the Third Reich.\n\nThe priority targets for a bombing campaign as set out in AWPD-1, after the destruction of the German Luftwaffe, were (1) the electric power grid, (2) the transportation system, and (3) the oil supply and production facilities. The fourth item on the list was, most tellingly, the civilian population.\n\nJust after Pearl Harbor a new directive was issued, AWPD-4, which stated clearly that \"a powerful air force, waging a sustained air offensive against carefully selected targets, may destroy the sources of military power.\" Not only were the authors saying that airpower alone could bring about the end of the war; AWPD-4 was also seen by the other services as a call for a larger slice of the appropriation pie by the air commanders and, of course, a separate and equal United States Air Force.\n\nA year later, in December 1942, Hap Arnold ordered a review of the bombing plan by a group of civilian analysts and intelligence personnel. In the new directive, AWPD-42, the pro-air rhetoric was toned down a bit. Further, in a classic example of the ongoing conflict between civilian and military planners that can bedevil any defense establishment, the Committee of Operations Analysts (COA) determined that the operations recommended by the drafters of AWPD-1 were in some cases not feasible.\n\nIn their revised list of priorities, after the destruction of the German air force, the electric power system, the power grid, was now third in order of priority. As the war progressed, target priorities were changed several times\u2014oil, for example, went to the top of the list\u2014but the electric power system of the Third Reich was never reassigned primacy.\n\nHansell, in 1972, said this decision was \"one of the tragic mistakes of the war.\" And there is more than a little justification for his opinion. In a modern industrial society, which Germany certainly was in 1941, everything comes to a halt when the power goes off. This was made startlingly clear in the United States, beginning in the mid-1960s, when a series of blackouts brought great sections of the country to a complete halt. In each of those cases, the causes were fairly simple\u2014defective switches combined with human error. No structural damage had occurred in the system. The total destruction of power plants, transmission lines, and substations would have caused a long-term or complete breakdown in the Third Reich.\n\n**Capital ships and tanks** , to use Craven and Cate's felicitous phrase, \"carried with them the reassuring weight of military tradition.\" Strategic bombers were new and exotic and unproved weapons. Hap Arnold and Carl Spaatz had to show that they could win a war.\n\nThey were fully aware of the setbacks at British Bomber Command and the now-proscribed daylight operations. But the strategy was not at fault, they reasoned. The primary strategy was sound. The necessary element for its successful prosecution was the proper weapon, which the British did not possess. A four-engine, heavily armed daylight bomber would prove the point, and such a plane was becoming operational in the United States. The B-17, the legendary Flying Fortress, properly deployed and manned, would be able to look after itself in any situation.\n\nSince offensive war was anathema and Americans recoiled at the thought of bombing civilians, the military couched its plans, as it always does, in palatable, defensive terms. Thus until bombers became a retaliatory force and began to visit death and destruction on the cities of Europe, they continued to be touted as deterrents to aggression. The purpose of bombers was to prevent war, not make war. The public accepted this line of reasoning, even though events in Europe should have made it clear to them that the opposite was true.\n\nThe American president had responded to the invasion of Poland two years earlier by imploring the European belligerents to renounce the bombing of cities and the civilian populace. Roosevelt's call for restraint was heeded, more or less, for a few months.\n\nPurely military installations and naval vessels remained the primary targets until 14 May 1940, when the Dutch port city of Rotterdam was devastated by the Luftwaffe. It was now clear that civilians would not be spared in any all-out bombardment by either side.\n\nAmericans, meanwhile, in spite of Roosevelt's sympathies, were still in no mood to involve themselves in a new European war. Their fears were embodied in such organizations as the ultraisolationist America First Committee.\n\nThe committee's chief spokesman was Charles Lindbergh, who in a radio address in late May 1940, while the British and French were facing annihilation at Dunkirk, dismissed the president's plan for thousands of warplanes as \"hysterical chatter.\"\n\nBut the public sensed that perhaps the airplane might be the weapon that would keep the country safely removed from involving itself in Europe's headlong rush into disaster. Polls showed that while support for a larger air force had fallen, it was still at 73 percent. Americans clearly felt that if war should come, the airplane was the best way of keeping it a very long arm's length from the United States.\n\n# CHAPTER TWO\n\n**THE ARCHITECTS OF DESTRUCTION**\n\nThe Bomber Barons and Total Air War\n\n**M ost of the men who ran the air war in World War II began their** careers as airmen in the same patches of sky over the battlefields of the Western Front in World War I\u2014the first air war. They were part of that small cadre of brash young men who, in their primitive biplanes and triplanes, helped usher in the age of aerial warfare. While still in their early twenties all of them became heroes, veterans of the dogfights and seat-of-the-pants flying that characterized combat above the trenches of the Western Front.\n\nThey were young and often reckless, but they knew instinctively that their aircraft were not the \"toys\" derided by more conventional military men, and they would live to see the Spads, Sopwiths, and Fokkers of their youth evolve into the Mustangs, Hurricanes, Messerschmitts, Flying Fortresses, Junkerses, Halifaxes\u2014and even jet planes and rockets\u2014that would redefine military strategy. In a little over two decades, the small bombs they casually tossed from their open cockpits, like so many firecrackers, would give way to the incendiaries, the massive blockbusters, and even the atomic bomb itself.\n\nBut the development of airpower by no means proceeded in anything resembling an orderly progression. The road to a coherent and practicable air policy was filled with twists, turns, cutoffs, and detours. The rights-of-way were littered with discredited strategies, failed weapons, and not a few damaged reputations and wrecked careers.\n\nHowever, by the late 1930s, the theorists and philosophers of airpower had carried the day. There was a U.S. Army Air Corps, a Royal Air Force, and a Luftwaffe. Of the three, Germany and Great Britain had made their air arms autonomous, separate institutions\u2014Britain at the end of World War I and Germany after the accession of Adolf Hitler. Interservice rivalries and politics forestalled such a move in the United States, where the air force, which had been created as a branch of the army, would remain so until after World War II.\n\nBut theories had to be put into practice. It was now the turn of the men of action, pragmatic men who could take the directives of a prime minister or a president or a f\u00fchrer and get the planes built and the men trained to fly them.\n\nHowever, just as the stubborn orthodoxy of the army and navy had been overcome, the airmen also espoused and defended policies and strategies long after they had been proved wrong. The almost blind adherence to the doctrine of the self-defending bomber was as misguided as had been the insistence on the invulnerability of the battleship.\n\nTechnology was promoted extravagantly only to be summarily cast aside for newer, even more ambitious schemes. Aircraft manufacturers and arms makers had a more than patriotic interest in promoting their own hardware. The profits to be made were enormous. And, of course, the generals and admirals, even as they prepared for and fought a war, kept a wary eye on the rival services.\n\n**Billy Mitchell's contemporaries** , both in the United States and abroad, fared somewhat better than he had done with their crusades to promote airpower. They too had learned from the grand rehearsal of World War I, and they were equally zealous; but they knew how to proselytize without being impaled on their own swords. Indeed, they would be rewarded with the highest honors and military rank.\n\nHugh Trenchard, an early and lifelong advocate of the power of bombardment from aircraft, had said in 1923, \"It is on the bomber that we must rely for defence. It is on the destruction of enemy industries and, above all, on the lowering of morale... caused by bombing that ultimate victory rests.\"\n\nTrenchard never lost his enthusiasm for airpower or his zeal for aerial bombardment, and even after the \"father of the RAF\" retired from the military and was raised to the peerage, he continued his proselytizing. The enemy, he always maintained, could be defeated by taking the war directly to its homeland, and he never retreated from his early pronouncement that \"the moral effect of bombing stands to the material in a proportion of 20 to 1.\"\n\nIn 1942, on the eve of the battle of El Alamein, Lord Trenchard said to Churchill's physician, Lord Moran, \"We must avoid the stupendous drain on manpower of an attempt to win victory by land warfare. You must get this into the Prime Minister's head. If he puts his faith in bombers, it will save millions of lives.\" As we will see, this view was echoed by almost every air commander until the end of World War II.\n\nThe first commander in chief of Bomber Command, Sir Edgar Ludlow-Hewitt, was one of the few who disagreed. He argued that longrange bombing was going to have to be conducted at night and with fighter escorts. If England engaged in a sustained campaign against Germany, he warned, the bomber fleets would be completely wiped out in just a few weeks. But his heresies did not stop there.\n\nLudlow-Hewitt also began to insist that a major component of any buildup had to be operational training units. Otherwise the RAF, and by extension Bomber Command, would be just a so-called shop-window air force. So much for twenty years of RAF orthodoxy. Ludlow-Hewitt paid for his outspokenness. He was relieved as head of Bomber Command in April 1940.\n\nBomber Command then went through a rough patch for almost two years, until it found its proper strategic role in the prosecution of the war. Some of the problems were administrative, some were due to a lack of proper bombing platforms\u2014the available planes simply could not do the job required\u2014but most were due to a lack of judgment as to how the bombing should be carried out.\n\nAir Marshal Sir Charles Portal, a fervent disciple of Hugh Trenchard's, was appointed to succeed Ludlow-Hewitt, but in just six months he moved up to the post of chief of the air staff.\n\nFrom this powerful position\u2014he attended every major planning session and was part of the British delegation at conferences in Casablanca, Washington, Tehran, and Yalta\u2014Portal played a crucial role in developing the doctrine of the massive bombing of German cities.\n\nHis November 1942 plan called for completely destroying, through the use of heavy bombers, not only Germany's industrial capacity but also 6 million German dwellings. Not only would the proposed joint Anglo-American campaign \"dehouse\" 25 million people, it was estimated that there would be 900,000 civilians killed and another 1 million seriously injured. The plan was approved by the Chiefs of Staff on 31 December 1942.\n\nPortal then flew with Churchill in the prime minister's plane to the Casablanca Conference, which began on 14 January 1943. There it was officially decided that through round-the-clock bombing Germany's military, industrial, and economic systems were to be systematically destroyed. In addition, although it was not publicly stated, attacks would also be directed so as to destroy the will of the people to resist. In other words, morale bombing was to be official policy.\n\n**When Air Marshal Portal** left Bomber Command, he was succeeded by Air Marshal Sir Richard E. C. Peirse. As a young naval aviator in World War I, Peirse had distinguished himself, and after he transferred to the RAF his rise was rapid. He was commander of the British forces in Palestine, and by 1936 he was an air vice marshal and then director of operations and intelligence at the Air Ministry. When he came to Bomber Command in October 1940, he was vice chief of the air staff, and with his impeccable background and knowledge it seemed that any problems with the command would soon be set right.\n\nIt was not to be. During Peirse's tenure at High Wycombe, Bomber Command began to suffer disastrous and unsustainable losses of planes in raids over the Continent. Worse, the revelation that the British bombing had been nowhere near as accurate as reported caused an uproar. Thus, in December 1941 it was clear that drastic measures had to be taken. Peirse was relieved.\n\nHis replacement would become more famous\u2014some would say more infamous\u2014than any of the men, both civilian and military, who were responsible for the bombing campaigns of World War II. Indeed, he has come to symbolize the power or weakness, failure or success, effectiveness or folly of aerial bombardment of civilian populations.\n\nUnlike his less colorful associates, the new head of Bomber Command was known by a variety of nicknames. He was affectionately called \"Bert\" or \"Bud\" by his friends, the \"Chief Bomber\" by Winston Churchill, and \"Butch\" by his \"bomber boys.\"\n\n\"Butcher\" was the term favored by his detractors, who included Joseph Goebbels, an expert in such things. He said of Harris, \"You have only to look into his eyes to know what to expect from such a man. He has the icy-cold eyes of a born murderer.\"\n\nHowever, it is as \"Bomber Harris,\" the name bestowed by an admiring public, that he is best known. But whatever the sobriquet, Air Marshal Sir Arthur Travers Harris would, over time, stand as the prototypical airman of World War II.\n\n**Harris was born on** 13 April 1892, while his parents were on home leave from India, where his father was a civil servant. The family soon returned to the subcontinent, where the boy lived until he was five, when he was sent back to England for schooling.\n\nHarris therefore saw almost nothing of his parents in his formative years. In that way, his childhood was strikingly similar to that of another controversial British military hero and a colleague of his in the British army, Bernard Law Montgomery, as well as Winston Churchill's.\n\nAnd Harris responded in much the same way as did those two worthies. He became independent, strong-willed, and supremely self-confident and self-sufficient. Perhaps because of the enforced solitude of his youth, Harris was also attuned to the loneliness of a soldier's life and sympathetic to the needs of his men, qualities that would later endear him to his subordinates.\n\nAt age eighteen\u2014he said he was fed up with the snobbery of England\u2014Harris fled to Rhodesia, where he took up farming. That British colony was not beyond the reach of world events, and in August 1914, with the outbreak of war, Harris joined the army. He fought in the successful campaign against the Germans in southwest Africa, and with the German surrender there in July 1915, his war was ostensibly over. The real war, in Europe, was only beginning, however, and by that autumn Harris was back in England, where he was accepted for pilot's training with the Royal Flying Corps at Brooklands.\n\nAside from riding as a passenger in a Maurice Farman Longhorn and a BE2c, Harris's pilot training comprised less than half an hour of dual instruction. He then took a plane up by himself. Thus between 7 October 1915, when he arrived back in London, and 6 November, Harris went from the infantry to pilot's training to being an officer in the Royal Flying Corps.\n\nHarris was then assigned to the Central Flying School at Upavon, which was only marginally more rigid than the one at Brooklands. As Harris said, \"I completed the long course.... The Long Course, ye Gods!...I suppose it must have been about ten hours.\"\n\nHis first active-duty station was at Northolt, in Middlesex. When his new commander asked the young pilot if he could fly in the dark, Harris replied, \"I can't fly in the daylight, so maybe I can fly in the dark.\"\n\nThe remark was not atypical. Harris was famous for the barbed comment, but he was also a man of dry wit and droll humor. He liked to drive fast and was once stopped for speeding near an air base. \"You might have killed someone, sir,\" said the policeman in an attempt to chastise the air marshal. \"I kill thousands of people every night,\" replied the head of Bomber Command.\n\nHarris's squadron was put on antizeppelin duty, charged with intercepting and destroying the airships that Germany was using to bomb London at night. Harris literally had to teach himself night flying. It was dangerous work and many men were killed, but the experience taught him that thorough training was the essential element for an air force. Of equal importance, here was the beginning of his theories about the use of planes at night to bomb enemy cities. Later, when he was head of Bomber Command, these two ideas would reach full fruition.\n\nHarris recalled his later combat duty in France\u2014flying the Morane Parasol, the Morane Bullet, the Sopwith 1\u00bd Strutter, and finally the legendary Sopwith Camel\u2014in his usual style, which was a combination of the testy, the arrogant, and the self-deprecating.\n\nHe seemed to have come out of the war more bemused than enlightened. \"We just flew about,\" he said. \"There didn't seem to be any plan.\"\n\nHarris, his offhanded comments aside, gained valuable ideas from his derring-do over Flanders' fields. The military planners and the public would in time learn the value of the airplane as a strategic and tactical weapon. Harris never doubted the airplane's future. It was to be his crusade to turn this potent new weapon, this \"toy,\" into the primary means of attacking the enemy. He was given the opportunity to do so when he was asked to stay on in what was now the Royal Air Force.\n\nHugh Trenchard, the first chief of the new RAF and chief of the air staff from 1919 to 1929, managed to hold off the skeptics who had not let up in their efforts to undermine the RAF and keep them at bay. He thus kept the RAF alive, but it was barely breathing.\n\nHarris, in _Bomber Offensive_ , his postwar memoir, wrote scathingly of the campaigns against the air services by the old guard during the inter-war period. \"Thereafter for nearly twenty years,\" he said, \"I watched the army and navy, both singly and in concert, engineer one deliberate attempt after another to destroy the Royal Air Force. Time after time they were within a hairbreadth of success; time after time Trenchard, and Trenchard alone, saved us. If they had succeeded they would have abolished our air power as they succeeded in abolishing our tank power, while retaining the Camberley drag hunt.\"\n\nRegarding the vaunted battleship, Harris said that their \"bones now lie where air power so easily consigned them, littering the floors of the ocean or obstructing the harbours of the world.\"\n\nAs an acolyte of Trenchard's, Harris had paid close attention to his new ideas, and Smuts's manifesto would become his credo when he became head of Bomber Command. Harris early on saw the power of bombs as a deterrent when he was stationed in India in 1921. One twenty-pound bomb dropped onto the grounds of the palace of the emir of Afghanistan, who had launched an insurgency against Great Britain, had been enough to convince that worthy to negotiate.\n\nAfter his tour in India, Harris was sent to Iraq, where the RAF was charged with subduing another restive, even rebellious populace. Between 1922 and 1924, the RAF heavy bombers destroyed villages and killed or injured thousands of the rebels before calm was restored.\n\nBut the lessons of India and Iraq, while instructive, were improper for the wars of the 1930s and 1940s. The intimidation of petty tribal chieftains, illiterate villagers and nomads, or eastern potentates, who had never seen an airplane, was a far easier task than cowing the populace of a major industrial power ruled by a fanatic.\n\nAfter his service in India and the Middle East, Harris returned to England and began his unremarkable but steady rise through the officer ranks of the Royal Air Force, eventually joining the Air Ministry, where he became deputy director of operations and intelligence, and then, within a year, head of the Planning Department.\n\nHarris and others in the military in England were successful in their efforts to counteract those who scoffed at the idea that German bombers might be able to so immobilize Britain that it would be isolated. Further, their argument that in the event of such a disaster only a bomber force could continue to wage offensive war against Hitler began to be taken seriously. But, as in America, the pacifists and the isolationists wielded enormous power and used it either to block or to much reduce military spending.\n\nNowhere was this shortsightedness more evident than in the decision not to fund an RAF entry in the Schneider Trophy high-speed flying contest in 1931. The Labour undersecretary of state for air saw no reason for the government to fund a \"sporting event.\"\n\nLady Lucy Houston immediately agreed to donate \u00a3100,000, a plane was built, and the RAF won the race. But the trophy symbolized something far more important. The research and development that produced the winning plane and its engine were crucial to the design and manufacture of the Rolls-Royce engines used in the famous Spitfire fighter and the Lancaster bomber. Later, Harris credited this eccentric widow of Sir Robert Patterson Houston, along with Fighter Command, of winning the Battle of Britain.\n\nWhen Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 and began to rearm Germany, the RAF had only 850 first-line aircraft. By 1935, the F\u00fchrer could brag to a British delegation headed by Foreign Secretary Sir John Simon that the Luftwaffe already had that many planes and would soon have 2,000.\n\nHitler's boast, which was intended to intimidate any potential enemies, spurred advocates of British rearmament to action\u2014in particular, Winston Churchill, who in dozens of speeches and articles called for a much enlarged Royal Air Force to counteract what he saw as the coming German threat. Although Churchill was mocked by the opposition and ignored by many in his own party, he did have some success with his campaign.\n\nWhen faced with the incontrovertible fact of German rearmament, the British government approved plans to produce 816 new bombers by 1937. This number was increased to 990 in February 1936. In addition, production of new fighter planes was to begin.\n\nHarris was troubled by the air staff's plan, which included light bombers, medium bombers, and fighter-bombers\u2014any one of which, he said, would be obsolete by its delivery date. He called instead for a plane with a range of one thousand miles and a top speed of 250 miles per hour\u2014in other words, a heavy bomber.\n\nHe was able to influence strategic planning as one of three authors of a 1936 report entitled \"Appreciation of the Situation in the Event of War Against Germany in 1939.\" Few military documents have proved to be so prophetic. Harris and his coauthors, Forbes Adams and Tom Phillips, predicted exactly the German war aims and strategies and the only possible defense for Great Britain.\n\nA quick advance by Germany into France and the Low Countries would give the Germans the air bases from which to make concentrated attacks on the United Kingdom, which was clearly vulnerable to such assaults. Germany would then, they warned, do everything to guarantee a quick end so that Britain would not have time to mobilize for war.\n\nIn other words, the only course for the next two to three years was to prepare the country for defense against the coming German air raids. Harris was sure that the RAF could hold off the Germans with the fighter force that was in the works, and England could thus hold out until the offensive bomber force was in place. But the medium bombers could not be ready until 1940 at the earliest, and the heavies not until 1942.\n\nThe three authors also offered the opinion that any war with Germany would ultimately be decided on land. Harris would, of course, totally abandon this theory. He came to believe strongly that bombers alone could end the war.\n\nBecause even the thought of bombing cities and towns was still anathema, the three RAF officers were careful not to dwell on the fact that a bomber offensive would kill and maim thousands of enemy civilians. They had, however, made it clear that perhaps as many as 150,000 Englishmen would be killed or injured by German bombardment.\n\nNow came the job of mobilizing industry to build a war machine. The RAF comprised just 1,000 first-line aircraft in 1936. Great Britain ranked fifth among the world's air powers. Harris wanted to have at least 2,000 first-line planes by 1939 with a reserve force of 200 percent.\n\nBritish intelligence that the Luftwaffe would produce 2,500 first-line planes by that date and its reserve would be 100 percent was right on the mark. Production for the Luftwaffe in 1939 was 2,518 planes. However, in 1940 German production rose to 10,247.\n\n**In 1937 it appeared** to the advocates of aerial bombardment that they had won their campaign for increased aircraft production and procurement, and Harris happily accepted his promotion to air commodore and the command of a bomber group. But the triumph over the admirals and generals and the pacifist politicians was short-lived.\n\nIn an almost exact replication of what was happening in Germany and the United States, the decision was made to concentrate on medium bombers instead of the more expensive heavies. Almost as serious were the cuts in the reserve forces.\n\nHowever, much good also came out of this reordering of priorities, which concentrated on defensive aircraft. The Hurricane and Spitfire fighter planes, which won the Battle of Britain, are the most resonant examples.\n\nThe British realized early on that their aircraft industry could not meet even reduced goals in any reasonable time, and the RAF had to turn to the United States. Harris was part of a British mission that arrived in Washington in April 1938 to negotiate with the Americans for planes and equipment.\n\nHe was singularly impressed with American efficiency and enthusiasm, particularly the executives and engineers at the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. The British ordered \"batches of Hudsons and Harvards.\" As Harris wrote after the war, \"The Hudsons beyond doubt pulled us out of the soup when we used them for anti-submarine patrols... and the Harvards broke the back of our problem in finding training aircraft.\"\n\nBut his praise extended only to the civilian sector. As for the U.S. Army Air Corps, \"I am at a loss to understand where the myth of American air power and efficiency arose,\" he reported back to England.\n\nHarris acidly observed that the Americans \"have one or two 'stunt' units which can, and occasionally do, put up 'stunt' performances.\" In short, said Harris, the Americans had only \"an elaborate and expensive piece of window dressing, which comes perilously near to being little more than a jest when judged by the standards of any first class air power.... Their major obsession,\" said Harris, \"is that all their geese are swans, and that everybody else's are, at the best, ducks.\"\n\nIt is clear, using Harris's standards, that no country, in 1938, was a first-class air power. Certainly Great Britain was not, and in the not too distant future, events would prove how ineffective Germany's \"shopwindow\" Luftwaffe actually was.\n\nHarris did praise the American advances in navigation and recommended that Britain should order navigation and communications equipment from the United States. However, the item that the British were most anxious to learn about was off-limits. Harris ran into a stone wall when it came to the Norden bombsight. No information was available.\n\nGiven his scornful dismissal of the American air force, it is surprising that he became friends with the commander, Hap Arnold, and his deputy, Ira Eaker.\n\nHarris's reputation for speaking his mind made it unlikely that the American commanders did not hear of his remarks, but they refrained from responding to the testy Briton, who was doubtless venting some of his rage against the shortsighted bureaucrats at home. It cannot have been pleasant for this proud and touchy man to have gone hat in hand to the Americans.\n\nBy 1939, the situation began to change. Hap Arnold and Carl Spaatz, who were charged with a quantum expansion of the U.S. Army Air Corps, now ran head-on into balancing their needs with the needs of the RAF. Spaatz was flatly opposed to sending planes abroad when the American air force, if one could even call it that, was so deficient. No doubt Harris became aware of Spaatz's opposition, which may have colored his somewhat negative view of the American airman when they had to work together so closely later in the war.\n\nJust before Harris's mission to Washington in 1938, the forty-five-year-old bachelor officer had become engaged to twenty-year-old Therese Hearne. When he returned from the United States, they were married and soon afterward Harris began a second tour in the Middle East as air officer commanding Palestine and Transjordan.\n\nThe British attempt to adjudicate the troubles between the Jewish settlers and the Arabs often led to armed clashes, assassinations, and open revolt. Harris applied the techniques developed ten years earlier in India and Afghanistan, and once again airpower proved to be a useful tool of intimidation.\n\nHe returned to England in midsummer 1939, just after his promotion to air vice marshal, and when the war began he became head of 5 Group, one of the five bomber groups that made up Bomber Command, with headquarters at Grantham, an ancient and historic town on the Witham, in Lincolnshire.\n\nThe winter dragged on, and Hitler still did not press his presumed advantage after the invasion of Poland by moving west. This period, the so-called Phony War, which lasted from October 1939 until April 1940, was a time of waiting and watching, and for Harris it was a particularly dispiriting period.\n\n\"I have in the course of my lifetime rarely been so depressed,\" he said. His surroundings did little to lift his gloom. Grantham had once been the haunt of King John and Richard III, but Harris's troubles were of more recent vintage. He felt he was in a backwater and saddled with equipment that in his opinion was useless.\n\nHarris, in his pursuit of his military ideals, spared no one throughout his career in his relentless advocacy of better training, planes, and weaponry. When he saw the prototype of the twin-engine Avro Manchester in September 1940, he said that the only use for the plane as presently configured was for \"throwing away crews.\"\n\nHe was particularly derisive concerning the small escape hatches on the Avro Manchester. Someone at the Air Ministry should realize that if a man has to jump out of an airplane he should be able to take his parachute, Harris sarcastically observed.\n\nDespite Harris's criticisms, some two hundred Avro Manchesters were built and delivered to the RAF; but, as he predicted, they were a failure and were withdrawn from service in less than two years. The plane did serve a useful purpose, however. It would be the basis for the aircraft that became the backbone of the bomber fleet, the Lancaster.\n\nIn the same memo addressing the shortcomings of the Manchester, Harris's credo regarding aerial bombardment was simple. Heavy bombers should be used only for nighttime operations. Daylight bombing had been proved to be a \"busted flush.\" As he put it, this was a \"childishly obvious fact.\"\n\nArthur Harris's first concern was always the welfare and safety of his crews, which endeared him to the rank and file of the RAF. He was particularly distressed by what he saw as foolhardy actions by pilots to save a plane or avoid civilian casualties on the ground if a plane crashed. Trained pilots and crew, he said, were far more important than either a plane or any unfortunate civilian who happened to be in the way.\n\nPlanes and crew, as vital as they were, existed for only one reason, to rain destruction on the enemy, and Harris early on pressed for the development of more powerful bombs. The Germans had by the winter of 1940 demonstrated the destruction that could be caused by large highexplosive bombs, and intelligence indicated that the Nazis were developing a 4,000-pound version.\n\nHarris was quick to trade on the German advances and to adopt the Luftwaffe's bombing policies. It mattered not at all to him where ideas came from. Effectiveness was the only criterion. In a memorandum he laid out the two principal bombing methods as he saw it.\n\nThe first was so-called precision bombing, wherein factories, communications centers, and other industrial sites were hit directly, or nearly so, by heavy fragmentation bombs.\n\nThe other method was the Luftwaffe's. Light-case bombs with huge amounts of explosives were dropped with little regard for accuracy. Damage was more widespread; it interrupted all essential services and so damaged buildings that production would be halted. The effect could be increased exponentially if the high explosives were accompanied by incendiaries. This plan would evolve into the system that would become standard bombing procedure. Incendiaries were used to set the fires and the high explosives\u20142,000-pound, 4,000-pound, and even larger bombs\u2014would crash through, destroying roads, water mains, and the electrical supply.\n\nThus, in late 1940, Bomber Command, as Harris had always argued it would, became the only British means of engaging the Germans directly on the Continent.\n\nIn June 1941, Harris returned to the United States as head of a delegation charged with expediting the purchase and delivery of American war mat\u00e9riel. Harris had not tempered his view of America\u2014the only thing worse than going there, he said, was staying at the Air Ministry\u2014but only someone of his rank and experience could deal with the American officers on equal terms, so he accepted the assignment.\n\nHarris particularly disliked Washington, though he managed to hide his disdain. And he was wise enough to realize that there were many in the Roosevelt administration who were sincerely trying to help his beleaguered country.\n\nHe reached out to them, and to one in particular: a man who was singled out and praised unstintingly by both Harris and Churchill\u2014Harry Hopkins. The mild-mannered midwesterner was a strong interventionist, and he now became Harris's personal conduit to his boss, the president, who already was bending every effort, and not a few laws, to overcome the ingrained opposition to foreign involvement by powerful leaders in the Congress and the majority of his countrymen.\n\nHarris toured the country, visiting aircraft factories and training fields and forging firm alliances with other military men with whom he would work closely in the coming months and years. He also came to admire George Marshall\u2014whom Churchill called \"the noblest Roman of them all\"\u2014and he developed strong relationships with Robert Lovett and Averell Harriman, two other influential figures in the Roosevelt administration and strong anglophiles.\n\nOn 22 June 1941, just days after Harris arrived in Washington, Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The opening of this second front, in the east, with the diversion of much of the Third Reich's war-making potential, relieved a great deal of the immediate pressure on Great Britain; but Harris and his countrymen's most fervent prayers had yet to be answered.\n\nThey had not long to wait. On 8 December, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt went before the Congress and asked for a declaration of war against Japan. And on 11 December, in what historian Martin Gilbert has called \"perhaps the greatest error, and certainly the single most decisive act, of the Second World War,\" Hitler declared war on the United States.\n\nAmerica was now firmly and officially allied with Britain in the war, but, paradoxically, Harris's job did not become easier. The equipment he had obtained with such difficulty was now needed by Britain's new ally.\n\nThere was also the question of which theater of operations the United States would consider the more important. In order to ensure that it would be Europe, Churchill left England the day after Hitler's declaration of war, bound for Washington and his second meeting with Roosevelt in ten months. In the delegation was Air Chief Marshal Sir Charles Portal, chief of the air staff.\n\nAfter the first meeting of Roosevelt and Churchill with the Combined Chiefs of Staff, Portal pulled Harris aside and informed him that he was going to recommend to the prime minister his appointment as head of Bomber Command. The next day Harris was told that Churchill, who was impressed by the close relationship that Harris had developed with Roosevelt and Hopkins, had agreed.\n\nHarris may have ingratiated himself with the president and his trusted adviser or, more likely, they with him, but their goodwill seems not to have tempered his view of things American. Roosevelt's boast to Harris that the average American could quickly learn to fly a plane\u2014\"because you see our boys are all used to mechanical things\u2014they can drive a car long before they are legally allowed to\"\u2014was swallowed at the time by the air marshal.\n\nIn his postwar memoirs, however, he let fly. \"Well,\" he said, \"the answer to that sort of statement is that any moron can drive a motor car and it is generally the moron who takes most delight in doing so.\"\n\nOn 10 February 1942, Harris sailed from Boston for home, aboard HMS _Alcantara_ , a passenger liner that had been converted into an armed merchant cruiser. While he was at sea, the famous area-bombing directive was sent to Bomber Command. Along with the decision to fly only at night because of the enormous losses, it had become clear that precision bombing, with the equipment then at hand, was also not possible. The only appreciable damage that could be meted out to the enemy was to bomb the cities. After all, as Harris had observed more than once, that is where the industry was. And while the area-bombing directive was drafted while he was in the United States, its contents could hardly have come as a surprise. In any event, he embraced it wholeheartedly.\n\nHarris also maintained, somewhat disingenuously, that while morale bombing of Germany was high on others' lists of priorities, it was never a major priority of Bomber Command. As he said, \"The idea that the main object of bombing German industrial cities was to break the enemy's morale proved to be wholly unsound.\" His argument had to do not with morality, however, but with practicality.\n\nHow could it have been effective, he argued, when in the brutal police state that was Nazi Germany there was never a possibility that the people could successfully rebel against the regime? As Harris said, the Gestapo was firmly in control and the leaders of the Reich made a clear distinction between the morale of the people and their conduct. The people suffered terribly from the raids, but they still reported for work. He might also have added that millions of workers in the Reich and the occupied territories were slave laborers.\n\nHarris, ever the advocate of airpower, did not rule out morale bombing. \"I do not, of course, suggest that bombing is not a useful weapon against morale,\" he wrote, citing the successes of the Luftwaffe in 1939 and 1940 in Poland and Holland. But, he added, the German \"attempts to break the morale of Britain by bombing altogether failed.\"\n\nHere one encounters again the oft-stated, contradictory arguments for morale bombing of civilians. On the one hand, it might work if one's own planes are doing the bombing. On the other hand, it is not effective if the enemy is dropping the bombs.\n\nA letter written by a survivor of the Dresden raids and firestorm is instructive on this point. \"The damage surpasses all one could imagine.... But we must not give up. Somehow we have to get through it all as it seems to be our duty.\"\n\nOn 23 February 1942, Harris assumed his new post, commander in chief, Bomber Command. He quickly settled in at the headquarters five miles from High Wycombe, in Buckinghamshire, and at once began to develop and refine the bombing practices that in the next three years would blast Germany's cities into heaps of rubble. Also buried in the dust of the cities of the Reich was the fine distinction between morale and area bombing.\n\n**The Billy Mitchell episode** had served to put the issue of American airpower front and center, where it belonged, but it did nothing to tamp down interservice rivalries. The American military was not completely blind to the potential of airpower, but the American generals and admirals saw the airplane only in terms of tactical support for ground troops and naval vessels. And they certainly did not want any air arm to be on a par with the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy\u2014not in congressional appropriations, not in strength, and certainly not in influence.\n\nThere were minor but encouraging advances, however. The National Defense Act of 1920 established the U.S. Army Air Service, within the U.S. Army and equal to the infantry and the cavalry\u2014at least in theory. The reality was otherwise. The act required that 90 percent of the officers in the air service be rated fliers. In addition, anyone transferring into the air service had to pass the stringent physical requirements. For senior military officers, this was, by and large, not possible. They were too old. The air service was therefore staffed with junior men in the military hierarchy.\n\nIn July 1923, the future head of the U.S. Army Air Forces, thirty-seven-year-old Henry Harley (Hap) Arnold, and the future head of the Eighth Air Force, thirty-two-year-old Carl Spaatz, held only the rank of major. Clearly, this lack of seniority hampered any serious buildup of the air service, whose officers did not have the clout in the army to advance their views\u2014much less impose their will.\n\nAs sometimes happens, this detriment turned out to be an asset. These relatively young men were obliged to perform the tasks of men much older and much more senior in the regular army. And, of course, among themselves they were not bound by the archaic rules and attitudes of the traditional services.\n\nHap Arnold was a true aviation pioneer. Anxious to get out of the infantry, he'd applied in 1909 for a transfer to the Aeronautical Division of the Signal Corps. His application was approved in 1911, when the War Department contracted with the Wright Brothers to buy three airplanes. The transaction included pilot training at the Wright Brothers Flying School outside Dayton, Ohio, for Arnold and a fellow officer, Thomas DeWitt Milling.\n\nAlthough Arnold worked closely with both Wright brothers at the school and factory, he never flew with either of them. The Wrights concentrated on the mechanics of aircraft with the students. An assistant took them up in the planes.\n\nAfter total air time of about six and a half hours, Hap Arnold found himself a licensed pilot, one of the first in the United States. He and Milling were the only two pilots in the United States Army.\n\nArnold's early flying career was distinguished by his winning the Mackay Trophy for an outstanding military flight, but it was also marred by one crash and one near crash, which he admitted so unnerved him that he voluntarily removed himself from active flying duty in 1912. His subsequent marriage reinforced his decision to stay on the ground. But after unrewarding tours back in the infantry, he once again felt the pull of aviation, and in November 1916, at age thirty, he returned to the air.\n\nWhen America entered the war in 1917, Arnold, in the belief that any future promotions would depend on frontline experience, applied several times for postings to Europe. His superiors felt he was needed in Washington, so his requests were denied until November 1918. He finally made it to the war, but just barely. He arrived in France on 4 November, just a week before the Armistice. Thus, to his everlasting regret, his illustrious career lacked one important element: actual aerial combat.\n\nBut the War Department experience would prove just as valuable in more important ways in the years to come. During his time in Washington he had seen firsthand the problems that would bedevil the buildup of a proper air force\u2014research and development, aircraft manufacturing, the training of pilots, and the building of the infrastructure necessary for a proper air arm. It would take years to solve the problems\u2014if indeed they were ever solved to Arnold's satisfaction\u2014but this hands-on experience in Washington laid the foundation.\n\nArnold's World War I tour in Washington also involved the development of an experimental aircraft that in retrospect was more prescient than its designers imagined. The Liberty Eagle, or \"Bug,\" as the plane was called, was an unmanned biplane loaded with explosives. It employed a rudimentary form of the system used to launch and guide the V-1, or Buzz Bomb, the weapon developed by the Germans and used with deadly effect against the cities of England in 1944\u201345.\n\nThe Bug never flew successfully, and the project was abandoned and forgotten by the military. It was thus consigned to the same shelf as two other revolutionary ideas that were conceived early on by the Americans but never developed until years later: midair refueling and wing tanks.\n\nThe interwar years were difficult for a career officer in any branch of the military. Wartime promotions were revoked, and Arnold briefly found himself reduced in rank from colonel to captain before it was settled that he would have the permanent rank of major\u2014a bitter pill for a thirty-four-year-old. He also (at least he so believed) suffered from his defense of Billy Mitchell. Beginning in 1926, he was \"exiled,\" as he put it, to a string of air fields in the Midwest for five years.\n\nMeanwhile, other airmen found themselves in a similar situation, existing on the fringes of the American military establishment. Among them were James Doolittle, Carl Spaatz, and Ira Eaker, with whom Arnold forged strong ties and who in two decades would help him transform the United States into the greatest air power in the world.\n\nIn 1931, Arnold's career began to look up, with his promotion to lieutenant colonel and his appointment as commanding officer of March Field, in California. And in 1934, he was awarded a Distinguished Flying Cross and another Mackay Trophy for his command of a group of ten Martin B-10 bombers on a round-trip flight from Washington, D.C., to Fairbanks, Alaska.\n\nThe following year, Arnold was promoted to brigadier general, temporary, and in January 1936, he was posted back to Washington as assistant chief of the U.S. Army Air Corps.\n\nArnold's military credentials were certainly impeccable, but he had also cultivated powerful friends in the Roosevelt administration, in particular the president's closest confidant (some would say alter ego), the redoubtable Harry Hopkins. Through Hopkins he gained the respect and confidence of the president himself, and on 21 September 1938, Arnold was given the top Army Air Corps job, chief of the air force, and a second general's star. Henceforth the president relied on Arnold for advice on all matters concerning airpower, and Arnold's was a major voice at the Big Power conferences.\n\nIn June 1941, the U.S. Army Air Forces was created and Arnold's title became chief of the army air forces, part of the promotion being so that there would be an American equivalent of the British air marshals at the upcoming Atlantic Conference in Newfoundland being arranged secretly by Hopkins.\n\nArnold also attended the conferences, at Quebec, Cairo, and Potsdam; but it was at Casablanca in January 1943 that he did perhaps his most important and, some would say, controversial work. There he helped craft the bombing directive for the massive Allied air campaign against the Third Reich.\n\nArnold, to his chagrin, realized soon after arriving in Casablanca that the British air staff had convinced Churchill that only night bombing could succeed. After all, daylight raids had been a disaster for the RAF and had been abandoned. This was no small matter, since the Americans had been trained only for daylight operations.\n\nThe American commander wisely left it to his more experienced and knowledgeable subordinates\u2014in particular Eaker, who at the time was head of the Eighth Air Force in England\u2014to make the case for daylight raids. Thus the policy of round-the-clock bombing of the Third Reich\u2014the Americans by day and the British by night\u2014was born.\n\nThere was no argument about the ultimate purpose of the combined bomber offensive, which was to bring about \"the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic system.\" But there was a secret directive as well: \"the undermining of the morale of the German people to a point where their capacity for armed resistance is fatally weakened.\"\n\nDuring the war and after, the Americans insisted that their unchanging and official policy throughout was always the precision bombing of military targets, and that civilians were never purposely targeted. It is clear, however, from the Casablanca directive that terror bombing of civilians was an official, albeit unannounced, policy of both the RAF and the Eighth Air Force. And Hap Arnold, as the ranking American airman present, doubtless played a major role in formulating the policy that by war's end had caused the death of an estimated 600,000 German civilians.\n\n**If Arthur Harris is** indeed the archetype of the World War II airman, the man responsible for the rebirth, expansion, and subsequent policies of the German air force was an archetype of a very different sort. Harris and the other bomber barons are now known chiefly by students of the period, but as so often happens with history's true scoundrels, Hermann G\u00f6ring's fame is widespread and enduring.\n\nBut G\u00f6ring's place in history comes from his politics, not his military prowess. He was part of Adolf Hitler's innermost circle and was one of the most notorious criminals of the Nazi era.\n\nG\u00f6ring's position in the Third Reich, in that it was both military and political, was much higher than that of any of his opposite numbers among the Allies, but his direct control of the Luftwaffe put him in a rather similar operational position. And he is, of course, irrevocably tied to his conquerors, although, unlike them, he left no aviation legacy.\n\nThe virulently anti-Semitic G\u00f6ring was the namesake and godson of Hermann von Eppenstein, an Austrian-born Jew who had converted to Catholicism. Eppenstein was not only the godfather of Hermann and his siblings, he was also the lover of G\u00f6ring's mother for fifteen years.\n\nEppenstein had been ennobled, and in keeping with his position he maintained two castles\u2014Schloss Veldenstein, at Neuhaus an der Pegnitz, near Nuremberg, and Schloss Mauterndorf, at Salzburg, where the G\u00f6ring family lived after the father retired from the diplomatic service. It was among the medieval towers and battlements of the castles that young Hermann discovered his love for the Germany of myth and legend. He also developed a taste for opulence and grandeur.\n\nYoung Hermann had an illustrious career in the German air force, downing twenty-two enemy planes, for which he received Germany's highest military decoration, the Pour le M\u00e9rite. When Manfred von Richthofen, the legendary Red Baron, was killed, G\u00f6ring became commander of his squadron.\n\nLike millions of his countrymen, G\u00f6ring left the military a bitter and resentful man. In Munich, where he had gone to study at the university, he met the man who would harness his nation's resentments and ride them to power.\n\nAdolf Hitler and his fledgling National Socialist Party, the Nazis, promised to right the wrongs visited on Germany. What did the methods matter if the F\u00fchrer could reverse the decline of Germany, abrogate the hated Versailles Treaty, and restore the Fatherland to its rightful place in the world? Hitler's rage and anger were focused on two groups in particular. The chief authors of German defeat and humiliation, he said, were the Bolsheviks and the Jews.\n\nAdolf Hitler's message was easily assimilated by the twenty-nine-year-old war veteran, and he was welcomed into the Nazi Party in October 1922. Two months later, Hermann G\u00f6ring, godson and prot\u00e9g\u00e9 of an Austrian Jew, was head of the SA, the Sturmabteilung, or Storm Troopers, Hitler's elite guard.\n\nThe bond between the two men was further strengthened when G\u00f6ring was wounded in the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. He fled Germany to avoid imprisonment and spent the next four years in exile. He returned to Germany in 1927 and renewed his relationship with Hitler. When the Nazis won twelve seats in the Reichstag in the 1928 elections G\u00f6ring took one of them, alongside Joseph Goebbels.\n\nBy 1932, the Nazis were strong enough that they were able to force the election of G\u00f6ring as president of the Reichstag. By the time of Hitler's triumph\u2014the accession to the chancellorship in 1933\u2014Hermann G\u00f6ring's future was assured.\n\nThe old loyalist was given three cabinet posts. He was made minister without portfolio, which meant, to use his own word, he was the F\u00fchrer's \"paladin.\" As minister of the interior for Prussia, which included the capital, he had control of the police of the most powerful state in Germany.\n\nHe soon made known his intentions, bragging that he alone would be in charge in Prussia. Thus was born an organization whose name would become synonymous with torture, murder, and suppression of all dissent\u2014the _Geheime Staatspolizei_ , or Gestapo.\n\nIn the dog-eat-dog world of Nazi politics, G\u00f6ring's power always depended on the will or whim of the F\u00fchrer, who encouraged infighting among his subordinates. It was, after all, a basic Nazi belief that the most worthy man would triumph and come out on top. And if he did so, was he not, according to the doctrine of the survival of the fittest, ipso facto the best man for the job, whatever that job may be? Thus, in a series of intrigues, G\u00f6ring lost control of the Gestapo to Heinrich Himmler, and also lost the interior ministry for Prussia.\n\nHowever, there remained the seemingly innocuous third cabinet post, air traffic minister. That one would prove to be the most important, at least as concerns the military, of G\u00f6ring's government assignments. He at once began to combine the civilian air clubs and aviation organizations into the German Air Club and German Air Sport Union.\n\nGoebbels immediately began to beat his propaganda drums. He warned the German people in the most strident terms of the nation's vulnerability to air attack and the need to build up a defense. A National Flying Day was held at Berlin's Tempelhof Airport on 15 June 1933, and a week later the Goebbels-controlled press fired the first shot in the air war: \"Red Plague over Berlin: Foreign Planes of an Unknown Type Escaped Unrecognized; Defenseless Germany.\"\n\nThe 1926 Pact of Paris allowed Germany air police protection, and G\u00f6ring moved immediately to take advantage of this clause and exploit the scare invented by the propaganda minister. He successfully negotiated with Sir John Siddeley, the British aircraft manufacturer, to provide aircraft to Germany.\n\nFormer wartime comrades of G\u00f6ring's\u2014in particular, Karl Bodenschatz, Erhard Milch, Bruno Loerzer, and Ernst Udet\u2014were only too anxious to join him in building the German air force, but the emphasis was placed on training younger men for a modern air force. One of the first to be enlisted was twenty-one-year-old Adolf Galland, the future head of the Luftwaffe fighter command.\n\nThe putative Lufthansa trainee, along with several other young men, was sent for secret training as a fighter pilot with the Italian air force. Within the year, as Hitler became bolder, Galland and other of the Italian-trained pilots were transferred to the military and commissioned as officers.\n\nIn fairness\u2014if such a word can be used in such a context as Hitler's Germany\u2014no man could have fulfilled all the duties that were assigned to Hermann G\u00f6ring. Not only was he to oversee the buildup of the German air force, but he was also in charge of overseeing the economic plans of the Reich and then of the conquered territories. It would be as if in America one person were placed in charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Treasury and Commerce departments, the Office of Management and Budget, and the air force. Failure was inevitable.\n\nBefore the collapse, however, there were years of stunning successes, or so it seemed to the outside world. In the early years of the Reich, G\u00f6ring was by no means a hands-on manager of the Luftwaffe. He attended few staff meetings and was seldom seen in his office at the Air Ministry. His chief role was ensuring that funds were available for the vast buildup envisioned by a capable group of subordinates\u2014Walther Wever, Helmut Wilberg, and Robert Knauss.\n\nThese three men were fervid believers in the philosophy of Giulio Douhet and advocated early on the building of a large bomber fleet to deter any aggression from Germany's enemies and to take the war to the enemy homeland if necessary. Their philosophy was embodied in \"Luftwaffe Regulation 16: The Conduct of the Aerial War.\"\n\nAlthough the regulation stressed that the purpose of an air war was to destroy the enemy's military forces\u2014\"The will of the nation finds its greatest embodiment in its armed forces\"\u2014there was no doubt in its supporting arguments that any segment supporting the military was a fit target for attack: factories, rail lines, administrative centers, power plants, and so on. In other words, the civilian population would not be spared in the event of a war.\n\nIn June 1936, the hitherto relatively smoothly functioning bureaucracy of the Luftwaffe received a blow from which it never recovered. Lieutenant General Walter Wever, the chief of staff, was killed in an air crash in Dresden.\n\nForthwith, G\u00f6ring began to take a more active role in Luftwaffe planning and policies, and he appointed his old friend Ernst Udet chief of aircraft production. Udet, who was little more than a glorified test pilot, had no knowledge of aeronautics or airplane design.\n\nBy this time, although the resurgence of the German military machine was a reality, much of the power attributed to it was a bluff. However, when visitors from abroad were shown the new planes and the factories and introduced to the dashing young Teutonic pilots, they spread the word of the powerful armada that Germany was building and could launch against any potential enemies.\n\nGeneral Joseph Vuillemin, a French air commander, was led to believe\u2014and did believe\u2014that the test-model Heinkel bomber that roared overhead during his visit to a Luftwaffe airfield was in full production. Heinkel was said to be producing seventy He 111s a month.\n\nIn addition, it was said that the Messerschmitt Me 109 fighter was also being turned out in vast numbers, and the French delegation was treated to an awesome display of firepower from a jacked-up Me 110\u2014 again, only a prototype passed off as being in full production.\n\nBut the Luftwaffe was, in reality, as historian Michael Sherry has pointed out, a \"shop-window\" air force. It was \"designed to intimidate or to demonstrate resolve,\" but it had very little to back it up. In no area was it as it was presented. Not only were the planes for show but command structure was weak, as were logistics, training, and reserves.\n\nIn Poland, in September 1939, the weaknesses were quickly made manifest to the knowing, but they were concealed by the rapidity of the assault and conquest of the country. Newsreel pictures of the Stuka dive-bomber attacking men on horseback reinforced the image of a technologically superior nation. The reality was otherwise. The Luftwaffe lost 285 planes and 734 men in the four-week campaign.\n\nHitler himself was taken in by the propaganda extolling the invincible Luftwaffe, and the F\u00fchrer was lavish with honors and high position for the man he saw as its progenitor. It would take him years to realize that his trust in G\u00f6ring was misplaced, but by then the war was lost.\n\nG\u00f6ring's great failing was that he did not use his influence and proximity to educate Hitler on the importance of strategic airpower and to institute a rational plan for research, development, and production of aircraft. In this he was, of course, like most yes-men. Whatever the F\u00fchrer said was correct.\n\nOtto Dietrich, Hitler's chief of press relations from 1933 until 1935, offered interesting insights into Hitler's attitude toward airpower. According to Dietrich, the F\u00fchrer had no feeling for airplanes. In fact, he did not like to fly himself, although he had used an aircraft to telling effect while campaigning for office.\n\nThe F\u00fchrer, however, never hesitated to interfere in design or production, and thus designers and builders were allowed to develop whatever struck their and the F\u00fchrer's fancy at the moment rather than concentrating on proven aircraft.\n\nG\u00f6ring has often been painted as something of a buffoon, a beer hall glad-hander, an incompetent who succeeded to his positions of power through his doglike devotion to Adolf Hitler. And, indeed, there is truth to these assessments. There is also the fact it was his devotion and loyalty and proximity to the F\u00fchrer that were integral to the founding and early growth of the Luftwaffe.\n\nFor all his failings, G\u00f6ring turned out to have been a realist about German power in 1939 and the consequent ability of the Reich to wage war. The vaunted air force was something of a sham, and he knew it. But he said nothing, and it would be a year before the truth became obvious.\n\nGerman medium bombers might be able to carry a thousand pounds of bombs to England, but they would have to do so without anywhere near effective fighter escorts. Therefore, it was essential to knock out the British fighter squadrons if the bombers were to get through. Thus when G\u00f6ring laid down the priorities and the strategy for the Luftwaffe in January 1940, he made it clear that the aircraft industry and the RAF establishments were far and away the most important targets.\n\nBut there was the added danger that such precision required. The Luftwaffe would have to operate in daylight or when there was a full moon. Otherwise, said G\u00f6ring, many of the raids on aircraft factories would have to be undertaken by single aircraft or small groups of planes to ensure surprise.\n\nAlthough he would have to revise his thinking in the light of the harsh realities, in January 1940 Hermann G\u00f6ring characterized night raids as merely \"nuisance raids,\" which would be carried out only to keep the British on edge. As for the bombing of cities, he said, \"An endeavor will be made to avoid for the time being considerable casualties among the civilian population.\"\n\nOn 7 September 1940, when it seemed that success in the Battle of Britain was within reach, G\u00f6ring reversed this policy. It was the greatest strategic blunder of the many that the head of the Luftwaffe made. The bombers were redirected to the cities of Britain, particularly London, and when the Blitz ended in November, Germany had lost hundreds of planes and men and Hitler and G\u00f6ring's grand plan to conquer Britain was finished. But neither man was ever able to reconcile the fact that it was their strategy that was at fault and not the men charged with carrying it out.\n\nIndeed, when apprised that RAF fighters were appearing in ever-increasing numbers to shoot down his bombers, G\u00f6ring exulted, \"That's just what we want! If they come at us in droves, we can shoot them down in droves.\"\n\n\"In the face of such arguments no fruitful discussion was possible,\" wrote German historian Cajus Bekker. \"The Luftwaffe's supreme commander had lost touch, to a disturbing degree, with operational problems. He dwelt in a world of illusions.\"\n\n# CHAPTER THREE\n\n**WEAPONS FOR THE NEW AGE OF WARFARE**\n\nThe Race for Aerial Superiority\n\n**A merica, Germany, and Britain produced a remarkable array of** aircraft as they prepared for and fought World War II. In the race to win defense contracts and reap the immense sums allocated for building up air forces, competition was fierce and was not limited to the industrial sector. Politics, both civilian and military, played a role as well.\n\nAs in America, where there were ruthless interservice rivalries and each branch had its own sometimes peculiar demands for aircraft, so was it in Great Britain. The Germans had a somewhat different problem, in that the byzantine workings of Hitler's inner circle and the underlings who aspired to be part of it often led to procurement decisions that had little to do with offensive or defensive needs.\n\nWhether in democratic or totalitarian societies, technological breakthroughs ran up against an almost willful blindness by military leaders and politicians, who, in pursuit of their own agendas, could be oblivious to what was needed by the men who had to fly or defend against the fighters and bombers in combat.\n\nIn Great Britain the first bombers put into service, the twin-engine Wellingtons, Hampdens, Whitleys, Manchesters, and Blenheims\u2014which bore the brunt of the aerial offensive from 1939 until 1942\u2014were all deficient, often in many important ways. But each had its partisans, and crucial time was lost before it was clear that twin-engine aircraft, even in great numbers, would never be equal to the task set for Bomber Command: the obliteration of Germany.\n\nThe first of the four-engine heavy bombers to see action with the RAF was the Short Stirling. The initial order was delivered to the RAF in August 1940. The Handley Page Halifax followed in November of the same year. The Avro Lancaster lagged somewhat behind these first two heavy bombers. Production did not begin until early in 1942. But massive production of the heavy bombers would not really get under way until even later, when much of it was farmed out to countries in the commonwealth.\n\nIndeed, when Arthur Harris assumed command in late February 1942, the total operational night-bomber strength of Bomber Command was only 469 aircraft, of which just 53 were the new four-engine bombers. There were an additional 78 day bombers, all of them twin-engined.\n\nAmerican aircraft manufacturers were just as anxious to gain as large a piece of the armaments pie as their British and German counterparts, and they too trotted out various designs and prototypes that they promoted as the bombing platform that would guarantee U.S. superiority. By the time the American aircraft industry finally geared up, the country was on a war footing. There was little time to try many different aircraft and then pick the one that worked best, but a plethora of manufacturers, contractors, and subcontractors turned out dozens of mock-ups and prototypes of bombers, fighters, and transports.\n\nWhen the dust settled, however, just three twin-engine medium bombers, two four-engine heavy bombers, and three fighters carried the brunt of the American campaign in Europe. The largest bomber of all, the B-29 Superfortress, was not deployed until mid-1944 and only in the Far East.\n\nThe Douglas Boston medium bomber was first produced for the French air force, but with the fall of France in 1940 the planes were diverted to Britain, where they were instrumental in whatever early successes Bomber Command had.\n\nThe Martin B-26 Marauder was a versatile tactical bomber that was used with great success by America and the Allies. It became fully operational in the summer of 1941, and some 5,000 saw action during the war.\n\nThe best-known of the American twin-engine bombers was the North American B-25 Mitchell, which first flew in January 1939 and was in full production by February 1941. This plane, of which some 10,000 were built, gave the Allies a much-needed psychological lift on 18 April 1942 when General James H. Doolittle led a group of sixteen B-25s from the aircraft carrier _Hornet_ in the western Pacific and successfully raided Tokyo. The raid was little more than a calling card, but it served notice that the Japanese home islands were in striking distance of a determined enemy.\n\nArguably the best-known American heavy bomber of World War II was the Boeing B-17, the legendary Flying Fortress. Its predecessors were the 1931 twin-engine Boeing B-9, the first single-wing, all-metal bomber, and the 1933 Martin B-10.\n\nIt was clear soon after its introduction that the B-9 was more useful as a model for the nascent airline industry than for the air corps, and by 1934 Boeing was already at work on a successor. In July 1935, the XB-17, as it was called, was introduced at the Boeing plant in Seattle. The prototype flew on 28 July, and the following month the plane flew nonstop to Dayton, Ohio. A new era in aerial bombardment had clearly begun. The air corps ordered sixty-five of the new bombers. The euphoria was brief. In October, the XB-17 crashed on takeoff.\n\nThe cause was pilot error, but the accident served as ammunition for jittery congressmen who were not unlike their counterparts in Britain and Germany. Could you not, they asked, have many more twin-engine bombers for the same amount of money? The B-17 program was kept alive, but barely; the order was reduced to just thirteen planes.\n\nThe first operational B-17 was delivered to 2nd Wing, GHQ Air Force, in January 1937. The remaining twelve planes on order from Boeing trickled in over the next two and a half years, until the thirteen-plane order had been fulfilled. The 2nd Wing thus had the only operational squadron of four-engine heavy bombers\u2014which was the American bomber force\u2014in September 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland and World War II began.\n\nThe B-17 was the plane that the theorists had long called for. It so bristled with armaments that it surely justified its name, Flying Fortress. No attacking fighter force would be a match or be a danger. This bomber would always get through.\n\nThis unshakable faith in the plane's invincibility created a dangerous situation in the air force that would take years to rectify. The development of new fighter planes ceased to have any priority. They weren't needed by a self-defending bomber fleet, said the advocates of bombardment.\n\nThis universal blindness to the need for development of a powerful single-engine interceptor or escort is well illustrated by an October 1934 visit to a BMW plant in Germany by the vice president of Wright Aeronautics. The BMW director sent along the American's remarks to Ernst Udet, head of aircraft production for the Luftwaffe, who forwarded them to Erhard Milch, secretary of state for air.\n\n\"According to the American habit [he] spoke quite frankly and we thereby received very valuable information,\" said the BMW director. The single-seat fighter \"had played out its part.\" Only a twin-engine plane could ever hope to catch one of the new bombers, of which, he said, the best was the new Curtiss A-18, a twin-engine bomber with 850-horsepower engines.\n\nBecause the Allies had delayed the full-scale peacetime development of a long-range, heavy bomber force, the planes perforce had to be put into service before many of the operational problems were even recognized, much less corrected. Sometimes fatal design flaws thus came to light under the grueling and dangerous conditions of actual combat.\n\nThe first sale of heavy bombers to Great Britain comprised twenty of the new B-17Cs, and Bomber Command crews came to America to train in the planes at McChord Field, near Tacoma, Washington, in January 1941. This group of RAF Flying Fortresses began to be ferried across the Atlantic in April.\n\nAdditional training was necessary in Britain, but by summer all seemed ready for the new American bomber's combat debut. On 8 July 1941, three B-17s were dispatched to raid Wilhemshaven in daylight. Two of the planes successfully bombed the docks, and all three planes returned to their home base. It was a reasonably auspicious beginning but by no means a true test.\n\nHarris's withering assessment of the Americans and their equipment would prove to be on target. American Anglophobia and British smugness aside, the criticisms seemed justified. The subsequent performance of the U.S. plane was disappointing.\n\nIn fifty-one sorties, eight of the aircraft were lost either in combat or to accidents, and only 2,240 pounds of bombs could definitely be said to have fallen on the assigned targets. No enemy fighters were shot down. Harris ordered a halt in their use in operations on the Continent.\n\nWas this record the fault of the plane or the way in which it was deployed by the RAF? There were design problems to be sure, but the problems were exacerbated by Bomber Command policy. The B-17 was slow and was designed to operate in daylight, and the British were wedded to high-altitude nighttime operations. Since many of the planes were delivered with no heating system, the B-17s' guns froze, their windshields frosted over, and their engines did not operate efficiently. Worse, since the engines had no flare dampers, the exhaust flames could be seen for thirty miles, which made the planes an easy target for enemy interceptors and antiaircraft batteries.\n\nAnd the RAF never used more than four of the aircraft at a time, thus ensuring that there could be no proper bomb pattern. As far as the British pilots were concerned, Hermann G\u00f6ring's taunt that the B-17 was a \"flying coffin\" was all too accurate. The British B-17 operational difficulties might very well have been the result of not using the plane properly, but when the Americans arrived in force, they too had serious problems with the plane.\n\nOn one U.S. raid, when the thirty-eight B-17s were en route back to their home base in England they were suddenly attacked by German fighters. But only two of the Fortresses could return fire because the windows had frosted up. Fortunately for the helpless crews, the enemy interceptors were at the limit of their range and had to turn back.\n\nMost of the problems with the Flying Fortress were ironed out over time, and slowly the fleet was built up so that by the end of November 1944 there were over 1,300 operational B-17s with the Eighth Air Force.\n\nThe problems with another American plane, the B-24 Liberator, were more substantial and were the results of basic design flaws. This plane was designed to carry four tons of bombs\u2014one ton more than the B-17\u2014and was supposed to fly at greater speeds and higher altitudes.\n\nHowever, the plane's armament proved so deficient in combat that it immediately had to be increased. The added weight increased fuel consumption and lowered both the speed and the operational altitude. To compensate, the bomb load was reduced by a ton and half\u2014from 8,000 pounds to 5,000 pounds. And, of course, the range of the plane was also substantially reduced.\n\nThe B-24 had other problems as well, which gave it a reputation as a hard plane to fly and a poor bombing platform. The normal upward angle of the nose of the plane in flight was made even more pronounced once the speed was reduced. This change in the plane's attitude further reduced the visibility for the pilot, the navigator, and the bombardier, who sat in the nose turret. It took a crew of great skill to man the plane and overcome General Doolittle's complaint that 75 percent of mission failures were caused by poor navigation. Doolittle's low estimate of the plane's operational abilities could not be raised by increasing the crew's navigational skills, however.\n\nAs late as 25 January 1945, he wrote to Lieutenant General Barney M. Giles, chief of the air staff, \"It is my studied opinion that no minor modifications will make the B-24 a satisfactory airplane for this theater.\" This, after the plane had been in service for five years and undergone countless modifications. Giles replied on 10 February that the staff was about at \"the end of their rope\" as far as the B-24 was concerned. Arnold really blew his stack when he learned during an inspection trip that some five hundred modifications were then being done on the plane.\n\nHowever, one Liberator did prove to be particularly airworthy. The pilot and crew managed to bring the critically damaged plane back to England, but it was clear that they were not going to be able to land it safely. They headed the aircraft out to sea, set the autopilot, and then bailed out. But the plane turned around at the coast and for ten minutes flew around the airfield at Woodbridge until the tail fell off and the plane \"landed\" on the runway.\n\nAnd the sad honor of being the last American bomber on a combat mission to be shot down over Germany in World War II fell to a B-24. On 21 April 1945, the _Black Cat_ fell victim to antiaircraft fire at Regensburg.\n\nOfficial assessments of the B-24 were not much shared by the pilots who flew the plane, it seems, although their copilots were not so enthusiastic. Seventy-nine percent of the pilots who were surveyed felt that the B-24 was the best plane for the job. Only 58 percent of copilots agreed. Figures for the B-17 were much higher: 92 percent and 88 percent, respectively.\n\n**The bombing campaign** against Germany would never have achieved the success it did without the development of a long-range fighter that could escort the bombers all the way into the Reich and back. Otherwise, as Bomber Harris said repeatedly, daylight bombing was a \"busted flush.\"\n\nChief among these planes was the North American P-51 Mustang, the greatest fighter plane of World War II. Like virtually all new planes, the Mustang had a rocky beginning. (The de Havilland Mosquito was the single exception; it was a success from the start.) Originally built to British specifications, the P-51 made its first test flight in November 1940, an amazing one hundred days from the first design, and the initial British order began arriving in Great Britain just a year later, in November 1941.\n\nIt was immediately obvious to the British that the new plane, with its American-built Allison engines, was underpowered and was not effective at higher altitudes. It was thus used only as a low-altitude reconnaissance fighter. There was also another drawback. In a masterpiece of British understatement, one analyst said, \"The only criticism of the P-51 is the shedding of wings.\"\n\nThe structural problems were soon solved, but not until the British installed a Rolls-Royce Merlin engine and changed the propeller to a four-bladed airscrew did the Mustang begin to come into its own. Eventually, with more modifications, the P-51 could fly at 437 miles per hour and climb to 20,000 feet in seven minutes; it had a range of 2,300 miles.\n\nThe British improvements in the plane were immediately undertaken by North American Aviation during manufacture of new planes in the States, most notably the installation of a Packard-built Merlin engine, instead of the General Motors Allison. By the end of World War II, over 15,000 P-51 Mustangs had been built.\n\nTwo other major American fighters played an important role in the air campaign in northern Europe: the P-47 Thunderbolt, from Republic Aviation, and the Lockheed P-38 Lightning. Along with the P-51, these fighters also had the capability of flying deep into Germany, and after their introduction the air war took a dramatic turn.\n\nRepublic began work on the Thunderbolt a month before the first design for the Mustang. Unlike the short gestation of that plane, the prototype of the P-47 took somewhat longer. There were many design problems, and the plane did not fly until 6 May 1941. The first production model did not come off the assembly line until March 1942, but by 1944 more than 10,000 of the fighters had seen service.\n\nIt was the largest of the American single-engine fighters\u2014empty, the Thunderbolt weighed more than five tons\u2014but its great size was for many its primary asset. Many pilots who otherwise would have died in less rugged planes managed to bring a shot-up Thunderbolt back to England.\n\nSmall numbers of the planes began to arrive in Great Britain in November 1942, and twenty-three P-47s flew their first Eighth Air Force operation, a high-altitude sweep over Holland, on 8 April 1943.\n\nThe most glamorous of the three American fighters, both to the men who flew them and to little boys who built and collected model airplanes in the 1940s, was the Lockheed P-38 Lightning. It had two engines, twin tails, and a cockpit suspended in the middle; no aircraft of World War II was so instantly recognizable.\n\nWork began on the P-38 as early as 1936, when twin-engine aircraft were still considered the best alternative, but the first versions of the plane were dogged by design flaws and accidents. A prototype flew in January 1939, and all seemed well until, after a record-breaking coast-to-coast dash, the plane crashed on a golf course on Long Island. The pilot survived the crash, but it set back production by a good two years.\n\nHowever, many modifications and versions later, production began. In 1943 the P-38 was the first fighter to be ferried across the Atlantic to England, where it became one of the big three fighters with the Eighth Air Force. Later models of the P-38 had an operating range of 2,300 miles and could stay aloft for ten hours. They could also carry two 2,000-pound bombs. This was remarkable in a fighter, since it was not so much less than the bomb load of a B-17.\n\nBut the plane's high rate of engine failure\u2014many pilots blamed the low-grade British aircraft fuel, the British weather, or both\u2014put it at a decided disadvantage next to the more reliable Mustangs and Thunderbolts, which also could penetrate deep into Germany. But in spite of the problems with the plane, over 10,000 of them were built.\n\nIts speed and maneuverability made the P-38 a superb plane for photo reconnaissance and for Pathfinder duty, but its career in Europe was a brief one. It is last mentioned in the _Mighty Eighth War Diary_ on 15 October 1944. Two P-38s were in charge of control and operation of two explosive-laden, unmanned B-17s on a mission to Heligoland. Sixteen P-51s provided the escort cover.\n\nBy late 1944, the P-47 was also all but phased out for support on deep penetration raids. For example, all of the escort fighters that were dispatched to support the American raid on Dresden on 14 February 1945 were P-51s.\n\n**Harris and his American** counterparts notwithstanding, a twin-engine bomber was not a completely retrograde idea in the 1930s. Nor was the idea of using the same material that the Wright Brothers had used in their first plane as far-fetched as it first seemed. Indeed, one of the most successful warplanes ever built had two engines and was made almost entirely of wood. The legendary Mosquito\u2014the \"Mossie,\" the \"Wooden Wonder,\" or \"Freeman's Folly\"\u2014was first proposed in 1938, and a prototype appeared in 1939. Fifty were ordered, but the minister for aircraft production, Lord Beaverbrook, canceled the order. Only the perseverance of the plane's advocates\u2014in particular Air Chief Marshal Sir Wilfred Freeman; hence the less kind label attached to the plane\u2014kept the program alive. With the flight of the first Mosquito in November 1940, its backers' faith was borne out. Its great potential was immediately apparent. In November 1941 the plane became operational.\n\nWith its light wooden frame, two powerful Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, and no defensive armor to add to its weight, the Mosquito depended on speed and maneuverability for defense. With a crew of two, pilot and navigator-bombardier, the plane cruised at over 300 miles per hour and could reach maximum speeds of over 400 miles per hour with a 2,000-pound bomb load. It operated at a ceiling of 36,000 feet and had a range of 1,500 miles. It was not only the fastest piston-engine bomber in World War II, it was one of the fastest and most effective combat aircraft of any kind.\n\nThe Wooden Wonder went through various metamorphoses, including the installation of armaments on many models, which enabled it to be used in a multitude of ways by the RAF: bomb marker, night fighter, pure bomber, ground attacker, and photo reconnaissance plane. The bomb capacity eventually hit 4,000 pounds on some versions, but even then the plane had no trouble reaching Berlin and even beyond.\n\nThe Mosquito flew so many missions over the German capital that it is difficult, if not impossible, to document them all. Goebbels railed against it in entry after entry of his diaries. \"In the evening we again had the regulation Mosquito raids on Berlin,\" he wrote. \"The population of the capital is gradually becoming habituated to the necessity of spending one or two hours every evening in the air-raid shelters.\"\n\nIn addition to its spectacular record as a pure combat aircraft\u2014pilots of Mossies shot down 600 German aircraft and as many V-1 flying bombs\u2014the Mosquito was, of course, the mainstay of the Pathfinders and the bombing-marker groups.\n\n**As with the Eighth** Air Force B-17 Flying Fortress and the B-24 Liberator, two British heavy bombers were the workhorses of Bomber Command: the Avro Lancaster and the Handley Page Halifax.\n\nHarris's condemnation of the 1939 Manchester twin-engine bomber did not halt production of the aircraft, but when it entered service its failings were quickly apparent. The Rolls-Royce Vulture engines could not power it enough to climb rapidly, and the maximum ceiling was much less than expected.\n\nThe virtues of the basic design were recognized, however, and if the plane could be reconfigured to accept four Rolls-Royce Merlin engines, it might just be able to do the job. This was done, and by early 1942 the new bomber, rechristened the Lancaster, began to come off the production lines. With a crew of seven and a standard bomb load of 18,000 pounds, the Lancaster had a top speed of 275 miles per hour and a range of 3,000 miles.\n\nBy 1 March 1942, only four of the aircraft were on active duty, but their numbers would increase rapidly. By war's end Lancasters would account for 60 percent of the bombs dropped on Europe by Bomber Command\u2014everything from the small incendiaries to the 22,000-pound Earthquake.\n\nThe Handley Page Halifax also grew out of an aborted two-engine medium bomber, which was also to be equipped with the inadequate Rolls-Royce Vulture engines. The decision to replace the Vultures with Merlins was taken more quickly, however, and the prototype Halifax flew in October 1939. The first planes went to service with Bomber Command in March 1941.\n\nThe Halifax and the Lancaster were roughly equal in number of crew, speed, and basic flight range, but the Halifax's range was less than the Lancaster when carrying a full bomb load of 14,500 pounds.\n\n**G\u00f6ring's plans for** the expansion of the Luftwaffe were predicated on a war beginning no earlier than the mid-1940s, by which time, he felt, Germany would be invincible. Until that time expansion should come about through annexation, as in Austria, or through the threat of war, as in Czechoslovakia.\n\nBut even in his pursuit of offensive weapons for the German air force, the F\u00fchrer was equally blind to the possibilities. In 1934 development had begun of a four-engine aircraft purported to be for the civil airline, Lufthansa. This so-called airliner flew nonstop to New York in 1937, earning much publicity for the Reich and causing apprehension in London and Washington. The plane eventually metamorphosed into a heavy bomber, the Focke-Wulf Fw 200 Condor.\n\nTwo other four-engine bombers were also in development by the Nazis. Junkers was at work on the Ju 89, which was nicknamed the Ural Bomber since its chief function was to strike deep into the Soviet Union when the time came. Dornier was also developing a heavy bomber, the Do 19.\n\nIn 1937 the decision was made to abandon research on these promising four-engine aircraft and concentrate on producing two-engine planes, which could be manufactured more quickly and, of course, more cheaply.\n\nAlthough a four-engine bomber was officially proscribed, aircraft designer Willy Messerschmitt was never one to take no for an answer. He had continued to work on such a plane, and a prototype was flown in December 1942. The Me 264, christened by the optimists the Amerika Bomber and the New York Bomber, was designed to carry a bomb load to North America and return. The reality was somewhat different. It was soon clear that the bomber could do no such thing. Late in the war, it was even suggested that perhaps Me 264s could raid the East Coast cities of the United States and then ditch in the Atlantic, where the crews could be rescued by U-boats.\n\nThe lag time between prototype and production of aircraft was just too great, and thus it is unlikely that the Me 264 could have ever seen active service, particularly so in the light of the demands on the airplane industry at that stage of the war. Then too, as Armaments Minister Albert Speer said in his memoirs, explosives were in too short supply to make the heavy bombs for such a plane. Only three Me 264s were ever built.\n\nThe decision by Hitler and G\u00f6ring to concentrate on twin-engine bombers was not completely to the detriment of Junkers. Although it had to scrap its four-engine plane, the firm built more than 15,000 twin-engine Ju 88 bombers in various models and configurations, some of which, in versatility and usefulness, resembled the British twin-engine Mosquito. The Ju 88 was used as a bomber, a reconnaissance aircraft, and as a night fighter. In the latter role it was particularly deadly against the British bomber fleets\n\nHeinkel and Dornier were also the beneficiaries of the twin-engine bomber diktat. The Heinkel He 111, which first flew in 1936, was the chief Luftwaffe bomber during the Battle of Britain, and by war's end over 7,000 of the various models of this plane had been built.\n\nThe Dornier Do 217 series of twin-engine bombers also served somewhat successfully in many capacities\u2014bomber, night fighter, and reconnaissance\u2014and was a major component of the Luftwaffe during the Blitz. But like the other German twin-engine medium bombers, with their limited ceiling, short range, and slow speed, it too came to grief in the skies over Great Britain in 1940. The Heinkels, Dorniers, and Junkerses and their fighter escorts, which were operating at the outer limits of their range, were no match for the British fighters.\n\nG\u00f6ring's prot\u00e9g\u00e9 Udet was only too happy to comply with the twin-engine bomber directive. Udet had pulled off something of a coup when just a few months after Hitler became chancellor in 1933 he had gone to the United States and arranged to buy two Curtiss XP-17 Hawk aircraft and spirited them out of the country aboard a German merchant ship.\n\nIn December 1933, Udet put on a spectacular display of the diving capabilities of the Hawk, which was instrumental in the development of the Ju 87\u2014the famous _Sturzkampfflugzeug_ , an unwieldy German term for dive-bomber that would become familiar to the world in its abbreviated form, _Stuka_.\n\nUdet became blinded by the publicity surrounding the early but misleading successes of his brainchild and was so besotted with the Stuka concept that he was oblivious to the aircraft's shortcomings. For example, no version of the plane, and there were many, was ever to fly faster than 250 miles per hour.\n\nHe therefore saw no reason why all new planes could not be redesigned as dive-bombers, even the four-engine Heinkel He 177. Although it had the potential of being the German equivalent of any of the Allied heavy bombers, the He 177 was never put into active production and was eventually scrapped.\n\nUdet's obstinacy proved nearly fatal for the development of aircraft in Germany, which went to war with a plane that was already obsolete. Indeed, it had already been decided to halt production of the Ju 87 by the time Germany invaded Poland in 1939. However, G\u00f6ring knew that Germany was not armed for a long war, so every type of plane that had had any success was kept in service. Therefore, not only was the Ju 87 retained but its production was increased.\n\nGeneral Herhudt von Rohden, in a report after the war, stated what the planners were up against. \"We [Germany] were prepared for a short war and could not keep pace with the production of the Allies; consequently, there was on hand a too large number of obsolete aircraft, which were suitable only for the Russian front.\"\n\nAlthough G\u00f6ring initially supported a heavy bomber for the Luftwaffe, he quickly divined that Hitler opposed it, and as always, he deferred to the F\u00fchrer. As he said, Hitler was interested not in the size of the Luftwaffe bombers but in how many there were.\n\nJust as in America and Great Britain in the mid-1930s, the materials necessary for manufacturing four-engine bombers were diverted to turn out many more twin-engine planes. But the Allies were quick to see the advantage of a heavy bomber and reversed course.\n\nStill, G\u00f6ring never completely abandoned the idea of a heavy bomber, and somewhat quixotically thought that one might be in full production by the mid-1940s. But the decision made in 1937 meant that years of necessary research and development were lost.\n\nMeanwhile, a version of the Condor was developed for the Japanese, and a modified version of the plane was the one used in the campaign against the Allied convoys in the North Atlantic. But this bomber, the Fw 200C Condor, was an unstable aircraft, given to breaking up in the air or during the stress of landing, and only 278 were ever built.\n\nThe decision to halt research and development of a four-engine bomber came back to haunt Erhard Milch. In a surprisingly frank speech in 1943, the field marshal and secretary of state for air was openly critical of his fellow Nazis and obliquely praised the British effort.\n\nMilch, of course, had kept his mouth shut when it would have mattered. General von Rohden was especially critical of Milch and all those other colleagues who, he said, \"tried to assume as little responsibility as possible in order to be able to prove that they were not responsible personally.\" In the general's opinion, \"The unmaneuverable and unwieldy four-engine bomber was the decisive weapon of World War II.\"\n\nErhard Milch's belated outspokenness about the shortsightedness of the leadership cost him. He became increasingly isolated within the Nazi hierarchy, and by 1944 he had been forced to give up his posts in the government. Milch may have been marginalized but he was still a true believer in National Socialism. He was found guilty of war crimes at Nuremberg and served seven years in prison.\n\nUdet came to an earlier and equally ignominious end, although it was hidden from the public. G\u00f6ring's decision in 1940 to halt further research and development of new aircraft and to build only planes with a proven record in order to try to end the war quickly led Udet to brag, \"The war is over! To hell with all our aircraft projects\u2014they'll no longer be needed!\"\n\nThe Battle of Britain exposed the fallacy. Udet realized that the Luftwaffe was not going to save Germany and that his own decisions had contributed to the coming calamity. He began to be slowly stripped of his duties by G\u00f6ring and pushed aside. Seeing enemies on every side, on 17 November 1941 he wrote a note on his office wall, saying that he had been sacrificed by G\u00f6ring to the Jews in the Air Ministry, and committed suicide.\n\nUdet's suicide note presumably referred to Milch, who in spite of his rabid Nazism was himself half Jewish, and Lieutenant General Helmut Wilberg, who was also legally a Jew since his mother was Jewish. These two high-ranking generals were among the hundreds of thousands of so-called _Mischlinge_ , literally \"half-breeds,\" according to the Nazi racial laws.\n\nBut through influence, favoritism, or the whim of the F\u00fchrer, a successful applicant received a paper certifying that he was of German blood and could henceforth be so described in all official documents. Hitler took a keen interest in the issue and personally decided on all of the applications. Thousands of these _Mischlinge_ , ranging from privates and seamen to generals and admirals, were granted the _Deutschbl\u00fctigkeitserkl\u00e4rung_ , an official \"declaration of German blood.\"\n\nThe sycophancy and infighting that prevented the development of a heavy bomber were replicated in the procurement processes for a singleseat, single-engine fighter that could challenge the best of the British and American planes.\n\nHere, again, that poisonous mixture of politics, intrigue, and Darwinian struggle that characterized Hitler's court came into play. Loyalty to the F\u00fchrer and the Nazi Party permeated every aspect of German life and nowhere more so than in the military, where a major component of personnel evaluations was the adherence to National Socialist ideals.\n\nIn the early days of World War II, the Messerschmitt Me 109 had a great success, but when it went up against the British in the Battle of Britain its flaws became apparent. The plane's limited range, just a little over 400 miles, meant that it could stay over England for just a few minutes before having to head back to bases in France. Many Me 109s had to ditch in the Channel.\n\nSubsequent versions of the plane went through many alterations, but its range never exceeded 600 miles, and in no way was it ever the equivalent of the British or American single-engine fighters that escorted the Allied bomber fleets over the Continent.\n\nAlthough the Messerschmitt remained the fighter of choice\u2014more than 30,000 of the various models were built\u2014another fighter, the Focke-Wulfe Fw 190, had its partisans because of its greater speed. But even this plane had a limited range and under the best conditions could stay aloft only three hours from takeoff to landing.\n\nIn spite of their shortcomings, the German fighters were able to inflict massive damage on their bomber fleets until the long-range Allied support fighters began their deep penetration of the Reich in early 1944. It is still a matter of great speculation as to how the air war would have evolved if the Germans had early on pushed ahead with the development of a revolutionary aircraft, in a field in which they had a commanding, if not insurmountable, lead at the end of the war.\n\nWilly Messerschmitt had been working on a successor to the famous Me 109 and Me 110 for years, but the aircraft visionary had quite a different sort of fighter in mind to supersede those redoubtable aircraft.\n\nAn experimental jet plane flew as early as 1939, and if Hitler and G\u00f6ring had been more farsighted and Milch and Udet not so hesitant, jet fighters could have been flying in great numbers by 1942. The 540-mile-per-hour Me 262s would have eliminated the much slower Allied fighter escorts, and once the P-51s were out of the way the Allied bombers would have been easy prey for the more conventional Me 109s and Fw 190s.\n\nMesserschmitt was considered something of a serial liar by people who had to deal with him. No matter what he was asked, he always painted a rosy picture. Planes were on schedule. The planes could carry impossible bomb loads. Everything was in order.\n\nMesserschmitt may have had personality flaws, but he did know something about airplanes. The Me 262, the world's first operational jet, made its maiden flight on 18 April 1941. The first turbojet engines were problematical, but many of the obstacles were overcome by July 1942, when it looked as if the Luftwaffe would have a plane that was superior to any fighter in the world and could defend the homeland against any bomber attacks. There the matter rested.\n\nHitler was still obsessed with the idea of light bombers, and further development of the new fighter was scaled back. It was no longer a priority item. However, when the Me 262 was shown to him at a Potemkin-like display of aircraft at Insterburg on 26 November 1943\u2014the planes were still prototypes and nowhere near production\u2014the F\u00fchrer seemed to soften his views somewhat. But there was a catch. Hitler wanted the Me 262 to be redesigned as a high-speed bomber even though both he and G\u00f6ring were made well aware that no bombsight was suitable for the plane and that the maximum bomb load would be just two 250-kilogram bombs. There was still no rush to fully develop the plane.\n\nMesserschmitt may have been a liar, an optimist, and a dissembler, but he was correct in saying that turning the Me 262 into a dive-bomber would make it just another airplane\u2014one that would be ineffective in opposing the now daily onslaught of Allied fighters and bombers.\n\nIt was not until there was real fear that the Allies were themselves developing jet aircraft that Hitler began to come around, or so it seemed. In January 1944, a London newspaper reported considerable advances by the British in jet-propulsion technology. Hitler, who was kept apprised of reports in the foreign press and often reacted to them, reinstated full production of the advanced plane\u2014but, he decreed, as a bomber.\n\nThe Allies had learned of the German advances in the new technology in March 1944. Intercepted messages to Tokyo from the Japanese military attach\u00e9 in Berlin revealed that the Germans would have an operational jet-propelled aircraft in 1944 or early 1945.\n\nTwo months later, in May 1944, in a stormy session at Berchtesgaden, Hitler discovered that the Me 262 had not been redesigned as a highspeed bomber and was still classified as a fighter. He pressed for his original orders to be carried out, and G\u00f6ring complied.\n\nThe Luftwaffe thus had two versions of the plane, a single-seat fighter and a two-seat fighter-bomber. Several of the bomber version of the aircraft were available in August 1944, but they had little success in stopping the breakout from the Normandy beachhead. The single-seat fighters met with more success against the bomber fleets. But once again it was too little too late, although the possibilities of the Luftwaffe's new defensive weapon caused great apprehension among the Allied commanders.\n\nSources differ on how many jet aircraft Germany actually produced. The figure of 1,294 given by Cajus Bekker in _The Luftwaffe War Diaries_ seems a reasonable number. Most of these were built in March and April of 1945. However, not more than 300 jets ever saw combat, and never more than three or four at a time were sent against the thousands of bombers and fighters that now ranged at will over the Third Reich.\n\nAnd, of course, there was another problem, as serious as the tardy development and introduction of the Me 262: the severe shortage of trained pilots, without whom there could be no widespread deployment.\n\nThe German jets may have been few in number, but their actions served as a telling reminder of what might have been if Messerschmitt had been heeded two years before. In October 1944, according to Bekker, a jet _Gruppe_ shot down twenty-two Allied planes. It is easily imagined what the carnage would have been if the planes could have been flown in force instead of in the pitifully small numbers that were deployed, especially once the Me 262 was equipped in early 1945 with a new form of rocket that could be fitted beneath the wings. On 10 April 1945, Luftwaffe jet aircraft shot down ten American bombers over the Berlin area.\n\nMuch has been written about oil shortages and lack of fuel for airplanes in the waning days of the Third Reich. This did not present a great problem for the jet plane, which ran on low-grade fuels such as kerosene. However, the planes used such vast quantities that they could stay aloft for only a short time. The Me 262 used forty liters of jet fuel per minute to taxi to its takeoff position. To conserve fuel and allow the plane to extend its flight time, the Me 262 was often towed to its takeoff position by oxen.\n\nThe problem of unsupportable fuel consumption was also shared by another Messerschmitt aircraft, the single-seat, rocket-propelled Me 163. Its great speed and rate of climb enabled the pilot to reach operational altitudes in just two minutes, but it could stay airborne for a maximum of only ten minutes, which could be lengthened by the risky expedient of cutting the engine and gliding. This aircraft was, as a consequence, never a serious threat to the Allies.\n\n**Late in 1944** a delusory chapter in jet aircraft development in Germany began to unfold, around the Volksj\u00e4ger, or \"People's Fighter.\" The He 162 was designed to be built by semiskilled workers, using as few strategic materials as possible, which meant that the chief structural material in the plane was wood.\n\nIn the twelve-year Reich, probably no other decision was taken with such little regard to reality as the Volksj\u00e4ger. The director of the project, a rabid Nazi, fervently believed that the new plane could be flown by even teenage boys and could take off and land on any meadow or highway.\n\nIn the furtherance of this scheme, Hitler Youth were given a quick course in piloting gliders and then immediately set to learning to fly a jet plane. Predictably, the results were disastrous. The plane never saw action and only 116 of them were ever completed, even though thousands were in some stage of production when the war ended.\n\nThe Volksj\u00e4ger was not the only fantastic scheme concocted as the Third Reich crumbled. Several flying bombs were reequipped to carry a pilot who was to bail out after directing the bomb into an Allied bomber. Several volunteers were killed while testing the idea, and the plan was shelved.\n\nAnother bizarre plan was hatched by a fanatical woman aviator Hanna Reitsch. She suggested replicating in Germany the Japanese kamikazes, and in the desperate last month of the war pure suicide missions, under the code name Werewolf, were carried out. Some 130 pilots died crashing their planes into bridges and enemy bombers. In a tortured parody of a Wagnerian immolation, they went to their own fiery deaths accompanied by marches and the national anthem, all broadcast over the radio.\n\n**All war planes** had but one overriding purpose, which was destruction. They were designed to shoot down enemy aircraft; reduce enemy cities to rubble; destroy factories, refineries, and communications systems; and kill and demoralize the civilian population.\n\nThe Allied offensive was spectacularly successful in attaining all the goals except the last. Just as the German bombing of Britain, had, if anything, stiffened British will to resist, so did the bombing campaign have the same effect on the German civilian population.\n\nAlthough Goebbels himself fretted that the German people might succumb to the terror of aerial bombardment, German civilians showed no slackening of morale when the bombing campaign against them was escalated to staggering proportions. In spite of the psychological toll and the sleeplessness, the inhabitants of Berlin went about their business\u2014that is, those who were still in the capital. Many thousands of Berliners, like the citizens of all other sizable German cities, had long since been evacuated. But those who remained cheered the propaganda chief when he toured bombed-out cities. Large crowds, predominantly female, hailed him wherever he went.\n\nThe Germans were thus like their British counterparts, who did not succumb in the face of terror from the skies\u2014be it the bombers of the Blitz and the Baedeker raids or the V-1s and V-2s. British civilians cheered the prime minister and the royal family whenever they toured the bombed cities.\n\nAs Molly Painter-Downs reported in her \"Letter from London\" in the _New Yorker_ magazine, \"London has accepted its sirens with the usual exciting British display of complete impassiveness.... People have queued up for the public shelters as quietly as if waiting to see a motion picture.\" Indeed, the chief question seemed to be where the best place to seek shelter was, with Harrods being a clear favorite of shoppers because it provided comfortable chairs and first-aid workers. One of the chief complaints was that there was no smoking allowed in the air-raid shelters.\n\nThe situation was much the same in Berlin and the other cities of the Reich. People went about their daily business whatever the thinking of the military commanders of both sides, who continued to believe that carrying the war to the civilian populace was the way to victory.\n\nAnd just as commanders believe their armies are invincible, so did they believe in the invincibility of their people. The obvious paradox seemed never to be addressed: Why would one nationality succumb to terror bombing and not another?\n\nAt the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, the bombing strategy of the Allies was codified, and Trenchard and his disciples remained persuaded until the end that if the bombing of Germany was intensive and massive enough, it would have the desired effect. The Germans had failed in 1940 and 1941 only because they had not carried their campaign to the necessary extreme.\n\nCarl Spaatz was one of those who fully endorsed Trenchard's view that airpower could win the war, and on 8 May 1943, just before Churchill and Roosevelt met again in Washington at the Trident Conference, Spaatz wrote to Lyle G. Wilson, \"We have ample evidence to clearly indicate they [B-17s] can blast their way through any defenses and destroy the will to fight in any nation which may oppose us.\"\n\nAnd on 24 May 1943 he wrote to Arnold, \"In our day to day operations at the present time, we feel any area can be completely neutralized, even blown into oblivion, by high altitude attacks, without incurring any serious losses on our part.\"\n\nSpaatz went even further in November 1943. He told Harry Hopkins, who stopped over with Roosevelt in North Africa, where Spaatz was overseeing operations in the Mediterranean, that Operation Overlord, the planned invasion of Europe, was not going to be necessary. Beginning in April or May 1944, raids from both England and Italy would bring Germany to its knees in three months. If Spaatz was correct, the war would end in August or September 1944, and no Allied troops would be needed in northern Europe except as an occupying army.\n\nRound-the-clock bombing had already begun, in February 1943, but it was a modest effort compared to the vast air fleets that would be launched against the Third Reich by the Allies later in the war. Nevertheless the effect for the first year and a half was not anywhere near what the air planners had hoped, and there were disturbing portents.\n\nAt the Octagon Conference in Quebec in September 1944, the Combined Intelligence Committee reported that the German people still strongly supported the war effort and this was unlikely to change unless there was a \"military debacle.\" As for a surrender by Hitler and his government, the intelligence experts said flatly that neither the present government nor any Nazi successor was likely to surrender.\n\nThe commanders in the field held the key to the end of the Reich, said the intelligence experts. Once they saw the hopelessness of their situation they would begin to surrender, albeit in piecemeal fashion.\n\n**At the end of 1944** , the United States had 2,970 heavy bombers with the Eighth Air Force in the United Kingdom and another 1,512 with the Fifteenth in the Mediterranean area. Of these, 2,980 were operational, and each aircraft had two crews and thus could be used every day.\n\nSpaatz, the commander designate of the United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe, would formally assume his new post on 1 January 1944. He would soon learn that conditions over northern Europe and the Reich, in particular, were much different from the relatively undefended sunny skies of the Mediterranean. The lessons of the previous three months were there for anyone who cared to learn and profit from them. But orthodoxy was still the order of the day.\n\nOn 17 August 1943, it became clear that bombers in daylight raids, no matter how strongly self-defended, were extremely vulnerable to the German fighter squadrons. Two Eighth Air Force missions that day, in the morning to Regensburg and in the afternoon to Schweinfurt, were among the costliest of the war.\n\nOf the 376 B-17s dispatched on the two raids, 345 were effective, that is, reached the targeted cities. The bombers were escorted, but only in the first stage of the mission, by 240 P-47s. In August 1943, the P-47 Thunderbolt, even with an extra 108-gallon gas tank underneath the belly, had a maximum escort range of only about 375 miles. The \"little friends\" thus had to turn back near the German-Belgian border. After that the bombers were on their own.\n\nAs soon as their escorts peeled off and headed back to England, the B-17s immediately came under attack by swarms of waiting German fighters. There was also intense antiaircraft fire from the ground. Before the day ended there was a trail of wrecked American Flying Fortresses extending from the Low Countries, across Germany, and south to the Mediterranean. The terminus for the Regensburg raid was North Africa, where the Allies had several air bases.\n\nSixty planes were lost and 168 damaged. No air force could sustain such losses, but the catastrophe that was the Schweinfurt-Regensburg raid was not immediately evident\u2014certainly not to the true believers. The next day General Harold L. George sent a euphoric \"Secret: Eyes Only\" message to Arnold.\n\nToday I saw air power used in manner which if continued will without slightest doubt accomplish collapse of Nazi economic structure by Christmas. With this statement Harris agrees. Today's operation must have struck shattering blow at the very foundation of Nazi morale for Nazi air force as well as those in high command. Saw it demonstrated that American bombardment aviation can penetrate in daylight to very vitals of Germany against most powerful air defenses in the world, fighting its way against concentrated enemy pursuit for two hours and then perform superb precision bombing. That this is kind of lesson Nazi command can understand. They cannot help but realize the hopelessness of their resistance.\n\nWhile losses were heavy the history of war cannot show where equal expenditure of efforts were so productive in depriving an enemy of those things he needs to continue the fight. Preliminary reports indicate that Messerschmitt plant at Regensburg completely destroyed. Damage at Schweinfurt uncertain due to heavy smoke over area which precluded definite photo reconnaissance but destruction appears to be extensive....\n\nMy reason for sending this message is because I realize some folks without knowledge of the facts might think the price paid for such air operations is too great. If they understand these facts then this day's operations will go down in history as a glorious achievement of American air power....\n\nWith double the bomber force the losses today would have been no greater but percentage would have been so reduced that continuous operations would be assured. Vital objective now is unquestionably the destruction of Nazi fighter force. With this accomplished the rest of the job is in the bag.\n\nGeneral George, who had helped draft AWPD-1, was clearly still in the grip of air force orthodoxy, but his almost giddy message to Hap Arnold could not and did not disguise the catastrophe. The Schweinfurt-Regensburg losses could not be ignored by even the most zealous advocates of the self-defending bomber fleet. The Eighth shifted its attention to close-by targets in western Europe, well within fighter-escort range of bases in England. American bombers did not return to Germany until 6 September. Again, the raid\u2014Stuttgart and various targets of opportunity\u2014was a disaster. Of the 338 planes, only 262 were counted effective. Of these, 45 were lost and another 116 damaged. Casualties\u2014killed, wounded, or missing in action\u2014totaled 362.\n\nDuring the rest of the month the only large raids in Germany were attacks on the port cities of Emden and Bremen. But these targets were relatively near, and the bombers had fighter escort out and back. During this time, small numbers of B-17s flew night missions with the RAF, with little success. Otherwise the Eighth restricted its activity to France and the Low Countries.\n\nFinally, on 10 October 1943, the Eighth returned in force to Germany. Out of 313 bombers dispatched to M\u00fcnster, only 236 were effective. Again, the losses were horrendous\u201430 planes down and 102 damaged. One bomber group, the 100th, lost 12 out of 14 bombers.\n\nThere was worse to come. Just four days later, on 14 October, a bomber force of 320 B-17s and 29 B-24s returned to Schweinfurt. The B-24s were part of a force of 60 planes, but the others were unable to rendezvous because of bad weather. Even those that had successfully formed up failed to join the bomber stream because of the weather. Instead, they flew a diversionary mission to Emden. They were fortunate.\n\nThe carnage of this second Schweinfurt raid caused a major reassessment. Another 60 bombers were lost out of the 229 effectives, a staggering 26 percent. The casualties totaled 639, most of them killed.\n\nThe Schweinfurt raids were a perfect example of orthodoxy triumphing over common sense. The primary targets were the factories manufacturing ball bearings, without which, it was reasoned, the Germans would not be able to produce aircraft, rolling stock, or almost anything else that moved. This line of reasoning, a variation on the theme \"For want of a nail...,\" can be traced back to at least one prewar incident related by H. S. Hansell.\n\n\"We discovered one day,\" said Hansell, \"that we were taking delivery on new airplanes, flying them to their points of reception, removing the propellers back to the factories and ferrying out additional airplanes. The delivery of controllable pitch propellers had fallen down. Inquiries showed that the propeller manufacturer was not behind schedule. Actually, it was a relatively simple, but highly specialized spring that was lacking, and we found that all the springs made for all the controllable pitch propellers of that variety in the U.S. came from one plant and that that plant in Pittsburgh had suffered from a flood.\"\n\nAs historian Steven A. Parker observed, \"This observation led Hansell and the other planners to conclude that the loss of one specialized item, such as the spring, could have a tremendous effect on industrial output in time of war and could ground airplanes just as effectively as if enemy forces had shot them up or if enemy bombs had destroyed the factories.\"\n\nGeorge was right that Arthur Harris agreed that Germany could be destroyed by Christmas 1943 through massive bombing. Harris made such projections himself. But he disagreed vehemently with the Americans as to whether daylight raids were the proper method.\n\nAs for the Schweinfurt raids, his view was that such raids were futile\u2014the Germans had plenty of ball bearings in reserve until they could repair the plants or disperse them elsewhere\u2014and the Americans seemed to agree, judging by their subsequent actions. There were no more deep penetrations into German airspace by American bombers until early 1944.\n\nAlthough the myth of the self-defending bomber force had exploded over the skies of Germany along with dozens of American bombers, myths die hard. Spaatz himself did not begin to cast aside orthodoxy until he assumed, or reassumed, command in Great Britain, where he soon realized that fighter escorts were the key to success.\n\nUnlike Ira Eaker, the unfortunate interim commander who had run the air war from Great Britain while Spaatz was in the Mediterranean, Spaatz was able to call on vast numbers of the new long-range fighters. Within a month of his taking command of the Eighth Air Force, hundreds of bombers and their fighter escorts began to reappear over Germany almost daily. The command of the air would never again be in doubt.\n\n# CHAPTER FOUR\n\n**THE FATAL ESCALATION**\n\nAir War Against Civilians\n\n**I n turbulent times a few outsized figures arise and often become** the personification of the national will. Sometimes these individuals are not just responding to the turbulence but are the authors of it\u2014Adolf Hitler is a resonant example.\n\nOther twentieth-century figures who for good or ill became the embodiment of their nations were Franklin Roosevelt in the United States, Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mao Tse-tung in China, Mahatma Gandhi in India, and Charles de Gaulle in France. Great social or political movements were set in motion by these men and became inseparable from them\u2014the New Deal, Stalinism, Maoism, nonviolence in the pursuit of independence, and Gaullism.\n\nThe argument is endless over whether the times make the man or the other way around, but Winston Churchill's life and career does provide much fodder for those who share his view that men make the times\u2014no matter that most of his actions were reactions to events set in motion by a counterpart across the Channel in Germany.\n\nIndeed, Adolf Hitler is a compelling argument that men do make the times. The founder of the Nazi Party, Hitler was a charismatic figure who became the very embodiment of his nation. He was the face, voice, and driving force of the Third Reich. Without the F\u00fchrer, that dismal period in German history could not have come about.\n\nChurchill was able, through oratory and an almost mystical belief in his mission, to rally the British people in the darkest period of his country's long history. Not so incidentally, he was busily fashioning his own myth as well.\n\nAfter the fall of France in June 1940, England was alone and dangerously vulnerable to Adolf Hitler's threatened cross-Channel invasion. The F\u00fchrer's Operation Sea Lion called for creating a corridor between two massive minefields backed up by U-boats and protected by airpower. Hundreds of thousands of German soldiers would then traverse this corridor in barges and ships to invade the British Isles.\n\nChurchill, much after the fact, in his memoirs, maintained that no such scheme could ever have succeeded. Germany, he said, never had the resources, particularly the ships and crews, for such an operation. More important, according to the prime minister, who never missed an opportunity to stress the singularity of the English people, the Germans never understood what he called \"the sea affair.\"\n\nSaid Churchill, \"For centuries, it has been in our blood, and its traditions stir not only our sailors but the whole race. It was this above all things which enabled us to regard the menace of invasion with a steady gaze.\"\n\nChurchill's postwar retrospective somewhat downplayed the greatest danger to England since the Spanish Armada in 1588. In 1940, an invasion seemed real enough, particularly to the Royal Navy and the RAF, which bore first responsibility for turning back or destroying a Nazi onslaught. Churchill himself fretted a great deal about it to his aides and the War Cabinet. His secretary John Colville recorded in his diary on 21 September: \"The PM seems rather more apprehensive than I had realized about the possibility of invasion in the immediate future and he keeps ringing up the Admiralty and asking about the weather in the Channel.\"\n\nThe next day, 22 September, General Frederick Pile, head of the Antiaircraft Command, was at Chequers, the prime minister's country residence, for lunch. Churchill told the general that he had a \"hot tip\" that the invasion was to be at three o'clock that afternoon. \"However, I stayed to tea,\" said the general, \"and no invasion took place.\"\n\nThe \"hot tip\" had come from the Americans, who had intercepted a message relaying the information that the Japanese were to invade French Indo-China on 22 September at 1500 hours. Somewhere between the translation of the original message and its retransmission from Roosevelt to Churchill, England had been substituted for the French colony in Southeast Asia.\n\nOn 15 October, Churchill's comments to the War Cabinet showed how anxious he had been all along about the invasion threat: \"Should October pass without invasion, which cannot yet be assumed, we should begin the reinforcement of the Middle East.\"\n\nPublicly, however, the prime minister was sanguine. He never faltered, whether delivering a radio address, responding to questions in Parliament, or meeting with a head of state. And no one dwelt much on the successful cross-Channel invasions in English history\u2014the early Saxons, the Vikings, the Roman legions, and, of course, the Normans under William the Conqueror in 1066.\n\nA more recent invasion had been unopposed, that of William of Orange and his army in 1688. Churchill's great ancestor John Churchill was commander of the defending forces and was thus at least supposed to be nominally loyal to his king and patron, James II. Instead he went over to the side of the usurper William. He was rewarded with the earldom of Marlborough.\n\nBut Britain was now to be tested as never before. It was clear to the admirals and generals that an invasion could be successful only if the RAF failed to beat back an attempt by the Luftwaffe to destroy the British air force and thereby establish German air superiority over England and the Channel. Hitler and his generals knew that Sea Lion depended completely on invincible air cover. Thus began the greatest air battle in history, the Battle of Britain.\n\n**The Luftwaffe offensive** divided into three discrete but overlapping phases. In mid-July 1940, massive bombing of naval convoys in the Channel and the southern port cities began. A month later the Luftwaffe began to concentrate on the destruction of British airfields, supply depots, and aircraft factories. The last, desperate phase, the indiscriminate bombing of British cities, particularly London, was initiated in early September.\n\nAt the beginning of hostilities, Franklin Roosevelt had asked all sides to desist from bombing undefended towns and cities and the civilian populace. The moratorium was observed for several reasons, not all of them moral. Great Britain was particularly happy to comply since Bomber Command did not want to send its relatively few bombers against the German fighter defenses.\n\nEveryone, of course, knew that the restriction on the bombing of cities could not hold forever. Air raids on civilians by all the belligerents were inevitable. In that event, said G\u00f6ring, much of the German fighter fleet would eventually have to be used to protect the homeland. To that end, the Reichsmarschall disclosed plans to construct coastal defenses as far as Biarritz, near the Spanish border. This formidable defensive perimeter would require vast numbers of fighter planes and men.\n\nBomber Command introduced a small cloud in G\u00f6ring's rosy picture on the first day of the war. Britain declared war at 1100 hours on 3 September 1939, and by early afternoon a Blenheim reconnaissance bomber appeared over the German coast. This was more bluff than substance, of course. Britain was in no position as yet to do much more. Nevertheless, it was a portent of the future.\n\nG\u00f6ring estimated that it would take three days for his Luftwaffe to destroy the RAF fighter defenses. After that, the German bombers would be able to roam at will over the British Isles. His enthusiasm for the air campaign was based on some truths. The Luftwaffe pilots were better trained, and many of them had become seasoned in the Spanish Civil War, the invasion of Poland, and the campaigns in the Low Countries and France.\n\nHowever, G\u00f6ring made a mistake that no military commander ever should but many often do. He underestimated the strength and determination of his opponent. The British had, contrary to the accepted view, rough parity in numbers of first-line fighter planes. Only about 700 Me 109s were available for the Battle of Britain, and the Germans had no long-range single-engine fighter. Worse, replacement planes only trickled to the front. In the four months of the campaign, just 775 Me 109s were produced. The British produced twice as many fighters in the same period so they could fill the gaps in the first line.\n\nMore important, the British pilots, in their Supermarine Spitfires and Hawker Hurricanes, proved more than a match for the Germans and their Messerschmitts. As one Luftwaffe fighter pilot said, \"The Spitfires showed themselves wonderfully manoeuvrable. Their aerobatics display\u2014looping and rolling, opening fire in a climbing roll\u2014filled us with amazement.\"\n\nThen, too, the British had the advantage of operating close to their own bases. They could land, refuel, and rejoin the battle in a very short time. London was at the outer limit of the range of the Me 109, and the German fighter pilots, no matter how the battle was going, had no choice but to head back to France when their fuel ran low.\n\nAnother surprise for Reichsmarschall G\u00f6ring was the discovery that the British were far ahead in the development of an early-warning system called RDF, radio direction finding, which would become better known as radar. The device was so classified that not even the Americans were told of it.\n\nThe Germans had a form of radar, but they were by no means as far along in deployment as the British, who by late 1938 had in place along the Channel coast facing Europe a chain of early-warning stations. The Germans had exactly two radar installations in the summer of 1940\u2014 one in the Ruhr and a portable one on the French coast to track enemy convoys.\n\nThere was also another top secret enterprise of inestimable importance in the Battle of Britain and, indeed, for the entire Allied war effort. At Bletchley Park, the headquarters of the British intelligence codebreaking operation called Ultra, cryptographers had succeeded in cracking the German Enigma code. Even with the key to the German ciphers, it was still no quick and easy job to decrypt messages; it was with some pride that veterans of the effort told of delivering decoded messages to headquarters in times as brief as two and a half hours after they were intercepted.\n\nThis was still a considerable delay, considering the proximity of the Luftwaffe airfields in France, but it was possible to anticipate and act on any plans involving missions only a few hours in the future. These developments\u2014early warning and decryption\u2014were important elements in the RAF triumph in the Battle of Britain, but Churchill, as was his wont, credited a less quantifiable element for the success of his countrymen. The British pilots, said Churchill, \"had supreme confidence in themselves as individuals and that determination which the British race displays in fullest measure when in supreme adversity.\"\n\nAnother factor that bedeviled both the Allies and the Germans\u2014one that is frequently mentioned but never emphasized enough\u2014was the weather. The weather in northern Europe\u2014English weather, in particular\u2014was and is extremely variable and difficult to forecast with any degree of accuracy. Aircraft formations were easily dispersed in the dense cloud cover or fog that swept in without warning, targets were hard to find, and the bomber groups were often fatally separated from their fighter escorts.\n\nAn unresolved source of contention concerning the weather was the understandable reluctance of the U.S. and Royal navies to provide hourly weather reports from the convoy escorts in the Atlantic. Such information would have been of immeasurable help to the forecasters, but it would have also given away the position of the ships to the roaming U-boat wolf packs.\n\nWhatever the reasons for the final British victory\u2014men, machines, meteorology, or mistakes by the enemy\u2014it was very nearly a British defeat. The Germans came perilously close to realizing their goal of destroying British airpower. The RAF fighter pilots might have had the edge over their Luftwaffe counterparts, but attrition took its toll. Although reserves were dangerously thin, the planes could be replaced; the men to fly them could not. Between 24 August and 6 September, 103 pilots were killed and another 128 severely wounded. Twenty-five percent of the British fighters had been destroyed as well.\n\nLuftwaffe losses in men and planes were even more staggering. However, by early September 1940, German air force pilots began to report a decline in the intensity of the British fighter defense. The success of G\u00f6ring's strategy to control the skies over Great Britain seemed to be in the offing, but then Adolf Hitler ordered a sudden and disastrous reallocation of Luftwaffe resources.\n\nAs he had already shown, the F\u00fchrer had no qualms about bombing the citizens of any city if it suited his purposes. London, however, was still marked as a prohibited area on all Luftwaffe charts at the beginning of the Battle of Britain.\n\nBut two incidents had already occurred, the repercussions of which hastened the change in tactics. On 15 August, Luftwaffe pilots mistook the civil airport at Croydon for their assigned targets, the RAF stations at Kenley and Biggin Hill. Croydon, less than ten miles from central London, was well within the forbidden zone decreed by Hitler, and an enraged G\u00f6ring ordered that the pilots who committed the blunder be court-martialed. The order was never carried out, since none of the offenders made it home from the raid. They were either dead or prisoners of war.\n\nA more serious incident occurred on the night of 24\u201325 August. The assigned targets were the aircraft factories at Rochester and oil storage tanks on the Thames. But a navigational error led two pilots astray, and they dropped their bombs directly on London.\n\nThe day after the London raid, the Reichsmarschall, who was following the air war not from the front lines or Luftwaffe headquarters but from his vast estate, Carinhall, fired off another angry message to the Luftwaffe airfields. He reserved \"to himself personal punishment of the commanders concerned by mustering them to the infantry,\" he said. G\u00f6ring's responses back up the German arguments that the first bombings of London and Croydon were the result of pilot error.\n\nA month before, Churchill had written to Archibald Sinclair, secretary of state for air, \"In case there is a raid on the centre of Government in London, it seems very important to be able to return the compliment the next day upon Berlin.\" Sinclair assured the prime minister that by 1 September the RAF could mount such a raid.\n\nThe morning after those few bombs fell on London, Churchill called on Sinclair to keep his promise. That night, 25\u201326 August, about fifty Hampdens and Wellingtons bombed Berlin. The raid was more symbolic than destructive. Visibility was limited, and only a few bombs fell within the city limits. A summerhouse was destroyed and two people injured in a Berlin suburb, but most of the bombs fell well outside the city on farmland, which prompted the Berliners to joke, \"Now they are trying to starve us out.\"\n\nNo German commander disputed that London was to become a target eventually. As their campaign proceeded, the city would have to be bombed as a way of forcing the remaining planes in Fighter Command to take to the air to defend the capital. The British, the argument went, would throw everything into the fight to save London.\n\nChurchill was passionately attached to London, but he was more passionately attached to democracy and destroying totalitarianism. Cities can be reconstructed; the destruction of democracy creates less tractable problems. Unlike P\u00e9tain, who saw the destruction of Paris as a desecration, Churchill would have sacrificed London without hesitation in order to fight on against the Nazis.\n\nNo doubt to the dismay of at least some of the members, he told the House of Commons during the Blitz that \"the law of diminishing returns operates in the case of the demolition of large cities. Soon many of the bombs would only fall upon houses already ruined and only make the rubble jump.\"\n\nIn September 1940 Churchill was concerned chiefly with the protection and continued operation of RAF Fighter Command and its airfields. \"Far more important to us than the protection of London from terror bombing,\" he said after the war, \"was the functioning and articulation of these airfields and the squadrons working from them.... We never thought of the struggle in terms of the defence of London or any other place, but only who won in the air.\"\n\nThe Luftwaffe raids, accidental or not, and the British retaliatory raid quickly changed the thinking on both sides. Escalation of the air war had come. The British returned to Berlin on 28\u201329 August and again on 31 August\u20131 September.\n\nOn 3 September, G\u00f6ring left the safety of Carinhall and traveled to The Hague to meet with his top air commanders. They were informed that henceforth the Luftwaffe was to concentrate on London instead of continuing the attacks on the RAF airfields, aircraft factories, and shipping. The strategy recommended itself for two reasons. First of all, German bombers over the British capital would bring up the rest of the RAF fighters, which would easily be destroyed by the Luftwaffe. Second\u2014for some this was even more important\u2014such raids would pay back the British for the raids on Berlin.\n\nThat night (3\u20134 September) and the next (4\u20135 September), Bomber Command again raided Berlin. On the night of 5\u20136 September, the Luftwaffe responded. Sixty-eight bombers dropped 60 tons of bombs on the London docks. The Blitz had begun.\n\nTwo days later G\u00f6ring watched from the French coast as the first massive fleet of German aircraft headed for London. Over 1,200 planes attacked the city in the late afternoon and evening. The armada was almost evenly divided between fighters and bombers, many of which carried a new 3,600-pound bomb.\n\nChurchill was correct that the Blitz was not just an act of inhumanity. It was also an enormous strategic blunder, a view borne out by German accounts as well. Fighter Command was reeling from its losses, and the Luftwaffe's diversion to bombing London was, said Churchill, \"a breathing space of which we had the utmost need.\" The German attacks had damaged not only the airfields and planes; the communications and organizational structure had also suffered extensively. A few more such raids and Fighter Command might have collapsed completely.\n\n\"G\u00f6ring should certainly have persevered,\" said Churchill. \"By departing from the classical principles of war, as well as from the hitherto accepted dictates of humanity, he made a foolish mistake.\"\n\nG\u00f6ring would later blame everyone but himself for the disintegrating air war in the west. In the meantime, it was clearly necessary to shift completely to night bombing, and for fifty-seven consecutive nights as many as 200 German bombers a night raided London. The damage was enormous, but, as Churchill put it, \"London was like some huge prehistoric animal, capable of enduring terrible injuries, mangled and bleeding from many wounds, and yet preserving its life and movement.\"\n\nStill, Churchill wondered after the war what the reaction of Londoners would have been if they had been subjected to the heavy bombers and high explosives that were available to the Allies after 1943\u2014 weaponry \"which might have pulverised all human organisation.\" No one, he said, \"has a right to say that London, which was certainly unconquered, was not also unconquerable.\"\n\nFighter Command rose to the battle with stunning success. Evading or ignoring the roving German fighters, the RAF attacked the bombers directly. On a memorable day\u201415 September 1940, celebrated as Battle of Britain Day\u2014the Luftwaffe lost 56 planes, 34 of them bombers. Other planes were so damaged that many had to be scrapped. Such losses, some 25 percent of the entire bomber force, were insupportable.\n\nThe British capital held out, and finally, on the night of 3 November, Londoners had their first night of unbroken sleep in two months. No sirens sounded and no bombs fell. The Battle of Britain was over. The Germans had lost 1,389 aircraft and the British 790. The defeat forced Hitler to do more than just postpone Operation Sea Lion; henceforth, it played no part in German strategic planning.\n\nBesides, Hitler's attention was now fully focused on a plan that had long been gestating: Operation Barbarossa, the invasion and subjugation of the Soviet Union. Afterward, said Hitler, he would revisit the Western Front.\n\nThe bombing continued, of course\u2014England could not be allowed to rebuild and expand its armed forces and plan a return to the Continent unchallenged\u2014but it became more diffuse. The raids also served to distract attention from the buildup in the east. However, there was yet another change in Luftwaffe strategy by G\u00f6ring. Henceforth the chief targets were to be the industrial towns and cities of Great Britain.\n\nThe new policy was announced with an attack that decisively turned the British public toward thoughts of total war and retribution. The Coventry raid, on the night of 14\u201315 November 1940, provided the British with a propaganda windfall.\n\nMany so-called historical truths begin life in a propaganda ministry or a press department, and in World War II not a few of these involved the air war. Two well-known and much-discussed \"facts\" have thus come to dominate any discussion of Coventry. The first is that the city was leveled and thousands of people were killed, with additional thousands injured. The second is that Churchill and the British high command knew well in advance that the city was targeted but declined to warn the populace so as not to reveal to the Germans that British intelligence had broken their top secret codes.\n\nThe first point is easily corrected, but even there the correctors are often at odds. All agree, however, that the death toll was wildly exaggerated for propaganda purposes. The most reasonable and probably most accurate figures are from the weekly r\u00e9sum\u00e9 of military activity given to the War Cabinet and the prime minister the week of the raid which states that some 380 people were killed and 800 injured. In London that same week, deaths totaled 484 and injuries 1,080.\n\nThe physical destruction in Coventry was indeed horrific, but it was limited to the city center. The important Coventry factories, the ostensible reason for the raid, were located out of the main blast areas and were back in business in fairly short order, as were transportation and essential services.\n\nThe area of devastation\u2014some one hundred acres\u2014was, however, of historical and architectural importance and included the fourteenth-century St. Michael's Cathedral, only the 295-foot spire of which survived. Photographs of the burned-out church and the visit by King George VI were sent around the world. Coventry became a symbol of Nazi barbarity, alongside another notorious raid earlier that year, the bombing of Rotterdam on 14 May 1940.\n\nWhile certainly horrible, the Rotterdam raid was nowhere near the tragedy trumpeted by Allied propaganda. Some 800 people died, not the 25,000 or 30,000 alleged to have been killed by the German bombers. But the Allies skillfully exploited the raid to firmly fix the Nazis in the world's mind as a nation of barbarians who wantonly bombed the peaceful and civilized Netherlands, the land of tulips and silver skates.\n\nThe rumors of a conspiracy to conceal the fact that the British had broken the German code are less easy to refute. Conspiracy theories take on a life of their own and are generally impervious to refutation, no matter how strong the evidence to the contrary. They will always have their adherents. However, this much seems clear: the British did know by 11 November 1940, via the Ultra decryptions, that an operation called Moonlight Sonata, in which one of four possible targets was to be attacked, would take place at the next full moon\u2014around the fifteenth of the month.\n\nDuring the afternoon of 14 November, British radio operators began to pick up powerful concentrated radio beams from the Continent. These were the signals from the German system called _X-Ger\u00e4t_ , or X-Device, which was used by the Luftwaffe to triangulate a target. One beam, the direction beam, was the main flight path. As long as there was a buzzing sound in the pilot's earphones, his plane was on course. Dots and dashes signaled if he veered to port or starboard.\n\nThe pilot maintained his course while the aircraft's radio operator listened for a second signal, which crossed the aircraft's path and indicated that it was thirty miles from the target area. A timer was then set that ran until a third signal indicated that the bomber was nine miles from the target. The timer was reset, and the release of the bombs was automatic when it registered zero.\n\nChurchill attended Neville Chamberlain's funeral at Westminster Abbey at noon on Friday, 14 November, then returned to the Annexe, his quarters in the Board of Trade Building, where he had moved on 16 September after a particularly heavy raid had damaged 10 Downing Street. He and his wife lived at the Annexe until the war ended.\n\nDownstairs from their living quarters were the famous War Rooms, where most of the decisions pertaining to the war were made and seen through. This warren of rooms was deep belowground, and the prime minister was carried down the stairs and back up in a chair by three Royal Marines.\n\nAt the Annexe on this afternoon, he prepared to leave for a weekend at Ditchley Park, an estate northwest of Oxford, which had been placed at his disposal. Ditchley was much more secure than the official country residence, Chequers, which was just thirty miles from London and well known to the Germans.\n\nChequers was especially vulnerable during the full moon, when the long drive, which somewhat resembled an arrow pointed directly at the house, was easily seen from the air. And this weekend there was to be a full moon.\n\nAs he stepped into his car, Churchill was handed a message. His secretary recalled that the car had reached Kensington Gardens when the prime minister ordered the driver to turn around and return to the Annexe. According to the message, the German radio beams converged over London, and Churchill refused to travel to the country if there was to be a raid on the capital.\n\nBy 1500 hours it was clear that the beams converged instead over Coventry. The RAF was alerted, and antiaircraft batteries were readied and fighter planes put on alert. However, no warning was passed to the civil authorities. But there was a good reason for this.\n\nThe British had developed a system, called Cold Water, designed to jam or divert the _X-Ger\u00e4t_ transmissions and cause the German planes to drop their bombs well outside any populated areas.\n\nThe first German bombers cleared the Channel coast just after 1800 hours, and the RAF unit assigned the electronic countermeasures went into action. Unfortunately, Cold Water failed. Coventry was attacked an hour later. The 449 bombers dropped 500 tons of high explosives and 30 tons of incendiaries on the city center.\n\nSince the final determination that Coventry was the target came through conventional radio signal intercepts, there was no risk in issuing a warning. Ultra would not have been compromised. But myths die hard, especially when conspiracy theories have arisen.\n\nAdding to the controversy was the dismal fact that even though the RAF dispatched 200 fighter planes and there was an antiaircraft barrage, only one German bomber was shot down. Questions were asked in Parliament, and there were demands for retribution.\n\nIf there was a bright side to the Coventry raid, it was that the German air force did not follow up with another raid while the city was reeling from the disaster. In this the Germans were not unlike their British and American counterparts. The Germans had bombed London night after night, but the aim there was to bring up the defenders so that the Luftwaffe could destroy the fighter screen and then bomb with impunity and make way for an invasion.\n\nNeither side seemed to grasp the importance of the double or even the triple blow from the air, which, theoretically at least, could prevent a city from recovering for many months, if ever. Neither side seemed to grasp how important this was until late in the game. Two important factors must be considered, however, before one blames either the Allies or the Germans for lack of imagination or planning. While the Allies had more resources available to them in terms of planes and weaponry, the lack of trained air crews often did not allow a follow-up raid. And both sides were subject to the whims of the weather. There were seldom consecutive clear nights over England or the Continent.\n\nChurchill and his War Cabinet ordered Bomber Command to bomb the center of a German city in retaliation for the Coventry raid. Mannheim was the chosen target, but the raid had to await the next full moon. Finally, on the night of 16\u201317 December 1940, the largest raid of the war up to that time\u2014and perhaps the first instance of pure morale bombing\u2014was launched.\n\nThe \"fire raisers,\" the precursors of the Pathfinders, whose job it was to set fires to mark the target, missed the center of the city, and therefore most of the damage was in residential areas. Thus from a military point of view the raid was a failure. But it marked a turning point in the thinking of many in the British high command. Morale bombing was elevated to strategy. If pursued relentlessly, senior officers argued, it could bring Germany to its knees without a single Allied soldier ever setting foot on the Continent.\n\nLater, in defense of the British area bombing of cities, as opposed to the American bombing of precise targets, one document stated, \"While the success of [the Americans'] attacks against the aircraft and ball-bearing industries must have undermined the confidence of the German High Command, the civilian population was little affected. Only the RAF bomber command component of the offensive could have been expected to evoke any considerable reaction from the civilian population.\"\n\nFor this to happen, area bombing had to be employed, although the drafters of the report continued to maintain that \"the object of the RAF attacks was the destruction of industrial areas. For this purpose the incendiary bombs pay far higher dividend.\"\n\nFurther, they said, \"The risk of death from incendiary attacks is comparatively small, save in exceptional cases, such as Hamburg, when enormous conflagrations are set up. In the majority of our attacks the concentrations achieved were not such as to produce those conditions.\"\n\nThe incendiary bomb was a small, rather insignificant-looking device\u2014most of those dropped on Dresden weighed just four pounds\u2014that fire wardens advised they could be extinguished with nothing more than a bucket of sand if an individual reacted quickly. And there were incidences where they were picked up and tossed out a window before they ignited. Such actions were rare in actuality, since incendiaries were dropped by the hundreds of thousands.\n\nIn the early bombs, phosphorus was used, but as the war progressed other materials were soon found to be more effective and lethal. Thermite, a mixture of aluminum powder and iron oxide, set alight with a magnesium fuse, could generate temperatures well over twelve hundred degrees Fahrenheit. Such high temperatures coupled with the vast quantities of the weapons dropped on an urban area ensured that firefighters and rescue workers would be overwhelmed.\n\nAfter Coventry and until the invasion of the Soviet Union, the Luftwaffe repeatedly bombed Manchester, Plymouth, Southampton, and Liverpool-Birkenhead. And London was revisited several times as well. The raid on 29 December 1940 was particularly damaging. Churchill called it \"an incendiary classic.\"\n\nThe Luftwaffe first dropped high explosives to sever the water mains, followed by incendiaries, which set more than fifteen hundred fires. This was the raid that destroyed eight Wren churches and the Guildhall and almost incinerated St. Paul's Cathedral. It was also a powerful demonstration of the proper bombing of highly flammable old cities, a lesson duly noted by Arthur Harris and other advocates of area bombing.\n\nAs the winter wore on, the Luftwaffe raids decreased in size and ferocity. There were fewer sorties and a dramatic decrease in the bomb tonnage. However, with the coming of better weather in March and April 1941, there was an upsurge. On 16\u201317 April and 19\u201320 April, London was hit by the heaviest raids in the long Luftwaffe campaign against the city, which doubtless gave the advocates of morale bombing renewed vigor.\n\nThe majority opinion that Bomber Command's resources would be better spent bombing the German synthetic oil plants still held, but the seeds for massive area bombing had been planted. In any event, the oil campaign was thwarted in early 1941. Clear weather and a full moon were the necessary elements for the night raids on these difficult-to-find targets, and the weather was particularly foul in February and March 1941. Fog, wind, rain, and snow, not enemy action, caused the loss of seventy RAF planes in one thirty-day period.\n\nBy early March, however, the target priorities had been changed. The German navy threatened to succeed where the Luftwaffe had failed. Between June 1940 and March 1941, U-boats, battle cruisers, and pocket battleships, aided by Focke-Wulf Condor long-range maritime bombers, sank almost 900 merchant ships carrying supplies for the relief of England. From then until the middle of the summer, Bomber Command was ordered to concentrate on the U-boat bases and shipyards, the factories that made submarine components, and the Condor airfields.\n\nThere was much carping within Bomber Command about this change of targets, but Sir Charles Portal, chief of the air staff, saw it as an opportunity. He was fully aware that Bomber Command's claims of success in bombing the oil targets were greatly exaggerated. He was only too happy to divert the planes to these easier-to-find and thus more vulnerable targets. He made no effort to have the order reversed.\n\nThe 9 March 1941 directive ordering Bomber Command to concentrate on the U-boat menace had a qualifier: \"Priority of selection should be given to those [targets] in Germany which lie in congested areas where the greatest moral [sic] effect is likely to result.\" On 18 March, Arthur Harris, then deputy chief of the air staff, referring to Mannheim and Stuttgart, said, \"Both are suitable as area objectives and their attack should have high morale value.\"\n\nAny talk about the relative merits or morality of area bombing versus precision bombing was just that in the early years of Bomber Command\u2014talk. At most there were only nine nights a month\u2014the time of the full moon\u2014when there was any chance of what was called accurate bombing. And even then the weather had to cooperate. Rivers, coastlines, and other prominent geographical features were useful reference points\u2014when they could be seen. The port cities of Germany, the Netherlands, and France and the industrial cities on the Rhine, the Weser, and the Elbe were therefore bombed consistently.\n\nA method resembling the German system of triangulation of radio beams was being worked out by British scientists but would not become available to Bomber Command until 1942. The major method of navigation remained dead reckoning, that combination of compass course, air speed, and wind velocity and drift which, theoretically, gave the navigator his position. The system was so dependent upon factors that were little more than guesswork, however, that a pilot was fortunate if he was over the right city; it was folly to hope to hit a small target within that city. Until the introduction of advanced navigational aids in 1943, nighttime precision bombing was only a strategic concept. Therefore, \" 'area bombing' against German cities with a view to breaking German civilian morale was the most useful means of employing the bomber force.\"\n\nA fairly simple pattern thus developed. A part of the bomber force was directed at a major industrial or port facility in the target city. Other planes were directed to bomb the city itself, in order to cause maximum disruption among the civilian population. It was area bombing, not precision bombing, although the target was \"nominally industrial.\"\n\nThe optimistic predictions of victory through aerial bombardment of Germany and the occupied countries came back to haunt Bomber Command in August 1941 when D. M. Butt, of the War Cabinet secretariat, issued his report on bombing accuracy. Just one-third of the pilots who had said they had successfully attacked the assigned target had come within five miles of it, said Butt. Two-thirds were within five miles of targets on the more visible and closer French coast, but in the industrial and smoggy Ruhr the figure fell to one-tenth. On the nights of a bomber's moon, the optimum condition, only two-fifths of the bombers dropped their loads within five miles of the target, and on moonless nights the figure fell to one-fifteenth.\n\nWhen two-thirds of the bomber force dropped their bombs five miles or more from the designated targets, the obvious question was how many bombs were actually hitting a worthwhile target. And the person who was asking and answering this question was Winston Churchill himself. Did not this report give the lie to his 1940 prediction that British bombers would bring Germany to its knees?\n\nChurchill's disillusionment was not long in manifesting itself. In response to Portal's plan to \"Coventryize\" forty-five German cities, the prime minister said, \"It is very debatable whether bombing by itself will be a decisive factor in the present war.\" He cited the British people, who, he said, had been \"stimulated and strengthened\" by the German raids. \"The most we can say,\" Churchill acerbically remarked, \"is that [bombing] will be a heavy and I trust seriously increasing annoyance.\"\n\nPortal did not let this go unanswered, and as RAF historian Denis Richards said, he \"spiked Churchill's guns.\" Who was to carry the war to Germany if not Bomber Command? Portal forthrightly asked the prime minister. Portal admitted that ground forces would eventually have to be used, but it would be 1943 before any such offensive was possible on the Continent. In the meantime, he said, \"The only plan is to persevere.\" In other words, Bomber Command must continue the attacks on German manufacturing and morale. Otherwise there would be no Allied offensive operation in western Europe until an invasion could be launched across the Channel. Churchill acquiesced.\n\nAs for the success of the RAF campaign against the submarine pens, those in Holland were active until February 1945. The ones in France also went relatively unscathed until late in the war. As Admiral Karl D\u00f6nitz said, \"No dog nor cat is left in these towns. Nothing but the submarine shelters remain.\"\n\nPortal's contretemps with Churchill resulted in a reprieve for Bomber Command and its head, Air Marshal Sir Richard Peirse, who had succeeded to the post when Portal had been promoted to chief of the air staff. Bomber Command was allowed to resume its attacks on Germany and the occupied countries. The reprieve was a brief one and ended the night of 7\u20138 November 1941, when 37 planes, out of 392 dispatched, were lost\u20149.4 percent, which was double the loss rate of any previous night operation.\n\nThe raids included Berlin, Cologne, Mannheim, and a few minor targets, but it was the operation against Berlin that caused a storm of criticism. Out of 169 aircraft sent to the German capital, only 148 returned \u2014a staggering loss of 12.4 percent. There were no losses over Cologne, but there was also little damage\u2014even less damage than in Berlin, where it was negligible. Mannheim reported no damage at all. Bomber Command would not return to Berlin in force until January 1943.\n\nThe day after the debacle at Berlin, Sir Richard Peirse was driven down to Chequers to meet with an angry prime minister. A week later, Churchill ordered a reduction in Bomber Command operations until new and more effective policies could be developed.\n\nThe first order of business was the removal of Peirse himself, which was accomplished on 8 January 1942. There was also to be a new bombing policy\u2014the direct response to the Butt Report, which had been so critical of the so-called precision bombing.\n\n\"It has been decided,\" wrote Air Vice Marshal Norman Bottomley, \"that the primary objective of your operations should now be focussed on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular of the industrial workers.\" The date of this area bombing, or morale bombing, directive was prophetic: 14 February.\n\nFinally, on 22 February 1942, the third and arguably the most important component was put in place. Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Harris assumed his new post: commander in chief, Bomber Command.\n\nOfficially, Harris did not have a hand in drafting the morale-bombing directive. He was en route home from Washington when the directive was issued. But he wholeheartedly endorsed it and proceeded at once to implement it, although he chose his words carefully when describing what Bomber Command policy actually was. \"Area bombing\" became the preferred formulation.\n\nDuring the three months while Bomber Command was effectively \"standing down\" on the Continent, the British were being battered elsewhere. General Erwin Rommel and his Afrika Korps successfully counterattacked in North Africa, Singapore was lost, and HMS _Prince of Wales_ and HMS _Repulse_ were sunk by the Japanese. However, Hitler had already committed the great follies that would bring him and the Third Reich to total destruction. He had drawn both Russia and America into the war on the side of England.\n\nOn the night of 28\u201329 March 1942, Arthur Harris put the new policy into effect and Bomber Command had its first great success of the war. More than 200 bombers attacked L\u00fcbeck. Although the city was famous worldwide for its picturesque architecture and as the setting for Thomas Mann's novel _Buddenbrooks_ , it was, and is, the most important German port on the Baltic. But Harris was not primarily interested in destroying the docks and piers.\n\nThe medieval Altstadt was the target. \"L\u00fcbeck,\" said Harris, \"was more like a fire-lighter than a human habitation,\" and with this raid he spectacularly demonstrated his theory of \"concentrated incendiarism.\" As historian Max Hastings wrote, \"L\u00fcbeck, then, did not attract the attention of the bombers because it was important, but became important because it could be bombed.\"\n\nThe German high command was stunned by the ferocity of the attack. More than a quarter of the medieval heart of the city went up in flames. And Goebbels was quick to bemoan the loss of the great artistic monuments to the \"British craze for destruction.\"\n\n**While the debate** over morale bombing versus precision bombing continued among the Allied commanders, there was no debate among the enemy about a policy that was being implemented with increasing ferocity. At five o'clock in the afternoon before the L\u00fcbeck raid, Special Train 767 left the Paris suburb of Drancy, where the Germans, aided by French collaborators, had begun to intern Jews in 1941. Aboard were 1,113 foreign-born Jews, mostly Poles. The train arrived at the concentration-camp complex near the Polish town of Oswiecim in Galicia three days later, after a stopover at the concentration camp at Compi\u00e8gne.\n\nThis camp complex, better known by its German name, Auschwitz, would in time become the very symbol of Nazi depravity. Construction at Auschwitz was authorized by Heinrich Himmler in April 1940, and the first, experimental gassings took place in September 1941.\n\nBy early 1942, more than 700,000 Jews had already been murdered as the Nazis moved eastward. Word of these atrocities, particularly in Poland and the Soviet Union, had long since reached the West, but there was no acknowledgment by either London or Washington of the crimes being committed.\n\nNow, as the gas chambers at Auschwitz became fully operational, the Nazis were prepared for murder on a truly industrial scale. The men, women, and children on this first French deportation train were among the early victims.\n\n**For the citizens** of the cities of both sides, the air war gained in intensity in 1942. Hitler ordered \"terror attacks of a retaliatory nature\" against Britain for the L\u00fcbeck raid. Beginning on the night of 23 April, the Luftwaffe responded with a series of raids on the British equivalents of L\u00fcbeck: Bath, Exeter, Norwich, Canterbury, and York. These were the notorious \"Baedeker raids.\" The term was coined by Baron Braun von Stumm in the press department of the German Foreign Ministry. For compiling a list of Britain's historic cities, what better source was there than the authoritative and complete Baedeker guide to Great Britain?\n\nGoebbels was quick to see that the term was causing revulsion in the world. \"I censured this in the sharpest terms and took measures for preventing the repetition of such folly,\" he recorded in his diary. Only the unfortunate choice of words used to denote the operation upset him. He heartily approved of the raids themselves. \"There is talk about scenes like those in Coventry,\" he said. \"That's the sort of music we like to hear.\"\n\nThe RAF, meanwhile, did not hold back from destroying another historic German city, although Rostock was also an important Baltic port and home to the Heinkel aircraft factory. On four consecutive nights in late April, a total of 520 bombers attacked Rostock, destroying 60 percent of the city center. A new term began to appear in the German reports of the Rostock raids\u2014 _Terrorangriff_ (\"terror raid\")\u2014and clearly terror bombing was a tool to be used as any other weapon would be to carry the fight to the enemy.\n\nNew names began to be added to the growing list of wrecked cities in England and Germany, bombed-out symbols of the new warfare conducted by both the Luftwaffe and the RAF. Rotterdam, Coventry, and the Baedeker raids are the most often cited atrocities against non-combatants by the Luftwaffe, but another, much more horrifying example is little known or remarked on. On 6 April 1941 the German air force killed some 17,000 civilians in a raid on the Yugoslav capital of Belgrade.\n\nAs for the British, there seemed no strategic justification for the bombing of L\u00fcbeck\u2014the target was the center of the medieval and highly incendiary Altstadt, after all\u2014but it did serve to demonstrate the effectiveness of the fire-raising strategy. Indeed, for the rest of the war, L\u00fcbeck suffered no further concentrated attacks by the RAF. The International Red Cross persuaded Britain to spare the city so the port could be used for the shipment of Red Cross supplies.\n\nThe fire raids on the two old Hanseatic League cities of Rostock and L\u00fcbeck were more than just revenge for the depredations of the Luftwaffe, of course. Harris needed to demonstrate to Churchill and the air command that his bombers could do what he said they could do: take the war to the enemy and cause massive destruction, with minimum, or at least acceptable, losses.\n\nAfter the L\u00fcbeck raid there was a considerable bump in the road. Harris had come in for severe criticism for a low-level, daylight raid on Augsburg on 17 April, which, while partially successful in bombing, resulted in a loss of seven out of twelve Lancasters. Rostock partially redeemed the error. But Harris was more than thin-skinned; he often seemed to have no skin at all. He brooked no criticism, not even from Churchill. His correspondence with the prime minister is peppered with defensive, self-serving comments.\n\nIn a memorandum of 2 May 1942, he dismissed the suggestion of his chief critic, the minister of economic warfare, that the target should have been Stuttgart and not Augsburg as \"Plain Suicide\" and \"just silly.\" As for the implied criticism that Bomber Command did not cooperate with other departments, he said he would do so if possible. However, he added, \"I could not in any circumstances agree to discuss projected attacks outside my Headquarters with other Departments. I do not even tell my crews, to whom security is a matter of life and death, where they are going until the last moment before briefing.\"\n\nFor the next full moon, Harris put into effect a plan that was to profoundly alter the future of aerial bombardment. On the night of 30\u201331 May 1942, he dispatched 1,047 Wellingtons, Stirlings, Halifaxes, Whitleys, Manchesters, and Hampdens\u2014every plane that he could beg, borrow, or steal\u2014on the first thousand-bomber raid. The target was the Rhineland city of Cologne.\n\nNot all the planes reached the target; only 868 did. But two-thirds of the 1,455 tons of bombs dropped were incendiaries, and their effect was devastating. Thousands of buildings were destroyed, 45,000 people were bombed out of their homes, and at least a third of the population fled the city.\n\nAlbert Speer was visiting G\u00f6ring at Schloss Veldenstein on the day after the raid and listened while the Reichsmarschall talked by telephone with Joseph Groh\u00e9, gauleiter of Cologne. G\u00f6ring adamantly refused to believe that so many planes could be put in the air and so many tons of bombs dropped in one raid. He ordered the gauleiter to revise his reports to the F\u00fchrer to reflect lower figures.\n\nA few days later at the Wolfsschanze (Wolf's Lair), Hitler's headquarters near Rastenburg, in East Prussia, Speer discussed the incident with the F\u00fchrer. Hitler had already discounted G\u00f6ring's estimates and chose to rely instead on his own reports, which were based largely on accounts in the foreign press, no doubt provided by Goebbels. G\u00f6ring suffered no diminution in status, however, much to the chagrin of Speer and the disgust of Goebbels, who despised him. G\u00f6ring, he said, \"has as much to do with the [Nazi] Party as a cow with radiology.\"\n\nThe propaganda minister stayed remarkably well informed about what was happening in the field and in the world's capitals. His interpretations of the intelligence that he received and conclusions that he reached were quite something else. His diaries are filled with keen insights that are immediately rendered worthless when they are refracted through his ideological lens.\n\nFor example, he and Churchill were as one in their fear and certainty of Stalin's designs on eastern Europe. The Nazis, after all, had used the issue of Communist expansion and domination in their rise to power. Goebbels, however, saw Communism purely as part of a Bolshevik-Jewish conspiracy to take over the world.\n\nGoebbels was sometimes fairly clear-eyed about the prospects for the war. As early as 8 May 1943, he confided in his diary, \"The end is in sight in Africa.... In the end the Axis is to be thrown out of Africa entirely. There is tremendous confidence of victory in London, and rightly so. I see hardly any chance for us.\" The following day he described the debacle in North Africa as a \"sort of second Stalingrad.\"\n\nBut Goebbels was also one of the first practitioners, some would say the inventor, of what in years to come would be called \"spin.\" His justification of the African adventure is a masterpiece of the genre. While the struggle went on in the deserts of North Africa, he said, there could be no invasion of Europe proper. Therefore the defenses in western Europe, the so-called Atlantic Wall, could be constructed relatively unimpeded.\n\nGoebbels's ability to rally the German people through propaganda was tested further in the disastrous month of July 1943. The deposition and arrest of Mussolini and the ascension of Marshal Pietro Badoglio\u2014precursors to the end of Fascism in Italy and that country's surrender\u2014was called \"the greatest example of perfidy in modern history\" by the propaganda minister. His remarks rather oddly echoed Franklin Roosevelt's more famous indictment of Italy in 1940 when Mussolini declared war on France: \"On this tenth day of June 1940, the hand that held the dagger has struck it into the back of its neighbor.\"\n\nGoebbels's ruminations on Italian treachery were interrupted by news that was beginning to come in concerning a disturbing new Allied air offensive. The RAF and the U.S. Eighth Air Force had launched the Battle of Hamburg, a series of raids on Germany's major seaport and one of the Reich's most important industrial centers. Bomber Command led off on the night of 24\u201325 July 1943. A force of 728 aircraft out of 791 dispatched dropped 2,284 tons of bombs in fifty minutes. The bombs fell over a wide area, some six miles long, but caused considerable damage and 1,500 deaths.\n\nThe Americans followed up in daylight raids on Sunday, 25 July, and Monday, 26 July. Dense smoke from the fires caused by the massive British bombardment, combined with cloud cover, made visual targeting nearly impossible. Indeed, only 100 of the 182 U.S. B-17s dropped their bombs, just 195 tons, on the city. The next day the Americans fared even worse. Only 54 bombers out of 121 dispatched were effective, dropping 126 tons of bombs. As the historians Middlebrook and Everitt said in their _Bomber Command War Diaries_ , \"The Americans quickly withdrew from the Battle of Hamburg and were not keen to follow immediately on the heels of R.A.F. raids, in future, because of the smoke problem.\"\n\nOn the night of 27\u201328 July 1943, however, the British returned. Seven hundred and twenty-nine bombers dropped 2,326 tons of bombs on the city center in a relatively concentrated pattern. The city was still reeling from three raids in seventy-two hours, and its rescue and fire-fighting services were overwhelmed. Temperature and humidity were also in perfect alignment to create a cataclysm.\n\nAs the fires that raged throughout the city spread and joined together, air from outside the fire zones was sucked in, creating hurricane-force winds, which further fed the flames. The air war's first recorded firestorm was born. Contrary to popular belief, the Hamburg firestorm was not the result of advance planning. It was the result of powerful and unexpected forces, which in the future seldom came together in such a way that it was replicated, although it became a much desired goal of Bomber Command.\n\nIndeed, there were only a handful of true firestorms created during the long Allied bombardment of Germany. But the lessons learned from these incendiary attacks on Germany would prove valuable later in the American bombing campaign against Japan. In the most devastating air raid of the war using conventional weapons, the raid on Tokyo on 9 March 1945, between 90,000 and 100,000 people were killed and half the city was destroyed.\n\nBut that lay far into the future. For now, Germany was the primary target, and the night after the firestorm, Bomber Command raided Hamburg again. Another 729 aircraft dropped an additional 2,326 tons of bombs on the crippled city. A severe thunderstorm prevented a third raid, comprising 740 bombers, from reaching Hamburg on the night of 2\u20133 August. No matter. Much of the city lay in ruins, and two-thirds of the population, some 1.2 million people, had fled to other cities, towns, or the countryside.\n\nMost of Germany's cities now began to witness firsthand the destructive might of Allied airpower. The British by night and the Americans by day. No city was safe from the destruction and death raining from the skies.\n\nNot all successful raids involved massive fleets of bombers. Nor were they all recognized as a great success. On the night of 18\u201319 November 1943, ten Mosquitoes attacked Essen in a raid characterized as a \"minor operation\" by Middlebrook and Everitt. _The Goebbels Diaries_ , however, reports a different result. The propaganda minister lamented that the Krupp steel works was 100 percent closed down by the Mosquito raid.\n\nWhile it may not have been the most strategically important of the German cities\u2014in terms of weapons plants, military bases, or oil refineries\u2014the destruction of Berlin carried incalculable psychological weight. Therefore, a devastating series of sixteen raids by Bomber Command began on the night of 18\u201319 November 1943 and continued for two and a half months. The second raid, on 22\u201323 November, caused more damage than any other raid in Bomber Command's long campaign against the German capital. Cloud cover kept the Luftwaffe on the ground, setting off a renewed round of criticism of G\u00f6ring and his pilots.\n\nThe poor visibility also meant that the raid was pure blind bombing. But the bombs found the target, falling in a swath some twelve miles wide across the city. Among the destroyed buildings was the Kaiser Wilhelm Church, the blackened ruins of which would become a stark reminder in postwar Berlin of the carnage of war. The ruins were incorporated into a new war memorial church in 1959.\n\nGoebbels admitted, but only in the private confines of his diary, the destructive effect of the Allied bombing. Time and again he lamented the inability of the Luftwaffe to stop the Allied planes, which were destroying one city after another. And while the bombing was nowhere near as precise as advertised by the Allies, it did succeed in bringing the war home to the enemy and causing great disruption.\n\nOf the more than a million residents who fled Hamburg, most filtered back into the city during the next months and tried to resume their lives. The Reich, however, had to divert staggering amounts of supplies, thousands of men, and great effort to protect, house, and feed the beleaguered civilian populace. The effort was a tremendous drain on the German war effort. In Berlin alone, after the great raid of 22\u201323 November, two and a half divisions, 50,000 Wehrmacht troops, were called in to clear the streets and restore services.\n\nIn spite of the destruction and the horror of the raids, Goebbels averred that Germany and the Germans remained unbowed. A diary entry of 25 November 1943 is a fair example of the Nazi mind-set. \"Of what avail are all sorrow and pain? They won't change conditions. This war must be seen through. It is better that our workers crawl into cellars than that they be sent to Siberia as slave labor. Every decent German realizes this.\"\n\nAnd, in spite of the carnage from the skies, Germany did manage to rally, through the use of a seemingly inexhaustible source of labor. Slaves from the east, prisoners of war, political prisoners, and, of course, hundreds of thousands of Jews from the concentration camps worked around the clock in the factories, mines, and refineries, and in rebuilding the wrecked highways, railroads, and buildings. Historian Daniel Goldhagen has estimated that there were at least 10,000 concentration camps and ghettos in Germany and the occupied territories. In Berlin alone there were no fewer than 645 forced-labor camps.\n\nWith such a huge labor force available, it is little wonder that in Hamburg, five months after the raids, industry had recovered 80 percent of its preraid capacity. But no nation could constantly rebuild itself from within, produce arms and armaments for a vast army, and fight a two-front war. The bombing campaign would ensure the ultimate collapse of the Third Reich.\n\nGoebbels and others in the Nazi hierarchy, in spite of some pessimism and barely concealed anger at G\u00f6ring and his inability to fight back against the British and American bombers, still looked for a miracle in the form of new weaponry, which would not only stem the tide but bring them victory.\n\nSpeer was not so sanguine. He doubted that either new weapons or reprisals against Britain would provide the key to victory. In any event, no such weapon could possibly be deployed until March 1944, at the earliest. Thus the Germans could only watch helplessly as their leaders led them further down the road to ruin and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in the air war, which would increase in ferocity, not lessen, as the Allies closed in on the Third Reich.\n\n# CHAPTER FIVE\n\n**_VERGELTUNGSWAFFEN_**\n\nThe V-Weapons\n\n**L ess than a week had passed since the successful landings in** Normandy when there came a sobering reminder that the final collapse of the Third Reich might not be as close as it had seemed. But the feared Nazi counterattack came not against the Allied forces moving inland from the beaches of France; it was directed against the civilian population in England.\n\nOn the night of 12\u201313 June 1944, thousands of people from the Channel coast to London were roused from sleep by a high-pitched, pulsating sound from the sky\u2014a strange noise that would become all too familiar in the months ahead. A new weapon, a pilotless \"flying bomb,\" had made its debut.\n\nThe official German designation was FZG-76. The Allied military called it the V-1. Civilians, however, ignored both designations. To them the new terror weapon was simply the \"buzz bomb\" or \"doodlebug\"\u2014a twenty-five-foot-long unmanned aircraft with a wingspan of seventeen and a half feet that carried an 1,870-pound explosive warhead and was powered by a pulse-jet engine that gave it a distinctive sound.\n\nThe V-1 was an ingenious device, not only cheap to build\u2014it was made of low-carbon steel and wood\u2014but also easily transported and launched, and its preset course ensured that the weapon was secure against electronic countermeasures such as jamming or interference.\n\nA small propeller in the missile's nose was set to rotate a certain number of times, each revolution representing a fraction of the distance from the launch site to the target. When the proper number of revolutions was reached a signal cut off the pulse-jet engine and the flying bomb dropped like a stone.\n\nIt was calculated that some 80 percent of the V-1s would land within a target circle eight miles in diameter, a rather rough target area at best. But its slow speed (a maximum velocity of 350 miles per hour) and low cruising altitude (3,500 to 4,000 feet) made the V-1 vulnerable to both fighter planes and antiaircraft fire. Thus the weapon never approached the 80 percent accuracy figure.\n\nMuch of the V-1's effectiveness, however, was psychological. It was a fiendish device that announced its own coming. The throbbing engine sound was immediately identifiable, and as long as one could hear the V-1 engine, one was safe. But when the engine cut out, there was a brief silence followed by a piercing whine as the projectile, with nearly a ton of high explosives, hurtled to earth. To a person on the ground the weapon always seemed to be coming from directly overhead.\n\nOn 13 June, at the meeting of the War Cabinet, Churchill was advised of the \"attack by pilotless aircraft.\" The number of the flying bombs was given as twenty-seven. There had actually been only eleven, and the damage was slight. It was therefore decided that there would be no official acknowledgment of this new threat.\n\nOn 15 June the danger became much clearer. At least 50 people died that night and 400 were injured. By the end of the week, the death toll had risen to 526 and 5,000 people had been injured, 2,200 seriously. It was obvious to the British public that something new had been introduced, and equally obvious that the government must acknowledge the threat.\n\nChurchill rose to the occasion. In announcing the new German aerial offensive, he praised the people at home and exhorted them to be brave in the face of the attacks. Like the brilliant commander he was, he managed to convince the British public that they should accept this latest outrage with the same stoic courage they had displayed during the Battle of Britain, the Blitz, and the Baedeker raids.\n\nIn addition, he said, the people at home should welcome the opportunity to share in the battle with their troops on the Continent and in Asia. He also pointed out that the German attacks on the British homeland drew resources from the battlefield, which saved Allied lives and would hasten the end of the war.\n\nIn Berlin, Joseph Goebbels lost no time in trumpeting the power and destructiveness of the new weapon. He broadcast a recording of the launch of a V-1 from the Channel coast with an eyewitness account. There followed lurid descriptions of the carnage in London and the south of England. \"England is trembling\u2014London is ablaze,\" intoned the announcer.\n\nBut while the British were struggling with how to deal with the buzz bombs and their destructiveness, at Hitler's headquarters the reaction was quite different. The F\u00fchrer's military commanders predicted no miracles from its deployment and did not hesitate to say so, even to the F\u00fchrer. Indeed, Albert Speer reported that Hitler was so disappointed at the initial performance of the V-1 that he was on the point of canceling the program altogether.\n\nThen, almost as if it were a theatrical production, the reviews from London came in. The press chief handed Hitler the vivid accounts from the British newspapers about the flying bombs and their effect on the capital. His mood changed at once. He ordered the escalation of the V-1 campaign. The wily Goebbels had once again trumped his opposition.\n\nDuring the week ending 29 June, 650 tons of high explosives were dropped on London, not much less than the 770 tons that fell on the city during the worst fortnight of the Blitz in 1940. Total casualties to date from the flying bombs were 17,328. More disturbing was the report that although the number of dead was about 2,000, the number of killed and seriously injured was 7,403\u2014compared with 16,456 for the whole month of September 1940.\n\nThe figures were not released, however, and the government's silence, which was designed to deny the Germans valuable information on the efficacy of their weapons, only added to the public's fear. After all, the physical damage could not be concealed. Some 500 houses were being destroyed each day and 21,000 damaged. Thousands of civilians were made homeless. But, again, these figures, along with the number of casualties, were kept secret.\n\nWhile no one believed that the flying bomb was the rumored secret weapon that would turn the tide for Hitler\u2014the kill rate for the V-1 was a low one fatality per bomb, with three more persons injured\u2014both politicians and military strategists had to take any new weapons as a serious threat. It was not known how much more intense the attacks might become or what deadlier weapons might be in the offing. Nothing, it seemed, was too outlandish to contemplate. There was even talk of a mysterious \"death ray.\"\n\nThe War Cabinet was also faced with the question of whether to provide misinformation to Germany about where the flying bombs were actually falling. The designated ground zero was clearly Charing Cross, and it was argued that if the enemy could be convinced that they were overshooting the mark, they might adjust their aiming so that many of the bombs would fall in the open country. Opponents of misinformation argued that it could backfire. The Germans might very quickly ascertain that they were being fed false data and correct their aim so that even more bombs might fall on central London. More to the point, no one, civilian or military, wanted to take responsibility for redirecting the German fire from one area of England to another.\n\nTherefore Churchill and the War Cabinet stayed with the devil they knew, and there was no doubt by now that it was, indeed, Satan they were dealing with. By 1 August, 3,407 of the flying bombs had appeared over England, and 1,594 had landed on London\u2014killing 4,175 people and injuring 12,284. By the end of September, a total of 5,890 of the weapons had eluded flak and Fighter Command to kill 5,835 people and injure 16,762 others, almost all of them in London or its suburbs.\n\nAfter the war, it would be revealed that there had been at least one source feeding misinformation to Berlin about the accuracy of the V-1 weapons. Eddie Chapman, a British safecracker, went to work for the Germans when they captured the Isle of Jersey, where he was imprisoned. In June 1944, he parachuted into England to report to his supposed new masters on the flying bombs. Chapman, whose code name was Zig-Zag, was loyal to his country, however. He immediately volunteered his services to British intelligence and became a double agent. His false reports resulted in many of the buzz bombs landing harmlessly in the countryside.\n\n**The V-1 was** by no means a surprise to Churchill and the War Cabinet. British intelligence had first become aware of the development of the vengeance weapons in January 1943. During an interrogation, a German Luftwaffe captain shot down in Africa revealed that he had once landed at a place called Peenem\u00fcnde. The report was forwarded to England and the intelligence service at once turned its attention to the site, which lay at the tip of an isolated peninsula on the island of Usedom, just off the Baltic coast.\n\nIn the spring of 1943, the RAF began a two-month series of reconnaissance flights over Peenem\u00fcnde. The aerial photographs revealed what was clearly a manufacturing and test facility, and the product was all too visible as well\u2014rockets and a rather strange-looking smaller craft with short wings. One of the test vehicles had crashed on the Danish island of Bornholm, and a sketch, which resembled those spotted in the reconnaissance photos of Peenem\u00fcnde, was smuggled out to British intelligence.\n\nThe RAF was ordered to destroy the base, but Bomber Command had to await a full moon. Finally, on the bright night of 17\u201318 August 1943, Peenem\u00fcnde was attacked by nearly 600 planes from Bomber Command. The crews were not told what the target was, only that it was important. Nearly 1,800 tons of bombs were dropped, 85 percent of them high explosives.\n\nAlso in the summer of 1943 Allied reconnaissance flights revealed suspicious construction sites in the Pas-de-Calais and the Cherbourg Peninsula. A French agent, Michel Hollard, enlisted a workman at the installation at Bois Carr\u00e9 who was able to obtain drawings of one of the buildings. Intelligence experts realized these strange ski-shaped structures must be the launch platforms for the flying bombs.\n\nIn December 1943 aerial bombardment of the French sites began, and by the time of Overlord, 103 of the 140 identified sites had been destroyed. While this campaign, labeled Crossbow, delayed the launching of the V-1s, it by no means eliminated them as a threat. The Germans simply changed their tactics. Instead of building large, easily spotted concrete ramps for the launching of the missile, they made the launch sites smaller and thus more easily camouflaged.\n\nFew weapons of war have had such a powerful effect, out of all proportion to their real toll in terms of physical destruction, deaths, and injuries. The Germans miscalculated, however. The vengeance weapons' greatest effect was to raise the stakes in the retaliatory war against civilians. Residents of the cities of the Reich would soon be targeted as never before. But first it was felt that a massive aerial campaign\u2014Crossbow redux, as it were\u2014had to be launched to neutralize the V-1 launch sites.\n\nJust four days after the first V-1 landed in London, Churchill dispatched 405 aircraft of Bomber Command to attack the flying-bomb sites in the Pas-de-Calais. This raid, on 16\u201317 June 1944, was the beginning of a massive three-month bombing campaign, which Churchill urged on Bomber Command and the U.S. Army Air Forces.\n\nOver the objections of those military advisers who saw the V-1 as a deadly nuisance but not one that could affect the outcome of the war, Churchill appealed to Supreme Commander Dwight Eisenhower to give top priority to destroying the launch sites, which\u2014on paper, at least\u2014seemed to be a simple matter. The range of the flying bomb was only 130 miles, which put the launch sites in easy target range of planes based in England.\n\nCarl Spaatz, especially, objected to the bombing campaign against the V-weapon sites. He said that the long summer days\u2014over sixteen hours of daylight in midsummer\u2014should be used to maximize the American daylight bombing of strategic targets, such as the synthetic oil plants.\n\nSpaatz argued that while the H2X radar then in use enabled bomber crews to locate cities, it was of little use in finding these all-important targets, which had been built away from the cities. These plants had to be located and bombed visually.\n\nSpaatz was overruled, but it became clear after the war that his so-called oil plan was more strategically sound than any other. Chief among the critics of the Allies' not pursuing the systematic destruction of the Nazi's oil supply was none other than Albert Speer, the Nazi armaments czar.\n\nAccording to Speer, a great turning point in the war occurred on 12 May 1944. \"On that day,\" wrote Speer, \"the technological war was decided.\" Even as the Allied air forces were preparing to support the invasion of the Continent, the Eighth Air Force, in a massive raid, attacked fuel plants in eastern and central Germany. Daily production was immediately reduced by 20 percent. Two weeks later other devastating American raids, which included attacks on the oil fields at Ploesti, Romania, resulted in a loss for the month of 50 percent of production capacity. And in the summer of 1944, when both the Eighth Air Force and Bomber Command were allowed to return to their preinvasion strategies, a series of crippling blows was launched against the German oil fields, refineries, and storage facilities.\n\nHowever, in his diaries Speer repeatedly returned to what he called the Allies' \"lack of consistency.\" Why, he wondered, did the RAF and the USAAF switch target priorities instead of following up immediately on these successful raids?\n\nInstead, in a reprise of the Luftwaffe's actions during the summer of 1940, the Allied command did not immediately revisit the sites of raids that had seriously damaged critical industries. Speer maintained that they could have put the sites permanently out of commission by a second or perhaps a third raid. If they had done so, he said, the Allies could have completely halted German war production. Instead, both the RAF and the USAAF often diverted their forces to less worthwhile targets.\n\nIn late July 1944, for example, according to Speer, a series of massive raids knocked out 98 percent of the aircraft fuel plants. But almost immediately the bombers were diverted to Crossbow targets, tactical support of troops, and the area bombing of cities. Speer was quick to take advantage of the lull. By November 1944 production had risen to 28 percent of the July levels.\n\nThe repair and rebuilding of the production facilities, bridges, rail lines, and highways was not the miracle of Nazi organization and the Aryan work ethic trumpeted by Goebbels and the other Nazis, including the armaments minister himself. There was a darker explanation. The German war machine had a workforce that made no demands as to food, housing, or wages. Millions of slave laborers worked around the clock to meet the goals set by Speer.\n\n**The V-1, as British** intelligence had warned, was the forerunner of a much more dangerous weapon. Two months after the first buzz bombs hit London, word came from the Continent that the Germans had launched another, very different form of missile. Two of these had been fired against Paris on 6 September, and although both had exploded in midflight the new threat was clear.\n\nAt the noon meeting of the War Cabinet on 9 September, it was announced that two of the new weapons, \"of the type expected,\" had landed the evening before, one in Chiswick, at 1843 hours, and one near Epping just a few seconds later.\n\nSome knowledge of the V-1 had been gleaned from the sketches of the downed test vehicle made by the Danish underground, but British intelligence knew a great deal more about this new weapon, which was dubbed the V-2. The Polish underground had been able to recover a test vehicle that had failed to explode, and an RAF Dakota was dispatched to Poland to bring the pieces of the rocket to England, where it was reassembled.\n\nBut the knowledge was of little use in defending against the weapon. The rocket traveled at supersonic speed, more than a mile per second, and thus there was no radar trace and no advance warning.\n\nThree more of the rockets fell over the weekend, but again there were few casualties and little damage. Indeed, for the entire week only five people were killed in all of England from enemy action. However, the next week was a frightening one: 56 people died in rocket attacks, another 13 from flying bombs, and 22 in the coastal areas from longrange shelling from the French coast.\n\nChurchill decided not to go public with this second new German weapon. He saw no reason to alarm the people further, and besides, he reasoned, why do anything that could buttress morale in the Reich? Also, to the mystification of the War Cabinet, the Germans themselves were not trumpeting this latest achievement and would not do so until the first week of November, when Goebbels broke his silence. The earlier campaign, he said, \"has now been intensified by the employment of another and far more effective explosive.\"\n\nThree weeks later the propaganda chief's threat was borne out by a particularly appalling incident. On Saturday, 25 November 1944, a V-2 ripped into a Woolworth store in Deptford, killing 157 people and injuring 178.\n\n**The launch of the** V-weapons, the feverish preparations for repelling the Allied landings in France in 1944, and the fearsome efforts against the Soviet armies in the east in no way interfered with another vast Nazi program, which continued apace.\n\nNothing was to be allowed to halt or interfere with the cornerstone of Nazi ideology and strategic planning: the total eradication of European Jewry. Indeed, the threats from without accelerated the program. Incredibly, on 15 May 1944, the greatest single deportation of the war began.\n\nMost of the 750,000 Jews of Hungary had been rounded up and interned, but the Hungarian leader, Admiral Miklos Horthy, refused repeated requests, at least one delivered in a stormy meeting by Hitler himself, to turn them over for deportation to the labor or death camps.\n\nWhen the Germans, who had become increasingly unsure of their putative allies, took matters into their own hands and occupied Hungary, the long-sought deportations finally began, supervised by Adolf Eichmann, who had set up headquarters in Budapest. By mid-July, more than 435,000 Hungarian Jews had been crammed aboard trains, a hundred to a boxcar, and shipped to Auschwitz, where all but a handful were murdered.\n\nHorthy, invoking the international outcry from the International Red Cross, the Vatican, and others, was able to stop the deportations, but it was not because the Germans had had a change of heart. Trading Jews for military equipment was one of the odious parts of the bargain that was struck.\n\nIn any event, the reprieve was temporary. Horthy was forcibly removed by the Nazis and imprisoned in Bavaria, and most of the 300,000 Hungarian Jews who were still alive were now conscripted as slave laborers. They were worked to death in mines and factories in the Reich proper or were murdered by Hungarian Fascist collaborators, who regularly assaulted them in the ghetto in Budapest. It was estimated that when the Red Army entered the city in February 1945, the bodies of 10,000 murdered Jews lay unburied.\n\n**In July and August 1944** , one-fourth of the total bombs dropped by the U.S. Army Air Forces were directed to eliminating the V-weapons sites. Whether they hit their targets became a much-debated and much-disputed point. What was not disputed was the fact that the V-1 attacks continued unabated.\n\nIndeed, there was no appreciable letup until ground forces began to overrun the launch sites in the Cherbourg Peninsula and the Pas-de-Calais, which led to an announcement in early September that the V-1 campaign had been defeated.\n\nThe announcement was premature. The Germans still had V-1 launch sites in Belgium and the Netherlands, and the Luftwaffe had developed the capability to launch the flying bombs from Heinkel bombers. Eleven V-1s hit London during the week of 18 September.\n\nAs we have seen, the damage done by the V-1s was relatively minor and the casualties relatively light, but there was no convincing the British public that this was so. The _V_ was shorthand, after all, for _Vergeltungswaffe_ , \"vengeance weapon.\"\n\nVengeance was in the air, and while in less turbulent times revenge might be a dish best eaten cold, no such sentiment intruded on Churchill and the Chiefs of Staff. There would be increasing numbers of reprisal raids against the German civilian population.\n\nRetribution as a weapon was not a novel idea or a new option. It was always part of the arsenal of war for Winston Churchill. Two years earlier, in June 1942, in response to the Nazi massacre and destruction of the Czech village of Lidice\u2014itself an act of retribution for the assassination by Czech partisans of Reinhard Heydrich, SS Deputy Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia\u2014the prime minister had instructed Arthur Harris to launch Operation Retribution. Bomber Command was ordered to obliterate three German villages comparable in size and population to Lidice.\n\nHarris responded that it would take a force of 100 bombers for each village, attacking low and dropping two-thirds incendiaries and one-third high explosives to do the job. Since the targets were small and not easily distinguishable, a full moon was necessary.\n\nHarris, a loyal soldier who had the confidence of the prime minister, pointed out to Churchill that the \"justification of giving up one of our rare fine moonlight nights to this task can only be judged on political factors.\" It is clear from the memorandum that it was not retribution that bothered Harris; his concern was that the operation would take Bomber Command away from bigger and more important game. Churchill acquiesced to the air marshal's argument, and Operation Retribution never came off.\n\nWhat was left unsaid in the Harris memo was that in 1942 such precise bombing was beyond the scope of Bomber Command. Indeed, such a surgical strike was probably beyond the scope of Bomber Command or the Americans throughout the war.\n\n**The thirteen-month** Crossbow campaign, which began with the August 1943 raid on Peenem\u00fcnde, was, from its inception, the subject of intense debate, and the argument continued long after the war. The _United States Strategic Bombing Survey_ , for example, concluded that the Peenem\u00fcnde raid had little or no effect on development or production of the V-weapons.\n\nThere was also the question of the cost in men and planes of the Peenem\u00fcnde raid. Bomber Command lost 40 aircraft\u201423 Lancasters, 15 Halifaxes, and 2 Stirlings\u2014and 243 airmen. Since most of the losses were in the last wave of the attacking aircraft\u2014which fell victim to the late-arriving German night fighters\u2014the total losses were judged to be an acceptable 6.7 percent. In this last wave were the Canadian 6 Group, which lost 12 out of 57 planes, or 21 percent, and the British 5 Group, which lost 17 out of 109 planes, or 15.6 percent. Such losses as these were staggering.\n\nBomber Harris and RAF historian Denis Richards reached a very different conclusion from the American postwar investigators. They defended the raid and the losses at Peenem\u00fcnde, claiming that the action cost the Germans an estimated two months in lost manufacturing and deployment time\u2014two months that proved crucial in the summer of 1944. They had an unlikely ally in Joseph Goebbels, who recorded in his diary that the raids on Peenem\u00fcnde and the launch sites in the Pas-de-Calais \"have thrown our preparations back four and even eight weeks.\"\n\nAnd the director of the rocket base, Walter Dornberger, in his self-serving memoir, titled _V-2_ , said that although the damage was nowhere as great as the British believed, the first RAF raid caused a delay of four to six weeks in the development program, which was passed on to the production stage. Four weeks off the schedule meant that the V-1s were not ready until mid-June 1944 instead of mid-May\u2014when the invasion fleets were being readied in the Channel ports\u2014and the V-2s not until September.\n\nThus it is clear that the Crossbow raids did have an important effect. If the V-weapons had been operational in the months preceding Overlord, they might well have caused it to fail, as the supreme commander himself, Dwight Eisenhower, said.\n\n**The raid on** Peenem\u00fcnde had other ramifications besides the destruction of the physical plant. Several of the key scientists who had developed the rocket program were killed. And on the very day of the raid by Bomber Command, Dornberger had reassured his restive staff that the rocket program now had the highest priority in Berlin. \"Personnel is streaming in,\" he recalled telling them. \"In the last fortnight over twelve hundred men have arrived.\" In his memoirs he was still employing the circumlocutions and euphemisms of the Third Reich. The \"personnel\" that were \"streaming in\" were slave laborers.\n\n\"Losses were particularly heavy among foreign construction workers at Trasenheide camp,\" said Dornberger matter-of-factly. Between five and six hundred of the dead\u2014about 75 percent of the total\u2014were these slave laborers, another sobering reminder that even the victims of the Nazis were as likely to be killed in air raids as their tormenters.\n\nThe raid also served notice that the site was in reach of Allied heavy bombers, which forced the Germans to move production to vast underground factories that were carved out in the Harz Mountains near Nordhausen. The excavation was done by slave laborers from concentration camps, and when the factories were completed still others worked around the clock under the most barbaric conditions to produce the V-weapons.\n\nThe testing of the V-weapons was transferred to southeast Poland, deep in the forests of the triangle formed by the Vistula and San Rivers. Thousands of Poles were forcibly removed from the villages in the area to make way for the vast test site, which was served by the rail line that ran through Dresden. And there would be no shortage of labor. In addition to the Poles, who could be pressed into service, the Auschwitz-Birkenau and Majdanek camps lay in close proximity.\n\nIn one of the most tragic incidents of the war, Bomber Command attacked the Nordhausen camp on 3 and 4 April 1945, believing that the buildings in the aerial photographs were military barracks. Hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of the inmates were killed.\n\n**As the Germans** continued their retreat back into the Reich, they threw everything they had left into the V-weapons arsenal against England. The first week in March 1945, 68 V-2s hit England, 41 landing in London. It was the worst bombardment since the campaign began. Three hundred and four people died that week. The next week saw some drop-off in the casualties, but for a jittery populace it was only marginally better; 200 people were killed, 125 in one incident.\n\nBy the third week of March, the V-weapon campaign was nearing its end, although twenty V-2s and two V-1s hit the capital. Finally, on 29 March 1945, what would be the last of the flying bombs, eleven in all, were launched from the Continent. Only five got through. There were no deaths, and just five people were wounded. But earlier in the week, seven V-2s had hit London and four had landed in Essex, killing a total of 137 people, bringing the toll for the month to almost 600.\n\nAlong with the V-1 and V-2 attacks, the Luftwaffe also managed to stage a few last-ditch bombing raids. One such raid, on 17\u201318 March, killed twelve people in Hull. Three nights later, Norfolk was bombed.\n\nBut at last the ten-month _Vergeltungswaffen_ campaign was over. The V-2s had killed 2,754 people and seriously injured 6,523. Flying bombs had killed 6,184 and seriously injured 17,981.\n\nHowever, it was not until 26 April 1945, just eleven days before the surrender of Germany, that Winston Churchill reported to the House of Commons, with relative certainty, that the V-weapon attacks against England had ended. But Churchill knew too much of his military history not to hedge his bets. More than 30,000 Londoners had died as a result of Luftwaffe raids, flying bombs, and rockets, and more than 130,000 had been injured.\n\n\"It is my duty,\" he said, \"to record facts rather than indulge in prophecy, but I have recorded certain facts with a very considerable air of optimism which I trust will not be brought into mockery by events.\"\n\nAs for who should be credited with stopping the attacks, the prime minister was willing to congratulate the RAF and the antiaircraft gunners, but, he said, \"[We] should not forget it was the British Army that took the sites.\"\n\n**Another campaign** , indeed the longest German campaign against the British civilian population, was one that has received relatively little attention: the artillery bombardment of the English Channel ports. The first shells from the German batteries on the French coast fell on Folkestone in August 1940 and the last on Dover on 26 September 1944. It took only a minute for a shell to cross the twenty-two-mile strait that separates England from the Continent. Therefore, when the Germans opened fire, sirens warned the people that they had sixty seconds to find cover. Thousands hid in the caves and tunnels that honeycombed the famous chalk.\n\nThe bombardment was sporadic\u20142,226 shells landed on Dover, killing 109 people in four years\u2014but it was a siege nevertheless, one that lasted longer than Stalingrad. Some 17,000 homes were damaged or destroyed. At the end of the siege, the Germans, anticipating the immediate capture of the coastal batteries\u2014Calais surrendered to Canadian troops on 1 October 1944\u2014began to fire everything in their arsenal at the British coast, including 16-inch armor-piercing shells. That last day 63 shells (50 in one hour) hit Dover.\n\n**The V-2 has enjoyed** great fame, but it was one of the most inefficient weapons ever devised. Each rocket carried less than a ton of explosives, and every launch was a one-way trip. Therefore, if every V-2 built had landed on London, the total amount of high explosives delivered would have been less than 10,000 tons. By way of comparison, in just one raid on Cologne, on the night of 30\u201331 October 1944, Bomber Command dropped 4,000 tons of high explosives and incendiaries on the city.\n\nPerhaps a more resonant indictment of the wasteful V-2 program is the contrast between it and the development of the Mosquito bomber by the British. Each of these 400-mile-per-hour planes was capable of carrying a 2,000-pound bomb, which was the rough equivalent of the pay-load of a V-2 rocket. And every Mozzie could make flight after flight over Germany, practically at will, returning to its home base to rearm and fly again.\n\nBut in reality the Allied response to the V-weapons was almost as misguided as the development of the weapons themselves by the Germans. Operation Crossbow is a textbook example of the danger of political solutions being given priority over military matters in wartime\u2014thus extending the hostilities. Thousands of sorties were flown against the V-weapons sites\u2014one Bomber Command raid comprised 1,114 planes\u2014instead of the more important targets in Germany and eastern Europe espoused by Carl Spaatz: the oil fields and refineries.\n\nIn spite of its failure, the German rocket program has since its inception engaged the imagination of the public. Much of its fame, of course, is tied to its role as the precursor of the intercontinental ballistic missile and the giant rockets of space exploration. However, it was the less glamorous but far more deadly weaponry of the Allies that decided the issue and destroyed the Axis powers.\n\nAs Bomber Harris observed, Germany put its faith in the weaponry of the First World War\u2014the U-boat\u2014and the unproved and ultimately futile weaponry of the next war\u2014the rocket program. To quote A. J. P. Taylor again: \"The decisive difference between the British and the Germans is the British... knew what they were doing and the Germans did not.\"\n\nAlbert Speer might have agreed. The Allied bombers were effectively doing the job of pulverizing Germany, which, Speer maintained, could have been halted if there had not been the lamentable waste of men and mat\u00e9riel in developing the V-weapons. But Hitler, enraged by the increased bombing of German cities, chose to concentrate on terror weapons.\n\nThe chief losers in this misallocation of resources were the _Wasserfall_ (Waterfall), a large surface-to-air missile, which was developed as early as 1942, and the new jet plane, which was in production but too late to make a difference. Speer was confident that these weapons could have beaten back the Allied air offensive against German industry in 1944 if development had been started earlier.\n\nThe Waterfall was guided by remote control to its target and was capable of destroying bombers at altitudes as high as 50,000 feet. The ground controller had to see the plane, however, which meant that the rocket could not be used in heavy cloud cover or at night; but this problem could have been solved in perhaps eighteen months. Only about 220 scientists were assigned to work on the Waterfall, as opposed to the more than 2,000 who were involved in the development of the V-weapons.\n\nInstead of focusing on the Waterfall, the F\u00fchrer ordered Speer to in crease V-2 rocket production to 900 per month. Speer later derisively pointed out that this would have been thirty rockets a day, which, assuming they all reached their targets, meant delivering a payload of just twenty-four tons of high explosives, the equivalent of the bomb load of twelve B-17s. As he said, it would have taken 66,000 rockets\u2014more than six years' production\u2014to match the explosives dropped by the Allies on just one city, Berlin.\n\nSpeer ruefully recalled that he had ignored an urgent appeal from Professor C. Krauch, the commissioner for chemical production, to concentrate on the antiaircraft missile. In a memorandum to the armaments minister, Krauch condemned those who argued that terror must be answered with terror.\n\nThe only sensible course, Krauch argued, was to develop the Waterfall surface-to-air missile. Speer, who differed from the other Nazi satraps in that he at least sometimes went his own way, this time followed his F\u00fchrer. He ignored Krauch's appeal, and the Allied bombers continued to devastate the cities of Germany and terrorize its citizens.\n\nProfessor Krauch was correct. The chief effect of the rocket and flying-bomb attacks against Great Britain was to still the minor but vocal segment of the British population that had begun to question the bombing of civilian populations and to strengthen the position of the advocates of the terror bombing of German cities.\n\n# CHAPTER SIX\n\n**OPERATION THUNDERCLAP**\n\nRun-up to the Inferno\n\n**N o politician can ignore the rumblings of a beleaguered citizenry**, and Winston Churchill was a master at judging public opinion and the psychology of the people. Once, in response to praise for his oratory from his personal physician, Lord Moran, Churchill said, \"I don't know about oratory, but I do know what's in people's minds and how to speak to them.\" Lord Moran offered the explanation that the war and the threat to the nation had given Churchill this insight.\n\nWinston Churchill, the son of Lord Randolph Churchill and the grandson of the 7th Duke of Marlborough, knew nothing of the lives of common people, but beginning in May 1940 he became their voice. He wonderfully articulated the hopes and dreams of the entire British people, a remarkable achievement for a man who had never ridden a public bus and whose one excursion on the London Underground, during the General Strike in 1926, ended with his getting lost and having to be rescued by friends.\n\nChurchill's reading of the popular will told him, correctly, that foremost in the thoughts of the British people in the summer of 1944 was revenge. Although accepting of their role of \"frontline soldiers\" in the V-weapons attacks, Englishmen believed that equal punishment should be meted out to enemy civilians. There was thus much agitation for the reprisal bombing of German cities\u2014no matter that most of the larger German cities had already been destroyed.\n\nThe call for vengeance knew no class boundaries. Most of the residents of South London had probably never heard of either Vita Sackville-West, the writer, or Knole, the great house in Kent where she grew up. Sackville-West, like Churchill a member of the upper reaches of British society, reacted in precisely the same way as bombed-out tenement dwellers when she heard that her ancestral home had been hit.\n\nIn an angry letter to her husband, Harold Nicolson, Sackville-West spoke for most of her countrymen. \"Those filthy Germans!\" she cried. \"Let us level every town in Germany to the ground! I shan't care.\"\n\nChurchill, whose own grand boyhood home, Blenheim Palace, was also damaged by bombs, doubtless agreed with the formidable Vita, and he had both the authority and the will to \"level every town in Germany.\"\n\nHe also had the means at hand. The prime minister was as much soldier as politician. He was a graduate of Sandhurst and had served with some distinction in India and Egypt as a young man. And he also knew something of airplanes.\n\nWhile he was first lord of the Admiralty, he had become so enamored with flying that in 1913 he began lessons at the Eastchurch naval air station on the Isle of Sheppey, flying as many as ten times in one day. He was thus an early and enthusiastic proponent of airpower; it may be apocryphal or not\u2014his biographer Martin Gilbert says not\u2014that he coined the term \"seaplane.\"\n\nOnly the entreaties of his wife and friends and the deaths of two of his instructors, one in a plane in which Churchill had just flown, convinced him to give up flying. But soldiering was never very far beneath the surface. At the age of forty-one, he went back into the British army, serving in France from November 1915 until May 1916.\n\nNow, his natural reaction was a military one: strike back. On 1 July 1944, after two weeks of flying-bomb attacks, the prime minister asked the Chiefs of Staff to restudy the question of reprisal raids. As for himself, Churchill had already made up his mind. The Germans would pay heavily for this latest outrage.\n\nHowever, during all the carrying on about vengeance weapons and London, Chief of Air Staff Charles Portal observed, rightly, that the city was a legitimate military target. It was not only the seat of the British government but an important center of war production and communications.\n\nChurchill was adamant. There must be reprisals. The people would accept no less, he argued. In the War Cabinet meeting on 3 July, he reported receiving a large number of letters from the general public urging him to take strong countermeasures against Germany for what he termed an \"indiscriminate form of attack.\" Terror bombing was at last on the table.\n\nIn calling for reprisals, Churchill first suggested that the Germans be warned that if they did not halt the V-1 attacks, Bomber Command would systematically raze smaller German cities in retaliation. General Walter Bedell Smith, Eisenhower's chief of staff, supported the prime minister. It is therefore reasonable to assume that both Eisenhower and Roosevelt did, or would, as well.\n\nHis plan called for the systematic destruction of small towns of populations of 20,000 people or so. To destroy such small targets, it would be necessary to drop 600 tons of bombs on each target in daylight, which meant that the Americans would have to do it. The planners admitted that somewhere on the order of 900 tons would actually be necessary to ensure a raid's success.\n\nIt was estimated that five such towns could be destroyed in one good-weather operation. Since there were only three or four days a month when weather conditions, less than 2\/10 to 3\/10 cloud cover (20 to 30 percent), were favorable for such an operation, the Americans could be expected to destroy fifteen to twenty small towns per month.\n\nWhile the destruction of small towns would no doubt have serious effects on morale, such a campaign could not be planned in advance to produce the desired devastating effect. News of the bombings could be controlled locally, for one thing, and the weather could never be relied upon. Besides, said the planners, even if a hundred towns of 20,000 people were destroyed, only 3 percent of the population of Germany would be affected.\n\nActing Major General L. C. Hollis, senior assistant secretary, Office of the War Cabinet, wrote to Churchill that for the Germans to change their policies in the light of such a threat would be militarily foolish. What, after all, were a few small towns to the German high command when weighed against the success of the flying-bomb campaign against England, which was not only slowing production owing to a jittery populace but also tying up 50 percent of Bomber Command in Operation Crossbow?\n\nThe first sea lord, Sir Andrew Cunningham, took the opposite view. He felt that such a threat might well have the desired demoralizing effect on the people and that the Nazi military leaders might well call off the V-weapons attacks.\n\nCharles Portal and Air Chief Marshal and Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Arthur Tedder opposed any plan that would divert Bomber Command from what it saw as its primary mission. Oil and communications should remain the primary targets for Bomber Command. Besides, Hitler cared nothing for the cities of Germany, large or small\u2014he never toured a bombed-out city\u2014and would willingly sacrifice any or all of them. Indeed, he remarked more than once that the Allied air raids actually made his dream of building a new Germany that much easier by destroying the old.\n\nAnother form of attack that was discussed was the widespread strafing of civilians by fighters, although everyone knew that this action could not be done on the scale that would produce a widespread catastrophe.\n\nEverything, it seems, was on the table for discussion, including the use of poison gas, not only against the Crossbow installations but also in Germany itself. Other actions against civilians included the proposal that Germany be warned that from a certain date all movement by road or rail was forbidden and subject to attack.\n\nThe use of poison gas was eliminated as an option, even though Churchill argued strongly for it, and wholesale bombing and strafing of all occupied Europe was impossible. There were nowhere near enough men or planes available to carry out such an ambitious plan.\n\nChurchill clearly had come some distance in the four years since he had sent a memorandum to Alfred Duff Cooper, minister of information, on how to handle the reporting of air raids on England. \"Press and broadcast should be asked to handle air raids in a cool way and on a diminishing tone of public interest,\" he wrote. \"The facts should be chronicled without undue prominence or headlines. The people should be accustomed to treat air raids as a matter of ordinary routine.... It must be remembered that the vast majority of people are not at all affected by any single air raid, and would hardly sustain any evil impression if it were not thrust before them. Everyone should learn to take air raids and air raid alarms as if they were no more than thunderstorms.\"\n\nThis rather Olympian pronouncement could well have been issued by leaders of any of the Axis powers or their propaganda ministers. But statistical analysis was certainly on Churchill's side. The odds of being killed by a flying bomb were only one in thirty thousand.\n\nOn 5 July 1944, the Chiefs of Staff met to discuss Churchill's call for reprisal raids against Germany for the V-1 attacks. Afterward they reported \"that the time might well come in the not too distant future when an all-out attack by every means at our disposal on German civilian morale might be decisive.\" Further, the Chiefs of Staff recommended to Churchill that \"the method by which such an attack would be carried out should be examined and all possible preparations made.\"\n\nThus began intensive planning sessions by a committee that included not only representatives from the American and British air staffs but also the British Foreign Office and the Ministry of Economic Warfare. The representatives from these various groups began to develop a new policy with a new name. Henceforth the planners would talk of \"morale bombing.\"\n\nAccording to the committee's top secret report, entitled \"Attack on German Civilian Morale,\" Berlin was to be the target of a four-day, three-night round-the-clock bombardment by Bomber Command and the Eighth Air Force. During the raids, 20,000 tons of bombs would be dropped. Many things recommended the German capital as the target, not the least of which was its vast size. Even in bad weather it could be found.\n\nBerlin was also the premier population and administrative center of the Reich, as well as a vital industrial and communications center. And, of course, the most important Nazis, including the F\u00fchrer himself, were in residence. In these particulars, Berlin differed not at all from London\u2014although not even Portal offered this analogy publicly.\n\nSince a daylight raid on Berlin would produce the greatest number of casualties because of the population density during working hours, the specialists in daylight bombing, the Eighth Air Force, would have to lead the way. Under visual conditions, 2,000 American bombers would drop 5,000 tons of bombs on a 2.5-square-mile area of central Berlin. At that time of day, the area, which would absorb a bomb density of 2,000 tons of bombs per square mile, was estimated to contain some 375,000 people.\n\nThe effectiveness of the initial raid would be compounded by an \"all-incendiary attack by Bomber Command, on the heaviest scale, on the remainder of the city.\" Bomber Command, in a departure from standard operating procedure, would attack in daylight, which would necessitate the Americans' providing a large force of escort fighters. If necessary, Bomber Command would follow up that night with another incendiary attack.\n\nNot so incidentally, such a raid would have postwar ramifications as well. Churchill always viewed the Soviet allies with suspicion and had few illusions about the extent to which they could be expected to cooperate after the defeat of Germany.\n\n\"The total devastation of the centre of Berlin would, moreover, offer incontrovertible proof of the power of a modern bomber force; it would convince our Russian allies and representatives of other countries visiting Berlin of the effectiveness of Anglo-American air power,\" said the drafters of the report. Further: \"A spectacular and final object lesson to the German people on the consequences of universal aggression would be of continuing value in the post-war period and would appreciably ease the task of policing the occupied areas by means of air forces.\"\n\nOfficially, RAF policy was to destroy industrial areas, which, as Harris often observed, were located in the cities of the Reich. So, naturally, his bombers attacked cities. And for his purposes, incendiaries were more effective and paid a larger dividend than high explosives. So the ratio of incendiary bombs to heavy bombs was very large. It was also argued, somewhat disingenuously, that incendiaries caused fewer casualties among civilians than did high explosives.\n\nFurther, the British pointed out, the RAF raids had caused much greater disruption among the civilian populace than did the American raids, which were ostensibly against precise targets\u2014oil refineries, aircraft plants, railroad yards, and the like. Since these targets were in outlying areas, civilians were little affected, or so it was officially stated. In reality, the truth was otherwise.\n\nIn chilling detail, the report reveals how far planners on both sides had descended after five years of warfare. There would be, it was projected, approximately 275,000 casualties\u2014137,500 dead and 137,500 seriously injured. The name chosen for this massive raid connoted both its suddenness and its deadliness: Operation Thunderclap.\n\nAs the report stated, \"The main purpose of [Thunderclap], which may be carried out in the closing stages of the war, is to precipitate the capitulation of the German High Command. If the operation should succeed in curtailing the duration of the war by even a few weeks it would save many thousands of Allied casualties and would justify itself many times over.\" The memorandum also said forthrightly, \"The operation would not, necessarily, cause any sudden breakdown in German administration.\" After all, most of the government had already left town or was dispersed. The postal system, for example, was being administered from Dresden.\n\nBut the destruction of the administrative apparatus was not the goal of Thunderclap. As the drafters of the plan said, \"The essential purpose of the attack however is to deliver an overwhelming blow to German national morale.... The whole population of Berlin would be spectators of the catastrophe, and, in the state of war, which has been postulated, the effect might well be decisive.\"\n\nOn 13 August, John Strachey, director of bomber operations, received a memorandum advocating the Thunderclap plan. \"I still feel there is a strong case,\" wrote the unidentified correspondent, \"after the virtual collapse of the [German] Army in Normandy, for laying on a 'Rotterdam' on the centre of the Capital.\" The terror bombing of Berlin and killing or injuring of hundreds of thousands of civilians would cause a national panic that \"at the best may prove the last straw.\"\n\nThe air staff had consulted with the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Economic Warfare, and an \"unofficial representative\" from General Spaatz's headquarters. There was general consensus about Thunderclap, but there were still deep divisions among the principals about diverting men and mat\u00e9riel from destroying the German armed forces and bombing strategic supplies, particularly oil. But everyone regretted that Thunderclap had not been in place to take advantage of the attempt on Hitler's life on 20 July 1944.\n\nAfter all suggestions were discussed and most eliminated, one target still recommended itself for a Thunderclap-type raid: Berlin. A genuine crisis could be effected by destroying the government communications and public services of the center of Nazi power. Although some two million people, half the city, had been evacuated, there were as many people, some 3 percent of the population of Germany, still living in Berlin. A catastrophic raid on the capital would thus have the greatest possible effect on the civilian population of Germany, since no attack of such magnitude could be covered up or disguised.\n\nHarris and Spaatz were in agreement that their two commands would be able to drop a total 20,000 tons of bombs on Berlin over a period of four days and three nights. With that added to the 48,000 tons of bombs that had already been dropped on the German capital, the estimate of destruction and death seems accurate enough.\n\nA first draft of the report went so far as to suggest that a large raid might even trigger revolt in Berlin, which had, it was said, \"some traditions of anti-Nazi activity.\" This last projection was a bit too roseate. It was dropped from the final version.\n\nIn the final report, issued on 22 August, under the heading \"Other Large Towns,\" the planners discussed the alternatives to Berlin. \"In the main the tactical factors governing the attack on other large towns such as Hamburg, Cologne, Frankfurt or Munich, are similar to those of attack on Berlin.\"\n\nWhile Allied losses would be less since at least three of these targets were near the German border and thus the penetration would be not as deep as with Berlin, they were also harder to find in bad weather. But, more important, there would be less destruction in each of these cities per ton of bombs dropped. The original report thus clearly and unmistakably called for the Thunderclap target to be Berlin.\n\nThe report acknowledged that \"immense devastation could be produced if the entire attack was concentrated on a single big town other than Berlin and the effect would be especially great if the town was one hitherto relatively undamaged.\" This is the sentence often cited in reference to the Dresden raid as evidence that the planners had Dresden or a similar city in mind in 1944. Not so, it seems. The very next sentence reads, \"The political effect would however be less than that of comparable devastation in Berlin.\" For the planners, Thunderclap meant the bombing of Berlin, which was not only \"unmissable,\" even in the worst weather, but would also allow for a \"banquet raid,\" offering something for everyone and every taste.\n\nThe main impetus or ingredient necessary for launching Thunderclap was less easily defined or recognized. What would be the actual flash point, the crisis that when fully and quickly exploited by a devastating raid could bring down the Reich? No one was certain, but until then, said the report, \"it is essential that we should devote our maximum effort to attacks on the German war economy and on the German army and its essential supplies.\"\n\nThe planners\u2014whose report was, after all, for Winston Churchill, who was calling for vengeance for the V-weapons\u2014left themselves an out. \"There may, however, be a moment,\" they wrote, \"at which the balance can be tipped by an attack directed against the morale of the High Command, the army and the civilian population rather than against objectives immediately related to the battle.\"\n\nIn other words, Bomber Command and the U.S. Army Air Forces would together so devastate the Reich and terrorize the populace that Hitler and his cohorts would either capitulate or be overthrown. There were three main factors to be considered:\n\n1. The morale of the political and military leaders could be affected by heavy attacks on government and military centers and by \"well judged propaganda.\"\n\n2. The morale of the armed forces could be affected by conditions in the field, by interdiction of supplies and weapons, and by the conditions at home.\n\n3. While admitting that riots, strikes, uncontrolled looting, or other civil disorder might occur in \"an extreme case,\" the report concluded that \"this is not in any circumstance a probable contingency except among foreign workers.\"\n\nThere was, however, some chance of absenteeism, shirking off at work, and general hostility toward government and administration if civilian morale deteriorated\u2014a very big \"if.\" But, the report continued, an attack on morale \"may force the authorities to divert increasing resources to the maintenance of morale at the expense of other vital commitments.\" In other words, thousands of field guns would have to be used to defend cities from air attack instead of being deployed as artillery at the front. Civil defense measures would cause additional diversion of large numbers of men and huge amounts of mat\u00e9riel to aid the civilian populace. In particular, hundreds of thousands of people made homeless by the raids would have to be cared for, causing further disruption.\n\nIf anyone still had doubts that the chief target in any civilian bombing campaign would be women and children, this report resolved those doubts. \"It must be remembered that there are few able-bodied male Germans between 17 and 45 left in Germany outside the Army and the Police.\" As for foreign workers, they might be more sensitive to air attack, but the report admitted that they were subject to total police control. These workers were, after all, mainly slave laborers. The report continued:\n\nIn this situation it is unlikely that fluctuations in civilian morale will have any decisive influence upon the High Command until its authority has already been greatly weakened by other causes and the machinery of repression has begun to break down. The occasion for an attack on civilian morale as such will not arise until it is generally believed even in Germany that the Nazi system is collapsing and that total defeat is imminent. This opportunity to enforce surrender may be a fleeting one; if it is not seized either the extremist elements may succeed in rallying the army for a further stand or the collapse may spread so rapidly that central government ceases to exist.\n\nIt is generally agreed that the greatest effect on morale will be produced if a new blow of catastrophic force can be struck at a time when the situation already appears desperate. The blow should be such that it cannot be concealed or minimised, and it should if possible imply a threat that it will be continued and intensified if surrender does not follow. The German attack on Rotterdam in May 1940 was made in somewhat analogous conditions, and illustrates the effect which may be produced. Carefully coordinated propaganda is of course essential.\n\nThe report admitted that the \"available evidence suggests that German civilian morale is at present negative rather than positively good or bad.\" The average person was concerned only with getting by from one day to the next and was under no illusion that resistance to authority or protest against the war would improve his or her lot.\n\nThe hopeful but guarded note that foreign workers might become restive reflected the view of Goebbels himself. As early as April 1942 he wrote in his diary, \"It is now also becoming evident that the great successes of the English with their air raids are due to sabotage on the part of foreign workers.\" British intelligence was doubtless made aware of the Nazi chiefs' fear of the foreign workers in their midst and the police investigations of their alleged sabotage and aid to the enemy. In reality, of course, there was little to hope for among the British and little to fear from the foreigners on the part of the Germans. The slaves remained quiescent.\n\nClearly, in a short time, British and American planners had learned the craft and the importance of propaganda. Joseph Goebbels himself could not have phrased it better.\n\nNeither Arthur Harris nor Carl Spaatz sat in on the sessions that devised the Thunderclap plan. Although the American commander was in agreement with the final draft, he asked that no mention be made in the report of \"the concurrence of his unofficial representative at the Meeting.\"\n\nAs for Harris, it can be surmised that he had no qualms about such a massive raid on Berlin since he had planned a similar Anglo-American operation against the German capital for 21 June 1944 in retaliation for the flying-bomb attacks.\n\nAccording to Harris, Doolittle, the Eighth Air Force commander, came to Bomber Command headquarters the day before to confer with the British staffs and go over the final plans. The discussions were proceeding amicably and the operation seemed feasible to everyone until Harris asked about the long-range American fighter support necessary to protect the British bombers. Not only would it be an unusually deep penetration into the Third Reich, but the British would be raiding in daylight, an unusual move for them. Bomber Command would thus require an extraordinarily large number of fighter escorts.\n\nNeither Doolittle nor his boss, Carl Spaatz, commanding general of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces, was anxious to deploy the American fighter squadrons over such a vast area. The bomber stream would run some sixty miles in length. When they told Harris that he could have nowhere near the number of fighter planes that he demanded, he withdrew from the plan forthwith.\n\nHarris, in his memoirs, maintained that his withdrawal forced the cancellation of the entire operation, which was not so. A thousand American B-17s and B-24s did raid Berlin on 21 June 1944, dropping almost 1,400 tons of bombs on the German capital and its environs.\n\nSpaatz was very much troubled by the bombing of civilians as outlined in the Thunderclap plan. He wrote to Eisenhower on 24 August that the Eighth would participate in the raid against Berlin, but the American goal would remain attacking targets of military importance. \"U.S. bombing policy, as you know,\" he reminded Ike, \"has been directed against precision military objectives, and not morale.\" Eisenhower reassured Spaatz, telling him, \"We will continue precision bombing and not be deflected to morale bombing.\"\n\n**The V-1 terror attacks** on the British cities, the calls for reprisals, and the drafting of the Thunderclap plan were part of the backdrop of the Octagon Conference in Quebec on 12\u201316 September 1944. At the conference, Churchill and Roosevelt provided a resonant example of the odium in which Germany was held and the desire for revenge that permeated the thinking of otherwise rational beings. The two leaders approved and initialed the Morgenthau Plan, a scheme concocted by Roosevelt's secretary of the treasury, Henry Morgenthau.\n\nThe Morgenthau Plan called for the elimination of Germany as an industrial power. Any successor state to the Third Reich was to be reduced to an agricultural and pastoral society. British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden and U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull were appalled at the idea that postwar Germany would be so crippled and prevailed on Churchill and Roosevelt to disavow their actions. The plan was scrapped.\n\n**Concurrent with Thunderclap** , it was also proposed that bombers attack SS and Gestapo headquarters and, in an effort to stop the murder of the remaining Jews of Europe, the concentration camps themselves. However, in a tacit admission that bombing was not all that accurate, the planners had to reject these addenda.\n\nThe headquarters were too scattered throughout urban areas to be bombed effectively. As for the concentration camps, by far the largest number of deaths would be among the inmates\u2014a supposition that was borne out by the raids on Peenem\u00fcnde and Nordhausen, in which great numbers of slave laborers and very few Nazis were killed.\n\nThis last decision would later fuel charges that in spite of knowing of the persecution and murder of the Jews, Churchill, Roosevelt, and their military advisers passed up opportunities to save them by destroying the rail lines leading to the death camps.\n\nAn examination of the map of the largest camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau, clearly points up the difficulty of accurately bombing an area approximately two by five miles in area, when it was considered good bombing if the bombs fell within half a mile of the target. The factories that were staffed with slave labor, the barracks for the inmates, and the grisly machinery of extermination were in such close proximity that bombs would have killed many thousands of the people that any such raids were supposed to save. As for the rail lines\u2014there were four serving the camp\u2014the Germans had millions of slave laborers, and until the very end of the war they were quickly able to repair damaged rail lines, often within hours of their being bombed.\n\nSince at least August 1941, it had been known what was happening in the Nazi-occupied areas in eastern Europe. Neutral governments, intelligence sources, and \u00e9migr\u00e9s were reporting the German atrocities in frightening detail. A week after returning from the meeting with Roosevelt in Newfoundland, Churchill declared in a broadcast speech, \"Since the Mongol invasion of Europe... there has never been methodical, merciless butchery on such a scale, or approaching such a scale.... We are in the presence of a crime without a name.\"\n\nChurchill had spoken out even earlier, on 21 December 1937, against Hitler's persecution of the Jews. During a debate in the Commons over Lord Halifax's visit to Hitler in Berlin, Churchill described the visit as appeasement of the F\u00fchrer and tacit approval of his racial policies.\n\nDebate has long centered on whether in his \"crime without a name\" speech Churchill was referring to what became known as the Holocaust or calling the world's attention to the murder of Russian noncombatants. Certainly, it was known that Jews were being rounded up, interned, and deported. After all, Churchill received weekly reports on German police activities.\n\nMany explanations have been put forth as to why these facts were not made more of by the British government. The press was certainly reporting the atrocities. One construction is that old standby: to have done so would have compromised the Ultra program. Historian Richard Breitman takes a different view. He cites a July 1941 Ministry of Information caveat that propaganda must be handled very carefully so as not to seem too extreme. If filled with seemingly fantastical reports of atrocities, instead of rousing the British people to action it might have the opposite effect.\n\nEven allowing for a half century of retrospection, reading the now declassified reports and memoranda one is sometimes almost overcome by whiffs of the unmistakable anti-Semitism of the British Foreign Office and Ministry of Information in the 1930s and 1940s. What else can one make of a memorandum that says that information and propaganda \"must deal always with treatment of indisputably innocent people. Not with violent political opponents. And not with Jews\"?\n\nHarold Nicolson, that pillar of the diplomatic establishment, confided to his diary in June 1945, well after the Nazi genocidal policies and atrocities had been publicized around the world, \"The Jewish capacity for destruction is illimitable. And although I loathe anti-Semitism, I do dislike Jews.\"\n\nBy the time of Churchill's speech, hundreds of thousands of Jews were already dead\u2014starved to death or victims of disease in the concentration camps that had sprung up all over Europe; beaten or shot to death by camp guards; or murdered by the Einsatzgruppen, the killing squads that followed the troops and executed the civilian populace as the Wehrmacht moved across eastern Europe and into the Soviet Union. In the first three weeks of Barbarossa, some 50,000 Jews were murdered by the Einsatzgruppen.\n\nPoland, with the largest concentration of Jews in the world, some three million, had already been under the Nazi terror for almost two years. The Warsaw Ghetto was home to over 400,000 people, each of whom had a food allotment of 183 calories per day, about the number of calories in two slices of bread. By the end of 1942 most of Poland's Jews had been liquidated.\n\nThe program of transporting the Jews to the east and certain death was highly classified, and the operation was carried out in all of Europe by relatively few people, considering its vast scope. As Hitler had fore- told in _Mein Kampf_ , \"If propaganda has imbued a whole people with an idea, the organization can draw the consequences with a handful of men.\" The German people had for over a decade been barraged with the anti-Semitic propaganda of the Nazis and had become inured to the suffering of their neighbors and fellow citizens.\n\nThe term _Sonderbehandlung_ (\"special treatment\") was devised by Himmler and his staff to describe the deportations and killing. Even this euphemism became troublesome, so by April 1942 the program was changed to \"Transportation of the Jews to the Russian East.\"\n\n_Sonderbehandlung_ was applied to other groups as well. Hundreds of thousands of non-Jews\u2014Catholic priests and nuns, Communists, Polish prisoners of war, homosexuals, and Gypsies\u2014were rounded up and sent to the camps or murdered where they were found. By the end of the war three million non-Jewish Poles had also been killed.\n\nJewish leaders in Britain and America repeatedly tried to apprise the world of the enormity of the Nazi crimes against their coreligionists. Influential newspapers, in particular the _New York Times_ , joined in the chorus of horror. In England, the archbishop of Canterbury wrote a letter to the _Times_ of London. Finally, on 17 December 1942, an Allied declaration condemning the systematic murder of European Jewry was issued; but, significantly, it offered no plan for saving those millions still alive.\n\nThe official line was that victory over the Germans was the first order of business and everything else must be subordinate. There were many underlying issues as well. One was the fear of a massive influx of Jewish refugees, which was of especial importance to those such as Anthony Eden. Another concern was the reaction of the Arab world. How would the inevitable introduction of huge numbers of Jews into their ancient homeland in Palestine affect relations with the Arabs, who controlled much of the world's oil supply?\n\nIn late 1942 and early 1943, however, there were no Allied ground forces in Europe except the Russians, who were fighting a purely defensive war for their very existence. The only way to take the war to the Germans was by air; but the RAF was still hesitant to venture too deeply into Germany because of the unacceptable losses over the heavily defended Fatherland, and the U.S. Army Air Forces was still feeling its way. Its operations were more or less restricted to bombing French and German ports.\n\nThe campaign to save the Jews was thus limited to a war of propaganda, although it was not a war of lies and deceptions. All of the horrors were true. And it may have resulted in the saving of some of the persecuted by lending encouragement to the brave souls who hid their unfortunate countrymen and by convincing those Jews who could still do so to go into hiding or to flee.\n\nNothing can spare those civilian and religious and military leaders from the judgment of history that they did not at the very least speak out against the atrocities being perpetrated against the Jews. At the same time, credit must be given the military for moving as rapidly as possible to destroy the Nazis and bring down the system responsible for the atrocities.\n\nAs for precision bombing of the camps or the rail lines leading to them: that was never a real option. The technology that could ensure the pinpoint bombing of such small targets was never available. It is estimated that anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of the bombs being dropped by Bomber Command were not even hitting the cities they were intended to, which were large targets indeed. And when the American bombers entered the war in force in 1943, they quickly learned that their bombing tactics and accuracy were also sadly deficient. In the first half of 1943, they managed to drop only 14 percent of their bombs within 1,000 feet of the target. By the end of the war the figure had improved considerably but was still just 44 percent. Some 73 percent still fell within only 2,000 feet of the target\u2014nearly half a mile. As for the rail lines, the Germans demonstrated again and again that they could repair bombed rail lines in just a few hours.\n\nHitler's victims were locked up in a vast Continental prison or death camp. In 1942, moral suasion was the only weapon the Allies had against an enemy without morals. Therefore, the world watched helplessly, and for the most part silently, as the remaining Jews of Europe were slaughtered.\n\nFor Hitler, G\u00f6ring, Goebbels, Himmler, and the other top Nazis, there was no turning back from the course they had set. They would fight on no matter what. They knew full well that a German defeat and surrender meant a hangman's rope for them. Each of them might say, with Shakespeare's Macbeth, \"I am in blood \/ Stept in so far that, should I wade no more, \/ Returning were as tedious as go o'er.\"\n\n**In Washington, the Thunderclap** report and its clear endorsement of terror bombing was greeted with some alarm by many members of the air force staff, in particular Major General Laurence S. Kuter, assistant chief of staff for plans.\n\nKuter was one of Hap Arnold's so-called boy generals. This characterization was not always applied kindly, at least by the senior officers in the other services and, indeed, in the U.S. Army itself. The public and press delighted in the appellation, however. In any event, the classification was born of necessity. The army air chief had had no choice but to promote a group of young officers to senior rank. The air services were so new that there weren't enough old-timers to fill the slots. Arnold never had any cause to regret raising relatively youthful men to positions of prominence. Many of them went on to positions of great power in the military and defense establishment.\n\nThe dashingly handsome Kuter was both an articulate spokesman for the military and a man of strong convictions. \"It is contrary to our national ideals,\" he wrote, \"to wage war against civilians.\" Kuter doubtless believed this, but as Spaatz biographer Richard C. Davis points out, it was directly counter to what he had written three years earlier when he helped draft AWPD-1. That directive promoted morale bombing as a viable policy. However, AWPD-1 also warned that bombing of civilians might very well have the opposite effect. It could stiffen the people's will to resist\u2014a point no doubt much influenced by the example of the British during the recent Blitz.\n\nThe 1941 directive also specified that there must be definite signs that the enemy's morale and will to fight on had declined and, further, that there must be signs that the people were losing faith in the military. In addition, all psychological conditions for such a campaign must be in place\u2014a very big caveat. Now, three years later, Kuter was clearly disturbed by what he saw as a strategic wrong turn. \"Our entire target policy,\" he said, \"has been founded on the fact that it was uneconomical to bomb any except military objectives and the German productive capacity.\"\n\nKuter identified a simple fact that was invariably overlooked or ignored by the advocates of morale bombing. \"The bombing of civilian targets in Germany cannot be expected to have similar effects to those which can be expected in a democratic country where the people are still able to influence national will,\" he said. The objects of civilian terror bombing had no way to communicate their misery, fear, and anger to the government in power. And even if they did, their protests would be ignored or stamped out. Only Hitler himself decided the course of action.\n\nHis compunctions about morale bombing notwithstanding, Kuter was compelled by duty to draw up a plan for the bombing of population centers. His suggestion in some ways paralleled or supplemented Thunderclap, but it had one significant difference. Why not, Kuter said, concentrate on a smaller city, one that was \"ancient, compact, historic\" but also had \"as much industrial importance as possible.\"\n\nA dozen such cities should be chosen and announced to the Germans. However, to cause maximum chaos, the Germans should be warned that just one of the designated targets would bear the brunt of the massive attack by a thousand or more bombers. After that, if necessary, another city would be targeted, until all twelve were obliterated.\n\nKuter's \"death by a thousand cuts\" had little chance of causing the collapse of the Third Reich for the very reasons he had put forth himself. The people's misery would not sway the Nazis, who ruled their lives. As the war came closer to home, the vise of the police state closed ever tighter. Then, too, the German people were clearly in no mood to capitulate. Consider the adulation of Goebbels when he toured bombed-out cities: he was cheered as a hero by the survivors.\n\nHap Arnold proposed yet another plan. The air force chief suggested a full week of round-the-clock bombing throughout the Third Reich by all available fighters and bombers. No area was to be spared. Arnold's plan was the least viable and must have disappointed his many admirers. There were nowhere near enough crews, planes, or escorts to implement such a mission. As the top-ranking airman, Arnold should have known this.\n\nEarly in 1944, the American ambassador in London, John G. Winant, had written to Roosevelt objecting to the bombing of civilians. As Winant pointed out to the president, it was understandable that the British might be justified in their nighttime raids on populated areas because the Germans had done the same thing to them. The American reluctance to bomb civilians was therefore understandable, since no Americans cities had been bombed. But, Winant told the president frankly, many of the target selections made by the British and then passed on to the Americans for execution were political judgments and not based on military needs.\n\n\"In the European area I believe that British political considerations are integrated in military decisions and that they do not conform necessarily with United States long term interests,\" said Winant. The Americans should concentrate on aircraft factories, ball-bearing plants, and other such targets, he argued.\n\nThe ambassador was particularly disturbed by the American attacks on Budapest, Bucharest, and Sofia, which theoretically were supposed to destroy the railway marshaling yards but were also directed at the morale of the civilians. He said such raids were ineffective since railroads could be repaired very quickly but the political ramifications would be severe. The Soviets had not bombed the cities, but the Americans had. Winant was no doubt looking to the future and the by then clear Soviet role in the makeup of postwar Europe.\n\nThe State Department also weighed in, saying that the bombing of civilians was causing diplomatic problems. The Joint Chiefs replied that only military targets had been bombed and that, besides, the targets had been picked not by Washington but by the chief of the air staff of the Royal Air Force.\n\n**In spite of** the lip service being paid to precision bombing, everyone knew that the almost constant cloud cover over Europe ensured that targets were obscured most of the time. Civilian deaths were inevitable. But the euphemistic \"precision bombing\" at least provided some sort of moral fig leaf.\n\nWhile Eisenhower promised to respect Spaatz's scruples about morale bombing, he clearly left himself a way out. The agreed-upon bombing priorities would be observed, he told Spaatz, \"unless in my opinion an opportunity arises where a sudden and devastating blow may have an incalculable result.\" The supreme commander soon seemed ready to invoke his proviso. On 9 September 1944, he notified Spaatz that he should be ready to launch Thunderclap at any time. Spaatz accordingly instructed Doolittle to be prepared to reorder the bombing priorities. The Eighth must be ready to bomb Berlin \"indiscriminately.\"\n\nSpaatz's biographer Davis speculates that Eisenhower's order perhaps was prompted by the upcoming Operation Market Garden, which was designed to capture bridgeheads on the Lower Rhine in the Netherlands and open the way for a rapid advance into the Reich itself. The crossing by Allied troops of the great river, with its mythic connection to the German people\u2014it flows through the nation's psyche\u2014combined with a devastating air raid on the capital might be the one-two punch so long sought by the Allies.\n\nMarket Garden (17\u201325 September 1944) was a disaster, a stunning reversal for the Allies. Not only were the Rhine bridges not captured, but troops that should have been used to clear the Scheldt Estuary and open the port of Antwerp had been diverted to Holland. Antwerp, although it was in Allied hands, was not opened to traffic until the end of November.\n\nThunderclap was thus delayed, but only temporarily, and it stayed in the forefront of the strategic bombing plans. In a matter of just a few weeks the \"crisis\" necessary\u2014the imminent collapse of the Third Reich\u2014seemed at hand.\n\n**The Germans staged** one more massive ground offensive: the attempted breakout in the Ardennes on 16 December. The Battle of the Bulge, which was designed to split the Allied armies and recapture the port of Antwerp, was a sobering warning to the Allies, but the 27 December 1944 War Cabinet Joint Intelligence Sub-Committee Report, \"German Ability to Maintain the Present Counter-Offensive,\" was right on target with its assessment of the German breakout. It could not be sustained since Germany could not move the substantial numbers of reinforcements needed into the Ardennes because of the expected massive Soviet push in the east.\n\nAs predicted, the German counterattack was short-lived, and the Wehrmacht retreat into the Reich resumed. Eisenhower, however, never underestimated the enemy, a sound rule for all commanders. In a dispatch dated 7 January 1945 he said, \"There seems to be a kind of fanaticism or 'German Fury' behind the present operations and I have no doubt but that the Germans are making a supreme and all-out effort to achieve victory in the West in the shortest possible time. The Ardennes battle is in my opinion only one episode and we must expect attempts in other areas.\"\n\nThere would be no other major German land offensive, but Eisenhower would have been most unwise not to have considered the possibility and planned accordingly. His assessment was made even more difficult because of the reticence of the Soviets to show their hand or confide in their British and American allies.\n\nThe supreme commander and his colleagues had long chafed at the lack of information about Soviet movements in the east and the Russians' almost paranoid hesitance to put anything important in writing. Someone always had to be dispatched to Moscow to deal with them directly. Winston Churchill, Anthony Eden, Harry Hopkins, and Cordell Hull, among others, had all made the pilgrimage, some more than once.\n\nNow, as the war seemed to be heading into its final stages, some news from the Russians about an offensive would be welcome. In turn, Eisenhower would be glad to exchange information with his Soviet counterparts. It would thus be necessary for another face-to-face meeting to work out a more coherent strategy between the two uneasy Allies.\n\nOn 14 December, American ambassador Averell Harriman met with Stalin to assure him that Eisenhower \"was very anxious to operate in concert with the Russians and to help the Russian armies whenever such support might be needed.\"\n\nEisenhower, naturally, had to remain at his headquarters in France, but on 23 December 1944, Roosevelt cabled Stalin that Eisenhower would be sending a representative to the Soviet Union \"to discuss with you the situation in the West and its relation to the Russian front in order that information essential to our efforts may be available to all of us.\" Eisenhower's choice was Air Marshal Sir Arthur Tedder, deputy supreme Allied commander and head of all Allied air operations.\n\nOn 15 January 1945 Tedder met with the Soviet premier. The wily Stalin said that even though there was no Soviet-Allied treaty it was in the self-interest of the Allies to ensure that the Soviet Union was not annihilated by the Nazis, just as it was in the self-interest of the Soviet Union to ensure the survival of the West in the struggle against Nazism.\n\nStalin was particularly concerned that the German communications system was such that it was an easy matter to move troops between the two fronts. Even now, Stalin said, the Germans must be moving forces from the west to the east, and although there was no specific mention of Dresden, it was clear to all that Wehrmacht men and mat\u00e9riel would have to pass through the Saxon city to reach the Eastern Front.\n\nAccording to the Air Force Historical Office, \"Tedder outlined to Stalin the 'application of the Allied air effort with particular reference to strategic bombing of communications as represented by oil targets, railroads and waterways.' There was also specific discussion of the problem that would face the Russians if the Germans attempted to shift forces from the West to the East and of the necessity of preventing this possibility.\"\n\n**The bad weather of** January and February 1945 kept many of Bomber Command's planes grounded, but any break in the weather was seized upon by Harris, who had already begun to look farther east for targets.\n\nBomber Command had made several deep penetration raids, one as early as October 1940. The first was an unsuccessful effort to bomb the \u0160koda arms works at Pilsen, in Czechoslovakia. Other small raids followed, but they were chiefly calling cards, part of the plan to force the Germans to scatter their antiaircraft defenses all over Europe. In April 1943 another attempt was made to destroy the \u0160koda works, but the bombers mistakenly bombed an asylum seven miles from the target. Other raids on the \u0160koda factory were equally unsuccessful.\n\nBomber Command had also ranged as far as Italy in 1943, bombing both Turin and Milan. These major northern Italian industrial cities were legitimate targets, but the most notable casualty of the raids was the famous Milanese opera house La Scala\u2014not the primary target, the Fiat factories.\n\nTo the end, Harris believed wholeheartedly that his avowed plan to destroy all of the cities of the Reich was the surest way to end the war. But he now had to give way to Portal, who directly ordered him to commence attacks on the oil targets, raids that Speer would characterize as fatal blows to the German war machine.\n\nThe first Bomber Command raid on a major eastern German oil facility was at 'Leuna, near Leipzig, on 6\u20137 December 1944. This RAF raid was seven months after the first American raids on oil facilities in eastern Germany\u2014the series of raids on 12 May that Speer said had decided the technological war.\n\nBut there were no further major British raid on oil targets until 14\u201315 January 1945, when Bomber Command returned to Leuna. This was partly because of the foul weather and partly because planes were diverted to pound the Germans who had broken out in the Ardennes.\n\nHowever, directives from Portal or no, Bomber Harris never lost sight of his chief goal, as his detractors point out. On the night of 2\u20133 January he staged one of the great area raids of the war. Nuremberg\u2014the city of the Meistersingers, with its two thousand medieval houses\u2014was obliterated by over 500 Lancasters.\n\nHarris was careful to satisfy Portal's demands, however, and the RAF resumed deep penetration raids into eastern Germany and western Czechoslovakia in search of oil targets. P\u00f6litz, near Stettin, and Zeitz, near Leipzig, and Br\u00fcx, fifty-five miles from Prague, were all heavily bombed and largely destroyed. If there was any possibility of flying, Harris launched his bombers. But after the P\u00f6litz raid on the night of 8\u20139 February, the weather was again uncooperative. Bomber Command mounted no more serious offensives until Dresden.\n\n**The debate as to** which policy was more effective\u2014more-or-less blind bombing as practiced by the RAF or the much touted precision bombing of the Eighth Air Force\u2014has raged since the bombing campaigns began. The British, under Bomber Harris, felt no reason to explain or apologize for their form of aerial warfare. The Americans, while taking the moral high ground (or so it seemed to many of their colleagues in the RAF), never returned with their bomb loads if they could not find the designated target. They simply bombed what they could find. If it was a city, so be it.\n\nGreat claims for American precision bombing were made during World War II. \"Our bombers can drop a bomb in a pickle barrel!\" trumpeted the Americans. \"Of course we can,\" one airman wryly observed. \"We just have to find the barrel.\"\n\nHere was the crux of the problem: how to find the target and bomb it when the pilot and the bombardier could not see it. Neither the Americans nor the British ever came close to achieving pinpoint or precision bombing. Even the Norden bombsight, which has been much celebrated as having ushered in a new and more effective bombing policy, was accurate only in direct proportion to the visibility of the target on the ground.\n\nThus began the search for navigational systems that would provide a solution to the problem, and as each new one was unveiled it was hailed as the answer. But their drawbacks became apparent almost as soon as they were deployed.\n\nThe first was the system called Gee. Using this system the navigator relied on radio signals transmitted from a master station and two slave stations to plot his course. Theoretically, the plane's position was at the intersection of the lines on a special Gee chart. It was hoped that the device would be able to direct the planes to within a mile or so of the city to be bombed. Heretofore, only one in ten Bomber Command planes had bombed within five miles of the target.\n\nThe major drawback to Gee was that its range was only 350 to 400 miles. Further, once the frequencies had been worked out by the Germans it could be easily jammed. The limited range still put the cities of the Ruhr in reach, as well as many cities beyond. Although the Germans could devise jamming techniques\u2014after all, they had used similar systems to bomb England\u2014there would be at least a five-month window of opportunity.\n\nGee did not prove to be as effective as predicted. There were glitches in the transmission of the radio signals, and visual landmarks still were necessary to guide the bombers after Gee had brought them to the supposed target.\n\nBut the system was helpful in other ways. With the aid of Gee it was easier to concentrate the bomber streams, making them more defensible against night fighters. Even more important, the return flight home was no longer a nightmare that could end in fiery death or in the freezing waters of the English Channel or the North Sea, as these flights often did. The signals became stronger as the planes neared their home bases, making the landing fields easier to locate.\n\nAs predicted, by August 1942 the Germans were jamming the Gee frequencies, shortening its effective range by at least a hundred miles. But something new was already waiting in the wings: again, a device not unlike the system used so successfully by the Germans during the Blitz. This was Oboe, which sent radar signals from two ground stations to an aircraft and thus plotted its course and position. When the aircraft reached a preset position, the target, a signal was sent for it to unload the bombs.\n\nThe drawbacks of the Oboe system were obvious. Like Gee, the range was fairly short because of the curvature of the earth. And the bombers had to fly a steady course, with little or no deviation, which made it impossible for them to take evasive action when attacked by the German fighters or when they ran into heavy antiaircraft fire.\n\nAs Arthur Harris observed in his memoirs, the limitations of both Gee and Oboe necessitated yet another change in strategy. Instead of hundreds of bombers finding the target individually, a few planes\u2014Halifaxes, Lancasters, and, best of all, the new high-speed Mosquitoes\u2014equipped with the latest navigation systems could lay out a path to the target, dropping aerial route-marker flares to guide the way. Once the target was located, marker aircraft dropped massive incendiary bombs, which showed the bomber fleets where to release their ordnance.\n\nThis elite group that was formed to lead the way was christened the Pathfinder Force, and if it was not quite the longed-for turning point for Bomber Command, its actions did indeed improve the accuracy of aerial bombardment and herald the imminent destruction of most of Germany's cities.\n\nBy early 1945 a yet more advanced navigation system, loran (longrange navigation), was made available to Bomber Command. The navigator was able to determine his position by locating the point where a ground wave and a sky wave intersected. The sky wave was not dependent on the curvature of the earth, since it was bounced off the ionosphere, and the ground wave had a much longer range than other systems, 600 to 900 miles. The loran system was employed by the Pathfinder Lancasters and the marker Mosquitoes for the first time on the Dresden raid.\n\nAnother step forward in actual bombing practice came with the introduction of H2S (called H2X by the Americans), a self-contained radar navigation system that could project an image of the ground below on a cathode-ray tube in the plane itself. It was, admittedly, a rough image of the terrain, but H2S did afford a view of the proposed target\u2014assuming, of course, that the bomber stream was over the designated target.\n\n**By the end** of January 1945, with the Russians advancing rapidly in the east, the time seemed ripe for the revival of the plan known as Operation Thunderclap\u2014a massive raid on Berlin. Bomber Command had not staged a major raid on the German capital since the disaster of 24\u201325 March 1944, when 72 bombers were lost, 8.9 percent of the total force.\n\nThe British Mosquito bombers had continued to take the war to the citizens of the German capital, and during one period, they attacked Berlin on thirty-six consecutive nights. These were not solely harassing raids. The plane, which could carry a 4,000-pound bomb, was capable of doing real damage, and one measure of its effectiveness is a telling entry in Joseph Goebbels's diary. \"In the evening we have the regulation Mosquito raid on Berlin,\" he wrote. \"During the night the cursed Englishmen return to Berlin with their Mosquitoes and deprive one of the few hours' sleep which one needs more than ever these days.\"\n\nLarge-scale bombardment of Berlin had been delegated to the Americans, who averaged one major daylight raid a month. No city was as well protected and thus more feared than the city known to the bomber crews as \"the Big B.\" On 29 April 1944, the Americans lost 63 planes and another 432 were damaged out of a total effective force of 618 aircraft.\n\nAs the Germans withdrew from the west, the removal to the Fatherland of antiaircraft batteries was one of their highest priorities. The major cities were ringed with more and more of these deadly weapons. Thus the cities of Germany, in particular Berlin, became more, rather than less, dangerous as the Western Front contracted. In a series of raids throughout northern Germany on 6 August 1944, for example, 531 out of 929 effectives were damaged by enemy fighters or flak. In raids on 7 October 1944, over half of an effective force of 1,400 bombers was damaged and 40 were shot down.\n\n**Ten days after** Tedder's meeting with Stalin, on 25 January 1945, the Joint Intelligence Sub-Committee of the War Cabinet had ready a proposal for closer Soviet-Allied cooperation on the Eastern Front. Entitled \"Strategic Bombing in Relation to the Present Russian Offensive,\" the report recommended a four-day raid on Berlin in which 25,000 tons of bombs would be dropped on the German capital.\n\nNo one thought that this new version of Thunderclap would lead directly to surrender, but it was expected to generate such numbers of refugees fleeing from Berlin along with the millions fleeing the Russians that it would \"create great confusion, interfere with the orderly movement of troops to the front, and hamper the German military and administrative machine.\" Further, the raid would \"materially assist the Russians in the all important battle now raging on the Eastern Front and would justify temporary diversion from attacks against communications or indeed any targets other than oil plants or tank factories.\"\n\nChurchill, in a 25 January meeting with Sir Archibald Sinclair, secretary of state for air, asked during a general discussion of the RAF what the plans were for \"basting the Germans in their retreat from Breslau.\" The prime minister was concerned about the upcoming Yalta Conference, at which an important issue would be how the British and American air forces were planning to support the now-rapid Russian advance into the Third Reich.\n\nThe next day Portal told Sinclair that oil was still the number one priority. After that the RAF could assist in harassing the retreating German troops. This would move such actions up the list, above the previously decided targets, the jet-engine factories and the submarine yards.\n\nAfter meeting with Portal, Sinclair replied to the prime minister. He recommended that the tactical air forces and not the heavy bombers be used to attack the Germans retreating from Breslau.\n\nSinclair felt that the heavy bombers should continue the attacks on the German oil industry. Such attacks, he pointed out, would benefit all the Allies, including the Russians. However, since attacking small targets depends very much on good weather and attacking large targets does not, he advocated the bombing of Berlin and other large east German cities such as Leipzig, Dresden, and Chemnitz.\n\nAll of these cities, Sinclair pointed out, were not just administrative centers but also the centers of vital rail and highway networks through which most of the enemy's men and mat\u00e9riel had to pass.\n\nChurchill's response was immediate and Churchillian. \"I did not ask you last night about plans for harrying the German retreat from Breslau,\" he testily wrote to Sinclair. \"On the contrary, I asked whether Berlin, and no doubt other large cities in East Germany, should not now be considered especially attractive targets. I am glad that this is 'under consideration.' Pray report to me tomorrow what is going to be done.\"\n\nSinclair immediately called Bottomley about the matter, and the next day, 27 January, Bottomley wrote to Arthur Harris about Bomber Command attacking Berlin, Dresden, Chemnitz, and Leipzig.\n\nHarris's biographer Dudley Saward was hardly a disinterested party\u2014he worked closely with Harris throughout the war\u2014but he is certainly right that the Dresden decision did not originate with Harris but at the highest levels of command, and Harris was provided with a paper trail to explain his actions, particularly in the final paragraph of Bottomley's message: The chief priority remained German oil production, but next in order came attacks on Berlin, Leipzig, and Dresden, designed to create chaos among the refugees that had flooded into those cities and to disrupt troop movements and reinforcements to, or retreat from, the Russian front.\n\nBottomley enclosed a copy of the 25 January Joint Intelligence Sub-Committee report, which he said had not yet been considered by the Chiefs of Staff. In his note, he said that while Portal did not feel that Thunderclap would be effective in Berlin, subject to the \"overriding claims of oil and the other approved target systems, there should be one large attack on Berlin and related attacks on Dresden, Leipzig, Chemnitz, or any other cities where a severe blitz will not only cause confusion in the evacuation from the East but will also hamper the movement of troops from the West.\"\n\nWhile the priorities (oil and other approved target systems) were to be observed, enough leeway was built in to satisfy everyone, and on 27 January Sinclair wrote reassuringly to Churchill. While oil would remain the chief priority, the Air Staff had put into effect plans to bomb Berlin, Dresden, Chemnitz, and Leipzig and other cities in the east where massive air raids would destroy roads and railways and thus disrupt or halt both the massive movements of civilians and any reinforcements from the Western front.\n\nThe next day, 28 January, Churchill acknowledged without comment the receipt of Sinclair's memorandum. That same day Portal, who was to accompany Churchill to Yalta, met with Bottomley and Spaatz to discuss the plans.\n\nEverything was now in place for Thunderclap. When Churchill left for Yalta, via Malta, on 29 January, he was assured that his call for \"basting the Germans in their retreat from Breslau\" had been heeded by the air barons, and on 31 January, Bottomley sent a cable to Portal, in Malta, outlining for Churchill the \"order of priorities for Strategic Air Forces.\"\n\nThe chief targets remained the synthetic oil plants. Next in order came the attacks on Berlin, Leipzig, and Dresden, designed to disrupt civilian evacuation and hamper all troop movement. Attacks on communications\u2014rail lines, marshaling yards, highways, bridges, and the like\u2014were third in importance.\n\nThe new jet planes were causing increasing anxiety in Bomber Command, and thus attacks on jet-aircraft plants and airfields and communications in southern Germany were added to the list.\n\nOther targets (tank factories, submarine yards) were to be considered marginal, although these might be \"substantial\" since they constituted convenient tactical \"filler\" targets in those areas of priority oil targets when the primary target could not be attacked.\n\nThe report also included a directive that would turn out, in the event, to be used as evidence to support the accusations of Allied barbarity during the Dresden raid. The escort fighters were to attack all rail movement after their primary task of escorting the bombers had been carried out.\n\nThere was nothing unusual in this further assignment for the fighters, if it can be called an additional duty. A primary function of fighter planes was and remains the strafing of enemy troops and rail and road traffic. And since all rail lines in and out of Dresden paralleled streets and roads and ran through heavily built up areas, it was to be expected that civilians would be exposed to the fire from the American fighters.\n\nWith an eye toward Yalta, Bottomley concluded by pointing out that the Russians \"may wish to know our intentions\" concerning the targets as outlined and which lay just a few miles to the west of their lines.\n\nMeanwhile, discussions continued between the Americans and the British about how best to support the Soviets. On 1 February 1945, \"Strategic Bombing in Relation to the Present Russian Offensive\" was promulgated by Air Marshal Sir Douglas Evill, vice chief of the air staff. Of particular interest was the following:\n\nEvacuees from German and German-Occupied Provinces to the East of Berlin are streaming westward though Berlin itself and through Leipzig, Dresden and other cities in the East of Germany. The administrative problems involved in receiving the refugees and redistributing them are likely to be immense. The strain on the administration and upon communications must be considerably increased by the need for handling military reinforcements on their way to the Eastern Front. A series of heavy attacks by day and night upon these administrative and control centres is like to create considerable delays in the deployment of troops at the Front, and may well result in establishing a state of chaos in some or all of these centres. It is for these reasons that instructions have been issued for heavy scale attacks to be delivered on these centres at the earliest possible moment, in priority immediately after that of the important oil producers. The justification for the continuance of such attacks would be largely reduced if the enemy succeeded in stabilising his Eastern Front. Successful attacks of this nature delivered at once, however, my well prevent him from achieving this aim.\n\nIn other words, with the Russians moving rapidly westward, everything that could be done by Allied airpower to prevent reinforcements from the west must be done. Events were rapidly overtaking the planners. Something approaching a total breakdown might be brought about by day and night bombing of the eastern German cities that were already overwhelmed by the hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing the Russian advance.\n\nOn this same day, 1 February, the Russians were only fifty miles from Berlin and the capital was declared a fortress city. It was to be defended to the death.\n\nThis air staff note, code-named Fleece 75, was sent out to the Chiefs of Staff at Malta on 2 February. This message was to be used to coordinate the Allied air offensive with the Russian ground offensive on the Eastern Front. The bombing priorities were listed as follows:\n\n1. Oil\n\n2. Communications\u2014particularly \"focal points of communication in the evacuation areas behind the Eastern Front, namely Berlin, Leipzig, Dresden, and Chemnitz or similar areas\"\n\n3. Tank factories\n\n4. Jet fighter production\n\n5. U-boat construction and assembly\n\nKuter, who in spite of his two-star rank and relative youth had been deputized by Arnold to represent him at Malta and Yalta, had already cabled acting air force commander Barney Giles from Malta, listing the targets in order of priority as agreed to by Portal, Bottomley, and Spaatz. The second component of the target list was described a bit more fully, however: \"Attack of Berlin, Leipzig, Dresden and associated cities where heavy attack will cause great confusion in civil population from East and hamper movement of reinforcements from other fronts will be next in order of priority for air forces operating from the United Kingdom.\"\n\nAlso on 2 February, in a message to Spaatz marked \"Top Secret\u2014Personal,\" Major General F. L. Anderson, Spaatz's personal representative at Malta, told his boss that General Marshall wanted to be sure that no Russians were inadvertently attacked by American bombers on the missions to eastern Europe. In addition, said Anderson, Marshall had suggested that \"in conjunction with our attacks on Berlin and associated cities attacks on Munich would probably be of great benefit because it would show the people that are being evacuated to Munich that there is no hope. Perhaps the Fifteenth Air Force could take this on in conjunction with the Eighth's attacks on Berlin.\"\n\nSpaatz immediately sent a message to Generals Twining and Eaker of the Fifteenth Air Force, informing them that the British were continuing their nightly Mosquito raids on Berlin and that Bomber Command planned to attack Leipzig and Dresden. The Eighth would attack Berlin when weather permitted. The Fifteenth, meanwhile, was \"to attack [Munich] when tactical and other conditions are appropriate and within your transportation priority.\"\n\nThis promised massive strike against Berlin was scheduled by the Eighth Air Force for the afternoon of 2 February, but it was scrubbed because of the weather. If the weather had been clear some 120 miles to the southeast in Saxony, the entire Dresden controversy would perhaps have never engaged the attention of military historians to quite the degree it has. For Dresden was an alternate target of the planned thousand-bomber raid by the Eighth Air Force on 2 February. There would have been massive destruction to be sure, but the city would have been spared the firestorm.\n\nThe next day, 3 February, the weather was more cooperative, and Carl Spaatz, who had for the most part stuck to the policy of bombing oil targets and military installations, did Bomber Harris one better in the category of area bombing. Although the target was officially categorized as \"marshalling yards,\" the purpose of the raid was to create maximum chaos in Berlin, which was overrun with refugees from the east. More than 1,000 B-17s, with 600 P-51 escorts, dropped 2,267 tons of bombs on the center of the city.\n\n**The thousand-bomber** American raid on Berlin was the heaviest raid of the war on the German capital by either the RAF or the U.S. Army Air Force. A vast swath of the city was destroyed, including Hitler's headquarters.\n\nBut oil-production facilities were not forgotten on this day by the Americans. Another 434 B-24s were sent against the oil refineries at Magdeburg. Two-thirds of the planes failed to find the oil targets, but with the aid of H2X radar they located the city and emptied their bomb loads blindly through the cloud cover.\n\nOn 5 February, Spaatz cabled Kuter in Yalta: \"All out effort will be placed against targets mentioned whenever weather conditions permit. Necessity for liaison party with various Russian Armies becomes increasingly apparent. On recent attack in Berlin our fighters were practically over Russian lines and destroyed a number of German airplanes taking off from an airdrome east of Berlin.\"\n\nThe Eighth returned to its appointed rounds, the oil plan, on 6 February, with a massive raid directed at production facilities at L\u00fctzkendorf, B\u00f6hlen, and Magdeburg. The expected good weather did not materialize, and the bombers were unable to find the primary targets. The secondary targets and targets of opportunity were obscured as well, and the raids were conducted using H2X. Hardest hit were Chemnitz and Magdeburg.\n\nAlthough the Yalta Conference was being convened to plan for a postwar Europe, the date of the end of the war was by no means certain. Indeed, Spaatz wrote to Arnold on 7 January, \"Our estimate of the situation concerning the whole German war proposition does not lead up to the conclusion that German strength will crack in the near future.\"\n\nThe Germans had pulled one great surprise with the Ardennes offensive; and Allied leaders, with good reason, were much concerned about two new German weapons: the snorkel U-boat and the jet fighter.\n\nThe snorkel device allowed the submarine to bring in and exhaust air without surfacing, which made it far less vulnerable to detection and greatly increased its range. The new U-boats were also faster and could be turned out relatively quickly. If sufficient quantities could be produced, the transatlantic shipping lanes would again be at risk and the end of the war delayed by many months.\n\nThe Me 262 jet fighters were appearing in increasing numbers and were having some success against Eighth Air Force bombers. They were clearly a formidable weapon. Moreover, unlike the Fw 190s and the Me 109, which required high-grade aviation fuel, the Me 262 burned low-grade fuels such as kerosene, which was in ample supply.\n\nTherefore, Spaatz began to argue in January 1945 that the heavy bombers should return to their primary role of strategic bombing and that the bombing of jet-aircraft production facilities be accorded as much importance as other targets\u2014in particular, oil. Eisenhower, who still very much had the German breakout in the Ardennes on his mind, felt that the bombers should continue to support the ground troops at this time. Spaatz, with the help of Doolittle and Bedell Smith, had his way, and Eisenhower reluctantly agreed.\n\n**At Malta, there** surfaced one of those plans that are the bane of serious military strategists. Although unlikely to work, they take up much energy and time but must be attended to for political reasons. This one, however, was first proposed by Carl Spaatz, a serious military strategist indeed.\n\nThe Americans floated the idea of flying radio-controlled, unmanned \"war-weary\" bombers loaded with 20,000 pounds of high explosives into industrial targets (that is, cities) in Germany. This was actually a dustedoff plan, called Aphrodite or Weary Willie, that Spaatz had devised in June 1944 as part of the Crossbow campaign against the V-1 and V-2 sites.\n\nAt one test of such a weapon, at Shoeburyness, a pilotless B-17 carrying 20,000 pounds of Minol-2, or Torpex, was crashed. It showed that a B-17 so loaded with high explosives could do nine to twelve and a half times the damage of a 4,000-pound bomb. If it was crashed into a built-up location, the damage would be catastrophic, destroying everything within a radius of 145 yards\u2014a total area of 66,000 square yards, or more than 13.5 acres.\n\nBoth the air force and the U.S. Navy had been involved in testing and launching several missions against various sites on the Continent, using worn-out B-17s and B-24s. A pilot and copilot would get the plane airborne, set the remote controls, and bail out. Escort aircraft would then guide the plane by remote control to the target.\n\nA half dozen or so Aphrodite missions using war-weary planes took place in 1944, but none was successful and several of the pilots were killed, most notably a navy lieutenant named Joseph P. Kennedy Jr., the son of the former ambassador and the older brother of the future president. He took off in a navy B-24 loaded with 21,000 pounds of high explosives on 12 August 1944. Before he and his copilot could turn the plane over to the two control planes that would guide it to the target, a V-2 launch site in France, and bail out, the bomber exploded.\n\nAt Malta, Aphrodite was scuttled by the British, who were still being bombarded by the V-weapons and who worried that the Weary Willies might embolden the Germans to use their own war-weary bombers to stage reprisal raids against British cities, particularly London.\n\nThe plan would not die, however, and its most important advocate turned out to be the American commander in chief himself, Franklin Roosevelt. On 29 March, the president cabled Churchill that his Chiefs of Staff had assured him that technological advances in remote control would make the planes more accurate, thus presumably sparing civilians.\n\nFurther, said the president, \"many lucrative targets in the industrial areas in Germany can be leveled and the German war effort correspondingly weakened.\" The Germans, said Roosevelt, did not need the impetus of drone bombers filled with high explosives to attack England. \"In addition,\" he mused, \"combat experience with this type of weapon on the Continent will make possible the most effective use of this type of weapon in the battle against the highly concentrated areas of the Japanese homeland.\"\n\nChurchill felt he had to refer Roosevelt's cable to the British Chiefs of Staff for a decision, or so he said. He did not respond until 14 April 1945, by which time Roosevelt, who had died suddenly, had been succeeded by Harry S. Truman. The message is pure Winston Churchill.\n\n\"If the United States military authorities really consider this practice necessary to bring about the end of the German war we will not dissent,\" he said. However, he pointed out that the war situation had turned decidedly in favor of the Allies and \"these great explosions in German cities\" no longer had their former importance.\n\nAnd the retaliatory argument was still strong with the British. As the prime minister said, if the Germans also had a number of \"war-weary bombers that could make the distance, London is the obvious and indeed the only target, and even a few very big explosions in London would be a very great disappointment to the people.\"\n\nHe reminded Truman that so far 1 in 131 Londoners had already died in air attacks, a figure higher than that of any other locality on the Allied side. Presumably, he was not counting the Soviet Union.\n\nChurchill closed by saying, \"Having put the facts before you I leave the decisions entirely in the hands of your military advisers, and we shall make no complaint if misfortune comes to us in consequence.\"\n\nThe Weary Willie concept compared favorably, if one can use that word, with a brainstorm of Lord Selbourne, of the Ministry of Economic Warfare. On 28 July 1944 he bypassed all chains of command and wrote directly to Eisenhower. He recommended that fifty Lancasters be sent to the Ruhr that week to drop a half million incendiary devices known as the Braddock. This was an extremely small bomb attached to a card that served as a parachute. Printed on the card were directions in eleven languages as to how to use it. All the finder had to do was plant the bomb in some flammable place and press a red button. The would-be saboteur then had half an hour to escape before the bomb went off and everything went up in flames. The idea was that slave laborers and left-wing opponents of the Nazi regime, as well as hundreds of thousands of ordinary Germans who were disillusioned by the Nazis and the Reich's declining military fortunes, would use the small firebombs to commit wholesale sabotage and help bring down the regime.\n\nEisenhower preferred to drop real bombs rather than Braddocks and turned down the idea, but the supreme commander did leave the door open if the time ever became ripe.\n\nSelbourne tartly commented, \"This is again 'jam tomorrow.' \" He also made no attempt to hide his scorn for \"certain distinguished officers who have never concealed their disbelief in 'BRADDOCK.' \"\n\nBut in February 1945, the Braddock plan was dusted off and given a try. There were no reports of arson or sabotage, although the police chief of Mannheim did note that some of the incendiaries had been dropped in his area and warned about their danger to \"children at play.\" He also said that anyone who let one fall into the hands of foreigners or did not report it to the police would be punished.\n\n**At Yalta, General Aleksei I. Antonov** , chief of staff of the Soviet army, briefed the American president, the British prime minister, and their staffs on the situation on the Eastern Front and the Russian operational plans for the succeeding months.\n\nAfter a long and discursive account of the ground campaign, Antonov turned to the question of the air war in the east and how the Allies could best support the advancing Soviet armies. He asked the British and Americans \"in particular to paralyze the junctions of Berlin and Leipzig.\"\n\nThe Russians were naturally keen to have Allied air support, but they were equally anxious to avoid friendly fire as their troops moved westward into Germany. While the accuracy of the bombers had marginally increased, no one believed that lines of troops 25,000 feet below heavy cloud cover were not in great danger of being wiped out unless protected by a fairly wide safety zone.\n\nNow, with the Soviet troops so close to the target cities, a so-called bomb line would have to be created to protect Antonov's troops from being killed by errant bombs from the British and American planes, which could in just a matter of minutes stray over the Soviet advance lines.\n\nThe Americans, British, and Soviets agreed on the bomb line, and the operational date set for it to go into effect was 8 February. This limit line or prohibition zone would run from Stettin to Berlin to Dresden and on to Pardubitce, Brno, Vienna, Maribor, and Zagreb. All of these points were to be \"inclusive to the Allied Strategic Air Forces.\" The line also extended to Sarajevo, P\u00e9cs, the eastern border of Albania, and the southern border of Bulgaria.\n\n\"Inclusive\" meant, of course, that all of these cities were to be considered suitable bomb targets. The line was to be adjusted as the Soviets moved west, and the Allies could bomb in the east in exceptional circumstances\u2014but with not less than twenty-four hours' notice to the Soviets. The zone as refined was to be sixty kilometers in advance of the forward troops of the Soviet army, about thirty-five miles.\n\nThe limit-line agreement was signed by Sir Charles Portal, marshal of the Royal Air Force, S. A. Khudyakov, marshal of aviation of the Red Army, and Laurence S. Kuter, major general of the U.S. Army Air Forces. The two-star was not only very young, but he was outranked by three full grades by most of the men he had to deal with it at Malta and Yalta, and he was made painfully aware of it. \"Without you,\" he wrote to Hap Arnold, \"we are just tolerated from bottom to _top.\"_\n\nBut he rose to the occasion. He did, after all, have the backing of Arnold, a five-star general who could hold his own with any military grandee from Great Britain or the Soviet Union. Then, too, there was the overwhelming might of the American air arm behind Kuter. Thus he did not hesitate to speak his mind.\n\nOn 8 February, Khudyakov sent along the agreement to Kuter \"as confirmed by the Soviet High Command.\" Kuter quickly realized that there were changes \"concerning the announcement of the limiting line, and the agreement required to operations by the British and U.S. Army Air Forces to the east of the designated line.\" He rejected the changes and informed Marshal Khudyakov that \"the U.S. Air Forces will continue to operate under the arrangements in effect prior to the 6th of February 1945.\" He pointedly concluded, \"This represents the views of the United States Chiefs of Staff.\"\n\nAlso on 8 February, Major General S. P. Spalding, acting chief of the U.S. military mission in Moscow, sent to Major General H. V. Slavin, assistant chief of staff of the Red Army, \"a list of strategic targets subject to bombardment by the 8th Air Force.\"\n\nOil still headed the list, but the communications targets were second. Of these, Berlin was first, Leipzig was second, and Dresden was third. It thus seems clear that Dresden was considered to be if not the equal of Berlin and Leipzig, an important, even vital, military target. The only remaining question was how soon Thunderclap or some variant could be put into effect. In the event, it was only a matter of a few days.\n\nAs the earlier Thunderclap report put it, \"Immense devastation could be produced if the entire attack was concentrated on single big town other than Berlin and the effect would be especially great if the town was one hitherto relatively undamaged.\"\n\nHeavy cloud cover, snow, and winter storms hampered both the British and the Americans for the ten days after the large American raid on Berlin on 3 February, although both Bomber Command and the Eighth Air Force had two notable successes. The Americans staged a massive raid on Chemnitz, just forty-five miles from Dresden, and the British put the synthetic oil plant at P\u00f6litz, near Hamburg, permanently out of commission.\n\nThen the weather picture changed. Meteorologists reported that favorable conditions beginning on 13 February might finally ensure that the long-planned triple blow against a large German city\u2014Thunderclap\u2014might be possible at last.\n\nSpaatz had already notified the American military mission in Moscow that Berlin, Leipzig, Chemnitz, and Dresden were on the priority list of communications targets. Berlin had already been devastated by the Eighth Air Force on 3 February and would not be bombed again by the Americans until two weeks after Spaatz cabled the Russians his intentions. Leipzig had also suffered heavy raids and was bombed hardly at all for the remainder of the war by either the Eighth Air Force or Bomber Command. And Bomber Command would not revisit Chemnitz, albeit with a massive raid, until early March 1945.\n\nOf the cities mentioned by Spaatz, only Dresden would appear to be a serious target in mid-February 1945. Therefore, on 12 February, he cabled the American military mission that \"weather permitting, Eighth Air Force will attack Dresden Marshalling Yard on 13 February with a force of 1,200 to 1,400 bomber planes.\" The Americans would lead off with a massive daylight raid at midday and the British would follow it up that night with two more assaults, about three hours apart. The message was passed on to the Russians.\n\n**The picture-book** capital of Saxony, which was relatively untouched by the ravages of a war that was now in its sixth year, would now join its sister cities of the Third Reich as a prime target of Allied airpower. The narrow streets, the flammable ancient buildings, and the enormous congestion caused by half a million refugees had created a potential bonfire on the Elbe that was waiting to be lit.\n\n_Visitors to prewar Dresden often referred to the city as \"the Florence on the Elbe. \" The Zwinger Complex, the cathedral, Theaterplatz, the royal palace, and the Semper Opera House, built over three centuries in styles ranging from Renaissance to Baroque to rococo to neoclassical, constituted one of the most beautiful and harmonious architectural assemblages in the world_.  \nWALTER HAHN\n\n_The twentieth century revealed a darker side of Saxon society. Dresdeners were early and enthusiastic supporters of the Nazi party and German expansionism_. TOP: _The Sturmabteilung, the SA, parades in honor of Hindenburg and Hitler on February 1, 1933_.\n\nBOTTOM: _With Germany triumphant in Europe, Dresdeners turned out in August 1940 to salute the military at a parade through the Schlossplatz_. WALTER HAHN (TOP); HEROLD (BOTTOM)\n\n_The Altmarkt, the great square in the Altstadt, was for centuries the epicenter of Dresden commercial life_. TOP: _The square as it appeared in 1943_.\n\nBOTTOM: _The Altmarkt with the tower of the Kreuzkirche, the oldest church in Dresden (right); the Rathaus, or town hall (left); and the statue of Germania, the symbol of German pride and nationhood_.  \nWALTER HAHN (TOP)\n\n_Reconstruction of the Altmarkt into a semblance of its prewar aspect took almost twenty years after its destruction on the night of February 13\u201314, 1945. The square as it appeared in 1956 (top), in 1951 (left), and in the 1960s (above, right)_.  \nw. M\u00d6BIUS (LEFT)\n\n_The wreckage of the Grosse Meissner-Strasse, on the right bank of the Elbe in Dresden Neustat, graphically illustrates the vast area covered by the firestorm_.  \nW. PETER SENIOR\n\n_The Wallpavillion, or Rampart Pavillion, the most beautiful of the three great Baroque entrances to the courtyard of the Zwinger, Augustus's pleasure palace and museum. The Zwinger was completely destroyed in the three-part raid.  \n_ W. M\u00f6bius (top);\n\nR. PETER SENIOR (BOTTOM)\n\n_The Frauenkirche, built 1726\u20131734 by Protestant Dresdeners in part to protest the conversion to Catholicism of the Augustuses, became the symbol of the city for over two hundred years. It withstood the bombing of February 13\u201314, but collapsed February 15 when the intense heat melted its sandstone supports_.\n\n_The extent of the devastation caused by the firestorm as seen from the tower of the Rathaus in the Altstadt_.\n\n_The firestorm temperatures ranged as high as 1,500 degrees centigrade, which twisted steel girders and melted street lamps_.  \nR. PETER SENIOR\n\n_Nothing could survive in the inferno that swept across Dresden during the night of the raid. These two incinerated, shrunken corpses were found in the ruins_. R. PETER SENIOR\n\n_Overwhelmed by the number of unburied bodies and faced with the threat of a catastrophic outbreak of disease, the authorities were forced to burn the victims instead of transporting them out of the city for burial in a mass grave. A giant pyre was erected in the Altmarkt, and the burning of the corpses began on February 25, 1945_. WALTER HAHN\n\n_Bodies were brought by wagon to the Altmarkt, where they were stacked, doused with gasoline, and set afire in the very shadow of the statue of Germania_. WALTER HAHN\n\n_The ruins of Frauenkirche, seen here, in the winter of 1965, served for half a century as a reminder of the horrors of war and the suffering of the people of Dresden_. R. PETER SENIOR\n\n_In February 1990, just four months after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the first moves toward German reunification, a worldwide campaign and appeal for funds was launched to rebuild the Frauenkirche. Work began in 1993, and in October 2005 the reconstructed church, incorporating thousands of blackened stones from the original structure, was finished_. MARSHALL DE BRUHL\n\n# CHAPTER SEVEN\n\n**THE TARGET**\n\nFlorence on the Elbe\n\n**O ne of Germany's grandest cities had the most humble of beginnings**. Dresden began life in the Middle Ages as a Slav fishing settlement. The fishermen founded their little village, originally known as Drezdany\u2014meaning \"forest dwellers on the plain\"\u2014on the left bank of the Elbe at a natural crossing of the river.\n\nThe first historical mention of Dresden is in a document dated 31 March 1206, signed by Heinrich, margrave of Meissen. Another document, dating from 1216, refers to Dresden as a _civitas_ , a town.\n\nOn the right bank, or the north shore, of the Elbe another settlement was founded. It became somewhat confusingly known as Altendresden, perhaps signifying that it was even older. A wooden bridge was soon built across the river to link the two settlements, but in 1287 it was replaced with a stone bridge, which became something of a medieval tourist attraction.\n\nAltendresden, which did not receive a charter until 1403, burned to the ground in 1491, and the newly built town became known as the Neustadt. The original settlement across the river then became known as the Altstadt. The two separate towns became one in the sixteenth century.\n\nDresden was ruled not by kings but by electors\u2014so called because they were one of the seven rulers entitled to elect the Holy Roman Emperor. Two of the electors, through treaties, war, and outright bribery, served simultaneously as elector of Saxony and king of Poland. The electors were, in the main, devoted to the arts and sciences, and through their patronage Dresden became a city unrivaled for art and culture in Germany and, indeed, throughout much of Europe.\n\nElector Friedrich the Wise, who ruled from 1486 until 1525, was a true Renaissance man. Not only did he found the University of Wittenberg, he earned everlasting fame as the protector and patron of Martin Luther. Many of Friedrich's successors continued the Saxon tradition of humanism and support for the arts.\n\nMoritz, called the savior of Protestantism, was also a great patron of the arts. His lasting contribution was the founding, in 1547, of the court orchestra that is today the world-renowned Dresden Staatskapelle.\n\nAugust, who became elector in 1553, was the first of the electors to begin to amass the collections that would make the city a cultural mecca. He began the great collection of books and manuscripts that in time would become the S\u00e4chsiche Landesbibliothek, the Saxon State Library.\n\nBut August had other interests as well. He collected lavish examples of the jeweler's, goldsmith's, and silversmith's art. This collection eventually grew so large that it was necessary to house it in a series of vaulted rooms in the _Schloss_ , the royal residence. In time, the collection became world famous as the Gr\u00fcnes Gew\u00f6lbe, the Green Vault. August also started the royal picture collection. Thus, by the end of the sixteenth century, Dresden was already the envy of Europe for its collections of books, paintings, manuscripts, and decorative objects.\n\nSucceeding electors added to their patrimony, but it was Augustus II, called Augustus the Strong (1670\u20131733), who ushered in what became known as Dresden's Augustan age. Although it spanned less than a hundred years, it imparted to Dresden the look and reputation that has endured to the present day.\n\nFor centuries, Germany was ridden with princes who vied with one another to have a personal Versailles, complete with ballet, theater, and even the occasional harem. These petty princes ruled supreme in their small worlds, with little regard for the common people. As historian Robert B. Asprey so aptly put it, Europe \"belonged largely to emperors, kings, nobles, and priests. They made war as they made love: Scarcely one affair ended before another began.\"\n\nAugustus resembled his fellow nobles in many respects. German historian Leopold von Ranke, in his _Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg and History of Prussia_ , said that Augustus went \"from pleasure to pleasure, without the least regard to duty or to dignity.\" The king, said von Ranke, \"delighted in a mixture of power and licentiousness.\" Dresden was a \"voluptuous court in which the relations of the sexes were emancipated from all restraint and decorum.\"\n\nAugustus was, indeed, a man of great appetites. He allegedly fathered three hundred children, one of whom, by one of his mistresses, Aurora von K\u00f6nigsmark, was the celebrated French soldier the mar\u00e9chal de Saxe.\n\nHe was not, however, just a voluptuary. His many additions to the royal picture collection were of the finest quality, as were his acquisitions of sculptures, porcelains, books, and manuscripts. Augustus was also a patron of music and theater. Under this elector of Saxony and king of Poland, Dresden was the most glittering court in Germany, and in Europe second only to Versailles.\n\nAugustus the Strong also saw one of his passions\u2014the collection of porcelains\u2014translate into an economic boon for his kingdom. The process for making porcelain had been known in China for over a thousand years, but no one in the West had been able to unravel the secret of its manufacture.\n\nThe mystery was solved in 1708 by the Dresden alchemist Johann Friedrich B\u00f6ttger. The technique for making porcelain was soon wedded to the Saxon penchant for the fanciful, and one of the major industries of Saxony, indeed of Germany, was born. Figurines, dinner services, vases, and all sorts of decorative pieces in the most ornate and whimsical shapes began to appear from the royal porcelain works.\n\nAlthough porcelain and fine china are inextricably linked in the popular mind with Dresden, in 1710 the Royal Saxon Porcelain Manufactory was moved nine miles down the Elbe, to the Albrechtsburg, the medieval fortress castle overlooking Meissen.\n\nAugustus the Strong died in 1733. \"I have not at present strength to name my many and great sins,\" he told his confessor.\n\nAugustus's son and heir, Augustus III (1696\u20131763), who was also King Frederick-Augustus II of Poland, spent his thirty-year reign in Dresden, content to let Count Heinrich von Br\u00fchl, the prime minister who had served his father, run the affairs of state. The elector's interests lay elsewhere.\n\nIn January 1742, Frederick the Great came to Dresden to persuade Augustus to join him against Austria during the First Silesian War. Augustus did not join the meeting until it was well under way and, according to Frederick \"answered yes to everything with an air of conviction mixed with a look of boredom.\"\n\nDiplomacy was not on Augustus's mind. The Saxon was anxious to get to the opera, and the overture was about to begin. Frederick was also a music lover, but war was an even greater passion. \"Ten kingdoms to conquer would not keep the King of Poland one minute longer,\" sniffed the Prussian.\n\nAugustus III may have slighted politics and diplomacy, but such cannot be said about his artistic endeavors. Under his aegis, the royal picture collection grew into that assemblage of paintings, drawings, and sculpture that ranks among the finest in the world and is the reason that Dresden became a primary destination for art lovers.\n\nThe centerpiece of the collection, _The Sistine Madonna_ , Raphael's most famous work, was acquired by Augustus in 1754. In addition, there were many of the greatest paintings of the greatest masters: Titian, Correggio, Veronese, Giorgione, Tintoretto, Poussin, Watteau, Lorrain, Carracci, Rubens, Van Dyck, Vermeer, Botticelli, Caravaggio, Tiepolo, Vel\u00e1zquez, Zurbar\u00e1n, Murillo, D\u00fcrer, Holbein the Younger, Cranach the Elder, van Eyck, and Rembrandt. Augustus III appointed Bernardo Bellotto the court painter in 1747. This nephew and student of Canaletto's produced many fine views of the city in the style of his famous uncle, and fourteen of them were installed in the Gem\u00e4ldegalerie at the Zwinger.\n\nCount von Br\u00fchl's diplomacy and Augustus's lack of interest in diplomatic affairs eventually brought great suffering and destruction to Dresden. In the Seven Years' War, Saxony allied itself with the wrong side, and its erstwhile ally Frederick was merciless.\n\nAugustus III and Br\u00fchl fled to Warsaw after the defeat of the Saxon army at Pirna in 1756. When they returned to Dresden after the cessation of hostilities in February 1763, two-thirds of their city lay in ruins. The Prussian cannons had done their work well, and what was left of the fortifications was dismantled.\n\nThe king and his minister were both broken by the defeat of Saxony and the humiliations they suffered at the hands of Frederick, and they died within weeks of each other in October 1763. The brief but glittering Augustan age was at an end, and Dresden was no longer the capital of an important German political entity. Prussia was now the great German power and would remain so.\n\nDresden did regain its importance as a cultural and artistic center, however. Subsequent rulers repaired the ravages of warfare, and once again Dresden beguiled the visitor with its dazzling assemblage of the baroque, rococo, neoclassical, and German Renaissance, which blended into a startingly beautiful cityscape and served as architectural stage set before which all civic activities were played out.\n\nThe Br\u00fchlsche Terrasse, the esplanade above the Elbe in the Altstadt, had been a special place for Dresdeners since 1738, when it was laid out along the former ramparts in front of his palace by Br\u00fchl, then at the height of his powers as prime minister. Celebrated as the \"balcony of Europe,\" it afforded a sweeping view of the river and the grand buildings on the opposite shore, the most impressive and recognizable being the Japanisches Palais, so called because of its upturned roof corners, reminiscent of Japanese temple architecture.\n\nBuilt in 1715 to house the royal porcelain collection, the Japanese Palace became, in 1786, the Royal Library, the repository for hundreds of rare medieval illuminated manuscripts: the works of Martin Luther (including his German translation of the Bible), illustrated works by Albrecht D\u00fcrer and Lucas Cranach, Persian and Chinese illuminations, a thirteenth-century Jewish holy day prayer book, and, of course, the Dresden Codex, one of only three extant Mayan manuscripts. Other treasures included two sections of Johann Sebastian Bach's great Mass in B Minor, the Kyrie, and Gloria. Bach enclosed the music in a letter of 27 July 1733 to Augustus III that was a petition for the position of court composer. He was turned down because he was a Protestant.\n\nNear the Japanese Palace stood a more utilitarian circular building just as dear to the fun-loving Saxons as its more imposing cousin. This was the Zirkusgeb\u00e4ude, the amphitheater on the Carolaplatz that was the home of a Dresden institution, the Sarrasani Circus.\n\nNot far away, also in the Neustadt but visible from the Altstadt, across the river, stood, as it had since 1736, the _Goldener Reiter_ , the gilded equestrian statue of Augustus the Strong\u2014Dresden's greatest ruler.\n\n**Behind the Br\u00fchlsche Terrasse lay the Altstadt** , or the Old City, that assemblage of baroque and German Renaissance buildings and parks that had so impressed visitors for over two hundred years.\n\nAmong these buildings, the most immediately recognizable was the Frauenkirche, the Church of Our Lady. Dresden was overwhelmingly Lutheran, and although the Dresdeners were always loyal to the electors, they had never accepted the Augustuses' conversion to Roman Catholicism, which they had done in order to gain the Polish throne. The church, it was said, was erected by the Dresden town council only three hundred meters from the Royal Palace as a monumental Lutheran rebuke.\n\nConstruction of the Frauenkirche began in August 1726 and the church was dedicated in 1734, although it was not finally completed until 1743, five years after the death of its architect, the German baroque master Georg B\u00e4hr. On 1 December 1736, Bach gave a two-hour organ recital there with much of the royal court in attendance.\n\nThe Frauenkirche at once became the most famous building in the city and arguably the most important example of eighteenth-century Protestant ecclesiastical architecture in the world. Its height was 312 feet from the base to the top of the lantern, and some four thousand worshippers could gather inside what became known as the \"Stone Bell\" because of its distinctive shape.\n\nAugustus III, to appease his Catholic subjects, rose to the Protestant challenge of the Frauenkirche. In 1738 he commissioned the Italian Gaetano Chiaveri to build the enormous Katholische Hofkirche, the largest Catholic cathedral in Saxony, on a site adjacent to the Royal Palace.\n\nDresden's oldest church, the Kreuzkirche, just a few streets farther on, was founded about 1200. It became a Lutheran church during the Reformation and the official church of the court when the electors embraced Protestantism. In 1760, during the Seven Years' War, it was destroyed by Frederick the Great's artillery and was rebuilt in the baroque style.\n\nThe fourth of the great churches of Dresden was the Sophienkirche, which also adjoined the Royal Palace. Like the Kreuzkirche it was originally a medieval Roman Catholic church, but with the Reformation it too became a Lutheran church. Johann Sebastian Bach's eldest son, Wilhelm Friedmann Bach, was the organist at the Sophienkirche, and his father gave a concert at the church on 14 September 1731. As a Dresden periodical reported, the great master performed \"in the presence of all the Court musicians and virtuosos.\"\n\nThe Royal Palace, or _Schloss_ , in its various forms, was home to the rulers of Saxony from the Middle Ages until 1918. Immediately adjacent to the _Schloss_ and connected by a covered passage, Augustus the Strong built the luxurious Taschenberg Palace for his mistress Constantia, the Countess Cosel.\n\nThe Royal Palace faced one of the most beautiful urban complexes in the world: the Theaterplatz. Around this massive square were arranged not only the Royal Palace and the cathedral but also the Semper Opera House, the luxurious Hotel Bellevue and its gardens on the Elbe, and the great museum complex called the Zwinger. Particularly at night, the Theaterplatz presented a glittering array of water, light, and architectural exuberance unmatched anywhere.\n\nFew places bear a name that so belies their purpose and splendor as the Zwinger. The vast ornate complex is so called because it was built on the outer court of the medieval fortress that had stood on the site and also was the site of the royal kennels. Matth\u00e4us Daniel P\u00f6ppelmann was commissioned by Augustus II to build an orangery, which would wrap around a racecourse and festival site for the court. But the brilliant architect soon won over the king to a more ambitious design. Between 1711 and 1722 P\u00f6ppelmann, who was heavily influenced by his travels in Italy, translated his designs into one of the greatest examples of the German baroque.\n\nHe enclosed an immense courtyard with carved stone-and-glass one-story galleries and two-story pavilions of the most exquisite refinement. Every cornice, pilaster, and column was covered with nymphs, cherubim, seashells, and flowers. Hundreds of statues from the studio of the Bavarian master Balthasar Permoser adorned the ramparts, stairways, and columns.\n\nIn this splendid group of buildings, which Sir Nikolaus Pevsner called \"the product of an inexhaustible creative power,\" Augustus installed his collection of paintings.\n\nThe architect most associated with Dresden, not excluding those masters of the baroque P\u00f6ppelmann and B\u00e4hr, is Gottfried Semper, who was a professor of architecture at Dresden and the court architect from 1843 until 1849. It was Semper who completed P\u00f6ppelmann's grand design for the Zwinger. The northeast side of the compound remained open to the Theaterplatz and the riverfront until it was enclosed by Semper's Renaissance-style picture gallery.\n\nBut neither the Hofkirche nor the Zwinger dominates the Theaterplatz. That honor goes to the monumental Semper Oper, the home of the S\u00e4chsische Staatsoper. Semper's first opera house burned in 1869, but his son Manfred, who was designated to rebuild it, used plans drawn by his father for the new building. The rebuilt house, a grand neo-Renaissance structure, opened in 1878.\n\nThe Semper Opera House, in its several incarnations, played host to some of the world's greatest composers and artists\u2014many of whom were resident in Dresden. The post of _Hofkappelmeister_ , or conductor, which entailed oversight of both the opera and the orchestra, the Staatskapelle, was held at various times by Heinrich Sch\u00fctz, Carl Maria von Weber, and Richard Wagner. In addition, Hans von B\u00fclow, Johannes Brahms, and Richard Strauss had close associations with the Semper.\n\nAlthough Johann Sebastian Bach did not get the longed-for post, he gave numerous recitals in the Saxon capital, and one of his most celebrated works, _The Goldberg Variations_ , was commissioned by the Russian ambassador to the Saxon court, Count Keyserlingk, and first performed at the Russian embassy in Dresden.\n\nBach's great contemporary Antonio Vivaldi also spent time in Dresden, where he produced several works for patrons. Bach, an admirer of the Italian virtuoso, transposed for other instruments some of the Vivaldi concertos.\n\nWagner's _Rienzi, The Flying Dutchman_ , and _Tannh\u00e4user_ had their world premieres at the Semper. His next work, _Lohengrin_ , was written in Dresden but did not premiere there because of the Revolution of 1849. Dresden also was the birthplace of _Der Ring des Nibelungen_ and _Die Meistersinger von N\u00fcrnberg_. Wagner began to sketch out the great tetralogy as well as his comic masterpiece while he was in residence in the city, and the composer conducted the premiere of his _Love Feast of the Apostles_ at the Frauenkirche in July 1843.\n\nRobert Schumann did not fare as well in the city as his counterparts. The mentally troubled composer eked out a living as a poorly paid choir director. He did record an interesting historical footnote for posterity. While composing the song \"Des Sennen Abschied\" (\"The Cowherd's Farewell\"), he was interrupted by the beginning of the Revolution of 1849. The manuscript of the piece, which is in the Dresden State Library, has the notation \"interrupted by the alarm bells on May 3, 1849.\"\n\n_A German Requiem_ , which established Brahms as a great new voice in music, was first presented in Dresden in 1868. And an acolyte of Brahms's\u2014Richard Strauss\u2014would become the leading German composer of the twentieth century.\n\nStrauss had a lifelong affection for Dresden, and the premieres of nine of his operas were held at the State Opera, beginning with _Salome_ in 1905 and ending with _Capriccio_ in 1942. During rehearsals he shuttled back and forth across the Theaterplatz between the Semper Oper and the Hotel Bellevue, where he lived during rehearsals.\n\nOther great composers who lived and worked for a time in Dresden were Sergei Rachmaninoff, Paul Hindemith, and Ferruccio Busoni.\n\nHindemith's _M\u00f6rder, Hoffnung der Frauen, Das Nusch-Nuschi_ , and _Cardillac_ and Busoni's _Doktor Faust_ were all staged first at the Semper.\n\n**The two giants of** German literature, Friedrich Schiller and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, were frequent visitors to Dresden. It was Goethe's close friend and mentor, the philosopher-theologian Johann Gottfried von Herder, who first compared Dresden to Florence. His appellation \"Florence on the Elbe\" was happily expropriated, with some justification, by the Dresdeners. Schiller wrote much of _Don Carlos_ in the summerhouse of the villa of friends in Loschwitz.\n\nHeinrich von Kleist lived in Dresden from 1807 to 1809, and novelist and critic Ludwig Tieck lived there twice, the second time from 1819 to 1841. And the greatest musical romantic of the nineteenth century, Fr\u00e9d\u00e9ric Chopin, lived in a flat on the Seestrasse in 1835.\n\nBut perhaps the works that most evoke the Romantic era in Dresden are the lush, moody, darkly mysterious paintings of Carl Gustav Carus, Caspar David Friedrich, Johan Christian Dahl, and Adrian Ludwig Richter. Friedrich's _Two Men Contemplating the Moon_ and Richter's _The Crossing of the Elbe at the Schreckenstein_ are the visual definition of the term and the era.\n\nAs the Romantics rebelled against eighteenth-century classicism, so did the movement called Die Br\u00fccke rebel against nineteenth-century forms. This short-lived advance guard of German Expressionism, which was born in Dresden in 1905, drew its name from the Augustusbr\u00fccke, the bridge that spans the Elbe near the Academy of Fine Arts, where many of its practitioners either studied or taught.\n\nTheir works featured deformed nature, landscapes, and figures; and their brilliant, even garish colors created a sensation. The group eventually comprised Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, Karl Schmidt-Rottluff, Erich Heckel, Emil Nolde, and Max Pechstein. Die Br\u00fccke lasted only until 1913, but its influence was felt throughout the twentieth century.\n\nThe Expressionist Oskar Kokoschka taught at the academy from 1919 to 1924, and Otto Dix, a leading figure in the Neue Sachlichkeit movement, was a student there and later a teacher.\n\n**Dresden, of course** , was not alone among German cities as a bastion of civilization and high culture. It was not alone when, like other areas during the turmoil of the Weimar Republic, it embraced National Socialism and its promise of social order and German rebirth. Nor was it alone in ignoring the dark side of the Nazi movement. Indeed, Dresden firmly embraced National Socialism, and Hitler, whenever he visited the city, was received rapturously by the populace.\n\nThe Dresdeners, like most of their countrymen, endorsed the restrictive laws and the curbs on their own liberties, and many of them also endorsed the racial laws that curtailed the rights of the Jews.\n\n**Jews are first recorded** in Dresden in the early fourteenth century, and their history was a replication of that of all the Jews of Europe and England. The Dresden Jewish community was destroyed during the Black Death persecutions of 1349. But by 1375, Jews were again resident in Dresden, and they had even built a synagogue. This community lasted only until 1430, however; it fell victim to another pogrom and was expelled.\n\nThere is no further mention of Jews in Dresden until the 1690s, when Augustus the Strong's lust for the Polish crown and the money needed to fulfill his dream overrode any religious prejudice. Had he not himself cast aside Protestantism for Catholicism to gain the crown?\n\nHe turned to Jewish bankers, who were eager to help the elector. Augustus, partially out of gratitude but mainly because he had further need of their favors, allowed a small group of Jews to settle in Dresden in 1708\u2014about a hundred in all.\n\nIn Bismarck's empire, Jews were allowed to attend the German universities and live in previously forbidden areas, and this emancipation led to more rapid growth in the Jewish population and to assimilation, although there were still only 23,000 Jews in all of Saxony in 1925\u2014less than one-half of 1 percent of the total population. Indeed the number of Jews in all of Germany was never more than 1 percent of the population.\n\nWhen Adolf Hitler came to power on 30 January 1933, he immediately moved to put into place the racial program he had expounded since he'd founded the Nazi Party and had so forcefully advocated during his rise to power.\n\nThe burning of the Reichstag building by a young Communist on 27 February was used as a pretext for a decree for the \"Protection of the People and the State,\" which suspended all civil rights. On 24 March the Reichstag voted in the Enabling Act, which turned over all legislative functions to Hitler and his ministers. Within a week, the Law for the Reestablishment of the Professional Civil Service was passed. It eliminated all non-Aryans\u2014anyone with a Jewish parent or grandparent\u2014from the civil service.\n\nFurther restrictions followed with sickening regularity. On 25 April 1933 came the Law Against Overcrowding of German Schools, which limited the number of Jews admitted to 1.5 percent.\n\nIt was soon forbidden for anyone with Jewish blood to pursue a profession that had any influence on the German _Volk_. This, in effect, put all Jews out of work except those who dealt only with their coreligionists.\n\nAs Hitler and his cohorts tightened their grip on the nation, more decrees against the Jews were issued. They were forbidden to farm land. The German citizenship of Jewish immigrants was revoked, which meant expulsion. Jews were forbidden to serve in the military.\n\nAt Nuremberg on 15 September 1935, the Reichstag met and endorsed a series of decrees\u2014the Nuremberg Laws\u2014that further codified the status of German Jews. They were stripped of their citizenship and their rights. Marriage between Jews and Aryans was forbidden, and existing marriages were ruled invalid. Extramarital intercourse between Jews and Aryans was a criminal act. Anyone who had one Jewish grandparent was considered a Jew, as were offspring of any liaison between Jews and Aryans and anyone married to a Jew. No one of German or kindred blood under forty-five years of age could be employed by Jews as a domestic. Jews were no longer allowed to drive automobiles. And Jews, who had already been forbidden to borrow books from libraries, were now barred from the buildings altogether.\n\nA visitor to prewar Dresden might have asked what the ruins were just to the east of the Br\u00fchl Terrace\u2014just steps from the Frauenkirche, the Academy of Fine Arts, and the Albertinum Museum. These fire-blackened stones were the remains of another Gottfried Semper building, the nineteenth-century Romanesque-style Jewish synagogue. On 9 November 1938, during the Nazi rampage called Kristallnacht, the building was burnt to the ground and dozens of Dresden's Jews were assaulted and arrested.\n\nThe traveler to Dresden in 1939 would have looked in vain for another famous site in the city center\u2014the ancient Judenhof, or Jews' Courtyard. The name had survived even though the synagogue that had stood there had been destroyed in the pogrom of 1430. But in 1936 the Judenhof disappeared from guidebooks and city maps\u2014another victim of the Nazi purge of all things Jewish in the Third Reich. The space officially became an extension of the adjoining square, the Neumarkt.\n\n**The official RAF** target description of Dresden, which was first drawn up in 1942, made no mention of china, porcelain figurines, or great works of art. There was a passing reference to the city's medieval origins. But the emphasis was, rightly, on the fact that Dresden was at the center of a vital transportation network. While the individual defense establishments were not the equal of the vast armaments factories in such areas as the Ruhr, in the aggregate they were important indeed.\n\nDRESDEN is the historical capital of Saxony and an administrative centre of considerable importance. It is the eight[h] largest town in Germany but at the same time has a very low overall density of population. Apart from the central area, which has narrow streets and many ancient domestic and public buildings, the town is mainly modern, with a preponderance of large single villas with spacious gardens.\n\nThere are a large number of industries, and collectively these are of considerable importance, but individually none are of outstanding value. The principal industrial activities are repairs to rolling stock, aircraft and aero-engines, and the manufacture of machine tools, small arms, optical instruments, medicinal preparations and poison gas.\n\n_Transportation:_ DRESDEN is the centre of an extensive railway system and main lines radiate from here in all directions.\n\nThere were nineteen priority targets listed for Dresden, including the Zeiss-lkon optical factory, power stations, water- and gasworks, a gun factory, and small electrical shops. Strategically, however, the important targets were the Friedrichstadt and the Pieschen railway marshaling yards and repair shops. The four railway stations\u2014the Central Station, Dresden-Neustadt, Wettinerstrasse, and Friedrichstadt\u2014were but a short distance from the marshaling yards.\n\nThe target map also indicated that most of the ancient heart of Dresden, the Altstadt, was well within the second of the concentric circles drawn at one-mile intervals from the central aiming point, the Friedrichstadt train yards. All the major museums, monuments, churches, and historic buildings were thus within the acceptable target zone.\n\nFrom the photographs and the briefing it was clear that Dresden would be easy to find, nestled as it was within the serpentine curves of the Elbe. The image on the H2S radar screen should easily match up with the photographic maps and charts. The rail lines snaking out from the passenger and freight stations and marshaling yards stood out boldly.\n\nHospitals were denoted by red crosses, and at the top of the map was the enjoinder that hospitals were clearly marked and \"must be avoided.\" Hospitals, of course, were as vulnerable as any other structure to the vagaries of visibility, wind, airspeed, and bomb drift. Three hospitals were within a mile of the designated central aiming point. The red crosses and warnings on the maps were designed chiefly to pacify international relief agencies and organizations. No one familiar with bombing practices could guarantee that they could be heeded by air crews flying at 25,000 feet in 10\/10, or total, cloud cover or at night.\n\nAnother Dresden landmark, but of quite another variety, was also within the inner aiming circle. Immediately north of the Friedrichstadt yards, in a bend of the Elbe in the Grosses Ostragehege, lay the municipal slaughterhouses. These _Schlachthoffen_ housed Allied prisoners of war in 1945. In _Schlachthof_ No. 5, an American soldier listened as Allied bombers destroyed the city outside the protective walls of his prison. Kurt Vonnegut would later transmute the experience into art in his famous novel _Slaughterhouse-Five_.\n\nLeipzig was the major manufacturing city in all of Saxony, but in February 1945 Dresden had at least 110 factories and industrial enterprises that employed 50,000 workers in turning out arms and other military equipment. Scattered around the city were aircraft-components factories, a poison-gas factory, an antiaircraft and field gun factory, and other factories for producing small arms, X-ray equipment, electrical apparatus, gauges, and gears and differentials. The plants and the number of workers involved constituted a considerable defense industry, which, transportation and communication aside, would have made the city a legitimate military target.\n\nFor example, before the war Seidel & Naumann, AG, manufactured typewriters, sewing machines, and bicycles. The company was converted to the manufacture of high-precision testing equipment. A Herr W., in an interview long after the war, said, \"Only a few knew what the finished product would look like and what it was to be used for. It was important enough, however, that it had repeatedly protected me from being drafted into the Armed Forces.\"\n\n_Bomber's Baedeker: Guide to the Economic Importance of German Towns and Cities_ gave the population of Dresden in 1944 as 640,000 and reported that in peacetime the production of tobacco products, chocolate, and confectionaries were a large component of the city's industrial activity. With the coming of war, small factories and light engineering had become important, particularly of electric motors and precision and optical instruments.\n\nNorth of the river and the Neustadt, there was a large military complex containing barracks, an old arsenal, and a museum. Immediately to the east lay a vast natural preserve, the Dresdner Heide, or heath, where it was reported the Germans were storing large quantities of munitions. In fact, the arsenal had been converted into munitions workshops, and these and other industrial sites abutted the railway that ran northeast to G\u00f6rlitz on the Polish border and on the Eastern Front.\n\nThe stations and marshaling yards in Dresden were vital components of the rail system connecting northern and central Germany to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bavaria, and Austria. As such, Dresden was a major transport center for moving supplies and reinforcements to the east. It would also be integral for the transfer of men, and particularly panzer divisions, from the collapsing Western Front to the east.\n\nConversely, when the Eastern Front finally collapsed, which was imminent, Dresden would be a major center on the line of retreat for the Wehrmacht back into Germany. The city was an important strategic target, the crippling of which would help support the Russian offensive; and the Russian front line was less than two hours away, by rail or road.\n\nAn examination of contemporary railway maps clearly shows that Dresden was an integral junction of three of the most important longdistance routes of the German railway system: Berlin\u2014Prague\u2014Vienna; Munich\u2014Breslau; and Hamburg\u2014Leipzig\u2014Prague. The railway system in Saxony, while seventh in mileage in the Third Reich, was third in the amount of tonnage carried. The Dresden stations and marshaling yards were vital components of this system. The Dresden-Friedrichstadt marshaling yards had \"a maximum capacity of 4,000 trucks per 24 hours.\"\n\nThese rail lines had become even more important to the German war effort as the industrial regions in the west were being destroyed by the Allied raids. Meissen, Radebeul, Coswig, and Freital, with its steel mills and lubricating oil plant, were all nearby, and as the 1942 targeting report made clear, \"Dresden is one of the few direct links through the Erz-Gebirge, between Czecho-Slovakia and Germany. In view of the exploitation of Czech industry, damage to the railway here would cause considerable confusion to rail transit.\" In 1945, Germany relied heavily on Czech industry, which was still churning out war mat\u00e9rial.\n\nIn addition to its importance as a rail center, Dresden was an important river port and the center of freight traffic on the Elbe, which was still, as it had been for centuries, one of the major waterways of Europe.\n\nWorthy as all these targets were, in February 1945 the Soviets were more concerned with interdicting troop movements and reinforcements from the west to the east and disrupting any streams of retreating troops from the east to the west.\n\nAnd there was yet another reason for destroying Dresden as a rail center\u2014one that strongly recommended itself to the Allied high command. If the Germans were planning a last stand in a redoubt in the Bavarian Alps, as was strongly believed by Eisenhower and other Allied leaders, Dresden lay on the direct line to Bavaria from Berlin. Men and mat\u00e9rial would have to pass through the city to either establish or reinforce such a stronghold in southern Germany.\n\nThe alpine redoubt was as chimerical as the death ray and other schemes that were supposedly being concocted by the leaders of the collapsing Third Reich. But military planners must take into account the many possibilities open to a determined and fanatical enemy, no matter how far-fetched they might seem.\n\nAnd as for any future reaction to the destruction of one more German city, no matter how beautiful and culturally important, that did not loom large among the air barons and their nominal civilian masters in February 1945.\n\n# CHAPTER EIGHT\n\n**SHROVE TUESDAY, 1945**\n\nDresden on the Eve of the Apocalypse\n\n**B y the evening of 12 February, meteorological data indicated** that the major air operations in eastern Germany that Spaatz had cabled Moscow would take place the next day would not be possible. The cloud cover that had obscured the Continent for most of the past week had once again moved in, and snow was falling on the Saxon capital. The daylight raid, the massive American first strike, was called off. The Americans would not be going to Dresden on Shrove Tuesday, 13 February. The Eighth Air Force bomber crews and fighter pilots were ordered to stand down.\n\nThe Russians were notified of the cancellation, but they also were put on notice that if the weather cooperated, the Americans would go the following day, 14 February. Presumably, in line with the agreement concerning bomb lines and prior notification, the British were also keeping the Russians abreast of their own preparations.\n\nAt 0900 the next morning, 13 February, the weather scouts, the aircraft that penetrated far into Europe and relayed meteorological data back to the weather centers in the United Kingdom, reported that the weather had changed for the better over central Europe. The three-part mission was back on, but it would be in reverse order. Bomber Command would lead off that night with the first two waves and the Americans would follow the next day. Harris gave the order to proceed.\n\nBy that afternoon, at the 1600 weather conference, the meteorologists at High Wycombe were forecasting even more improvement in the weather conditions over Europe for the next twenty-four hours. There would be approximately four to five hours of clear weather over Dresden beginning at about 2200 hours, which would guarantee the success of a double blow. Further, by delaying the forces for just an hour, it was predicted, the Allies could further increase the possibility of visual sightings.\n\nThere was other welcome news from the weather forecasters. Conditions would be favorable over the United Kingdom for the return of the British planes during the early-morning hours of 14 February and for the launch of the American third wave.\n\n**In Saxony** , six hundred miles from Bomber Command headquarters, Dresdeners had awakened to a cold and overcast day. All of central Europe was covered by a thick layer of clouds on this Shrove Tuesday morning. The snow that had fallen in the night had given the buildings and monuments of the Augustuses a light frosting, which further softened their baroque and rococo embellishments and gave them an even more fanciful air.\n\nA disheveled figure shuffled through the quiet, confectionary streets of the city on this chill morning. The man bore little resemblance to the esteemed professor of French literature at the Dresden Technical University that he had once been. After fifteen years in his post, Professor Victor Klemperer had been dismissed in 1935. The distinguished scholar was now dressed in a tattered and patched coat emblazoned with a yellow Star of David and the word _Jude_ , which marked him as a pariah in the Third Reich.\n\nLike many assimilated Jews, Klemperer saw himself as completely German. Indeed, he was so far removed from the faith of his birth that he was fifty-nine years old when he attended his first Orthodox funeral and set foot in a Jewish cemetery, although his father had been a rabbi, first in Landsberg on the Warthe, in Brandenburg, then at the Reform synagogue in Berlin. But Victor and his brothers had abandoned Judaism for Christianity, and he had married Eva Schlemmer, a German Protestant.\n\nKlemperer's view of religion is summed up in a remark he made in 1937: \"Pity that I have one screw too few or too many to be a good Catholic.\" For him Zionism was as threatening to assimilated Jews as Nazism, a distorted idea that was as fallacious as his belief that his Protestantism, his marriage, and his heroic service in World War I set him apart from his former coreligionists. His folly was not an unusual one, although the fate of most of Europe's Jews was slower in overtaking him.\n\nHis errand today was not unlike many other rounds he had made, delivering announcements from the authorities to Dresden's 198 surviving Jews.\n\nThe Jewish community in Dresden had never been a large one, as in Berlin, and when emigration was halted in late 1941 there were just 1,265 left in the city, most of them in the protected category. These were men and women of Jewish birth who were married to Aryans or were the children of mixed marriages. But protection was capricious and arrest was an ever-present danger.\n\nLike all their compatriots who had remained in the Reich, the Dresden Jews were the victims of a relentless campaign whose end was their destruction. Many had been murdered by the Gestapo in the grim cells of the headquarters on Schiessgasse, their deaths listed as suicides. Hundreds had been deported, either directly to the labor or extermination camps or to Theresienstadt, some sixty miles up the Elbe in Czechoslovakia.\n\nTheresienstadt, or Terez\u00edn in Czech, was set up by the Nazis in 1941 as a showcase concentration camp and did serve for a while to hide the enormity of their crimes from the world. The small town and fortress, which was famous as the prison of Gavrilo Princip, the assassin of Archduke Francis Ferdinand in 1914, was not an extermination center but a way station for some 120,000 Jews. Nevertheless, more than 30,000 internees died there while awaiting deportation to the labor or death camps, mainly to Auschwitz-Birkenau.\n\n**The circulars distributed** by Klemperer this cold morning stated that the recipient or recipients were to gather at the Jewish Center, at 3 Zeughausstrasse, in three days' time, on Friday, 16 February. They were to wear work clothes and bring hand luggage\u2014which, the notice advised, would have to be carried for a considerable distance\u2014and enough provisions for a journey of two or three days.\n\nKlemperer had no illusions about the messages he carried, even though the wording was rather benign. \"On this occasion,\" he wrote in his diary, \"there is to be no confiscation of property, furniture, etc.; the whole thing is explicitly no more than outside work duty\u2014but without exception is regarded as a death march.\" His own name was not on the list, but he had little doubt that he too would soon be following the others.\n\nAge, physical condition, and marriage to non-Jews all meant nothing. There were to be no exceptions to the order. Mixed marriages no longer were to be tolerated. \"The most cruel separations are taking place,\" wrote Klemperer. The Aryan half of a couple was to stay behind, but the Jewish partner and any children, since they were considered Jewish, were to be deported.\n\nJews had long since been forbidden to move about the city unless they were on prescribed missions, and then they were allowed only on narrowly defined routes. Star-wearing Jews were further prohibited from walking along or entering the B\u00fcrgerwiese, the long narrow park adjoining the Grosser Garten. Jews were allowed to cross the park only by way of the L\u00fcttichstrasse, a detour so circuitous that it effectively ruled out doing so. Therefore Klemperer's melancholy task took him until well after dark.\n\nAs Klemperer called at the private houses or tenements that had been set aside as residences for Jews\u2014the so-called Jews' houses, some of them in sections of the city that he had not visited in years because of the restrictions\u2014to a person, the people on his list knew that they were being summoned to their deaths.\n\nAt each house, the reaction was despair, but he was particularly moved by a young woman, a Frau Bitterwolf, who lived in the Struvestrasse.\n\n\"Again a shabby house,\" he wrote. \"I was vainly studying the list of names in the entrance hall when a blond, snub-nosed young woman with a pretty, well-looked-after little girl, perhaps four years old, appeared. Did a Frau Bitterwolf live here? She was Frau Bitterwolf. I had to give her an unpleasant message. She read the letter, several times, said quite helplessly: 'What is to become of the child?' then signed silently with a pencil. Meanwhile the child pressed up against me, held out her teddy bear, and, radiantly cheerful, declared: 'My teddy, my teddy, look!' The woman then went silently up the stairs with the child. Immediately afterward I heard her weeping loudly. The weeping did not stop.\"\n\nAt another of the Jews' houses lived a Frau Koch and her mother. The older woman was on the list of deportees, but the daughter had received a postcard to report to the employment office for a medical examination to determine if she should be sent along on the work detail as well. The daughter later related, \"Now we were examined and, of course, we were all fit to work.... So my mother had her deportation order and I was given a slip of paper that I had to show up for work away from the city, also on the 16th of February.\"\n\nThere were other Jews in Dresden on this day as well. But these unfortunates had already felt the full impact of the Nazi deportation and extermination program. They were slave laborers sent to Dresden from concentration camps to work in the various electronics, optical, aircraft parts, or munitions plants scattered throughout the city.\n\nOne group, Jewish women from the camp at Ravensbr\u00fcck, had been roused from its makeshift barracks well before dawn and was at work assembling precision instruments at the Zeiss-Ikon factory in Striesen. Zeiss was the largest employer in Dresden. Some fourteen thousand people, which included thousands of laborers from the occupied countries and Jews from the concentration camps, worked in its factories.\n\n**The non-Jewish Dresdeners** , in spite of the usual deprivations of war, had suffered far fewer hardships than the citizens of other cities of the Third Reich or in many cities of the occupied territories. Their city had seen no great physical damage in almost six years of war. Indeed, the eighteenth-century court painter Bernardo Bellotto would have had no trouble recognizing the subjects of his many paintings of Dresden. The city was as before. No exploding bombs had marred the famous prospect from the Br\u00fchl Terrace along the Elbe. No fires had blackened the churches, the museums, or the other great monuments of the rococo.\n\nDresden had been designed by the Augustuses as a stage set for the court and for their entertainments, and while the sets were physically intact, no Dresdener could pretend that the city reflected much of its glittering prewar image as a great cultural center. Bellotto's paintings had long since been removed, along with the porcelains, the statuary, the bejeweled objects in the Gr\u00fcnes Gew\u00f6lbe, and the works of the old masters, to safer locales. The art treasures were stacked in cellars below medieval castles or deep in salt mines.\n\nFor the ordinary Dresdener, there were still some amenities, and life, although difficult, continued in many ways as before. There were caf\u00e9s and coffeehouses; mail was delivered; the trains and streetcars, although delayed, operated. The telephone system worked.\n\nThe Semper Opera was dark, but another famous Dresden attraction was open for business. At the Zirkusgeb\u00e4ude, the amphitheater on the Carolaplatz in the Neustadt, the Sarrasani Circus, in the best tradition of that ancient form of entertainment, was continuing with performances. Indeed, there would be one that evening.\n\nEven the animal keepers at the Dresden Zoo in the Grosser Garten had managed to keep their charges relatively healthy. Their task cannot have been a simple one, with the human population suffering such shortages of food. Although butchers were selling sausages made of cabbage, somehow food was found for these wild animals, no matter how exotic or in need of pampering. In Berlin one of the animal keepers kept his charges, some flamingos, alive in the tub in his bathroom.\n\nBesides the removal of art treasures, few other wartime precautions had been taken, and the habitual confidence of the Dresdeners was undiminished. Strict blackout procedures were enforced, but unlike in other Reich cities, there was no ring of antiaircraft batteries. The 88- millimeter antiaircraft guns had been removed to where they could be of greater use\u2014as artillery pieces and antitank weapons on the Eastern Front, against the advancing Red Army.\n\nDresdeners were not unaware of air raids, although they had no experience of prolonged aerial bombardment. They had spent hours and sometimes entire nights in cellars and air-raid shelters since the British had begun the bombing of Germany.\n\nIn his diary, Victor Klemperer reports hearing explosions and antiaircraft fire as early as 20 November 1940. On that night the RAF raided the \u0160koda arms works in Pilsen, Czechoslovakia, and five targets in Germany. Dresden, where the air-raid sirens went off at 0200, was not targeted, but since only seventeen of the sixty-three Bomber Command aircraft dispatched found the primary target, perhaps some of the planes jettisoned their bombs near the city.\n\nThe city had been the target of two raids within the last four months, but they had gone largely unnoticed by the general populace. On 7 October 1944, 333 American B-17s of the First Bomb Division were dispatched to attach the oil installations at Ruhland. Only 59 of the 318 aircraft found the primary target. The remaining 259 headed for targets of opportunity, one of which was Dresden.\n\nAt about 1140 a preliminary air-raid warning was issued when planes were detected heading toward the city. Twenty minutes later, at noon, a full-scale air-raid alarm was sounded.\n\nThirty B-17s dropped 72.5 tons of bombs on the area around the Friedrichstadt station and marshaling yards. At 1330, when the all clear sounded, people began to emerge from the shelters. The physical destruction was minimal, but 435 people had been killed. The raid itself was such a rarity that people actually went to look at the damage.\n\nOn 16 January 1945, 364 B-24s from the Second Air Division took off from England to raid the oil installations at Magdeburg and Ruhland. The bad weather played havoc with the mission, and on the return 70 B-24s had to land in France because of the fog in England. But 138 of the B-24s bombed Dresden, a secondary target, beginning at around 1200. Again the marshaling yards were hit, this time with 341.8 tons of bombs, and another 376 people were killed.\n\nStill, the Dresdeners saw the second raid as an anomaly as well. A young woman who lived with her newborn baby in a fourth-floor apartment on the Weisseritzstrasse reported that a crowd of people had come to see the damaged Wettinerstrasse Bahnhof after the October raid. Pieces of the station roof lay in the yard of her building; the blast had blown out the windows of her apartment, and the glass shards had cut her new draperies. Otherwise, she paid little attention to the uproar.\n\nBut the war seemed very far away on this February day, and the Dresdeners, in spite of the menacing signs, continued to trust in their good fortune. The two air raids, even with over 800 deaths, were minor incursions compared to what had befallen Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Essen, Stuttgart\u2014indeed, every other major city of Germany, with their hundreds of thousands of dead, injured, and homeless.\n\nThe militarily sophisticated of the city's inhabitants speculated, correctly, that in the October and January raids their city had really been the secondary target. It had been attacked only because the Allied bombers had failed to locate or reach their primary targets\u2014the oil refineries or one of the important industrial cities of eastern Europe. They had released their bombs almost by accident, or so it was argued.\n\nIn any event, this was the day before the beginning of Lent, and many Dresdeners, in spite of the exigencies imposed by war, looked forward to celebrating the Teutonic version of the rowdy and raucous Mardi Gras. Since 1933 and the rise of the Nazis, extreme forms of behavior had disappeared from the celebration, but it was still popular, particularly with children, who looked forward to the games, costumes, and masks.\n\nThe Dresdeners did not have a compelling reason to celebrate this year\u2014too many of the men of Dresden would never return to the city\u2014but they could be grateful that their elegant city, with its terraces, palaces, art museums, and parks, had been spared.\n\nIn the west, the Allied ground forces were moving slowly but inexorably toward the Rhine. In the east, in three short weeks, the Russian army had advanced across Poland and had reached the east bank of the Oder\u2014only seventy-five miles from Dresden and just thirty-five miles from Berlin. And night after night, day after day, hundreds of British and American bombers systematically went about their task of reducing the Third Reich to rubble.\n\nBut in Dresden, the old Germany was still alive. The Frauenkirche, the Semper Opera House, the cathedral, and the great public buildings still rose majestically into the Saxon sky. And the continued, almost undamaged existence of their beautiful city imparted a confidence to the populace.\n\nHowever, Dresden's miraculous survival also spawned and fed dozens of rumors. Two of the more common were that a relative of Winston Churchill's lived in the city or that the Allies had agreed among themselves to spare Dresden so that it could serve as the capital of a new Germany. This latter rumor was bruited about carefully. To talk of a new Germany was to talk of defeat, and defeatism was a capital offense.\n\nWhile Dresden had suffered few of the physical effects of war, other damage was evident. Like all German cities in early 1945, Dresden was a city of women, children, and old men. Any young men there were attached to the police and civil defense or were disabled veterans. In addition, there were thousands of forced civilian laborers from western Europe, along with American, British, French, and Russian prisoners of war. There were also scattered all over Germany many thousands of men from the occupied countries who had volunteered for work in Germany.\n\nA small monument on the Hamburgerstrasse honors six Belgian and two French workers who were killed in the October raid. Were they unfortunate foreigners who had been transported to Germany as slave laborers? Or were they workers who had willingly taken up the Nazis' offer of jobs and high wages in the Third Reich?\n\nThere was also another group of young German men\u2014hidden, furtive, living on the edges of society. These were the military deserters who were becoming a commonplace in the cities of the Reich. As the Allies tightened the vise, their numbers soared. Men on leave simply did not return to the front.\n\nJoseph Goebbels estimated that there were tens of thousands of such fugitives hiding out in Germany. He therefore forbade civilians to give food or lodging to soldiers, any one of whom could be a deserter. He had nothing but praise for Colonel General Ferdinand Sch\u00f6rner, an ardent Nazi who was a commander in the east. Sch\u00f6rner employed the most brutal methods to deter desertions, malingering, and absenteeism.\n\n\"Sch\u00f6rner is decidedly a personality as a commander,\" Goebbels wrote. \"The details he gave me about the methods he uses to raise morale were first-rate and demonstrate not only his talents as a commander in the field but also his superb political insight. He is using quite novel modern methods.\" A particularly effective method devised by Sch\u00f6rner was to hang miscreants \"on the nearest tree with a placard announcing: 'I am a deserter and have declined to defend German women and children.' \"\n\nGoebbels made no distinction between military and civilian duty. Later in the war, when bread riots erupted in the Rahnsdorf area of Berlin, the ringleaders, two women and a man, were arrested after they helped loot a bakery. Goebbels pardoned one woman, but, as he wrote in his diary, \"the other two who were condemned to death I shall have beheaded during the night.\" Their grisly deaths were announced on placards placed throughout Rahnsdorf and broadcast over the radio to the city at large.\n\nThere are no reliable estimates of the number of soldiers who joined up with the refugee columns headed west or who were hiding out in the crowded city, but the Reichsminister's fulminations indicate that the problem was a serious one. Hundreds of deserters were picked up by patrols in Dresden alone.\n\nAbove all, there was one compelling and unmistakable sign that the war was going badly, a sign that could not be hidden from the public or disguised by the propaganda from Berlin\u2014the vast influx of refugees from the east. The stream swelled from the hundreds to the thousands to the millions. Every road, highway, and railway from the east was clogged with humanity, trying to escape being caught between the Soviet and Nazi forces clashing on the constantly contracting Eastern Front. A more compelling reason for the exodus was the fear of being left behind to suffer the barbarities of the advancing Soviets.\n\nMillions of ethnic Germans from East Prussia and Silesia were fleeing before the advancing Red Army, and their flight to the west was already causing enormous disruption on the rail lines and highways. Almost the entire population of East Prussia fled to the Baltic Coast for transport to the Reich proper. Over 450,000 refugees were evacuated from Pillau in January alone. In the harbor at Kiel, the _Wilhelm Gustloff_ , arriving with 8,000 soldiers and civilians, was torpedoed by a Soviet submarine. More than 6,000 of the passengers drowned in the icy waters.\n\nWith such suffering, it is easy to understand the public's outrage over an act of G\u00f6ring's that Joseph Goebbels called a Marie-Antoinette gesture. When a column of refugees from the east passed by on the road near his vast estate northeast of Berlin, the Reichsmarschall shot a bison from his herd and gave them the meat. G\u00f6ring was crucified in the press for the incident, and Hitler was furious. The uncontrite air marshal soon abandoned Prussia altogether. In March, he commandeered two trains to transport his artworks and left for the relative safety of the Obersalzburg.\n\nOthers had no way to escape except on foot. Nearly a million people walked to Danzig in the bitter cold. The same sad tale was playing itself out farther south as well. Hundreds of thousands of refugees passed through or around Dresden. Thousands of German soldiers willingly turned from their primary duties to aid the refugees, who could have been their own wives, parents, or children. They often exhibited great bravery and ingenuity in protecting the civilians from certain murder by the Russians who, as they overtook the refugee columns, did not hesitate to gun them down.\n\nAs historian John Keegan said, \"The flight of January 1945 was an episode of human suffering almost without parallel in the Second World War\u2014outside the concentration camps.\" The Germans themselves created the climate of revenge. During their advance in the opposite direction, toward Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad, beginning in the summer of 1941, they committed unspeakable atrocities. It made no difference who did the killing\u2014Gestapo, SS, or ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers. Millions of Russian civilians were slaughtered as the Germans made their way across the Soviet Union.\n\n**The crumbling Western** and Eastern Fronts, the destruction of their cities, and the desperate measures necessary to rescue their own people from the bombers and invaders did not deter the Nazis from continuing to pursue one of the primary aims of National Socialism: the destruction of the Jews. In the vast catalog of Nazi horrors, these last acts of barbarism are perhaps the most appalling.\n\nAs the Soviets advanced in the east, the Nazis murdered the concentration-camp inmates who were too ill or too weak to move. They then began the transfer of the surviving prisoners to the west. Vehicles, ships, and trains were diverted from transporting troops and ammunition to transporting Jews back into the Reich. Many thousands of the evacuees traveled on foot, however, and on these death marches few of the Jews survived.\n\nOf the 29,000 Jews in the Stutthof camp, near Danzig, only 3,000 survived the transfer by ship to Stettin and then on by train to Ravens-br\u00fcck and Sachsenhausen. In a satellite camp farther east of Danzig, 3,700 Jewish slave laborers in K\u00f6nigsberg were marched to the Baltic coast, where they were told they would board ships bound for Germany. Seven hundred were killed on the march; no ships awaited the others. Instead, the 3,000 survivors were gunned down by their guards when they reached the sea. Almost all of these wretched victims were women.\n\nAt Neusalz on the Oder, another thousand Jewish women were marched from the camp to Flossenburg, near Marienbad\u2014a distance of almost two hundred miles. Eight hundred died or were murdered en route. The remaining 200 were then shipped to Bergen-Belsen by train. More died inside the closed boxcars as the train traveled north in the dead of winter.\n\nThese scenes of sadism and murder were played out all over the Reich and the occupied territories as the Allies closed in. The argument that the Nazis needed the slave labor in the Reich itself and were therefore willing to divert much-needed transport to move them there is destroyed by cold-blooded fact. The contrary seems to be the case. The few who had managed to survive the beatings, the starvation, and the disease in the camps were now systematically slaughtered as they were transported, often on foot, on their hopeless journeys.\n\nWhile the inmates of the camps in Upper Silesia were being evacuated, time had also run out for the hundreds of German Jews who had escaped deportation and certain death because they had Aryan husbands or wives. Hence the deportation orders being delivered by Victor Klemperer on 13 February.\n\n**Dresden did its best** to cope with the influx of refugees from the east, but the city had become so overtaxed that police checkpoints were set up at the eastern approaches to encourage the refugees to bypass Dresden and proceed directly to the west. There was no room for any more of them in the already dangerously overcrowded city. As these legions of the dispossessed made their way across the bridges of the Elbe, the view south made them forget, temporarily, their own sorry plight and that of their country, which was in its death throes. Dresden had survived. Perhaps, they dared to hope, other cities had as well.\n\nThe refugees' respite was brief. They could not tarry. Not even the most fervid and ardent supporters of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism could pretend that the war was just going badly. It was lost. The Saxon capital might be intact, but they must move on. The police at the barricades politely but firmly showed them the way west.\n\nAs Victor Klemperer made his rounds of the Jews' houses, Sybil Schneider, a Silesian farm girl, and her family were approaching the city in a horse-drawn wagon. The Schneiders' wagon was piled high with the few possessions that they had hurriedly packed when they'd fled their farm home before the advancing Soviet army.\n\nThe girl was excited about seeing the Saxon capital and perhaps resting there. Also, the weather had cleared, as the meteorologists with the RAF had predicted. It was now a sunny, perfect spring day in Saxony.\n\nBut Sybil's father had other ideas. He was only too glad to move on when directed by the police. While Dresden had not been bombed, he said, no city was safe. They would camp on the other side of the city, out in the open countryside.\n\nEven had Herr Schneider chosen to remain in the city, he would have found it difficult to find a place to spend the night. Nearly every apartment and house was crammed with relatives or friends from the east; many other residents had been ordered to take in strangers. There were makeshift campsites everywhere. Some 200,000 Silesians and East Prussians were living in tents or shacks in the Grosser Garten. The city's population was more than double its prewar size. Some estimates have put the number as high as 1.4 million.\n\nUnlike other major German cities, Dresden had an exceptionally low population density, due to the large proportion of single houses surrounded by gardens. Even the built-up areas did not have the congestion of Berlin and Munich. However, in February 1945, the open spaces, gardens, and parks were filled with people.\n\nThe Reich provided rail transport from the east for hundreds of thousands of the fleeing easterners, but the last train out of the city had run on 12 February. Transport farther west was scheduled to resume in a few days; until then, the refugees were stranded in the Saxon capital.\n\nHerr Schneider had no intention of waiting for a train. His horse and wagon would do. He proceeded with his family slowly around the darkening city and on to the low hills to the west.\n\n**Eight days earlier** a rather more distinguished refugee had arrived from the east. On the morning of 5 February, the very day that Spaatz cabled Kuter in Yalta that Dresden and other targets in the east would be bombed as weather permitted, an unusual car\u2014a steam car fueled by wood\u2014arrived at Villa Wiesenstein in the mountain village of Agnetendorf, in Upper Silesia. For four decades, the villa had been the retreat of novelist, poet, playwright, and Nobel laureate Gerhart Hauptmann, now eighty-three years old.\n\nNo bombs had fallen and no invading armies had appeared in the Riesengebirge, the mountain range between Silesia and Bohemia, and the birthplace of the Elbe. But the war was coming ever closer each day as the Red Army continued its advance to the west.\n\nFor the past two years, so many thousands of Germans fleeing the Soviet troops in the east and the air raids in the west had flocked to the area that it had become known as Germany's air-raid shelter. No one, no matter how privileged, was exempt from housing refugees, who numbered in the thousands, and the Hauptmanns had had to take in two women and seven children.\n\nHis solitude shattered, Hauptmann, after much reflection and anguish, decided to remove himself to Dresden, where so often in the past he had gone to refresh his spirits. Then, too, Margarete Hauptmann was ailing. The car had been dispatched by Weidner's Sanatorium, in the Dresden suburb of Oberloschwitz, to fetch the couple and Anni, their servant and secretary. Weidner's had agreed to admit Frau Hauptmann for treatment, and her husband, in the solitude of a cottage on the grounds of the famous hospital, might also find a degree of serenity.\n\nAfter the Hauptmann's arrival, the physicians at Weidner's determined that Margarete Hauptmann needed more intensive care than could be provided by a sanatorium, and she was transferred to a hospital in Dresden proper. The old man stayed up on the heights and on his walks in the garden reflected on his ties to this magical city. He could see the tower of the Johanneskirche, where he had married his first wife, and the Royal Academy on the Br\u00fchl Terrace, where he had studied art. Down there were the theaters where his plays had been produced, and spread out along the Elbe was the Hotel Bellevue and its gardens. For years the hotel had, in the German style, treated the visiting writer like royalty. \"Really, one is compelled to love it, my jewel, my Dresden,\" Hauptmann remarked to a companion on one of his strolls. \"May it never share the fate of other cities!\"\n\nSoon Margarete Hauptmann returned to the cottage at Weidner's. The hospital in Dresden had determined that she was not as ill as first diagnosed, but there was another, darker reason for her quick return. Anni had brought her the disturbing news that Hauptmann was drinking heavily and quickly declining.\n\nAfter her return to the sanatorium, Frau Hauptmann soon had the situation in hand, and under her ministrations or, more probably, her proscriptions, Gerhart Hauptmann sobered up. On 13 February he was so much improved in body and spirit that he was able to write a new poem, \"Zauberblume\" (\"Magic Flower\").\n\nThe rest of the day was whiled away with friends at a luncheon, followed by a nap, then afternoon tea, during which the faithful Anni read aloud. Later, Hauptmann shared a quiet dinner with his wife. There was talk of leaving the cottage at Weidner's for the more congenial atmosphere of the Hotel Bellevue, and then Hauptmann went to bed.\n\n# CHAPTER NINE\n\n**A PILLAR OF FIRE BY NIGHT**\n\nBomber Command Takes the Lead\n\n**The sun had long since set when the first of the Lancasters of** 5 Group, the Pathfinders, or flare force, of 83 and 97 Squadrons, lifted off and headed for Germany. It was approximately 1720 hours on 13 February 1945.\n\nIn an age of satellites and global positioning systems, navigation in February 1945 seems primitive indeed. Often the finding of a target was little more than sophisticated guesswork, although the newest system, called loran, which was used on this raid for the first time, was far ahead of any previous device. But mistakes were still not uncommon. As has been observed, bombing a city was the least of it. Finding the city was the problem.\n\nFlying just minutes ahead of the main bomber fleet, the Pathfinders had a single objective: to find Dresden and drop parachute flares, which would illuminate an area one to two miles square.\n\nWhen the ground below was lit up as if by daylight, the second phase of the raid would begin. The faster and more agile Mosquito marker planes, which would not take off for almost two and a half hours after the Lancasters were airborne, would now have to identify the central aiming point and then drop their 1,000-pound Tls, the target indicators. The bombardiers in the main bomber fleet, which was to approach from the northwest, were then to center their bomb patterns on the brilliant red glow from the target indicator bombs. These intricate maneuvers were, at least in theory, guided by a master bomber who circled the city in another Mosquito and conducted the raid as if he were the leader of a great orchestra.\n\nThe metaphor is an apt one. As in a symphony, everything must come together in a well-defined sequence and time frame\u2014twenty to twenty-five minutes\u2014from the illuminator flares from the Pathfinders, to the target indicators from the Mosquito marker bombers, to the rain of high explosives and incendiaries from the main bomber force.\n\nSome ten minutes after the Pathfinders were airborne and en route to Saxony, the main bomber force, code-named \"Plate-Rack,\" began taxiing into position for takeoff. Within a half hour, 254 Lancasters, all from 5 Group, Harris's old command at Grantham, with their cargo of almost 900 tons of high explosives and incendiaries, were en route to the assembly point at Reading and thence to the Channel and on to the Continent.\n\nThis night every crewman on any plane that was to come anywhere close to the Eastern Front carried something new: a Union Jack embossed with the words, in Russian, \"I am an Englishman.\" It was hoped that this might save the life of anyone who had to parachute behind the Russian lines, but no one much counted on it.\n\nThe weather that had caused the scrubbing of the daylight American raid was even more dangerous for the night operations of the British. Navigation was more complicated, and the return in the dark and the fog to the home bases was often a nightmarish experience. However, unlike the Eighth Air Force, which had been called on to bomb the rail centers and marshaling yards, \"precision targets,\" the RAF had a more broadly defined assignment. Their target was simply the \"town area.\" Visibility was less important.\n\nTonight's raid would become the prime example of the Bomber Command theory of the double blow, an air attack in which a second wave of bombers would arrive just as the firefighters and rescue teams below were fully occupied in battling the fires caused by the earlier raid and attempting to bring out survivors.\n\nOnly a handful of raids ever actually conformed to this double-strike model, which was a supposed cornerstone of Bomber Command policy. Those that did were cataclysmic, and thus the question is why the method was not used more than it was. The reason or reasons are rather simple: bad weather and the lack of men and machines for a double or triple blow.\n\nThe Dresden raid now began to unfold. In its execution, it was theory put into flawless practice: two waves of bombers, three hours apart, followed the next day by a massive daylight raid by more bombers and escort fighters with the additional task of strafing rail and road traffic.\n\nOther raids planned for that night were designed to keep the German defenses in the dark as to the RAF's true intentions toward Dresden. Mosquitoes attacked Magdeburg, Bonn, Misburg, and Nuremberg, and another 360 Lancasters and Halifaxes\u2014a larger force than that headed for Dresden\u2014were dispatched to bomb the synthetic oil plant at B\u00f6hlen, just south of Leipzig and less than sixty miles from Dresden.\n\n**The two bomber streams** followed more or less parallel courses for the journey out. They crossed the Channel and entered French airspace near the Somme. Their route was thus far a relatively safe one, since the Allied lines lay far to the east at this stage of the war. Window, aluminum foil strips that jammed German radar, was liberally scattered along a broad north-south front west of Duisburg, to west of Mannheim, a 120-mile screen behind which the bombers advanced into the Reich.\n\nWhen they emerged from behind the screen of Window, the German trackers could see that there were clearly two distinct bomber streams. The Plate-Rack bomber fleet crossed the Rhine just north of Cologne. The force bound for B\u00f6hlen crossed farther south, just north of Koblenz.\n\nBut any number of possible targets lay in their paths as they pressed on, and the German radar operators and air defense teams now had to make agonizing projections as to where they might actually be heading. The standard operating procedure was for the tracking data to be refined and a series of preliminary warnings issued.\n\nOn the night of 13 February 1945, the system seems to have failed. There was no preliminary warning even when it was obvious that the planes were heading for Saxony, and it was not until the bombers were almost over the city that the air observers realized that Dresden was the intended target. Thus when the _Fliegeralarm_ , the actual air-raid alarm, did sound, Dresdeners had just a few minutes to find cover.\n\nMeanwhile, the two bomber forces maintained their parallel course until just before 2200 hours, when the planes on the more southerly route peeled off toward B\u00f6hlen. At about the same time the northern wave of planes, all Lancasters, made a turn to the southeast, a heading that would bring them to the Elbe and then, just a few minutes later, to Dresden.\n\nOf the original 254 Lancasters designated for Dresden, ten were now out of action for one reason or another, a not unusual number. The attacking force thus comprised 244 Lancasters, carrying over 500 tons of high-explosive bombs and more than 375 tons of incendiaries.\n\n**As the British** air fleet lumbered toward Saxony, Winston Churchill and the British delegation were comfortably ensconced aboard SS _Franconia_ in the harbor at Sevastopol. The Yalta Conference had ended two days earlier, but the British united front that had been so evident when important issues were at stake had disappeared.\n\nTo the dismay of their aides, Eden and Churchill were arguing over the next stop, Athens. Churchill kept everyone on edge with his to-ing and fro-ing. He would go to Athens. He would not go to Athens. Each time he decided in favor of the trip Eden became more annoyed. The foreign secretary did not want to be upstaged in the Greek capital by the prime minister. An exasperated Alexander Cadogan said to Lord Moran, \"I never bargained to take Tetrazzini and Melba round the world together in one party.\"\n\nBy the next morning the little contretemps was settled\u2014everyone would go to Athens\u2014and the British party was driven from Sevastopol to the airfield at Saki for the flight to the Greek capital. En route, Churchill, again displaying that touch that distinguished him from lesser beings, had the pilot circle the island of Skyros and the tomb of Rupert Brooke.\n\n**Just before 2000 hours** , the eight Mosquitoes that were to drop the target indicators on the central aiming point and thus lay out the bombing path for the heavies took off from their base at Woodhall Spa.\n\nA few minutes later, the master bomber, Wing Commander Maurice Smith, and his navigator, Pilot Officer Leslie Page, climbed into their Mosquito at Coningsby. The fast Mosquitoes would reach Dresden, if all went according to plan, just behind the Pathfinders and just ahead of the Plate-Rack force.\n\nThe Mosquito was designed to fly at high altitudes to avoid flak and at great speed to elude interceptors, but the nine planes on this mission would be operating at the outer limits of their capabilities. They were thus obliged to take an almost direct route from their bases to the Saxon capital.\n\nTheir route took them out across the North Sea to Holland and then directly southeast. They would approach the target from the southwest, swooping down from 20,000 feet at Chemnitz to well below 1,000 feet at Dresden.\n\n**While Gerhart Hauptmann** , his wife, and his secretary were making do in reduced but still comfortable circumstances in Oberloschwitz, overlooking Dresden, the Silesian farmer Herr Schneider was settling his family for the night at their camp in the hills on the western side of the city. A few minutes before ten o'clock, they heard the sound of airplane engines. As they looked apprehensively for the source of the noise, the night sky over the city to the east was turned to day by white and green flares.\n\nThe flares were eerily beautiful on this winter evening, reminiscent of prewar _Feuerwerk_ along the Elbe. But these were not civic fireworks to celebrate Shrove Tuesday. Lancaster Pathfinders from 83 Squadron, 5 Group, of the RAF had released green primaries and white illuminator magnesium flares to light the way for the target indicator Mosquitoes that were racing toward Dresden.\n\nThe Pathfinders had picked out the unmistakable S-curve of the Elbe that identified the target as Dresden. The first flares, the primary greens, fell directly in the bend of the river. Using the primary greens as a marker, the other Pathfinder aircraft began to unload their brilliant whites. The distant spires of the city stood out in sharp relief in the glow.\n\nAs the flares floated slowly to earth, almost at once there was another roar of planes. The nine Mosquito bombers, eight marker planes and the master bomber, had begun their run. As they made their vertiginous descent toward the city, they passed over the refugee camps. The Schneider family had good reason to be grateful that the father had insisted that they move on rather than rest in the city. The attack he feared had begun.\n\nThe timing of the Mosquitoes was perfect, and from the refugee camp there could be seen the reddish glow that had begun to replace the brilliant whites and greens. The Mosquitoes had begun to drop the target indicators.\n\n**The nine Mosquitoes had** descended from almost 20,000 feet in just five minutes in order to fulfill their mission. In just a few more minutes the main bomber fleet would arrive, and they needed the target indicators to be afire to guide them to the bombing zones. The master bomber now broke radio silence. He called out, \"Controller to Marker Leader. How do you hear me? Over.\" The marker leader, Flight Lieutenant William Topper, who would drop the first target-indicator bomb, replied that Wing Commander Smith was coming in loud and clear.\n\nTopper was now just 2,000 feet above the city, which was brilliantly illuminated by the marker flares. He could make out many of the landmarks, which he had seen on the briefing photographs and target maps.\n\nThe Hauptbahnhof, the main railway station, with its glass roof, was easily identified, as were the tracks snaking out from it, which would lead him to the central aiming point, a sports stadium close by the railroad bridge that crossed the Elbe beside it. The stadium had been chosen because of its unmistakable oval shape and its proximity to the river.\n\nShouting, \"Marker Leader: Tally-ho!\" to signal that he was going in and that all other marker Mosquitoes should hold back, Topper roared down to 800 feet and released his 1,000-pound target-indicator bomb. Below him the stadium was lit up by a burst of red fire. The TI had landed within a hundred yards of it, an almost perfect drop. In quick succession, more Mosquitoes began to drop their red TIs into the stadium, but since the preliminary marking had been so accurate the master bomber decided to hold a few in reserve, in case they were needed for further marking.\n\nHigh above the Mosquitoes, a Lancaster bomber circled the city to act as radio relay for the marker bombers, the master bomber, and the home base if necessary. The pilot reported that he could see the red TIs burning 18,000 feet below, through the thin cloud cover. All was in readiness for the fast-approaching Plate-Rack force, which would clearly have no trouble finding the target.\n\nThe plan of attack called for the first wave of Lancasters to cross the city from the northwest to the southeast. The central aiming point, the stadium, was approximately a mile from the Friedrichstadt marshaling yards, but this important target was on the approach path. Unless the bombing backed up on the aiming point it would be passed over.\n\nBut the elements that were to enable the RAF to raise a firestorm lay directly ahead of the central aiming point: the Altstadt. Congested old Dresden, with its medieval street plan, highly combustible ancient buildings, and several hundred thousand people, lay entirely within the bombing path of the first wave of planes.\n\nWith frightening precision, the first raid in the Bomber Command and Eighth Air Force plan to completely destroy a large city with a triple blow of air strikes began to unfold. The 244 Lancasters of 5 Group fanned out from the aiming point, the sports stadium by the Elbe, and prepared to release their cargo, 875 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiaries. At 2210 the first bombs began to fall.\n\nThe heavy bombs and thousands of smaller incendiaries that rained down on the city in the first wave would, Arthur Harris had long theorized, set so many hundreds of small fires that no matter how well organized or well equipped a firefighting service might be it could not hope to cope with all of them. Further, the firefighting efforts would be hampered, if not halted, by the huge blasts caused by 2,000-pound, 4,000-pound, or even more powerful high-explosive bombs. As Harris said in his memoirs, if \"a rain of incendiaries is mixed with high explosive bombs there is an irresistible temptation for the fireman to keep his head down.\"\n\nThe first wave of planes from Bomber Command had, as it turned out, the relatively simple task of raising a fire by igniting the combustible Altstadt of Dresden. The resulting beacon would light the way for the larger second wave, scheduled to arrive three hours later.\n\nThe second wave would appear over Dresden at the very time that the optimum number of fire brigades and rescue teams were in the streets of the burning city. The high explosives of the first wave would have destroyed most of the water mains, and the collapsed buildings would have rendered the streets impassable. The second wave would compound the earlier destruction many times and, by design, kill the firemen and rescue workers so the destruction could rage on unchecked.\n\nIt was soon apparent to the master bomber that there was no high-altitude flak and he could bring the Plate-Rack force down to just 8,000 feet, the upper limit of the range of the few 20-millimeter guns that were throwing up flak. At that altitude, the entire city was visible to the bombardiers.\n\nIn his Mosquito, master bomber Maurice Smith, like the maestro he was, exhorted the bombardiers, praising their accuracy and correcting the tempo as necessary. \"Good shot!\" \"Back up!\" \"Back up!\" Everywhere below him fires were breaking out as over 200,000 incendiaries crashed through the roofs of apartment houses, museums, churches, palaces, theaters, and government buildings.\n\nThe high-explosive ordnance, bombs ranging in weight from 500 pounds to over 4,000 pounds\u2014two-ton \"cookies\"\u2014did their assigned tasks well, rupturing water mains and interdicting emergency workers' access. They also carried out an even more deadly mission. The enormous pressure waves created by the cookies blew out doors and windows, thereby increasing the effectiveness of the incendiary bombs, the weapon that was designed to do the most damage. Buildings were turned into vast flues as air was drawn through blasted-out doors and windows to feed the already fiercely burning incendiaries. Firefighters, both professional and amateur, would soon be overwhelmed.\n\nIn just twenty minutes the mission of the aircrews of 5 Group had been completed and they had turned back toward England. Wing Commander Smith turned his Mosquito as well. He had been over the city for less than half an hour. As the Plate-Rack force began the long return flight, behind them the plane crews could see thousands of small fires burning.\n\n**By the time Victor Klemperer** had finished his mournful errands late on 13 February and returned to his crowded quarters at the Jews' house at 1 Zeughausstrasse, the wintry day had become \"perfect spring weather,\" as he recorded later in his diary.\n\nAround 2130 that evening he sat down to have coffee with his wife. A few minutes before 2200 the _Fliegeralarm_ , a full-scale air-raid alarm, sounded. The Klemperers and the other residents of the Jews' house rushed down to the air-raid shelter that had been set aside for Jews in the building next door, 3 Zeughausstrasse. Upstairs was the headquarters for the now tiny Dresden Jewish community, as well as the assembly point for the work details and deportations.\n\nIn the darkened shelter, the Klemperers trembled at the sound of airplanes and the crash of bombs. There was fear, he said, but no panic, and when the all clear sounded at 2330 they left the cellar and returned to their rooms.\n\nThey could see from the smoke and the flames that a major raid had occurred, but their building was intact and Klemperer, who was exhausted from his day walking the streets of Dresden, thought only of sleep. He and Eva went back to bed.\n\n**While the Klemperers slept** , the small fires set by the thousands of incendiaries from the first wave of British planes began to spread and intensify. One of the few civil defense measures made available to the citizens of Dresden\u2014buckets of sand\u2014proved useless in fighting the fires that suddenly seemed to be everywhere.\n\nThe flames raced from room to room, from floor to floor, and from building to building, joining forces and growing ever larger and stronger, leaping across courtyards, alleys, and the narrow streets of the Altstadt.\n\nThe process was repeated on an ever-increasing scale as houses ignited and burned, then entire blocks went up, until whole sections of the city were afire. Streets and alleys became rivulets of fire that coalesced into rivers of fire that converged until they formed an ocean of fire that covered Dresden.\n\nAs the storm grew, air from outlying areas was sucked into the center to feed the flames, creating huge backdrafts, then gales, and finally winds of hurricane force, which swept everything into the fiery maelstrom that was consuming the city center. Trees were uprooted. Trams, trucks, even railroad engines were overturned and thrown about.\n\nTemperatures soared to a thousand, fifteen hundred, two thousand degrees. Lampposts, street signs, and even the bricks themselves disintegrated. The open streets became death traps as the asphalt melted in the terrible heat and the fleeing refugees found themselves unable to move. After terrible struggles to free themselves, they collapsed and died, falling into the burning tar, where they were incinerated.\n\nPeople who were blocks from the flames and thought themselves safe were suddenly picked up by the hurricane-force winds and pulled into the inferno, where their bodies ignited and their corpses were reduced to ash. In the makeshift air-raid shelters, thousands suffocated as the superheated air pulled cooler, breathable air from the basements where they had sought shelter. Instead, these havens from the death and destruction above became death traps filled with overheated and poisonous gases. Thousands of others died when their internal organs were ripped apart by the tremendous concussions caused by the high-explosive bombs.\n\nAs the wooden beams and trusses and supports gave way, floors and roofs collapsed, burying the thousands huddled in the cellars below. Entire blocks of buildings with nothing to support them buckled and fell into the streets. Firefighters, ambulance drivers, and rescue teams found their way blocked by giant mounds of burning rubble in every avenue and street. Instead of fighting the fires and extricating the injured, they soon would be looking for ways out of the conflagration themselves.\n\n**At 0105 air-raid alarms** again sounded, but since the electrical system had been largely destroyed in the earlier raid, these were hand-cranked devices limited to small areas of perhaps a block or so. Bomber Harris's second wave\u2014529 Lancasters from 1, 3, 6, and 8 Groups\u2014had arrived punctually at the appointed hour.\n\nTheir route into the Reich had been somewhat farther to the south than that of 5 Group, and they approached the city from almost due west. Pathfinders from 8 Group were the designated markers. They had no trouble finding the target. The red glow from the burning city was visible on the horizon from more than sixty miles out.\n\nThe weather had cleared further, as predicted, and as they neared Dresden, the Pathfinders in the second wave could see that the only visual impediment was the thick smoke from the fires. Although they were superfluous, at 0123 hours away went the marker flares, which had been designed to light up a target that now needed no illumination. The city below was completely in flames, engulfed in a firestorm.\n\nWhen the master bomber, Squadron Leader C. P. C. de Wesslow, and his deputy, Wing Commander H. J. F. Le Good, arrived just minutes later they were faced with a quandary. The first wave was such a success, with the entire city on fire, that to proceed with the prearranged bombing plan was no longer the most effective use of their own high explosives and incendiaries. Dresden was, in actuality, already one giant target indicator.\n\nThe decision was quickly made to mark areas outside the firestorm and drop the bombs accordingly, thus expanding the area of destruction. Le Good, who went in first, dropped his target indicators to one side of the fires, and the other markers followed suit, first to one side of the firestorm and then to the other, to lay out the path for the bombing fleet.\n\nBombs now began to rain down on the Hauptbahnhof, the Central Station, which had escaped relatively untouched in the first raid since it lay outside the direct bombing path. Hundreds of refugees had taken shelter in the tunnels underneath the station, and the trains had been shunted out of the station three hours earlier. But in the belief that it was now safe to do so, the trains had been brought back into the station to reload their passengers.\n\nAs the high explosives and incendiaries tore through the immense glass cover over the train shed, thousands of shards rained down on the people crowded onto the platforms below. Those who were not killed or critically injured by the falling glass were blown apart by the explosions or burned to death by the incendiaries. The hundreds of refugees who were huddled in the darkness of the tunnels met a similar fate as the bombs ripped through the ceilings and created an underground inferno.\n\nThe master bomber was somewhat baffled by a large black area abutting the city center, which strangely showed no sign of fire. He ordered it bombed. This last place was the Grosser Garten, and now the great public park also became a scene of fire and devastation as incendiaries and high explosives ripped up the earth, flattened the trees, and tore into the vast refugee camp set up there, to which many other thousands had fled to escape the firestorm in the nearby neighborhoods.\n\nVictor and Eva Klemperer, asleep and unaware that the city outside the Jews' house was completely on fire, were roused by the handheld air-raid sirens being sounded in the street outside. As they raced back to the Jews' house cellar bombs were already falling everywhere around them.\n\nThey remained in the cellar until the all clear was sounded at 0215, but when they emerged, Eva Klemperer realized that their world had changed forever. The air raids might have destroyed her city and killed thousands of people, but they had also provided a long-hoped-for but unexpected lifeline for her husband and herself. She immediately determined to take advantage of the ensuing confusion.\n\nShe removed the yellow star from Victor Klemperer's coat, and with little more than the clothes on their backs they joined the great stream of refugees beginning the trek south toward Bavaria. For the few weeks remaining until the fall of the Reich, they managed to blend in with the thousands of other displaced persons moving about the countryside, and thus they survived the Holocaust.\n\n**By 0155 on the morning** of 14 February, the last British bomber was en route home to England. The double blow had turned out to be one of the most successful operations in Bomber Command history and one of the safest. Only six aircraft had been lost, just one to enemy fire, the victim of one of the two German fighters that had come up to defend the city.\n\nAltogether, in a total of about forty-five minutes, more than 650,000 small incendiaries and hundreds of high-explosive bombs ranging in weight from 500 to 8,000 pounds had rained down on Dresden.\n\nThe British bombers had turned the city into a vast sea of flame, a firestorm that would not burn itself out for days. But it was left to the Americans, who had been slated to strike the first blow, to deliver the coup de gr\u00e2ce to the mortally wounded Florence of the Elbe.\n\n# CHAPTER TEN\n\n**A COLUMN OF SMOKE BY DAY**\n\nThe American Third Wave\n\n**A t 0300 on 14 February, thousands of airmen were roused from** sleep at the American bomber and fighter bases scattered across England. With less than ten hours of daylight at this time of year, every minute was precious. Daylight helped to ensure not just the success of the bombing run but also the return trip home. The Allied advance had made available many emergency landing fields in France and hundreds of aircraft had made use of them, but there was still the risk of bringing a badly shot-up bomber home in the dark or, worse, ditching in the English Channel.\n\nCarl Spaatz and his deputies in the Eighth Air Force were determined to take advantage of the promised break in the weather, and on this day they would launch almost 1,400 heavy bombers and nearly 1,000 fighter escorts against targets in Germany.\n\nThe reversal of the bombing order of the original Thunderclap plan had also resulted in a change in Spaatz's promise of sending a 1,400-bomber armada against one target. The American force was now to be split into three main components. Some 461 bombers were assigned to Dresden, 457 to Chemnitz, and 375 to Magdeburg. A smaller force of 84 planes would bomb Wesel.\n\nThe airmen slated for a mission were served a serious breakfast, which featured real eggs with Spam, and at about 0440 they crowded into the briefing huts for the general briefing. The men of the First Air Division learned that their mission was a deep penetration into eastern Germany, to the Saxon capital of Dresden, a round-trip of some fifteen hundred miles.\n\nThe 461 B-17s assigned to Dresden would first head across the North Sea to the Dutch coast, where they would be joined by their escort of 316 P-51s, many of them from newly established fighter bases on the Continent. The bomber crews would thus have no worries about adequate fighter protection as they made their way deep into Germany.\n\nAfter the rendezvous with their \"little friends,\" the fighters, the B-17s of the First Air Division would proceed to Quakenbr\u00fcck, fifty-five miles southwest of Bremen, and from there they would head directly across Germany to the initial point, Torgau, sixty miles northwest of Dresden, on the Elbe.\n\nFlying up the river from Torgau, it should have been a simple matter to find the target, either visually or using H2X radar. Dresden should have been unmistakable, lying as it did in the bend of the Elbe. But for some of the navigators it turned out not to be so.\n\nIn the event of a sudden change in the weather, the alternate target for the First Air Division was Kassel. Some ninety miles west of Dresden, Kassel had been bombed by the Eighth Air Force many times since mid-1943, most recently just two weeks before. Many of these crews thus had some experience with flying deep into Germany.\n\nAfter the general briefing, there was a specialized briefing for each crew position, and then the men went to the personal-effects hut to turn in any items or papers that in the event of capture might be of use to the Germans in determining where an air crewman was stationed and where the planes were based. The only identifying documents allowed were military-issue dog tags.\n\nHidden on their persons, however, were religious artifacts, pictures of sweethearts, wives, or mothers, and good-luck charms of every description\u2014a rabbit's foot, a battered cap, a lucky scarf. Many airmen purposely left their beds unmade, a superstition that supposedly guaranteed a safe return. The combinations to guard against harm were countless.\n\n**The next stop was** to pick up their flight equipment, and then the crews boarded trucks to be driven out to the waiting planes to begin the preparation for takeoff. It took nearly an hour to go through the long checklist. Each item was called out and verified by the pilot and copilot. Every switch, gauge, and valve had to be double-checked. The procedure was replicated aboard each Flying Fortress and Liberator before the great planes with their combined crews of over 10,000 American airmen took to the skies and headed for the Continent and the day's work.\n\nThe powerful engines came to life and the planes began to move. Between 0700 and 0800, the aircraft began to lift off and make for the assembly areas. The predawn warm-up of over 6,000 engines and the takeoff of nearly 2,500 bombers and fighters shattered the quiet of the English countryside. Thus, almost every day, did the Eighth Air Force test the patience and patriotism of the residents of the towns and villages that very often lay directly in the flight paths or just outside the sprawling bases.\n\nHundreds of planes roared overhead on their way to the assembly points where the bomber streams formed up and headed for Saxony and, unknown to them, its already destroyed capital.\n\nIn a much-disputed and much-denied directive, even though it was by no means a deviation from standard operating procedure, the P-51 fighter pilots were also instructed after the bomb run to range afield and strafe \"targets of opportunity\"\u2014columns of troops, convoys of trucks, and railroad trains. In short, anything that moved was an acceptable target, even people in the streets, as eyewitnesses alleged for many years afterward. This further \"atrocity\" has become part of the Dresden legend.\n\nThe strafing policy had begun early in 1944 in order to maximize the use of the fighter squadrons. When there were no large missions scheduled, fighter groups were often sent out independently on strafing and bombing missions.\n\nIndeed, it was on one such mission over Normandy, on 17 July 1944, that a British fighter pilot strafed the staff car of Erwin Rommel near Livarot. The field marshal was injured so seriously that he was taken to Germany for treatment and convalescence. He never returned to the front. When it was discovered that he was deeply implicated in the 20 July plot against the F\u00fchrer, he was forced to commit suicide.\n\n**At Podington Air Base** , some fifteen miles east of Northampton, Second Lieutenant Walter S. Kelly; his copilot, Second Lieutenant Alexander M. Ellett Jr.; the navigator, Flight Officer Walter S. Sierzant Jr.; and the bombardier, Staff Sergeant Roman Pasinski entered the briefing room.\n\nComic strips were a favorite source for names of aircraft in World War II, and their B-17, the _Flat Top_ , carried on its nose a picture of the eponymous character from the comic strip _Dick Tracy_.\n\nA native of Repton, Alabama, Kelly was a senior at Auburn University when he enlisted in the army in February 1943. After twelve days of basic training he was sent for what he called \"pre-pre-flight training\" at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, where he sang in the choir of the Methodist church and where he met and fell in love with a high school senior named Margaret Armstrong. Kelly went on to train at various bases around the country and finally, in May 1944, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant and earned his pilot's wings.\n\nMargaret Armstrong, who had completed her freshman year at Randolph-Macon College, in Virginia, traveled to the base where he was stationed in Stuttgart, Arkansas. They were together on D-day and read about the invasion in the newspaper. Later, they walked the streets of the small town, looking in shopwindows, and then sat on the fire escape of Margaret's hotel, \"feeling a little unsettled,\" as she recalled many years later.\n\nIn December 1944, Kelly was ordered overseas to England, and Margaret, now wearing his pilot's wings, was in her sophomore year at Randolph-Macon. In one of those coincidences that often define a life, on the campus one day she struck up a conversation with another girl who was wearing gunner's wings. It turned out that the wings had been given to her by William Balentine, of Greenville, South Carolina, a member of Walter Kelly's flight crew.\n\nMeanwhile, Second Lieutenant Kelly and the crew of the _Flat Top_ were getting their first taste of aerial warfare over Germany. On 15 January 1945, they were dispatched to Freiburg. Two days later they bombed the rail yards at Paderborn. On 28 January the target was Cologne and on 1 February the _Flat Top_ bombed Ludwigshafen.\n\nKelly's next flight was in many ways the supreme test for all bomber pilots: Berlin. An amalgam of the military, the psychological, and the political, Berlin was the heart of the Reich, and as such it carried a symbolism like that of no other German city. It was both hated as an enemy and desired as a target by all bomber crews. Its formidable antiaircraft defenses also instilled much fear in them, especially the more experienced airmen.\n\nOn 3 February 1945, the _Flat Top_ was part of the massive American thousand-bomber raid on Berlin. Although the Luftwaffe fighter forces were much weakened by early 1945, they still presented a threat, and the antiaircraft defenses were more powerful than ever. The retreat of the Wehrmacht back into the Reich had made more of the 88-millimeter guns available for air defense around key targets, and the flak, always a serious problem over the capital, was particularly heavy on this day. Twenty-three planes were lost, 339 damaged, and the casualties (dead, wounded, and missing) totaled 218.\n\nKelly and the crew of the _Flat Top_ fared reasonably well. They returned to Podington with just two holes in the aircraft. All were aware, however, that a few more inches in either direction could have brought them the fate of their colleagues who had gone down over Germany.\n\nSo by 14 February 1945, Walter Kelly and all his crew\u2014save one, the radioman, for whom this was the first combat mission\u2014were seasoned veterans of the air war over Germany. They had five successful missions under their belt, including the Big B itself.\n\n**Ten miles to the east** of Podington, at Kimbolton, the crew of another B-17, the _Miss Conduct_ , were performing an identical ritual. The crew, under the pilot, Second Lieutenant Stanley W. Cebuhar of Albia, Iowa, was part of the 527th Bomb Squadron of the 379th Bombardment Group. They had been together for most of the plane's missions, but there was a relative newcomer, the navigator, a twenty-year-old from Minnesota, Second Lieutenant Raymond G. Engstrand.\n\nIn June 1943, Engstrand had enlisted in the army and begun five weeks of basic training as his first step toward duty in the army air forces. Since he had entered the military directly from high school, Engstrand was first sent to a small college in Nashville, Tennessee, as preparation for further training and an officer's commission.\n\nSix months later, in early 1944, Engstrand began preflight training, which led, however, not to flight school but to training as a bombardier, which included a stretch at gunnery school. Engstrand and several of his fellow trainees at the base in Kingman, Arizona, were quarantined by an outbreak of scarlet fever, but the delay was temporary and by August 1944 Engstrand was training with a full crew\u2014flying B-24 Liberators in the sunny skies over the Southwest.\n\nOn 11 December, his training completed, Second Lieutenant Engstrand shipped out aboard the converted cruise liner _Manhattan_ from Boston, bound for Liverpool. Nine days later, with some relief, he arrived in England. There had been widespread speculation aboard the ship that they were going to proceed directly to the Continent as reinforcement ground troops in the Battle of the Bulge. Like most shipboard scuttlebutt, the rumor was false, and in a few days Engstrand was checking into the American base at Kimbolton, in Cambridgeshire.\n\nA few days later, on Christmas Eve, a sickening event in the English Channel underscored the still deadly might of the Nazi war machine. A German submarine torpedoed a Belgian troopship, the SS _Leopoldville_ , carrying 2,235 American troops; 763 infantrymen drowned.\n\nThe English weather was as predicted, with a fog so thick that the men had to be led to their billets. And when the fog burned off there was a surprise: there was not a B-24 in sight. Engstrand and his Liberator-trained colleagues were going to fly in B-17s with the 527th Bomb Squadron of the 379th Bombardment Group.\n\nThe transition was a relatively easy one, and although the die-hard B-24 men loyally entered into their shotgun marriage with the B-17, the Liberator remained their true love. This flexibility was characteristic of the Allied war effort. Men were assigned where they were needed and they did their duty.\n\nHowever, the new arrivals in England faced a different air campaign than that of their predecessors. The raids in late 1944 bore little resemblance to those staged by the first American pilots deployed to England. Greater range, fighter protection, and a large swath of friendly territory on the Continent increased the chances of survival.\n\nPilots struggled to get a damaged plane back over friendly territory, where they could bail out. At least one pilot turned his B-17 back toward enemy territory and put it on automatic pilot before bailing out, turning the plane into an improvised flying bomb.\n\nAnother very large difference was that crews no longer functioned as a complete unit, one that was assigned to a single aircraft. Rotation, death, and injury ensured that no group of men stayed together for any length of time. It was not unusual for an airman's first mission to be with men he hardly knew. The same was true of the planes. Bombers were designed to be interchangeable, and crews quickly adjusted. They flew what was available.\n\nIn addition, in August 1944 a new rotation policy had been instituted. Formerly, Eighth Air Force combat personnel were sent home for a thirty-day leave, but then they had to return to active duty in Europe. Knowing that they would return to the cause of their anxieties effectively canceled the benefits of rest and relaxation in the States.\n\nFrom now on, when a man's tour was over, he was sent back to the States for reassignment elsewhere. The effects of the new policy were dramatic. Cases of chronic and acute combat fatigue dropped by more than 50 percent. The less severe anxiety reactions dropped by 90 percent.\n\nBy late 1944, flak, not enemy fighters, posed the greatest danger. Consequently, two waist gunners were seen as superfluous, and thus many B-17s now flew with a nine-man crew instead of the original complement of ten. But the _Flat Top_ had a full crew: pilot, copilot, bombardier, navigator, top turret gunner\/flight engineer, radioman, right waist gunner, left waist gunner, ball turret gunner, and tail gunner.\n\nThere were other operational changes as well. Early on, the bombardier in effect flew the plane while on the bomb run. This approach was both inaccurate and wasteful. Greater concentration could be attained if the bombardier in the lead aircraft targeted the central aiming point and the other planes in the bomber stream coordinated their bomb release with him.\n\nThus came into being the \"togalier\"\u2014a combination of bombardier and nose gunner\u2014whose job was to \"toggle,\" or release the bombs by hitting a toggle switch on the signal of the bombardier in the lead plane. During the few minutes of the bomb run the togalier sat in the Plexiglas nose of the B-17. Otherwise he manned a machine gun in the chin turret of the plane.\n\nA further refinement in bombing tactics was the placement of a flight officer in the tail gunner position of the lead aircraft. From that vantage point he had a clear view of the bomber stream to the rear and was better able to keep the lead pilot apprised of the action.\n\nThe four ranking officers on the _Miss Conduct_ crowded into the smoky briefing room to receive their orders for the day. The other six crew members\u2014Technical Sergeant Lester F. Higginbotham of Frankfurt, Indiana; Staff Sergeant Waldon R. Hardy of Seattle, Washington; Staff Sergeant George R. Byers of Stockton, California; Sergeant Francis E. Beam of Galion, Ohio; Sergeant John P. Dillon of Asheville, North Carolina; and Staff Sergeant Lloyd H. Gates Jr. of Jackson, Mississippi\u2014would have to wait until they were briefed by the senior men before learning when and where they were going that day.\n\nBehind the briefing officer was the familiar map of northern Europe. However, the mention of the Saxon capital signaled even to the veterans, many of whom were near the twenty-five-mission limit, that something different was in the offing. Such a raid called for a deep penetration into Germany, almost seven hundred miles, and might run as long as eleven hours, with six hours on oxygen. Everyone would be taxed to the limit.\n\nThe intense cold, the constant vibration and noise, and the ever-present threat of a violent and horrible death tested even the strongest men. Ironically, only one of the four men who were directly briefed played an offensive role in the mission: the bombardier. The pilot, copilot, and navigator were concerned only with keeping the plane on course and in formation\u2014no small task.\n\nThe other crewmen who were directly engaged with the enemy were the gunners. For them the long flights were particularly arduous. In the early bombing campaign, waist gunners spent almost the entire flight directly exposed to the elements. Unlike the positions in the top turret, the ball turret, the tail, or the nose, there was no Plexiglas surrounding their guns. Freezing wind, rain, sleet, and snow swept into the fuselage. The temperature was often as low as minus sixty degrees. In 1943, 38 percent of Eighth Air Force casualties were caused by frostbite. The waist gun positions remained exposed until the end of 1943, when Plexiglas windows were installed. Fleece-lined flight suits and electrically heated boots also helped lower the rate to .5 percent in 1944, but the danger of frostbite was ever present.\n\nIn his isolation in the extreme rear of the aircraft, the tail gunner lay in a prone position and constantly scanned the sky to the rear for enemy fighters. The ball turret gunner flew doubled up in a Plexiglas bubble that was suspended below the B-17 and could be rotated a full 360 degrees. Except for takeoff and landing, he passed the entire flight alone in his cocoon.\n\nFor the _Flat Top_ 's radioman, Sergeant Ernest Robertson, a young airman from Acworth, Georgia, this was to be his first taste of combat. The long mission to Dresden would be a baptismal rite. His many months of training were over. In a few hours, he would be a combat veteran. Duty such as this demanded courage, skill, physical strength, and quick reflexes\u2014and not a little bravado and optimism. It is little wonder then that the bomber crews were composed of exceptionally young men, many of them barely out of their teens.\n\n\"I was the old man in the crew,\" recalled Colonel Robert Morgan, the captain of the legendary _Memphis Belle_. Morgan was all of twenty-three years old when he became the first B-17 pilot to complete twenty-five missions\u2014with a raid on the submarine pens at Lorient on 17 May 1943.\n\nThe swagger of young World War II airmen was not the usual teenage or post-teenage machismo. It was, considering the statistical certainty that on any given day some would die, be wounded, or end their war staring through the barbed wire of a German prisoner of war camp, a necessity.\n\nAs predicted, the weather high over Europe was clear, with a brilliant blue sky, but 27,000 feet below the bombers the ground was obscured by 10\/10 cloud cover. However, as the planes went deeper into Germany, some of the cloud cover broke and, as Engstrand recalled years later, Chemnitz could be glimpsed through broken clouds far off to the starboard side of the plane.\n\nThe break in the clouds was brief, however, and it was obvious that the ground would not be visible until the planes were near Dresden, if at all. The bombing would be by H2X. As the bomber fleet roared up the Elbe, it soon became apparent that finding Dresden was not to be a problem. Dead ahead was an unmistakable target marker. A column of smoke rose to at least 15,000 feet through the cloud cover. It was the burning city.\n\nAs the American B-17s began the bomb run a few minutes past noon, there were occasional glimpses of the ground below, although the mixture of clouds and smoke had created 7\/10 cloud cover. Some crew members recalled that they had even seen patches of snow.\n\nThe aiming point was the Friedrichstadt marshaling yards, but because of the cloud cover bombing was basically blind and the bombing pattern was spread out. Other parts of the city were hit as well, in particular parts of the Neustadt, north of the river and directly ahead of the aiming point.\n\n**Just as earthquakes are** remembered long after as having lasted an eternity, so it was with the air raids of World War II. For the victims of a raid the aftermath was, of course, a long-term, often harrowing experience. For the bomber crews, the raids were brief affairs, and this third, American, raid on Dresden was brief indeed. Between the moment the first bombs fell and the order for the withdrawal of the B-17s, the elapsed time was just a little more than ten minutes.\n\nBut in this fraction of an hour, another 771 tons of bombs fell on the burning and wrecked Saxon capital\u2014475 of the 500-pound highexplosive bombs and over 136,000 of the small but deadly incendiaries.\n\nThe American raid was judged as having produced only \"fair results,\" but the psychological damage to the people who had survived the first two waves of bombers was incalculable. The daylight raid came as thousands of rescue workers were pouring into the city, trying to extinguish the fires and to extricate the injured and dying from the air-raid shelters, cellars, and wreckage.\n\nThe U.S. raid also gave rise to charges of a further atrocity against the civilian population of Dresden. Reports, neither substantiated nor refuted in the sixty years since the raid, immediately began to circulate about the American fighter escorts. It was charged that while looking for so-called targets of opportunity, which was part of their orders, the P-51 fighter escorts indiscriminately strafed survivors in the streets and the refugees who had fled to the parks and to the meadows along the banks of the Elbe.\n\n**Of the 461 American** First Air Division B-17s scheduled to bomb Dresden, just 311 were effective. They were protected by 281 of the originally assigned 316 P-51 fighter escorts. But where were the other 150 American bombers that had been dispatched to bomb Dresden on 14 February with their load of over 300 tons of high explosives and incendiaries?\n\nBad weather combined with poor navigation had begun to dog the planes as soon as they entered European airspace. Eighty-eight of the bombers were forced to drop their bomb loads, some 150 tons, on Br\u00fcx, Pilsen, and assorted other targets of opportunity. The remaining sixty-two B-17s, in a celebrated miscalculation, underscored how problematical the so-called precision bombing actually was, even this late in the war.\n\nThe bombardiers on these planes saw on their screens the perfect image of a large city in the bend of a river, which dovetailed perfectly with the pictures and maps of Dresden. It was not Dresden. That city was half an hour behind them. The B-17s had strayed into Czechoslovakia, and the city below was Prague. More than 150 tons of bombs were dropped on the Czech capital.\n\n**After the bomb run** over Dresden, the American fleet turned to the west and began the arduous and dangerous journey back to England\u2014six hours and almost seven hundred miles away. Once again there was 10\/10 cloud cover until they reached Frankfurt. They crossed the Rhine south of Koblenz. The Mosel was visible off to the left of the aircraft.\n\nThere was light flak, but the Allied lines lay just a few miles away. All seemed to be going well when, in the tail of the _Miss Conduct_ , Sergeant Dillon felt a bump above him. He looked up to see that a large chunk was missing from the stabilizer above his head. His frantic message to the pilot that they had been hit was immediately echoed by Sergeant Beam. Another shell had hit the waist of the plane. Almost immediately copilot Reopelle shouted that another burst had hit the right wing and they were on fire. Lieutenant Cebuhar ordered everyone out of the plane.\n\nIn the tail, Dillon prematurely opened the escape hatch before attaching his parachute, and it was swept away in the slipstream of the plane. He desperately began the long crawl forward to find another chute.\n\nEngstrand opened the forward escape hatch, glanced apprehensively at the propellers, and dropped out of the plane. He could see that the ball turret guns were pointing straight down, and he hoped that this was a sign that Sergeant Byers had managed to extricate himself. Then the plane blew up. \"It was like metal confetti all around me,\" recalled Engstrand.\n\nHe landed on a hill to the east of the Our River, the border between Germany and Luxembourg, and he soon realized that he was between the two battle lines. Artillery shells were roaring overhead. He also could see another member of the crew floating to earth; the man landed about a half mile away. Suddenly the deafening roar of airplane engines shook the ground. Two American P-51s were buzzing him and the other downed flier. It was an encouraging but futile show of support.\n\nEngstrand ducked inside a small farm shack and took stock of his situation. Clearly he was at least within artillery range of the Allied lines, but how to get there? The sound of someone shouting in German put an end to his speculation. Cautiously he opened the door and stepped outside. After no more than five steps rifle fire froze him in his tracks. When he attempted to raise his hands he found that his shoulders had been dislocated in his escape from the plane. He made no further moves but stood silently as the German patrol advanced with their rifles pointed at him. Engstrand then heard the most chilling greeting of his life: \"For you the war is over.\"\n\nHe was marched away to a building where the crewman he had seen earlier was being held. \"Hi! My name is Ray Engstrand,\" he said to the other airman. \"What's yours?\" The Germans, of course, knew that they were from the same crew. As Engstrand later said, \"We were all the same age, and I think they were as nervous as we were.\"\n\nThe two young Americans were taken to a nearby interrogation center; on the way they passed the wreckage of the tail of the _Miss Conduct_. Engstrand later speculated that the other part of the plane had landed behind the Allied lines, with the bodies of the radioman and the ball turret gunner.\n\nThe interrogations were the beginning of a six-week ordeal as a prisoner of war. Engstrand was beaten and threatened with execution when he would not talk. He was able to make it because, as he said, \"I was young and strong and knew I could take whatever they dished out.\"\n\nThe prisoners, among whom were three other crew members, Cebuhar, Beam, and Dillon, who had managed to find another parachute on the crippled plane, were taken to Bonn, mainly on foot. At one point they traveled briefly on a truck captured from the U.S. 106th Infantry Division. There was no water and only a small piece of bread.\n\nFrom Bonn they were transferred to a camp near Cologne, where they were loaded into a boxcar. Five days later they were in Stalag 11-B at Fallingbostel, about forty miles north of Hannover. On a phonograph, one of the guards played a song Engstrand had never heard before, \"September Song.\"\n\nOn 21 March the prisoners were taken to Hannover and loaded on a train to Frankfurt. The Americans were already across the Rhine, and as the Germans retreated back into the Fatherland they marched the prisoners ahead of them. On 28 March, as the exhausted men struggled along a road, a group of P-47s swept low and wagged their wings. The Americans were at hand. The prisoners must hold on.\n\nThe next day, the prisoners were halted by an SS tank unit. Only the intervention of a Luftwaffe major prevented a massacre. On 30 March at about 1600 an American tank unit began to fire on the town where they had taken shelter, and when the Germans threw away their weapons and ran off, Engstrand came out of the cellar where he was hiding and grabbed a German pistol as a souvenir of the war. His fellow prisoners were certain he would be shot, but the commander of the American unit blithely said they were never in real danger because he had known all along who they were.\n\nTheir German guards who had stayed behind now found themselves in the same predicament that the Allied prisoners had been in just a day or two before. Only the intervention of one of the British prisoners, a major, prevented their being gunned down by the Americans. These are good Germans, he told the tank commander, noting in particular the Luftwaffe officer who had saved them from the SS.\n\n**Like the crews** of the other American planes, the men aboard the _Flat Top_ had also been surprised but relieved by the ease of the mission. There was neither flak nor fighter interception over Dresden.\n\nVisibility was another issue altogether. Cloud cover ranged from 7\/10 to 10\/10, much of it caused by the dense smoke from the fires that were still burning throughout the city. At an altitude of between 27,000 and 28,000 feet, the city was well nigh invisible therefore, and the bombing was done by H2S.\n\nThe _Flat Top_ 's bomb run had gone without incident, and Kelly turned the plane from its north-northeast heading and began the return flight to England and their home base. He and his crew remained wary and on the alert. There were many well-defended cities beneath them on the return flight path before they crossed into friendly territory. But the Western Front now reached almost to the Rhine, and once they were over the Allied lines, they could relax somewhat and settle in for the long flight to Podington.\n\n**A few days later** , Margaret Armstrong looked up to see the fianc\u00e9e of Sergeant Balentine standing in the door of her room in the dormitory at Randolph-Macon College. The young woman was crying. Her mother had just telephoned with the news that the _Flat Top_ was missing in action.\n\nMargaret Armstrong, the young girl from South Carolina, and the families of the crew of the _Flat Top_ spent the next eight months in a state of uncertainty and dread. At last, in the autumn, their vigil of hope ended. On 15 October, Hap Arnold wrote to the families of the crew that the men \"previously reported missing on February 14, 1945, died in action on that date over France.\" Like many deaths in wartime, their end had come suddenly and from an unexpected quarter.\n\nAfter capturing Dunkirk in June 1940, Germany quickly moved to reinforce that important port city, which had become such a galling symbol of defeat to both the British and the French. To the Germans, of course, it was a symbol of the superiority of German arms and the strategy known as _Blitzkrieg_ and would remain so to the very end of the war.\n\nThe Germans constructed a vast underground garrison, protected from bombardment from the sea and air by yards of concrete and earth and camouflage. The city was circled by gun emplacements, which held massive coastal and land artillery batteries designed to repel attack from every direction. Central to the defense as well was a string of antiaircraft batteries and a force of 12,000 men. The overall commander of the garrison, port, and submarine pens was Vice Admiral Friedrich Frisius.\n\nJust outside the fortress city, its German occupiers maintained four large farms to supply the garrison with beef, dairy products, vegetables, and fodder for the nearly one thousand horses used for transport. The bulk of the foodstuffs was produced by slave labor or commandeered from the local populace. Admiral Frisius kept a six-month reserve of supplies inside Dunkirk in case it was cut off completely.\n\nAt about 1500 hours on 14 February 1945, the crew of an antiaircraft battery at Couderkerque, on the outskirts of Dunkirk, heard the now familiar droning of an approaching American four-engine bomber. They watched in disbelief as the plane came in low from the east. The identifying markings of the B-17, which had to be returning from a raid on the Fatherland, were easily discerned by the gunners. In a matter of minutes, the plane would be over the English Channel and safely out of the range of their 88-millimeter antiaircraft guns.\n\nAt that moment aboard the plane, there was no thought of danger from the ground. Every effort was being directed to keep the plane in the air for the remaining minutes until it reached the safety of the coast of England. The _Flat Top_ was dangerously low on fuel, and Kelly was struggling to reach one of the emergency landing fields just across the Channel.\n\nThe antiaircraft gunners opened up on the bomber. The first two bursts were wide of the target, but the third caught the plane squarely in the port wing. The great plane shuddered as it was hit, and a shout went up from the gun crew.\n\nSergeant Robertson, seated at his radio, heard a loud crunch as the shell exploded and he felt the plane lurch. He looked out the window and saw the port wing of the bomber beginning to buckle. Unstrapping himself from his seat, he ran back to the midsection of the plane, shouting to the two waist gunners that they had to get out. The plane was going down. Neither of them moved or responded. \"They just sat there,\" he recalled later. \"They just froze.\"\n\nAlmost immediately, a large crack opened in the fuselage beside him. Robertson did not hesitate. He dived through the opening. He was outside the plane and hurtling toward the earth. He jerked the rip cord on the parachute and in an instant felt a violent tug as his parachute opened. Robertson began the floating descent down toward what just minutes before he and his fellow airmen had thought was friendly territory.\n\nHe was completely alone. There were no other parachutes. The Fortress had disappeared. Below him lay what seemed to be a large lake\u2014the Germans had flooded the fields near Dunkirk\u2014and, as the sergeant hit the cold but shallow water, the parachute acted as a sail and began to drag him along toward dry land. Robertson disentangled himself from the shrouds and limped out onto a dirt road.\n\nHe had landed on one of the German farms. There was no one in sight. He soon realized, however, that he was not going to get very far. His ankle was broken, and he was wearing only the electrically heated inner boots. The sturdier outer flight boots had been ripped from his feet by the force of the parachute opening.\n\nA German patrol soon found Robertson hobbling down the road. He was taken to the Dunkirk city jail, where he joined other prisoners from Canada and the United States.\n\nThere then occurred one of those coincidences that sometimes create a bond between even the bitterest enemies. When the German officer in charge learned during the interrogation that Robertson was from Georgia, his demeanor softened somewhat. He had run the high hurdles on the German team at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, and he had become friendly with an American hurdler from Robertson's home state.\n\nThe Wehrmacht officer ensured that the sergeant's ankle was cared for and that he was well treated during the sixty-three days he was a prisoner of war. In April, Robertson was repatriated in an exchange of prisoners of war negotiated by the International Red Cross.\n\nThe _Flat Top_ had crashed on land just a few miles short of the Channel. The bodies of Kelly and the seven other men who had gone down with the plane were recovered from the wreckage and buried by the Germans outside Dunkirk. They were not officially declared dead until the following October, when the graves were examined by the Americans. Kelly's body was shipped home on an army transport and buried in his hometown. He was awarded the Purple Heart and the Air Medal.\n\nDunkirk, like several other isolated German-occupied garrisons scattered along the French coast, held out until the very end of the war. This small French coastal town, which had become so famous at the beginning of the war as a symbol of military folly, British resolve, or both, was among the very last Nazi strongholds to fall to the Allies. Dunkirk did not surrender until 9 May 1945.\n\nSergeant Robertson's war injury continued to vex him more than fifty years later. From a veteran's nursing home in Decatur, Georgia, he castigated Montgomery for the loss of the _Flat Top_ and the deaths of his companions. The victor of El Alamein, said Robertson, bore responsibility because he had failed in his assignment to clear the remaining Nazis out of the French coastal areas and adjoining Belgium and Holland.\n\nMargaret Armstrong traveled to Alabama for her fianc\u00e9's funeral. Eventually she married and had children and grandchildren. But she retained her memories of Walter Kelly. \"I can still remember his accent,\" she recalled a half century later.\n\n# CHAPTER ELEVEN\n\n**ASH WEDNESDAY, 1945**\n\nA City Laid Waste\n\n**W hen he emerged from the air-raid shelter at Weidner's Sanato**rium at dawn on Ash Wednesday, Gerhart Hauptmann caught his breath. The evening before he had beheld from the heights of Oberloschwitz a city still celebrated for its grace and beauty. This morning the fabled spires and towers rose from a sea of flame and smoke. Sections of Dresden would become visible as the firestorm swept away the smoke, like a curtain being pulled back, revealing a city in its death throes. Almost at once the curtain would fall again, but the fiery hurricane would sweep away the pall covering another part of the city and the poet would be given a glimpse of yet more horror. Hauptmann at once began an elegy to the city he called \"my jewel.\"\n\n\"A person who has forgotten how to weep,\" he wrote, \"learns how once more at the sight of the destruction of Dresden. Till now, this clear morning star of my youth has illumined the world. I know that there are quite a few good people in England and America, to whom the divine light of the Sistine Madonna was not unknown, and who now weep, profoundly and grievously affected by the extinguishing of this star....\n\n\"From Dresden, from its wonderfully sustained nurturing of the fine arts, literature, and music, glorious streams have flowed throughout all the world, and England and America have also drunk from them thirstily. Have they forgotten that?\n\n\"I am nearly eighty-three years old and stand before God with a last request, which is unfortunately without force and comes only from the heart: it is the prayer that God should love and purify and refine mankind more than heretofore\u2014for their own salvation.\"\n\n**A young Dresden historian** , Matthias Neutzner, began a systematic study of the Dresden raids in the 1980s. His landmark work, collected in two books\u2014 _Angriff: Martha Heinrich Acht\u2014Leben im Bombenkrieg, Dresden, 1944\/45_ and _Lebenszeichen: Dresden im Luftkrieg, 1944\/1945\u2014_ provides invaluable first-person accounts by survivors of the firestorm.\n\nA woman identified as Nora L., the daughter of a laborer, recalled her own family's ordeal the night of 13\u201314 February. She was then thirteen years old and lived with her family at 50 Holbeinstrasse, in Johannstadt, which lay in the direct line of attack of the first wave of bombers.\n\nDuring this raid, Nora, her parents, and her two brothers, aged fifteen and five, huddled in the basement, listening to the roar of the British aircraft and the crash of bombs. They had brought with them the always-packed emergency suitcase and their identity papers.\n\nNora said she was trembling so badly that people sitting with them became alarmed and entreated her mother, who was holding the youngest child on her lap, to attend to her. But, said Nora, \"She could not, she was like a piece of stone.\"\n\nAs terrible as the ordeal in the cellar was, the girl was relatively safe there. It was when they emerged from the shelter that their nightmare began. The parents were determined to save what they could from their burning apartment building, and they left the girl and her little brother in the nearby D\u00fcrerplatz. It was a large square with grass and trees, and the parents felt that the children would be safe there from the burning debris, which had begun to fly through the air as the flames grew.\n\nWhen her parents did not return and the flames became more threatening, a young neighbor from their apartment building, who had also taken refuge in the comparative safety of the D\u00fcrerplatz with her baby, took charge of Nora and her little brother. They set off for the open spaces along the Elbe, just a few blocks away, as Nora recalled.\n\n\"I took my brother by the hand and we left. We tried to get through in the direction of the Elbe. The woman carried her baby. I had the suitcase and two blankets. It was a lot to carry. Some items I carried on my back, some stuff under my arm and I dragged my little brother behind me.\n\n\"We tried D\u00fcrerstrasse, but that was no longer possible because the burning houses collapsed. We kept in the middle of the street to avoid the stuff that came flying\u2014bricks, window frames, and whatever. It was a firestorm like a tornado. We imagined it to be simple. And it was not really far, only twenty-two meters to F\u00fcrstenstrasse. But we could not get through. The woman with the baby kept urging me on and I tried to hide my fear. But there was no alternative and then we decided to enter a house and wait in the cellar till morning. And there we witnessed the second raid and that was even worse. The first time my parents had been around me and now I was alone with the little one.\"\n\nThe girl and her brother and their unnamed but heroic guardian had fortunately sheltered in a large house in a row of houses with connecting basements. One of the few air-raid precautions taken in the city was to replace the thick cellar walls between adjoining houses with thin partitions. As one basement filled with smoke or the house above collapsed, the inhabitants would then be able to knock out the thin brick or plaster partition and flee into the next house. And thus, by fleeing from house to house the people would, theoretically, be able to reach safe ground.\n\nIn actuality the system often doomed more people than it saved. In a firestorm, the fire was all around. A group fleeing one burning building might very well run directly into a group fleeing from the opposite direction. And when the fires had died down, thousands of bodies were found in the end houses of city blocks, where the people fleeing the flames and smoke had found themselves with no more walls to tear down. The system had created hundreds of fatal cul-de-sacs.\n\nOther precautions also turned out to be a cause of death rather than a preventive. Gigantic open rectangular water tanks were erected in several of the squares, the one in the Altmarkt being particularly large. Ostensibly for use by the fire brigades after the water mains were destroyed, these uncovered reservoirs turned into death traps.\n\nIn a desperate attempt to escape the flames, hundreds of people scaled the walls of the tanks and jumped into the water. Inside, they soon realized their mistake. Unable to scale the walls and get out of the tanks, they either drowned or were boiled alive in the superheated water.\n\nWhen the second raid collapsed the house above them, Nora and her brother began the trek through the subterranean passages from house to house in the block where they had sought refuge. \"We passed from one cellar to the next. First I passed through our bags, my brother and so on.... But we finally got out and I don't remember how. I could do it only because the woman with the baby kept urging me on.\"\n\nShe was fortunate. They were able to exit onto the wide F\u00fcrsten-strasse, where it was possible to breathe, and with breath came some hope, even though most of the neighborhood of Johannstadt was a burning wreck. The hospital at the end of the F\u00fcrstenstrasse, near the Elbe, had survived the raid, and there the children stayed until dawn, when they headed for the safety of the river.\n\n\"Then we went to the Elbe,\" she said. \"It was a gruesome picture. Corpses lying about, sometimes only a head or leg. And I trudged along with little brother. I had lost the woman in the crowds. Large numbers of people were at the Elbe. Those who had lived nearby had things they saved from the houses and put them down at the bank. Many had fled to the Elbe after the first raid and had died there.\"\n\nNora led her brother around the pitiful piles of shattered possessions and the mutilated corpses and crossed the river via the Albertbr\u00fccke, which had a large hole from a high-explosive bomb.\n\n\"My parents had told us that when something goes wrong\u2014and one had to expect that it would, there were rumors\u2014we will meet in Wilschdorf, where the family had a garden. So we made for Wilschdorf and it took a long time. Progress was slow, we had not slept and were exhausted. But we were in the Neustadt. There were houses standing and we felt a little safer.\"\n\nThe safety, however, was illusory. At midday, the third raid, this time by the U.S. Eighth Air Force, began. Nora and her brother had taken shelter at a hospital at the intersection of Liststrasse and Grossenhainerstrasse, and she vividly remembered hearing the detonations of the bombs from the American B-17s.\n\nAt this hospital shelter, three other children, also refugees from 50 Holbeinstrasse, were overjoyed to see Nora and her brother. \"So now we were five on the way to Wilschdorf,\" she related.\n\nThe other children, who were even younger, soon tired and said they could not go on, but Nora managed to get them to the next reception center, where they were able to spend the night. The next morning, since the children were still too exhausted to resume the trek, she decided to go on to Wilschdorf alone, get a cart, and return for them.\n\n\"My brother of course did not want to be separated from me, so we followed Moritzburger Chaussee toward Wilschdorf. Trucks loaded high with corpses passed us going to the Heidefriedhof [the central cemetery]. That was on 15 February.\"\n\nAfter almost two days on foot, the heroic thirteen-year-old girl and her little brother covered the twelve miles from their home on the Holbeinstrasse to the family garden plot in the suburb of Wilschdorf. Her parents' joy was matched only by that of a neighbor who also had found her way to Wilschdorf but was grieving for her lost children.\n\n\"I could tell her that they had also been saved,\" said Nora. \"So we went and got them right away.\"\n\n**The great decision facing** every survivor after the initial bombardments was whether to remain in the relative safety of the shelters or leave them for the dangers in the streets. Typical was the woman who stayed in a shelter throughout the two raids but then decided to take her chances aboveground. She emerged from the basement into the heart of the firestorm. She later recalled the experience:\n\n\"In the street all hell had broken loose and I became suddenly aware of the violent storm from which we had been protected in the basement. It blew like a hurricane from the direction of Borsbergstrasse. Of some houses, only the roofs were in flames, others spewed flames from the first floor apartments. The heat was so great that I was not conscious at that time of my burns....\n\n\"Parts of roofs fell from some houses into the street or the burned floors within the buildings came down making an enormous noise and released giant clouds of sparks moving through the street. When the stones gave way, they and the roof tiles crashed on the granite tiles of the sidewalk and broke apart. The air was filled with the stench of burning material and biting smoke and clouds of sparks came at us from all sides. These obstacles delayed our flight. We did not see any others, who should have also been fleeing at this time. Our residential area appeared to have turned into a fiery hell devoid of people.\"\n\n**A Dresdener who directed** a Red Cross camp in Meissen mourned for her bombed city, and her cries might have been those of millions of other Germans: \"I don't understand anything anymore. It always sounded different when they spoke of other cities. But perhaps it was never the same as here.\" In the same mournful letter written to her daughters on 15 February 1945, she mentions that while the raid was in progress she \"stood in our small yard and guarded my Polish women, because they keep running from the shelter and out in the street.\"\n\nThe Polish women at the Red Cross camp were part of the more than eight million \"foreign workers\" in the Third Reich. Whether these women were there willingly is not clear. One recoils at the thought of the German Red Cross using slave labor. Then again, many military prisoners of war wound up in slave-labor camps.\n\nDetermined to find her children, whom she had left at their home in Dresden, the Red Cross worker started out on the morning of 14 February to look for them. Her moving account of the search for her children could be that of any desperate mother, whether a citizen of London, Coventry, Rotterdam, or Hamburg. Ideology and politics become distant concerns when one's children are in danger.\n\nAt the Meissen station, she was told that trains were running as far as Radebeul, about halfway to Dresden, but at K\u00f6tzschenbroda everyone was obliged to leave the train since the tracks ahead were destroyed. The trams, however, were operating as far as the terminal at Radebeul, after which the woman had no choice but to proceed on foot.\n\nIt was by then noon and the third wave of planes, the American Eighth Air Force, appeared over the city. \"The bombs fell, they were shooting from the planes and everyone ran to the next bomb shelter,\" she said.\n\nAfter the all clear, the woman was able to flag down a car bearing a red cross. Since she was in uniform the driver agreed to let her ride as far as the Neustadt, but after just a short distance the car could go no farther. The road was impassable.\n\n\"The car stopped below an underpass and we saw the first corpses,\" she related. \"So I got out and planned to walk to the Marienbr\u00fccke, because the Augustusbr\u00fccke was said to be destroyed. People coming from there told me it was impossible because of the thick smoke and I knew they were right. The whole city was behind a thick black layer of smoke. So I went through the park toward the Neust\u00e4dter Markt. There I met fire brigades from Meissen and other places, but they did nothing, although houses were burning all along the Elbe, although there should have been enough water. They told me that it was impossible to enter into the city without a gas mask or goggles and all of them had red, inflamed eyes, same as I today.\n\n\"Twenty paces away from me fell the burning roof of the Japanese Palace on the street. I ran to Meissener Gasse, which burned bright. Detoured through another street that was not so totally bad and reached the Neust\u00e4dter Markt, where many houses were burning or had collapsed. The base of the memorial [the equestrian statue of Augustus the Strong] stood and the steeple of the Martin Luther Church could be seen.\n\n\"But fear for my children drove me on and I chanced along onto the [Augustus] bridge, while the men stayed back. The driving surface had large holes, handrails torn off, stones broken, but I did not care, all I wanted was to get across and I made it. On the Schloss-platz were two units with shovels but they just stood there. I did not see anybody moving a hand or dig as long as I was in Dresden. Could not pass through the Schloss-strasse, which was blocked by mountains of debris. So also the Augustus-strasse. The St\u00e4ndehaus was aflame. The [Br\u00fchl] Terrace, I think, was still there and of the Schloss, the lower part. I could not see and remember everything. And the thick smoke and rain of sparks from the burning houses, because on top of everything, a strong wind came up.\n\n\"At where the Neumarkt starts, I passed burning streetcars and debris several meters high. But it was not possible to cross. Debris covered all to a height of several meters.\"\n\nShe returned the way she had come, and at the Georgentor, the great neo-Renaissance gate leading into the Royal Palace, a rider on a motorcycle stopped her and asked if he could get through to the police headquarters on the Schiessgasse. Learning that the way was blocked, he decided that he would detour around the ruins by way of the Elbe and the Carolabr\u00fccke.\n\n\"I said I wanted to go with him,\" she recalled, \"climbed on the passenger seat and we proceeded over burning stuff, wood, etc., to where the Ringstrasse begins and where I got off. The police station was gone.\"\n\nBy this time she had crossed most of Dresden, from the outskirts of the Neustadt, across the river, and through the Altstadt. The piles of rubble that she was forced to negotiate or detour around had been, just a few hours before, some of the most beautiful buildings in the world.\n\nShe had passed the ruins of the cathedral, the broken and burned-out Zwinger, the wreckage of the _Schloss_ , the collapsed and burning opera house, the ruins of the Albertinum, and the blackened but miraculously still-standing Frauenkirche.\n\nIn an ordinary time, she would have been able to reach her neighbor-hood\u2014the area around Sidonienstrasse, L\u00fcttichaustrasse, and Beuststrasse, not far from the central train station, the Hauptbahnhof\u2014in fairly short order. The walk from the Neustadt is not a long one. But this day she had already been en route for hours.\n\nNow she began to see the human toll from the carnage. There were, she said, \"corpses everywhere... a gruesome picture, one next to the other, one on top of the other, naked, burned and totally carbonized... shrunken clumps that used to be humans.... L\u00fcttichaustrasse was totally blocked by ruins. I tried to walk hand in hand with a man since by oneself it was not possible anywhere because of the constant sliding. I had to give up before I got to Moltkeplatz.\n\n\"I thought that along a residential street with detached houses that were not built so close to the street I might be able to pass and so went to Beuststrasse. Here again, every house was destroyed, no tree left, debris in the street. But crawling under or over downed trees and the wreckage of houses I made it. Then Sidonienstrasse. Mountains of debris and not one house that was not burning as everywhere else in the inner city. I met a gentleman and hand in hand we climbed over the ruins.\n\n\"With great effort, scraped shoes and burning eyes we arrived among burning houses, chunks of which fell into the street without pause, over stones, debris, and burning wood to our corner.\"\n\nShe soon discovered that it was impossible to get near her house because of the debris and the flames, but she did not despair, holding out hope that the children had somehow managed to reach a shelter and perhaps were now already out of the city.\n\nIf she had truly believed that they were buried, she said, \"I would, in that case, have had to try all by myself to dig a way to the air-raid shelter and to remove every single stone.\"\n\nUnlike thousands of survivors, this desperate mother found her perseverance rewarded. Her children and an aunt had managed to reach the air-raid shelters and then afterward make their way to the refugee center at Possendorf.\n\nOthers would never know what had happened to their friends and relatives. Were they entombed beneath mountains of rubble? Had they been burned alive or suffocated in the cellars as the firestorm swept over them? Had their bodies been put to the torch in the great funeral pyres in the pubic squares? Or did they lie with thousands of others, unidentified, in the huge communal graves dug outside the city? For many months the ruins of Dresden were covered with notices, often containing photographs, tacked up by survivors desperately looking for the missing.\n\n**In spite of the raids** , the German postal system continued to function, albeit sporadically, and many of the letters and cards from the bombed-out Dresdeners have survived. In addition to longer letters, there were brief notes\u2014senders were limited to just ten words\u2014on red-bordered postcards, which had been issued by the authorities for use in emergencies.\n\nTypical of the letters describing the raid was one from a woman who had found refuge in a school at Reichstadt. She and two other women and an infant had escaped with just a few clothes from Dresden's Altstadt.\n\n\"After the first raid, we had to get out of the cellar without knowing how and when. Everything thickly covered with smoke. No passage open. We sat there for a long time. Then passed through Viktoriastrasse into a sea of flames. By myself I would probably not have found the courage and strength to pass through fire and tons of debris. We just wanted to find an open area. Everything in flames. Turned the corner toward main station. Train station still stood and we went upstairs to the guard room. Fearful masses of debris. We thought ourselves saved. After a few minutes of silence the 2nd air raid alert sounded. 1\u00bd hours at train station in basement.... The basement ceiling held, but we did not believe we could get out and lay down to die. At about 0500 came word that a passage was open. So we took backpack and suitcase and all and clambered out with great effort. Again a gigantic fire. So we sat in the street for a few hours.\n\n\"Now we are in a school in Reichstadt. It is more than primitive. Toelschen, see if you can send us something. I own what I am wearing, nightgown, panties, sweat pants, pullover, jacket, coat, torn shoes and stockings. Not even a belt. It is awful, I cannot yet comprehend fully and could weep all the time.\"\n\nThis woman and her companions were fortunate to escape from the Hauptbahnhof. Hundreds of other refugees and Dresdeners who had fled to the Central Station perished when the superheated air and poisonous gases swept through the maze of underground tunnels and passages where they had sought refuge.\n\n**Hans-Joachim D. was fifteen years old** in February 1945. He lived with his widowed mother, two-year-old-brother, and some relatives who had fled Silesia in an apartment on the Wiener Platz at the Pragerstrasse, directly across from the Central Station.\n\nThe family realized that something was amiss when they turned on their radio shortly before 2200 hours and there was no music. Suddenly, they heard an announcement that large bomber formations were approaching the city and there was a \"Maximum Threat for Dresden.\"\n\nThe announcement, he recalled, was almost immediately followed by the roar of airplane engines. From the garden, the boy watched as the \"Christmas trees\" and marker flares lit up the night sky, but he quickly retreated into the cellar, a public air-raid shelter designed for sixty that was soon packed with over a hundred people.\n\n\"The first night raid seemed endless. It was horrible in the tightly packed cellar. The many people, the unending thunder of falling bombs, nearby explosions and pressure waves, which tore even the strong metal doors off their hinges. At the door a wave of fire rolled into the shelter and the whole stairwell was in flames. A glance through the cellar window showed that the path through the garden was also blocked.\n\n\"Finally we found a passage through a first floor apartment and through a wall of flames to Wiener Platz.... Around us screaming, despairing people. Refugees with their last belongings. We looked along Pragerstrasse, formerly so splendid and elegant, where the 19th-century building of the Kaiser Wilhelm Caf\u00e9 was hidden by flames. Flames shot everywhere from shop windows. It looked like a painting of hell. Further away, resembling a torch, the tower of City Hall. Flames came out of its roof below the Golden Man.\"\n\nThis last is a reference to the gigantic gilded statue of Hercules that stood atop the tower of the Rathaus, or City Hall. The tower with its golden statue miraculously survived and once again crowns the rebuilt Dresden City Hall.\n\nLike many of his fellow citizens, the young man attempted to return to the family apartment to salvage something before the building was totally consumed. He left his mother and brother in a house behind the Hauptbahnhof and returned to Wiener Platz, where with the aid of fellow tenants, some French workers, he carried suitcases, dishes, and food into the square. He hoped the pitiful pile of belongings would be safe there until they could be gathered up the next day. But now the second wave of bombers appeared.\n\n\"Suddenly we heard the whine of a siren again, very weak. It was not the large ones on the rooftops, which had all been destroyed. This thin whine came from a portable hand-operated siren. They come again! Passed on from mouth to mouth. Again the bombs crashed down and the bombers roared through the sky. We ran for our lives and reached the house where I knew my mother and brother would be. It was a miracle I found them again in the crowd that ran to the shelters. This was also a public shelter. So many came in that the stairway was full of people and the steel door could hardly be closed. Several steel lockers stood in the shelter corridor in a row. We found space between two of them and this turned out later to be what saved us.\n\n\"We lay on the floor, mouths open\u2014as we had learned to do because of the explosion pressure\u2014when the terror began again. We felt that the bombs were concentrated on the rail station and buildings near it. A full hit during the first few minutes destroyed the adjoining house down to the cellar. A cellar wall broke open and a flood of fire reached the people standing and sitting in our cellar. Women, children, and men fell over each other in a panic. The screams of the wounded mixed with the roaring of the explosions above us.\n\n\"Then followed a tremendous boom that lifted us off the floor. A pressure wave raced along the cellar corridor. Then it was still. This pressure wave had torn the lungs of almost everyone in the cellar corridor. Only the few of us who had lain between the steel lockers survived.\"\n\nThe boy, his mother, and his little brother did survive, and after several hours in the pitch-blackness of the cellar, among the piles of corpses, they were rescued when a hole was opened through a wall into Winckelmannstrasse by a rescue team that had heard them knocking on the wall.\n\n\"Outside we encountered the indescribable firestorm,\" he said. \"In front and behind us, the roofs of two houses fell down. For some minutes, my mother and brother had disappeared in a cloud of sparks. Then I heard a voice from the other side of the street, 'Over here!' Holding onto each other, our clothes on fire, we jumped across the already burning asphalt and reached a house that had little damage.\n\n\"This single villa on Winckelmannstrasse survived all air raids and is now the Hotel Classic. There, our saviors threw wet blankets over us, took us into the cellar and so let us survive the night a second time.\"\n\nThe boy, his mother, and his little brother set out in the morning for his grandparents' house in the suburb of Kemnitz. Their circuitous route led them over piles of smoking rubble many meters high, and everywhere were corpses, many of them carbonized. A few days later, he and his grandfather, pulling a wooden handcart, returned to the Wiener Platz to look for the household goods.\n\n\"How I wish we had not done so,\" he recalled. \"Everything was actually there on Wiener Platz, where we had dumped the things after the first raid. But everything had melted: glass, flatware, porcelain. Behind the train station, under the track overpass, were stacked hundreds of dead and more were being added all the time from the station and nearby cellars. A wave of bad-smelling heat from the cellar where we had barely escaped hit us in the face. Of our house, only a piece of wall and a mountain of debris lay on Wiener Platz.\n\n\"As was the routine, we wrote our address on a wall: 'We are alive, live in Kemnitz, Flensburgerstrasse 16.'\n\n\"This scrawl remained there for a long time. Today, the tunnel on the train station side passes through what was our cellar.\"\n\n**In the early evening** of 13 February, fourteen-year-old Renate Heilfort was standing in the ticket line at the cinema on the Postplatz. The line was long, and when it was announced that there would be no more tickets available until the nine o'clock showing the young girl decided not to wait but to take the tram home to the suburb of Zschachwitz, a distance of about five kilometers. This decision would save her life. Not long after she reached home the first bombs began to fall on the Postplatz, which was at the center of the firestorm. The theater and all the surrounding buildings were obliterated.\n\n**Gerhart Sommer, who was** eight years old in 1945, lived with his mother, his little sister, and his thirteen-year-old brother, who was an assistant on an ambulance, in the suburb of Reick, just southeast of the Grosser Garten. His father was with the Wehrmacht in Hungary.\n\nOne is struck time and again, in the wrenching stories of the survivors, by the central role played by women and children, who were, of course, the main component of the civilian urban population.\n\nGerhart's mother herded the two smaller children into the basement of the house when the alarm sounded. His brother was on duty in the town center. First, however, she checked to make sure that each had a handkerchief. This was not just a typical mother's admonition. A handkerchief soaked in one's own urine could serve as a makeshift gas mask and save one's life in the dense smoke in the streets or in a cellar suddenly filled with smoke and carbon monoxide.\n\nAs they fled into the basement shelter, the \"Christmas trees\" had started to fall and the city was lit up like daylight. It was eerily beautiful, recalled Gerhart, but the mother did not allow them to tarry.\n\nWithin minutes the bombs began to fall, and although Reick was well out of the central targeting area, several high-explosive bombs fell within a hundred meters of the house. The concussion was so great that even at that distance the family was lifted into the air and flung against the far wall of the cellar. Doors buckled, and every window was blown out.\n\nThe family was fortunate to have survived the blasts from the highexplosive bombs, which were designed not only to blow up buildings but to create shock waves of such power that all the internal organs that were filled with air\u2014the lungs, the stomach, and the intestines\u2014exploded. Thus many corpses had no external wounds or damage.\n\nOne witness reported seeing a tram filled with passengers, all of them dead, killed instantly by the concussion wave from a highexplosive bomb, which had destroyed their hearts and lungs. Not one had an external wound. The windows had exploded outward, so that none of the glass had pierced their bodies. There they sat, he recalled, appearing as if they had just fallen asleep.\n\nThe Sommer family stayed in their shelter until daylight, when Gerhart and a friend named Peter, a child of the same age who lived next door, went out to investigate. Even small children had been taught how to deal with unexploded ordnance, in particular the small incendiary bombs, and the two little boys set off several that they found in the street by poking them with a piece of lumber.\n\nJust before noon, Gerhart's brother arrived home. His ambulance, which had been transporting wounded to the Elbe Meadows, had been hit and destroyed by machine-gun fire from an American fighter plane. The mother then loaded up a four-wheeled cart with household goods and with her three children began the trek to relatives in the countryside, where they would live until the end of April.\n\nIn May, the entire family was reunited when the father returned home from the east. He and a group of comrades had commandeered a locomotive and had managed to get as far as Pirna, just a few miles from Dresden, before the engine gave out. They had walked the rest of the way home.\n\n**All the stories told** by survivors heartbreakingly underscore the true cost of air war against civilians, but that of Mrs. S., who lived at 19 Webergasse, just a block from the Altmarkt and thus at the epicenter of the firestorm, is particularly wrenching.\n\n\"Then came the second raid and we went down into the basement again,\" she recalled. \"I carried my son and placed a wet cloth over his face because of the smoke.... I do not know at what time my child was dead, or my mother. I fainted. When I came to, the corpses were lying on top of me.\n\n\"I pulled myself out from under to see if there was a way out. But my legs would not support me because of a torn ligament and so I could only crawl on my knees. But I could not see an exit.\"\n\nMrs. S. lay there until Thursday with the bodies of her son and her mother. When they were finally dug out, she was told she was one of six survivors out of ninety-five people who had sought refuge in the cellar. \"You cannot imagine how they were stacked on top of each other,\" she said. \"Eighty-nine corpses.\"\n\nMore than thirty years later she still carried the photographs and the death certificates of her son and mother. \"This was the little one,\" she said, showing her interviewer the picture of her dead son. \"He was seventeen months old.\"\n\n**As these tragedies and** dramas were playing out in the streets of Dresden, the aerial bombardment continued. The American air force, which had completed the triple blow on 14 February, was back the next day. On 15 February 1945, another 211 B-17s from the Eighth Air Force dropped another 464 tons of bombs on the crippled city. The primary targets that day were the oil refineries at B\u00f6hlen and Ruhland, but when the weather closed in over those targets, the pilots had to opt for the secondary target, Dresden.\n\nBombing was done by H2X, and though it was scattered and by no means as effective as during the three previous raids, it was devastating to the stunned survivors below, who were struggling desperately, searching for victims while trying to extinguish the hundreds of fires that were still burning.\n\nAnd on this day, perhaps the most crushing psychological blow of all was delivered to the Dresdeners. The Frauenkirche, the Church of Our Lady, the dominant feature of the townscape, miraculously still stood after three devastating waves of Allied bombers had destroyed everything around it.\n\nBut the sandstone foundation and supports were fatally weakened by the flames that had roared around the great church since the first British planes had appeared two nights before. At 1015 on 15 February, the dome of the church, more than a hundred meters high, began to buckle. In just a few seconds the proud symbol of the Florence on the Elbe since 1734 was a pile of smoking rubble. The last vestige of old Dresden was gone.\n\n**Later that same day** , at 1530, another plane appeared over Dresden, but this one was hardly noticed by the dazed survivors, if they even bothered to register its presence. This plane from 542 Squadron of the RAF had a benign mission: to photograph the carnage below. The quality of the prints is poor because of the smoke from the fires, but it is clear that the raids had their intended effect.\n\nThe areas most affected were south of the Elbe\u2014the city center, or Altstadt, and the adjoining areas of Johannstadt and S\u00fcduorstadt\u2014which were effectively 100 percent destroyed. Houses were destroyed or damaged as far as the suburb of Loschwitz. The Neustadt, north of the river, was less severely damaged, but the sectors near the river were essentially flattened and burned out. The Carola Bridge was judged out of service, and while the Augustus Bridge was heavily damaged it was probably usable. The railway bridge was seriously damaged as well.\n\nPut simply, the destroyed area contained all the important cultural, religious, and civic buildings of Dresden. These included the Zwinger, the Albertinum, the Academy of Art, the Japanese Palace, the state archives; the museums of antiquities, of the army, of folklore, of history, and of prehistory; the Hofkirche, the Kreuzkirche, the Sophienkirche, and the Frauenkirche; the Semper Oper and the Schauspielhaus; the Royal Palace and the adjoining Taschenbergpalais; the Rathaus; the Zoological Garden; the Grosser Garten; the train stations; and the majority of the hospitals.\n\nBut as vast as the destruction of the cultural treasures was, the destruction of thousands of private homes and apartments, the electrical-generating system, the food-distribution system, and the sewage and water systems were the more immediate calamity. And everywhere there were the bodies of the dead, whose decomposing corpses portended a health crisis of terrible proportions.\n\nWhat was to be done with the thousands of corpses being carried out of the basements or still lying in the streets? Day after day, bodies were loaded onto the only available transport, horse-drawn wagons, and taken away to be buried in vast mass graves at the Heidefriedhof, on the Dresdner Heide, the heath northeast of the city.\n\nBy the end of February, it was realized that this system could not cope with the rising health emergency. The city center was sealed off and giant grills made of girders and metal shutters from a nearby department store were erected in the Altmarkt. The horse-drawn carts with their cargoes of corpses were then diverted to the ancient square. There the bodies were stacked on the grills like cordwood, five hundred at a time, doused with gasoline, and set ablaze. Almost ten thousand of the dead were disposed of in this way, and the stench of burning flesh hung in the air for weeks.\n\nFor some of the survivors it was the smell in the streets\u2014a sickening mixture of high explosives, phosphorous, ash, smoke, and, above all, burning flesh\u2014that they would never forget. A woman who survived the firestorm and later immigrated to America recounted that on a visit to Dresden fifty years later she could still smell the burning corpses and was nearly overcome when she stepped out of a car at the Altmarkt.\n\n**In 1975, a gravedigger** at the Heidefriedhof unearthed an urn while opening a new grave. The urn contained a report written by a young soldier identified only as Gottfried, and dated 12 March 1945.\n\n\"On 13 February we heard the early warning. Mother got ready and kept her good humor, while father was seriously concerned as he always is when danger threatens from the air. Christa [the soldier's wife] wrapped up her little Mike and we went to the air raid shelter under the house in front of ours. Everything was as usual and we hoped to be able to return soon upstairs. This was Shrove Tuesday (Mardi Gras)! But it was not long before [a neighbor] brought us the report: 'Fighter units en route to city.' A few minutes later we no longer needed an air situation report to know that this time we were it.\n\n\"The enemy planes dropped flares and the well-known 'Christmas trees' over the whole area of the city. The first detonator bombs fell. Outside the wild dance of the man-made elements of destruction. The raid lasted an eternity, finally, 'All Clear.'\n\n\"My father and I immediately went upstairs to see what had become of the house.... All doors and windows were torn to pieces. Both houses, front and back plus those on both sides looked awful. On the top floor of the building in back I extinguished two incendiary bombs.... The building along the side was already burning and a blast of wind threatened our building in the back. The wind soon turned into a storm and tore up everything inside, because there were no more doors. The house across the street was also in flames. I stood on the roof garden surrounded by a firestorm that kept getting worse. Before long, all buildings in this area were on fire. Timed explosives kept going off.\"\n\nWhen the second raid came, the soldier, his wife, and their infant son took refuge in the basement of an already burning house, where they remained, surrounded by fire, until 0930 on the morning of 14 February. When they emerged, on the Grosse Plauensche Strasse, they could see that his parents' house had taken a direct hit and was just a smoking ruin. The entire area around the Central Station, he said, \"was nothing but debris and ashes as far as the eye could see.\"\n\n\"Total destruction. Lunacy.... Only a few survivors came crawling out of their basements, no air raid wardens, no help, just nothing. We had to get the child out of this hellish smoke. I carried the boy over mountains of debris, between burning and collapsing buildings, past the dead and dying.\n\n\"Six days later I went to the wrecked house. The debris was still so hot that one could not step on it without burning the soles of one's shoes. Then I heard that the recovered bodies were being taken to the Altmarkt to be burned with flame throwers. I wanted to spare our relatives this fate.\"\n\nWith the help of a corporal from his unit and six prisoners of war, the young man started digging into the shelter beneath his parents' house. Even then, a week after the raid, the heat was still so intense in the cellar that they could remain there for only a few minutes. But despite the poor light, he said, \"I saw the most painful scene ever.... Several persons were near the entrance, others at the flight of steps and many others further back in the cellar. The shapes suggested human corpses. The body structure was recognizable and the shape of the skulls, but they had no clothes. Eyes and hair carbonized but not shrunk. When touched, they disintegrated into ashes, totally, no skeleton or separate bones.\n\n\"I recognized a male corpse as that of my father. His arm had been jammed between two stones, where shreds of his grey suit remained. What sat not far from him was no doubt mother. The slim build and shape of the head left no doubt. I found a tin and put their ashes in it. Never had I been so sad, so alone and full of despair. Carrying my treasure and crying I left the gruesome scene. I was trembling all over and my heart threatened to burst. My helpers stood there, mute under the impact.\n\n\"What else is there to write? There are three copies, one I put in the urn.\"\n\n**Variations on this melancholy** theme were played out for decades after the war. For years the skeletons of victims were discovered in the ruins of Dresden as rubble was removed or foundations for new buildings were erected.\n\nOne particularly poignant discovery was made when the ruins adjacent to the Altmarkt were being excavated in the 1990s. The workmen found the skeletons of a dozen young women who had been recruited from the countryside to come into Dresden and help run the trams during the war. They had taken shelter from the rain of bombs in an ancient vaulted subbasement, where their remains lay undisturbed for almost fifty years.\n\n# CHAPTER TWELVE\n\n**\"MR. PRIME MINISTER?\"**\n\nQuestions in Parliament and World Opinion\n\n**A t the Allied Air Commanders Conference two weeks after the** Dresden firestorm, there seemed to be no particular concern with public opinion. And the outcry over Dresden had caused no change in Bomber Command's policies. On the night of 23\u201324 February, ten days after the triple blow on Dresden, some areas of which were still smoldering, Pforzheim had been subjected to one of the most devastating raids of the war. The area of destruction comprised 83 percent of the town, and 17,600 people died.\n\nThe Pforzheim attack, according to the minutes of the meeting, \"had been what was popularly known as a terror attack.\" Harris knew that in certain quarters the value of these area attacks was disputed, but the town contained innumerable small workshops for the manufacture of precision instruments, and he said that the attack must have destroyed the \"home-work\" of the population and their equipment, since 25 percent of the population was now dead. Given the percentage of the population killed, the Pforzheim raid was probably the most deadly raid of the war. Bomber Command had now destroyed sixty-three German towns in this fashion.\n\nWhile Spaatz and Doolittle kept silent at this meeting, they made clear elsewhere and with some frequency their opposition to morale bombing. But they had also called for widespread attacks across Germany, which, combined with heavy attacks against places like Berlin, would have had \"a more decisive effect upon morale.\" Spaatz had, five days earlier, been singled out in a broadcast by the turncoat commentator Donald Day on the Nazi English-language radio station, who'd declared,\n\nThe Wehrmacht has decided to confer a special decoration upon Gen. Spaatz, the commander of the US bombing forces in England. This special decoration is the Order of the White Feather. The Wehrmacht thinks that Gen. Spaatz earned this decoration when he sent over a fleet of nearly 1,000 US bombers to lay a carpet of bombs across Berlin. Gen. Spaatz and the Americans commanded by him knew that Berlin was crowded with hundreds of thousands of refugees, principally women and children, who had fled before the organized savagery and terrorism of the Bolshevik Communist Red Army.\n\nDay was referring to the thousand-bomber raid of 3 February. Berlin, he said, was already taxed to the limit housing and feeding refugees, and the planes that should have protected the city were in the east, helping the German army fend off the common foe of Bolshevism, which threatened not just Germany but all of Europe.\n\nOn the day of this broadcast, 17 February, while Day was warning of the horrors of Bolshevism, thousands of Jews were being herded along roads and highways like so many cattle, forced to make their way westward on foot in the bitter cold of an eastern European winter. These were the pitiful remnants, the last few survivors of the concentration camps in the east, which lay in the path of the Soviet advance.\n\nWhile Day was ranting about American atrocities and the dangers of Bolshevism, the forced march of a thousand Jewish women from the camp at Neusalz on the Oder had reached the Neisse River\u2014at least for those who were still alive. The survivors\u2014there would be only two hundred at the end of the ordeal\u2014would not reach the camp at Flossenburg for another three weeks.\n\nThe day after Day's broadcast, 18 February, the last of the few hundred protected Jews in the German homeland were ordered to collection points for deportation to Theresienstadt. There were to be no exceptions. Marriage to an Aryan no longer could save them.\n\nDay, of course, did not mention that the American bombs also dispensed a rough justice at the court building in Berlin where the trials of the conspirators in the 20 July bomb plot against the F\u00fchrer were going on. Thousands of accused conspirators had already been tried in show trials and executed.\n\nThe president of the People's Court was the rabid Nazi Roland Freisler, who did not so much preside as perform. His hysterical diatribes were cunningly devised to humiliate the defendants, cow the onlookers, and, not so incidentally, curry favor with Hitler, who viewed the news-reels of the trials.\n\nFreisler was crushed to death as the court building collapsed around him during the raid. The trials were suspended and several of the defendants were saved by the raid and survived the war. Other plotters, such as Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, chief of the Abwehr, military intelligence, were not so fortunate. He was executed by the Gestapo on 9 April, just a month before the German surrender.\n\n**Bomber Harris somewhat peevishly** complained to his colleagues at the Allied Air Commanders Conference that although Bomber Command had been fighting Germany for five years, their role in the destruction of Germany was not being properly appreciated by the ground forces, which were just entering Germany. In response, it was suggested that perhaps air crews should visit the infantry and tank divisions and that ground forces could profit from visits to airfields.\n\nDoolittle, mindful of the criticism of the friendly-fire disasters caused by bad navigation during close air support of ground troops, was not optimistic about such a public relations campaign. \"Eighth Air Force Crews would have to be careful not to visit an outfit that they had bombed,\" he wryly remarked.\n\nInterestingly, Harris had been with Churchill at Chequers the evening of the Pforzheim attack. Churchill had returned just four days before from the Yalta Conference. When Bomber Command had finished with its task, the prime minister mused aloud over dinner, \"What will lie between the white snows of Russia and the White Cliffs of Dover?\" Churchill's remark to Harris can be read in several ways, but it is clear that he recognized the awful power of aerial bombardment.\n\nHe added that if he lived he would concentrate on one thing: the building and maintenance of a powerful air force. No doubt Britain, in the postwar world, would have to carve out a new niche for itself, caught as it was between the \"huge Russian bear and a great American elephant.\"\n\nHarris, surprisingly, demurred. He saw more promise in the German V-2 rockets. Although they were no match at that stage for the devastating power of his bomber fleets, they were clearly a portent of the future. \"The bomber is a passing phase and, like the battleship, it has nearly passed,\" he said to the prime minister.\n\nEarlier, as the guests had gathered in the great hall of Chequers, waiting to go into dinner, John Colville, Churchill's secretary, had asked Harris what the effect of the raid on Dresden had been. \"Dresden? There is no such place as Dresden,\" Harris had replied.\n\nColville also records that during this same evening Churchill remarked that Carl Spaatz was \"a man of limited intelligence,\" to which Harris replied, \"You pay him too high a compliment.\"\n\nIf his book _Bomber Offensive_ is any guide, Harris seemingly never changed his opinion of his American counterpart. He mentions Spaatz only once, in passing. As for Eaker, Anderson, and Doolittle, Harris wrote, \"We could have no better brothers in arms... and the Americans could have had no better commanders than these three. I was, and am, privileged to count all three of them as the closest of friends.\" Harris wrote these words in 1947, when Spaatz had not only succeeded Hap Arnold but had been made head of the new and separate United States Air Force.\n\nChurchill, when he made his disparaging remark about Spaatz, no doubt knew of the American's upcoming promotion to four-star general, which came on 11 March. Spaatz himself was informed of the promotion during a poker game. His response was in character. He ordered champagne for everyone and then returned to the business at hand. \"Come on and deal,\" he said.\n\nCarl Spaatz was now one of the highest-ranking men in the American military, but the European operations that he oversaw were already being relegated to second place by Washington. By late March, Spaatz let his anger at the new policies, particularly the diversion of mat\u00e9rial to the Far East, spew forth.\n\n\"It seems,\" he said, \"unjustified that so great and expensive a Military Organization as the Air Force should have its potentialities limited to such serious extent by failure to set up adequate bomb production facilities.\"\n\nSpaatz's cable raised hackles at the Pentagon, but no increases were forthcoming. Lieutenant General Barney M. Giles wrote to his friend that \"it is most improbable that your ultimate desired requirements can ever be met.\"\n\nAttention was shifting to the Pacific theater, where in a short time Spaatz himself would be running the air war. Such are the fortunes of war.\n\n**Goebbels, when he heard** the news of Dresden, wept openly and called on Hitler\u2014who, according to his personal physician was thrown into a black depression\u2014to repudiate the Geneva Convention and start shooting captured pilots and parachutists.\n\nThe propaganda minister issued Gerhart Hauptmann's elegy to the dead city to the press and radio. Hauptmann's work, which Goebbels extolled as exemplifying the work of Germany's most famous poet, was soon broadcast and printed around the world via the neutral countries.\n\nAs for Hitler, he quickly rallied and threatened to heed Goebbels's advice. \"This constant sniveling about humanity will cost us the war,\" he said. A few days later, when he deigned to look at photographs of the thousands of dead Dresdeners, the F\u00fchrer lapsed again into a despairing mood, but it was brief and had no effect on his resolve to fight on.\n\nHitler's quick recovery from his brief and uncharacteristic shock at the destruction of Dresden mirrored his attitude toward the destroyed cities of the Reich. Cities can be rebuilt, he had said more than once in response to the Allied raids. Besides, it had always been his plan to rebuild the cities according to National Socialist ideals, and he had often remarked to Albert Speer that the raids would make the rebuilding easier.\n\nSpeer was an unknown architect in 1933 when he was brought into Hitler's circle to help the F\u00fchrer realize his grandiose schemes, in particular his dream of transforming Berlin into Germania, the new capital of the Thousand-Year Reich. And even though he was raised to the position of armaments minister in 1941, he continued working up plans for this vast transformation. Even as Soviet troops were on the outskirts of Berlin he and Hitler would study the architectural models.\n\nOther high-ranking Nazis were just as zealous as Hitler in their desire to forge a Germany completely based on National Socialist ideals. If the cities and monuments of Germany were destroyed, so be it.\n\nWhen Robert Ley, the German Labor Front leader, heard of the destruction of Dresden, he was exultant. Germany, he said, could \"almost draw a sigh of relief. It is over now. In focusing on our struggle and victory we are now no longer distracted by concerns for the monuments of German culture.\" For Ley these monuments were \"superfluous ballast,\" just so much \"heavy spiritual and material bourgeois baggage.\"\n\nEarly on the evening of 14 February, Goebbels met again with Hitler in the _F\u00fchrerbunker_. Dresden was still aflame. Goebbels denounced G\u00f6ring to the F\u00fchrer and called for his trial and certain execution by hanging or a firing squad for dereliction of duty, citing in particular the miserable showing of the Luftwaffe during the three-part Dresden raid. Hitler put him off.\n\nThree days later, Goebbels resurrected his scheme to execute one Allied prisoner of war for each air-raid victim. Hitler approved, and Goebbels produced a plan justifying this abrogation of the Geneva Convention. This vengeful barbarism came to nothing when Hitler again changed his mind. Several of his henchmen took credit for the plan's demise, particularly those later arrested and tried at Nuremberg.\n\nDwight Eisenhower might have had something to do with the reversal as well. The supreme allied commander warned the Nazis and the German people themselves, in a widely disseminated announcement, that they would be held fully accountable for such actions.\n\n**The Dresden raids** and firestorm immediately became the symbol to many of the horror of a war waged against civilian populations, and for a while in the spring of 1945 there was something of a firestorm as well in the press, the Parliament, the highest reaches of government, and military headquarters. Everyone, it seemed, now had questions about Allied bombing policy in general and the raid on Dresden in particular.\n\nThe brouhaha began just a day or two after the raid when Air Commodore A. M. Grierson briefed reporters at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) on the continuing air campaign. Grierson then offered to take questions from the reporters, and the very first had to do with the attacks on Dresden and other points just ahead of the advancing Red Army. As Grierson explained it, the attacks were the result of recommendations made by the combined strategic targets committee and had three purposes.\n\nDresden and other eastern targets were evacuation centers, and bombing such crowded places would materially disrupt the German war effort. The Wehrmacht had to reassign entire divisions to help out after the raids, and vast amounts of food, fuel, and other mat\u00e9riel had to be diverted to aid the refugees.\n\nDresden and other such cities in the east were also important communications centers, through which passed reinforcements to the Russian front, in particular troops and armaments being withdrawn from the Western Front and transferred to the east.\n\nFinally, by heavily bombing targets so close to the Eastern Front, the Anglo-American air forces were substantially aiding the Soviet advance into the Reich. Russian troops had already crossed the Oder and were threatening Berlin.\n\nGrierson also revealed that there were no Russians on the targets committee; it was purely an Anglo-American body. In answer to a reporter's question, he said that there had been no Russian pressure to bomb Dresden and other eastern cities, that there was no prior consultation, and that thus far the Russians had not commented on the RAF-USAAF offensive.\n\nIndeed, according to Grierson, there was \"no definite arrangement made with [the Russians] for planning beforehand or discussion afterwards at the moment.\" And in response to a question as to what other cities might be on the list of targets, he responded that he couldn't answer offhand but any city that lay on the east-west or north-south communications lines, any city that was a center for evacuation, and any city that had stores of emergency food supplies might be a likely target.\n\nAs for Dresden itself, while the primary goal was to blast communications carrying military supplies, there was another goal, said Grierson: \"to stop movement in all directions if possible\u2014movement of everything.\"\n\nGrierson's frank and, to many of those present, disturbing comments were meant as background, but among the reporters was Howard Cowan of the Associated Press. It is little wonder that Cowan drew the obvious conclusion that bombing policy had, indeed, changed\u2014not so much that of Bomber Command, which had called for bombing German population centers for years, but that of the American Eighth Air Force.\n\nCowan used the briefing as the basis for a story that ran on page one in the _Washington Star_ on 18 February 1945. The article, which inexplicably passed the SHAEF censors without comment, created its own firestorm. At the Pentagon, an outraged and angry Hap Arnold fired off a cable to Spaatz, in which he quoted Cowan's piece in its entirety.\n\nThe Allied Air Commanders have made the long awaited decision to adopt deliberate terror bombing of the great German population centers as a ruthless expedient to hasten Hitler's doom.\n\nMore raids such as the British and American heavy bombers carried out recently on the residential sections of Berlin, Dresden, Chemnitz, and Cottbus are in store for the Reich, and their avowed purpose will be creating more confusion in the German traffic tangle and sapping German morale.\n\nThe all out air war in Germany became obvious with the unprecedented daylight assault on the refugee-crowded capital two weeks ago and subsequent attacks on other cities jammed with civilians fleeing from the Russian advance in the East.\n\nThe Allied view is that bombardment of large German cities creates immediate need for relief. This is moved into the bombed areas both by rail and road and not only creates a traffic problem but draws transport away from the battlefront. Evacuation of the homeless has the same result.\n\nReconnaissance has shown that the best way to create road bottlenecks through key cities is to topple buildings into the streets. One spot on the Western Front recently was made impassable for nine days by such tactics. The effect on morale both at home and at the front is quite obvious.\n\nThe decision may revive protests from some Allied quarters against \"uncivilized warfare,\" but they are likely to be balanced by satisfaction in those sections of Europe where the German Air Force and the Nazi V-weapons have been responsible for the indiscriminate slaughter of tens of thousands.\n\nThe reaction of the Germans, who still are bombing England blindly with long-range rockets, is expected to be a new outburst of violent words, but there is little more the Nazi propagandists can say\u2014all the previous Allied air raids on the Reich have been described by Berlin as \"Terror Attacks.\"\n\nArnold complained that he was already getting calls from influential radio and newspaper commentators asking who had ordered the change in bombing policy from the often-stated goal of precision bombing to area bombing. \"What do we say?\" he asked Spaatz plaintively.\n\nSpaatz, who was in the Mediterranean, ordered his staff back in England to put out the fires, or at least bring them under control. On 19 February, Major General F. L. Anderson, deputy commander for operations, cabled Arnold an explanation of the public relations fiasco. Anderson quoted the \"pertinent portions\" of Grierson's press conference\u2014which, he somewhat surprisingly enjoined Arnold, who knew a thing or two about security, \"are not repeat not for publication.\"\n\nTo start with the Heavies, the overall communications plan is going ahead and in communications I include oil. I understand you have already heard something about the oil plan and the oil war generally, but the situation now is such that we might expect very big results from the bombing of the oil refineries and production plants. The bombing of communications centers and railways is having an increasingly serious effect on the German economy generally and with the loss of Silesia the importance of the communications out of the Ruhr has become emphasized more than ever. I think if you will notice from now on, the sort of targets being chosen for attack by the Heavies, and for that matter the Mediums as well, you will see the sort of general results of the planning which has been going on in the last fortnight.\n\nAnother matter, which has been given a lot of thought and which required a lot of careful consideration, is the employment of the Heavies against the centres of population. The effect of the Heavy raids on population centres has always been first of all to cause the Germans to bring in train loads of supplies of extra comforts and to take away the population which have been rendered homeless. Now that form of relief relies very, very much to a pretty great extent on rapid and sound communications between the big cities and the whole of the interior of Germany itself, so that the destruction not only of communications centres, but also of the towns where the relief comes from and where the refugees go to, are very definitely operations which contribute greatly towards the break up of the German economic system.\n\nAlthough Anderson maintained that Cowan had exaggerated Grierson's views, he admitted in the cable that \"Grierson did imply that attacks were to be directed against civilian populations.\" However, he emphasized, \"We have not, or do not, intend to change the basic policy which has governed the direction of effort of the United States Strategic Air Force in Europe from the first time they started operations in this Theater. Our attacks have been directed in all cases against military objectives.\"\n\nWhile Arnold was no doubt relieved to hear that the chief targets of American bombers were and remained oil and communications, he cannot have failed to understand what all military commanders understand. No operation in wartime, let alone bombers operating at 30,000 feet, can guarantee that there will be no collateral damage. Oil refineries and marshaling yards are inevitably near or adjoin major civilian population centers. But Anderson (and Spaatz) insisted there was no change in policy. \"There has been,\" the cable said, \"only a change of emphasis in locale.\"\n\nAs promised to Arnold, Anderson met that same day with Eisenhower to draft an official and public response to the changes of terror bombing. Eisenhower's headquarters issued a denial that terror bombing was official policy and explained that Dresden was a viable military target.\n\nSecretary of War Henry L. Stimson echoed Eisenhower's denial of a change in U.S. policy, and the _Washington Star_ , which had set off the furor in the first place with Cowan's article, accepted his explanation. Cowan had simply been guilty of \"an excusable but incorrect interpretation\" of Grierson's remarks. This was, says historian Tami Davis Biddle, a \"1940s version of spin control.\"\n\nStimson, however, began to have second thoughts about the matter and reopened the question of the Dresden raid. Arnold was having none of it. \"We must not get soft,\" he fumed. \"War must be destructive and to a certain extent inhuman and ruthless.\"\n\n_The New York Times_ was hardly less forthright. The day after the American raid, on 15 February, the paper had editorialized that if a great German city and its cultural treasures were obliterated, the Germans had only themselves and their F\u00fchrer to blame.\n\nOthers were not so accommodating. On 26 February 1945, _Newsweek_ , in an article headlined \"Now Terror, Truly,\" reported the Dresden inferno and a new military policy. \"Allied air chiefs have decided to adopt deliberate terror bombing of German population centers as a military means of hastening the Reich's surrender by snarling up communications and sapping morale,\" said the magazine.\n\nJournalists resident in Germany from such neutral countries as Switzerland and Sweden had more or less parroted the Goebbels line that the raid had been an atrocity, and their dispatches had also begun to find their way into the Allied press. The notorious press conference at SHAEF headquarters had only added further fuel.\n\nIn Great Britain two of the most influential prewar advocates of aerial bombardment had already recanted and had written scathing denunciations of the Bomber Command policy of systematic destruction of German cities and the killing of noncombatants.\n\nIn 1943, J. F. C. Fuller said that next to Bomber Command's actions \"the worst devastations of the Goths, Vandals, Huns, Seljuks, and Mongols pale into insignificance.\" B. H. Liddell Hart was hardly less censorious. In 1942, he wrote that the Luftwaffe and Bomber Command were now engaged in a \"mad competition in mutual devastation.\"\n\nFinally, the controversy spread to the House of Commons. On 6 March, a firebrand Labour MP from Ipswich, Richard Stokes, took to the floor to question the entire bombing policy of Bomber Command, in particular the Dresden raid and in general the laying waste of the cities of Germany.\n\nStokes's speech was brief, but it ignited a controversy\u2014particularly his charge that history would record the raids as \"a blot on our escutcheon.\" As the story continued to unfold, the blot threatened to tarnish the escutcheon of the prime minister himself. On 28 March he began to distance himself from his earlier policies.\n\nEver mindful of public opinion, of his place in history, and that his government was a coalition, the prime minister ordered a reassessment of the policies that he had set in motion. In a letter to General H. L. Ismay, his chief of staff, Churchill said, \"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.\"\n\nThe prime minister's reasons were not altruistic. He went on to complain that if Germany were \"utterly ruined,\" German resources that could be used to rebuild Great Britain would instead have to be used in Germany to provide housing for the defeated enemy. But he quickly returned to questioning the policies of Bomber Command and the Eighth Air Force.\n\n\"The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing,\" said Churchill. \"I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests rather than that of the enemy.... The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.\"\n\nThe record is clear on Churchill's role in developing the bombing policies of Bomber Command, so it must have been with some dismay that Ismay, Portal, Bottomley, and Harris himself were now hearing that the prime minister was not only disavowing a program that had his fingerprints all over it but also saying that it might have been a mistake.\n\nHad not the prime minister, at the summit meeting with Joseph Stalin in August 1942, drawn a picture of a crocodile to represent Europe and then delighted Stalin by ripping at its belly and hitting it on the snout at the same time? The dictator saw at once the strategic value of attacking the \"soft underbelly of Europe\" and gaining a beachhead on the Continent from that direction.\n\nAnd the Soviet leader was also delighted, according to both the British and the American ambassadors, Archibald Clark Kerr and Averell Harriman, who were present, when Churchill explained the RAF bombing policy put into effect the previous February: the morale bombing of the German cities. Stalin at once began to list the most important urban targets, urging Churchill to spare no one, to bomb homes as well as factories. Churchill, responding to his host's enthusiasm, promised the Soviet leader that the RAF would be \"ruthless.\" Between them, said Harriman, \"they soon had destroyed most of the important industrial cities of Germany.\"\n\nThe list of actual cities is not given in the accounts of the meeting, but it seems unlikely that Germany's seventh-largest city and the one closest to the Eastern Front would not have been included.\n\nSo as early as August 1942, the British prime minister had pledged to the Russians that the RAF would wage total aerial war against the cities of Germany. Civilians were not to be spared.\n\n**Ismay was not the** only recipient of the Churchill memorandum. Portal received a copy, and he passed it on to Bottomley, who was instructed to get Bomber Harris's response to Churchill's allegations. But Harris was not to be shown the full text. He was to be apprised of only the prime minister's main points.\n\nHarris realized soon enough what was afoot, and in just one day he had his reply ready. \"To suggest that we have bombed German cities 'simply for the sake of increasing the terror though under other pretexts' and to speak of our offensive as including 'mere acts of terror and wanton destruction' is an insult both to the bombing policy of the Air Ministry and to the manner in which that policy has been executed by Bomber Command,\" he fumed. \"This sort of thing if it deserves an answer will certainly receive none from me, after three years of implementing official policy.\"\n\nHarris, of course, went on for several pages, explaining and justifying in increasingly outraged tones Bomber Command policy, which had been official policy since before he had assumed command, but made no apologies for carrying out his duties. \"I have always held and still maintain,\" said Harris, \"that my Directive, which you quote, the progressive destruction and dislocation of the German military, industrial and economic systems, could be carried out only by the elimination of German industrial cities and not merely by attacks on individual factories however important these might be in themselves.\"\n\nHarris forcefully argued that the policies that he had pursued for three years had fatally weakened the German war effort and at that very time were enabling Allied troops to advance into Germany with \"negligible casualties.\" Harris was, of course, referring to the more recent weeks. January and February 1945 were two of the bloodiest months of the war in Europe. Casualties on the Western Front totaled over 136,000, with a third of them occurring in the week immediately preceding and the week following the Dresden raid.\n\nBomber Harris was in no mood to either defend or apologize for his actions. Instead he warmed to his task of explaining to the air minister and even the prime minister what the campaign had been about and what they could expect from him for the duration of the war\u2014and while he was at it, he gave them some advice.\n\n\"I therefore assume that the view under consideration is something like this: no doubt in the past we were justified in attacking German cities. But to do so was always repugnant and now that the Germans are beaten anyway we can properly abstain from proceeding with these attacks. This is a doctrine to which I could never subscribe. Attacks on cities like any other act of war are intolerable unless they are strategically justified. But they are strategically justified in so far as they tend to shorten the war and so preserve the lives of Allied soldiers. To my mind we have absolutely no right to give them up unless it is certain they will not have this effect. I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier,\" said Bomber Harris.\n\nIf one is looking for a succinct justification or rationale for Harris's actions in World II, there it is. He went on to argue that the only choice was to continue as before or \"very largely stand down altogether.\" That would be fine with him, he said. \"I take little delight in the work and none whatever in risking my crews avoidably.\" And what of the future? he asked.\n\n\"Japan remains,\" said the flinty air chief. \"Are we going to bomb their cities flat\u2014as in Germany\u2014and give the Armies a walk over\u2014as in France and Germany\u2014or are we going to bomb only the outlying factories, largely underground by the time we get going, and subsequently invade at the cost of 3 to 6 million casualties? We should be careful of precedents.\"\n\nThis was not only an apologia. It was also a gauntlet thrown down in front of Churchill, Portal, and Bottomley, and their opposite numbers at American headquarters and in Washington. And it had its effect.\n\nChurchill's original memorandum was immediately revised, with the offensive wording removed\u2014Harris had called it an insult\u2014and in a directive issued on 4 April 1945, it was announced that Bomber Command would continue as before.\n\nBut in the event there was little left to destroy. To be sure, during April there were massive raids on Hamburg, Kiel, Potsdam, Heligoland, and Wangerooge, as well as one abortive raid on Bremen. There were smaller raids as well, and the Mosquitoes kept up the pressure on Berlin, but the great campaign was winding down.\n\n**The angry exchange among** Churchill, Portal, Bottomley, and Harris in March 1945 was not the first time they had crossed swords in their battle of wills. In a particularly spirited exchange of letters with Portal, from early November 1944 through mid-January 1945, the head of Bomber Command had defended his position that although the oil plan was a chimera, Bomber Command was doing its part to seek out and destroy the refineries. Portal was not convinced and even went so far as to suggest that perhaps Harris's views were filtering down through Bomber Command and creating opposition to the oil plan.\n\nHarris was quick to respond. \"I do not give my staff views,\" he said. \"I give them orders.\"\n\nThe exchange between the two airmen degenerated further and became so heated that Portal finally aroused Harris to very real anger, a not too difficult task. The chief of Bomber Command, referring to what he called \"an intolerable situation,\" by which, of course, he meant anyone presuming to meddle in how he ran his command, wrote to Portal, \"I therefore ask you to consider whether it is best for the prosecution of the war and the success of our arms, which alone matters, that I should remain in this situation....\"\n\nHarris's resignation would have caused another kind of firestorm, this one from the British public, and Portal damped the fires immediately. Harris responded in kind. He would follow orders and implement the oil plan, although he remained convinced to the end that it was not the most effective use of men and machines. In any event, simultaneously with the promised implementation of the oil plan, Bomber Command continued to level German cities and towns.\n\nUnknown to Harris, Portal was in possession of information from the codebreakers at Bletchley Park that the oil plan was having a devastating effect on the Reich. This was information that one would have thought would have been disseminated as a matter of course to someone of Harris's stature and rank; but it was not, at least not sufficiently enough to convince the head of Bomber Command that his superiors in the military and the political spheres were pursuing the best policies.\n\n**The principals settled their** problems and their infighting with letters and memorandums and directives, in the interest of successfully bringing to an end the war against the Nazis in 1945. However, in the postwar period both Churchill and Harris seemed to have had bouts of selective forgetting. They were more than disingenuous in their recollections of the Dresden raid and its aftermath and their own roles in the controversy.\n\nSir Arthur Harris, \"Bomber Harris,\" the erstwhile hero, had become something of an embarrassment in peacetime England, and he disposed of the issue of Dresden in less than a page in his 1947 memoirs. The former head of Bomber Command said only that \"the attack on Dresden was at the time considered a military necessity by much more important people than myself.\"\n\nAs we have seen, one of these \"much more important people\" was Winston Churchill, who in his multivolume history of World War II was even more succinct, disposing of the issue in one sentence. \"Throughout January and February our bombers continued to attack, and we made a heavy raid in the latter month on Dresden, then a centre of communications of Germany's Eastern Front,\" said the former prime minister. And once, when asked about it directly, he allegedly replied to his questioner that he would have to ask the Americans about that, since it was their show.\n\nAll efforts to ignore or paper over the Dresden raid would of course fail. It continued to fester among the victors as well as the vanquished, and in the early 1950s, the first books on the Dresden firestorm began appearing in Germany.\n\nSensationalist in tone and often lurid in detail, some of them became best sellers, either in spite of or because of their historical inaccuracies. First off the mark, in 1952, was Axel Rodenberger with _Der Tod von Dresden_ (The Death of Dresden).\n\nRodenberger's book was notable for lending a false legitimacy to a clearly erroneous casualty figure and for perpetuating one of those legends that with repetition becomes a truism. He put the number of dead at between 350,000 and 400,000, a figure whose wide acceptance was in direct proportion to its inaccuracy.\n\nRodenberger also helped perpetuate the myth, almost certainly invented by the Goebbels propaganda machine immediately after the raid, that American fighter pilots had indiscriminately strafed crowds of fleeing refugees on the streets and in the parks of Dresden, most particularly the thousands who had sought refuge from the firestorm in the Elbe Meadows and the Grosser Garten.\n\nHowever, the mythology surrounding the destruction of Dresden reached full flower in 1963, and became firmly implanted in the world's consciousness, with the publication of David Irving's _The Destruction of Dresden_.\n\nIrving's documentation seemed exemplary, the book was well written, and it was well received. Almost at once the author became a celebrity historian, and in the next three decades he produced a series of books that were praised by such estimable figures as Hugh Trevor-Roper, A. J. P. Taylor, and John Keegan. The latter called Irving's _Hitler's War_ \"one of the half dozen most important books about the war,\" and the _Times_ of London said, \"Irving is in the first rank of Britain's historical chroniclers.\"\n\nIn 1993, however, a dissenting voice was raised by an American historian, Deborah Lipstadt. In her book _Denying the Holocaust_ , Lipstadt charged that Irving had not only twisted historical data to conform to his preconceived ideas about Hitler and the Third Reich but had also in many instances distorted data to prove his points. David Irving had, she said, not only falsified the historical record but also provided ammunition for those who denied that there had been any such thing as the Holocaust. In fact, she charged, David Irving was himself a Holocaust denier.\n\nIn what would turn out to be not only an ill-advised action but a disastrous one, Irving brought suit for libel against Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books. Penguin engaged Richard J. Evans, professor of modern history at Cambridge University, to help prepare the case for the defense. Evans and a team of researchers began at once to comb through Irving's entire body of work.\n\nDuring the course of the trial, which began in London on 11 January 2000, Evans presented example after example of precisely what Lipstadt had accused Irving of doing, citing in particular his most famous work, _The Destruction of Dresden_. Irving had alleged that the city was of no military importance and that 135,000 people, mostly women, children, and old men, had died during the air raids and firestorm of 13\u201314 February 1945.\n\nIrving's casualty figures proved to be wildly off the mark. According to evidence introduced at the trial, even though he was aware that the figure compiled by the Dresden authorities was probably closer to 35,000, Irving had knowingly published the higher figure. His reason for doing so, he argued in the book, was that the East German authorities had probably struck out the first digit in the number, changing 135,000 to 35,000, to satisfy their Soviet postwar masters. At the time of publication of the book, no one had bothered to point out the obvious flaw in Irving's argument: the Soviets had not bombed Dresden, and therefore none of the onus of the raid was attached to them.\n\nAt the trial it was revealed that Irving's original publisher, William Kember, had accused the author of \"falsifications of the historical facts\" and warned him that the book \"could be interpreted as the work of a propagandist for Nazism who had not scrupled to distort many facts and omit numerous others in order to vilify the British War Government and in particular Winston Churchill.\"\n\nKember and his staff then set about to modify, edit, and in many cases simply omit what they saw as the more egregious examples. But the casualty figures and the overall conclusion of the book stood, and in at least two subsequent editions of _The Destruction of Dresden_ Irving raised the number of casualties to 250,000.\n\nHe based the new figures on a German document, _Tagesbefehl_ 47 (Order of the Day, No. 47), which had purportedly been drawn up in March 1945 by the head of the Dresden police. Irving had first been made aware of TB 47 in 1963, but he had dismissed it then as a forgery. In the interim, he had purportedly seen what he said were convincing copies of the original and he was now prepared to vouch for TB 47's authenticity.\n\nIn reality, he had seen no such thing. Irving had seen what Evans described as a \"typed-up transcript at least several removes from the original.\" TB 47, it turned out, was indeed a forgery, concocted by Goebbels's Propaganda Ministry and first published in the Nazi weekly _Das Reich_.\n\nIrving himself had long known of the doubtful provenance of TB 47 and had admitted as much, but the spurious data had nevertheless continued to appear in editions of the book, as did the story of the omitted digit in the casualty figure.\n\nEven when a 1995 revision of the work appeared, retitled _Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden_ , Irving was still unwilling or unable to accept what by then had become the accepted death toll, around 35,000. Instead, he wrote, the number of dead was \"sixty thousand or more; perhaps a hundred thousand\u2014certainly the largest single air raid massacre of the War in Europe.\" And in his 1996 biography of Joseph Goebbels, Irving repeated his death toll of 65,000\u2013100,000.\n\nThe minds of millions of people have remained unchanged as well, bearing out the view of L. A. Jackman, a chief historian of the Air Ministry, who wrote, \"It is practically impossible to kill a myth of this kind once it has become widespread and perhaps reprinted in other books all over the world.\"\n\nTo a large extent this is the view of the larger public as well. In spite of the trial and the damaging revelations, Irving's 1963 descriptions\u2014and his numbers\u2014have remained firmly fixed in the popular imagination. A city of no appreciable importance to the Nazi war effort, filled with innocent people, mostly women and children and hundreds of thousands of refugees, was obliterated for no discernible reason with the end of the war just weeks away.\n\nIf further proof is needed of Jackman's sad assessment of the power of historical revisionism, one need look no further than a speech that David Irving gave in South Africa in 1986. \"Of course now everybody talks about Dresden in the same breath as they talk about Auschwitz and Hiroshima,\" said Irving. \"That's my achievement, ladies and gentlemen. I'm a little bit proud when I look at the newspapers every 13th and 14th of February, when the anniversary comes and they mention Dresden, because until my book was published on that subject the outside world had never heard of what happened in Dresden when 100,000 people were killed in one night by an RAF and American air force raid on one undefended German town at the end of the war.\"\n\nWhen the libel trial ended in April 2000, David Irving's reputation as a historian was in tatters. In addition to having been exposed as a manipulator of historical data, he was also labeled by the court as a racist, an anti-Semite, and a neo-Fascist.\n\nDeborah Lipstadt was vindicated, but the issue did not die. What she referred to in a 2005 interview as David Irving's \"immoral equivalency\"\u2014the Dresden raid was as bad as the war crimes that the Nazis had committed\u2014has been embraced and is fervently believed by many thousands of people.\n\nIrving, meanwhile, soldiered on. In a 12 March 2002 posting on his Web site, he wrote the following comparison of the attack on the New York World Trade Center and the Dresden firestorm: \"Thousands of victims were cremated in the Altmarkt square on makeshift funeral pyres of five hundred civilians at a time. (Rather more than the WTC's three thousand died in that inferno: about thirty times that number, I still aver.)\"\n\nIn November 2005, Irving was arrested by Austrian authorities when he made a clandestine trip to Vienna to address a student group. He had been barred from Austria since 1989 for his views, which allegedly violated the Austrian law forbidding denial of the crimes of the Nazi years or historical revisionism that seeks to cast a favorable light on the Third Reich. He was jailed and denied bail. In February 2006, Irving was sentenced to three years in prison.\n\nAuthor Kurt Vonnegut shares with David Irving the distinction of being one of the two best-known sources of information about the destruction of Dresden. Indeed, Vonnegut pays homage to Irving, of a sort, by quoting from _The Destruction of Dresden_ in his satirical novel _Slaughterhouse-Five_ , in which the Dresden raid is the defining event.\n\nThe principal character, Billy Pilgrim, is an American prisoner of war who is caught in the city when the bombers come. Vonnegut, who was a prisoner of war in Dresden in February 1945, was interned in the eponymous slaughterhouse of the title and witnessed the raid firsthand.\n\nAlthough the novel is heavily science fiction, Vonnegut's view of the raid is never in doubt. He maintains that it was unnecessary, another slaughter of the innocents\u2014a view that has been absorbed by countless undergraduates for whom the book has been received wisdom since its publication in 1969.\n\nBoth books appeared in the tumultuous 1960s, during the debate over the war in Southeast Asia in which thousands of civilians were dying in air attacks. It was, the historian Charles C. Gillispie remarked, a time of \"romantic resentment,\" when it seemed appropriate to reexamine all wartime policies, both past and present.\n\nIn Great Britain, the Royal Air Force was especially sensitive to what it saw as revisionism and even the repudiation of its own noble role in the victory over Fascism in World War II. Much was made in magazine articles and reviews of Irving's book about the misgivings of the aircrews before this raid. Efforts immediately began to shore up the Bomber Command position and refute the critics. The task fell to the Air Historical Branch.\n\nThe AHB began by examining the operational record books of Bomber Command, the bomber groups, and the fifty-five squadrons that took part in the raid. There was no justification, said the reporting officer, for any of the statements that the Bomber Command crews were uneasy about the operation because of moral scruples.\n\nOne's overall impression from scrutiny of these contemporary accounts is that to the aircrew involved it was very little different from other raids, except for the distance, the fact that Dresden had not been attacked before by Bomber Command and the raid's spectacular success.\n\nTheir reaction on their return was one of jubilation the raid had been so successful, tempered by the fatigue consequent on a round trip that had lasted for some ten hours, after which many had to be prepared at short notice for another flight to Chemnitz in the same area.\n\nThere were well over 5,000 aircrew involved in the Dresden raid and it was the prerogative of all airmen, aircrew or not, to indulge in \"binding.\" Among these men it is possible that there were individuals who may have had doubts about this raid, bearing in mind the fact that by February, 1945 there was a certain war weariness and the raid was certainly a test of endurance, but none of this is reflected in the O.R.B.s. Certainly, there is nothing to justify a general statement of this nature, as though there was a widespread mood of criticism of the raid on moral grounds. There is a possibility that after 18 years and with knowledge of the destruction and casualties inflicted some of these aircrew may have rationalized their feelings at the time and expressed doubts, but none of this is expressed in these contemporary accounts. Indeed, the comments reveal that they returned remarkably well pleased with the success of the operation.\n\nThe report includes excerpts from a cross-section of the squadron operational record books, which, critics naturally enough point out, support the conclusions already laid out as the official RAF view. But these are statements from debriefings that were made just hours after the two raids were completed, not reassessments ten, fifteen, or twenty years later. They thus carry considerable historical weight.\n\n**12 SQUADRON** Bomber Command made the inevitable assault on Dresden. Thousands of incendiaries rained down on Germany's 7th. largest city. This is considered a really first-class attack. The route was satisfactory but too long.\n\n**431 (R.C.A.F)** Really pranged the target. Head wind on return kept aircraft airborne for over 10 hours, so it was a very weary group that piled into bed for only, as it turned out, a few hours' sleep at the most. Only the long time in the air marred a pleasant ride.\n\n**467 (R.A.A.F)** Everyone had been hoping for a \"support of the army\" target for some time. to-day was the day but it was the wrong way. Another full petrol load and the target is Dresden if Joe Stalin isn't there beforehand. Trip well planned and a big success for the Command.\n\n**90 SQUADRON** Best attack seen so far.\n\n**434 (R.C.A.F.)** Briefing lasted longer than usual for this long trip. A very good concentrated attack.\n\n**3 GROUP** Attack carried out in direct support of the Russian offensive. Crews were enthusiastic. The first night on which Dresden has been attacked in force by Bomber Command.\n\n**166 SQUADRON** For the first time the Squadron was ordered to take part in an attack on Dresden, a flight involved one of the deepest penetrations into enemy territory yet made. Altogether a highly satisfactory night's work.\n\n**514 SQUADRON** Whole area reported as one mass of smoke and flames. Crews highly delighted.\n\n**433 (R.A.A.F.)** It is understood that this raid was one of the first fruits of combined planning from the Yalta Conference thus beginning the ensuing 7,000 aircraft support to the Eastern front.\n\nTen years earlier an American report classified as \"Top Secret Security Information\" had been circulated to a small number of people. Entitled \"Historical Analysis of the 14\u201315 February 1945 Bombing of Dresden,\" the report was prepared by the USAF Historical Division. Its subsequent declassification and availability has changed few minds on either side of the bombing question, particularly those whose natural propensity it is to distrust all government documents, but in spite of its provenance the report is a valuable contribution to the debate and its arguments are sound.\n\nThe impetus for the study was the increasing use of the Dresden raid by the Soviet Union and its client state East Germany to demonize the Western democracies. This is clear from the introduction, which states, \"From time to time there appears in letters of inquiry to the United States Air Force evidence that American nationals are themselves being taken in by the Communist propaganda line concerning the February 1945 bombings of Dresden.\"\n\nThe United States at the time was involved in the Korean War, and the nation was also transfixed by the revelation of so-called security threats and the fulminations and denunciations of fervent anti-Communist politicians, most notably Senator Joseph McCarthy. Perhaps that is why the language of the report is remarkably free of the overheated rhetoric of the period.\n\nAfter laying out a series of questions, beginning with \"Was Dresden a legitimate military target?,\" the air force historians addressed the conventional belief that the 13\u201314 February bombing of Dresden, the famous triple blow, was a one-time, isolated event. Not so, said the drafters of the report.\n\nBefore 13\u201314 February 1945, Dresden had already been bombed twice, and while these first two raids were, admittedly, minor operations they served notice that the city was not off-limits to Bomber Command or the Eighth Air Force. After 13\u201314 February, Dresden was bombed four more times, with raids on 15 February and 2 March and two raids on 17 April. Also, as we have seen, Dresden was the alternate target for the thousand-bomber American raid against Berlin that was scheduled for 2 February 1945 but was canceled because of bad weather.\n\nDuring the seven months that Dresden was a target of Allied air operations (October 1944\u2014April 1945), some 2,448 bombers dropped a total of 7,100.5 tons of bombs\u20145,278 tons of high explosives and 1,822.5 tons of incendiaries.\n\nThe 2 March raid was particularly heavy. Of the 450 B-17s of the American Third Air Division, which had been dispatched to bomb oil targets at Ruhland, 406 were unable to find the primary target and dropped 1,080.8 tons of bombs on the ruins of Dresden, including 140.5 tons of incendiaries. In this raid, the last of the major Dresden landmarks was destroyed\u2014the Japanese Palace, which housed the Dresden State Library.\n\nThe two final raids, both on 17 April, by 580 bombers from the Eighth Air Force, saw more heavy explosives dropped on the city\u20141,554.4 tons\u2014than any previous raid, plus an additional 164.5 tons of incendiaries. Thus the outcry over the firebombing of 13\u201314 February did nothing to halt the continued bombing, at least by the Americans\u2014Bomber Command did not return to Dresden\u2014of what was still considered to be an important military target.\n\nBut was Dresden a legitimate target? This question has persisted for the sixty years since the firebombing and has been kept alive by both democratic and totalitarian regimes, advocates from the far left and the far right, militarists and pacifists.\n\nComparison with other military targets is thus not only useful but imperative. When World War II began, Dresden was the seventh-largest city in Germany, with a population of 642,143. Only Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Leipzig, and Essen were larger. While the size of a city does not necessarily make it a prime military target, the activities out of which large cities evolve and around which they revolve often do. Dresden was a major commercial and transportation center and the capital of the state of Saxony.\n\nThe city had since medieval times lain athwart two primary military routes: the east-west route of the valley and gorge of the Elbe River between Germany and Czechoslovakia and the east-west land route along the central European uplands.\n\nThree great trunk routes of the German railway system converged at Dresden: Berlin\u2013Prague\u2013Vienna; Munich\u2013Breslau; and Hamburg\u2013Leipzig\u2013Prague. Two main lines connected Dresden with Leipzig and Berlin. In fact, the first railroad line in Germany ran between Dresden and Leipzig.\n\nIt is rail traffic that is the best indicator, however, and by any measure Dresden was an important rail hub, destination, and transfer point. The Dresden-Saxony railway system ranked seventh in the country in mileage, but it was third in total tonnage carried.\n\nThe final issue\u2014were the factories, machine shops, and industrial sites important enough to justify the wholesale destruction of the city in order to guarantee their incapacitation?\u2014has been more problematical for historians since the raids of 13\u201314 February 1945. It need not have been. According to the American air force, there were 110 such sites\u2014all legitimate military targets\u2014employing 50,000 workers.\n\nThese installations included dispersed aircraft factories; a poison-gas factory (Chemische Fabric Goye); an antiaircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); and Germany's most famous optical instruments firm (Zeiss-Ikon). There were also manufacturers of electrical products and X-ray apparatus (Kock and Starzel); small arms (Seidel and Naumann); molds and metal packings (Anton Reich); gears and differentials (Saxonizwerke); and electric gauges (Gebruder Bessler).\n\nTypical was the J. C. M\u00fcller Universelle-Werke, which had been founded to make machinery for the manufacture of cigarettes. In the First World War, the company had gone into armaments, but afterward, with such activity forbidden by treaty, it went back to making cigarette machinery. Under Adolf Hitler the company grew exponentially, and by the time of the raid 4,000 workers, which included slave laborers and Jews from concentration camps, were turning out a plethora of military equipment\u2014including machine guns and aircraft parts.\n\nEarly in the war, the Nazis had begun to transport Jews to Dresden to work in the factories. For most of them, it was only a brief stopover before they were sent on to the death camps. Later, as labor shortages became more critical, some of them avoided the further deportation to the east and even survived until the end of the war.\n\nNot mentioned by the air force was another vital service that was centered in Dresden. The city had become a key link in the German postal and telegraph system. The central offices, in which hundreds of German civilians and British prisoners of war worked, were located on the Postplatz, in the very center of the Altstadt. Berlin had moved other important services to Dresden as well, including the Berlin Grossbank.\n\nDresden was also a favored haven for refugees from the capital and other bombed-out cities of the Reich, and it still was a favorite retreat of the Nazis. Frau Goebbels herself spent much time at one of the Dresden sanatoriums, and Hitler's half sister, Angela, was married to Martin Hammitzsch, the director of the State School of Building Construction in Dresden.\n\nAs for military installations, the report did err in its estimation of the air defenses in the city. While there was a fighter squadron based nearby, the other air defenses were minimal. As we have seen, the antiaircraft guns had been moved to the east to be used as antitank weapons in the attempt to hold back the Russian advance.\n\nThere were also an ammunition storage depot and a new SS headquarters, but they were unlikely to be destroyed in any raid on the city. They were miles from the central area and far belowground.\n\nAnother continuing point of controversy has been the argument that the Russians requested specifically that Dresden be bombed. The 1953 air force report also errs in stating that it was not until early 1943 that the Allies and Russians began high-level consultations to coordinate their military efforts against Germany. Such plans began to be laid soon after America entered the war in 1941 and were discussed in earnest at the highest levels in August 1942, more than a year before the Tehran Conference of the Big Three. Stalin, up to and during the Yalta Conference in February 1945, had been repeatedly reassured by visiting emissaries and by both Churchill and Roosevelt personally that Allied bombers could be counted on to support the Russian offensive in the east when the time came.\n\nThe air force report, which dutifully laid out the facts of the Dresden raid of 13\u201314 February 1945, could have gone a long way to lay the controversy to rest if it had been released in 1953. But it was not declassified for public dissemination for another twenty-five years. Thus the questions were resolved only to the satisfaction of the limited number of military and Defense Department officials who were allowed to read it.\n\nTherefore, the books and articles that condemned the raid as unnecessary\u2014even a war crime\u2014ensured that the Dresden controversy would not only take on a new life and interest but would grow in the intervening years. The failed U.S. intervention in Vietnam, various other American adventures abroad, and the worldwide peace movement guaranteed a continuing interest. Dresden's place on the lists of bombing atrocities, alongside Coventry, Rotterdam, Guernica, and, of course, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was assured.\n\n**Every book, article, and documentary** concerning the Dresden firestorm rightly has extolled the city of the Augustuses as an architectural and cultural marvel, which it certainly was; but also, with a few notable exceptions, all have decried the raid as unnecessary and an act of unparalleled barbarity.\n\nIn addition, was not the war at an end? After all, the Eastern and Western Fronts were rapidly contracting, with the last vestiges of Nazi Germany being squeezed tight in the vise created by the Allied forces. Indeed, with the Soviet forces just a few miles from Dresden in mid-February 1945, was not the final collapse only days or, at most, a few weeks away?\n\nHarry Truman's memoirs cast a revealing light on this argument. On 13 April 1945\u2014his first full day as president and exactly two months after the Dresden raid and just three weeks before the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany\u2014Truman was told in a meeting with his top military advisers and the secretary of war that the assessment by intelligence sources presented to Roosevelt and Churchill at the Octagon Conference in Quebec in September 1944 still held. Germany would not be defeated for at least six months and Japan for a year and a half.\n\nIn other words, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of the Navy James V. Forrestal, Army Chief of Staff George C. Marshall, Chief of Naval Operations Ernest J. King, Lieutenant General Barney M. Giles, representing the air force, and White House Chief of Staff Admiral William D. Leahy all assured Truman that Germany would not fall before October 1945, at the earliest, and Japan not before October 1946.\n\nWhen Truman assumed the presidency on 12 April 1945, he was completely in the dark about the development of the atomic bomb. After a hastily convened cabinet meeting immediately after he was sworn in, Stimson stayed behind to tell the new president of \"the development of a new explosive of almost unbelievable destructive power.\" Amazingly, that was all the secretary of war felt free to confide to his boss, the president of the United States.\n\nThe next day, James F. Byrnes, who had been director of war mobilization, came to see Truman. While he allowed that the new weapon was \"great enough to destroy the whole world,\" he provided no further details.\n\nThe commander in chief, who, as he admitted in his memoirs, was \"puzzled,\" did not press his subordinates for more information. Perhaps he was being deferential. While the new president was being briefed, his predecessor's funeral train was still en route from Warm Springs, Georgia, to Washington.\n\nIt was not until the next day that Truman was told of the atomic bomb by Vannevar Bush, the head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development. He also learned from Bush the startling news that the new weapon was almost ready to be tested.\n\nAdmiral William Leahy, Roosevelt's, and now Truman's, chief of staff, sat in on the scientific briefing. The admiral, who just hours earlier had concurred with his colleagues on the end dates for the war in Europe and the Pacific, now volunteered an even less prescient prediction. \"That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done,\" he said. \"The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.\"\n\n**Dresden, the seventh-largest city** in Germany, with its prewar light industries retooled and revamped to provide vital military goods and services, and with its vast network of railroads, highways, and river traffic, was clearly a viable military target. No responsible military planner could ignore it. The city was an important component of the Nazi war machine.\n\nWhen the bombers had departed, much of this manufacturing capability had been destroyed or seriously crippled\u2014though more of it would have been devastated if the massive British raids had concentrated on the industrial areas just outside the city instead of the Altstadt. Dresden would not regain the major role as a producer of armaments that it had enjoyed prior to 13 February. Too many workers were dead. Too much of the infrastructure had been destroyed. And the ensuing American follow-up raids were designed to ensure that this would remain the case.\n\nBomber Harris summed it up in his acerbic response to Churchill's questioning of the necessity of the destruction of Dresden. \"The feeling, such as there is, over Dresden could be easily explained by any psychiatrist,\" said Harris. \"It is connected with German bands and Dresden shepherdesses. Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things.\"\n\nHarris might also have pointed out that the week of the Dresden raid the Germans launched the greatest number of rockets against England of any week since the beginning of the vengeance-weapons campaign.\n\n# CHAPTER THIRTEEN\n\n**FROM THE ASHES**\n\nDresden Is Reborn\n\n**F ew cities in the world had such a concentration of cultural trea**sures as Dresden in 1945. All of the city's major architectural sites and art collections were in walking distance of one another and all were located within the area of total devastation\u2014some sixteen hundred acres, two and a half square miles. Comparisons with other cities whose cultural riches lie in similar proximity provide some perspective on the loss.\n\nParisians would be devastated by the loss of the Louvre, the Palais-Royal, the Jeu de Paume, the Invalides, the Tuileries, the Champs-\u00c9lys\u00e9es, the Arc de Triomphe, Sainte-Chapelle, the Eiffel Tower, Notre-Dame and the \u00cele de la Cit\u00e9, the Op\u00e9ra, Saint-Sulpice, and the Sorbonne. In a firestorm like the Dresden raid, all of these monuments of French culture and their surrounding neighborhoods would be gutted by fire and reduced to mounds of rubble.\n\nLondoners\u2014whose city, of course, did suffer; many landmarks were wrecked or seriously damaged, in particular the Houses of Parliament and dozens of historic churches\u2014might think differently about the bombing of other cities if Covent Garden, Westminster Abbey, St. Paul's, the National Gallery, the Victoria and Albert Museum, Buckingham Palace, the West End, the Strand, and all of Mayfair and Belgravia and their environs were leveled.\n\nAmericans, as well, might benefit from the cautionary tale presented by the destruction of Dresden. Imagine if, in Washington, D.C., all of the public buildings, national monuments, and museums, from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial and beyond, were destroyed in one great cataclysm.\n\nThe National Gallery, the White House, the Capitol, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, the Kennedy Center, the Smithsonian Institution, and much of Capitol Hill and Georgetown lie well within the parameters of a raid the size of the Dresden firestorm. All would have been obliterated or reduced to smoking ruins.\n\nIn New York, a similar series of raids would lay waste a great swath of Manhattan if the central aiming point were Fourteenth Street. Everything between the East River and the Hudson River and well into Central Park would be razed. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, the American Museum of Natural History, St. Patrick's Cathedral, the Museum of Modern Art, Central Park, Times Square and the Theater District, and thousands of office and apartment buildings would be gone.\n\nPerhaps another comparison is in order as well. The area destroyed by the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center in New York, which caused such devastation and grief, was some twenty-five acres, about 1.5 percent of the area of the firestorm in Dresden.\n\n**February in Saxony is rainy** and chilly, but there are sunny days with blue, cloudless skies. Like everywhere in midwinter, when the trees are bare and the vines leafless, the skeleton of Dresden can be seen, the underlying landscape visible. But in this old city other outlines are visible as well. When one masters the clues, one can find the scars from the firestorm more than sixty years ago.\n\nThe great open spaces, some of them still punctuated by the foundations of the buildings that once occupied the sites, are the products of explosions and fires, not the wrecker's ball. From time to time one comes upon fenced-in enclosures containing bits and pieces of statuary, broken masonry and marble, plinths and columns, architraves and garlands, and assorted other architectural elements. The shards and pieces were carefully numbered and cataloged long ago and now wait to be attached to, or perhaps reintegrated into, reconstructed buildings.\n\nWithout the softening effects of summer greenery, the ugliness of the Communist-era buildings are magnified many times. What the _Great Soviet Encyclopedia_ called the \"socialist reconstruction of Dresden\" is epitomized on the northern side of the Altmarkt, the ancient square at the heart of Dresden. There stands the Stalinist Kulturpalast, the perfect example\u2014or nadir\u2014of Socialist building in Saxony. One guidebook extols this uneasy alliance as a marriage of modern urbanism with an ancient heritage. It's a shotgun marriage at best.\n\nThe new buildings combine the worst aspects of Socialist cookiecutter architecture and the dehumanizing elements of modernism gone awry or misunderstood. And nowhere else in the world is the contrast between the beauty and the exuberance of the baroque, the rococo, and the neoclassical and the blandness of the modern more apparent than in Dresden.\n\nIn much of old Dresden, however, the eye is still beguiled and the mind stimulated by the beauty of the surviving or reconstructed buildings ordered up by the Augustuses and their successors. For while the Communist rulers of the former East Germany can be faulted for erecting buildings of a transcendent ugliness, they must also be credited with saving and rebuilding many of the major monuments.\n\nThis strange dichotomy of preserving the cultural heritage while destroying the aristocracy and the class system that created it prevailed in all the satellite states. It followed the example of the Soviet Union, which after 1917 ruthlessly liquidated the nobility but kept their palaces.\n\nHistorical preservation was not universal. Many monuments that survived the destruction of the World War II were toppled by the tribunes of the people. Statues of kings and statesmen of the ancien r\u00e9gime were often dismantled or melted down. In the Altmarkt, the statue of Germania was considered too representative of a militant and Fascist Germany, so it was taken away after the war. The statue of the Iron Chancellor, Bismarck, at the upper end of the Pragerstrasse; Augustus the Strong at the entrance to the Neustadt; and Martin Luther in the Neumarkt by the Frauenkirche also survived, although Luther and Augustus were severely damaged. All three were put in storage, but in a stunning example of political inconsistency, Luther and Augustus were repaired and restored to their pedestals in the 1950s. Bismarck and Germania remain exiles.\n\nRestoration has been slow and even after six decades is not complete. The first task of the new postwar regime in East Germany was not historical preservation. The overriding priority, after clearing the hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble, was to build housing for millions of homeless and displaced people. So one is forced to understand, if not forgive, the blocks of utilitarian apartment buildings that today coexist uneasily with their exuberant baroque distant cousins.\n\nWhile the aesthetics of the Communist-era public housing blocks might have been the subject of debate, their monetary value to the city after German reunification was clear. In a stunning example of the triumph of capitalism, the mayor of Dresden agreed in March 2006 to sell all of the city-owned apartments, a total of 48,000 units, to an American investment firm for $1.2 billion. The move completely retired the massive municipal debt.\n\nThe Communist regime of the GDR, like many governments in the eastern bloc, was not oblivious to the past. Employing the same arguments that were made in the Soviet Union for restoring the palaces and resorts of the czars\u2014that princely art and architecture were the patrimony of all the people\u2014the leaders of the GDR began to rebuild Dresden in the 1950s. What the postwar buildings lacked in architectural interest was more than offset by the German craftsmen and artisans who set to work to re-create their lost heritage with great fidelity and not a little love.\n\nFirst and foremost was, of course, the Zwinger, the world-famous museum and crown jewel of the city. The Soviets, who had taken the collections away for \"safekeeping\" at the end of the war, heeded their fellow Communists' call to return the looted art in 1955, and the great collection of the electors was reinstalled in the meticulously restored museum.\n\nThe reconstruction efforts were by no means characterized by system or logic. Opposite the Zwinger lay another ruin, the Sophienkirche, which could easily have been reconstructed\u2014much of the original building survived the raid\u2014but, over much protest, the site was leveled. And across the Theaterplatz, near the Semper Opera House, the site of another famous Dresden landmark, the Hotel Bellevue\u2014that bastion of privilege\u2014was also completely cleared. Eventually a new Bellevue was built, by an international hotel chain, but on the other side of the river.\n\nThe oldest church in Dresden, the Kreuzkirche, which was built in the Gothic style in the thirteenth century, was destroyed by Prussian artillery in 1760. The rebuilt baroque church was destroyed by fire in 1897 but was restored. The tower and the facade survived the firestorm more or less intact, although the interior was completely gutted.\n\nNo attempt was made during the restoration of the church to replicate the fanciful baroque decorative features. Instead the church walls and vaulting were covered with a rough, concrete-like plaster, with the occasional fragment of a cherubim or angel, recovered from the ruins of the old church, embedded in the surface. The effect is restrained, reverential, and ultimately very moving, especially during musical performances of the Dresden Kreuzchor, the boys' choir that has performed in the church for almost eight centuries.\n\nThe residential neighborhood that the desperate Red Cross worker was trying to reach was totally destroyed in the raid; the ruins were leveled, and the debris carted away. Much of the neighborhood is again residential, but the prewar villas and small apartment buildings had to give way to large apartment buildings for the masses during the postwar housing crisis.\n\nThe Hauptbahnhof is the only recognizable prewar building in the immediate area, but as in the old days the Central Station, which faces onto the Pragerstrasse, functions as the major entrance to the city.\n\nThe Pragerstrasse was not rebuilt until the late 1960s, and it in no way today physically resembles the fashionable prewar avenue that connected the Altstadt and the Hauptbahnhof. The street is now a rather ordinary pedestrians-only mall, lined with shops and midpriced hotels, but whatever its architectural shortcomings, it has been reborn as a vibrant center of Dresden commercial life.\n\nAfter the war, other buildings in various stages of ruin and disrepair remained boarded up, and their rebuilding and restoration proceeded at a glacial pace for the next decades. The Hofkirche was rebuilt fairly early on, but the Semper Opera House did not reopen until 13 February 1985, exactly forty years after it had been destroyed by bombs, with a performance of Weber's _Der Freisch\u00fctz_.\n\nAlthough the Dresden Staatskapelle had to wait forty years for the restoration of its permanent home at the Semper, the world-renowned orchestra continued to perform regularly in other venues in Dresden and to make regular concert appearances abroad.\n\nAfter the reunification of East and West Germany in 1990, reconstruction and preservation became issues of national, not just Saxon, pride. East Berlin, Leipzig, and Dresden, even under the Communists, had never lost their image as powerful symbols of the great contributions to Western civilization made by German writers, philosophers, and musicians. Indeed, these cities had for centuries been the cultural patrimony of all Germans. Billions of deutschmarks became available for historic reconstruction, and of course the newly introduced capitalism spurred many projects.\n\nThe long-delayed rebuilding of the Royal Palace could now finally be undertaken. However, progress was slow, and it was not until 2005 that the work had advanced to the point that the extraordinary collection of jewels and decorative objects known as the Gr\u00fcnes Gew\u00f6lbe could be moved from the temporary home in the Albertinum back into the building. The completely restored building was opened to the public in 2006.\n\nNext to the Royal Palace is the restored Taschenberg Palace. The original was built by Augustus the Strong for one of his many favorites, Constantia, the Countess Cosel. Augustus had an enclosed bridge built between the Royal Palace and the Taschenberg, much like the bridge that connected the palace with the Hofkirche. But the bridge to the Taschenberg had a more secular purpose than the one to the cathedral. It ensured the king's privacy when he visited his mistress. The \"Saxon Pompadour\" reigned supreme in Augustus's affections for nine years until palace intrigues, some of them her own, led to her banishment to Burg Stolpen, where she spent the last twenty-one years of her life under house arrest. Her palace has a new life as the Grand Hotel Taschenberg Palais Kempinski.\n\nForeign largesse has been important as well in the reconstruction of what is arguably Dresden's most famous building. An international campaign was launched in 1992 to raise money for the rebuilding of the Frauenkirche. The reconstruction project attracted donations from nearly every country in the world, and the restoration of the symbol of Dresden began the following year.\n\nDuring the forty-five years of Communist rule, the sad pile of rubble of the once-great church lay at the very heart of the city, in the Neumarkt. It not only served as a reminder of the horrors of warfare; it was, not so incidentally, a rebuke to the West. On 13 February each year, thousands of Dresdeners, carrying candles, gathered at the ruins and sang old songs and hymns, falling silent as every bell in the city began to toll at 1010, the precise time that the first bombs began to fall on the city on that terrible night in February 1945.\n\nWorkers began sifting through the vast pile of fire-blackened stones of the original Frauenkirche in 1993, carefully marking each stone that was still usable and could be incorporated into the fabric of the new church. In June, the badly damaged but intact pinnacle cross and its boss were uncovered, a happy omen.\n\nIn May 1994, the first of the new foundation stones was laid. The original foundation stone, which was laid on 26 August 1726, was still in place in the choir. The reborn Frauenkirche now began to rise from the blackened eighteenth-century foundation. In ten years, the outer construction was complete, and once again the great stone bell that defined Dresden soared over the skyline. A new gold pinnacle cross, an exact replica of the original, financed by British donations and made by British artisans, was set in place and crowned the church.\n\nWithin, master plasterers, painters, and artists, working from old photographs and using the latest computer technology, painstakingly restored the grand rococo interior. To the dismay of many purists, reproducing a facsimile of the original organ of Gottfried Silbermann was deemed not feasible, and a modern organ, with a baroque outer covering, was installed in the church.\n\nAnother building that has played a central role in the Dresden drama lies just behind the Frauenkirche, and every regime for the past hundred years has made use of the massive structure. In this brooding pile of a building, \"enemies of the state\"\u2014common criminals, political dissidents, Jews, and homosexuals\u2014were questioned, detained, and tortured by the Gestapo or shipped on to concentration camps. In 1938, the Gestapo and the Dresden police had an unobstructed view of the burning synagogue, situated only a block away, during the outrage called Kristallnacht.\n\nThe police building was one of the first to be restored and operating again after the war, and here the notorious Stasi, the East German secret police, intimidated and terrorized the populace, from the same offices used earlier by Himmler's henchmen. In the mid-1980s a young Soviet agent named Vladimir Putin, who would go on to greater fame as president of Russia, was a KGB operative in Dresden, where he worked hand in hand with the Stasi.\n\n\"We started the fire, and it came back and consumed us,\" said the mayor of Dresden on the fiftieth anniversary of the firestorm, 14 February 1995. A group of leftists disrupted the memorial service in the Hofkirche. They charged that it was unseemly to commemorate the Dresden dead when so many innocents, in particular the Jews, suffered at the hands of the Germans. \"Germans were the criminals, not the victims,\" they shouted at the startled audience, which included Chancellor Helmut Kohl. In their view the Dresden dead were victims of the evil Nazis, not of the Allied bombers.\n\nThese young people were viewed by many as representative of a healthy German democracy that tolerated dissent. Others were not so forbearing. The German political scene is both fractured and fractious. There are leftists, rightists, centrists, old-line Communists, and a small but increasingly vocal ultra-right-wing element, neo-Nazis in all but name.\n\nAn incident on a research trip to Dresden is informative. In a caf\u00e9 near my hotel on the Pragerstrasse, I watched as the barman became more and more agitated over the presence of three men sitting at a table. There was nothing remarkable about either their looks or their behavior, but he identified them as Turks. Finally, after much muttering, he stormed over to their table and ordered them out of the caf\u00e9. When they protested, he threatened to call the police. They left.\n\nAs it turned out, he would not have had to go very far for the police. After further conversation with the gentleman on my right, I found out that he was a high-ranking police official whose job it was to ferret out former Stasi agents in the new Saxon police force. He had watched the expulsion of the foreign \"guest workers\" with studied detachment.\n\nOn the sixtieth anniversary of the bombing, five thousand of that barman's fellow travelers from the far-right, anti-immigrant National Democratic Party marched through the streets of Dresden. In a more hopeful sign, an opposition group of nearly equal strength also took to the streets to protest against the rightists.\n\nPerhaps more representative was a group of German students I encountered on a Danube steamer. They were outraged that the captain who was pointing out the attractions along each side of the river had neglected to tell the passengers that we were passing near the site of one of the most infamous of the Nazi concentration camps, Mauthausen. A petition was circulated, most of the passengers signed it, and the matter was put right on the public address system, which was an encouraging sign indeed.\n\n**Even if rare, any** antipathy toward outsiders or lack of tolerance for liberal views is a source of worry in a country with such a violent past as Germany. So the small but active Jewish congregation in Dresden is a hopeful portent. Like all religions, Judaism was discouraged under the Communist regime, but within five years of the end of World War II a small group of Jews was worshipping again in Dresden.\n\nIn the Neustadt, the resurgent Jewish community founded the Center for Jewish History and Culture in Saxony, in a building facing the eighteenth-century Jewish Cemetery, which miraculously survived the Nazi era. The old cemetery draws throngs of the faithful, the merely curious, and sometimes the obtuse or unreconstructed.\n\nIn order to enter the site, men are obliged to don one of the yarmulkes provided by the guides, but on the day I was there, a German tourist refused to do so. He was quietly asked to wait outside while his embarrassed wife stayed on for the tour. It is devoutly to be wished that she, and not the recalcitrant husband, is the true face of the new Germany.\n\nOur guide stressed that the unofficial name for the Jewish Center in the Neustadt is Hatikva, \"hope\" in Hebrew, and hope is certainly the proper word to describe the Jewish community in Dresden, which by 2005 had grown to about 250, helped along by emigration from Russia.\n\nMore important than the size of the congregation is that the Jews of Dresden now have a synagogue, the first to be built in eastern Germany since the 1920s. Their new building sits on the site of the original synagogue built by Gottfried Semper in the nineteenth century. The dedication took place on 9 November 2001, the sixty-third anniversary of Kristallnacht, the night that the old building was burned to the ground by the Nazis.\n\nA relic of Semper's original synagogue, a Star of David, has been incorporated into the ultramodern twenty-first-century building. A local firefighter, Alfred Neugebauer, salvaged the Jewish symbol from the wreckage on the night of the Nazi rampage and, at the risk of imprisonment or death, hid it in his home. The star is now enshrined above the entrance of the new synagogue.\n\n# EPILOGUE\n\n**W inston Churchill, celebrated by many as the greatest wartime** civilian leader in history, was not so fortunate in peacetime. The great threat to England's very existence had brought Churchill to power, but now domestic issues, which had been relegated to the wings during the effort to win the war, were suddenly front and center. The quotidian, the mundane, were of little interest to the prime minister, and he made plain his annoyance with having to deal with them.\n\nInstead of planning grand strategy involving thousands of warplanes, hundreds of ships, and hundreds of thousands of men, he was now badgered by politicians concerned by such issues as the postwar use of the soon-to-be-abandoned airfields scattered across England. Would they be available as sites for commercial aviation?\n\nAs Lord Moran recorded in his diaries, even though Churchill spent many hours with the reform-minded American president, he did not share Roosevelt's \"preoccupation with social problems and the rights of the common man.\" The presidential concerns \"struck no sparks in Winston's mind,\" he observed. The war was their only common interest.\n\nWithin just a little over two weeks after the German surrender, it was clear that the national government that Churchill had put together in 1940, with members of the Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Parties in prominent posts, was finished. The Labourites sensed that they were now in the ascendant and would finally be able to enact many of their long-delayed populist ideas and reforms into law. They withdrew from the coalition. Churchill had no choice but to tender his resignation, but the king immediately asked him to form a \"caretaker\" government until elections could be held to settle the matter as to who would govern postwar Britain.\n\nBritish public opinion was not congruent with that of the larger world, which viewed Churchill as a towering figure, an indispensable man. On 25 July 1945, in a stunning reversal of fortune, Labour was triumphant, and Winston Churchill became a private citizen. Clement Attlee was now prime minister.\n\nArthur Harris, like his old boss, also found himself, at the end of World War II, not a nationally celebrated hero. Instead he became almost a forgotten man. Churchill had raised him from the rank of knight commander to knight grand cross of the Order of the Bath and had also offered him the post of governor general of Bermuda.\n\nThe new prime minister agreed to the appointment, and he invited Harris and his wife to Chequers by way of further congratulations. Attlee's colleagues in the new Labour government turned out to be more chary. He rescinded the offer of the Bermuda post within days.\n\nHarris was also left out of the Victory Honours List, which was bad enough in itself, but the insult was compounded by the elevation to the peerage or a baronetcy of the other wartime military leaders. The calculated slight caused a furor in England. Many theories were put forward for the affront: the newly rediscovered pacifism of the Labourites; the settling of old scores by the many enemies Harris had made; even the embarrassment, in the postwar atmosphere, of what had been done to Germany by \"Bomber\" Harris.\n\nHarris and his many supporters, for good reason, placed the blame on the machinations of John Strachey, an old adversary who had become undersecretary for air in the Attlee government. During the war, Harris had never hidden his disdain for and distrust of Strachey, whose politics had careered from the extreme right to the extreme left.\n\nBut Harris's ire had extended to everyone. Whether the supposed malefactor was an undersecretary, a member of the Cabinet, or even the prime minister, he'd cared not at all. In one particularly abusive memo to Strachey's predecessor, he had excoriated the defense establishment for not producing a workable cluster of incendiary bombs. The letter is studded with such expressions as \"gross incompetence,\" \"hopeless,\" \"poor,\" \"misplaced energy... being put into petty and useless improvements,\" and \"deplorable.\" Amazingly, this letter was written ten days _after_ incendiaries had devastated Dresden.\n\nIn January 1946, preparatory to his retirement from the RAF, Harris was promoted from air chief marshal to marshal of the Royal Air Force, the highest rank attainable in the RAF. And there the matter rested. There were no further official honors for the man who had taken the war to the enemy for five years.\n\nForeign governments were not so stingy with accolades for the leader of Bomber Command, in particular the United States. At a special service at the Pentagon in September 1946, Eisenhower himself presented Harris with the Distinguished Service Medal on behalf of President Truman and the American people.\n\nBy this time, Harris's connections, in particular his acquaintance with Averell Harriman, had led to his becoming managing director of the South African Marine Corporation, Ltd., a shipping line with offices in New York and Cape Town. He and Lady Harris maintained homes in both cities.\n\nOne of the advantages of a society with free elections is that wrongs are sometimes righted when the outs become the ins. Such was the case when Churchill was returned to power as prime minister of Great Britain on 26 October 1951, a month shy of his seventy-seventh birthday. The following April, he offered Harris the long-overdue peerage.\n\nHarris's departure from England six years earlier had come amid much speculation that he had abandoned his homeland because of the shoddy treatment he had received at the hands of an ungrateful Labour government. He felt that once he accepted this honor from the new Tory government, perhaps these rumors, which were not completely unjustified, might at least be put to rest.\n\nBut he refused the highest honor. To be called \"Lord Harris\" just would not do in South Africa. As he put it, it would be \"as out of place [there] as a hippopotamus in Trafalgar Square.\"\n\nOpposition to honoring Harris was still strong, and according to Churchill's private secretary John Colville, there was \"consternation\" at the meeting of the Honours Committee when Churchill proposed Harris's name.\n\nThe tenacious Churchill would not be denied, however, and the following New Year's Day, 1953, Harris's name appeared on the Honours List. He was to become a baronet, a title he'd chosen since he would not have to change the way he was addressed. But the overriding reason he allowed such an honor was that it would also recognize the thousands of men who had served and died under him in the war against the Axis\u2014his \"bomber boys.\" Not so incidentally, it would also be \"a thistle for Strachey.\"\n\nSir Arthur Harris, Bt, GCB, OBE, AFC, LLD, eventually resettled in England in the Oxfordshire village of Goring-on-Thames, the name of which no doubt amused him greatly. There he lived quietly, receiving old friends and maintaining his contacts with former comrades in arms.\n\nOn 5 June 1964, the day before the twentieth anniversary of D-day, Harris received a particularly welcome message. \"Dear Bert,\" wrote his old comrade in arms, \"To you, one of my close associates in OVERLORD, I am impelled to send, once more, a special word of thanks... no historian could possibly be aware of the depth of my obligation to you.\" The cable was signed simply \"Ike.\"\n\nOn Arthur Harris's ninetieth birthday, in 1982, part of the celebration included a flyover by a Lancaster bomber. At noon, the old man was asked to come outside. As he stood in his garden the great plane roared in low over the town. The air marshal looked at his watch. \"Late, as always,\" he said.\n\nThe controversy that swirled around Arthur Harris and Bomber Command continues to crop up as new revelations come to light and World War II strategy is rethought, reinterpreted, and in many cases condemned anew. The announcement that at long last a memorial to the men of Bomber Command, with a statue of the air marshal, was to be erected in front of St. Clement Danes, the RAF church, in the Strand, elicited protests from around the world, including the _Times_ of London and the mayor of Dresden.\n\nOpposition was effectively damped down, or at least muted, when one of the RAF's staunchest wartime sponsors announced that not only would she attend the ceremony but would unveil the statue to Bomber Harris herself. On 31 May 1992, Elizabeth, the ninety-two-year-old Queen Mother, proudly took her place beside the old airmen at the dedication, many of whom she had met when she'd tirelessly toured the RAF bases a half century earlier.\n\n**With the Russian soldiers** only a few streets away, Adolf Hitler killed himself in the _F\u00fchrerbunker_. Joseph Goebbels and his wife, Magda\u2014after dispatching their six sleeping children by forcing cyanide capsules into their mouths\u2014chose to die upstairs, outside the chancellery. Heinrich Himmler was captured by the British, but he too chose death, by biting down on a cyanide capsule while being examined by a doctor. Hermann G\u00f6ring, therefore, was the only one of the four highest-ranking Nazis to stand trial.\n\nSoon after his arrest by American troops, G\u00f6ring held a press conference, where he drank champagne while holding forth for reporters and photographers. The subsequent picture spread in _Life_ magazine created the predictable storm, and the Reichsmarschall disappeared from sight until he testified in his own defense at his trial before the War Crimes Tribunal at Nuremberg. Rudolf Hess, Jaochim von Ribbentrop, Speer, Karl D\u00f6nitz, and other Nazi leaders shared the dock with him, but, as always, attention was squarely on G\u00f6ring, who was unrepentant to the end.\n\nBy most accounts, G\u00f6ring gave as good as he got in dealing with his prosecutors and inquisitors. The sly Reichsmarschall was a master showman, but his fluency of speech and brilliance in retort could not mask his crimes and his role as one of the architects of the Nazi campaign of conquest, terror, and murder. He was sentenced to die by hanging. G\u00f6ring protested that he should be given a soldier's death in front of a firing squad.\n\nWhether the promise of a more dignified exit than death at the end of a rope would have deterred him from his final act is open to question. The night before his scheduled execution, G\u00f6ring bit down on a cyanide capsule in his cell at Nuremberg and died within minutes. The provenance of the poison has never been satisfactorily determined.\n\nG\u00f6ring had been searched regularly to avoid just such an occurrence and nothing had been found on his person, so the theory that it was smuggled into him by one of his last visitors, a sympathetic American guard or doctor\u2014he had made friends with several\u2014has never been disproved.\n\n**Carl Spaatz was at** the schoolhouse in Rheims on 7 May when Germany surrendered unconditionally. Two days later he flew to Berlin for the formal surrender of the German general staff at the headquarters of the Soviet commander, Marshal Georgi K. Zhukov.\n\nCarl Spaatz was also the only top-ranking American officer to meet one of the Nazi chieftains. Eisenhower refused to meet or greet any of his erstwhile enemies. Spaatz and Hoyt Vandenberg met G\u00f6ring face-to-face on 10 May 1945, at Augsburg. Spaatz stirred up a controversy by returning G\u00f6ring's salute, which he denied was inappropriate. Indeed, he defended it as the right and proper action from one officer to another.\n\nThe fallen Reichsmarschall told his conqueror that he had not wanted to fight the Battle of Britain because he knew that the Luftwaffe was not ready. He further admitted that his only effective bomber, the Junkers 88, was slow, had limited firepower, and needed a tight fighter escort. In that he was correct, but the Ju 88 was nevertheless an effective bomber in that it carried a sizable bomb load and was operating well within its range. With properly deployed fighter escorts\u2014which, of course, it did not have\u2014it could have been a formidable weapon.\n\nG\u00f6ring also insisted to Spaatz that if Germany could have held out for four or five more months, enough jet planes would have been available and enough fuel produced to turn the tide. He even maintained that there were enough trained pilots to do the job. This was clearly as unrealistic an appraisal of Luftwaffe capabilities in mid-1945, as so many of his prewar predictions had been.\n\nIn the postwar years, both Carl Spaatz and Dwight Eisenhower continued in military posts of great prominence, in Eisenhower's case to the highest civil office as well, the presidency.\n\nSpaatz, when his task in Europe ended, was appointed air force commander in the Far East, where he helped bring a quick end to the war against the Japanese. Some of the old team was reassembled when the Eighth Air Force, still under Doolittle, was transferred to the Pacific war and was based on Okinawa. Carl Spaatz thus found himself a witness to yet more of the great events of the twentieth century.\n\nAs air force commander, he was directly responsible for implementing the order to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Indeed, he met the _Enola Gay_ when it returned from Hiroshima and pinned the Distinguished Flying Cross on the pilot, Paul W. Tibbets.\n\nOn 1 September 1945, Spaatz watched as the Japanese delegation was brought aboard the USS _Missouri_ in Tokyo Bay for the surrender ceremony. He was thus the only officer to be present at each of the three surrender ceremonies that ended World War II: Rheims, Berlin, and Tokyo.\n\nCarl Spaatz's central role in the defeat of the Axis was honor enough for any soldier, but perhaps his enduring monument is the separate and independent United States Air Force, which, in 1947, was finally freed of its subservience to the United States Army. In 1946, Spaatz had succeeded Hap Arnold, and he therefore had the distinction of being the last head of the U.S. Army Air Forces and the first chief of staff of the new United States Air Force.\n\nThe air force could not be truly independent, he argued, without an academy, which would be the equal of West Point and Annapolis. An air force academy was authorized by Congress in 1954, and construction began not long after near Colorado Springs, Colorado, on a site that Spaatz helped select and where, fittingly, he is buried.\n\nThe man immediately responsible for the three most controversial air raids of World War II\u2014Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki\u2014gave little thought to them afterward. And if he ever regretted any of his actions, he certainly never said so. On the contrary.\n\n\"Well, I had no difficulty in that,\" he said about ordering the raid on Hiroshima. \"I ordered the drop. That was purely a political decision, wasn't a military decision. The military man carries out the orders of his political bosses.\"\n\nAs for precision bombing, the general admitted that so much of the bombing was inaccurate that the \"general effect was the same as area bombing.\"\n\nAnd when asked about the sometimes critical _United States Strategic Bombing Survey_ , the man who directed the strategic bombing of Germany replied, \"I've never been interested enough to read it... the successful conclusion of the war was enough to justify what we had done. If we had lost, then the survey might have meant something.\"\n\n**People can evolve, cities** can be rebuilt, and even disgraced nations can rejoin the world community. The firestorm that destroyed the dense urban mix that was prewar Dresden on the night of 13\u201314 February 1945 was not unlike the purifying fire that brings to a close Wagner's epic _Ring of the Nibelung_.\n\nJust as that great conflagration consumes Valhalla and its corrupt gods and heralds redemption for mankind, so the fires of World War II were necessary in order to destroy an evil society and portend a new beginning for Germany.\n\nBut much of the new Germany found itself trapped in yet another totalitarian state. The eastern half, christened the German Democratic Republic, in many ways resembled the old police state of the Hitler years, except that the oppression of the Nazis had been replaced by that of the Communist Party.\n\nHowever, an increasingly restive population eventually joined with the political liberalization movements sweeping the Soviet satellite countries in 1989 and deposed the ruling party. Within a year East and West Germany were reunited. The Dresdeners, who had known nothing but one-party, despotic rule since 1933, were now part of a freely elected, democratic republic.\n\nThe ghosts of despots are hard to exorcise\u2014particularly for the victims. The crimes of the Third Reich have rightly been called crimes against humanity and must never be allowed to be forgotten. Nor should the small but increasingly vocal neo-Nazi movement that has arisen in Germany be dismissed as the ravings of a small minority. German history teaches us that to ignore any movement that appears to exist only on the margins of civilized society is to do so at great peril.\n\nThe reconstruction and revival of the city of Dresden from the ruins that served for decades as the perfect symbol of the universal barbarity of war offers more than a ray of hope for Germany and the world. Nowhere is this reconciliation more manifest than in the reconsecrated Frauenkirche, the great church that has been resurrected from the broken and charred pile of rubble that for half a century lay at the very heart of Dresden.\n\nIt is cause for rejoicing, not only for Germans but for everyone, that the Frauenkirche once again resounds with the music of Johann Sebastian Bach, the exemplar of all that was and is great in the German people.\n\n# ACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n\n**M any institutions and individuals provided encouragement and** support during the research and writing of this book.\n\nIn the United Kingdom I am particularly indebted to the Public Record Office, Kew; the Imperial War Museum, Lambeth; the Bomber Command Association, Hendon, in particular Douglas Radcliffe; the British Library; the Royal Air Force Museum, Hendon; and the Air Force Museum, Duxford.\n\nIn Germany, Matthias Neutzner made available his wide knowledge and extensive research on the Dresden raids. The Stadtmuseum Dresden and the Deutsches Fotothek, at the S\u00e4chsische Landesbibliothek, in particular Bettina Erlenkamp, were most accommodating. Lutz Werner, at the Neue Synagoge, provided valuable information on the Jewish community in Dresden.\n\nIn America, I am grateful for the assistance rendered by staff at the Library of Congress; the United States Air Force Historical Research Center, Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.; the library at the United States Air Force Academy; the library at the United States Military Academy; the Daniel Library at the Citadel; the New York Public Library; the Ramsay Library at the University of North Carolina at Asheville; the Mighty Eighth Air Force Museum and Library, Pooler, Ga.; and the Pack Memorial Library, Asheville, N.C.\n\nThe Wurlitzer Foundation, Taos, N.M., provided much needed solitude at a critical time in this book's genesis, and I was able to work in other special places through the generosity of Eleanor Crook, John Ehle, Rosemary Harris, and Fredda Culbreth.\n\nThe Experimental Aircraft Association, Oshkosh, Wisc., afforded me an indelible research experience\u2014the opportunity to be co-pilot, navigator, waist gunner, and bombardier on a B-17 Flying Fortress, the _Aluminum Overcast_ , and then take the controls of the great plane and fly it for a few unforgettable minutes over my hometown.\n\nVivian Dillingham was a stalwart throughout the long process, and others to whom I am especially grateful are David Phillips, Phillip Earnshaw, Arthur Humphrey, Carlos S\u00e1nchez, the late Gloria Jones, Enid Hardwicke, John R. Hearst, Budd Levinson, Ruben Johnson, Adolf Kremel, Kathy Taylor, Les Doss, Patrick Read, Liz Carpenter, Malcolm Goldstein, Dr. William R. McKenna, Dr. Snehal Vyas, and Tom McLellan.\n\nCarole Gardiner was particularly generous with her support and offered much wise counsel.\n\nKate Davison was my skillful translator, and Carolyn Blakemore and the late Joel Honig provided useful editorial advice at an early stage.\n\nHowever, it is Robert Loomis of Random House, that nonpareil of editors, to whom I am most indebted. He kept the faith, overlooked the missed deadlines, and urged me to press on. I owe him much.\n\nMarshall De Bruhl  \nAsheville, N.C.   \nJune 2006 \n\n# **NOTES**\n\n## **PREFACE**\n\n _\"Limited or ambitious men\":_ Michael S. Sherry, _The Rise of American Air Power_ , p. xi.\n\n## **PROLOGUE**\n\n _\"Ash Wednesday and St. Valentine's Day\":_ John Colville, _The Fringes of Power_ , p. 559.\n\n _\"Were you there, Charles?\":_ Lord Moran, _Churchill_ , p. 256.\n\n## **CHAPTER ONE: \"THE BOMBER WILL ALWAYS GET THROUGH \"**\n\n _\"less than those sometimes suffered\":_ John Terraine, _A Time for Courage_ , p. 10.\n\n _\"As long as man remained tied to the surface of the earth\":_ Giulio Douhet, _Il dominio dell'aria_ , pp. 7\u201310. 10\n\n _\"jump over the army\":_ Charles Messenger, _Bomber Harris and the Strategic Bombing Offensive_ , p. 18.\n\n _\"If a future war can be won\":_ Charles Messenger, _Bomber Harris and the Strategic Bombing Offensive_ , p. 18.\n\n _\"Air power can be used as an independent means\":_ Max Hastings, _Bomber Command_ , p. 38.\n\n _\"I think it is well also for the man in the street\":_ John Terraine, _A Time for Courage_ , p. 13.\n\n _\"the result of incompetency\":_ C. V. Glines, \"Air Power Visionary Billy Mitchell,\" _Aviation History Magazine_ , Sept. 1997, vol. 8.\n\n _\"had no quarrel with the administration\":_ U.S. Air Force Historical Division, Oral History K105.5\u201335.\n\n _By 1937\u201338, almost 40 percent:_ Richard Overy, _Goering_ , p. 38. _\"I am absolutely convinced\":_ Kenneth S. Davis, _FDR_ , p. 504.\n\n _\"The decisive difference\":_ A. J. P. Taylor quoted in Len Deighton, _Fighter_ , p. xviii.\n\n _\"He was determined\":_ Kenneth S. Davis, _FDR_ , p. 372.\n\n _When he was challenged:_ Michael S. Sherry, _The Rise of American Air Power_ , p. 86.\n\n _\"squared with the dominant prejudices and priorities\":_ Michael S. Sherry, _The Rise of American Air Power_ , p. 82.\n\n _The final Air Corps plan:_ Michael S. Sherry, _The Rise of American Air Power_ , p. 86.\n\n _\"long range bombers must rely\":_ Papers of Ira C. Eaker, Library of Congress.\n\n _\"undoubtedly the most important turning-point\":_ Martin Middlebrook and Chris Everitt, _Bomber Command War Diaries_ , p. 31.\n\n _\"obvious to any literate citizen\":_ Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate, _The Army Air Forces in World War II_ , vol. 1, p. 142.\n\n _In their revised list of priorities:_ AWPD-42 Target Priorities Table, reproduced in James R. Cody, _AWPD-42 to Instant Thunder_ , Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama: Air University Press, 1996.\n\n _\"one of the tragic mistakes of the war\":_ Steven A. Parker, United States Air Force Academy, \"AWPD-1: Targeting for Victory,\" _Aerospace Power Journal_ , Summer 1989.\n\n _\"carried with them the reassuring weight\":_ Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate, _The Army Air Forces in World War II_ , vol. 1, p. 667.\n\n _\"hysterical chatter\":_ Kenneth S. Davis, _FDR_ , p. 549. _it was still at 73 percent:_ Michael S. Sherry, _The Rise of American Air Power_ , p. 82.\n\n## CHAPTER TWO: THE ARCHITECTS OF DESTRUCTION\n\n _\"It is on the bomber that we must rely\":_ Charles Messenger, _\"Bomber\" Harris and the Strategic Bombing Offensive_ , p. 17.\n\n _\"the moral effect of bombing\":_ John Terraine, _A Time for Courage_ , p. 9.\n\n _\"We must avoid the stupendous drain\":_ Lord Moran, _Churchill_ , p. 81.\n\n _His November 1942:_ Max Hastings, _Bomber Command_ , p. 180.\n\n _In addition, although it was not publicly stated:_ Martin Gilbert, _The Second World War_ , p. 393.\n\n _\"You have only to look\":_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 1.\n\n _\"I completed the long course\":_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 13.\n\n _\"I can't fly\":_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 13.\n\n _\"We just flew about\":_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 16.\n\n _\"Thereafter for nearly twenty years\":_ Sir Arthur Harris, _Bomber Offensive_ , p. 277.\n\n _\"bones now lie\":_ Sir Arthur Harris, _Bomber Offensive_ , p. 277.\n\n _Harris early on saw the power:_ Sir Arthur Harris, _Bomber Offensive_ , p. 19.\n\n _Later, Harris credited:_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 45.\n\n _A quick advance by Germany:_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 52.\n\n _British intelligence that the Luftwaffe:_ Cajus Bekker, _The Luftwaffe War Diaries_ , p. 377.\n\n _\"batches of Hudsons and Harvards\":_ Sir Arthur Harris, _Bomber Offensive_ , p. 27.\n\n _\"I am at a loss\":_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 60.\n\n _Harris acidly observed:_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 61.\n\n _\"Their major obsession\":_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 61.\n\n _\"I have in the course of my lifetime\":_ Sir Arthur Harris, _Bomber Offensive_ , p. 33.\n\n _Someone at the Air Ministry:_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 82. 39 _Harris's credo:_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 83.\n\n _\"perhaps the greatest error\":_ Martin Gilbert, _The Second World War_ , p. 277.\n\n _\"because you see\":_ Sir Arthur Harris, _Bomber Offensive_ , p. 64.\n\n _\"The idea that the main object of bombing\":_ Sir Arthur Harris, _Bomber Offensive_ , p. 78.\n\n _\"I do not, of course, suggest that bombing\":_ Sir Arthur Harris, _Bomber Offensive_ , p. 79.\n\n _\"The damage surpasses all one could imagine\":_ Matthias Neutzner, _Angriff: Martha Heinrich Acht_ , letter of 21 February 1945, p. 106.\n\n _There was no argument about the ultimate purpose:_ Martin Gilbert, _The Second World War_ , p. 393.\n\n _\"Red Plague over Berlin\":_ Roger Manvell and Heinrich Fraenkel, _Goering_ , p. 116.\n\n _only a prototype passed off as being in full production:_ David Irving, _G\u00f6ring_ , p. 224.\n\n _\"designed to intimidate\":_ Michael S. Sherry, _The Rise of American Air Power_ , p. 359.\n\n _\"An endeavor will be made\":_ \"Preliminary Tactical Guiding Principles for the Employment of Luftwaffe Units Against England,\" 10 January 1940, Maxwell Air Force Base, microfilm.\n\n _\"That's just what we want!\":_ Cajus Bekker, _The Luftwaffe War Diaries_ , p. 126.\n\n _\"In the face of such arguments\":_ Cajus Bekker, _The Luftwaffe War Diaries_ , p. 176.\n\n## CHAPTER THREE: WEAPONS FOR THE NEW AGE OF WARFARE\n\n _Indeed, when Arthur Harris assumed command:_ Martin Middlebrook and Chris Everitt, _The Bomber Command War Diaries_ , p. 241.\n\n _\"According to the American habit\":_ Air University Library, Maxwell Air Force Base, Microfilm K2625.\n\n _As late as 25 January 1945:_ Spaatz Papers, Library of Congress.\n\n _\"In the evening we again\":_ Joseph Goebbels, _Final Entries, 1945_ , p. 35.\n\n _Udet had pulled off something of a coup:_ Air University Library, Maxwell Air Force Base, Microfilm K2625.\n\n _\"We [Germany] were prepared for a short war\":_ \"The Development of Ground Attack Aviation,\" Air University Library, Maxwell Air Force Base, No. 4376\u2013584.\n\n _In a surprisingly frank speech:_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 54.\n\n _\"tried to assume as little\":_ \"The Development of Jet and Rocket Airplanes in Germany, 1938\u20131945,\" Air University Library, Maxwell Air Force Base, Microfilm K2625.\n\n _\"The war is over!\":_ Cajus Bekker, _The Luftwaffe War Diaries_ , p. 230.\n\n _Seeing enemies on every side:_ Richard Overy, _Goering_ , p. 155.\n\n _Thousands of these_ Mischlinge: Bryan Mark Riggs, _Hitler's Jewish Soldiers_ , p. 29.\n\n _Hitler, who was kept apprised:_ Albert Speer, _Inside the Third Reich_ , pp. 362\u201363.\n\n _However, not more than 300 jets:_ Cajus Bekker, _The Luftwaffe War Diaries_ , p. 356.\n\n _In October 1944, according to Bekker:_ Cajus Bekker, _The Luftwaffe War Diaries_ , p. 356.\n\n _On 10 April 1945, Luftwaffe jet aircraft:_ Richard G. Davis, _Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe_ , p. 584.\n\n _As Molly Painter-Downs reported: The New Yorker Book of War Pieces_ , pp. 56\u201357.\n\n _\"We have ample evidence\":_ Richard G. Davis, _Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe_ , p. 261.\n\n _And on 24 May 1943 he wrote to Arnold:_ Richard G. Davis, _Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe_ , p. 200.\n\n _\"Today I saw air power\":_ \"8th Air Force Miscellaneous Correspondence, 1942\u20131945.\" 6 vols. USAF HRA\/ISR. Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, File 520.161.\n\n _\"We discovered one day\":_ Steven A. Parker, United States Air Force Academy, \"AWPD-1: Targeting for Victory.\" _Aerospace Power Journal_ , Summer 1989.\n\n## CHAPTER FOUR:THE FATAL ESCALATION\n\n _\"For centuries, it has been in our blood\":_ Winston Churchill, _Memoirs of the Second World War_ , p. 354.\n\n _\"The PM seems rather more apprehensive\":_ John Colville, _The Fringes of Power_ , p. 245.\n\n _Churchill told the general:_ Martin Gilbert, ed., _The Churchill War Papers_ , vol. 2, p. 852.\n\n _Somewhere between the translation:_ Warren F. Kimball, _Forged in War_ , p. 65.\n\n _\"Should October pass\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), CAB 66\/13 WP (40) 421.\n\n _As one Luftwaffe fighter pilot said:_ Cajus Bekker, _The Luftwaffe War Diaries_ , p. 169.\n\n _The British pilots, said Churchill:_ Winston Churchill, _Memoirs of the Second World War_ , p. 358.\n\n _He reserved \"to himself personal punishment\":_ Cajus Bekker, _The Luftwaffe War Diaries_ , p. 172.\n\n _A month before, Churchill had written:_ Martin Gilbert, ed., _The Churchill War Papers_ , vol. 2, p. 555.\n\n _\"Now they are trying to starve us out\":_ Martin Middlebrook and Chris Everitt, _The Bomber Command War Diaries_ , p. 77.\n\n _\"the law of diminishing returns\":_ Winston Churchill, _Memoirs of the Second World War_ , p. 372.\n\n _\"Far more important to us\":_ Winston Churchill, _Memoirs of the Second World War_ , p. 361.\n\n _\"a breathing space of which we had the utmost need\":_ Winston Churchill, _Memoirs of the Second World War_ , p. 361.\n\n _\"G\u00f6ring should certainly have persevered\":_ Winston Churchill, _Memoirs of the Second World War_ , p. 361.\n\n _\"London was like some huge prehistoric animal\":_ Winston Churchill, _Memoirs of the Second World War_ , p. 377.\n\n _Still, Churchill wondered:_ Winston Churchill, _Memoirs of the Second World War_ , p. 375.\n\n _Some 380 people were killed:_ Public Record Office (Kew), CAB 66\/13 WP (40) 457.\n\n _But myths die hard:_ Allan W. Kurki, _Operation Moonlight Sonata_.\n\n _\"While the success of [the Americans'] attacks\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 20\/4826.\n\n _\"The risk of death from incendiary attacks\":_ Public Record Office (Kew). AIR 20\/4826.\n\n _\"Priority of selection\":_ Martin Middlebrook and Chris Everitt, _The Bomber Command War Diaries_ , p. 132.\n\n _\"Both are suitable as area objectives\":_ Martin Middlebrook and Chris Everitt, _The Bomber Command War Diaries_ , p. 132.\n\n _\" 'area bombing' against German cities\":_ Martin Middlebrook and Chris Everitt, _The Bomber Command War Diaries_ , p. 132.\n\n _Just one-third:_ Denis Richards, _The Hardest Victory_ , p. 96.\n\n _Did not this report give the lie:_ Denis Richards, _The Hardest Victory_ , p. 97.\n\n _\"It is very debatable\":_ Denis Richards, _The Hardest Victory_ , p. 97.\n\n _\"spiked Churchill's guns\":_ Denis Richards, _The Hardest Victory_ , p. 97.\n\n _As for the success of the RAF campaign:_ Public Record Office (Kew), \"Weekly R\u00e9sum\u00e9 (no. 286) of the Naval, Military and Air Situation from 0700 15th February to 0700 22nd February, 1945,\" War Cabinet Files, Public Record Office (Kew), W.P. (45) 106, 22 Feb. 1945.\n\n _\"No dog nor cat is left\":_ Michael S. Sherry, _The Rise of American Air Power_ , p. 150.\n\n _\"It has been decided\":_ Martin Middlebrook and Chris Everitt, _The Bomber Command War Diaries_ , p. 240.\n\n _\"L\u00fcbeck,\" said Harris:_ Max Hastings, _Bomber Command_ , pp. 147\u201348.\n\n _\"I censured this\":_ Joseph Goebbels, _The Goebbels Diaries, 1942\u20131943_ , p. 200.\n\n _\"There is talk about scenes\":_ Joseph Goebbels, _The Goebbels Diaries, 1942\u20131943_ , p. 201.\n\n _On 6 April 1941:_ Martin Gilbert, _The Second World War_ , p. 170.\n\n _In a memorandum of 2 May 1942:_ Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 14\/3507.\n\n _He ordered the gauleiter:_ Albert Speer, _Inside the Third Reich_ , pp. 279\u201380.\n\n _\"The end is in sight in Africa\":_ Joseph Goebbels, _The Goebbels Diaries, 1942\u20131943_ , p. 353.\n\n _\"the greatest example of perfidy in modern history\":_ Joseph Goebbels, _The Goebbels Diaries, 1942\u20131943_ , p. 410.\n\n _The bombs fell:_ Martin Middlebrook and Chris Everitt, _The Bomber Command War Diaries_ , p. 411.\n\n _The Americans followed up:_ Roger A. Freeman, Alan Crouchman, and Vic Maslen, _The Mighty Eighth War Diary_ , pp. 78\u201379.\n\n _\"The Americans quickly withdrew\":_ Martin Middlebrook and Chris Everitt, _The Bomber Command War Diaries_ , p. 410.\n\n _Historian Daniel Goldhagen has estimated:_ Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, _Hitler's Willing Executioners_ , p. 171.\n\n## CHAPTER FIVE: _VERGELTUNGSWAFFEN_\n\n _\"attack by pilotless aircraft\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), CAB 65\/42.\n\n _\"England is trembling\": New York Times_ , 18 June 1944.\n\n _He ordered the escalation:_ Albert Speer, _Inside the Third Reich_ , p. 356.\n\n _More disturbing was the report:_ Public Record Office (Kew), CAB 65\/43.\n\n _He immediately volunteered:_ Chapman obituary, _New York Times_ , 20 December 1997.\n\n _During an interrogation:_ Kenneth Grubb, \"How We Make Captured Luftwaffe Crews Talk.\"\n\n _103 of the 140 identified sites:_ Denis Richards, _The Hardest Victory_ , p. 225.\n\n _Just four days after the first V-1:_ Martin Middlebrook and Chris Everitt, _The Bomber Command War Diaries_ , 16\u201317 June 1944.\n\n _\"On that day\":_ Albert Speer, _Inside the Third Reich_ , p. 346.\n\n _By November 1944:_ Albert Speer, _Inside the Third Reich_ , pp. 346\u201350.\n\n _The Polish underground:_ Martin Gilbert, _The Second World War_ , p. 561.\n\n _\"has now been intensified\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), CAB 65\/44, p. 213.\n\n _It was estimated:_ Ian Kershaw, _Hitler: 1936\u20131945: Nemesis_ , p. 736.\n\n _\"justification of giving up\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 14\/3507.\n\n _\"have thrown our preparations\":_ Joseph Goebbels, _The Goebbels Diaries, 1942\u20131943_ , p. 435.\n\n _\"Losses were particularly heavy\":_ Walter Dornberger, _V-2_ , p. 105.\n\n _The next week saw some drop-off:_ Public Record Office (Kew), \"Weekly R\u00e9sum\u00e9 (no. 291) of the Naval, Military and Air Situation from 0700 22nd March to 0700 29th March, 1945,\" W.P. (45) 201.\n\n _But at last the ten-month:_ Public Record Office (Kew), CAB 65\/50.\n\n _\"It is my duty\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), 410 H.C. DEB. 5s, col. 985.\n\n _As for who should be credited:_ Public Record Office (Kew), 410 H.C. DEB. 5s, col. 985.\n\n _\"The decisive difference\":_ A. J. P. Taylor quoted in Len Deighton, _Fighter_ , p. xviii.\n\n _Speer later derisively pointed out:_ Albert Speer, _Inside the Third Reich_ , p. 365.\n\n## **CHAPTER SIX: OPERATION THUNDERCLAP**\n\n _\"I don't know about oratory\":_ Lord Moran, _Churchill_ , p. 13.\n\n _\"Those filthy Germans!\":_ Harold Nicolson, _Diaries and Letters_ , vol. 2, _The War Years_ , 16 February 1944.\n\n _The use of poison gas:_ Martin Gilbert, _Winston S. Churchill, 1942\u20131945: Road to Victory_ , p. 840.\n\n _\"Press and broadcast should be asked\":_ Martin Gilbert, _The Churchill War Papers_ , Vol. 2, _Never Surrender_ , p. 423.\n\n _The odds of being killed:_ Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 20\/4826.\n\n _\"that the time might well come\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 20\/3227; Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 20\/4831.\n\n _\"Attack on German Civilian Morale\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 20\/3227.\n\n _\"A spectacular and final object lesson\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 20\/3227.\n\n _\"The main purpose of [Thunderclap]\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), Air 20\/4826.\n\n _\"The essential purpose of the attack\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), Air 20\/4826.\n\n _\"at the best may prove the last straw\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), Air 20\/4831.\n\n _\"In this situation it is unlikely\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), Air 20\/4826.\n\n _Neither Arthur Harris nor Carl Spaatz:_ Richard G. Davis, _Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe_ , p. 436.\n\n _As for Harris:_ Sir Arthur Harris, _Bomber Offensive_ , p. 245.\n\n _When they told Harris:_ Richard G. Davis, _Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe_ , pp. 432\u201333.\n\n _A thousand American B-17s:_ Roger A. Freeman, Alan Crouchman, and Vic Maslen, _The Mighty Eighth War Diary_ , p. 273.\n\n _\"U.S. bombing policy, as you know\":_ Spaatz Papers, Library of Congress.\n\n _\"We will continue precision bombing\":_ Richard G. Davis, _Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe_ , p. 434.\n\n _The plan was scrapped:_ Martin Gilbert, _The Second World War_ , p. 592.\n\n _\"Since the Mongol invasion\":_ Richard Breitman, _Official Secrets_ , p. 93.\n\n _\"And not with Jews\":_ Richard Breitman, _Official Secrets_ , p. 102.\n\n _\"The Jewish capacity for destruction\":_ Harold Nicolson, _Diaries and Letters_ , vol. 2, _The War Years_ , 13 June 1945.\n\n _\"If propaganda has imbued a whole people\":_ Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_ , p. 582.\n\n _And when the American bombers entered the war:_ Conrad C. Crane, _Bombs, Cities, and Civilians_ , p. 64.\n\n _\"It is contrary to our national ideals\":_ Richard G. Davis, _Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe_ , p. 435.\n\n _\"Our entire target policy\":_ Richard G. Davis, _Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe_ , p. 435.\n\n _\"The bombing of civilian targets\":_ Richard G. Davis, _Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe_ , p. 435.\n\n _\"ancient, compact, historic\":_ Richard G. Davis, _Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe_ , p. 436.\n\n _\"In the European area\":_ Winant to FDR, 23 April 1944. National Archives; photocopy on file in David Irving Archives.\n\n _\"There seems to be a kind of fanaticism\":_ National Archives; photocopy on file in David Irving Archives.\n\n _\"was very anxious to operate\": Historical Analysis of the 14\u201315 February 1945 Bombing of Dresden_ , p. 4.\n\n _\"to discuss with you the situation\": Historical Analysis of the 14\u201315 February 1945 Bombing of Dresden_ , p. 4.\n\n _\"Tedder outlined to Stalin\": Historical Analysis of the 14\u201315 February 1945 Bombing of Dresden_, p. 4.\n\n _But he now had to give way:_ Martin Middlebrook and Chris Everitt, _The Bomber Command War Diaries_ , p. 661.\n\n _In the evening:_ Joseph Goebbels, _Final Entries, 1945_ , p. 3.\n\n _On 29 April 1944:_ Roger A. Freeman, Alan Crouchman, and Vic Maslen, _The Mighty Eighth War Diary_ , p. 232.\n\n _In a series of raids:_ Roger A. Freeman, Alan Crouchman, and Vic Maslen, _The Mighty Eighth War Diary_ , p. 316.\n\n _In raids on 7 October:_ Roger A. Freeman, Alan Crouchman, and Vic Maslen, _The Mighty Eighth War Diary_ , p. 360.\n\n _Entitled \"Strategic Bombing\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 8\/1745.\n\n _\"basting the Germans\":_ Max Hastings, _Bomber Command_ , p. 341.\n\n _The Prime Minister was concerned:_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 282.\n\n _Sinclair felt:_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 283.\n\n _\"I did not ask you last night\":_ Max Hastings, _Bomber Command_ , p. 341.\n\n _The chief priority:_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 284.\n\n _While oil would remain:_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 284.\n\n _Bottomley sent a cable:_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 285.\n\n _\"Evacuees from German and German-Occupied\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 8\/1745.\n\n _\"Attack of Berlin, Leipzig, Dresden\":_ Maxwell Air Force Base, Microfilm K2625, 2078.\n\n _\"in conjunction with our attacks on Berlin\":_ Maxwell Air Force Base, Microfilm K2625, 2078.\n\n _\"to attack [Munich]\":_ Maxwell Air Force Base, Microfilm K2625, 2078.\n\n _For Dresden was an alternate target:_ Melden E. Smith Jr., \"The Bombing of Dresden Reconsidered,\" p. 230.\n\n _\"All out effort will be placed\":_ Maxwell Air Force Base, Microfilm K2625, 2078.\n\n _\"Our estimate of the situation\":_ Richard G. Davis, _Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe_ , p. 541.\n\n _Eisenhower reluctantly agreed:_ Richard G. Davis, _Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe_ , p. 541.\n\n _Further, said the president:_ Warren F. Kimball, ed., _Churchill and Roosevelt: The Complete Correspondence_ , vol. 3, p. 592.\n\n _\"If the United States\":_ National Archives; photocopy on file in David Irving Archives.\n\n _\"This is again 'jam tomorrow' \":_ National Archives; photocopy in David Irving Archives.\n\n _He asked the British and Americans: Historical Analysis of the 14\u201315 February 1945 Bombing of Dresden_.\n\n _The limit-line agreement:_ \"Agreement for the Establishment of Limit Line (Prohibited Zone) for Operations of Allied Strategic Air Forces on the Front of Soviet Troops,\" 6 February 1945, Maxwell Air Force Base, Microfilm K2625, 2078.\n\n _\"Without you\":_ Richard G. Davis, _Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe_ , p. 547.\n\n _Kuter quickly realized:_ Maxwell Air Force Base, Microfilm K2625, 2078.\n\n _Therefore, on 12 February:_ Melden E. Smith Jr., \"The Bombing of Dresden Reconsidered,\" p. 234.\n\n## **CHAPTER SEVEN: THE TARGET**\n\n _\"belonged largely to emperors\":_ Robert B. Asprey, _Frederick the Great_ , p. xiii.\n\n _\"from pleasure to pleasure\":_ Leopold von Ranke, _Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg and History of Prussia_ , vol. 1, pp 343\u201344.\n\n _\"I have not at present\":_ Thomas Carlyle, _History of Frederick II of Prussia_. vol. 3, p. 135.\n\n _\"answered yes to everything\":_ Robert B. Asprey, _Frederick the Great_ , p. 234. 175 _\"in the presence of all\":_ Hans T. David and Arthur Mendel, _The Bach Reader_ , p. 226.\n\n _\"DRESDEN is the historical capital of Saxony\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 14\/3682.\n\n _\"Hospitals were denoted by\":_ Targeting information, Dresden, 27 February 1942, Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 40\/1680.\n\n _\"Only a few knew what the finished product\":_ Matthias Neutzner, _Lebenszeichen_ , p. 67.\n\n _\"a maximum capacity\":_ Targeting information, Dresden, 27 February 1942, Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 40\/1680.\n\n _\"Dresden is one of the few direct links\":_ Targeting information, Dresden, 27 February 1942, Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 40\/1680.\n\n## **CHAPTER EIGHT: SHROVE TUESDAY , 1945**\n\n _\"Pity that I have one screw too few\":_ Victor Klemperer, _I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1933\u20131941_ , p. 236.\n\n _Nevertheless, more than 30,000 internees:_ Martin Gilbert, _The First World War_ , p. 539.\n\n _\"On this occasion\":_ Victor Klemperer, _I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1942\u20131945_ , p. 404.\n\n _\"The most cruel separations\":_ Victor Klemperer, _I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1942\u20131945_ , p. 404.\n\n _\"Again a shabby house\":_ Victor Klemperer, _I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1942\u20131945_ , p. 405.\n\n _\"Now we were examined\":_ Matthias Neutzner, _Lebenszeichen_ , pp. 21\u201322.\n\n _\"Sch\u00f6rner is decidedly a personality\":_ Joseph Goebbels, _Final Entries, 1945_ , p. 80.\n\n _\"the other two who were condemned\":_ Joseph Goebbels, _Final Entries, 1945_ , p. 317.\n\n _\"The flight of January 1945\":_ John Keegan, _The Second World War_ , p. 592.\n\n _\"Really, one is compelled\":_ Gerhart Pohl, _Gerhart Hauptmann and Silesia_ , p. 5.\n\n## CHAPTER NINE: A PILLAR OF FIRE BY NIGHT\n\n _The attacking force:_ Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 14\/3713, \"Daily Attack Book.\"\n\n _\"I never bargained to take Tetrazzini\":_ Lord Moran, _Churchill_ , p. 255.\n\n _En route, Churchill:_ Winston Churchill, _Memoirs of the Second World War_ , p. 929.\n\n _The attack he feared had begun:_ Author's interview with family member.\n\n _The master bomber now broke radio silence:_ David Irving, _Apocalypse 1945_ , p. 134.\n\n _The stadium had been chosen:_ Target map of Dresden, Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 14\/3682.\n\n _Shouting, \"Marker Leader: Tally-ho!\":_ David Irving, _Apocalypse 1945_ , p. 135.\n\n _\"a rain of incendiaries\":_ Sir Arthur Harris, _Bomber Offensive_ , p. 83.\n\n _By the time Victor Klemperer:_ Victor Klemperer, _I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1942\u20131945_ , p. 404.\n\n _Only six aircraft:_ Royal Air Force Operations Record Book, Feb. 1945. Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 24\/307, AIR 24\/309.\n\n## CHAPTER TEN: A COLUMN OF SMOKE BY DAY\n\n _Some 461 bombers:_ Roger A. Freeman, Alan Crouchman, and Vic Maslen, _The Mighty Eighth War Diary_ , p. 439.\n\n _a high school senior:_ Author's interview with Margaret Armstrong Campbell.\n\n _Twenty-three planes were lost:_ Roger A. Freeman, Alan Crouchman, and Vic Maslen, _The Mighty Eighth War Diary_ , p. 432.\n\n _there was a relative newcomer:_ Author's interview with Raymond G. Engstrand.\n\n _The long mission to Dresden:_ Author's interview with Ernest Robertson.\n\n _\"I was the old man in the crew\":_ Roger A. Freeman, Alan Crouchman, and Vic Maslen, _The Mighty Eighth War Diary_ , p. 60. Colonel Morgan, in an interview with the author, recalled that it was St. Nazaire.\n\n _The B-17s had strayed into Czechoslovakia:_ In Roger A. Freeman, Alan Crouchman, and Vic Maslen, _The Mighty Eighth War Diary_ , p. 439, Prague is denoted as a \"target of opportunity.\"\n\n _There was light flak:_ Author's interview with Raymond G. Engstrand.\n\n _On 15 October, Hap Arnold:_ Letter to Joseph E. Kelly, Kelly family records, Repton, Alabama.\n\n _At that moment aboard:_ Author's interview with Ernest Robertson.\n\n _He was awarded the Purple Heart:_ Kelly family records, Repton, Alabama.\n\n## **CHAPTER ELEVEN: ASH WEDNESDAY , 1945**\n\n _\"A person who has forgotten how to weep\":_ Gerhart Pohl, _Gerhart Hauptmann and Silesia_ , p. 8.\n\n _A woman identified as Nora L.:_ Matthias Neutzner, _Angriff: Martha Heinrich Acht_ , pp. 130\u201334.\n\n _\"In the street all hell had broken loose\":_ Matthias Neutzner, _Lebenszeichen_ , pp. 94\u201395.\n\n _A Dresdener who directed a Red Cross camp:_ Matthias Neutzner, _Lebenszeichen_ , pp. 25\u201329.\n\n _\"After the first raid\":_ Matthias Neutzner, _Angriff: Martha Heinrich Acht_ , pp. 103\u201304.\n\n _Hans-Joachim D.:_ Matthias Neutzner, _Angriff: Martha Heinrich Acht_ , pp. 194\u201396.\n\n _Gerhart Sommer, who was eight years old:_ Author's interview with Sommer, 6 June 2005.\n\n _\"Then came the second raid\":_ Matthias Neutzner, _Lebenszeichen_ , pp. 19\u201321.\n\n _\"On 13 February we heard the early warning\":_ Matthias Neutzner, _Lebenszeichen_ , pp. 16\u201318.\n\n## **CHAPTER TWELVE: \"MR. PRIME MINISTER?\"**\n\n _The Pforzheim attack:_ Allied Air Commanders Conference, 1 March 1945, Minutes.\n\n _\"The Wehrmacht has decided to confer\":_ Spaatz Papers, Library of Congress.\n\n _\"Eighth Air Force Crews\":_ Allied Air Commanders Conference, 1 March 1945, Minutes.\n\n _\"What will lie\":_ John Colville, _The Fringes of Power_ , p. 563.\n\n _\"The bomber is a passing phase\":_ John Colville, _The Fringes of Power_ , p. 564.\n\n _\"Dresden? There is no such place\":_ John Colville, _The Fringes of Power_ , p. 562.\n\n _\"a man of limited intelligence\":_ John Colville, _The Fringes of Power_ , p. 563.\n\n _\"We could have no better brothers\":_ Sir Arthur Harris, _Bomber Offensive_ , p. 246.\n\n _\"Come on and deal\":_ Captain Harry C. Butcher, _My Three Years with Eisenhower_ , p. 770.\n\n _\"It seems,\" he said:_ Spaatz Papers, Library of Congress.\n\n _\"it is most improbable\":_ Spaatz Papers, Library of Congress.\n\n _\"This constant sniveling\":_ David Irving, _Hitler's War_ , p. 739.\n\n _\"almost draw a sigh of relief\":_ Joachim Fest, _Speer_ , p. 194.\n\n _\"The Allied Air Commanders\":_ Arnold to Spaatz, 18 February 1945, Maxwell Air Force Base, microfilm K2625, 2078.\n\n _\"To start with the Heavies\":_ Spaatz Papers, Library of Congress.\n\n _\"We must not get soft\":_ Tami Davis Biddle. \"Sifting Dresden's Ashes,\" p. 75.\n\n _\"the worst devastations\":_ Max Hastings, _Bomber Command_ , p. 176.\n\n _\"a blot on our escutcheon\": Hansard_ , Fifth Series, vol. 408, col. 1901.\n\n _\"It seems to me\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), CAB 120\/303.\n\n _Between them, said Harriman:_ Richard Overy, _Why the Allies Won_ , p. 102; Lord Moran, _Churchill_ , p. 61; Winston Churchill, _Memoirs of the Second World War_ , p. 623.\n\n _\"To suggest that we have\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 20\/3218.\n\n _The exchange between:_ Max Hastings, _Bomber Command_ , pp. 332\u201335.\n\n _\"the attack on Dresden was at the time\":_ Sir Arthur Harris, _Bomber Offensive_ , p. 242.\n\n _\"Throughout January and February\":_ Winston Churchill, _The Second World War: Triumph and Tragedy_ , pp. 540\u201341. In the single-volume abridgement of the work, there is no mention of the Dresden raid.\n\n _In her book:_ Deborah Lipstadt, _Denying the Holocaust_ , passim.\n\n _\"falsifications of the historical facts\":_ Richard J. Evans, _Lying About Hitler_ , pp. 177\u201378.\n\n _In reality, he had seen:_ Richard J. Evans, _Lying About Hitler_ , p. 156.\n\n _Instead, he wrote:_ David Irving, _Apocalypse 1945_ , p. 245.\n\n _And in his 1996 biography:_ David Irving, _Goebbels_ , p. 501.\n\n _\"It is practically impossible to kill a myth\":_ Richard J. Evans, _Lying About Hitler_ , p. 169.\n\n _\"Of course now everybody talks\":_ Richard J. Evans, _Lying About Hitler_ , p. 181.\n\n _When the libel trial ended:_ D. D. Guttenplan, _The Holocaust on Trial_ , pp. 281\u201383.\n\n _What she referred to in a 2005 interview:_ Australian Radio National, \"Saturday Breakfast with Geraldine Doogue,\" 21 May 2005.\n\n _\"One's overall impression\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 19\/1028.\n\n _Under Adolf Hitler:_ Frederick Taylor, _Dresden: Tuesday, February 13, 1945_ (New York, 2004), p. 150.\n\n _Every book, article, and documentary:_ A notable exception is historian Frederick Taylor, _Dresden_.\n\n _Germany would not be defeated:_ Harry S. Truman, _Memoirs_ , vol. 1, _Year of Decisions_ , p. 17.\n\n _\"the development of a new explosive\":_ Harry S. Truman, _Memoirs_ , vol. 1, _Year of Decisions_ , p. 10.\n\n _\"That is the biggest fool thing\":_ Harry S. Truman, _Memoirs_ , vol. 1, _Year of Decisions_ , p. 11.\n\n _\"The feeling, such as there is\":_ Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 20\/3218. 285 _Harris might also have pointed out:_ Public Record Office (Kew), \"Weekly R\u00e9sum\u00e9 (no. 285) of the Naval, Military and Air Situation from 0700 8th February to 0700 15th February, 1945,\" War Cabinet Files, W.P. (45) 98, 15 February 1945.\n\n## EPILOGUE\n\n _\"preoccupation with social problems\":_ Lord Moran, _Churchill_ , p. 322.\n\n _The letter is studded:_ Public Record Office (Kew), AIR 24\/309, 24 February 1945.\n\n _To be called \"Lord Harris\":_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 331. _Opposition to honoring Harris:_ John Colville, _The Fringes of Power_ , p. 644.\n\n _\"a thistle for Strachey\":_ Letter from Viscount Bracken to Harris, quoted in Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 332.\n\n _\"To you, one of my close associates\":_ Dudley Saward, _\"Bomber\" Harris_ , p. 334.\n\n _\"Well, I had no difficulty\":_ U.S. Air Force Historical Division, Oral History K105.5\u201335.\n\n# BIBLIOGRAPHY\n\nAmbrose, Stephen E. _Eisenhower: Soldier, General of the Army, President-Elect, 1890\u20131952_. New York, 1983.\n\nAsprey, Robert B. _Frederick the Great: The Magnificent Enigma_. New York, 1986.\n\nBauer, Yehuda. _A History of the Holocaust_. New York, 1982.\n\nBekker, Cajus. _The Luftwaffe War Diaries_. Garden City, N.Y., 1968.\n\nBergander, G\u00f6tz. _Dresden im Luftkrieg: Vorgeschichte-Zerstorung-Folgen_. Munich, 1977.\n\nBiddle, Tami Davis. _Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare: The Evolution of British and American Ideas About Strategic Bombing, 1914\u20131945_. Princeton, 2002.\n\n_____. \"Sifting Dresden's Ashes.\" _Wilson Quarterly_ , Spring 2005, pp. 60\u201380.\n\nB\u00f6hm, Karl. _A Life Remembered: Memoirs_. New York, 1992.\n\n_Bomber's Baedeker: Guide to the Economic Importance of German Towns and Cities_. 2nd ed. London, 1944.\n\nBoog, Horst, ed. _The Conduct of the Air War in the Second World War: An International Comparison_. New York, 1992.\n\nBowen, E. B. _Radar Days_. Bristol, 1987.\n\nBowman, Martin W. _8th Air Force at War: Memories and Missions\u2014England, 1942\u201345_. Sparkford, 1994.\n\nBowyer, Chaz. _Supermarine Spitfire_. London, 1980. Boyden, Matthew. _Richard Strauss_. Boston, 1999.\n\nBreitman, Richard. _Official Secrets: What the Nazis Planned, What the British and Americans Knew_. New York, 1998.\n\nBrereton, Lewis H. _The Brereton Diaries: The War in the Pacific, Middle East and Europe_. New York, 1946.\n\nButcher, Captain Harry C. _My Three Years with Eisenhower_. New York, 1946.\n\nCarlyle, Thomas. _History of Frederick II of Prussia, Called Frederick the Great_. 6 vols. London, 1886. \"\n\nCarpet Bombing.\" Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File 519.553\u20134.\n\nChesnoff, Richard Z. _Pack of Thieves: How Hitler and Europe Plundered the Jews and Committed the Greatest Theft in History_. New York, 1999.\n\nChilders, Thomas. _Wings of Morning_. New York, 1995.\n\nChissell, Joan. _Clara Schumann: A Dedicated Spirit_. New York, 1983.\n\nChurchill, Winston. _Memoirs of the Second World War_. Boston, 1959.\n\n_______. _The Second World War: Their Finest Hour_. Boston, 1949.\n\n_______. _The Second World War: Triumph and Tragedy_. Boston, 1953.\n\nClarkson, James A. \"Increasing Operational Efficiency in the 8th Air Force by Analysis of Bombing Accuracy.\" Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File 248.532\u201384. 9 March 1945.\n\nColville, John. _The Fringes of Power_. Guilford, Conn., 2002.\n\nConversino, Mark J. _Fighting with the Soviets: The Failure of Operation Frantic_ , _1944\u20131945_. Lawrence, Kans., 1997.\n\nCraig, Gordon A. _Germany, 1866\u20131945_. New York, 1978.\n\nCrane, Conrad C. _Bombs, Cities, and Civilians_. Lawrence, Kans., 1993.\n\nCraven, Wesley Frank, and James Lea Cate. _The Army Air Forces in World War II_. 7 vols. Reprint, Washington, D.C., 1983.\n\nD\u00e4nhardt, Artur. _Der Zwinger: Ein Denkmal des Dresdner Barock_. Photographs by Erich Fritzsch. Leipzig, 1965.\n\nDaso, Dik Alan. _Hap Arnold and the Evolution of American Airpower_. Washington, D.C., 2000.\n\nDavid, Hans T., and Arthur Mendel. _The Bach Reader: A Life of Johann_ _Sebastian Bach in Letters and Documents_. New York, 1945.\n\nDavis, Burke. _The Billy Mitchell Affair_. New York, 1967.\n\nDavis, Kenneth S. _FDR: Into the Storm, 1937\u20131940_. New York, 1993.\n\nDavis, Richard G. _Carl A. Spaatz and the Air War in Europe_. Washington, D.C., London, 1992.\n\nDeighton, Len. _Fighter: The True Story of the Battle of Britain_. New York, 1978.\n\nDietrich, Otto. _Hitler_. Translated by Richard and Clara Winston. Chicago, 1955.\n\nDill, Marshall, Jr. _Germany: A Modern History_. Ann Arbor, 1961.\n\nDornberger, Walter. _V-2_. Translated by James Cleugh and Geoffrey Halliday. New York, 1954.\n\nDouhet, Giulio. _Il dominio dell'aria_ [The Command of the Air]. Translated by Dino Ferrari. Washington, D.C., 1983.\n\nDumont, First Lieutenant Earle J., Jr. \"Operation G\u00f6tterd\u00e4mmerung.\" Lecture, Army Air Forces School of Applied Tactics, Orlando, Florida. Air Force  \nHistorical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File 248.532\u2013102. 20 April 1945.\n\nEaker, Lieutenant General Ira C. Oral History. January 1966. Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File K239.0512\u2013626. Easum, Chester V. _Prince Henry of Prussia, Brother of Fredrick the Great_ Madison, 1942.\n\nEisenhower, David. _Eisenhower: At War, 1943\u20131945_. New York, 1986.\n\nEisenhower, Dwight D. _Crusade in Europe_. Garden City, N.Y., 1970.\n\n_______. _The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower: The War Years_. Alfred D. Chandler, ed. Baltimore, 1970.\n\nElliott, J. H. _Imperial Spain: 1469\u20131716_. London, 1963.\n\n_Encyclopaedia Judaica_. Jerusalem, 1971.\n\nEvans, Richard J. _Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial_. New York, 2001.\n\nEwen, David. _The Encyclopedia of Musical Masterpieces: Music for the Millions_. 6th ed. New York, 1949.\n\nFest, Joachim. _Speer: The Final Verdict_. New York, 1991.\n\nFreeman, Roger A., Alan Crouchman, and Vic Maslen. _The Mighty Eighth War Diary_. Reprint, Osceola, Wisc., 1993.\n\nGelb, Norman. _Ike and Monty: Generals at War_. New York, 1994.\n\n\"German Methods of Intelligence Interrogation.\" Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File 248.532\u201366.\n\nGilbert, Martin, ed. _The Churchill War Papers_. Vol. 2, _Never Surrender: May 1940\u2013December 1940_. New York, 1995.\n\n_______. _The First World War: A Complete History_. New York, 1994.\n\n_______. _The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War_. New York, 1985.\n\n_______. _The Second World War: A Complete History_. New York, 1989.\n\n_______. _Winston S. Churchill, 1941\u20131945: Road to Victory_. London, 1986.\n\nGillespie, Major James W. \"Navigation Planning in Europe.\" May 1944. Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File 248.532\u201395.\n\nGoebbels, Joseph. _Final Entries, 1945: The Diaries of Joseph Goebbels_. Edited by Hugh Trevor-Roper. Translated by Richard Barry. New York, 1978.\n\n_______. _The Goebbels Diaries, 1942\u20131943_. Edited and translated by Louis P. Lochner. New York, 1948.\n\n_______. _The Goebbels Diaries, 1939\u20131941_. Edited and translated by Frederick Taylor. New York, 1983.\n\nGoldhagen, Daniel Jonah. _Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust_. New York, 1996.\n\nGrant, William Newby. _P-51 Mustang_. London, 1980.\n\n_Great Soviet Encyclopedia_. New York, 1970.\n\nGrubb, Kenneth. \"How We Make Captured Luftwaffe Crews Talk.\" Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File 248.532\u201368. October 1944.\n\nGuttenplan, D. D. _The Holocaust on Trial_. New York, 2001.\n\nHahn, Hannelore. _On the Way to Feed the Swans_. New York, 1982.\n\nHalecki, O. _A History of Poland_. New York, 1943.\n\nHamilton, Nigel. _Monty: Final Years of the Field-Marshal, 1944\u20131976_. New York, 1986.\n\nHarris, Sir Arthur. _Bomber Offensive_. London, 1947.\n\nHastings, Max. _Bomber Command_. London, 1979.\n\nHeadington, Christopher. _Johann Sebastian Bach: An Essential Guide to His Life and Works_. London, 1997.\n\nHennessy, Juliette A. _Tactical Operations of the Eighth Air Force, 6 June 1944 to 8 May 1945_. Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, 1952.\n\nHersey, John. _Hiroshima_. New York, 1946.\n\nHerzstein, Robert Edwin. _The Nazis_. New York, 1980.\n\n_Historical Analysis of the 14\u201315 February 1945 Bombing of Dresden_. USAF.\n\nHistorical Division. Research Studies Institute. Air University. Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. _History: First Air Force_. Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File 420.01\u20134. Sept. 1940-Dec. 1943. Ms. vol. 3, pt. 10.\n\nHitler, Adolf. _Mein Kampf_. Translated by Ralph Manheim. Boston, 1943.\n\n_______. _My New Order_. Edited by Raoul de Roussy de Sales. New York, 1941.\n\nHodgson, Godfrey. _The Colonel: The Life and Wars of Henry Stimson, 1867\u20131950_. New York, 1990.\n\nHoffmann, Heinrich. _Das Braune Heer: 100 Bilddokumente: Leben, Kampf und Sieg der SA und SS_. Berlin, n.d.\n\nHorne, Alistair. _Harold Macmillan_. Vol. 1, _1894\u20131956_. New York, 1988.\n\nHoyt, Edwin T. _The Airmen: The Story of American Flyers in World War II_. New York, 1990.\n\nIrving, David. _The Destruction of Dresden_. London, 1963. Reissued as _Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden_. London, 1995.\n\n_______. _Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich_. London, 1996.\n\n_______. _G\u00f6ring. A Biography_. New York, 1989.\n\n_______. _Hitler's War_. New York, 1977, 1990.\n\nKaes, Anton, et al. _The Weimar Republic Sourcebook_. Berkeley, 1994.\n\nKeegan, John. _Churchill's Generals_. New York, 1991.\n\n_______ , ed. _The Second World War_. New York, 1990.\n\nKennett, Lee. _A History of Strategic Bombing_. New York, 1982.\n\nKershaw, Ian. _Hitler: 1889\u20131936: Hubris_. New York, 1999.\n\n_______. _Hitler: 1936\u20131945: Nemesis_. New York, 2000.\n\nKimball, Warren F. _Forged in War: Roosevelt, Churchill, and the Second World War_. New York, 1997.\n\n_______ , ed. _Churchill and Roosevelt: The Complete Correspondence_. 3 vols. Princeton, N.J., 1984.\n\nKlemperer, Victor. _I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1933\u20131941_. New York, 1999.\n\n_______. _I Will Bear Witness: A Diary of the Nazi Years, 1942\u20131945_. New York, 2001.\n\n_Kollektiv Dresdner Fotografen_. Dresden, 1976.\n\nKrewson, Margrit B., ed. _Dresden: Treasures from the Saxon State Library_. Washington, D.C. 1996.\n\nKurki, Allan W. _Operation Moonlight Sonata: The German Raid on Coventry_. Westport, Conn., 1995.\n\nLa Farge, Henry. _Lost Treasures of Europe_. New York, 1946.\n\nLawrence, W. J. _No. 5 Bomber Group R.A.F_. London, 1951.\n\nLevine, Alan J. _The Strategic Bombing of Germany, 1940\u20131945_. Westport, Conn., 1992.\n\nLewin, Ronald. _Hitler's Mistakes_. New York, 1984.\n\nLiddell Hart, B. H. _History of the Second World War_. New York, 1971.\n\nLipstadt, Deborah. _Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory_. New York, 1994.\n\nMacIsaac, David. _Strategic Bombing in World War II_. New York, 1976.\n\nMacmillan, Harold. _The Blast of War, 1939\u20131945_. New York, 1967\u201368.\n\nManvell, Roger, and Heinrich Fraenkel. _Goering_. New York, 1962.\n\nMarcuse, Herbert. \"Social and Political Conflicts in Europe After the War.\" Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File 248.532. 4 May 1945.\n\nMartin, Albert. \"Airborne Radar: Operational Results in the Combat Zones.\" Special Intelligence Report. August 1944. Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File 248.532\u201359.\n\nMassie, Robert K. _Peter the Great: His Life and World_. New York, 1980. McArthur, Charles W. _Operations Analysis in the U.S. Army Eighth Air Force in_ _World War II_. London Mathematical Society and American Mathematical Society, N.D.\n\nMessenger, Charles. _\"Bomber\" Harris and the Strategic Bombing Offensive, 1939\u20131945_. London, 1984.\n\nMichie, Allan A. _The Air Offensive Against Germany_. New York, 1943.\n\nMiddlebrook, Martin, and Chris Everitt. _The Bomber Command War Diaries: An Operational Reference Book, 1939\u20131945_. Harmondsworth, 1985.\n\nMitford, Nancy. _Frederick the Great_. New York, 1970.\n\nMontgomery, Colonel H.G., Jr. \"Night Air Attack of Tactical Objectives.\" January 1945. Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File 248.532\u201376.\n\n\"Monthly Report on Operations.\" Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File 519.308\u20134. Jan.\u2013Jun. 1945. D6795. 03 Mar. 1945.\n\nMoran, Lord. _Churchill: Taken from the Diaries of Lord Moran_. Boston, 1966.\n\nMosley, Leonard. _The Reich Marshal: A Biography of Hermann Goering_. New York, 1974.\n\nMuirhead, John. _Those Who Fall_. New York, 1986.\n\nMusgrove, Gordon. _Pathfinder Force: A History of 8 Group_. Somerton, Eng., 1992.\n\nNeutzner, Matthias. _Angriff: Martha Heinrich Acht-Leben in Bomberkrieg, Dresden, 1944\/45_. Dresden, 1995.\n\n_______. _Lebenszeichen: Dresden im Luftkrieg, 1944\/1945_. Dresden, 1994.\n\n_The New Yorker Book of War Pieces_. New York, 1947, 1988.\n\nNicolson, Harold. _Diaries and Letters_. Vol. 2, _The War Years, 1939\u20131945_. London, 1967.\n\n\"Organization of the Eighth Air Force.\" Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File 520.201\u20131. 28 May 1943.\n\nOsmont, Marie-Louise. _The Normandy Diary of Marie-Louise Osmont, 1940\u20131944_. Translated by George L. Newman. New York, 1994.\n\nOvery, Richard. _Goering: The Iron Man_. London, 1984.\n\n_______. _Why the Allies Won_. New York, 1995.\n\nOvery, Richard, and Andrew Wheatcroft. _The Road to War: The Origins of World War II_. London, 1989.\n\nPapen, Franz von. _Memoirs_. Translated by Brian Connell. New York, 1953.\n\n_Parliamentary Debates_. (Hansard) Fifth Series, vol. 408. House of Commons. 6 March 1945.\n\nPatton, George S., Jr. _War as I Knew It_. Boston, 1947.\n\nPeyser, Joan, ed. _The Orchestra: Origins and Transformations_. New York, 1986.\n\nPogue, Forrest C. _George C. Marshall: Organizer of Victory, 1943\u20131945_. New York, 1973.\n\nPohl, Gerhart. _Gerhart Hauptmann and Silesia_. Grand Forks, N.D., 1962.\n\nPrice, G. Ward. _I Know These Dictators_. New York, 1938.\n\nRanke, Leopold von. _Memoirs of the House of Brandenburg and History of Prussia, During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries_. 3 vols. Translated by Sir Alexander and Lady Duff-Gordon. London, 1849. Reprint, New York, 1969.\n\nRector, Frank. _The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals_. New York, 1981.\n\nRhodes, Richard. _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_. New York, 1986.\n\nRigg, Bryan Mark. _Hitler's Jewish Soldiers_. Lawrence, Kans., 2000.\n\nRichards, Denis. _The Hardest Victory: RAF Bomber Command in the Second World War_. London, 1994.\n\nRichards, J. M., ed. _The Bombed Buildings of Britain_. London, 1942.\n\nRichardson, John, and Eric Zafran. _Master Paintings from the Hermitage and the_ _State Russian Museum: Leningrad_. New York, 1975.\n\nRiefenstahl, Leni. _Leni Riefenstahl: A Memoir_. New York, 1993.\n\nRodenberger, Axel. _Der Tod von Dresden_. Dortmund, 1953.\n\nRommel, Field-Marshal Erwin. _The Rommel Papers_. Edited by B. H. Liddell Hart. Translated by Paul Findlay. New York, 1953.\n\nRose, Norman. _Churchill: An Unruly Life_. London, 1994.\n\nRothnie, Niall. _The Baedeker Blitz: Hitler's Attack on Britain's Historic Cities_. Shepperton, 1992.\n\nRowe, Group Captain H. C. \"Recent RAF Tactics and Late Information from the European War Theater.\" Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File 248.532.60. 28 July 1944.\n\nRyan, Cornelius. _The Last Battle_. New York, 1966.\n\nSaward, Dudley. _\"Bomber\" Harris: The Authorised Biography_. London, 1984.\n\nSchaarschuch, Kurt. _Bilddokument Dresden, 1933\u20131945_. Dresden, n.d.\n\nSchreiber, Hermann. _Teuton and Slav: The Struggle for Central Europe_. Translated by James Cleugh. New York, 1965.\n\nSereny, Gitta. _Albert Speer: His Battle with the Truth_. New York, 1995.\n\nSherry, Michael S. _The Rise of American Air Power: The Creation of Armageddon_. New Haven, 1987.\n\nShirer, William L. _The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany_. New York, 1959.\n\nShoemaker, Major Davis W. \"Recent Observations from Europe: Intelligence Observations in the European Theater.\" 21 Feb. 1945. Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File 248.532\u201382A.\n\nSimon, Edith. _The Making of Frederick the Great_. Boston, 1963.\n\nSington, Derrick, and Arthur Weidenfeld. _The Goebbels Experiment: A Study of the Nazi Propaganda Machine_. New Haven, 1943.\n\nSmith, Melden E., Jr. \"The Bombing of Dresden Reconsidered: A Study in Wartime Decision-Making.\" Doctoral diss., Boston University, 1971.\n\nSpaatz, Carl A. Papers of Carl A. Spaatz. Library of Congress, Manuscript Division.\n\n_______. U.S. Air Force Academy. Oral History Interview. No. 186.27. September 1968.\n\n_______. U.S. Air Force Historical Division. Oral History Interview. No. K105.5\u201335.\n\nSpaatz, Ruth. U.S. Air Force Academy. Oral History Interview. 3 March 1981. No. K239.0512\u20131266.\n\nSpeer, Albert. _Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs_. Translated by Richard and Clara Winston. New York, 1970.\n\n_______. _Spandau: The Secret Diaries_. Translated by Richard and Clara Winston. New York, 1976.\n\nSpencer, Andrew John. \"Of Literature and Legend: German Writers and the\n\nBombing of Dresden.\" Doctoral diss., Ohio State University, 1992.\n\nSteinbeck, John. _Bombs Away_. New York, 1942.\n\nSterling, Charles. _Great French Paintings in the Hermitage_. New York, 1958.\n\nStern, Fritz. _Gold and Iron. Bismarck, Bleichr\u00f6der, and the Building of the_ _German Empire_. New York, 1977.\n\nStone, Norman. _Hitler_. London, 1980.\n\nStrawson, John. _Hitler's Battles for Europe_. New York, 1971.\n\n_Summary of Operations 8th Air Force_. Air Force Historical Research Agency, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. File 519.308\u20134. Jan.\u2013Jun. 1945.\n\nTerraine, John. _A Time for Courage: The Royal Air Force in the European War, 1939\u20131945_. New York, 1985.\n\nThurlow, Richard. _Fascism in Britain: A History, 1918\u20131985_. London, 1987.\n\nToland, John. _Hitler_. New York, 1976.\n\n_______. _Hitler: The Pictorial Documentary of His Life_. New York, 1980.\n\nTruman, Harry S. _Memoirs by Harry S. Truman_. Vol. 1, _Year of Decisions_. New York, 1955.\n\nTurner, Henry Ashby, Jr. _German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler_. New York, 1985.\n\nValentin, Veit. _The German People: Their History and Civilization from the Holy_ _Roman Empire to the Third Reich_. New York, 1949.\n\nVerrier, Anthony. _The Bomber Offensive_. New York, 1969.\n\nVonnegut, Kurt, Jr. _Slaughterhouse-Five_. New York, 1969.\n\nWagner, Richard. _Selected Letters of Richard Wagner_. Translated and edited by Stewart Spencer and Barry Millington. New York, 1988.\n\nWebster, Sir Charles, and Noble Franklin. _The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany, 1939\u20131945_. 4 vols. London, 1977.\n\nWeekly R\u00e9sum\u00e9(s) of the Naval, Military and Air Situation. Nos. 288\u2013293. PRO W.P. (45). 166, 186, 201, 217, 243.\n\nWeidauer, Walter. _Inferno Dresden_. Berlin, 1990.\n\nWinterbotham, F. W. _The Ultra Secret_. New York, 1974.\n\nWohlfarth, Hannsdieter. _Johann Sebastian Bach_. Philadelphia, 1985.\n\nWoolner, David B., ed. _The Second Quebec Conference Revisited_. New York, 1998.\n\nWoolnough, John H. _Eighth Air Force Album_. Hollywood, Fla., 1980.\n\nZweig, Stefan. _Erasmus of Rotterdam_. Translated by Eden Paul and Cedar Paul. New York, 1934, 1956.\n\n**LIBRARIES, MUSEUMS, AND RESEARCH CENTERS**\n\n## **UNITED KINGDOM**\n\nImperial War Museum, Lambeth\n\nRoyal Air Force Museum, Hendon\n\nBomber Command Association, Hendon\n\nPublic Record Office, Kew\n\nImperial War Museum, Duxford\n\nBritish Library\n\n## **UNITED STATES**\n\nLibrary of Congress\n\nUnited States Air Force Historical Research Center, Maxwell Air Force, Alabama\n\nUnited States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs\n\nNew York Public Library\n\nUnited States Military Academy, West Point\n\nDaniel Library, The Citadel, Charleston, South Carolina\n\nMighty Eighth Air Force Museum and Library, Pooler, Georgia\n\nRamsay Library, University of North Carolina at Asheville\n\nPack Memorial Library, Asheville, North Carolina\n\nEAA Aviation Foundation, Oshkosh, Wisconsin\n\n## **GERMANY**\n\nDeutsche Fotothek: S\u00e4chsische Landesbibliothek, Dresden\n\nStadtmuseum Dresden\n\n## **FRANCE**\n\nMemorial Museum of the Battle of Normandy, Bayeux\n\nUtah Beach Landing Museum, Sainte-Marie-du-Mont\n\nThe Airborne Museum, Sainte-M\u00e8re-Eglise\n\nMemorial Museum, Caen\n\nAmerican Cemetery, Colleville-sur-Mer\n\n# ABOUT THE AUTHOR\n\nMARSHALL DE BRUHL was for many years an executive and editor with several major American publishing houses, specializing in history and biography, most notably as editor of, and contributor to, the _Dictionary of American History_ and the _Dictionary of American Biography_. He is the author of _Sword of San Jacinto: A Life of Sam Houston_ and the co-compiler of _The International Thesaurus of Quotations_. He lives in Asheville, North Carolina.\n","meta":{"redpajama_set_name":"RedPajamaBook"}}
+{"text":" \nReordering the World\n\nReordering the World\n\nESSAYS ON LIBERALISM AND EMPIRE\n\nDuncan Bell\n\nPRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS\n\n_Princeton and Oxford_\nCopyright \u00a9 2016 by Princeton University Press\n\nPublished by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street,\n\nPrinceton, New Jersey 08540\n\nIn the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 6 Oxford Street,\n\nWoodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TW\n\npress.princeton.edu\n\n_Jacket art_ : Coiling the Atlantic Telegraph cable in one of the tanks on board the _Great Eastern_ (engraving). \u00a9 Look and Learn \/ Illustrated Papers Collection \/ Bridgeman Images\n\nAll Rights Reserved\n\nLibrary of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data\n\nBell, Duncan, 1976\u2013 author.\n\nReordering the world : essays on liberalism and empire \/ Duncan Bell.\n\npages cm\n\nIncludes bibliographical references and index.\n\n9780691138787 (hardcover : alk. paper)\n\nl. Liberalism\u2014Great Britain\u2014History. 2. Imperialism\u2014History. 3. Great Britain\u2014Colonies\u2014History.\n\nJC574.2.G(Great Britain) 2015027893\n\nBritish Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available\n\nThis book has been composed in Garamond Pro and Ideal Sans\n\nPrinted on acid-free paper. \u221e\n\nPrinted in the United States of America\n\n1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2\nFOR DOROTHY, WITH LOVE AND THANKS\nCONTENTS\n\n  | _Acknowledgments_ | xi\n\n---|---|---\n\n 1. | Introduction: Reordering the World |\n\n|\n\nPolitical Thought and Empire |\n\n|\n\nStructure of the Book |\n\n|\n\nPart I: Frames\n\n|\n\n 2. | The Dream Machine: On Liberalism and Empire |\n\n|\n\nLanguages of Empire |\n\n|\n\nIntertextual Empire: Writing Liberal Imperialism |\n\n|\n\nOn Settler Colonialism |\n\n|\n\nThe Tyranny of the Canon |\n\n 3. | What Is Liberalism? |\n\n|\n\nConstructing Liberalism: Scholarly Purposes and Interpretive Protocols |\n\n|\n\nA Summative Conception |\n\n|\n\nLiberalism before Locke |\n\n|\n\nWars of Position: Consolidating Liberalism |\n\n|\n\nConclusion: Conscripts of Liberalism |\n\n 4. | Ideologies of Empire |\n\n|\n\nImperial Imaginaries |\n\n|\n\nIdeologies of Justification |\n\n|\n\nIdeologies of Governance |\n\n|\n\nIdeologies of Resistance |\n\n|\n\nConclusions |\n\n|\n\nPart II: Themes\n\n|\n\n 5. | Escape Velocity: Ancient History and the Empire of Time |\n\n|\n\nThe Time of Empire: Narratives of Decline and Fall |\n\n|\n\nHarnessing the Time Spirit: On Imperial Progress |\n\n|\n\nThe Transfiguration of Empire |\n\n 6. | The Idea of a Patriot Queen? The Monarchy, the Constitution, and the Iconographic Order of Greater Britain, 1860\u20131900 |\n\n|\n\nConstitutional Patriotism and the Monarchy |\n\n|\n\nCivic Republicanism and the Colonial Order |\n\n|\n\nConclusions |\n\n 7. | Imagined Spaces: Nation, State, and Territory in the British Colonial Empire, 1860\u20131914 |\n\n|\n\nSalvaging Empire |\n\n|\n\nRemaking the People |\n\n|\n\nTranslocalism: Expanding the Public |\n\n|\n\nConclusions |\n\n 8. | The Project for a New Anglo Century: Race, Space, and Global Order |\n\n|\n\nEmpire, Nation, State: On Greater Britain |\n\n|\n\nThe Reunion of the Race: On Anglo-America |\n\n|\n\nAfterlives of Empire: Anglo-America and Global Governance |\n\n|\n\nMillennial Dreams, or, Back to the Future |\n\n|\n\nPart III: Thinkers\n\n|\n\n 9. | John Stuart Mill on Colonies |\n\n|\n\nOn Systematic Colonization: From Domestic to Global |\n\n|\n\nColonial Autonomy, Character, and Civilization |\n\n|\n\nMelancholic Colonialism and the Pathos of Distance |\n\n|\n\nConclusions |\n\n10. | International Society in Victorian Political Thought: T. H. Green, Herbert Spencer, and Henry Sidgwick _With Casper Sylvest_ |\n\n|\n\nProgress, Justice, and Order: On Liberal Internationalism |\n\n|\n\nInternational Society: Green, Spencer, Sidgwick |\n\n|\n\nCivilization, Empire, and the Limits of International Morality |\n\n|\n\nConclusions |\n\n11. | John Robert Seeley and the Political Theology of Empire |\n\n|\n\nEnthusiasm for Humanity |\n\n|\n\nOn Nationalist Cosmopolitanism |\n\n|\n\nExpanding England: Democracy, Federalism, and the World-State |\n\n|\n\nEmpire as Polychronicon: India and Ireland |\n\n12. | Republican Imperialism: J. A. Froude and the Virtue of Empire |\n\n|\n\nJohn Stuart Mill and Liberal Civilizing Imperialism |\n\n|\n\nRepublican Themes in Victorian Political Thought |\n\n|\n\nJ. A. Froude and the Pathologies of the Moderns |\n\n|\n\nDreaming of Rome: The Uses of History and the Future of \"Oceana\" |\n\n|\n\nConclusions |\n\n13. | Alter Orbis: E. A. Freeman on Empire and Racial Destiny |\n\n|\n\nPalimpsest: A World of Worlds |\n\n|\n\nThe \"Dark Abyss\": Freeman on Imperial Federation |\n\n|\n\nOn Racial Solidarity |\n\n14. | Democracy and Empire: J. A. Hobson, L. T. Hobhouse, and the Crisis of Liberalism |\n\n|\n\nConfronting Modernity |\n\n|\n\nHobhouse and the Ironies of Liberal History |\n\n|\n\nHobson and the Crisis of Liberalism |\n\n|\n\nConclusions |\n\n15. | Coda: (De)Colonizing Liberalism |\n\n|\n\n_Bibliography_ |\n\n|\n\n_Index_ | \nACKNOWLEDGMENTS\n\nThe essays collected in this volume were written over a period of more than a decade, and along the way I have accumulated numerous personal and intellectual debts. I'd like to thank the following for their generous support and penetrating discussions about political theory and imperial history: David Armitage, Peter Cain, Michael Freeden, Ian Hall, Zaheer Kazmi, Karuna Mantena, Jeanne Morefield, Isaac Nakhimovsky, and Richard Tuck. In Cambridge, Joel Isaac, Duncan Kelly, and Peter Mandler are ideal interlocutors. The great Istvan Hont provided intellectual encouragement and friendship over many years. I miss him greatly. Casper Sylvest has commented incisively on just about everything I've written, and for that act of supererogatory endurance, and much else besides, I'm deeply grateful to him. Moreover, I thank him for allowing me to reprint our jointly authored essay as chapter 10 of this volume. The following all commented on one or more of the chapters: Robert Adcock, Jens Bartelson, Mark Bevir, Alex Bremner, Chris Brooke, David Cannadine, Greg Claeys, Linda Colley, David Craig, Mary Dietz, Saul Dubow, Daniel Deudney, Mark Goldie, John Gunnell, Ian Hunter, Ben Jackson, Charles Jones, Stuart Jones, Peter Katzenstein, Ira Katznelson, Daniel O'Neill, Martti Koskenniemi, Ron Krebs, Chandran Kukuthas, Anthony Lang, Michael Ledger-Lomas, Joanna Lewis, Patchen Markell, Mark Mazower, Iain McDaniel, Jennifer Mitzen, Robert Nichols, Jon Parry, Nicholas Phillipson, Quentin Skinner, Katherine Smits, Tim Stanton, Gareth Stedman Jones, Anders Stephanson, Miles Taylor, Colin Tyler, Cheryl Welch, Brian Young, and Bernardo Zacka. Caroline Ashcroft and Eliza Garnsey did stellar work helping to prepare the manuscript. Kathleen Cioffi has been an exemplary production editor. Ben Tate has been a marvelously positive and sympathetic editor. Above all, Sarah Fine has been a constant source of inspiration, as have our daughters, Juliet and Alice. Thanks to one and all.\n\nA number of institutions have provided essential practical and financial support. The Centre of International Studies, and now the Department of Politics and International Studies, both at the University of Cambridge, have been admirably collegial environments in which to pursue serious scholarly work at the intersection of political theory, history, and international relations. The same is true of Christ's College, Cambridge. The Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies at Harvard hosted me for a productive period of sabbatical leave. The Leverhulme Trust has been a magnificent sponsor of the humanities and social sciences in the United Kingdom, and I have benefitted greatly from their largesse, first with the award of an Early Career Fellowship, and more recently, with a Philip Leverhulme Prize. These have given me invaluable time to conduct research for some of the chapters in this book.\n\nFinally, I am grateful to the editors and publishers for permission to reprint the following material:\n\nChapter 3: \"What Is Liberalism?,\" _Political Theory_ , 42\/6 (2014), doi: 10.1177\/0090591714535103, ptx.sagepub.com\n\nChapter 4: \"Ideologies of Empire,\" in _The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies_ , ed. Michael Freeden, Marc Stears, and Lyman Tower Sargent (2013), reproduced by permission of Oxford University Press, global.oup.com\n\nChapter 5: \"Empire,\" in _Historicism in the Victorian Human Sciences_ , ed. Mark Bevir (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming). Reprinted with permission\n\nChapter 6: \"The Idea of a Patriot Queen? The Monarchy, the Constitution, and the Iconographic Order of Greater Britain, 1860\u20131900,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 34\/1 (2006), 3\u201322, www.tandfonline.com\n\nChapter 7: \"Imagined Spaces: Nation, State, and Territory in the British Colonial Empire, 1860\u20131914,\" in _The Primacy of Foreign Policy in British History_ , ed. William Mulligan and Brendan Simms (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2010), reproduced with permission of Palgrave Macmillan\n\nChapter 8: \"The Project for a New Anglo Century: Race, Space, and Global Order,\" in _Anglo-America and Its Discontents: Civilizational Politics Beyond East and West_ , ed. Peter Katzenstein (London: Routledge, 2012)\n\nChapter 9: \"John Stuart Mill on Colonies,\" _Political Theory_ , 38\/1 (2010), doi: 10.1177\/0090591709348186, ptx.sagepub.com\n\nChapter 10: \"International Society and Victorian Political Thought: Herbert Spencer, T. H. Green, and Henry Sidgwick,\" with Casper Sylvest, _Modern Intellectual History_ , 3\/2 (2006) \u00a9 Cambridge University Press. Reprinted with permission\n\nChapter 12: \"Republican Imperialism: J. A. Froude and the Virtue of Empire,\" _History of Political Thought_ , 30\/1 (2009), reproduced courtesy of Imprint Academic\n\nChapter 13: \"Alter Orbis: E. A. Freeman on Empire and Racial Destiny,\" in _Making History: Edward Augustus Freeman and Victorian Cultural Politics_ , ed. G. A. Bremner and Jonathan Conlin (2015), reproduced by permission of Oxford University Press, global.oup.com\n\nChapter 14: \"Democracy and Empire: Hobson, Hobhouse, and the Crisis of Liberalism,\" in _British International Thought from Hobbes to Namier_ , ed. Ian Hall and Lisa Hill (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009), reproduced with permission of Palgrave Macmillan\n\nThis book is dedicated to my wonderful mother, Dorothy.\nReordering the World\n\nCHAPTER 1\n\nIntroduction\n\nReordering the World\n\n[C]entral to the lives of all empires have been the ways in which they have been constituted through language and their own self-representations: the discourses that have arisen to describe, defend, and criticize them, and the historical narratives that have been invoked to make sense of them.1\n\n\u2014JENNIFER PITTS\n\nFrom the earliest articulations of political thinking in the European tradition to its most recent iterations, the nature, justification, and criticism of foreign conquest and rule has been a staple theme of debate. Empires, after all, have been among the most common and the most durable political formations in world history. However, it was only during the long nineteenth century that the European empire-states developed sufficient technological superiority over the peoples of Africa, the Americas, and Asia to make occupation and governance on a planetary scale seem both feasible and desirable, even if the reality usually fell far short of the fantasy. As J\u00fcrgen Osterhammel reminds us, the nineteenth century was \"much more an age of empire than... an age of nations and nation-states.\"2 The largest of those empires was governed from London.\n\nEven the most abstract works of political theory, Quentin Skinner argues, \"are never above the battle; they are always part of the battle itself.\"3 The ideological conflict I chart in the following pages was one fought over the bitterly contested terrain of empire. The main, though not the only, combatants I survey are British liberal political thinkers\u2014philosophers, historians, politicians, imperial administrators, political economists, journalists, even an occasional novelist or poet. Multifaceted and constantly mutating, liberalism was chiefly a product of the revolutionary ferment of the late eighteenth century, of the complex dialectic between existing patterns of thought and the new egalitarian and democratic visions pulsating through the Euro-Atlantic world. A squabbling family of philosophical doctrines, a popular creed, a resonant moral ideal, the creature of a party machine, a comprehensive economic system, a form of life: liberalism was all of these and more. Intellectuals were central to the propagation and renewal of this expansive ideology, though they were far from the only agents involved. From Bentham to Hobson, from Macaulay to Mill, from Spencer to Sidgwick, a long parade of thinkers helped sculpt the contours of the evolving tradition, elaborating influential accounts of individual freedom, moral psychology, social justice, economic theory, and constitutional design. Liberal thinkers wrote extensively about the pathologies and potentialities of empire, developing both ingenious defenses and biting critiques of assorted imperial projects. The conjunction of a vibrant intellectual culture and a massive and expanding imperial system makes nineteenth-century Britain a vital site for exploring the connections between political thought and empire in general, and liberal visions of empire in particular. The vast expanses of the British empire provided both a practical laboratory and a space of desire for liberal attempts to reorder the world.\n\n_Reordering the World_ collects together a selection of essays that I have written over the last decade. Some explore the ways in which prominent thinkers tackled the legitimacy of conquest and imperial rule, while others dissect themes that pervaded imperial discourse or address theoretical and historiographical puzzles about liberalism and empire. They are united by an ambition to probe the intellectual justifications of empire during a key period in modern history. The materials I analyze are the product of elite metropolitan culture, including works of technical philosophy and recondite history, but also pamphlets, speeches, editorials, periodical articles, and personal correspondence. Such sources helped constitute the intellectual lifeblood of Victorian political discourse, feeding into the creation of a distinctive \"imperial commons,\" a globe-spanning though heavily stratified public constituted in part through the production and circulation of books, periodicals, and newspapers.4 The bulk of the volume focuses on the late Victorian and Edwardian eras, the years that Eric Hobsbawm once characterized as the \"age of empire.\"5 During that period the empire assumed a newfound significance in political argument, looming large over debates on a plethora of issues from social policy to geopolitical strategy and beyond. However, I also explore earlier currents of political thinking, and trace some of the echoes of nineteenth-century ideologies across the twentieth century and into the present.\n\nPolitical Thought and Empire\n\nAs late as 2006 Anthony Pagden could write that the study of empire had until recently been \"relegated to the wastelands of the academy.\"6 It was dragged in from the cold during the 1980s as postcolonial scholarship percolated through the humanities (and more unevenly across the social sciences). Imperial history was rejuvenated, moving swiftly from the periphery to the center of historical research, where it remains ensconced to this day.7 Political theory, like political science more broadly, has proven rather more resistant to the imperial turn. During the postwar years the field was characterized by a revealing silence about both the history of empire and the wave of decolonization then overturning many of the governing norms and institutions that had shaped the architecture of world order for five centuries.8 Adam Smith remarked in the _Wealth of Nations_ that the \"discovery\" of the Americas was one of the \"most important events recorded in the history of mankind,\" and he and his contemporaries, as well as many of their nineteenth-century heirs, wrestled incessantly with its meaning and consequences.9 Political theorists barely registered its passing.10 Mainstream approaches to the subject, at least in the Anglo-American tradition, continue to argue about the nature of justice, democracy, and rights, while ignoring the ways in which many of the ideas and institutions of contemporary politics have been (de)formed or inflected by centuries of Western imperialism\u2014\"this half millennium of tyranny against diverse civilisational forms of self-reliance and association\"11\u2014and the deep complicity in this enterprise of the canon from which they draw inspiration, concepts, arguments, and authority. While a persistent tattoo of criticism has been maintained by dissident scholars, it has made little impact on the core concerns or theoretical approaches of the field.12\n\nHistorians of political thought have been more willing to take empire and its multifarious legacies seriously, tracing the ways in which European thinkers grappled with projects of imperial conquest and governance.13 One of the guiding themes of this scholarship\u2014sometimes rendered explicit, sometimes lurking in the wings\u2014has been a concern with the relationship between liberal political thought and empire, between the dominant ideology of the contemporary Western world and some of the darkest, most consequential entanglements of its past.14 Both the political context for this scholarly reorientation and the stakes involved in it are clear. Against a backdrop of numerous \"humanitarian intervention\" operations, blood-letting in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond, the forever war against terror, challenges from competing theocratic fundamentalisms, the specter of neoliberal globalization, and a burgeoning interest in questions of global poverty and inequality, the ethico-political status of liberalism has been put in question. Is it necessarily an imperial doctrine or a welcome antidote to imperial ambition? Perhaps liberals should face up to their imperial obligations rather than ducking them? \"Nobody likes empires,\" Michael Ignatieff argues, \"but there are some problems for which there are only imperial solutions.\"15 If so, what are they? Alternatively, is it possible to foster anti-imperial forms of politics, liberal or otherwise, in an increasingly interdependent world? Such concerns permeate the febrile debate. In chapter 2 I discuss some of the main trends in the scholarship, as well as identifying some of its weaknesses\n\nThroughout the book I treat liberalism chiefly as an actor's category, a term to encompass thinkers, ideas, and movements that were regarded as liberal at the time. (In chapter 3, I discuss the origins and development of liberal discourse in Britain and the United States.) Nineteenth-century British liberalism drew on multiple sources and was splintered into a kaleidoscope of ideological positions, some of which overlapped considerably, while others pulled in different directions. Indeed one of the main purposes of _Reordering the World_ is to highlight the ideological complexity and internal variability of liberalism, and in doing so to call into question sweeping generalizations about it. Benthamite utilitarianism, classical political economy, the historical sociology of the Scottish Enlightenment, Comtean positivism, partially digested German, French, and Greek philosophy, an emergent socialist tradition, the expansive legacies of republicanism, assorted forms of political theology, miscellaneous evolutionary theories, the democratic ethos inherited from the revolutionary era, the comforting embrace of Burkean organicism: all (and more) fed the cacophony. They cross-fertilised to spawn various identifiable articulations of liberal thinking, several of which are discussed in the following chapters. These include liberal Whig ideology (Macaulay, for example), forms of radical liberalism (including, in their different ways, Richard Cobden, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer), and late Victorian \"new liberalism\" (most notably J. A. Hobson and L. T. Hobhouse).16 This list is far from exhaustive, of course, and the period was also populated by multiple ideological hybrids, idiosyncratic figures whose ideas are hard to categorize, and less conspicuous or long-lived threads of political thinking. While they differed in many respects, including the philosophical foundations of their ideas and the public policies they endorsed, all shared a commitment to individual liberty, constitutional government, the rule of law, the ethical significance of nationality, a capitalist political economy, and belief in the possibility of moral and political progress.17 But the ways in which they interpreted, combined, and lexically ordered these abstract ideas, as well as the range of institutions they prescribed as necessary for their realization, varied greatly. So too did their attitudes to empire, though few rejected all its forms, and most (as I will argue) endorsed the formation of settler colonies.\n\nBritish imperial expansion was never motivated by a single coherent ideology or a consistent strategic vision. This was the grain of truth in the historian J. R. Seeley's famous quip that the empire seemed to have been \"acquired in a fit of absence of mind.\"18 Characterized by instability, chronically uncoordinated, and plagued by tensions between and within its widely dispersed elements, it was \"unfinished, untidy, a mass of contradictions, aspirations and anomalies.\"19 Yet despite this, or perhaps because of it, the empire was a subject of constant deliberation, celebration, denunciation, and anxiety.20 It was, as Jennifer Pitts notes in the epigraph, partly constituted (and contested) through language and legitimating representations. One of the main goals of imperial ideologists was to impose order on the untidy mass, to construct a coherent view of the past, present, and future that served to justify the existence of the empire, while their critics repeatedly stressed the manifest dangers of embarking on foreign conquest and rule. Imperial themes were woven through the fabric of nineteenth-century British political thinking, from the abstract proclamations of philosophers to the vernacular of parliamentary debate through to quotidian expressions of popular culture. Conceptions of liberty, nationality, gender, and race, assumptions about moral equality and political rationality, debates over the scope and value of democracy, analyses of political economy, the prospects of \"civilization\" itself: all were inflected to varying degrees with imperial concerns, explicit or otherwise.\n\nWhile each chapter can be read as a self-contained study of a particular topic, two general themes run through the book. The first is the pivotal importance of _settler colonialism_. As I argue in greater detail in chapter 2, the welcome revival of imperial history in the 1980s produced its own lapses and silences, one of the most significant of which was the sidelining of settler colonialism\u2014or \"colonization\" as it was called at the time\u2014in accounts of the long nineteenth century. There is a considerable historical irony involved in this redistribution of attention, given that the sub-discipline of imperial history was created at the turn of the twentieth century as part of a conscious effort to proselytize the superiority of the settler empire over other imperial spaces, above all India.21 While (what became) Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa were far less heavily populated than India, they nevertheless played a crucial role in the liberal imperial imagination, especially during the \"age of empire.\" In recent years the imbalance has been corrected and settler colonialism is once again a lively source of historical debate.22 Replicating the earlier pattern of omission, however, much of the literature on nineteenth-century British imperial political thought has consistently underplayed the significance of the colonies. Among other things, this has led to a skewed understanding of liberal accounts of empire. As I hope to demonstrate, acknowledging the importance of settler colonialism in nineteenth-century political thought unsettles some of the main ways in which scholars have interpreted the nature of \"imperial\" and \"anti-imperial\" arguments since the late eighteenth century.\n\nThe second recurrent theme is the multivalent role that historical consciousness performed in shaping visions of empire. While it is certainly arguable that political economists were the most influential imperial ideologists in the first half of the century, historians assumed this mantle in the second half. From James Mill and Macaulay to Froude and Seeley, historians were among the most prominent imperial thinkers, writing and rewriting the history of empire to bolster specific political projects.23 Their messages resonated in a culture obsessed with the past and the lessons it purportedly encoded.24 The \"English,\" Seeley observed in 1880, \"guide ourselves in the great political questions by great historical precedents.\"25 Historical-mindedness, as it was often called, structured political argument, rendering some lines of reasoning more intelligible, more perspicacious, and more plausible, than others. Precedent, tradition, organic development: all were invoked _ad infinitum_. It was this obsession with history that prompted A. V. Dicey to complain that it was better to be found guilty of \"petty larceny\" than to admit to skepticism about the universal validity of the historical method or to remain unconvinced by the patent superiority of \"historical-mindedness.\"26 Three of my chapters are thus dedicated to the imperial thought of renowned late Victorian historians. But the imaginative significance of history was not confined to the writings of professional scholars. Rather, a sense of the importance of historical time\u2014of the legitimating functions of precedent and tradition, of appeals to ancient authorities and the rhetoric of longevity, of the temporal logic of decline and fall, of the uses and abuses of historical analogies and metaphors, of the political possibilities inherent in the technological \"annihilation\" of time and space\u2014helped animate and condition imperial discourse.\n\nStructure of the Book\n\nOffered as an invitation for further reflection rather than an exhaustive account of the topic, _Reordering the World_ seeks to illuminate significant aspects of imperial debate and potentially open up new lines of inquiry. The book is divided into three parts. The first, \"Frames,\" contains three essays that probe the diverse meanings of liberalism and empire. Part II, \"Themes,\" comprises four historical essays that examine some salient topics in Victorian imperial thought (and beyond). The six chapters in the third part, \"Thinkers,\" dissect the imperial political thought of influential philosophers and historians, focusing in particular (though not exclusively) on their accounts of settler colonialism. Chapter 2 was written especially for this volume, while chapter 11 combines new research with some previously published materials.27 The remaining chapters were originally published in edited volumes and academic journals spanning the fields of political theory, history, and international relations. I have made only minor changes to them, occasionally excising some of the original text to avoid undue repetition, correcting stylistic infelicities where possible, and identifying connections and disjunctions between the chapters where appropriate.\n\nChapter 2 opens with a discussion of the mutable vocabulary of empire and liberalism, before analyzing some of the most important recent scholarship on the subject. I argue that despite the excellence of much of this work, it exhibits two recurrent flaws. First, it tends to overlook the significance of settler colonialism in the political imagination of the Victorians and their successors. In particular, many British liberals regarded settler colonialism as a preferable model of empire to the conquest and alien rule associated with India, and they invested their hopes in assorted projects of colonial reform. The colonies, they argued, were spaces of political freedom for their (white, \"civilized\") inhabitants, and as such they were not burdened by the moral and political dangers associated with the despotic rule prevalent throughout the rest of the empire. This made them ideal communities for the articulation of liberal ideas and institutions. Second, I argue that much work on political theory and empire is constrained by \"canonical\" approaches to intellectual history. Focusing on a narrow range of \"major\" thinkers can be illuminating\u2014I do so myself in several chapters\u2014but it can also lead to oversights and omissions, especially when trying to capture broad patterns of thinking. In particular, attempts to divine a connection between the inner essence of liberalism and imperialism efface the complexity and messiness of the historical record. To investigate imperial discourse it is necessary to dig deeper into the imperial commons, incorporating an extensive archive of intellectual production.\n\nThe following two chapters explore each side of the \"liberal empire\" compound. Isaiah Berlin once described freedom as \"a term whose meaning is so porous that there is little interpretation that it seems able to resist.\"28 Something similar could be said about liberalism. Challenging conventional understandings of the liberal tradition, chapter 3 presents both a theoretical argument and a historical interpretation. Theoretically, I propose that liberalism can be characterized as the sum of the arguments that have been classified as liberal, and recognized as such by other self-proclaimed liberals, over time and space. The historical argument suggests that between 1850 and 1950 the meaning of liberalism was transformed in the Anglo-American world. For most of the nineteenth century, liberalism was commonly viewed as a product of late eighteenth-century revolutionary turmoil, but it was reimagined during the opening decades of the twentieth century, its origins pushed further back in time and its scope expanded massively, such that it came to be seen as the overarching ideology of Western modernity. This transmutation was profoundly influenced by the wars fought against \"totalitarianism,\" both hot and cold. I illustrate this example of ideological shape-shifting by tracing how John Locke came to be conscripted as a paradigmatic liberal during that period. Demonstrating the instability of \"liberalism\" as a category, this analysis challenges the unreflective manner in which the term is employed in contemporary scholarly inquiry\u2014including (but not only) in debates over liberalism and empire. The final chapter in the section anatomizes different types of argument made about empire, especially during the last couple of hundred years. I distinguish between political ideologies, theories, and imaginaries, before sketching an ideal-typical account of ideologies of justification, governance, and resistance. Throughout, I emphasize the variety of arguments available to both advocates and critics of empire and colonialism, the patchwork forms they often assumed in political disputation, and some of their contemporary legacies.\n\nChapter 5 examines how historical time was conceptualized in imperial debate, focusing in particular on the diverse invocations of classical models of empire. Contrary to most scholarship on the subject, I argue that Victorian imperialists were often keen to escape the gravitational pull of the ancients, because the resonant lesson they drew from the Romans and the Greeks was that empires were self-dissolving, that they were fragile and temporary forms of political order rather than the basis for permanence and stability. Roman experience taught that empires eventually collapsed in ruins, Greek experience that settler colonies only thrived when formally independent of the \"mother country.\" Neither vision appealed to those aiming to create a resilient imperial formation, and so they borrowed selectively from the hallowed past, arguing that unlike its predecessors and potential competitors the British empire was not condemned to repeat the ostensible pattern of all human history. I demarcate two popular argumentative strategies. One attempted to reconcile progress and empire by insisting that the British were unique in some important respect\u2014usually their self-proclaimed ability to harmoniously combine \"libertas et imperium\" in a manner appropriate for an industrial, democratic age.29 The other was to argue that Greater Britain\u2014the settler colonies plus the \"mother country\"\u2014constituted a radically new type of political association. According to such accounts, empire was transfigured into something else: a federation, a transcontinental state, a multinational commonwealth. It had transcended its originary form. This novel type of polity was not subject to traditional anxieties about dissolution, corruption, or overextension, but was instead a pioneering manifestation of political trends reshaping world order at the time. It heralded the future rather than embodying the past.\n\nChapters 6 and  analyze aspects of the debate over Greater Britain that I didn't cover in my earlier book on the subject.30 The first discusses how the monarchy was figured in arguments about imperial federation. Queen Victoria was assigned two main functions. First, it was argued that the august institution of the monarchy could act as a marker of stability and constitutional fidelity in a globe-spanning imperial polity, thus reassuring skeptics that a strong thread of historical continuity ran through proposals for uniting Britain and the settler colonies. The British political tradition would be reinforced, rather than undermined, by the creation of an imperial federal structure. This line of argument formed the basis for an audacious account of constitutional patriotism. Secondly, an idealized representation of Victoria served as an anchor for national identity across vast geographical distances, her popularity binding the far-flung peoples of her realm in close communion. Or so it was claimed. I also contend that the way in which she was often represented in imperial debate echoed an older civic humanist language of \"patriot kingship,\" a fantasy vision of the monarch as the enemy of corruption, the protector of the people, and the strong but benevolent leader of a dynamic commercial people. Chapter 7, meanwhile, argues that the purported scope of the \"people\" and the \"public\" was transformed in debates over colonial unification. Both were conceptually decoupled from the state and imaginatively extended to encompass the geographically fragmented settler empire. As innovative communications technologies revolutionized understandings of time and space, so thinkers began to envision new forms of political and cultural solidarity on a global scale.31 Greater Britain was conceptualized as a discrete political space populated by a unified \"people\"\u2014coded typically as either a superior \"race\" or \"nation\"\u2014and governed by a constitutional monarchy sensitive to the preferences of an emergent transoceanic public. This spatial extension prefigures recent debates about the possibility of creating a global public sphere.\n\nThe final chapter in the section steps back from the patterns of Victorian political argument, and seeks to locate the intellectual history of the British empire in a wider frame. It reads the debates over Greater Britain as a formative moment in what I term the \"project for a new Anglo century\"\u2014the repeated attempt to create the political and social conditions necessary to secure the global domination of the \"Anglo-Saxon\" or \"English-speaking\" people. These were variations on the theme of white supremacism, a racial vision of global governance that frequently served as both a grounding assumption and a prescriptive conclusion throughout the nineteenth and much of the twentieth century. Towards the close of Victoria's reign Gilbert Murray, leading classicist and liberal political thinker, voiced a widely shared supposition.\n\nThere is in the world a hierarchy of races. The bounds of it are not, of course, absolute and rigid... but on the whole, it seems that those nations which eat more, claim more, and get higher wages, will direct and rule the others, and the lower work of the world will tend in the long-run to be done by the lower breeds of men. This much we of the ruling colour will no doubt accept as obvious.32\n\nWhile the specific theoretical frameworks and vocabularies used to justify this \"hierarchy of races\" mutated over time, it was nevertheless usually accepted as \"obvious,\" the commonsense of the geopolitical imagination. After outlining the overlapping debates about Greater Britain and the possibilities of an Anglo-American (re)union, I follow these ideas through the twentieth century and into our own world. I delineate four models that drew inspiration (and sometimes personnel) from the earlier Victorian debates: Anglo-American, imperial-commonwealth, democratic unionist, and world federalist. I conclude by discussing recent accounts of Anglo-world supremacy, suggesting that they should be interpreted as the latest iterations of a long-standing racialized vision of world order.\n\nSection III examines the political thinking of some key Victorian public intellectuals, chiefly historians and philosophers. I start with a reading of John Stuart Mill. Recent scholarship on Mill has greatly improved understanding of his arguments about the ethical defensibility of imperial rule, and in particular his account of India, but it has tended to ignore or downplay his extensive writings on colonization. Yet this was a subject that Mill returned to frequently throughout his long and illustrious career. While initially he regarded colonization as a solution to the \"social problem\" in Britain, he came to believe that its legitimacy resided primarily in the universal benefits\u2014civilization, peace, and prosperity\u2014that it generated for humanity as a whole. In the final years of his life Mill seemed to lose faith in the project. Confronted with the political intransigence and violence of the settlers, yet refusing to give up on the settler empire altogether, his colonial romance gave way to a form of melancholic resignation.\n\nChapter 10\u2014which was co-authored by Casper Sylvest\u2014discusses the content and boundaries of liberal internationalism. An ideology that imagined a world of self-determining nation-states gradually socialized into cooperative interaction through international commerce, law, and incremental democratization, it was typically predicated on a distinction between \"civilized\" and \"uncivilized\" peoples, applying one set of arguments to those within the privileged circle and another to those who fell outside it. Many (but not all) of its fundamental assumptions about the nature and direction of progress in the international system were shared by large swathes of the Victorian and Edwardian intellectual elites. It remains a potent force to this day, the dominant internationalist ideology of the modern West.33 The chapter examines how the very different philosophical systems crafted by T. H. Green, Henry Sidgwick, and Herbert Spencer issued in similar prescriptions for the international system.34 They diverged, though, over the legitimacy of empire, with Sidgwick adumbrating a fairly conventional liberal civilizational imperialism, Green largely silent on the issue, and Spencer a fierce critic.\n\nThen it is the turn of the historians. In an account of Edward Freeman's lifework, J. A. Doyle observed that it was \"scarcely possible\" to avoid comparisons between Froude, Freeman, and Seeley. All three scaled the heights of the blossoming professional discipline in Britain. Seeley was Regius Professor of Modern History at Cambridge from 1869\u20131895, Freeman held the equivalent chair in Oxford from 1884\u20131892, whereupon he was succeeded (albeit briefly) by Froude. All three were leading public moralists, contributing to debates on a plethora of issues beyond their putative historical expertise.35 Despite their many and varied differences, there was one \"point of community\" that united them. \"To each of them history was something more than an inspiring and impressive drama. Each fully acknowledged the truth... that the things of history happened for an example; that it is only by a knowledge of history that the citizen can attain a clear understanding of the duties and responsibilities which lie about him.\" Yet this similarity, Doyle continued, produced divergent conclusions: \"[I]t would be hard to imagine political ideas or conceptions of national life differing more widely than did those held by Freeman and those of his two contemporaries.\"36 So it appeared to each of them and many of their readers.\n\nIt was a late Victorian platitude that Seeley's _The Expansion of England_ (1883) and Froude's _Oceana_ (1886) played a pivotal role in reorienting British attitudes to the settler colonies and stoking the fire of popular imperialism. \"The work of Seeley and Froude in one sphere of literary activity, of Kipling in another, and the strong personality of Mr. Chamberlain... combined to draw the outposts of the realm into a closer union,\" wrote one informed observer.37 Half a century later Hannah Arendt underlined their significance in her discussion of imperialism in _The Origins of Totalitarianism_.38 Disagreeing fundamentally over the appropriate way to study and write history\u2014Froude harking back to the narrative mode of Macaulay, Seeley impressed by the rigorous historical positivism imported from Germany\u2014they were nevertheless both ardent imperial federalists, keen to formally unite the scattered elements of the British colonial system. C. A. Bayly has argued that the decades prior to the outbreak of war in 1914 can be seen as an \"idealist\" age, with both nationalism and empire \"tinctured with religion.\"39 In chapter 11 I argue that Seeley's political thought, including his wildly popular account of empire, was structured by concepts\u2014nation, history, state, civilization\u2014that he interpreted in theological terms. I read his vision of world order as an idiosyncratic expression of \"cosmopolitan nationalism,\" an attempt to reconcile human universality with national particularity. Moreover, I contend that although he never outlined his plans for Greater Britain in any detail, he was committed to the creation of a federal nation-state encompassing Britain and its settler colonies. Chapter 12 engages Froude's elusive political thought. I start by distinguishing two modes of justifying imperialism, a \"liberal civilizational\" model (as articulated by John Stuart Mill) that did so principally in terms of the benefits that it bestowed on subject populations, and a \"republican\" model that focused instead on a specific set of benefits\u2014glory, honor, virtue\u2014that accrued to the imperial state. The remainder of the chapter offers a \"republican\" interpretation of Froude's writings on settler colonialism, arguing that both his diagnosis of the problems besetting modern Britain and his prescribed solutions were derived in part from his reading of the fate of the Roman Republic.\n\nFreeman pursued a relentless intellectual vendetta against Froude, frequently challenging his credentials as a serious historian.40 Freeman and Seeley had more in common: both were fairly conventional liberals, albeit of different stripes, and both concurred on the intimate connection between history and politics. But Freeman scorned the vision of empire articulated by Seeley and Froude. Chapter 13 unpacks the intellectual sources of his skepticism. Drawing in particular on the history of federalism\u2014a subject on which he was the recognized authority\u2014he argued that plans for uniting the colonies were absurd, based on a flagrant misunderstanding of both the federal idea and the true meaning of empire. Properly understood, the history of empire instilled the need for colonial independence, not unification. But it would be a mistake to exaggerate Freeman's anti-imperial credentials, or characterize him (following Doyle) as the antithesis of Seeley and Froude, because he shared with them a belief in the unity and superiority of the \"English-speaking race.\" His preferred political vehicle for this racial vision of world order was an alliance, cemented by common citizenship, between Britain and the United States, countries that were ordained to lead and police the world.41 Like many critics of formal empire during the period, Freeman was nevertheless committed to a hierarchical conception of global politics predicated on white racial supremacy.\n\nThe final full chapter analyzes two renowned \"new liberal\" thinkers, J. A. Hobson and L. T. Hobhouse, focusing in particular on how they conceived of the relationship between democracy, empire, and international politics between the late 1890s and the First World War. I start by highlighting how they positioned themselves in relation to the past and present of the mutating liberal tradition, before turning to examine their writings on settler colonialism, showing how they both supported projects for the unification of Greater Britain, albeit in a qualified manner. Posterity has been kind to Hobson, who is usually remembered as one of the major anti-imperial thinkers of the twentieth century (not least because of his influence on Lenin).42 Yet his writings present a rather more complicated picture, for he was not opposed to empire in all its forms, only to what he saw as pathological variants of it, and he was a keen advocate of settler colonialism. Hobhouse, meanwhile, sketched an idealized account of the colonial empire. He argued that if transmuted into a federal institution it would be compatible with democracy, in a manner that traditional forms of empire were not, and as such it could serve as a privileged agent of progress, fermenting the democratization of the international system and acting as a template for a future \"international state.\" Like many liberal thinkers, both Hobson and Hobhouse invested far more political hope in settler colonialism that in other modes of empire-building.\n\nIn the brief coda, I revisit some of the main lines of argument developed in the preceding chapters. Reiterating the centrality of historical-mindedness and settler colonialism in nineteenth-century visions of empire, I finish with some tentative suggestions about the need to \"de-colonize\" liberalism, to seek ways to acknowledge and transcend the legacies of colonial occupation and rule, rather than either ignoring this tainted history or rejecting liberalism altogether.\n\n1 Pitts, \"Political Theory of Empire and Imperialism,\" _Annual Review of Political Science_ , 13 (2010), 226.\n\n2 Osterhammel, _The Transformation of the World_ , trans. Patrick Camiller (Princeton, 2014), 392. On the nineteenth-century imperial order, see also C. A. Bayly, _The Birth of the Modern World, 1780\u20131914_ (Oxford, 2004); Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper, _Empires in World History_ (Princeton, 2010), chs. 10\u201311. On some of the distinctive features of Victorian imperialism, see Duncan Bell, \"Victorian Visions of Global Order,\" in _Victorian Visions of Global Order_ , ed. Bell (Cambridge, 2007), 1\u201325.\n\n3 Skinner, _Hobbes and Republican Liberty_ (Cambridge, 2008), xvi.\n\n4 See Antoinette Burton and Isabel Hofmeyr, \"The Spine of Empire?,\" in _Ten Books That Shaped the British Empire_ , ed. Burton and Hofmeyr (Durham, NC, 2014), 1\u201328. Later, of course, radio, cinema, and television added new dimensions to the imperial commons.\n\n5 Hobsbawm, _The Age of Empire, 1875\u20131914_ (London, 1987).\n\n6 Pagden, \"The Empire's New Clothes,\" _Common Knowledge_ , 12\/1 (2006), 36.\n\n7 For accounts of the revival, see Linda Colley, \"What Is Imperial History Now?,\" in _What Is History Now?_ , ed. David Cannadine (Basingstoke, 2002); John Mackenzie, \"The British Empire,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 43\/1 (2015), 99\u2013124; Dane Kennedy, \"The Imperial History Wars,\" _Journal of British Studies_ , 54\/1 (2015), 1\u201322.\n\n8 For exceptions that prove the rule, see Hannah Arendt, _The Origins of Totalitarianism_ [1951] (New York, 1985), pt. 2; John Plamenatz, _On Alien Rule and Self-Government_ (London, 1960); Louis Hartz, ed., _The Founding of New Societies_ (New York, 1964). Yet imperial questions often intruded in unexpected places; see, for example, James Tully's analysis of the subtle imperial entailments of Isaiah Berlin's seminal essay on liberty. Tully, \"'Two Concepts of Liberty' in Context,\" in _Isaiah Berlin and the Politics of Freedom_ , ed. Bruce Baum and Robert Nichols (Abingdon, 2013), 23\u201352.\n\n9 Smith, _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_ [1776], ed. R. H. Campbell, Andrew S. Skinner, and W. B. Todd (Oxford, 1976), bk. 4, ch. 7, p. 166. The only other event of equal significance, he wrote, was the opening of \"a passage to the East Indies by the Cape of Good Hope.\" For a brilliant account of Smith and his context, see Istvan Hont, _Jealousy of Trade_ (Cambridge, MA, 2005); Hont, _The Politics of Commercial Society_ , ed. B\u00e9la Kapossy and Michael Sonenscher (Cambridge, MA, 2015).\n\n10 The same was true of much postwar social science. For conflicting interpretations of the role of empire and decolonization in International Relations, the scholarly field dedicated to the analysis of world politics, see Nicolas Guilhot, \"Imperial Realism,\" _International History Review_ , 36\/4 (2014), 698\u2013720; Robert Vitalis, _White World Order, Black Power Politics_ (Ithaca, 2015). See also John Hobson, _The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics_ (Cambridge, 2012), chs. 8\u201313.\n\n11 James Tully, \"Lineages of Informal Imperialism,\" in _Lineages of Empire_ , ed. Duncan Kelly (Oxford, 2009), 29.\n\n12 For acute criticisms of this tendency, see Charles Mills, \"Decolonizing Western Political Philosophy,\" _New Political Science_ , 37\/1 (2015), 1\u201324. The partial exception to this claim is the literature on historical injustice.\n\n13 For influential examples, see Richard Tuck, _The Rights of War and Peace_ (Oxford, 1999); Anthony Pagden, _Lords of All the World_ (London, 1995); David Armitage, _The Ideological Origins of the British Empire_ (Cambridge, 2000). The literature is discussed in Pitts, \"Political Theory of Empire\"; David Armitage, _Foundations of Modern International Thought_ (Cambridge, 2013), pt. 1.\n\n14 Valuable earlier accounts include Bernard Semmel, _Imperialism and Social Reform_ (Cambridge, MA, 1960); Semmel, _The Rise of Free Trade Imperialism_ (Cambridge, 1970); Eric Stokes, _The English Utilitarians and India_ (Oxford, 1959); A. P. Thonton, _The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies_ (London, 1959); Donald Winch, _Classical Political Economy and Colonies_ (Cambridge, 1965).\n\n15 Ignatieff, _Empire Lite_ (London, 2003), 11.\n\n16 For different perspectives on Victorian liberalism, see Richard Bellamy, _Liberalism and Modern Society_ (Cambridge, 1992); Bellamy, ed., _Victorian Liberalism_ (Abingdon, 1990); John Burrow, _Whigs and Liberals_ (Oxford, 1988); Stefan Collini, _Public Moralists_ (Oxford, 1991); Michael Freeden, _The New Liberalism_ (Oxford, 1978); Elaine Hadley, _Living Liberalism_ (Chicago, 2010); Simon Gunn and James Vernon, eds., _The Peculiarities of Liberal Modernity in Imperial Britain_ (Berkeley, 2011); Peter Mandler, ed., _Liberty and Authority in Victorian Britain_ (Oxford, 2006); J. P. Parry, _The Politics of Patriotism_ (Cambridge, 2009).\n\n17 Note that this is an empirical claim about the ideological commitments of Victorian liberalism, not a conceptual or normative evaluation of the necessary or sufficient elements of liberal political thinking in general. For further discussion on this methodological issue, see chapter 3.\n\n18 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ (London, 1883), 8.\n\n19 John Darwin, _The Empire Project_ (Cambridge, 2011), xi. Darwin's work offers a powerful structural account of the empire as a fragile, fragmented system, the fate of which was ultimately dependent on wider geopolitical currents largely outside British control. For some brief reflections on his work, see Duncan Bell, \"Desolation Goes before Us,\" _Journal of British Studies_ , 54\/4 (2015), 987\u201393.\n\n20 My understanding of ideology has been influenced by the work of Michael Freeden and Quentin Skinner. See, for example, Freeden, _Ideologies and Political Theory_ (Oxford, 1998); Freeden, _The Political Theory of Political Thinking_ (Oxford, 2013); Skinner, _Visions of Politics_ , vol. 1 (Cambridge, 2002). See also the discussion in chapter 4, section 2.\n\n21 See, in particular, Amanda Behm, \"The Bisected Roots of Imperial History,\" _Recherches Britanniques_ , 1\/1 (2011), 54\u201377. For the educational networks binding Greater Britain, see Tamsin Pietsch, _Empire of Scholars_ (Manchester, 2013).\n\n22 See the references in chapter 2, section 3.\n\n23 On James Mill, see Javeed Majeed, _Ungoverned Imaginings_ (Oxford, 1992); on Macaulay, see Catherine Hall, _Macaulay and Son_ (London, 2012); on Seeley, see chapter 11. Tadhg Foley argues that from the 1830s onwards, colonization was \"theorized and justified by the hired-prize fighters of empire totally in economic terms.\" Foley, \"'An Unknown and Feeble Body,'\" in _Studies in Settler Colonialism_ , ed. Fiona Bateman and Lionel Pilkington (Basingstoke, 2011), 10. However, this sweeping contention is implausible, especially when directed at the second half of the nineteenth century.\n\n24 For an insightful recent analysis, see Theodore Koditschek, _Liberalism, Imperialism, and the Historical Imagination_ (Cambridge, 2011).\n\n25 Seeley, \"Political Somnambulism,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 43 (1880), 32.\n\n26 Dicey, _Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution_ , 4th ed. (London, 1893), 14. On the ubiquity of \"historical mindedness\" in Victorian culture, see also Lord Acton, \"Inaugural Lecture on the Study of History,\" in _Lectures on Modern History_ , ed. J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence (London, 1906), 22. On the role of historical imagination in Victorian political thinking, see especially John Burrow, _Whigs and Liberals_ (Oxford, 1988); Stefan Collini, Donald Winch, and John Burrow, _That Noble Science of Politics_ , (Cambridge, 1983), chs. 6\u20137.\n\n27 As well as including a considerable amount of new research, chapter 11 synthesizes material from several chapters of Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_ (Princeton, 2007); as well as Bell, \"Unity and Difference,\" _Review of International Studies_ , 31\/3 (2005), 559\u201379.\n\n28 Berlin, \"Two Concepts of Liberty\" [1958], in _Liberty_ , ed. David Miller (Oxford, 1991), 168.\n\n29 The problematic of liberty and empire ran through modern European political thought. For the period until the end of the eighteenth century, see David Armitage, \"Empire and Liberty,\" in _Republicanism_ , vol. 2, ed. Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge, 2002), 29\u201347.\n\n30 Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_.\n\n31 For more on the transformation of conceptions of time and space, see Duncan Bell, \"Dissolving Distance,\" _Journal of Modern History_ , 77\/3 (2005), 523\u201362; Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_ , ch. 3.\n\n32 Murray, \"The Exploitation of Inferior Races in Ancient and Modern Times,\" in _Liberalism and the Empire_ , by F. W. Hirst, Gilbert Murray, and J. L. Hammond (London, 1899), 156. On Murray's theoretical account of empire and international politics, see Christopher Stray, ed., _Gilbert Murray Reassessed_ (Oxford, 2007), chs. 11\u201312; Jeanne Morefield, _Covenants without Swords_ (Princeton, 2004).\n\n33 For a recent critical analysis, see Beate Jahn, _Liberal Internationalism_ (London, 2013). For a more positive account, see John Ikenberry, \"Liberal Internationalism 3.0,\" _Perspectives on Politics_ , 7\/1 (2009), 71\u201387. See also the essays in Tim Dunne and Trine Flockhart, eds., _Liberal World Orders_ (Oxford, 2013).\n\n34 For a more detailed analysis, covering the work of historians and lawyers as well as philosophers, see Casper Sylvest, _British Liberal Internationalism, 1880\u20131930_ (Manchester, 2009). For a general history, see Mark Mazower, _Governing the World_ (London, 2012), pt. 1.\n\n35 Doyle, \"Freeman, Froude, Seeley,\" _Quarterly Review_ , 182\/364 (1895), 296. Doyle was a Fellow of All Souls, Oxford, best known for his multivolume history of the British colonization of North America. Doyle, _The English in America_ , 5 vols. (London, 1882\u20131907). For the institutional and cultural context of this professionalization, see Reba Soffer, _Discipline and Power_ (Stanford, 1994); Philippa Levine, _The Amateur and the Professional_ (Cambridge, 1986); Peter Slee, _Learning and a Liberal Education_ (Manchester, 1986). Their intellectual and social milieu is brilliantly evoked in Collini, _Public Moralists_.\n\n36 Doyle, \"Freeman, Froude, Seeley,\" 296.\n\n37 W. Alleyne Ireland, \"The Victorian Era of British Expansion,\" _North American Review_ , 172\/533 (1901), 563. See also Ireland, \"The Growth of the British Colonial Conception,\" _Atlantic Monthly_ , April 1899, 488\u201398; J. H. Muirhead, \"What Imperialism Means\" [1900], in _The British Idealists_ , ed. David Boucher (Cambridge, 1997), 244.\n\n38 Arendt, _The Origins of Totalitarianism_ , 181\u201382. For Arendt on empire, see Richard King and Dan Stone, eds., _Hannah Arendt and the Uses of History_ (Oxford, 2007), pt. 1; A. Dirk Moses, \"Das r\u00f6mische Gespr\u00e4ch in a New Key,\" _Journal of Modern History_ , 85\/4 (2013), 867\u2013913.\n\n39 Bayly, \"Michael Mann and Modern World History,\" _Historical Journal_ , 58\/1 (2015), 334.\n\n40 On Freeman's campaign against Froude, see Ian Hesketh, \"Diagnosing Froude's Disease,\" _History and Theory_ , 47\/3 (2008), 373\u201395.\n\n41 For more on the late Victorian interest in cooperation (even union) with the United States, including visions of \"isopolitan citizenship,\" see Duncan Bell, \"Before the Democratic Peace,\" _European Journal of International Relations_ , 20\/3 (2014), 647\u201370; Bell, \"Beyond the Sovereign State,\" _Political Studies_ , 62\/2 (2014), 418\u201334. I address the topic in a forthcoming book, _Dreamworlds of Empire_.\n\n42 Lenin, _Imperialism_ [1917], in _Selected Works_ (Moscow, 1963), 1:667\u2013766.\nPART I\n\nFrames\nCHAPTER 2\n\nThe Dream Machine\n\nOn Liberalism and Empire\n\nIn the empire, one might say, liberalism had found the concrete place of its dreams.1\n\n\u2014UDAY SINGH MEHTA\n\nThe relationship between liberalism and empire has been a recurrent topic of debate among political theorists and intellectual historians during the last two decades. The timing is no coincidence. In the \"new world order\" purportedly hatched by the dissolution of Cold War certainties, liberals and their critics sought to diagnose the virtues and vices of the triumphant ideology.2 Evaluating the present triggered an urgent turn to history, as the record of liberal engagement with empire was scoured for lessons, precedents, and forecasts. As old arguments have been reanimated and mobilized, so political thought has been articulated in the register of historical investigation. In this chapter I survey the scholarly field, concentrating in particular on work that emphasizes the centrality of British imperial ideology in the long nineteenth century, from the turmoil of the American and French Revolutions to the onset of the First World War.3 During that extraordinary period Britain was both the crucible of liberal political thinking and the most extensive imperial formation in history.\n\nLiberalism was a protean phenomenon, a shape-shifting amalgam of philosophical arguments and political-economic practices encompassing diverse views on the self, society, economy, and government. Its ideological reach and complexity grew steadily as the century unfolded. By 1860 liberals of different stripes were beginning to converge on a relatively stable \"internationalist\" doctrine that championed the benefits of conjoining international commerce and international law, but such arguments applied only (or primarily) to relations between purportedly \"civilized\" states.4 Then, as now, liberals remained divided over the question of empire. Most supported it, but then so too did most non-liberals, and liberal imperialists differed over the forms of empire they defended, the intensity of support they offered, and perhaps most significantly, the justificatory arguments that they articulated. There were also assorted liberal critics of empire, though they were always in a minority. Reductive generalizations about \"liberalism and empire,\" whether directed at the heyday of the British empire or the contemporary world, are usually more misleading than illuminating.\n\nTwo main weaknesses run through scholarly commentary on liberalism and empire: a tendency to overlook the significance of _settler colonialism_ and an over-reliance on _canonical_ interpretations of liberalism. I address both in this chapter. Settler colonialism played a crucial role in nineteenth-century imperial thought, and liberalism in particular, yet it has largely been ignored in the burst of writing about the intellectual foundations of the Victorian empire. Utilizing canonical interpretations of liberalism, meanwhile, has generated some skewed claims about the historical connections between liberal political thought and empire.\n\nLanguages of Empire\n\nThe study of liberal attitudes to empire is beset with conceptual, historical, and semantic difficulties. To say something perspicacious about the relationship between X and Y, it is vital to have a clear sense of their meaning, but \"liberalism\" and \"empire\" both rank among the most polysemous concepts in the modern political lexicon, and as a result debates about their relationship are often characterized by confusion. Since there is no settled agreement on their meaning, the selection of definitions\u2014and thus the determination of conclusions\u2014is the product of an opaque combination of scholarly sensibility, disciplinary socialization, and political commitments. The bulk of the literature produced by political theorists employs a plausible but relatively narrow understanding of empire\u2014chiefly what John Plamenatz termed \"alien rule,\" the conquest and governance of distant populations and territories.5 This definitional preference conditions a particular range of questions and answers.\n\nScholarship on liberal political theory and empire is divided by three main issues. First, there is profound disagreement over whether the relationship is _rejectionist, necessary_ , or _contingent_. The _rejection thesis_ posits that liberalism and imperialism are mutually exclusive, that authentic liberals cannot be imperialists. In contrast, the _necessity thesis_ asserts that imperialism is an integral feature of liberal political thought\u2014that to be a proper liberal is to be committed to the legitimacy of (liberal) empire. Those espousing the _contingency thesis_ argue that liberal normative commitments do not necessarily entail support for empire. Instead, the imperialism of liberal writers, past and present, can be explained either through reference to superseded historical conditions or by disaggregating discrete strands of liberalism, some of which are more susceptible to imperial temptation than others. The political and theoretical repercussions of this disagreement are palpable, not least because it raises the question of whether forms of non-imperial liberalism are even possible.\n\nThe second line of divergence concerns the extent to which the history of liberalism contaminates its contemporary expressions. While overlapping with the first point, this is nevertheless a distinct issue. Even if one denies the necessity thesis, it might still be argued that liberal assumptions, categories, and institutions cannot escape their original imperial entanglements\u2014that the history of Western conquest is so deeply implicated in shaping the present order that it permeates liberal political thinking and practice, as well as the ways in which it is perceived in places with long experience of European intervention. Such an argument is normatively indeterminate. One version embraces the continuities, viewing the history of empire as a fertile resource for contemporary projects of imperial world ordering.6 Another, less celebratory, response acknowledges the deep historical roots of contemporary liberal political ideas, but suggests that this historical lineage does not in itself invalidate them. Their \"genealogy,\" Anthony Pagden argues, should not be \"counted as grounds for dismissing them.\"7 To do so, proponents of this line charge, would be to commit the genetic fallacy, the mistake of evaluating something solely in terms of its origins. But the most common line of argument maintains that liberals can and should escape the burdens of imperial history; that the liberalism of today is (or can be) radically different from that which went before. The third main source of disagreement concerns the historical trajectory of liberalism. This dispute is often tied up with the long-standing historical debate about the origins of liberalism, with some tracing the ideology to early modern Europe, and in particular the seventeenth century, while other scholars (myself included) claim that it is best seen as a product of the late eighteenth century. One line of argument posits that the history of liberal political thought has always been thoroughly imperial (whether through conceptual necessity or otherwise), another that it is marked by significant ideological variability and ruptures. The most common line, which I return to later in this chapter, suggests that the late eighteenth century witnessed a major transition in liberal visions of empire, an ideological break that allows us to draw a firm line between the epochs. Others, though, propose different historical chronologies, identify alternative discursive shifts, or place greater emphasis on long-run continuities in liberal thinking.\n\nWhile pure examples of the rejection and necessity theses are (and always have been) rare, liberals have developed a range of argumentative strategies that articulate weak forms of the rejectionist line. In the late nineteenth century, for example, it was common to distinguish between _imperialism_ (an unjustified form of aggressive expansionism) and _empire_ (a potentially legitimate form of political order). This distinction was central to Gladstone's fierce critique of Disraeli's romantic defense of imperialism.8 \"Liberalism and Imperialism,\" the historian J. L Hammond wrote at the turn of the twentieth century, \"differ in their morals, their manners and their ideals.\" Whereas the former (represented by Cobden, Bright, and Spencer) was pacific in intent, the latter was militaristic, and whereas liberals affirmed the value of nationality, imperialists rejoiced in the \"funerals of other nationalities.\"9 Yet empire was legitimate if it was motivated by broadly liberal ambitions and functioned according to broadly liberal norms. Thus Hammond could argue that even as they firmly rejected imperialism, true liberals recognized that the possession of empire imposed a \"special obligation to act with self-control and moderation.\"10 Dismissive of imperialism, he praised the value of settler colonialism. L. T. Hobhouse adopted a similar argument, insisting that the \"central principle\" of liberalism was self-government, whereas imperialists hymned the \"subordination of self-government to Empire,\" and that as such they were antithetical ideological positions. Like Hammond, though, he nevertheless suggested that if understood properly\u2014in his case as \"a great aggregation of territories enjoying internal independence while united by some common bond\"\u2014the pursuit of empire was compatible with liberalism.11\n\nEchoing this distinction, liberal internationalists today often scramble to differentiate \"hegemony\" from \"empire,\" with the former typically construed as normatively desirable and the latter as both obsolete and objectionable. Thus John Ikenberry celebrates American global leadership in the post-1945 era as a victory of liberal hegemony, while castigating the imperial depredations of the George W. Bush administration. This argument presupposes a restrictive definition. \"If empire has any meaning,\" he maintains, \"it refers to political control by a dominant state of the domestic and foreign policy of weaker countries.\"12 Hegemony is different. In an empire, \"the lead state operates unilaterally and outside the order, whereas in a hegemonic order, the lead establishes multilateral rules and institutions that it itself operates within.\" As with the late Victorian attempt to separate empire from imperialism, the line between empire and hegemony is often hard to sustain. Ikenberry, for example, anoints Victorian Britain and the postwar United States as the two \"great historical cases of liberal hegemony,\" but since Britain was an empire-state the historical (as opposed to ideological) value of the distinction he draws is unclear.13 Not everyone is convinced by such acts of semantic jujitsu. Niall Ferguson, a proud liberal imperialist, is right to observe that \"hegemony\" is \"really just a way to avoid talking about empire,\" and that it is only convincing if one assumes an implausibly narrow definition of the latter.14 Indeed it can be seen as a rhetorical move within imperial ideology rather than a disinterested description of an alternative political formation. The history of imperial ideology is in part a story of contestation over the vocabulary of domination.\n\nAnother mode of argument maintains that the spread of capitalism will ultimately render imperialism obsolete. The most influential twentieth-century version was developed by Joseph Schumpeter, who equated liberalism with _laissez-faire_ capitalism and declared that in its purest form it was hostile to imperialism. \"[W]here free trade prevails,\" he predicted, \"no class has an interest in forcible expansion as such.\"15 Imperialism was an atavistic throw-back to a feudal age. Such arguments temporalize liberal anti-imperialism, implying that at some (indefinite) point in the future an authentic post-imperial liberal political order will emerge. Schumpeter inherited a long-standing line of reasoning about the emergent conditions and likely consequences of commercial society. Benjamin Constant's assault on the \"spirit of conquest,\" Herbert Spencer's historical sociology of industrial society, Richard Cobden's relentless promotion of free trade, Hobson's critique of the financial \"taproot\" of imperialism, Norman Angell's account of the irrationality of war in an economically interdependent world: all posited that the development of capitalism would lead eventually to the supersession of the will-to-empire.16 Yet none of them rejected empire in all its forms, and nor did they think that capitalism was always and everywhere opposed to imperialism. Indeed specific instantiations of capitalism were key to their respective explanations for the persistence of imperialism in the industrial age. Only in the long run would the perfection of the liberal capitalist order consign imperialism to the proverbial dustbin of history. Lineal descendants of this argument can be found in Panglossian cheerleading for neoliberal globalization.\n\nJames Tully's work illustrates the political and theoretical stakes involved in defining empire. Rejecting a narrow conception of empire-as-alien-rule, and of imperialism as the policy dedicated to the creation of such an empire, he adopts a much broader interpretation in order to critique the manifold continuities between the past and present. He contends that Western political thought has long articulated the right (even duty) of purportedly \"advanced\" states to remake the world in their own image, a self-defined mission that has been undertaken in the name of various related ideals: \"to improve, to civilise, develop, modernise, constitutionalise, democratise, and bring good governance and freedom.\"17 From this perspective, virtually all extant liberal political thought has been corrupted by its entanglement with empire. Tully also delineates various modalities of imperial rule. The subtlest is _informal imperialism_ , under which there is no need to govern populations and territories through formal-legal means because the most powerful states \"induce local rulers to keep their resources, labour, and markets open to free trade dominated by western corporations and global markets, thereby combining 'empire and liberty.'\"18 This account dissolves the distinction between hegemony and empire. In the nineteenth century, \"free trade imperialism\" was one of the main instruments through which Britain integrated much of Latin America into the global capitalist system. During the twentieth century, and especially after the defeat of Nazi and Soviet alternatives, it emerged as the preferred mode of domination by the leading powers, chiefly the United States. On this account, modernization, development, and globalization are best characterized as \"the continuation of Western imperialism by informal means and through institutions of global governance.\"19 The domain of empire, then, extends far beyond alien rule. Yet although Tully presents one of the most sweeping accounts of the imperial legacy of Western thought, he stops short of endorsing the necessity thesis. In Wittgensteinian terms, he argues that imperialism is only a contingent feature of dominant theoretical languages and practices, and that as such it does not exhaust them. The imperial dimensions of liberalism can thus be transcended or eliminated, at least in principle. A similar line is adopted by Charles Mills, who argues that despite its deep historical complicity in racism and imperialism, liberalism\u2014albeit of a radically transformed kind\u2014can be salvaged.20 Both argue that liberal political thinking is capable of redemption.\n\nWriting against the grain, some liberals acknowledge an intrinsic connection, with Ignatieff and Ferguson perhaps the best-known examples.21 According to Alan Ryan, liberal imperialism is the doctrine that \"a state with the capacity to force liberal political institutions and social aspirations upon nonliberal states and societies is justified in so doing,\" and in light of this he argues both that \"liberalism _is_ intrinsically imperialist\" and that we should \"understand the attractions of liberal imperialism and not flinch,\" before immediately warning against \"succumbing to that attraction,\" chiefly on the pragmatic grounds that imperialism usually doesn't work in practice. The implication, of course, is that if it did work liberal imperialism would be legitimate in a wide range of cases.22 While the vast majority of contemporary liberals would reject Ryan's framing of the issue, insisting that there is a fundamental difference between humanitarian intervention and imperialism, that difference is rarely spelt out, and when it is the reasoning is usually based on a very narrow conception of empire and imperialism. Once again, it is the choice of definitions (and the interpretation of polyvalent political terms) that shapes the parameters of the theoretical debate, as well as its political complexion.\n\nThe bulk of the recent literature on liberalism and empire employs variations on the theme of historical contingency. Scholars differ chiefly over where they place the emphases and on how much continuity and change they discern in the historical development of liberal ideology. In the following section, I outline some of the key contributions to this debate.\n\nIntertextual Empire: Writing Liberal Imperialism\n\nUday Singh Mehta's _Liberalism and Empire_ , published in 1999, set the terms for much of the recent scholarship.23 His sophisticated analysis is as much epistemological as ethical. Drawing principally on John Locke and John Stuart Mill, he contends that liberalism encodes a particular vision of historical development and a preordained response to it. Incapable of respecting the \"unfamiliar,\" defined in terms of radical difference, liberal thought is marked by a \"singularly impoverished understanding of experience.\"24 When liberals confronted alterity they (almost) invariably judged it through reference to an antecedently fixed standard of evaluation, rooted in Eurocentric conceptions of what it means to be fully human and\/or a legitimate society. While liberalism claimed the mantle of universalism\u2014the \"cosmopolitanism of reason\"\u2014it was deeply parochial, seeking \"relentlessly\" to \"align or educate the regnant forms of the unfamiliar with its own expectations.\"25 Indians were thus portrayed as backward due to their failure to conform to purported universal norms of rational conduct. On this account, the liberal dream of disembodied reason is a cognitive technology for imaginatively assimilating the unfamiliar to a pre-given local structure of rationality. Liberal empire is the product of a loaded encounter between abstract universalism and the concrete lifeworlds of other peoples.\n\nAccording to Mehta, the nineteenth century witnessed the climacteric of the liberal \"urge\" to empire, as liberals grafted a heavily over-determined vision of civilization and historical progress onto a Lockean account of rationality. The result was a developmental picture that bifurcated the world into those (coded as \"adults\") who possessed reason and were thus capable of self-government and those (coded as \"children\") who required tutelage to bring them up to the required standard. Liberals, in other words, were committed to what Dipesh Chakrabarty famously termed the \"waiting room\" view of history, a view that \"came to non-European peoples in the nineteenth century as somebody's way of saying 'not yet' to somebody else.\"26 The \"standard of civilization\" stratified human reason as well as geographical space, identifying a differential capacity for \"improvement\" among assorted human groups. Underpinning Mehta's theoretical argument is a sweeping historical claim: liberalism has been an imperial ideology from its inception in seventeenth-century Europe. Its two leading figures\u2014Locke and Mill\u2014provide the intellectual scaffolding for enduring liberal justifications of empire.\n\nWhile Mehta's argument is theoretically powerful, its scope and thus its ultimate force are obscure. He oscillates between a weak and a strong thesis. The anthropomorphic language of \"urge\" and \"impulse\"\u2014as if liberalism was a self-realizing ideological formation\u2014might be read as endorsing the necessity thesis. Thus he insists that the imperial urge is \"integral\" to the \"political vision\" of liberalism.27 This is how his argument has often been interpreted. But elsewhere Mehta qualifies the contention. \"Urges can of course be resisted, and liberals offer ample evidence of this ability, which is why I do not claim that liberalism _must be_ imperialistic, only that the urge is _internal_ to it.\"28 This is equivocal. If by \"urge\" Mehta means that liberal thought contains theoretical resources that can be employed to justify empire, then few would dissent, but if he means either that authentic liberals must always support empire or alternatively that a special act of will or theoretical circumspection is required to stop liberals becoming imperialists\u2014as the main thrust of the book seems to suggest\u2014then this position is hard to sustain, not least because the concept of \"urge\" is too vague and indeterminate to do the explanatory work required. After all, liberalism contains plenty of other \"urges,\" some of which can underpin the critique of empire, including a concern with the dangers of state coercion, individual freedom, toleration, collective self-government, and universal moral equality. Hence Frederick Cooper's riposte that the \"urge\" to anti-imperialism is also \"internal to it.\"29 What matters is the lexical ordering or conceptual configuration of such \"urges\" in any given context, and Mehta fails to establish that the urge to empire is uniformly prioritized either across the history of liberalism or within the catholic expanses of Victorian liberal thought. Finally, it isn't clear where Mehta draws the discursive boundaries of liberalism. He suggests, for example, that anti-imperial forms of liberalism coexisted with the civilizing vision, and to make this case he counterposes the \"cosmopolitanism of sentiment\" articulated by Hume and especially Burke to the \"cosmopolitanism of reason,\" defining it as part of an \"other liberal tradition,\" though to muddy the waters further he also labels Burke a conservative.30 If we acknowledge this other tradition, however, the ostensible \"urge\" to empire is not internal to liberalism, but rather to specific articulations of it. On either the weak or the strong reading, though, Mehta suggests that only through misunderstanding or suppressing some of their own basic theoretical commitments can (most) liberals avoid becoming imperialists.\n\nThree prominent analyses\u2014by Sankar Muthu, Jennifer Pitts, and Karuna Mantena\u2014offer alternative accounts of the connections between universalism and the project of empire.31 In _Enlightenment against Empire_ Muthu targets the pervasive claim that late eighteenth-century intellectual life in Europe was shaped by a monolithic \"Enlightenment project\" complicit in imperial expansion. Despite their manifest differences, he argues that Kant, Diderot, and Herder shared philosophical commitments that underpinned a thoroughgoing critique of European conquest. The condition of possibility for anti-imperialism was a radical transformation in understanding what it meant to be human, a shift that facilitated three other philosophical claims. First, and most fundamentally, it grounded an account of basic moral equality, the view that all humans \"deserve some modicum of moral and political respect\" in virtue of their shared humanity. This was combined with an argument that humans were \"fundamentally cultural beings,\" immersed in a complex web of attachments, the spatio-temporal variation of which produces difference. Finally, Muthu contends that Enlightenment anti-imperialism was premised on a robust account of \"moral incommensurability and relativity,\" meaning that individuals and communities could not be judged according to a single scale of value.32 In a retort to Mehta's starkly drawn contrast between the (abstract) universal and the (concrete) particular, Muthu suggests that when tempered by recognition of cultural agency universalism offers a potent resource for anti-imperialism. \"[A]n increasingly acute awareness of the _irreducible plurality_ and _partial incommensurability_ of social forms, moral values, and political institutions engendered a historically uncommon, inclusive moral _universalism_.\"33 His acute philosophical analysis is tethered to a historical argument. Contra Mehta, Burke was no \"lone voice in the wilderness\" but rather one among a constellation of brilliant thinkers who assailed the injustices of European conquest during the second half of the eighteenth century. This moment, though, was an \"historical anomaly,\" for European thought had previously been dominated by fantasies of the \"noble savage,\" which denied basic moral equality, while the period that followed it was defined by the victory of aggressive imperial ideologies. \"By the mid-nineteenth century, anti-imperialist political thinking was virtually absent from Western European intellectual debates, surfacing only rarely by way of _philosophically obscure and politically marginal figures_.\"34 I return to this bold historical claim later in the chapter.\n\nJennifer Pitts pushes the analysis deep into the nineteenth century. She offers a convincing corrective to Mehta, suggesting that liberalism is best understood as a \"complex ideology whose exemplars share family resemblances rather than any strict doctrine.\"35 It contains resources to both combat and justify empire. She too identifies a resplendent period of enlightenment anti-imperialism followed by a pronounced \"turn to empire,\" though unlike Muthu she explicitly narrates this as part of the history of liberalism, refiguring it as an ideology born in a dazzling moment of imperial critique. Rather than its besetting original sin, exemplified by Locke's complicity in the colonization of the Carolinas, empire is posited as a tragic betrayal of its early promise. She casts Burke, Bentham, and Adam Smith in the anti-imperial role and tracks the emergence of \"imperial liberalism\" through James Mill's writings, before pinpointing its full realization in the work of Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill. Pitts presents her argument as (among other things) a rejoinder to Mehta's overly reductive account of liberalism, although given Mehta's ambiguity it can also be read as a subtle fleshing out of the underdeveloped \"weak thesis\" hinted at in _Liberalism and Empire_ : the recognition of an alternative liberal tradition containing a battery of arguments to level against empire. With admirable dialectical skill, Pitts demonstrates how her catalog of anti-imperial liberals rejected European expansion and displayed considerable respect for societies at different stages of socioeconomic development. Thus while Smith deployed a stadial theory to explain the emergence of commercial society, he accounted for differential patterns of growth in terms of serendipitous historical circumstances rather than the intrinsic faults of other peoples. A \"theory of progress,\" Pitts argues, \"need not imply a pejorative assessment of less 'advanced' peoples or support for European colonial expansion.\"36 However, she continues, the empathetic subtlety that characterized late eighteenth-century political thought was supplanted during the course of the nineteenth century by a crude binary division of the world into civilized\/barbarian. In this narrative John Stuart Mill is presented as the apotheosis of imperial liberalism. Her historical timeline matches that of Muthu. By the mid-nineteenth century, \"we find _no prominent political thinkers in Europe_ questioning the justice of European empires.\"37\n\nKaruna Mantena argues for an alternative chronology, maintaining that liberal \"ethical\" visions flared only for a brief moment, before being superseded with a different form of imperial justification during the second half of the nineteenth century. \"Late imperial ideologies and discourses of justification were grounded in a common, conservative _opposition to the liberal project_.\"38 On this account, liberal confidence in imperial progress\u2014predicated on \"the language of a civilizing rule and the goal of self-government\"\u2014was corroded by the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857 and subsequent episodes of resistance.39 Under the influence of Henry Maine, an eminent scholar of comparative jurisprudence, imperial ideologists adopted a \"culturalist\" narrative, which emphasized the Sisyphean difficulty of transforming colonized spaces in the image of liberal modernity.40 Thus from the 1860s onwards we see a \"decisive turning away\" from liberal arguments to a view that emphasized the protection of (newly conceptualized) \"native communities.\"41 Social theory rather than political philosophy provided a novel intellectual foundation for imperial ideology.42 Maine and his followers argued for the prolongation of empire on the grounds that intervention had so weakened traditional communities that retreat would herald disaster. \"Native society here functioned both as a pretext and solution, as an _alibi_ for the fait accompli of empire.\"43 Mantena reimagines the lineage between Burke and Mill, viewing them less as antipodes than as avatars of a tradition of \"ethical\" imperialism. Mill is presented as a \"crucial transitional figure,\" a bridge between the exuberant optimism of the 1830s and 1840s and the later period of disenchantment, rather than the assured culmination of liberal imperial ideology.44 The shift to alibis had important practical effects, shaping the policy of \"indirect rule\" that was enacted by British imperial administrators, including Lugard in Africa and Cromer in Egypt. Furthermore, it established the intellectual groundwork for the League of Nations mandate system (itself a model for UN practices in the 1990s and beyond).45\n\nEven as Mehta's account comes closest to the necessity thesis, he ultimately pulls back from endorsing it, and in so doing weakens the general thrust of his argument, leaving its theoretical and political implications unclear. Muthu and Pitts advocate variations on the theme of contingency, with both postulating a late eighteenth-century moment of anti-imperialism supplanted by an overwhelming turn to empire. The contemporary lesson is clear: while liberalism is not intrinsically imperial, liberals must avoid replicating the corrupted position adopted by their nineteenth-century predecessors. Mantena, meanwhile, complicates this narrative arc by stepping outside the canon and rerouting the historical trajectory, suggesting that liberal imperial optimism was neither inscribed in the ideology from its very inception, as with Mehta, nor was it as pervasive in the nineteenth century as Muthu and Pitts imply. It was instead a brief, anomalous episode tied to specific developments in the empire in India. Diverging over the three issues I outlined earlier in the chapter\u2014conceptual architecture, contemporary legacy, and historical narrative\u2014these bold lines of argument have helped to set the coordinates for debate over liberal visions of empire during the long nineteenth century.\n\nOn Settler Colonialism\n\nDuring the 1980s and 1990s the field of imperial history was revivified by an infusion of new theoretical approaches, the most influential of which was postcolonialism.46 This intervention served both to illuminate and obscure. One significant consequence was a narrowing of geographical focus, with India looming so large that it sometimes performed a metonymic function, standing for empire as a whole and nearly exhausting the space of argument and interpretation.47 As a sympathetic observer noted in 1998, \"[p]ostcolonial commentary in the nineties has been remarkable in the degree of its engrossment with India.\"48 The settler empire was relegated to the margins of debate, despite its historical importance. Scholars of nineteenth-century political thought have tended to follow this general trend.\n\nThe distorting effects of this gaze assume different forms. Witness, for example, the attention lavished on Edmund Burke. While Pitts offers a qualified view of his enlightened credentials, Mehta, Muthu, and Frederick Whelan celebrate him as a coruscating scourge of European imperialism.49 Yet Burke's newfound status as a progressive hero is a product of selection bias, based on emphasizing his commentary on India while downplaying his views on other imperial spaces. India was the exception not the rule in Burke's sympathies\u2014and even then the extent of his \"anti-imperialism\" is open to serious question.50 A very different picture emerges if we turn to his writings on North America and the Caribbean. Committed to a civilizing vision of history, he promoted a reformed slave trade and denied what Muthu would call \"cultural agency\" to \"savage\" populations. Until the eve of the American Revolution he \"heartily endorsed British imperial aggrandizement and colonialism, and defended at length the subjugation of Native Americans and Africans alike to that end.\"51 Burke argued that British domination helped civilize those benighted souls, chiefly through prolonged exposure to commerce and Christianity.\n\nHowever, the main lacuna created by focusing relentlessly on India is the downplaying (even absence) of settler colonialism in accounts of liberalism and empire. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the settler empire played a fundamental role in British imperial ideology, and it was central to liberal visions of world order. Indeed British liberals often privileged the settler colonies over the imperial territories in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean, viewing them as both more legitimate and more durable. To ignore this is to miss much of what constituted the relationship between liberal political thought and empire in the nineteenth century (and beyond). It was in the settler colonies, not India, that many liberals found the concrete place of their dreams.\n\nOne possible rejoinder to this line of argument is that even if the nineteenth century has been overlooked, settler colonialism has played a formative role in elucidating the connections between liberalism and empire due to the prominence of John Locke in recent scholarship.52 Forty years ago John Dunn observed that Locke had \"worn many faces\": \"only begetter of the Enlightenment, self-conscious and dedicated ideologist of the rising bourgeoisie, greatest of the exponents of English liberal constitutionalism... majoritarian populist, most shifty and esoteric of the treasonous clerks.\"53 Now add to that another face: progenitor of liberal empire. Since Locke was involved in the project to legitimate colonization in North America, and since he is now regarded as one of the founding fathers of liberalism, the inference is clear: \"T]he liberal involvement with the British empire,\" Mehta declares, was \"largely coeval with liberalism itself.\"54 On this account, liberalism was born imperial, the complicity of Locke setting a pattern that was to be repeated down the centuries and into the present. However, I am not persuaded that we can learn much about liberal accounts of empire (in general) by studying Locke. As I show in [chapter 3, Locke was not widely regarded as a liberal until the twentieth century; his conscription to the canon occurred a century after liberalism emerged as an explicit body of political thinking. We would do well to remember Quentin Skinner's warning about the dangers of the \"mythology of prolepsis,\" a mythology in which the attribution of retrospective significance to an event, thinker, or text clouds understanding of their meaning to historical actors. Indeed Skinner identifies Locke's supposed paternity of liberalism as a paradigmatic example, noting that while it might be plausible to describe Locke as a founding figure of liberal political thought, insofar as that is how he came to be seen, it would be a mistake to call Locke himself a liberal.55 Moreover, the study of Locke sheds little light on imperial ideology during the nineteenth century, for he was rarely invoked by Victorian imperialists or their successors, and their justificatory claims seldom drew on Lockean theoretical machinery.56 Moreover, Lockean arguments could just as easily be employed for anti-imperial ends, as when they were utilized to defend the rights of native property ownership in Bengal.57 Locke's relative insignificance at the time should induce skepticism about the general salience of his views on empire (important as they are to understanding the character of his own political thinking). Liberal attitudes to empire are illuminated more clearly by turning attention to the nineteenth century, the era of liberal ascendency and the apogee of Western imperial ambition.\n\nOther chapters in this book explore the justificatory arguments offered in support of the settler colonies. Here it is simply worth noting that they were many and varied, spanning economic, geopolitical, social, and racial claims. It is possible, though, to trace a general shift in the representation of the settler empire, from a time when it barely registered in metropolitan consciousness to its elevation to the very heart of political debate. During the 1830s and 1840s a group of \"colonial reformers\" set out to overturn the economic orthodoxy that colonies were drains on the \"mother country\" and colonists disreputable emigrants\u2014or worse, criminals banished beyond the horizon\u2014worthy of little attention and even less support. The discourse of political economy was central to the revolt, as thinkers grappled with the urgent \"social question.\" In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, colonies had often been thought of, if at all, as dumping grounds for excess population. As Charles Buller explained, emigration policy was seen as \"little more than shoveling out your paupers to where they might die, without shocking their betters with the sight and sound of their last agony.\"58 The colonial reformers, though, sought a more far-reaching reappraisal of British political economy. Challenging Ricardian orthodoxy, they diagnosed the stagnation of the British economy as a product of excess domestic capital and labor supply, which depressed wages and profits. Their prescribed solution was \"systematic colonization,\" which would allow for the productive export of capital and labor.59 Looking back on the early years of the reform movement from the vantage point of 1864, the political economist J. E. Cairnes praised this collection of \"visionaries\" for elaborating \"[f]or the first time something like a sound and complete theory of colonization.\" It posited that colonization \"confers a double benefit: it relieves the old country from the pressure of its superabundant population, and gives a field for its unemployed capital; while, at the same time, by opening up new lands and placing their resources at her disposal, it widens indefinitely the limits which restrain her future growth.\"60\n\nWhile Nassau Senior, Robert Torrens, and Herman Merivale all played important roles in proselytizing the colonial reform vision, the most significant figure was the mercurial E. G. Wakefield, who developed an ambitious scheme predicated on the role of government in regulating the distribution of colonial land. He argued that if land prices were set artificially high, profits could be utilized for supporting further emigration, towns would grow as centers of civilization, and British class hierarchies could be replicated.61 Moreover, he insisted that contrary to existing practice, colonists should be selected for their suitability as pioneers. Above all, he and the other reformers stressed the importance of granting the new colonies a significant degree of self-government.62 Under the degraded, haphazard old system, \"colonies and colonists are in fact, as well as in the estimation of the British gentry, inferior, low, unworthy of much respect, properly disliked and despised by people of honour here, who happen to be acquainted with the state of society in the colonies.\"63 He believed that applying the lessons of political economy would transform the image and the reality of colonization, at once remaking them as economically productive and socially respectable. This argument exerted an abiding influence on John Stuart Mill, among many others, and it is little wonder that Marx's critique of colonialism in _Capital_ focused almost exclusively on Wakefield's work.64\n\nThe reform movement, then, reimagined the colonies as productive spaces for economic growth, outlets for helping to defuse combustible domestic social conditions, fecund territories for the reproduction of civilized societies, and as nodes in a globe-spanning imperial security apparatus. From then on, and especially following the midcentury grant of significant constitutional autonomy to the colonies in Canada and Australia, the settler empire assumed a privileged role in the political visions of many British thinkers, including\u2014and perhaps especially\u2014liberals. The transformation of the colonial empire threatened its ultimate dissolution. Granting self-government to the colonies, under the rubric of \"responsible government,\" led to a widespread sense that they were inevitably bound for independence. This line was articulated most forcefully by Goldwin Smith.65 In a similar vein, Cairnes argued that the colonial empire had \"reached its natural goal.\" But all was not lost, and like Smith he argued that what remained would fulfill the admirable role of the ancient Greek colonies. \"Instead of a great political, we shall be a great moral, unity; bound together no longer indeed by Imperial ligaments supplied from the Colonial Office, but by the stronger bonds of blood, language, and religion\u2014by the common inheritance of laws fitted for free men, and of a literature rich in all that can keep alive the associations of our common glory in the past.\"66 It was this sense of inevitability that John Stuart Mill challenged in the _Considerations on Representative Government_ , arguing that although the colonies were free to seek independence it was in both their interest and that of the \"mother country\" to remain united. Anxiety about the political status of the settler colonies catalyzed a major debate over the future of the empire in the closing decades of the century.67\n\nBetween 1870 and the outbreak of the First World War, the settler empire assumed an unprecedented role in British political discourse. It was widely acknowledged that the colonies were vitally important elements of the imperial system, and that unless something was done, and done soon, the logic of self-government identified by Smith and Cairnes, as well as the embryonic development of settler nationalisms, would eventually lead to independence. Advocates of \"imperial federation\" sought to establish permanent bonds between Britain and its settler colonies, creating a vast racial polity\u2014even a global federal state\u2014spanning oceans and continents. Many of the leading ideologues of the movement were liberals, including Seeley, its most influential cheerleader, and numerous liberal politicians were only too happy to lend their support, including W. E. Forster and Lord Rosebery.68 I have explored this topic at length in _The Idea of Greater Britain_ , and I address it in several chapters in this book. Those opposed to such grandiose institutional plans, such as Freeman and Goldwin Smith, still tended to emphasize the importance of settler colonies, whether they remained politically bound to the \"mother country\" or secured independence. All thought it a topic of great significance. The historian W.E.H. Lecky was far from alone in his belief that it was \"unspeakably important\" to the \"future of the world that the English race, through the ages that are to come, should cling as closely as possible together.\"69 Indeed it was a commonplace. The colonial unification discourse blurred into another set of arguments, popular during the 1890s in particular, that demanded the \"reunion\" of Britain and the United States, the two great \"Anglo-Saxon\" powers ordained to reorder the world. As with imperial federation, plans for transatlantic reunion stretched from the moderate to the radical, from closer friendship to full federal union, and once again liberals were among the most vociferous exponents. Andrew Carnegie, James Bryce, A. V. Dicey, and W. T. Stead all advocated transatlantic (racial) union of one kind or another.70 In chapter 8, I track some of the descendants of these arguments across the arc of the twentieth century.\n\nAccording to the conventional Victorian understanding of the term, \"colonies\" were territories claimed by emigrants from the \"mother country\" with the intention of founding permanent communities that replicated key aspects of the original society. This was an act\u2014or at least a fantasy\u2014of mimetic transfer. The aim of colonization, Gladstone proclaimed in 1858, \"was to reproduce the likeness of England, as they were doing in Australia, New Zealand, North America, and the Cape, thereby contributing to the general happiness of mankind.\"71 This kind of argument was predicated on an imagined isomorphism between mother country and colony. The colonies were populated, as one scholar put it, by people \"predominantly blood of our blood, bone of our bone, with our language, our laws (in the main), and our manners.\"72 This meant, chiefly, what we might call the _second settler empire_ : the colonies in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and (more ambiguously) South Africa. From the mid-nineteenth century onwards, the normative and legal distinction between settler colonies and the rest of the empire was inscribed evermore deeply into the elite British political imagination. Presented as radically different from\u2014and often superior to\u2014other imperial spaces, they were the subject of different ideologies of justification and governance.73 For Seeley, \"[t]he colonies and India are in opposite extremes. Whatever political maxims are most applicable to one, are most inapplicable to the other.\"74 The liberal historian G. P. Gooch likewise emphasized the \"vital distinction\" between empire and colony. \"In passing from Colonies to dependencies we enter a different world, to which different principles must be applied.\"\n\nIndeed the very circumstances that call forth the enthusiasm in the one case compel us, in some degree, to withhold it in the other. Where our flag flies over willing subjects and the institutions of self-government our rule may count on great reserves of moral and material strength; where it does not, our material strength may be great, but the moral basis is either weak or totally lacking.75\n\nOn this account, the empire was imaginatively bifurcated, with the self-governing colonies assigned to a completely separate category of rule and ethico-political judgment.\n\nTwo key thematics underpinned the demarcation between the settler empire and other kinds of foreign rule: _racial identity_ and _self-government_. Colonists were figured as always already civilized, and as carrying with them a bundle of rights and obligations that marked them indelibly as both facsimiles (or not-quite-facsimiles) of those inhabiting the mother country and radically different from (and superior to) other peoples they encountered\u2014and especially those they invaded and dispossessed. This set of assumptions underwrote the argument for self-government. As another liberal historian, C. P. Lucas, once put it, \"[t]he ground of self-government is, that those who are in the colony are on the same level in physique and intelligence with those who are in the mother country, and that, being on the spot, they are best able to take care of themselves.\"76 The original inhabitants were in turn pictured as incapable, as immature, lacking in both rationality and competence, and thus as unworthy of political or social equality. The logic of settler colonialism, then, was a powerful mix of intraracial egalitarianism and interracial exclusion. The British settler empire enacted a version of what Charles Mills terms the _racial contract_ : a vision of the just polity predicated on the ascription of political equality to whites and its concurrent denial to nonwhites. It thus expressed a form of _Herrenvolk_ ethics, a normative system intended to structure settler societies as racially exclusive communities.77 Indigenous peoples continue to suffer its pernicious effects.\n\nSettler colonialism is a distinct modality of imperial governance, and one that until recently was too often conflated with, or subsumed under, more general models of domination.78 It is a process comprising a four-dimensional interaction between the metropole from which the settlers departed, the settler colonial community, the indigenous populations whose lands and lifeworlds were transformed or occupied by the settlers, and those non-indigenous non-settlers living within or moving through the settler colonial space.79 The intricate and shifting relations between these various elements shape the history\u2014and the present\u2014of the settler colonial condition. It was typically manifested in the instantiation of a highly ambivalent form of sovereignty, a claim that settlers exerted over the indigenous populations inhabiting the land they invaded, which served as a source of friction and constant negotiation with the government of the metropolitan center.80\n\nModern settler colonialism, British or otherwise, almost invariably relies on violence against indigenous peoples and everyday forms of humiliation, exclusion, and racial segregation, some informal, some sanctioned by law. As Patrick Wolfe argues, it is an \"inclusive, land-centred project that coordinates a comprehensive range of agencies, from the metropolitan centre to the frontier encampment, with a view to _eliminating_ Indigenous societies.\"81 Colonial eliminativism encompasses assorted practices, including assimilation, displacement, legal domination, intimidation, and the use of lethal violence, even genocide.82 The purpose is to secure territory while destroying the sense of peoplehood of those supplanted by the settler community. This is not to suggest that all settlers, politicians, colonial advocates, and London-based officials necessarily thought of it in those terms, or that practices of colonialism were everywhere and always the same\u2014far from it.83 But that was what it usually entailed.84 Even the most purportedly \"benign\" forms of erasure resulted in destruction. \"Here, in essence, is assimilation's Faustian bargain\u2014have our settler world, but lose your Indigenous soul. Beyond any doubt, this is a kind of death.\"85 Moreover, settlement is not an autochthonous founding moment superseded by postcolonial state formation, but rather a process of domination with effects that continue to shape the lifeworlds of indigenous populations long after the formal age of empire. Invasion is a \"structure not an event.\"86 Indeed settler colonialism has generated some of the most challenging problems in the contemporary world, from the desperate plight of the Palestinian people to pressing questions about the rights of indigenous peoples within purportedly liberal democratic polities.87 Political theory has barely begun to confront its implications.\n\nThe settler project incited much debate. Some celebrated the cleansing violence of its professed \"civilizing\" mission, while others damned it. The violence of founding was often naturalized, imagined as an inevitable fate for \"savages\" who came into contact with superior peoples\u2014a sad but necessary feature of historical progress.88 Aboriginal protection societies sprang up, and colonial officials tried to rein in the worst excesses, though such campaigns rarely managed to stop the attempted extirpation of existing communities. \"[I]n spite of their human likeness,\" the Tasmanians, H. G. Wells wrote in _The War of the Worlds_ (1898), \"were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants in the space of fifty years.\"89 Over half a century earlier, the political economist Herman Merivale was equally clear about the consequences of settler colonialism. \"Desolation goes before us,\" he lamented, \"and civilisation lags slowly and lamely behind.\" South Africa, Van Diemen's land, Newfoundland, the interior of the United States, New Zealand: all were marked by the \"ferocity and treachery\" of \"civilised\" men and governments.90 In an intriguing twist on normative arguments about the rectification of historical injustice, the recognition of colonial ultra-violence could even be invoked to legitimate empire. The Cambridge theologian and philosopher Alfred Caldecott argued that as a consequence of their despicable treatment of the Australian \"nature people,\" the British had a moral obligation to continue the educative mission of empire: in India, \"we may redeem the past.\"91 Gilbert Murray outlined a similar argument. \"If ever in the lifetime of the world a duty has been laid upon a nation,\" he wrote, \"a great and manifest obligation lies on us towards our subject peoples, the duty of endeavoring by strenuous and honest sympathy, justice, and even magnanimity, to obliterate our cruel conquests, and justify our world-wide usurpation.\"92 Only future empire could erase the moral stains of past empire. Merivale was optimistic that the \"ferocity and treachery\" in the colonies could be ameliorated. \"Our errors are not of conception so much as of execution.\"93 By locating (or deflecting) responsibility in this manner, such arguments denied the systemic character of the violence, reducing it to the excessive, localized behavior of a few rogue settlers.\n\nMost accounts of settler colonialism were marked by an ideological aporia. Colonial identities are shaped by settler _mythscapes_ , evocative narratives that embody claims about the origins, the legitimacy, and the destiny of the enterprise.94 The founding moment is typically figured as heroic, the epic fabrication of new \"civilized\" communities in the wilderness. Legitimacy is usually grounded in a dual claim: of the civilizational superiority of the settler over the indigenous and of the productive recuperation of under-utilized or vacant land. Plotting colonial destiny was more contested, oscillating (in the British case at least) between dreams of future political independence and of assuming a vanguard role within an expansive imperial formation, a better (global) Britain. Settler mythscapes were invariably marked by a constitutive forgetting of the claims of indigenous populations.\n\nThe play of similarity and difference was central to British representations of both the colonies and India. Early in the nineteenth century, British imperial ideologues often sought out points of similitude between the conquered and the conquerors in India, though as the century wore on the call of radical difference came to predominate.95 But expressions of similarity can assume contrasting forms. In the Indian case, what was (occasionally) imagined was similarity despite apparent difference, a basic uniformity grounded either in professed essential human characteristics or (more frequently) a shared \"Aryan\" heritage, traceable to an ancient ur-race.96 Similarity was thus embedded in a deep history of human evolutionary development that both explained its uneven progress over the preceding centuries and legitimated the hierarchical ordering of the contemporary world. It could only be rendered intelligible by ignoring surface phenomena and physical appearance. Settler colonialism was predicated on a different logic of identity. Colonists were seen as reproductions of the basic metropolitan archetype, as passing the minimum threshold of civilized life even as they often failed to live up to its very highest standards. The variation was reflected in subtly contrasting metaphors of maturity. While Chakrabarty and Mehta correctly highlight the authoritative role played by the trope of childhood in legitimating British rule in India, the rhetorical strategy was ubiquitous and assumed different forms across the space of empire.97 Liberals routinely applied it to the settler colonies, but they did so in a way that goes to the heart of the contrasting ideological justifications of colonialism and imperialism. Whereas in India (for example) the language of childhood was applied to the individual subjects of empire, connoting a deficit of rationality and a lack of capacity for individual autonomy and collective self-government, it was applied to the colonies as a whole, not to the individual settlers. It was the political institutions and socioeconomic systems of the nascent communities that were coded as immature and in need of (some) guidance. While settlers were frequently the butt of metropolitan condescension, they were accepted as fully rational autonomous agents and granted civilizational standing. Instead, the individuated language of childhood was often displaced onto indigenous populations.\n\nDespite general agreement on the distinctiveness of settler colonialism, there were some conceptual disputes over its exact meaning. In an influential text published in 1841, the liberal politician and writer George Cornewall Lewis defined a colony as \"a body of persons belonging to one country and political community, who, having abandoned that country and community, form a new and separate society, independent or dependent, in some district which is wholly or nearly uninhabited, or from which they expel the ancient inhabitants.\"98 \"Of colonization,\" wrote Wakefield, \"the principal elements are emigration and the permanent settlement of the emigrants on unoccupied land.\"99 He then distinguished between two classes of colony, the _dependent_ , which was still subject to a political connection, and the _independent_ , which was not. The status of colony, then, was derived from the initial practice of colonizing rather than from any enduring formal political relationship between the founding and the founded communities. Writing half a century later, the historian Hugh Egerton instead accentuated the necessity of a _continuing_ political tie. A colony, he maintained, was \"a community, politically dependent in some shape or form, the majority, or dominant portion, of whose members belong by birth or origin to the Mother country, such persons having no intention to return to the Mother country, or to seek a permanent home elsewhere than in the colony.\"100 These accounts differ over the kind of connection thought necessary to classify a political community as a colony. This disagreement had some substantive implications. For example, it generated divergent classifications of states that had once been formal colonies but were now independent, a question relevant for thinking about both the ontological status of the United States and the future unity of the British settler empire. On the former account, for instance, the United States was still a colony of Britain, albeit an autonomous one. \"To my view,\" Wakefield argued, \"the United States of America, formed by emigration from this country, and still receiving a large increase of people by emigration from this country, are still colonies of England.\"101 On the latter account, it ceased to be a colony the moment it gained political independence. This was the most common position. Seeley evaded this thorny conceptual issue altogether in _The Expansion of England_ by stipulating that the United States \"are to us almost as good as a colony,\" since \"our people can emigrate there without sacrificing their language or chief institutions or habits.\"102 On this more ambiguous account, the United States was once a _de jure_ colony but was now best understood as a (quasi) _de facto_ one.\n\nOnce we expand the interpretive aperture to encompass settler colonialism, the \"anti-imperialism\" of the Enlightenment begins to look rather less clear-cut. As Muthu concedes, Diderot affirmed the value of colonies, while Burke was a zealous proponent of settler colonialism in North America.103 Nor was Bentham immune. At the turn of the century he commended the socioeconomic benefits of settler colonization, and towards the end of his life he produced an unpublished plan for a new colony in South Australia.104 Moreover, some of the most acerbic nineteenth-century \"anti-imperialists\" endorsed settler colonialism. In _Imperialism_ , J. A. Hobson distinguished between \"genuine colonialism\" and \"Imperialism.\" Whereas colonialism represented the progressive spread of civilization through settlement, imperialism meant the \"expansion of autocracy.\" As I discuss in chapter 14, he also argued that one of the problems with the \"new imperialism\" of the 1880s and 1890s was that it undermined the chances of securing the unification of the British state and its settler colonies.105 Like that of many self-professed anti-imperialists, his target was a particular species of empire, not all forms of Western control or expansion. Paying attention to settler colonialism, then, reconfigures the way in which we understand \"imperialist\" and \"anti-imperial\" arguments since the late eighteenth century.\n\nMehta briefly acknowledges the discrepancy between nineteenth-century justifications of empire and settler colonialism, but he draws the line in a misleading fashion. He regards the former as \"crucially predicated\" on notions of tutelage and kinship, while the latter involved the peopling of distant territories where there \"was often an ideology and practice of exterminating aboriginal populations.\" Since liberals did not countenance extermination, he concludes that the topic can be left aside.106 There are three problems with this brief account. First, as we shall see, liberal justifications of empire were not exhausted by tutelary arguments. Second, arguments for settler colonialism, liberal or otherwise, usually did not explicitly invoke extermination (though they often entailed elimination). Finally, and conversely, some liberals (including Spencer) did discuss the eventual extinction of indigenous populations, albeit as an inevitable function of historical progress rather than a policy to be actively pursued.107\n\nArguing that colonialism was compatible with (or an expression of) basic liberal normative commitments, liberal thinkers often claimed the settler world as their own progeny. It was liberals, they boasted, who brought self-government to the colonies, thus rescuing the empire from potential dissolution and laying the foundation for future British greatness. According to Hammond, \"[a]ll that has made this Commonwealth great and strong is the work of Liberalism.\"108 Hobhouse agreed: \"The Colonial Empire as it stands today is in substance the creation of the older Liberalism.\"109 This was not simply a claim about intellectual patrimony, for it was conjoined with an argument that the settler colonies were both more important and more legitimate than the dependent empire. Their high degree of internal self-government placed them on sound moral and political foundations. \"Where is it that, after all, the great strength of the Empire resides,\" asked one liberal imperialist. \"Not in the great military dependencies of India, Egypt and the Far East. No! It is in the free communities which have sprung from these shores and which have carried to the ends of the earth the name and fame of Britain and the strength of British character.\" This was \"true Imperialism.\"110 John Morley, esteemed historian and prominent liberal politician, adopted a similar line.\n\nBy Imperialism the better men of the school understood a free and informal union with the Colonies, combined with a conscientious and tolerant government of tropical dependencies. This was in essence the conception of the Empire bequeathed by the older generation of Liberals, and precisely the antithesis of present-day Imperialism, the operative principle of which is the forcible establishment and maintenance of racial ascendency.111\n\nMorley thus espoused a variation of the common distinction drawn between empire and imperialism, contrasting _old_ (reputable, liberal) against _new_ (degraded, aggressive) forms of imperialism.\n\nAlterity, then, acted as a repellent not a magnet. An empire encompassing radically different institutions and populations was both fundamentally unstable and incapable of serving as a platform for further political integration. While few liberals advocated immediate withdrawal from India, or denied that Britain had a \"duty\" to help improve its subjects, they recognized that it was, and would always remain, alien, exotic, different\u2014even if it was \"civilized\" to the point where it was ready for self-government. It was precisely because of its alien character that it was impossible to regard as a site for realizing the true destiny of the English people. After stressing the importance of permanent unity between the settler colonies and the metropole, the novelist and liberal social reformer Walter Besant observed that India, despite its undoubted value, \"cannot be integrated\" and that \"our occupation... must remain, as it is, a strong, just hand, restraining and leading, but the hand of a foreigner.\" The future greatness of Britain resided instead in the \"Anglo-Saxon\" settler colonies.112 This was one of the central claims of Seeley's influential analysis in _The Expansion of England_. \"When we inquire into the Greater Britain of the future,\" he announced, \"we ought to think much more about our colonial than our Indian empire.\"113 Racial or cultural or national similarity\u2014the three interwoven in Victorian political consciousness\u2014exerted the greatest imaginative pull on liberal thinkers. The extended racial Self was accorded normative primacy over the alien Other.\n\nDue to their considerable political autonomy, some liberals argued that the settler colonies were not, strictly speaking, \"imperial\" spaces, and that as such they no longer formed part of the British empire. As Goldwin Smith put it in 1890: \"Over the colonies England has resigned all real power: they are substantially so many independent nations. The only empire, properly so called, which she now has is India.\"114 Empire, the authors of _Liberalism and the Empire_ wrote, was the rule of one nation over another, and the term was thus applicable to India but not to \"free\" Canada and Australia, which were \"grander evidences of England's greatness and solider elements in her strength than all those tropical provinces which she has won as a conqueror and holds as a foreign despot.\"115 Seeley argued that the British settler empire constituted a \"world-state\" rather than an empire, and that the latter designation was only appropriate for India. Empire, he counseled, \"seems too military and despotic to suit the relation of mother-country to colonies.\"116 Hammond reiterated the point: \"The name 'Empire' is charged with associations for which Liberals have little liking, and they would prefer to apply the term 'Commonwealth' to the confederacy of states which make up the dominions of the Crown.\"117 From this perspective, settler colonialism represented a different, perhaps nobler, kind of civilizing mission, defined by the construction of exemplary new political communities embodying the virtues of British freedom and law. Rather than civilizing backward native populations through direct tutelage, it instead helped to civilize humanity as a whole by simultaneously exporting the institutions and values of Britain to \"fresh\" territories, thus providing a shining model of how best to organize sociopolitical life. Combining \"imperium\" with \"libertas\" this type of empire had the potential to escape the historical fate of all previous instances, the inevitability of decline and fall (a topic I address in chapter 5). It would long outlast the transient occupation of India, Egypt, and even the Caribbean. Indeed some liberals regarded it as an embryonic form of cosmopolitical order, the herald of a future form of world government. Hence Hobhouse saw the colonial empire as a \"natural outgrowth of a common sentiment,\" and as \"one of the steps towards a wider unity which involves no backstroke against the ideal of self-government.\" Scanning the horizon, he offered it as a \"model\" of the coming \"International State.\"118\n\nA comprehensive understanding of liberal attitudes to empire, then, must pay more attention to settler colonialism than is usually the case. Settler colonies offered liberals a way of celebrating expansion and rule cleansed of traditional anxieties about foreign conquest\u2014the perennial corrupting dynamics of empire. Instead, they were premised on a comforting fantasy about the occupation of new lands, free of established institutions and settled communities. The result was both the founding of dynamic communities and a legacy of expropriation and horrific violence. This is a bequest that \"liberal democracies\" face (or refuse to face) to this day.\n\nThe Tyranny of the Canon\n\nIn chapter 3 I discuss various \"interpretive protocols\" that scholars employ to demarcate liberalism (and other politico-intellectual traditions). The most common protocol, the _canonical_ , constructs liberalism through analyzing one or more exemplary figures who are taken, whether implicitly or explicitly, to stand in for the whole. John Locke and John Stuart Mill often perform this role in the literature on liberal empire.119 While canonical approaches have their uses, they are incapable of generating satisfactory accounts of multifaceted political ideologies. Relying on an overly narrow evidentiary base, they cannot support felicitous generalizations about continuities and change in patterns of political thinking.\n\nMehta, Muthu, and Pitts all make bold historical claims based chiefly on interpretations of canonical thinkers. Whereas Mehta argues for a strong line of ideological continuity from Locke onwards, Muthu and Pitts identify a radical break at the end of the eighteenth century. However, the historical arcs that they carve through the long nineteenth century are in part artifacts of the canon of European political theory, a canon largely constructed during the twentieth century.120 If we expand the range of sources analyzed, a rather different picture emerges. In contrast to the narratives of the nineteenth century presented in their work, I would argue that the liberalism of the time was just as diverse, and contained just as much critical energy, as the intellectual world of the late eighteenth century. Leading politicians and thinkers expressed disdain for territorial expansion. Auguste Comte, for one, railed against the injustice of empire, focusing his attention on the French occupation of Algeria and the British in India.121 Cobden, to give an especially prominent British example, was both one of the most significant liberal politicians and ideologues of the age and a fierce (albeit somewhat inconsistent) critic of imperialism.122 He believed that the spread of free trade would corrode patriotism, eradicate the feudal scourge of war, and undermine the rationale for empire. In 1850 he wrote to John Bright that the world had \"never yet beheld such a compound of jobbing, swindling, hypocrisy, and slaughter, as goes to make up the gigantic scheme of villainy called the 'British rule in India.'\"123 Three years later he warned of \"our insatiable love of territorial aggrandizement,\" and lamented the \"deeds of violence and injustice which have marked every step of our progress in India.\"124 Lauded as one of the greatest philosophers alive, and certainly one of the most influential, Herbert Spencer was a vitriolic critic of empire from the 1840s until his death in 1902. In an emblematic British radical idiom he decried imperialism as the preserve of the governing elite, the aristocrats, military, clergy, and politicians.125 Recoding the common trope of \"civilisation versus barbarism,\" he argued that the pursuit of empire threatened the \"re-barbarization\" of Britain.126 But as with the Enlightenment anti-imperialists there were limits to his critique, for he endorsed a \"natural system\" of settler colonization through which people emigrated to create new communities, as long as this was the result of private initiative not state action.127 Libertarian settler colonialism was legitimate. Imperial ideology was marked more by continuity than rupture across the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. While the critique of alien rule was a recurrent (albeit minority) phenomenon from the Enlightenment to the era of decolonization, it was often conjoined with support for settler colonization.\n\nCritical of British belligerence and worried about aristocratic privilege and the threat to domestic liberty, Cobden and Spencer epitomize an important strand in nineteenth-century liberal international thought. But the staunchest anti-imperialists in Victorian Britain were the Comtean positivists, prophets of the \"religion of humanity,\" many of whom were proud liberals.128 Assailing British occupation in India, Ireland, and Egypt, positivists including Edward Beesly, Richard Congreve, and Frederic Harrison argued that the pursuit of empire unjustly prevented national cultures from flourishing as part of a wider universal humanity. A radical liberal and leading intellectual, Harrison offered a sustained critique of the British empire, which he once described as a \"huge crime against mankind\" and the result of a \"career of evil.\"129 He gave a distinctive Comtean twist to the conventional radical critique. \"In the religion of Humanity,\" he asserted, \"there are no distinctions of skin, or race, of sect or creed; all are our brothers and fellow-citizens of the world\u2014children of the same great kith and kin.\"130 Attacking the \"military and commercial aristocracy\" for morally degrading the country through their egotistical quest for domination, he maintained that an \"empire of subjects trains up the imperial race to every injustice and deadens them to any form of selfishness.\"131 While many critics of empire focused almost exclusively on the baneful consequences for the imperial power, Harrison also attended to those denied the possibility of self-determination. Taking a swipe at fellow liberals, he observed that \"[w]e do not pick and choose our oppressed nationalities to be favoured with the blessings of self-government,\" and he insisted that the positivists were \"against all oppression of conquered by their conquerors; we look for the dissolution of these empires of conquest; we desire decentralisation of vast political communities, and not a never-ending system of annexations; and, above all, we protest against military government in every form.\"132 Harrison never demanded immediate withdrawal from India, reasoning that it would be disastrous for the Indians, and he concluded that until self-government was viable, it \"must be governed in the sole interest of the countless millions who compose it; and not only in their interest, but in their spirit, until the time shall arrive when, part by part, it may be developed into normal and national life of its own.\" But this concession should not blind us to the important difference between Harrison's Comtist liberalism and the Millian vision. They diverged fundamentally on the question of imperial legitimacy and Britain's role in the world. \"We can accept neither the selfish plea of national glory, nor the specious plea of a civilising mission.\"133\n\nNot only did the Victorians produce a considerable body of writing deeply critical of empire\u2014or at least a body as critical as that found in the previous century\u2014they also justified empire with a wider variety of arguments than is often acknowledged. In chapter 4 I demarcate five ideal-typical justificatory strategies: realist-geopolitical; commercial-exploitative; civilizing; republican; and martialist. The first four studded nineteenth-century liberal accounts of empire.134 In public intellectual discourse liberal-civilizational arguments predominated, while republican themes often coexisted with them, occasionally moving to the foreground. The civilizational model can be understood as a species of the doctrine that liberal states can justifiably employ force to realize liberal ends. Its exponents assert that empire is legitimate if (and only if) it is primarily intended to benefit the populations subjected to it. Premised on a hierarchal conception of global politics, only some polities are regarded as displaying sufficient competence for self-government. It comes in weak and strong forms.135 The former diagnoses incompetent or malign _government_ as the main cause of incapacity. The remedy is the amputation of the government, by force if necessary, emancipating the subjugated people and putting them in a position to achieve self-rule. Justified under the rubric of \"humanitarian intervention,\" this is the most common contemporary iteration of the idea. The strong version regards the people as the problem, imagining them as incapable of creating or maintaining a stable and progressive political order. The prescribed solution is cognitive, affective, and behavioral transformation through expert liberal tutelage. During the nineteenth century this was most commonly articulated in terms of the propensity for civilization\u2014itself a vague and elusive category.136 In both cases, sovereignty is regarded as a privilege not a right: only those governments and\/or peoples that have displayed the appropriate political qualities are candidates for self-government and equal recognition. While liberals often claimed that the ultimate goal of tutelage was the inculcation of a capacity for national self-determination, I would argue that this is not a _necessary_ feature of liberal civilizing rule.137 Rather, such rule is constituted by two central claims: that imperial tutelage can only be justified in terms of the benefits it brings to the governed and that civilizing rule involves the transformation of existing societies into liberal ones (broadly-defined). It thus encompasses the rule of law, the upholding of contracts, the development of representative institutions, the grant of a range of civil and political liberties, and the introduction of a capitalist political economy. This menu of liberal reform does not automatically entail national self-determination\u2014at least in the foreseeable future\u2014though liberals often gestured vaguely in that direction.\n\nSuch \"altruistic\" justificatory arguments were usually bolstered by a claim that what liberal imperialists were advocating was radically new, something that both distinguished them from and elevated them above all previous empires. Joseph Chamberlain, leading radical politician and arch-imperialist, argued that a palpable change could be discerned in justifications of empire, writing in 1897 that \"[w]e feel now that our rule over their territories can only be justified if we can show that it adds to the happiness and prospects of the people.\"138 The American historian and political theorist William Dunning neatly summarized and dissected this line of reasoning. Supporters of the \"new imperialism\" that dominated the closing years of the nineteenth century liked to claim that the \"modern movement is essentially altruistic\u2014that it is founded upon duty to others rather than satisfaction of our own desires.\" Underlying the daunting complexity of imperial policy lay a single overarching principle, a \"philosophic theory,\" namely that \"the nation... must break the bonds of ethnic and geographic homogeneity and project its beneficent influence into the world at large.\" The modern democratic empire must, that is, act as a beacon for civilization and order in a turbulent age. Yet the professed principles and the grubby reality were very different, and Dunning argued that imperial expansion was driven principally by the insatiable desire for new markets. He looked on in horror, complaining that there was no longer \"one first-class nation whose conscious aim is internal perfection rather than external dominion\u2014not one that does not see in dependencies the indispensable proof of political competence. Constitutionalism and Nationalism have been superseded as controlling dogmas in the world's politics.\"139 Moreover, there was little new under the sun, for such self-aggrandizing claims had permeated the imperial ideologies of Greece, Rome, and many others since. The new imperialism, he concluded wryly, \"can hardly be said to have manifested thus far any characteristics that distinguish it from the movements in which throughout all history the powerful governments of the earth have extended their sway over the weak and incapable.\"140 Its proponents were deluded in thinking otherwise.\n\nThis is correct as far as it goes. Advocates of empire have almost always boasted that they were spreading civilization to those subjected to their rule. This was an animating feature of Roman imperial ideology. Writing a thousand years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, near the dawn of the European conquest of the earth, Francisco de Vitoria claimed that while the subjection of \"barbarians\" was justified, it was nevertheless subject to a \"limitation\": that \"everything be done for the benefit and good of the barbarians, and not merely for the profit of the Spaniards.\"141 Three centuries later, James Mill too was keen to stress the altruism of empire, this time of the British in India. \"If we wish for the prolongation of an English government in India, which we do most sincerely, it is for the sake of the natives, not of England. India has never been anything but a burden; and anything but a burden, we are afraid, it cannot be rendered. But this English government in India, with all its vices, is a blessing of unspeakable magnitude to the population of Hindostan.\"142 Here, though, we see a subtle shift, and one unique to the nineteenth century\u2014the idea that not only was empire intended to benefit those subjected to it, but that this was its primary, overarching justification. What had changed over time, then, was not the basic _form_ of the justificatory argument but rather the professed _content_ of civilization and the _priority_ accorded to it. The export of civilization had been elevated from one among several goals (or consequences) of imperial expansion to the overriding one, and at the same time it had been reimagined such that civilization now encompassed a wide variety of values compatible with liberalism, though not exclusive to it.\n\nRepublican justifications, in contrast, are primarily motivated by a concern with the character of the imperial power, legitimating empire in terms of a particular class of benefits that it generates for the state. Its proponents seek to foster individual and collective virtue in their compatriots, while encouraging the pursuit of national honor and glory. This kind of argument also has deep roots in Western political thought, traceable to Rome. Machiavelli presented one of its most powerful modern statements, combining an account of liberty at home with imperial expansion abroad.143 Its echoes can be discerned in assorted nineteenth-century arguments. As Pitts makes clear, for example, Tocqueville advocated empire principally in terms of the reanimating effects of colonialism on French society.144 Republican justifications were woven through nineteenth-century British defenses of empire. In chapter 12 I explore how the historian J. A. Froude offered one of the clearest expressions of it.\n\nIt is important to remember, though, that these categories are analytical abstractions, and they neither fully capture the idiosyncrasies of flesh-and-blood thinkers nor exhaust the range of imperial justifications circulating at the time. James Fitzjames Stephen presents an interesting case in point. A judge and jurisprudence scholar who served as Legal Member of the Viceroy's Council in India (1868\u201372), Stephen defended a hard-edged utilitarian liberalism that would govern with a \"liberal imperial spirit.\"145 He plays an important but contested function in scholarship on the intellectual foundations of the Victorian empire. Stephen stands at the center of the narrative in Eric Stokes's classic _The English Utilitarians and India_.146 Mehta contends that Stephen's defense of empire was illiberal, but rather than inferring from this that liberals could justify empire in a variety of ways, he resolves the interpretive conundrum by denying that Stephen was an authentic liberal. He had absorbed too much Hobbes and not enough Locke, \"the true progenitor and enduring mentor of liberalism.\" Pitts reads him as offering a \"moral\" justification of empire despite his anti-democratic posturing, whereas Mantena reads Stephen's \"imperial authoritarianism\" as exemplifying a \"distinct break\" from liberal \"ethical\" justifications.147\n\nRather than seeing Stephen's authoritarian construal of imperial legitimacy as the culmination of an internal tendency in utilitarian thinking, indicative of a fracture in late imperial ideology, or as a quixotic antiliberal justificatory strategy, I suggest that it is better to view his work as indexing one possible liberal utilitarian pathway among many.148 While numerous utilitarians supported the empire, there was no necessary connection between the philosophy and the political project. After all, both Bentham and Spencer were fierce critics of the empire in India. Nor did utilitarian defenses of empire follow a clear unilinear historical chronology. Writing _after_ Stephen's main interventions, Henry Sidgwick, the most sophisticated nineteenth-century utilitarian, proselytized a fairly conventional liberal civilizing view, counseling that the \"business\" of civilized nations was to \"educate and absorb\" savage peoples, and he expressed admiration for the \"justifiable pride\" that the \"cultivated members of a civilized community feel in the beneficent exercise of dominion, and in the performance by their nation of the noble task of spreading the highest kind of civilisation.\"149 The \"gruffian,\" as Stephen was known, was right to protest that his views ran counter to the dominant intellectual trends of the time.\n\nFor Stephen, liberalism was an expression of a patriotic sense of English preeminence, while the empire was an integral element of the moral and political grandeur of the country. Since the conquest and rule of India was the \"greatest achievement of the race,\" threats to imperial supremacy presented an existential challenge.150 This anxiety of loss underpinned both his support for revenge against the Sepoy rebels of 1857 and his hatred of the \"Manchester School\" of political economists.151 As he argued in _Liberty, Equality, Fraternity_ , a patriotic citizenry should bask in the glory of military victories in India.152 Rejecting Bright's argument that the British had an obligation to the Indians to make amends for the original crime of conquest, he demanded that the empire be venerated. \"I deny that ambition and conquest are crimes; I say that ambition is the great incentive to every manly virtue, and conquest is the process by which every great state in the world... has been built up.\" Empire elevated the moral and material condition of its subjects, serving as a \"vast bridge\" from a moribund violent past to a stable and orderly future. This task, if accomplished, would constitute \"the greatest feat of strength, skill and courage in the whole history of the world.\"153 Here his argument came close to the republican line endorsed by his friend Froude.154\n\nYet Stephen was also committed to a version of the civilizing mission. British dominion offered an unparalleled opportunity to enact a \"true liberalism\" by fulfilling an obligation to rule justly.155 The \"great and characteristic task\" of the British in India was to spread European civilization. They were embarked on \"one of the most extensive and far-reaching revolutions recorded in history,\" involving the \"radical change\" of the institutions and ideas of countless people.156 The \"essential parts\" of that civilization included peace, order, the supremacy of law, the prevention of crime, the redress of wrong, the enforcement of contracts, and the use of taxation revenue for the public good. It was thus necessary to base the law and institutions of the country \"on European secular morality, on European views of political economy, and on the principle that men ought to be enabled by law, irrespective of religion, race, caste, and similar considerations, to enjoy securely whatever property they have, to get rich if they can by legal means, and to be protected in doing as they please, so long as they do not hurt others.\"157 Here he sounded like Mill. This was, he concluded, the near unanimous view of the Europeans who governed India. Insofar as Stephen diverged from them, it was chiefly over the _telos_ of empire. Critical of the \"Divine Right of Representative Institutions,\" the view that the \"exercise of absolute power can never be justified except as a temporary expedient used for the purpose of superseding itself,\" Stephen advised that representative institutions were not always and everywhere appropriate (chiefly because they came into conflict with more fundamental liberal utilitarian commitments).158 India was an unsuitable candidate. But this says as much about his hostility to democracy as a form of government as it does about his conception of India. Deeply critical of democratic institutions in British life, he grudgingly accepted that there was no point in fighting against them since they were an achieved fact. India, though, could still be saved from the blight. While he was more explicit than most other liberals about the coercive foundations of empire, and while he was skeptical about the goal of Indian self-government, he nevertheless argued that British rule was only legitimate insofar as it brought civilizational benefits to the governed. His justificatory argument, then, was an awkward fusion of liberal civilizing and republican themes, with a distinctive authoritarian flavor. Stephens's heterodox political thought highlights the internal variety of Victorian liberal ideology.\n\nThe historical narrative embedded in Mantena's powerful account of liberal supersession is also open to challenge. Recall her argument about the impact of 1857: liberal justifications \"were dramatically eclipsed\" and the period witnessed \"a more general waning of ethical arguments and moral justifications of empire.\"159 The evidence she adduces for this _general transformation_ of metropolitan British liberalism is chiefly drawn from her superb interpretation of Maine's personal intellectual trajectory combined with the shift in policy enforced by the British administration in India.160 Mantena thus sets up an equivalence, implying that British liberal ideology and Indian imperial policy developed together, from ethics to alibis of empire. Maine, Seeley, and Stephen are read as representative of a ubiquitous disillusionment with democracy that reshaped imperial ideology. Hence her claim that \"a growing illiberal or antiliberal consensus\" was \"fuelled by domestic fears about the growth of mass democracy.\"161 However, this is an overly homogenous view of British elite political culture. While there was a fairly widespread sense that the onset of democracy posed a threat to Britain and its empire, it was far from universal. It was not the only\u2014indeed not the dominant\u2014strand of liberal thinking.162 Intellectual currents in Britain and India were not closely aligned. As Jon Wilson puts it, \"British political thought and administrative practice marched to a different beat in the colonial context.\"163\n\nThe closing three decades of the century witnessed a remarkable burst of innovation in British political thinking. While the Liberal Party split over Home Rule, and even as some older liberals (including Maine) lamented the direction of popular government, other thinkers and movements were emerging or gaining ground. New conceptions of the state, of the individual, and of community flourished. More important than the pained ripostes to democracy was the emergence of collectivist forms of liberalism, challenging both older _laissez-faire_ articulations and conservative critics. At a fundamental philosophical level, Sidgwick revived a tired utilitarianism in _The Methods of Ethics_ , while the final third of the century witnessed an efflorescence of idealist philosophy, drawing on both ancient Greek and modern German influences. T. H. Green, Bernard Bosanquet, and J. H. Muirhead, among others, all sought to craft idealist liberal political theories.164 In the 1890s and beyond a group of \"new liberal\" thinkers began to self-consciously develop a more egalitarian form of liberalism.165 Drawing on the German historian Otto von Gierke, pluralists, including Maitland, Neville Figgis, and G.D.H. Cole, challenged the normative and ontological centrality of the sovereign state, seeking answers to political challenges in a plethora of civil society associations and overlapping sources of political authority.166 The idealists and new liberals helped to lay the intellectual foundations for the nascent welfare state.167 Horrified at this development, Spencer and his followers restated the case for a libertarian vision. In short, this was a period of great intellectual ferment. Liberalism was reworked for an emerging democratic age.\n\nMoreover, and just as importantly, the liberal civilizing mission remained a central feature of imperial ideology deep into the twentieth century. Stephen's complaint about his contemporaries had been correct. In one of the most significant early twentieth-century accounts of liberalism, Herbert Samuel asserted that the \"foundation of Liberalism is the moral law that the State has the duty of advancing the welfare both of its own members and of all whom it can influence.\" But the form of this duty varied according to the level of sociopolitical development found in communities around the world. For those in which people were both free and civilized, liberal states should adopt a stance of noninterference, interacting with them harmoniously and seeking influence, if at all, through diplomatic engagement. If a people was \"civilized\" but living under the iron rule of a foreign despot, liberals had a duty to offer moral, and sometimes material, support. Finally, if they were \"savage or semi-civilized,\" liberalism directed that the state \"may itself undertake their government and help their progress by the gift of good laws and good administration.\"168 Empire was thus a moral agent, a \"civilizing and pacifying force, helpful to the progress of mankind.\"169 In Millian vein, he stressed the enduring relevance of the civilizing mission.\n\nIndependence, however valuable to a people, is not their highest good. Liberals hold that the ultimate purpose of politics is nothing narrower than to help men to advance towards the best type. No people can reach the goal, indeed, unless they have liberty; but there may be stages in the march when unrestrained liberty is rather a hindrance to them than a help. A barbarian race may prosper best if for a period, even for a long period, it surrenders the right of self-government in exchange for the teachings of civilization.\n\nHe concluded that \"England is honestly seeking to teach her native subjects to be self-dependent, and in place of the barbaric license of which they are deprived, to give them in the fullness of time, and under the aegis of her own flag, a new and a better freedom.\"170 This was a paradigmatic expression of the ethical justification of imperial intervention. That the empire was a virtuous engine of civilization remained a metropolitan platitude deep into the twentieth century\u2014and beyond.\n\nOthers went further still in their encomiums for a moralized vision of imperial rule. In his textbook on the subject, Caldecott even claimed that India, under British guidance, had partially realized \"Plato's conception of the good state,\" shorn of its \"extremes\": a wise governing cadre, a courageous intermediary administrative class, a temperate mass of people, all working together in harmony. But whereas Plato thought that such a state would inevitably foster debilitating corruption, the \"virtues of the Indian state are preparing for consolidation and progress.\"171 Another textbook, written after the war in South Africa, hymned the empire as an \"agent making for the advance of civilisation.\" Invoking the spirit of Tennyson, the author decreed that it was the primary instrument of global progress, and thus essential for the future development of humanity.\n\nWorking for the gradual elimination of discord and war and for the foundation of a system of universal freedom and justice leading up to that perfectibility of which poets dream, a federation of mankind speaking a common language and governed by a common law, the British Empire could scarcely be supplanted by any other aggregation of kindred peoples. Thus the extinction of the empire would mean a distinct, and so far as one can see, an irreparable, check to the progress of the world.172\n\nEdwin Arnold, a leading poet and journalist, likewise evoked the world-historical mission of the British, contrasting a Hobbesian global state of nature with the reforming cosmopolitical ambitions of the empire.\n\nThe loss of India to England would mean the breaking up and decay of our ancient empire; the eventual spread of Slavonic and Mongolian hordes all over the vacant places and open markets of the world; the world's peace gone; again, as in the days of Belisarius, the march of sciences, arts, religions, arrested as when Omar burned the Alexandrian library; and history once more put back to the beginning of a new effort, under novel and gloomy auspices, to effect that which is the perpetual object of its course and its combinations\u2014the final amalgamation of all the people of the globe under one law and one common faith and culture.173\n\nMoreover, criticizing the coercive imposition of uniform standards of British \"civilization\" on India did not lead invariably to the kind of \"conservatism\" advocated by Maine. Ramsay MacDonald, one of the founders of the Labour Party and later Prime Minister, commenced his analysis of British imperialism from a position similar to Maine\u2014indeed he went further in stressing the need to protect Indian communities from the corrosive power of imperial capitalism. \"Our fundamental mistake in native policy is that we regard the native as a Briton in the making,\" he warned, and \"the less we interfere with native administration the better.\"174 The answer, though, was a democratized civilizing vision. The imperialism of a future Labour government, he stated, \"does not believe in the subjugation of other nationalists; it takes no pride in the 'government' of other peoples. To its subject races it desires to occupy the position of a friend; to its self-governing imperial States it seeks to be an equal; to the world it asks to be regarded as a neighbour.\"175 The aim of empire in India was ultimately the creation of a self-governing nation-state. In short, while Mantena does an admirable job of anatomizing an important and novel form of imperial ideology, she exaggerates both the homogeneity of British liberal thought at the time and the decline of liberal civilizing accounts of imperial rule.\n\nEuropean and American political thinking in the nineteenth century was typically predicated on a vision of the world as a space divided between competing civilizations, each at a different level of socioeconomic, political, and moral development, each populated by members of distinct races, each subject to contrasting forms of evaluation and judgment. Assumed or endorsed by British liberals and their critics, and by imperialists and those who rejected empire, few completely escaped the ideological shadow of this imagined geography. Its legacy continues to shape visions of world order.\n\n1 Mehta, _Liberalism and Empire_ (Chicago, 1999), 37.\n\n2 For a challenge to such certainties, see Duncan Bell and Joel Isaac, eds., _Uncertain Empire_ (Oxford, 2012).\n\n3 For global accounts of the period, see Chris Bayly, _The Birth of the Modern World, 1780\u20131914_ (Oxford, 2004); Barry Buzan and George Lawson, _The Global Transformation_ (Cambridge, 2015); J\u00fcrgen Osterhammel, _The Transformation of the World_ (Princeton, 2014).\n\n4 For a detailed exposition, see Casper Sylvest, _British Liberal Internationalism, 1880\u20131930_ (Manchester, 2009). See also the discussion in chapter 10. For further comments on the nature of liberalism, and for bibliographical references on the topic, see chapters 1 and .\n\n5 Plamenatz, On _Alien Rule and Self-Government_ (London, 1960). This was one of only a handful of books written by a political theorist during the Cold War that addressed the question of empire. For an attempt to resuscitate it, see Brian Barry, \"On Self-Government,\" in _The Nature of Political Theory_ , ed. David Miller and Larry Siedentop (London, 1983), 121\u201354. For a recent defense of \"alien rule\" (understood in broader terms), see Michael Hechter, _Alien Rule_ (Cambridge, 2013).\n\n6 For a prominent example, see Niall Ferguson, _Empire_ (London, 2003).\n\n7 Anthony Pagden, _The Burdens of Empire_ (Cambridge, 2015), 37. For a more detailed account, see Pagden, \"Human Rights, Natural Rights, and Europe's Imperial Legacy,\" _Political Theory_ , 31 (2003), 171\u201399. This essay is reprinted in _Burdens_ , on pages 243\u201363.\n\n8 Peter Cain, \"Radicalism, Gladstone, and the Liberal Critique of Disraelian 'Imperialism,'\" in _Victorian Visions of Global Order_ , ed. Duncan Bell (Cambridge, 2007), 215\u201339. For the liberal critique of \"imperialism,\" see also Miles Taylor, \"Imperium et Libertas?,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 19 (1991), 1\u201323.\n\n9 Hammond, \"Colonial and Foreign Policy,\" in _Liberalism and the Empire_ , by Hammond, Hirst, and Murray (London, 1899), 196.\n\n10 Ibid., 171.\n\n11 Hobhouse, _Democracy and Reaction_ 1904], ed. Peter Clarke (Brighton, 1972), 48, 154; Hobhouse once defined imperialism as \"the doctrine of racial ascendency and territorial aggression.\" Hobhouse, \"The Growth of Imperialism,\" _Speaker_ (January 25, 1902), 474. I examine his views in [chapter 14.\n\n12 Ikenberry, \"Liberalism and Empire,\" _Review of International Studies_ , 30 (2004), 619. If, on the other hand, \"empire is defined more loosely as a hierarchical system of political relationships in which the most powerful state exercises decisive influence, the postwar American system indeed qualifies\" (619).\n\n13 Ikenberry, \"Liberalism and Empire,\" 615, 616. For more on liberal hegemony, see Ikenberry, _Liberal Order and Imperial Ambition_ (London, 2006).\n\n14 Ferguson, \"Hegemony or Empire?,\" _Foreign Affairs_ , 82\/5 (2003), 160.\n\n15 Schumpeter, _Imperialism and Social Classes_ (New York, 1955), 75. See also Bernard Semmel, _The Liberal Ideal and the Demons of Empire_ (Baltimore, 1993), 167\u201376.\n\n16 Constant, \"The Spirit of Conquest\" [1814], in _Political Writings_ , ed. Biancamaria Fontana (Cambridge, 1988), 51\u201381; Angell, _The Great Illusion_ (London, 1910). See also Peter Cain, \"Capitalism, Aristocracy and Empire,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 35\/1 (2007), 25\u201347.\n\n17 Tully, \"Lineages of Contemporary Imperialism,\" in _Lineages of Empire_ , ed. Duncan Kelly (Oxford, 2009), 11. On Tully's vision, see Duncan Bell, \"To Act Otherwise,\" in _On Global Citizenship_ , ed. David Owen (London, 2014), 181\u2013207.\n\n18 Tully, \"Lineages of Contemporary Imperialism,\" 13. Here he draws on a seminal article, Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher, \"The Imperialism of Free Trade,\" _Economic History Review_ , 6 (1953), 1\u201315.\n\n19 Tully, _Public Philosophy in a New Key_ (Cambridge, 2008), 2:7.\n\n20 Tully, _Strange Multiplicity_ (Cambridge, 1995); Mills, \"Occupy Liberalism!,\" _Radical Philosophy Review_ , 15\/2 (2012), 305\u201323.\n\n21 For a powerful critique of their uses of history, and much else besides, see Jeanne Morefield, _Empires without Imperialism_ (Oxford, 2014).\n\n22 Ryan, \"Liberal Imperialism\" [2004], in _The Making of Modern Liberalism_ (Princeton, 2012), 107, 122. For a sophisticated liberal account of the practical difficulties of humanitarian intervention, and the normative implications to be drawn from this, see Michael Doyle, _The Question of Intervention_ (New Haven, 2015). Doyle, though, exaggerates the differences between past modes of imperialism and current ideas and practices.\n\n23 Mehta's timing was exemplary. In April that year, British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave a speech in Chicago presenting the case for \"humanitarian\" intervention in Kosovo, invoking the \"doctrine of the international community.\" It synthesised many of the liberal arguments that had been percolating around Western politics elites and academic discourse during the preceding few years. Subsequently, this line of thinking was formalised into the doctrine of \"Responsibility to Protect.\" For supportive accounts, see Alex Bellamy, _Responsibility to Protect_ (Oxford, 2014); Luke Glanville, _Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect_ (Chicago, 2014). For a critique, see Philip Cunliffe, ed., _Critical Perspectives on the Responsibility to Protect_ (London, 2011).\n\n24 Mehta, _Liberalism and Empire_ , 11, 23. Mehta is clear he is not concerned here with authorial intent, but with \"foundational commitments\" (47, 1n).\n\n25 Ibid., 18. Intriguingly, this argument was itself employed by liberal defenders of empire. Hammond, for example, admonished \"imperialists\" for \"that intolerance which regards every diversity of religion, of polity, as an eyesore, which sees a moribund civilization in every civilization not immediately intelligible or sympathetic to our own... and takes pride in its rigid Procrustean measurements of every nation by our own standard\" (\"Colonial and Foreign Policy,\" 199).\n\n26 Chakrabarty, _Provincializing Europe_ (Princeton, 2000), 8.\n\n27 Mehta, _Liberalism and Empire_ , 9. Italics added. \"Given liberalism's universalism,\" he writes elsewhere, \"this is definitionally the case\" (48).\n\n28 Ibid., 20. Italics in original.\n\n29 Cooper, _Colonialism in Question_ (Berkeley, 2005), 235.\n\n30 Mehta, _Liberalism and Empire_ , 43, 50. Michael Bentley suggests that Mehta should simply acknowledge that the \"other tradition\" he identifies is an antiliberal conservative one, fully capable of \"recognising other cultures in and for their authenticity and selfhood.\" Bentley, review, _Victorian Studies_ , 43\/4 (2001), 620.\n\n31 While I here focus on these texts, chiefly because of their influence and the scope of their historical claims, numerous other scholars have explored aspects of the topic. For some of the most interesting accounts of British imperial liberalism, see Peter Cain, \"Empire and the Languages of Character and Virtue in Later Victorian and Edwardian Britain,\" _Modern Intellectual History_ , 4\/2 (2007), 1\u201325; Cain, \"Character, 'Ordered Liberty,' and the Mission to Civilise,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 40\/4 (2012), 557\u201378; Gregory Claeys, _Imperial Sceptics_ (Cambridge, 2010); Daniel Gorman, _Imperial Citizenship_ (Manchester, 2006); Jeanne Morefield, _Covenants without Swords_ ; Morefield, _Empires without Imperialism_ ; Nicholas Owen, _The British Left and India_ (Oxford, 2007); Andrew Sartori, _Liberalism in Empire_ (Berkeley, 2014); Casper Sylvest, _British Liberal Internationalism, 1880\u20131930_. For the European context, see Matthew Fitzpatrick, ed., _Liberal Imperialism in Europe_ (Basingstoke, 2012).\n\n32 Muthu, _Enlightenment against Empire_ (Princeton, 2003), 268\u201369.\n\n33 Ibid., 282. Italics in original.\n\n34 Ibid., 4, 5 (and 258). Italics added.\n\n35 Pitts, \"Political Theory of Empire and Imperialism,\" _Annual Review of Political Science_ , 13 (2010): 218.\n\n36 Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_ (Princeton, 2005), 26. For the intriguing late-Victorian afterlife of Smith's ideas, see Marc-William Palen, \"Adam Smith as Advocate of Empire,\" _Historical Journal_ , 57\/1 (2014), 179\u201398.\n\n37 Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_ , 2. Italics added. Pitts argues that French liberalism followed a similar trajectory in the nineteenth century, split between an anti-imperial tradition represented by Constant and Am\u00e9d\u00e9e Desjobert and a republican-inflected imperial liberalism articulated in de Tocqueville's writings on Algeria.\n\n38 Mantena, _Alibis of Empire_ (Princeton, 2010), 45. Italics added.\n\n39 Ibid., 48.\n\n40 On Maine's life and thought, see also Alan Diamond, ed., _The Victorian Achievement of Sir Henry Maine_ (Cambridge, 2006); Raymond Cocks, _Sir Henry Maine_ (Cambridge, 1988).\n\n41 Mantena, _Alibis of Empire_ , 1, 48. For empirical confirmation of this policy trend outside of India, see Coel Kirkby, \"The Politics and Practice of 'Native' Enfranchisement in Canada and the Cape Colony, c.1880\u20131900,\" (PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2013).\n\n42 Mantena also develops a brilliant analysis of the recurrent instability of imperial ideology, which she convincingly applies to the recent conflict in Iraq and its aftermath ( _Alibis of Empire_ , 179\u201381).\n\n43 Ibid., 11. Italics in original.\n\n44 Ibid., 22\u201339. On this account, his universalism was heavily qualified by assorted empirical factors, leading to a more contextualized approach to imperial affairs.\n\n45 This reinforces other recent accounts of the imperial origins of the League and the United Nations, including Mark Mazower, _No Enchanted Palace_ (Princeton, 2009). On trusteeship, see also William Bain, _Between Anarchy and Society_ (Oxford, 2003). For a magisterial analysis of the Mandate system, see Susan Pedersen, _The Guardians_ (Oxford, 2015).\n\n46 For recent assessments, see Andrew Thompson, ed., _Writing Imperial Histories_ (Manchester, 2014); John Mackenzie, \"The British Empire,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 43\/1 (2015), 99\u2013124; Dane Kennedy, \"The Imperial History Wars,\" _Journal of British Studies_ , 54\/1 (2015), 1\u201322.\n\n47 This is no longer the case. See, for example, James Belich, _Replenishing the Earth_ (Oxford, 2009); John Darwin, _The Empire Project_ (Cambridge, 2011); Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds, _Drawing the Global Colour Line_ (Cambridge, 2008); Gary Magee and Andrew Thompson, _Empire and Globalization_ (Cambridge, 2010). Cf. Duncan Bell, \"Desolation Goes before Us,\" _Journal of British Studies_ 54 (2015), 987\u201393.\n\n48 Balachandra Rajan, \"Excess of India,\" _Modern Philology_ , 95\/4 (1998), 490.\n\n49 Mehta, _Liberalism and Empire_ , ch. 5; Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_ , ch. 3; Whelan, _Enlightenment Political Thought and Non-Western Societies_ (London, 2009), ch. 4; Whelan, _Edmund Burke and India_ (Pittsburgh, 1996); Muthu, _Enlightenment against Empire_ , 4\u20135.\n\n50 Daniel O'Neill, \"Rethinking Burke and India,\" _History of Political Thought_ , 30\/3 (2009), 492\u2013523; Sartori, _Liberalism in Empire_ , 26. For an insightful account of Burke's imperialism, see Daniel O'Neill, _Edmund Burke and the Conservative Logic of Empire_ (Berkeley, 2016).\n\n51 Margaret Kohn and Daniel O'Neill, \"A Tale of Two Indias,\" _Political Theory_ , 34 (2006), 202.\n\n52 For accounts of Locke and colonialism, see Barbara Arneil, _John Locke and America_ (Oxford, 1996); Arneil, \"Citizens, Wives, Latent Citizens and Non-Citizens in the _Two Treatises_ ,\" _Eighteenth-Century Thought_ , 3 (2007), 209\u201322; James Farr, \"Locke, Natural Law, and New World Slavery,\" _Political Theory_ , 36 (2008), 495\u2013522; Duncan Ivison, \"Locke, Liberalism and Empire,\" in _The Philosophy of John Locke_ , ed. Peter R. Anstey (London, 2003), 86\u2013105; Jimmy Casas Klausen, \"Room Enough,\" _Journal of Politics_ , 69\/3 (2007), 760\u201369; Herman Lebovics, _Imperialism and the Corruption of Democracies_ (Durham, NC, 2006), ch. 5; James Tully, _An Approach to Political Philosophy_ (Cambridge, 1993), 137\u201376; Jack Turner, \"John Locke, Christian Mission, and Colonial America,\" _Modern Intellectual History_ , 8 (2011), 267\u201397. For qualified skepticism about Locke's imperialism, see David Armitage, _Foundations of Modern International Thought_ , chs. 6\u20137.\n\n53 Dunn, _The Political Thought of John Locke_ (Cambridge, 1969), 5.\n\n54 Mehta, _Liberalism and Empire_ , 4.\n\n55 Skinner, \"Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas,\" in _Visions of Politics_ , 1:73\u201374. While agreeing with the general thrust of this argument, and the methodological commitments that underpin it, in chapter 3 I suggest that Locke _became_ a liberal in the twentieth century through his retrospective incorporation into the (new) liberal tradition, but that this was part of a process of conceptual and ideological expansion that rendered liberalism such an amorphous category that it is usually unhelpful as a guide to theoretical or historical interpretation.\n\n56 For the striking absence of Lockean accounts of property in elite metropolitan discourse, see Andrew Fitzmaurice, _Sovereignty, Property, and Empire, 1500\u20132000_ (Cambridge, 2014), chs. 7\u20139. On the inapplicability of the category \"liberalism\" to early modern empires, see Fitzmaurice, \"Neither Neo-Roman nor Liberal Empire,\" _Renaissance Studies_ , 26\/4 (2012), 479\u201391.\n\n57 Andrew Sartori, _Liberalism in Empire_.\n\n58 Buller used the phrase \"shoveling out paupers\" to describe Robert Wilmot Horton's emigration scheme. See the discussion in H.J.M. Johnson, _British Emigration Policy, 1815\u20131830_ (Oxford, 1972), 168. A friend of John Stuart Mill, Buller was a liberal politician and active member of the colonial reform movement. On the \"somersault in British attitudes to emigration,\" see Belich, _Replenishing the Earth_ , 145\u201352.\n\n59 The economic debate is discussed in Winch, _Classical Political Economy_.\n\n60 Cairnes, \"Colonization and Colonial Government,\" _Political Essays_ (London, 1873), 30, 33. He added: \"The theory has now little more than an historic value\" (30).\n\n61 The most developed version of his argument can be found in Wakefield, _A View of the Art of Colonization_ (London, 1849). For other contributions to the debate, see Nassau Senior, _Remarks on Emigration_ (London, 1831); Nassau Senior, _An Outline of a Science of Political Economy_ (London, 1836); Robert Torrens, _Colonisation of South Australia_ (London, 1835); Torrens, _Self-Supporting Colonization_ (London, 1847); Merivale, _Lectures on Colonisation and Colonies_ , 2 vols. (London, 1841). For analysis, see Winch, _Classical Political Economy_ ; Peter Burroughs, _Colonial Reformers and Canada, 1830\u20131849_ (London, 1969); Tony Ballantyne, \"Remaking the Empire from Newgate,\" in _Ten Books That Shaped the British Empire_ , ed. Antoinette Burton and Isabel Hofmeyr (Durham, NC, 2014), 29\u201350. One issue on which there was considerable disagreement was the idea of a \"sufficient price\" for land. For differing perspectives, see Wakefield, _A View of the Art of Colonization_ , 338\u201369; Merivale, _Lectures on Colonisation and Colonies_ , lectures 14\u201316; John Stuart Mill, _Principles of Political Economy_ [1848], in _The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill_ , ed. John Robson (Toronto, 1963\u201391), (hereafter _Collected Works_ ), vol. 3, bk. 1, ch. 8.\n\n62 For a good account of the argument, see Cairnes, \"Colonization and Colonial Government,\" 30\u201335.\n\n63 Wakefield, _A View of the Art of Colonization_ , 148. See also Arthur Mills, _Systematic Colonization_ (London, 1847), 33\u201334.\n\n64 Marx, _Capital_ , vol. 1, in _Collected Works_ , by Marx and Engels (London, 1975), ch. 33. Indeed Marx regarded him as the most significant bourgeois political economist since Ricardo. For Victorian accounts of the importance of the colonial reformers, see Alfred Caldecott, _English Colonization and Empire_ (London, 1891), 131\u201333, who labeled them \"Benthamites\"; and Egerton, _A Short History of British Colonial Policy_ , (London, 1897), who, despite praising Wakefield and the movement, noted their \"un-English\" propensity for theorizing systematically about empire (4).\n\n65 Smith, _The Empire_ (London, 1863).\n\n66 Cairnes, \"Colonization and Colonial Government,\" 58.\n\n67 Mill, _Considerations on Representative Government_ 1861], ch. 18. For more on his argument for retaining the colonies on a voluntary basis, see [chapter 9. In 1864 Mill and Cairnes corresponded over the issue, with Mill rejecting Cairnes's arguments and reiterating the position elaborated in _Considerations_. See, for example, Mill to Cairnes, November 8, 1864, _Collected Works_ , 15:965. See also the discussion in Georgios Varouaxakis, _Liberty Abroad_ (Cambridge, 2013), 132\u201334.\n\n68 See H.C.G Matthew, _The Liberal Imperialists_ (Oxford, 1973), on liberal parliamentary support for empire and imperialism. Both served as presidents of the Imperial Federation League.\n\n69 Lecky, _The Empire_ (London, 1893), 15.\n\n70 Carnegie, _The Reunion of Britain and America_ (Edinburgh, 1893), 24; see also Carnegie, \"Distant Possessions,\" _North American Review_ , 167\/501 (1898), 239\u201348. For analysis of this idea, see Duncan Bell, \"Beyond the Sovereign State,\" _Political Studies_ , 62\/2 (2014), 418\u201334; Bell, \"Before the Democratic Peace,\" _European Journal of International Relations_ , 20\/3 (2014), 647\u201370.\n\n71 Quoted in John Darwin, _The Empire Project_ , 146.\n\n72 Caldecott, _English Colonization and Empire_ , 11. Caldecott was Dean of St. John's College, Cambridge; the book was designed for use on university courses.\n\n73 The distinction was a constant theme across the Victorian era and beyond. George Cornewall Lewis, _An Essay on the Government of Dependencies_ (London, 1841), 169\u201379; Arthur Mills, _Colonial Constitutions_ (London, 1856); John Stuart Mill, _Considerations on Representative Government_ , ch. 18; Alpheus Todd, _Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies_ (London, 1880); Henry Jenkyns, _British Rule and Jurisdiction beyond the Seas_ (Oxford, 1902), 1\u20139.\n\n74 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 244.\n\n75 Gooch, \"Imperialism,\" in _The Heart of Empire_ , ed. C.F.G Masterman (London, 1901), 310.\n\n76 Lucas, \"Introduction,\" in _An Essay on the Government of Dependencies_ , by George Cornewall Lewis, ed. C. P. Lucas (Oxford, 1891), xxxiii.\n\n77 Mills, _The Racial Contract_ (Ithaca, 1997); Mills, \"White Right,\" in _Blackness Visible_ (Ithaca, 1998). For a different account of the \"settler contract,\" see Carole Pateman and Charles Mills, _Contract and Domination_ (Cambridge, 2007), ch. 2 (by Pateman). Note that Mills and Pateman employ \"contract\" in different senses.\n\n78 Lorenzo Veracini locates the origins of the concept (not the practice) in the period of decolonization in the 1950s and 1960s. \"Settler Colonialism,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 41\/2 (2013), 313\u201333. Settler colonialism has been central to the work of J.G.A. Pocock, though he has written little about the nineteenth century, which is why I don't engage him at greater length in this chapter. See Pocock, _The Discovery of Islands_ (Cambridge, 2005); Richard Bourke, \"Pocock and the Presuppositions of the New British History,\" _Historical Journal_ , 53\/3 (2010), 747\u201370.\n\n79 For theoretical accounts of the practice, see J\u00fcrgen Osterhammel, _Colonialism_ , 2nd ed. (Princeton, 2005); Lorenzo Veracini, _Settler Colonialism_ (Basingstoke, 2010); Patrick Wolfe, _Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology_ (London, 1999); Caroline Elkins and Susan Pedersen, \"Settler Colonialism,\" in _Settler Colonialism in the Twentieth Century_ , ed. Elkins and Pedersen (London, 2005), 1\u201320; Mahmood Mamdani, \"Settler Colonialism,\" _Critical Inquiry_ , 41 (2015), 1\u201319. For a useful summary of the distinctive, even antithetical, character of colonialism and settler colonialism, see Veracini, \"Introducing Settler Colonial Studies,\" _Settler Colonial Studies_ , 1\/1 (2011), 1\u201312.\n\n80 On settler sovereignty, see, for example, Lauren Benton, _A Search for Sovereignty_ (Cambridge, 2010); Lisa Ford, _Settler Sovereignty_ (Cambridge, MA, 2010). See also Ann Stoler, \"On Degrees of Imperial Sovereignty,\" _Public Culture_ , 18\/1 (2006). On practices and ideologies of settler colonialism, see also Fiona Bateman and Lionel Pilkington, eds., _Studies in Settler Colonialism: Politics, Identity and Culture_ (New York: Palgrave, 2011); Shaunnagh Dorsett and Ian Hunter, eds., _Law and Politics in British Colonial Thought_ (Basingstoke, 2010); Lynette Russell, ed., _Colonial Frontiers_ (Manchester, 2001); Annie Coombes, ed., _Rethinking Settler Colonialism_ (Manchester, 2006); Alyosha Goldstein and Alex Lubin, eds., \"Settler Colonialism,\" _South Atlantic Quarterly_ , 107\/4 (2008).\n\n81 Wolfe, \"Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native,\" _Journal of Genocide Research_ , 8\/4 (2006), 393. Italics added. On settler violence, see Dirk Moses, ed., _Genocide and Settler Society_ (New York, 2004); Ann Curthoys, \"Genocide in Tasmania,\" in _Empire, Colony, Genocide_ , ed. Dirk Moses (New York, 2008), 229\u201353; Wolfe, \"Settler Colonialism.\" On racial exclusion from the franchise in the British settler empire, see Julie Evans et al., _Unequal Rights_ (Manchester, 2003); Kirkby, \"The Politics and Practice of 'Native' Enfranchisement.\"\n\n82 Wolfe, \"Settler Colonialism.\" See also Wolfe, \"Recuperating Binarism,\" _Settler Colonial Studies_ , 3\/4 (2013), 257\u201379.\n\n83 On humanitarian governmentality, see Alan Lester and Fae Dussart, _Colonization and the Origins of Humanitarian Governance_ (Cambridge, 2014).\n\n84 In the zone of greatest destruction, the population of Aboriginal Australians fell from over 750,000 to less than 50,000 during the colonial period. In the penal colony of Tasmania (once Van Diemen's Land), the local population was almost exterminated between 1803 and 1850 in a prolonged nightmare of rape, torture, disease, and murder. See Benjamin Madley, \"From Terror to Genocide: Britain's Tasmanian Penal Colony and Australia's History Wars,\" _Journal of British Studies_ , 47 (2008), 77.\n\n85 Wolfe, \"Settler Colonialism,\" 397. For a related discussion, see Jonathan Lear, _Radical Hope_ (Cambridge, MA, 2006). See also the comments in Duncan Bell, \"Making and Taking Worlds,\" in _Global Intellectual History_ , ed. Samuel Moyn and Andrew Sartori (New York, 2013), 254\u201382.\n\n86 Wolfe, \"Settler Colonialism,\" 388. For a useful comparative perspective, see Benjamin Madley, \"Tactics of Nineteenth Century Colonial Massacre,\" in _Theatres of Violence_ , ed. Philips Dwyer and Lyndall Ryan (New York, 2012), 110\u201325.\n\n87 Duncan Ivison, Paul Patton, and Will Sanders, eds., _Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples_ (Cambridge, 2001); Mamdani, \"Settler Colonialism\"; Tully, _Strange Multiplicity_.\n\n88 Patrick Brantlinger, _Dark Vanishings_ (Ithaca, 2003).\n\n89 Wells, _The War of the Worlds_ (London, 1898), prologue.\n\n90 Merivale, _Lectures on Colonies and Colonisation_ , 2:152. After a spell as Professor of Political Economy at Oxford, during which time he delivered his famed lectures on colonies, Merivale held a series of senior imperial administrative posts, which culminated in his appointment as Permanent Under-Secretary for India in 1860.\n\n91 Caldecott, _English Colonization and Empire_ , 234. On the inevitability of extinction-through-contact, he wrote the following extraordinary passage: \"The past is irrevocable, and in the future men must move on. Some of these peoples are plainly passing away: they are unable to live when called upon to make a sudden and almost a spasmodic effort to live in a higher stage of culture. But even for them it is not difficult to determine what should be our attitude. What is our conduct to the sick and dying among ourselves? All the alleviations and comforts we can think of are placed cheerfully at their disposal. Let it be so for these sick and dying tribes. Let us work gently as in the sick-chamber, and be ministers to their closing years in comfort, patience, and tenderness\" (235).\n\n92 Murray, \"The Exploitation of Inferior Races in Ancient and Modern Times,\" in _Liberalism and the Empire_ , ed. Hirst, Murray, and Hammond, 157.\n\n93 Merivale, _Lectures on Colonies and Colonisation_ , 2:152.\n\n94 On the notion of mythscape, see Duncan Bell, \"Mythscapes,\" _British Journal of Sociology_ , 54\/1 (2003), 63\u201381; Bell, \"Agonistic Democracy and the Politics of Memory,\" _Constellations_ , 15\/1 (2008), 148\u201366. On settler narratives, see also Veracini, _Settler Colonialism_ , ch. 4.\n\n95 Metcalf, _Ideologies of the Raj_ (Cambridge, 1995).\n\n96 On Aryanism, see Tony Ballantyne, _Orientalism and Race_ (Basingstoke, 2002), and the discussion in chapter 13.\n\n97 Mehta, _Liberalism and Empire_ , 31\u201333; Chakrabarty, _Provincializing Europe_. See also Ashis Nandy, \"Reconstructing Childhood,\" in _Traditions, Tyranny, and Utopia_ (Delhi, 1987), 56\u201376.\n\n98 Cornewall Lewis, _Essay_ , 170. This definition was adopted by Cairnes, in \"Colonization and Colonial Government,\" 4\u20135. For Cornewall Lewis's account of colonial sovereignty, see Shaunnagh Dorsett, \"Sovereignty as Governance in the Early New Zealand Crown Colony Period,\" in _Law and Politics in British Colonial Thought_ , ed. Dorsett and Hunter, 209\u201328.\n\n99 Wakefield, _A View on the Art of Colonization_ , 16-17. \"A colony therefore is a country wholly or partially unoccupied, which receives emigrants from a distance; and it is a colony of the country from which the emigrants proceed, which is therefore called the mother country\" (16).\n\n100 Egerton, _A Short History of Colonial Policy_ , 8\u20139.\n\n101 Wakefield, _A View on the Art of Colonization_ , 17. Canada was an example of the former, Massachusetts of the latter. E. A. Freeman also referred to the United States as \"independent colonies.\" Freeman, _Some Impressions of the United States_ (London, 1883), 23. See also my discussion in chapter 13.\n\n102 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 58.\n\n103 Muthu, _Enlightenment against Empire_ , 75.\n\n104 E. G. Wakefield, _England and America_ (London, 1833), 2:252n; Richard Mills, _The Colonization of Australia (1829\u201342)_ [1915] (London, 1968), 152\u201353; Philip Schofield, _Utility and Democracy_ (Oxford, 2006), 199\u2013220.\n\n105 Hobson, _Imperialism_ (London, 1902), 36, 27, 328\u201355. Hobson, though, did recognize the exterminatory dangers of settler colonization (e.g., 266\u201367). He later changed his mind about imperial federation. See Duncan Bell, \"On J. A. Hobson's 'The Ethics of Internationalism,'\" _Ethics_ , 125 (2014), 220\u201322; and chapter 14.\n\n106 Mehta, _Liberalism and Empire_ , 2\u20133n1.\n\n107 Patrick Brantlinger, _Dark Vanishings_.\n\n108 Hammond, \"Colonial and Foreign Policy,\" 207. See also Gooch, \"Imperialism.\" This emphasis wasn't accepted by all liberals. Charles Dilke, for example, argued that \"India ought always to be first in our minds.\" Dilke, _The British Empire_ (London, 1899), 17.\n\n109 Hobhouse, _Liberalism_ [1911], ed. James Meadowcroft (Cambridge, 1994), 115.\n\n110 A. C. Forster Boulton, \"Liberalism and the Empire,\" _Westminster Review_ , 151 (1899), 490. Forster Boulton was a successful barrister and writer.\n\n111 Morley, \"Democracy and Reaction\" [1904], _Critical Miscellanies_ (London, 1908), 4:282\u201383. He later served as Secretary of State for India (1905\u201310).\n\n112 Besant, _The Future of the Empire_ (London, 1897), 124.\n\n113 Seeley, _Expansion of England_ , 11.\n\n114 Smith, \"The Hatred of England,\" _North American Review_ , 150\/402 (1890), 558.\n\n115 Hirst, Murray, and Hammond, _Liberalism and the Empire_ , xv.\n\n116 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 37. On what he meant by this, see Bell, \"The Victorian Idea of a Global State,\" in _Victorian Visions_ , ed. Bell, 159\u201386; and chapter 11.\n\n117 Hammond, \"Colonial and Foreign Policy,\" 207. The Earl of Rosebery is often credited with coining the term \"commonwealth\" to refer to the British empire, though it only became popular when adopted by the Round Table twenty-five years later. See Rosebery's speech in Adelaide, January 18, 1884, reprinted in _The Concept of Empire_ , 2nd ed., ed. George Bennett, (London, 1962), 283.\n\n118 Hobhouse, _Democracy and Empire_ , 116. I explore Hobhouse's views in chapter 14. As I discuss in chapter 8, this vanguard notion was repeated in a variety of forms across the twentieth century.\n\n119 Bhikhu Parekh, \"Liberalism and Colonialism,\" in _The Decolonization of Imagination_ , ed. J. N. Pieterse and Parekh, (London, 1995), 81\u201398; Mehta, _Liberalism and Empire_.\n\n120 In chapter 3, I develop a similar argument about how liberalism is now conventionally understood.\n\n121 Comte, _System of Positive Polity_ [1854], ed. and trans. Richard Congreve (London, 1877 [1854]), 4:430\u201331. He called, for example, for the \"noble restoration\" of Algeria to the Arabs (364).\n\n122 P. J. Cain, \"Capitalism, War, and Internationalism in the Thought of Richard Cobden,\" _British Journal of International Studies_ , 5\/3 (1979), 229\u201347; Anthony Howe and Simon Morgan, eds., _Rethinking Nineteenth-Century Liberalism_ (London, 2006); Claeys, _Imperial Sceptics_ , 27\u201336. For the context of free trade arguments against empire, see Anthony Howe, \"Free Trade and Global Order,\" in _Victorian Visions of Global Order_ , ed. Bell, 26\u201346.\n\n123 Cited in Donald Read, _Cobden and Bright_ (London, 1967), 205\u20136. He warned: \"I have a presentiment... that God's chastisement upon us as a nation will come from Hindoostan.\"\n\n124 Cobden, \"How Wars Are Got Up in India,\" in _Writings of Richard Cobden_ (London, 1886), 455, 458.\n\n125 Spencer, \"The Proper Sphere of Government\" [1843], in _The Man versus the State_ (Indianapolis, 1982), 220.\n\n126 Spencer, \"Imperialism and Slavery,\" in _Facts and Comments_ (London, 1902), 113.\n\n127 Spencer, \"The Proper Sphere of Government,\" 224.\n\n128 For a key positivist intervention, see Richard Congreve et al., _International Policy_ (London, 1866). On the positivists, see T. R. Wright, _The Religion of Humanity_ (London, 1986). For their views on empire, see Claeys, _Imperial Sceptics_ , 47\u2013122. However, as the example of Seeley shows (see chapter 11), positivism was compatible with different positions on empire.\n\n129 Harrison, \"Empire and Humanity,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 27\/158 (1880), 298, 299. For his views on empire, see also H. S. Jones, \"The Victorian Lexicon of Evil,\" in _Evil, Barbarism and Empire_ , ed. Tom Cook, Rebecca Gill, and Bertrand Taithe (Basingstoke, 2011), 126\u201343; Claeys, _Imperial Sceptics_ , 47\u2013122.\n\n130 Harrison, \"Empire and Humanity,\" 294. For his account of the nature of moral obligations within and beyond the state, see \"The Modern Machiavelli,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 42\/247 (1897), 462\u201371.\n\n131 Harrison, \"Empire and Humanity,\" 295, 297.\n\n132 Ibid., 290.\n\n133 Ibid., 299. Andrew Fitzmaurice argues that international law, rather than a simple vehicle of imperialism, as it has often been characterized in recent scholarship, was also a site of deep contestation over the legitimacy of empire, riven by clashes over the meaning of sovereignty and freedom: \"[I]nternational law was... one of the domains in which opposition to empire was most strongly articulated.\" Fitzmaurice, _Sovereignty, Property and Empire_ , 300. For another pluralist interpretation, see Jennifer Pitts, \"Boundaries of Victorian International Law,\" in _Victorian Visions_ , ed. Bell, 67\u201389. For an argument that stresses the complicity of international law in empire, see Martti Koskeniemmi, _The Gentle Civilizer of Nations_ (Cambridge, 2001).\n\n134 I find less evidence of martialist attitudes glorifying violence for its redemptive capacities among liberal thinkers, though no doubt they were occasionally expressed. Karma Nabulsi, who first formulated the category, argues that Seeley can be seen as an exemplary martialist. Nabulsi, _Traditions of War_ (Oxford, 1999), ch. 4. For a challenge to this attribution, see Duncan Bell, \"Unity and Difference,\" _Review of International Studies_ , 31\/3 (2005), 562\u201366.\n\n135 This distinction is drawn in Jedediah Purdy, \"Liberal Empire,\" _Ethics & International Affairs_, 17\/2 (2003), 35\u201347.\n\n136 On the history of the idea, see Brett Bowden, _The Empire of Civilization_ (Chicago, 2009); Michael Sonenscher, \"Barbarism and Civilisation\" in Richard Whatmore and Brian Young (eds.), _A Companion to Intellectual History_ (Oxford, 2016), 288\u2013302.\n\n137 See, for example, Morefield's discussion of Gilbert Murray's liberalism in _Covenants without Swords_.\n\n138 Chamberlain, \"The True Conception of Empire\" (1897), in _Mr Chamberlain's Speeches_ , ed. C. Boyd, (London, 1914), 2:3.\n\n139 Dunning, \"A Century of Politics,\" _North American Review_ , 179\/577 (1904), 812\u201313. Dunning was at the time a Professor of History at Columbia University. For more on his writing, see the discussion in chapter 3.\n\n140 Dunning, \"A Century of Politics,\" 814\u201315.\n\n141 Vitoria, \"On the American Indians (De Indis),\" in _Franciso de Vitoria: Political Writings_ , ed. Anthony Pagden and Jeremy Lawrence (Cambridge, 1991 [1539]), Question 1, Conclusion, sec. 23, 250\u201351.\n\n142 James Mill, \"Review of Voyage aux Indes Orientales,\" by Le P. Paulin De S. Barth\u00e9lemy, _Edinburgh Review_ , 15 (1810), 371.\n\n143 Mikael H\u00f6rnqvist, _Machiavelli and Empire_ (Cambridge, 2004); H\u00f6rnqvist, \"Machiavelli's Three Desires,\" in _Empire in Modern Political Thought_ , ed. Muthu, 7\u201330.\n\n144 Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_ , chs. 6\u20137.\n\n145 Stephen, \"Liberalism,\" _Cornhill Magazine_ , 5\/25 (1862), 82.\n\n146 It is arguable, though, that Stokes exaggerates the importance of Stephen. See here Frederick Rosen, \"Eric Stokes, British Utilitarianism, and India,\" in _J. S. Mill's Encounter with India_ , ed. Moir, Peers, and Zastoupil (Toronto, 1999), 18\u201333. On the variability of utilitarian responses, see also Bart Schultz and Georgios Varouxakis, eds., _Utilitarianism and Empire_ (Lanham, MD, 2005).\n\n147 Mehta, _Liberalism and Empire_ , 29\u201330, 198; Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_ , 223; Mantena, _Alibis of Empire_ , 38.\n\n148 His unconventional liberalism is discussed in James Colaiaco, _James Fitzjames Stephen and the Crisis of Victorian Thought_ (London, 1983); K.J.M. Smith, _James Fitzjames Stephen_ (Cambridge, 1988); Collini, _Public Moralists_ , 280\u201387. For a convincing account of his political thinking, see Julia Stapleton, \"James Fitzjames Stephen,\" _Victorian Studies_ , 41\/2 (1998), 243\u201346.\n\n149 Sidgwick, _Lectures on the Ethics of T. H. Green, Mr. Herbert Spencer and J. Martineau_ (London, 1902), 236; Sidgwick, _The Elements of Politics_ 1891], 3rd ed. (London, 1907), 256. See also the discussion in [chapter 10.\n\n150 Leslie Stephen, _The Life of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen_ (London, 1895), 398.\n\n151 Stephen, \"Deus Ultionum,\" _Saturday Review_ , October 15, 1867; Stephen, _Life_ , 225, 310, 394.\n\n152 Stephen, _Liberty, Equality, Fraternity_ [1873], ed. R. J. White (Chicago, 1990), 113. See also his attempt to justify the conquest, and celebrate Warren Hastings, in _The Story of Nuncomar and the Impeachment of Sir Elijah Impey_ (London, 1885).\n\n153 Stephen, \"Manchester on India,\" _Times_ , January 4, 1878, 3.\n\n154 On his friendship and \"intellectual sympathies\" with Froude, see Stephen, _Life_ , 585, 700; Ciaran Brady, _James Anthony Froude_ (Oxford, 2013), 3, 16.\n\n155 Stephen, \"Liberalism,\" _Cornhill Magazine_ , 5\/25 (1862), 82.\n\n156 Stephen, \"Foundations of the Government of India,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 14\/80 (1883), 559, 554, 566.\n\n157 Ibid., 554, 556.\n\n158 Ibid., 551 (and 561\u201363).\n\n159 Mantena, _Alibis of Empire_ , 11, 6.\n\n160 The argument about Indian policy draws on Metcalf, _Ideologies of the Raj_.\n\n161 Mantena, _Alibis of Empire_ , 43.\n\n162 I stress the role in disillusionment with democracy on settler colonial ideology in Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_ , ch. 2. On liberals and democracy, see also Christopher Harvie, _The Lights of Liberalism_ (London, 1976).\n\n163 Wilson, \"Taking Europe for Granted,\" _History Workshop Journal_ , 52 (2001), 292.\n\n164 Sidgwick, _The Methods of Ethics_ (Cambridge, 1874). See also J. B. Schneewind, _Sidgwick's Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy_ (Oxford, 1977); Bart Schultz, _Henry Sidgwick_ (Cambridge, 2004). On idealism, see David Boucher and Andrew Vincent, _British Idealism and Political Theory_ (Edinburgh, 2001); W. J. Mander, _British Idealism_ (Oxford, 2011), ch. 7; Peter Nicholson, _The Political Philosophy of the British Idealists_ (Cambridge, 1990); Sandra den Otter, _British Idealism and Social Explanation_ (Oxford, 1996); Colin Tyler, _Idealist Political Philosophy_ (London, 2006).\n\n165 Stefan Collini, _Liberalism and Sociology_ (Cambridge, 1983); Michael Freeden, _The New Liberalism_ (Oxford, 1978); Avital Simhony and David Weinstein, eds., _The New Liberalism_ (Cambridge, 2001).\n\n166 David Runciman, _Pluralism and the Personality of the State_ (Cambridge, 1997); C\u00e9cile Laborde, _Pluralist Thought and the State in Britain and France, 1900\u20131925_ (Basingstoke, 2000); Marc Stears, _Progressive, Pluralists, and the Problems of the State_ (Oxford, 2002).\n\n167 Michael Freeden, \"The Coming of the Welfare State,\" in _The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought_ , ed. Terence Ball and Richard Bellamy (Cambridge, 2006), 7\u201345; Jose Harris, \"Political Thought and the Welfare State, 1870\u20131914,\" _Past & Present_, 135 (1992), 116\u201341.\n\n168 Herbert Samuel, _Liberalism_ (London, 1902), 348. One Indian civil servant and British liberal MP went so far as to argue that the civilizing mission had _already_ been successful, with British imperial education having prepared the Indians for immediate (though limited) self-government within an overarching imperial structure. Henry Cotton, \"The Political Future of India,\" _North American Review_ , 181\/584 (1905), 110\u201316.\n\n169 Samuel, _Liberalism_ , 325.\n\n170 Ibid., 330, 332.\n\n171 Caldecott, _English Colonization and Empire_ , 84\u201385. For further examples of advocacy of civilization progress, see chapter 5.\n\n172 J. Stanley Little, _Progress of British Empire in the Century_ (London, 1903), xv. Drawn from \"Lockesley Hall\" (1842), Tennyson's phrase the \"federation of Mankind\" was routinely employed in imperial discourse. For further discussion, see Duncan Bell, _Dreamworlds of Empire_ (forthcoming).\n\n173 Arnold, \"The Duty and Destiny of England in India,\" _North American Review_ , 154\/423 (1892), 170. \"But\u2014and here comes the point\u2014the question of questions is whether the democracy of great Britain, our household-suffrage men, who have of late come to supreme power in the realm, comprehend their Indian Empire and care to maintain it\" (187).\n\n174 MacDonald, _Labour and the Empire_ (London, 1907), 102\u20133.\n\n175 Ibid., 108\u20139.\nCHAPTER 3\n\nWhat Is Liberalism?\n\nLike the history of anything else, history of philosophy is written by the victors. Victors get to choose their ancestors, in the sense that they decide which among their all too various ancestors to mention, write biographies of, and commend to their descendants.1\n\n\u2014RICHARD RORTY\n\nBefore we can begin to analyze any specific form of liberalism we must surely state as clearly as possible what the word means. For in the course of so many years of ideological conflict it seems to have lost its identity completely. Overuse and overextension have rendered it so amorphous that it can now serve as an all-purpose word, whether of abuse or praise.2\n\n\u2014JUDITH SHKLAR\n\nLiberalism is a specter that haunts Western political thought and practice. For some it is a site of the modern, an object of desire, even the _telos_ of history. For others it represents an unfolding nightmare, signifying either the vicious logic of capitalism or a squalid descent into moral relativism. For others still, perhaps the majority, it is a mark of ambivalence, the ideological prerequisite for living a reasonably comfortable life in affluent democratic states\u2014the least-worst option.\n\nBut what is liberalism? Across and within scholarly discourses, it is construed in manifold and contradictory ways: as an embattled vanguard project and constitutive of modernity itself, a fine-grained normative political philosophy and a hegemonic mode of governmentality, the justificatory ideology of unrestrained capitalism and the richest ideological resource for its limitation. Self-declared liberals have supported extensive welfare states and their abolition; the imperial civilizing mission and its passionate denunciation; the necessity of social justice and its outright rejection; the perpetuation of the sovereign state and its transcendence; massive global redistribution of wealth and the radical inequalities of the existing order. Shklar's complaint that it is an \"all-purpose word\" is thus unsurprising, for liberalism has become the metacategory of Western political discourse.\n\nThere are several responses to \"overextension.\" One is simply to ignore it, deploying the term as if its meaning was self-evident. Ubiquitous across the humanities and social sciences, this unreflective impulse generates much confusion. Another is to engage in \"boundary work\"\u2014to demarcate and police the discourse.3 Some influential attempts to do so have figured liberalism as a capacious tradition of traditions, with Guido De Ruggiero and Friedrich Hayek, for example, bifurcating it into British and Continental forms. The most common variation on this theme is to distinguish \"classical\" and \"social\" liberalisms.4 Another popular response is to narrate liberal history as a story of rise or decline, triumph or tragedy. A familiar rendition bemoans the lost purity of the original. Thus Leo Strauss mourned the transition from virtuous \"ancient\" liberalism (reaching its apogee in Athens) to debased forms of \"modern\" liberalism (commencing with Machiavelli), while Sheldon Wolin averred that twentieth-century liberalism had disastrously forgotten its early skeptical enunciation.5 Some neoconservatives have claimed the mantle, seeking, with Irving Kristol, \"a return to the original sources of liberal vision and liberal energy so as to correct the warped version.\"6 Declension has also been a recurrent libertarian complaint. When he came to pen his defense of \"classical\" liberalism in 1927, Ludwig von Mises grumbled that from Mill onwards the ideology had degenerated into socialism, a warning that Herbert Spencer had flagged half a century earlier.7 But the development of liberalism can also be cast as progressive. Both L. T. Hobhouse and John Dewey, for example, celebrated the transfiguration of liberalism from an ideology of _laissez-faire_ to one that justified the use of systematic government intervention to reduce harmful disadvantages.8 The argument continues today with many libertarians condemning \"social\" liberalism as a form of socialism and many social liberals rejecting the liberal credentials of libertarianism. All sides claim to be heirs of the one true liberalism.\n\nA related policing strategy is to concede the intellectual diversity of liberalism while extracting its constitutive element(s)\u2014its ineliminable core. This too is contested terrain. Adopting the most common line, Shklar sought to create a \"modest amount of order\" by characterizing liberalism as a \"political doctrine\" with \"only one overriding aim: to secure the political conditions that are necessary for the exercise of personal freedom.\"9 Yet Jeremy Waldron is right that positing a commitment to freedom as the foundation of liberalism \"is to say something too vague and abstract to be helpful.\" Instead, he proposes that it is best defined by a \"requirement that all aspects of the social should either be made acceptable or be capable of being made acceptable to every last individual.\"10 Ronald Dworkin, meanwhile, asserts that \"a certain conception of equality... is the nerve of liberalism.\"11 Others insist on a cluster of commitments. The historian Gary Gerstle, for example, suggests that liberals have always endorsed three \"foundational principles,\" rationality, emancipation, and progress, while John Dunn once lamented the \"dismaying number of categories\" that have been claimed as central to liberal ideology, including political rationalism, hostility to autocracy, cultural distaste for conservatism and tradition, tolerance, and individualism.12 Even its supposed core has proven elusive.\n\nIn what follows I neither attempt to adjudicate between these competing interpretations nor present a new substantive liberal theory. Instead, I seek to reframe the way in which the liberal tradition is understood. I open with a critique of some existing interpretive protocols used to delimit political traditions, before introducing (in section 2) a new way of conceptualizing liberalism, suggesting that it can be seen as the sum of the arguments that have been classified as liberal, and recognized as such by other self-proclaimed liberals, across time and space. In the second half of the chapter, I analyze the emergence and subsequent transformation of the category of liberalism in Anglo-American political thought between 1850 and 1950. This serves as an illustrative case study of some of the methodological arguments I outline in the first two sections. While section 3 traces the evolution of the language of liberalism in nineteenth-century Britain, section 4 explores how the scope of the liberal tradition was massively expanded during the middle decades of the century, chiefly in the United States, such that it came to be seen by many as the constitutive ideology of the West. Above all, I contend that this broad understanding of liberalism was produced by a conjunction of the ideological wars fought against \"totalitarianism\" and assorted developments in the social sciences. Today we both inherit and inhabit it.\n\nConstructing Liberalism: Scholarly Purposes and Interpretive Protocols\n\nThere are at least three _types_ of answer that can be given to the question in the title, each of which serves a different scholarly purpose. _Prescriptive_ responses specify norms of correct or best usage. They delineate a particular conception of liberalism, branding it as more authentic\u2014more truly liberal\u2014than other claimants to the title. Such accounts vary in the core features recognized as constitutive, the interpretive methodologies utilized to identify them, and the normative stance assumed towards them. This is the most familiar type of answer. _Comprehensive_ responses attempt to chart the plethora of liberal languages. Rather than prescribing a favored conception they seek to identify the _actual_ range of usage, mapping the variegated topography of liberal ideology. These accounts differ in the interpretive methodologies employed and the temporal and spatial scope of inquiry. _Explanatory_ responses account for the development of liberalism(s), whether understood in prescriptive or comprehensive terms. They too vary in methodology and scope. Although each kind of response is legitimate in certain circumstances, problems arise when they are misapplied or conflated. In particular, prescriptive accounts are very poor guides to understanding the internal complexity and historical development of ideologies.\n\nScholars also adopt different methodological strategies\u2014 _interpretive protocols_ \u2014to answer the question. To argue about a political tradition\u2014to compare and contrast it; to chart its decline, crisis, or ascension; to pinpoint its flaws or celebrate its strengths\u2014it is first necessary to construct it as an object of analysis. Political theorists typically employ two main protocols, either individually or in combination: _stipulative_ and _canonical. Contextualism_ offers an alternative.13\n\n_Stipulative_ accounts identify necessary (though rarely sufficient) conditions for a position to count as a legitimate exemplar of a tradition. \"Liberalism\" is typically constructed from interpretations of the meaning and interrelation of core concepts, such as liberty, authority, autonomy, and equality. Such accounts employ definitional fiat to demarcate the legitimate boundaries of liberalism: only those adhering to a particular cluster of assumptions and arguments count as properly liberal. We have already encountered the contrasting formulations offered by Dworkin, Gerstle, Shklar, and Waldron. History is sometimes invoked in such accounts, but it is usually what Rawls aptly termed the \"philosopher's schematic version of speculative history,\" and while these arguments often cite historical figures\u2014above all Locke, Kant, Mill, and now Rawls himself\u2014their core normative arguments can be justified independently of any past expression.14\n\nTraditions are usually constructed around a canon of renowned thinkers, which serves simultaneously as a reservoir of arguments, an index of historical continuity, and a powerful source of intellectual authority. _Canonical_ approaches thus distil \"liberal\" theoretical structures from exemplary writings. The most frequent targets for this protocol are (again) Locke, Kant, Mill, and Rawls, though a host of other figures are sometimes marshaled to fit the occasion. Leo Strauss and his epigones have divined sweeping interpretations of liberal modernity from a handful of \"great books.\" Pierre Manent, for instance, charts the unfolding of liberalism through a procession of figures stretching back to Machiavelli and Hobbes.15 Far from being an exclusive Straussian strategy, however, this is arguably the most common protocol for constructing liberalism. As I discussed in chapter 2, for example, canonical formulations have structured arguments about the relationship between liberalism and empire. While Uday Singh Mehta grounds his influential argument that liberalism has an \"urge\" to empire on readings of Locke and Mill, most rejoinders\u2014including those by Jennifer Pitts and Sankar Muthu\u2014have likewise focused on canonical figures.\n\nBoth of these methodological strategies are valuable, even essential, for achieving particular scholarly aims. Stipulative protocols can be fruitfully employed in the elaboration of normative political philosophies and the construction of ideal types for conducting social analysis. Canonical scholarship, meanwhile, can generate insightful readings of individual thinkers. Yet neither are capable of underwriting plausible comprehensive or explanatory accounts because they cannot shed much light on the universe of liberal languages, the plethora of competing and often contradictory claims that travel under its name. Articulated in the register of philosophical abstraction, the stipulative genre is estranged from the vicissitudes of history and political practice. It is caught on the horns of a dilemma. Unless the stipulated commitments are conceptualized at a very high level of generality\u2014for example, that liberalism prioritizes individual freedom, or that liberals are committed to toleration, liberty, and constitutional government\u2014they will invariably fail to encompass the deep divisions between professed variants of liberalism, yet when pitched at that level they provide little guidance for pursuing the detailed reconstruction necessary for satisfactory description or explanation. Waldron's argument illustrates this mismatch. Maintaining that only those adopting his contracturalist view of justification count as properly liberal, he anoints Locke, Rousseau, and Kant as genuine liberals, while suggesting that John Stuart Mill and numerous other nineteenth-century figures (especially utilitarians) stand in an \"ambiguous relation\" to the tradition. On this account, then, liberalism simultaneously preexists its own self-conscious formulation and was misunderstood by many of those who played a fundamental role in its propagation. At least he admits that \"many liberals may not recognise\" the picture he paints.16\n\nThe problem with canonical protocols is that they can rarely support the generalizations they are invoked to underpin. As Mehta's argument shows, work in this vein often seems to assume that the ideas of canonical figures can stand in for, or be seen as sufficiently representative of, the tradition as a whole. This provides a defective foundation on which to build an analysis of a multifaceted political ideology. Given the internal diversity of liberalism, its national and regional variation, and its polyphonic evolution, it is exceptionally difficult to ground felicitous generalizations on the work of a handful of authors. A further problem is that this protocol often takes as given the very thing that should be investigated\u2014the construction of the canon. The idea of a canon of great thinkers standing at the heart of a preconstituted tradition is, in part, an artifact of the professional development of academic political theory during the twentieth century.17 It is the product of a particular moment in time, shaped by largely forgotten value-commitments and selection criteria, and arguments centered on claims distilled from the canon are thus conducted within a discursive echo chamber. Indeed studying the processes through which the canon crystallized can reveal as much (or more) about the dynamics of political thinking as the forensic analysis of purportedly exemplary texts.\n\n_Contextualist_ approaches need little introduction.18 The bulk of such work has focused on illuminating the patterns of early modern political thinking, and at present there are no general contextual histories of liberalism\u2014indeed its methodological precepts render such a project quixotic. Contextualists have nevertheless made an important contribution to the analysis of liberalism by challenging the assumption that it can be traced to the seventeenth century. Versions of this argument have been tendered by John Dunn, Mark Goldie, J.G.A. Pocock, Quentin Skinner, and James Tully. Pocock, for example, maintains that \"liberalism\" was \"not used in the eighteenth century, where the adjective 'liberal' did not bear its modern meaning, and though elements were present which would in due course be assembled by means of this formula, there was no system of doctrine corresponding to its later use.\"19 He concludes that no significant inferences about liberalism can be drawn from the earlier period. In particular, this strand of scholarship has repeatedly questioned Locke's elevated status as a (or the) foundational liberal.20 It is important to recognize that this is not principally a semantic argument about the absence of the word \"liberalism\" in the early modern period, but rather a claim about the range of concepts and arguments available to historical actors.21 It is about extant thought-worlds, not recoverable terminology. Yet while this body of scholarship has questioned conventional accounts of liberal history, it has rarely probed how and why that very convention emerged.\n\nMichael Freeden has developed the most systematic contextualist account of Anglo-American liberalism. It is, he argues,\n\n... that semantic field in which the political understandings of people who regard themselves as liberals, or who others regard as liberals, may be investigated. It is a plastic, changing thing, shaped and reshaped by the thought-practices of individuals and groups; and though it needs to have a roughly identifiable pattern for us to call it consistently by the same name, \"liberalism,\" it also presents myriad variations that reflect the questions posed, and the positions adopted, by various liberals.22\n\nHowever, even Freeden tends to blur prescriptive, comprehensive, and explanatory arguments. Identifying Millian liberalism as the most genuine manifestation of the ideology, he finds several alternative strands wanting, including contemporary libertarianism and \"American philosophical liberalism\" (social liberalism following Rawls). With its focus on state neutrality, neo-Kantian conceptions of autonomy, and the possibility of specifying fixed principles of justice, as well as its abstraction from practical political activity, the latter represents a \"decisive departure\" from prevailing modes of liberal thought, while the former lacks \"many of the attributes which bestow on the liberal profile its distinctive contours,\" and it is thus disqualified as \"a serious contender for the current mantle of liberalism.\"23 On this account, while liberalism contains no ineliminable transhistorical essence, a specific thread nevertheless expresses its most mature \"established\" form. Freeden's explicit anti-essentialism is thus qualified by prescriptive boundary-working methodological commitments. His general approach nevertheless points to a fruitful interpretive strategy. A comprehensive contextualist analysis of liberalism should provide a framework for grasping the diverse ways in which liberal languages emerge, evolve, and come into conflict with one another, rather than trying to distil an ahistorical set of liberal commitments from conceptual or canonical investigation.\n\nA Summative Conception\n\nThomas Nagel is surely right to proclaim that \"[i]t is a significant fact about our age that most political argument in the Western world now goes on between different branches of [the liberal] tradition.\"24 This ideological victory is acknowledged by both self-proclaimed liberals and their critics. At the turn of the new millennium, Perry Anderson protested that \"for the first time since the Reformation there are no longer any significant oppositions\u2014that is, systematic rival outlooks\u2014within the thought-world of the West: and scarcely any on a world scale.\" Writing more in sorrow than celebration, Raymond Geuss concurs: \"We know of no other approach to human society that is at the same time as theoretically rich and comprehensive as liberalism and also even as remotely acceptable to wide sections of the population in Western societies.\"25 Most inhabitants of the West are now _conscripts of liberalism_ : the scope of the tradition has expanded to encompass the vast majority of political positions regarded as legitimate.26 Today there is little that stands outside the discursive embrace of liberalism in mainstream Anglo-American political debate (and perhaps especially in academic political theory), and most who identify themselves as socialists, conservatives, social democrats, republicans, greens, feminists, and anarchists have been ideologically incorporated, whether they like it or not. Useful as they are for other tasks, stipulative and canonical protocols offer little help in interpreting this phenomenon. We thus need a comprehensive account that can accommodate the plurality of actually existing liberalisms, past and present, without smuggling in boundary-working prescriptive commitments. A plausible explanation, meanwhile, must unpack the dynamics of ideological conscription. This section introduces a comprehensive heuristic, while the remainder of the essay begins the task of explaining how the meaning of Anglo-American liberalism was transformed between 1850 and 1950.\n\nI propose the following definition (for comprehensive purposes): the liberal tradition is constituted by the sum of the arguments that have been classified as liberal, and recognized as such by other self-proclaimed liberals, across time and space. Let us call this the _summative conception_. Adopting it offers several benefits: it can help make sense of the discursive \"overextension\" and elastic usage of the term, while avoiding unhelpful claims about pure essence or authentic form. Moreover, it forces us to examine traditions as evolving and contested historical phenomena, conjured into existence by the work of many hands, shaped by scholarly knowledge-production and pedagogical regimes, and often fashioned and remade with specific politico-intellectual purposes in mind. It allows us to grasp, that is, the intricate dialectic of intentional human action and unintended consequences that structure any rich political tradition.27\n\nFreeden, as we have seen, points us towards \"that semantic field in which the political understandings of people who regard themselves as liberals, or who others regard as liberals, may be investigated.\" However, it is necessary to qualify the claim about those \"who others regard as liberals.\"28 The problem here is that the term is commonly used to tar opponents or to create linkages between liberalism and political positions that liberals invariably reject. Witness the current fashion for American ultra-conservatives to conflate liberalism with both fascism and Marxism.29 If we adopt an unqualified summative position\u2014defining liberalism as the totality of positions termed liberal\u2014then the tradition would now traverse the spectrum from fascism to communism. This is an implausibly expansive view. Hence the epistemic limit: only those positions _affirmed_ at some point in time by groups of _self-proclaimed_ liberals should be included. This allows us to map the universe of liberalism(s), though it raises another question: how widely held must a particular interpretation be for inclusion? Can any usage (by a self-proclaimed liberal) expand the boundaries of liberalism? There is no simple answer to this threshold question\u2014scholars will adopt different inclusion criteria depending on their purposes and methodological inclinations. My own view is that to stake a claim for inclusion there must be sustained usage by numerous prominent ideological entrepreneurs over at least two generations. Otherwise, the bar for inclusion is set too low. That H. G. Wells declared himself a \"liberal fascist\" is nowhere near enough to warrant incorporating fascism into the liberal tradition, for barely anyone else followed him along that idiosyncratic path.30 But contra Freeden and others, \"libertarianism\" clearly meets the entry criteria. So too do the social democratic arguments scorned by libertarians.\n\nThe temporal point is also important: I am not suggesting that only arguments labeled (and recognized) as liberal at Time T1 count as liberal. An argument is not expelled from the liberal tradition because it is later ascribed a different label or because liberals now happen to reject it. The tradition is constituted by the accumulation of arguments _over time_. Explicit justifications of imperialism, arguments seeking to limit suffrage on grounds of gender and racial difference, and eugenicist attempts to \"perfect\" the species all form part of the liberal tradition.31 As do rejections of these positions. Rather than attempting to sanitize or inoculate liberalism by ignoring aspects no longer considered palatable, or, more subtly, relegating those aspects to superseded historical circumstances while extracting a pristine transhistorical core, we should recognize that liberalism has become a hyper-inflated, multifaceted body of thought\u2014a deep reservoir of ideological contradictions.\n\nIn thinking about traditions, it is productive to distinguish between the identities of agents and the arguments they invoke\u2014between being an X (liberal, socialist, fascist) and employing forms of argument that are best characterized as X. The former is a claim about self-fashioning and the construction of personae, the latter about doctrine. Although this chapter has focused on academic debates, the argument also applies to practical politics. It may well be part of the self-understanding of an American Tea Party devotee that they are fundamentally opposed to liberalism, but this identity-claim does not entail that they reject arguments central to the liberal tradition (as construed by the summative conception). In other words, despite espousing virulent strains of antiliberalism they are nevertheless committed to paradigmatic liberal positions insofar as they defend (say) neoclassical economics, libertarian social policy, and the superiority of \"liberal democratic\" institutions. Within political theory, the same can be said for many self-proclaimed critics of liberalism, whether post-structural, critical-theoretical, republican, communitarian, or conservative.\n\nAnother consequence of adopting the summative conception is that it dissolves a familiar but misleading picture of traditions, which are still often conceived of as self-contained bodies of thought with relatively clear and stable boundaries.32 On this view, the interstitial spaces between established traditions are populated by hybrids\u2014liberal-socialists, liberal-conservatives, Christian-realists. However, this fails to grasp the ideological miasma of modern politics, in which most individuals simultaneously adopt positions that are claimed by assorted traditions. The most hardened Tory or Republican, contemptuous of moderate \"liberal-conservatives,\" is likely to propound ideas that have long been affirmed by mainstream liberals. When looking at an agent who has been classified in two or more ways\u2014say as a liberal and a conservative\u2014this could mean several different things. It might imply that one of the classifications is mistaken, or that they adopt a hybrid position, or alternatively that decomposing the argument will yield some elements that are genuinely \"liberal\" and others that are genuinely \"conservative.\" The main problem with these options, however, is that today it is impossible to convincingly classify values (such as liberty or equality) or public policies (such as free trade or democracy promotion) as _exclusively_ liberal _or_ conservative (or something else). They are\u2014they have become\u2014both at once.33\n\nThe scholarly implications of tradition-construction can be significant, as the work of Domenico Losurdo demonstrates. His remarkable \"counterhistory\" of liberalism places considerable emphasis on the social practices characteristic of British, Dutch, and American societies.34 He contends that the British slave trade peaked in the eighteenth century, well after liberalism was consolidated by the settlement of 1688, and that in North America chattel slavery reached its apogee in the early nineteenth century, following the victory of liberalism in the War of Independence. John Locke figures heavily in both narratives. If we adopt the current conventional understanding of liberalism, as Losurdo does, this throws up a disturbing puzzle about liberal attitudes to domination, hierarchy, and exploitation, and it underpins his sweeping critique. The normative conclusions that Losurdo draws about contemporary liberalism are derived from, and are only intelligible in relation to, his interpretation of the tradition. But the puzzle dissolves if we adopt (for example) a Pocockian interpretation, because on that account neither Britain nor the United States was liberal in any meaningful sense before the nineteenth century.35 Interpretations of tradition often shape contemporary understanding as well as historical investigation.\n\nLiberalism before Locke\n\nAt the turn of the twentieth century, the dominant prescriptive narrative about liberalism in the English-speaking world identified it as a product of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, part of a cluster of ideological innovations that also included socialism. At the turn of the twenty-first century, the dominant narrative views it as a product of the mid-seventeenth century or earlier. In the former, the French and American Revolutions and the global spread of capitalism play a starring role; in the latter, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the religious wars in Europe. In the former, utility, democracy, and political economy are the guiding topics; in the later, natural rights, the social contract, and constitutionalism. In the former, radicals like Jeremy Bentham take center stage; in the latter it is almost invariably John Locke. Indeed Locke's foundational role in liberalism is today a leitmotif of political thought, promulgated by critics and adherents alike. \"To the extent that modern liberalism can be said to be inspired by any one writer,\" Wolin counseled in _Politics and Vision_ , \"Locke is undoubtedly the leading candidate.\" Stephen Holmes agrees: \"The best place to begin, if we wish to cut to the core of liberalism, is with Locke.\"36 The transition from one conception to the other tells us much about the trajectory of modern politics, the sociology of knowledge, and the historicity of theoretical categories.\n\nIn his compelling account of American political thought, John Gunnell argues that liberalism only became a widely recognized category of general political discourse after the First World War, and only assumed an important role in academic political theory in the wake of the Second World War. Moreover, he contends that \"it was not until after 1950 that there was even any extended discussion of Locke as a liberal.\"37 Adding a British dimension to the story complicates this picture. Both the conception of liberalism as a tradition rooted in early modern political thought, and the identification of Locke as a foundational liberal, emerged slightly earlier in Britain than in the United States, and for different reasons. Yet despite this initial variation, British and American narratives converged during the ideological battles of the middle decades of the twentieth century, creating the expansive vision of liberalism that dominates scholarly discourse today.\n\nWhile the term \"liberal\" had long been used in English to denote assorted aristocratic dispositions, mores, and pursuits, it only assumed a specifically political meaning in the early nineteenth century. Borrowed from the Spanish _Liberales_ of the 1812 Constitution, the term was first employed in a derogatory manner by Tories to malign their Whig opponents. During the 1820s it was reclaimed by some radical Whigs, in a classical example of rhetorical redescription, to characterize individuals and policies dedicated to nonrevolutionary reform, although it also became associated with the small but vocal group of \"philosophic radicals,\" including the young John Stuart Mill. \"Liberal\" was increasingly utilized to describe the politico-economic demands of the emergent middle classes.38 Yet it was still an obscure and marginal category: during the 1820s and 1830s \"'liberals' were not a firmly defined group and 'liberalism' did not securely mark out a single intellectual phenomenon.\"39 It was only during the second half of the century that usage proliferated, though it remained closely tied to the creed of the recently named Liberal Party.40\n\nDespite its increasing visibility, there was little sophisticated or thorough discussion of liberalism as an intellectual tradition until the early twentieth century, and even then it was rare. It is barely visible in surveys of political thought written between the 1850s and the 1930s.41 The main political theory textbook employed in Cambridge and Oxford in the late nineteenth century, Bluntschli's _The Theory of the State_ , didn't use liberalism as an organizing category, and nor did Sidgwick's _Development of European Polity_ , which replaced it in Cambridge. The effort to construct an authoritative liberal tradition only gained ground during the perceived \"crisis of liberalism\" in the Edwardian era. Fighting acrimonious battles over the future of the British state, and challenged by an emergent politically conscious labor movement, some liberals elaborated edifying genealogies to underwrite the ideological legitimacy of their cause. The most common renditions of the tradition identified the transition from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century as the formative moment. W. Lyon Blease's _Short History of English Liberalism_ , published in 1913, was typical. A polemical defense of advanced liberalism written by a legal scholar, it argues that liberalism was the product of three revolutions: the industrial (starting in the 1760s), American, and French.42\n\nAccounts that emphasized the Revolutionary-era origins of liberalism, defined it prescriptively as expressing a commitment to both liberty and social equality (sometimes even democracy). This move excluded earlier Whig political thought. It was a constellation of ideas that could only have emerged after the tumult of the late eighteenth century and the rise of a powerful middle class demanding political representation. In 1862, in one of the earliest analytical accounts of liberalism, James Fitzjames Stephen pinpointed the connection:\n\nAs generally used... \"liberal\" and \"liberalism\"... denote in politics, and to some extent in literature and philosophy, the party which wishes to alter existing institutions with the view of increasing popular power. In short, they are not greatly remote in meaning from the words \"democracy\" and \"democratic.\"43\n\nForty years later, William Dunning, a prominent American historian and political theorist, argued that \"fundamentally, nineteenth-century Liberalism meant democracy.\"44 In an essay seeking to illuminate the \"Historic Bases of Liberalism,\" another writer distinguished liberals from Whigs by pointing to the aristocratic character and consequences of 1688. \"In none of the great documents of the time,\" he announced, \"do you find the suggestion that the people should share in the work of government,\" for such a conception only emerged in the wake of the French Revolution. It followed that liberalism could only be a product of the late eighteenth century.45 This view only began to lose popularity in the interwar years, though it did not disappear completely. In a textbook published in 1920, for example, the author declared that the \"essence of Whiggism has always been the belief in individual liberty combined with the denial of social equality\" and that as such \"this conception is rejected by Liberals who have a far wider experience on which to frame their social judgments.\"46 Other variants of the prescriptive protocol can also be discerned, including one that reduced liberalism to a species of utilitarian radicalism. Thus, A. V. Dicey wrote in 1905 of \"Benthamite individualism, which, in accordance with popular phraseology, may often be called conveniently liberalism.\"47\n\nIt is both striking and symptomatic that in Britain, so often seen as the incubator of liberalism, Locke was not widely regarded as a liberal\u2014let alone a paradigmatic one\u2014until nearly a century after liberalism emerged as an explicit political doctrine. Several generations of self-identified liberals somehow failed to recognize him as one of their own. While Locke's nineteenth-century biographers celebrated him as one of the greatest of philosophers, their verdicts on his political writings were far less positive. Acknowledging him as a leading Whig ideologue who exerted a major influence over eighteenth-century political thinking, they almost invariably rejected his theoretical arguments as defective and obsolete.48 In so doing they painted a microcosmic picture of his general reputation during the Victorian age: \"Locke meant the _Essay_ ,\" not the _Treatises_.49\n\nMost accounts of the historical development of modern political thought contended that there had been a radical break\u2014both intellectual and political\u2014at the end of the eighteenth century. A new world had dawned, and there was little space in it for Lockean political theory. Liberalism was figured as the progeny of this gestalt switch. The historicist sensibility that permeated nineteenth-century social and political thought was antithetical to the rationalist deductions of Locke, and accounts of natural rights, natural law, and above all the social contract were widely denigrated as primitive. The eminent legal scholar Frederick Pollock was reiterating a popular line of argument when he claimed that Hume had shown decisively that \"even as analysis the mere doctrine is useless.\" He concluded that Burke had been right to ridicule the contract as \"absurd.\"50 Henry Craik, a writer who later served as MP for the Combined Scottish Universities, used a more colorful insult, scorning it as \"the veriest figment of pedantic theorizing that any mystified scholastic ever dreamed.\"51 Another common response was to historically relativize Locke's work, viewing him as a man of (and trapped in) his time. Thus the idealist philosopher W. R. Sorley loftily declared that despite the palpable weakness of Locke's political theory, \"it served its purpose as a justification of the revolution settlement in accordance with the ideas of the time.\"52 Many also questioned Locke's originality, suggesting that his main political ideas were derived from others, above all Hooker. As G. P. Gooch wrote in his influential account of seventeenth-century democratic thought, \"there is little in Locke that he did not find in the thinkers of the Interregnum.\"53 These lines of criticism were synthesized in the first monograph on Locke's political philosophy (originally a doctoral dissertation at Columbia supervised by John Dewey): \"His moral and political philosophy may well be viewed as the summation of the best thought of the seventeenth century. Though he added few ideas of his own and developed the old ideas he took from others, he is rather the ripe fulfilment of the past than the herald of the future.\" The author concluded that \"Locke's theory of political society is decidedly weak\" and offered little to contemporary political theory.54 Locke spoke from and about a lost world.\n\nNineteenth-century philosophers rarely saw Locke as a liberal or written positively about his political theory. John Stuart Mill's assessment is indicative. In the _System of Logic_ he praised Locke as \"that truly original genius\" and a hugely talented \"metaphysician,\" yet in the vast corpus of Mill's work there are only a handful of references to Locke's political writings.55 His only sustained discussion is in a book review, wherein Mill follows custom in disparaging social contract theories and inalienable rights, while conceding that their proponents rightly identified the importance of limitations on government. \"This is the truth,\" Mill notes, \"which was dimly shadowed forth, in howsoever rude and unskilful a manner, in the theories of the social compact and the rights of man.\"56 _On Liberty_ contains one passing reference to Locke, while James Fitzjames Stephen's powerful riposte, _Liberty, Equality, Fraternity_ , didn't mention him at all.57 Elsewhere, Stephen belittled Locke as confused and outmoded. The _Second Treatise_ , he argued,\n\n... was in its day extremely popular, and its practical effects were no doubt great, as it furnished people with the best and most accessible popular justification for the Revolution of 1688. It would be difficult, however, to find a better illustration of the fact that we have travelled a very long road since Locke's time, and have carried the metaphysical principles of which he perceived certain aspects, to consequences which have made his political speculations appear altogether superannuated and bygone.\n\nHis conclusion was equally damning: it was worth studying once popular books \"to consider the reasons why they now fall so flatly among us.\"58\n\nHerbert Spencer was probably the most widely read English-language philosopher of the age. Across his voluminous output, Locke made only a handful of appearances, and in what he considered his finest work, _The Principles of Ethics_ , Locke's theory of property was casually dismissed as \"unsatisfactory.\"59 T. H. Green, the leading philosophical light of the final quarter of the century, shared Mill's deep skepticism about the foundations of early modern political thought, and while he expended considerable energy grappling with Locke's epistemological writings\u2014\"at once so plausible and so hollow\"\u2014he barely mentioned his political views. Dismissive of the state of nature, prepolitical rights, and contractualism, Green ultimately rejected Locke's arguments as incoherent and he never viewed him as a fellow (or proto) liberal.60 Nor did Henry Sidgwick, who characterized Locke as a philosophically misguided Whig ideologue.61 In the Edwardian era, Graham Wallas added a post-Darwinian twist to the story by arguing that Locke's \"plea for a government which should consciously realize the purposes of God\" was one of many philosophical utopias rendered irrelevant by modern science.62\n\nThe same pattern of omission, disavowal, and scorn emerges if we turn from political theory to historical scholarship. In Leslie Stephen's important _History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century_ Locke's ideas were relegated to an archaic past. In relativizing mode, he termed Locke's arguments a \"formal apology of Whiggism\" and grudgingly admitted that they \"did well enough for the quiet time of the eighteenth century.\" They were then comprehensively superseded: \"That authority vanished when the French Revolution brought deeper questions for solution, and new methods became necessary in politics as in all other speculation.\"63 Published during the same decade, J. R. Green's hugely popular history of England classified Locke as a Whig philosopher of 1688 before noting that the social contract had long since been regarded as obsolete.64 Venerated throughout Europe for his prodigious erudition, Lord Acton acknowledged that Locke had been a significant historical actor while assailing the quality of his political theory: \"always reasonable and sensible, but diluted and pedestrian and poor.\"65 While Acton clearly regarded Locke as a notable member of the \"Party of Liberty,\" he didn't think of him as a member of the party of liberalism. In the seminal multi-volume _Cambridge Modern History_ , planned by Acton before his untimely death, Locke was again credited as an influential Whig apologist, albeit one whose political ideas \"had already been better expressed by Sidney.\"66 The great F. W. Maitland likewise held a low opinion of Locke, cataloguing the many \"grave faults\" of his arguments, above all a literal belief in the historical reality of the social contract.67 Across the Atlantic, Locke's reputation was barely higher. The standard history of political thought textbook, for example, presented a damning account of his \"illogical, incoherent system of political philosophy.\"68\n\nWidespread skepticism about the quality and relevance of Lockean political thought was fortified by the historicist \"comparative method,\" which did so much to shape scholarship during the late nineteenth century.69 Its proponents, the most influential of whom was Henry Maine, challenged deductive models of politics and sought to root the origins and development of customs, language, social structures, and legal forms, in long-term historical-evolutionary processes. Antipathetic to early modern natural law and utilitarianism alike, it provided yet another weapon to attack the political thinking of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It exercised a profound influence on historical scholarship and the emerging social sciences\u2014perhaps especially political science\u2014on both sides of the Atlantic.70 In the _locus classicus_ of comparativism, Maine's _Ancient Law_ , Locke made a fleeting appearance as one of the many thinkers whose ideas about the state of nature and the origins of law were fundamentally mistaken.71 For J. R. Seeley, the leading ideologue of the late-Victorian empire, Locke's political thinking was simply too ahistorical to be of value, while he didn't even warrant a mention in E. A. Freeman's _Comparative Politics_ , the first book to apply the method to the development of political institutions across time and space.72\n\nTeaching in the elite English universities reflected both Locke's prominence as a \"metaphysician\" and his meager reputation as a political thinker. At Oxford in the 1870s the _Essay_ , though not the _Treatises_ or _Letter_ , was a compulsory text in moral and political philosophy.73 In Ritchie's appraisal of the political science curriculum in 1891, the key authors are listed as Aristotle, Hobbes, Bluntschli, Maine, and Mill.74 At Cambridge, William Paley's _Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy_ (1785) was the standard text during the first half of the nineteenth century. While Paley briefly paid lip service to Locke's historical importance, he ignored his arguments and rejected the social contract on utilitarian grounds. Locke's fortunes didn't improve during the closing decades of the century. When Henry Sidgwick surveyed the subject in the mid-1870s, Locke failed to make the list of set authors in political philosophy, though students were expected to be familiar with Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Hobbes, Clarke, Shaftesbury, Butler, Smith, Hume, Kant, Paley, Bentham, Whewell, Mill, and Grote.75 The History Tripos paper in \"Political Philosophy and General Jurisprudence\" followed a familiar pattern. In 1875, for example, Aristotle, Guizot, Tocqueville, Mill, Gibbon, Blackstone, Austin, and Maine, but not Locke, were listed.76\n\nGiven Locke's tarnished reputation at the time, what are we to make of his current status as the ur-liberal? One possible answer is that it is based on a mistake\u2014that Locke simply wasn't a liberal.77 Another response is to insist that we have now corrected the error of earlier thinkers who failed to recognize Locke's liberalism. In other words, he had either always been a liberal or he was never one. Both positions are defensible: it is possible to extract conflicting meanings from Locke's work. But I suggest an alternative answer: Locke _became_ a liberal during the twentieth century. As part of a process of _retrojection_ his body of work\u2014or at least some stylized arguments stripped from it\u2014was posthumously conscripted to an expansive new conception of the liberal tradition.\n\nWars of Position: Consolidating Liberalism\n\nThe Lockean narrative was consolidated in Britain and the United States between the 1930s and the 1950s, as liberalism was reconfigured as the ideological other of \"totalitarian\" ideologies, left and right.78 This was achieved through two key discursive moves and across two main chronological phases. The first move deepened the retrojective extension of the liberal tradition that had already begun in both Britain and the United States. The early modern account moved from being a minority report to the dominant narrative. The second development was, if anything, even more significant: the emergence and proliferation of the idea of \"liberal democracy.\" As representative forms of political order came under sustained fire, intellectuals propagated an all-encompassing narrative that simultaneously pushed the historical origins of liberalism back in time while vastly expanding its spatial reach. For the first time, it was widely presented as either the most authentic ideological tradition of the West (a pre-1945 storyline) or its constitutive ideology (a view popular after 1945). This story began to coalesce during the 1930s, in a context of radical anxiety about the fate of liberalism. This was an era where, as Mussolini proclaimed, \"all the political experiments of our day are anti-liberal.\"79 Liberals and their critics fought an ideological war of position, attempting to delineate the true, prescriptive meaning of liberalism. The narrative was cemented in the more complacent postwar intellectual milieu as scholars from across the political spectrum, and from assorted academic disciplines, converged on this new all-encompassing narrative, even as they proffered radically different explanations and normative evaluations of it. Strauss, Laski, Macpherson, Hartz, and Wolin, among others, helped to fabricate the new ideological structure. Though rarely acknowledged or analyzed, the transformation of liberalism did not go completely unnoticed. In a lecture delivered in 1960, Eric Voegelin observed that \"in the course of the last 30 years the image of what liberalism is has changed completely.\"80 Wittingly or not, we are the heirs of this ideological labor.\n\nThe main conceptual shift that underpinned the emergence and popularization of the Lockean narrative in Britain was the conscription of Whig constitutionalism into a newly expansive vision of liberalism. This move was captured by de Ruggiero in 1933: \"The ambitious designs of the radicals, curbed by the tenacious forces of tradition, fused with the older Whiggism to form a composite liberalism in which the old and the new were gradually integrated and harmonized.\"81 Contra Ruggiero, however, this discursive \"fusion\" was largely a product of the twentieth century. Consequently, liberalism came to be viewed through a wide-angle lens, as a politico-intellectual tradition centered on individual freedom in the context of constitutional government. This expansion in ideological scope was also facilitated by shifts in the philosophical current. The eclipse of idealism in the early twentieth century, as well as powerful challenges to utilitarianism, helped to create an intellectual environment more conducive to natural rights arguments and contracturalism. Locke, the arch-Whig, was recast\u2014by default as much as design\u2014as a seminal liberal thinker and a source of inspiration for an individualist account of political life.\n\nThis retrojective process began in earnest during the Edwardian years. Hobhouse's _Liberalism_ , arguably the most popular and sophisticated discussion of liberal political theory published during the first half of the century, played an important role in establishing the lineaments of the (new) Lockean tradition.82 He posited the emergence of liberalism as coeval with the development of the early modern English state. In its original Whig iteration\u2014a theory of the \"Natural Order\" centered on inalienable prepolitical rights and the restraint of government\u2014it embodied a \"negative\" form of constitutionalism that sought to eliminate obstacles to human progress. \"It finds humanity oppressed, and would set it free.\" But, Hobhouse continued, the underlying theoretical architecture was fundamentally flawed, and only during the nineteenth century was a positive dimension added, first by utilitarians and more recently by \"new liberals.\"83 Thus Hobhouse presented the Whigs as pioneer liberals, albeit now superseded. In addition to providing fellow liberal reformers with a powerful constitutionalist genealogy, he had another motive for stretching the discursive boundaries of liberalism, as he was engaged in the attempt to craft a liberal socialist politics to replace the desiccated \"old liberalism\" of the \"Manchester School\" and the Benthamites.84 Yet this Lockean narrative, a precursor of things to come, remained marginal until the 1930s, and scholarly and popular discussions of liberalism were most commonly tied to the quotidian concerns of the often-embattled Liberal Party.85 When R. G. Collingwood wrote the translator's preface for Ruggiero's _History of European Liberalism_ in 1927, he still felt it necessary to inform his audience that the book addressed liberalism in the \"continental\" not the \"British\" sense, as a \"name for principles of constitutional liberty and representative government,\" rather than a party ideology.86\n\nThe First World War and its aftermath also saw early attempts to self-consciously define an American liberal tradition with its origins in the seventeenth century. Progressive scholars and publicists took the lead.87 The critic Harold Stearn was one of the first. He drew heavily on Hobhouse's account of the true meaning of liberalism, but his historical narrative had a different emphasis, focusing in particular on religious toleration and the catalytic role of Roger Williams, the seventeenth-century Protestant theologian and colonist.88 Despite dedicating a chapter to \"what liberalism is\" and another to the \"English heritage\" of American liberalism, Locke was absent from his analysis. Interpreting liberalism as an ideology centered on religious toleration become a popular theme in American scholarship, exemplified by Vernon Parrington's hugely influential _Main Currents in American Thought_ , published in the late 1920s though composed largely in the 1910s.89 Parrington argued that liberalism was articulated originally in the natural law theories of the early Puritan settlers, who had fled from a European environment inhospitable to their radical claims to a welcoming new world in America, where liberalism could truly flourish. Though Parrington stressed the importance of Williams\u2014\"England gave us her best\"90\u2014he also assigned Locke a prominent role. Connecting liberalism and toleration in this manner helped to place Locke at the center of the newly formatted tradition. Whereas parliamentary constitutionalism was central to the British appropriation of Locke (via the retrojection of the Whigs), it was religious toleration (via the retrojection of key elements of Puritanism) that did much of the ideological labor in the United States.\n\nAlthough some of the key building blocks were in place by 1918, the ultimate hegemony of the Lockean narrative was still far from secure. The discursive consolidation of the new account of liberalism was a product of the complex interweaving of geopolitical dynamics and disciplinary imperatives within the human sciences, especially political science and history. Indeed the academic disciplines that profess to instruct us about the nature of liberalism played a fundamental role in its transfiguration. The shift unfolded in the context of a transfer of scholarly authority from Britain to the United States. Whereas British commentators had shaped the contours of interpretation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, exerting a profound influence (alongside German scholarship) on the development of American political science and history, by 1945 a decisive shift across the Atlantic was apparent. The new liberal narrative was thus largely a product of the American human sciences, though it was mirrored in Britain. The change in meaning is captured in the evolution of George Sabine's influential conspectus of Western political thought, which was the standard textbook in the United States during the middle decades of the twentieth century. It was one of the first major scholarly texts to discuss liberalism in any detail. Published in 1937, the first edition located the tradition squarely in nineteenth-century Britain, figuring it as a distinct position between socialism and conservatism. (Locke was not classified as a liberal.) Moreover, like so many of his contemporaries, Sabine worried that it \"was a diminishing force in modern society.\"91 In the revised edition of 1951, however, his account of liberalism was both more capacious and more confident, and he asserted that it now had two main senses. The first, which he associated with Fascist and Marxist critics, saw it as the \"social philosophy of the industrial middle class\" and thus coterminous with _laissez-faire_ capitalism. Rejecting this critique, he endorsed a far broader account of liberalism as both the \"culmination\" of Western history and largely synonymous with democracy.92 Here he followed political theorist Frederick Watkins who had recently celebrated liberalism as the \"secular form of Western civilization\" and the \"modern embodiment of all the characteristic traditions of Western politics.\"93 Sabine concurred: \"[P]olitical liberalism has been deeply implicated in the whole development of Western culture.\"94 (The ultimately unsuccessful attempt to retroject liberalism back into the ancient Greek world, thus making it coterminous with Western civilization, was one of the signature ideological moves of the era.)95 An irony appears lost on Sabine. Whereas linking democracy and liberalism had, in the nineteenth century, served to delimit its chronological scope, it was now employed to buttress the claim that liberalism was the spiritual inheritance of the West itself.\n\nConfusion reigned. As liberalism's boundaries were conceptually stretched, so whatever fragile coherence it once had was lost. In the mid-1930s Dewey moaned that \"liberalism has meant in practice things so different as to be opposed to one another.\"96 It only got worse. A decade later, a noted philosopher could insouciantly observe that \"we, too, have our 'ideology,' inherited from the past as the liberal tradition, the American creed, the Judeo-Christian heritage of Western civilization or the like.\"97 For many, these ideas had become interchangeable. The tendency to construct legitimating genealogies for crude ideological ends provoked the ire of a young C. B. Macpherson, who complained that too many scholars charting the history of Western philosophy substituted serious analysis with assertions of political faith, \"using their history to show how long and honorable an ancestry that faith has.\"98 This was an accurate diagnosis. A new piece of conceptual technology was added when the term \"neoliberalism\" was coined in the late 1930s. Since the 1970s it has served as shorthand for the valorization of the minimal state and deregulated market, but (to add to the confusion) it originally identified a _via media_ between unrestrained capitalism and progressive statism.99 Commentators grumbled endlessly about the theoretical muddle. One frustrated scholar marveled in 1948 that \"[o]ne finds the term employed to defend everything from classical economics to the Soviet interpretation of communism.\"100 In 1955, Reinhold Niebuhr addressed the \"confusion,\" arguing that liberalism had come to denominate both a phase of human history, \"the rise of a modern technical society availing itself of democratic political forms and of capitalistic economic institutions,\" and a specific set of partisan political commitments. It also signified two \"contradictory\" claims, namely, that liberty necessitated both the unleashing of capitalism and its radical restraint.101\n\nA similar pattern can be discerned in Britain. The translation of de Ruggiero's _History of European Liberalism_ and the publication of Laski's _The Rise_ _of European Liberalism_ bolstered the early modern liberal narrative.102 It became the norm during the 1930s and 1940s.103 Skeptical of claims about seamless continuity, Isaiah Berlin summed up the nature and ideological appeal of what had become a popular position by 1950: \"European liberalism wears the appearance of a single coherent movement, little altered during almost three centuries, founded upon relatively simple foundations, laid by Locke or Grotius or even Spinoza; stretching back to Erasmus and Montaigne, the Italian Renaissance, Seneca and the Greeks.\"104 By the early 1960s Kenneth Minogue, a young theorist at the London School of Economics (LSE), could confidently assert that liberalism was a \"single and continuing entity... so extensive that it involves most of the guiding beliefs of modern western opinion\" and that John Locke was its \"founding father.\"105 This bold proclamation would have surprised the Fabians who had founded the LSE just over half a century before.\n\nThe new historical narrative was adopted by both critics and celebrants of liberalism. Converging on description, they diverged in both explanation and normative evaluation. From the left, for example, Laski depicted liberalism as an ideology with foundations bored deep into the bedrock of Western history: \"[L]iberalism has been, in the last four centuries, the outstanding doctrine of Western civilization.\" It supplied the ideological scaffolding of modern capitalism. Locke was elevated to the \"most representative prophet\" of the new age.106 This line of critique reappeared in the work of Laski's student Macpherson and is still popular today.107 On the political right, meanwhile, Strauss, Voegelin, and others, also pressed variations on the early modern theme. Self-proclaimed liberals were only too happy to vaunt the robust durability and deep historical roots of their creed, bolstering its ideological armature in the face of hostile competition. Narrative convergence helped produce discursive hegemony. It was against this imposing\u2014but quite new\u2014ideological edifice that the contextualist scholars of the 1960s fought their rear-guard action.\n\nArguably, the most significant conceptual move of the interwar era was the emergence of the idea of \"liberal democracy.\" Barely visible before 1930, in the ensuing decade it began to supplant existing appellations for Euro-Atlantic states.108 During the 1940s and 1950s it became a commonplace.109 As a global conflict over the proper meaning of democracy raged, the modifier \"liberal\" simultaneously encompassed diverse representative parliamentary systems while differentiating them from others claiming the democratic title, above all Italy, Germany, and the Soviet Union. The year after Hitler assumed power, Ernest Barker observed that the \"issue of our time is hardly a simple issue of democracy versus dictatorship. Dictatorship itself claims the quality of democracy; indeed it claims the quality of a higher, a more immediate, spontaneous democracy.\" This was, then, a clash between \"two types of democracy\u2014the parliamentary type... and the dictatorial type.\"110 _Liberal democracy_ was the name increasingly adopted to cover the former in its conflicts against the latter. Social scientists soon began to utilize the concept, usage that was refined and normalized after 1945. By 1954 Quincy Wright could assert confidently that the concept of \"liberal democracy\" originated in sixteenth-century Europe, especially in England, and was powerfully articulated in Locke's political philosophy.111 The Lockean narrative was frequently generalized into a broader claim about the Lockean-liberal character of Anglo-American (sometimes Western) societies, an interpretive strategy popularized by Louis Hartz and that was to have a profound effect on the nascent subfield of comparative politics.112 Conjoining \"liberal\" to democracy automatically (and vastly) expanded the scope of those purportedly encompassed by liberalism, as supporters of \"liberal democracy\" were conscripted, however reluctantly, to the liberal tradition. Liberalism was thus transfigured from a term identifying a limited and contested position within political discourse to either the most authentic expression of the Western tradition or a constitutive feature of the West itself. Again, this conceptual shift was rarely acknowledged, though it didn't pass completely unremarked. Strauss noted the peculiarity, and the \"serious difficulty\" for interpretation, that resulted from the \"fact that here and now liberalism and conservatism have a common basis; for both are based here and now on liberal democracy, and therefore both are antagonistic to Communism.\"113\n\nThe political instrumentalization of intellectual history was widespread across the Euro-Atlantic world, reaching its _reductio ad absurdum_ in Bertrand Russell's declaration that \"at the present time Hitler is an outcome of Rousseau; Roosevelt and Churchill, of Locke.\"114 It is thus unsurprising that history provided another disciplinary space for propagating the new vision of liberalism. The \"history of ideas,\" an emergent field combining history and philosophy that \"rose like a new sign in the zodiac over large areas of American culture and education,\" was, like political theory, transformed by \u00e9migr\u00e9 scholars, including Hans Baron, Ernst Cassirer, Felix Gilbert, Raymond Klibansky, Paul Kristeller, Hajo Holborn, and Erwin Panofsky.115 Its zealous proponents helped to define and defend a holistic \"Western\" civilization based on \"liberal\" values, and as such it was of \"strategic\" value in fighting totalitarianism.116 As the classroom became a powerful vector for the transmission of the new liberal-civilizational creed, so the _Journal of the History of Ideas_ , founded in 1940, served as the principal venue for its scholarly elaboration. It is no coincidence that it was the only academic journal to receive a secret subsidy from the CIA-sponsored Congress on Cultural Freedom.117 University curricula, then, provided institutional authority for the transvaluation of liberalism. \"Western civilization\" courses, which flourished from the end of the First World War until the 1960s, popularized \"an interpretation of history that gives the United States a common development with England and Western Europe and identifies this 'civilization' with the advance of liberty and culture.\" Helping to construct a mythopoeic narrative of the West as simultaneously ancient and modern, free and strong, they were the most widely taught history courses after the Second World War.118 While claims about the intellectual coherence, historical continuity, and ethico-political superiority of \"the West\" stretched back at least as far as the eighteenth century, it was only in the mid-twentieth century that this potent civilizational narrative came to be routinely classified as _liberal_. The victorious spread of liberalism and the rise of the West came to be seen as one and the same thing.\n\nConclusion: Conscripts of Liberalism\n\nThe nature of liberalism has been a core concern in political theory since its emergence as an academic specialism in the early twentieth century. I have criticized some prominent approaches to interpreting liberalism, introduced some methodological tools for thinking about the proliferation of liberal languages, and sketched an explanatory account of shifts in the meaning of liberalism in the Anglo-American world. The analysis has implications for both political theorists and historians. Above all, it suggests the need to be alert to the historical contingency and variability of our theoretical vocabularies and the power relations of tradition-construction. It also calls into question the general utility of \"liberalism\" as a category of political analysis. Current debates about the nature of liberalism\u2014in and beyond political theory\u2014are often distorted because of the ahistorical understanding of liberal ideology that they invoke. Conducted in a discursive echo chamber, they are often marked by a symptomatic form of collective amnesia, a problematic erasure of the political and intellectual dynamics that generated much of what is now articulated as scholarly common sense.\n\nThis chapter is intended as a modest contribution to the work of historical recovery. As Stephen wrote in 1862, \"the words 'liberal' and 'liberalism,' like all other such phrases, derive a great part of their significance from the time they were invented.\"119 The history of liberalism, though, is a history of constant reinvention. The most sweeping of these occurred in the middle of the twentieth century, when liberalism was increasingly figured as the dominant ideology of the West\u2014its origins retrojected back into the early modern era, it came to denote virtually all nontotalitarian forms of politics as well as a partisan political perspective within societies. This was partly a consequence of the delegitimation of political extremes, partly a result of the vicissitudes of domestic political strife, and partly a result of political and conceptual labor performed in the developing human sciences. Karl Popper once referred to _The Open Society and Its Enemies_ as his \"war effort,\" a contribution to the fight against totalitarianism. The consolidation of Lockean liberalism was a grander, more all-encompassing variation on the same theme.\n\n1 Richard Rorty, \"The Historiography of Philosophy,\" in _Philosophy in History_ , ed. Richard Rorty, Jerome Schneewind, and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge, 1984), 70.\n\n2 Judith N. Shklar, \"The Liberalism of Fear\" [1989], in _Political Thought and Political Thinkers_ (Chicago, 1998), 3.\n\n3 On the practice of boundary-work, see Thomas Gieryn, \"Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science,\" _American Sociological Review_ , 48 (1983), 785\u201395.\n\n4 De Ruggiero, _The History of European Liberalism_ [1927], trans. R. G. Collingwood (Boston, 1959); Hayek, \"Liberalism\" [1973], in _New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas_ (London, 1978), 113. Alan Ryan complicates matters by distinguishing between modern, classical, social, and libertarian variants. _The Making of Modern Liberalism_ (Princeton, 2012), 23\u201328.\n\n5 Strauss, _Liberalism Ancient and Modern_ (Chicago, 1968); Wolin, _Politics and Vision_ (Princeton, 2004), 263.\n\n6 Irving Kristol, _Reflections of a Neoconservative_ (New York, 1983), 75.\n\n7 Mises, _Liberalism_ (Indianapolis, 2005), 153\u201354; Spencer, _The Man versus the State_ [1884] (Indianapolis, 1969).\n\n8 Hobhouse, _Liberalism_ [1911], ed. James Meadowcroft (Cambridge, 1994); Dewey, _Liberalism and Social Action_ (New York, 1935), 21.\n\n9 Shklar, \"Liberalism,\" 3. On liberty as \"normatively basic,\" see Gerald Gaus and Shane Courtland, \"Liberalism,\" _The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy_ , ed. Edward Zalta, <http:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/liberalism\/>.\n\n10 Waldron, \"Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism,\" _Philosophical Quarterly_ , 37 (1987), 131, 127, 140.\n\n11 Dworkin, \"Liberalism,\" in A _Matter of Principle_ (Oxford, 1985), 183.\n\n12 Gerstle, \"The Protean Character of American Liberalism,\" _American Historical Review_ , 99 (1994), 1046; Dunn, _Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future_ [1979] (Cambridge, 1991), 33.\n\n13 Less common in political theory, _expressive_ protocols are widely utilized across the humanities and social sciences. They distil the meaning of liberalism through a form of reverse engineering, working backwards from observations on (aspects of) a society to the ideas purportedly underlying it. First, certain entities\u2014for example, public policies\u2014are classified as \"liberal,\" a classification usually based on the self-identification of the relevant agents or the alleged correspondence between the entity and a putative external (\"liberal\") standard. Second, the entities are taken to embody or express underlying ideas or values, which are then characterized as liberal. Thus: State A is classified as liberal; \"liberal state\" A enacts policy B. Policy B is therefore \"liberal.\" B embodies or expresses liberal value or idea C. An expressive protocol is arguably employed in Dworkin's \"theory of what liberalism is\" (Dworkin, \"Liberalism\"). This protocol has various problems, not least debilitating circularity.\n\n14 Rawls, _Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy_ , ed. Samuel Freeman (Cambridge, 2007), 11.\n\n15 Manent, _An Intellectual History of Liberalism_ , trans. R. Balinski (Princeton, 1996).\n\n16 Waldron, \"Theoretical Foundations,\" 128, 143\u201344. For another prominent example of historical gymnastics, see Stephen Holmes, \"The Permanent Structure of Anti-Liberal Thought,\" in _Liberalism and the Moral Life_ , ed. Nancy Rosenblum (Cambridge, 1989), 236\u201337. Holmes characterizes Spinoza, Locke, and Hume (among others) as straightforward liberals, but denies a place in the pantheon to Michael Sandel and Charles Taylor.\n\n17 John Gunnell, _The Descent of Political Theory_ (Chicago, 1993). On the politics of canon formation in literature, see John Guillory, _Cultural Capital_ (Chicago, 1993).\n\n18 For a seminal statement, see Quentin Skinner, _Visions of Politics_ , vol. 1 (Cambridge, 2002).\n\n19 J.G.A. Pocock, _The Machiavellian Moment_ , rev. ed. (Princeton, 2003), 579.\n\n20 Mark Goldie, \"Introduction,\" in _The Reception of Locke's Politics_ , vol. 1, ed. Goldie (London, 1999), xvii-lxxiii. For a recent powerful argument, see Tim Stanton, \"John Locke and the Fable of Liberalism,\" _Historical Journal_ (forthcoming).\n\n21 Ryan, _Modern Liberalism_ , 9, reads it as a straightforward semantic claim.\n\n22 Freeden, _Liberal Languages_ (Princeton, 2005), 20. See also Michael Freeden and Marc Stears, \"Liberalism,\" in _The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies_ , ed. Michael Freeden, Lyman Tower Sargent, and Marc Stears (Oxford, 2013), 329\u201348.\n\n23 Freeden, _Ideologies and Political Theory_ (Oxford, 1996), 227ff., 276, 278.\n\n24 Nagel, \"Rawls and Liberalism,\" in _The Cambridge Companion to Rawls_ , ed. Samuel Freeman (Cambridge, 2003), 62.\n\n25 Anderson, \"Renewals,\" _New Left Review_ , 1 (2000), 13; Geuss, \"Liberalism and Its Discontents,\" _Political Theory_ , 30 (2002), 320.\n\n26 For a parallel usage to which I am indebted, see David Scott, _Conscripts of Modernity_ (Durham, NC, 2004).\n\n27 Note that a comprehensive account is not suitable for constructing a coherent normative political theory.\n\n28 Freeden, _Liberal Languages_ , 20.\n\n29 For an example of the absurd genre, see Jonah Goldberg, _Liberal Fascism_ (London, 2007).\n\n30 P. Coupland, \"H. G. Wells' 'Liberal Fascism,'\" _Journal of Contemporary History_ , 35 (2000), 541\u201358. Goldberg uses this example to reach the opposite conclusion. Wells was suggesting that it was necessary to use methods learned from fascism to realize liberal ends.\n\n31 One objection to this argument is that some liberal ideas\/values\/commitments (e.g., the normative priority of liberty) are more central to the tradition than others. I agree with this as an empirical claim. But on my view it is neither a conceptual nor a normative necessity that all possible legitimate liberalisms will contain those ideas\/values\/commitments. We can imagine future iterations with a different core. Thus the centrality of, e.g., liberty is a historically contingent feature of liberalism.\n\n32 For prominent examples, see Sherri Berman, _The Primacy of Politics_ (Cambridge, 2006); Rogers Smith, _Civic Ideals_ (London, 2007).\n\n33 It follows that those values\/policies are also now part of the conservative tradition (and hypothetically others too).\n\n34 Losurdo, _Liberalism_ , trans. Gregory Elliott (London, 2011). Losurdo mixes canonical and expressive protocols.\n\n35 On the problems with characterizing the nineteenth-century United States as liberal, see Daniel Rodgers, \"The Traditions of Liberalism,\" in _Questions of Tradition_ , ed. Mark Salber Phillips and Gordon Schochet (Toronto, 2004), 203\u201333.\n\n36 Wolin, _Politics and Vision_ , 263; Holmes, _Passions and Constraint_ (Chicago, 1995), 15. Rawls's \"speculative\" history traces liberalism to the Reformation and the sixteenth-century religious wars ( _Lectures_ , 11).\n\n37 Gunnell, \"The Archaeology of American Liberalism,\" _Journal of Political Ideologies_ , 6 (2001), 131; Gunnell, _Imagining the American Polity_ (Philadelphia, 2004), 183\u2013219.\n\n38 J\u00f6rn Leonhard, \"From European Liberalism to the Languages of Liberalisms,\" _Redescriptions_ , 8 (2004), 17\u201351.\n\n39 D. M. Craig, \"The Origins of 'Liberalism' in Britain,\" _Historical Research_ , 85 (2012), 482. Cf. Daisy Hay, \"Liberals, _Liberales_ and _The Liberal_ ,\" _European Romantic Review_ , 19 (2008), 307\u201320. For the European context, see Maurizio Isabella, _Risorgimento in Exile_ (Oxford, 2009).\n\n40 The Liberal Party was created from a fissile coalition of Whigs, free-trading Tories, and Radicals. The name was first used officially in 1868, but it had been a common designation since the 1850s.\n\n41 See, for example, Frederick Pollock, _An Introduction to the History of the Science of Politics_ (London, 1890); William Graham, _English Political Philosophy from Hobbes to Maine_ (London, 1899); Ernest Barker, _Political Thought in England from Herbert Spencer to the Present Day_ (London, 1915); W. L. Davidson, _Political Thought in England from Bentham to J. S. Mill_ (London, 1915); Ivor Brown, _English Political Theory_ (London, 1920); Robert Murray, _The History of Political Science from Plato to the Present_ (Cambridge, 1926); Lewis Rockow, _Contemporary Political Thought in England_ (London, 1925); C. E. Vaughan, _Studies in the History of Political Philosophy_ , 2 vols. (Manchester, 1925). Harold Laski was an exception, identifying liberalism as an economic ideology produced by the Industrial Revolution, though with philosophical roots in the seventeenth century. _Political Thought in England from Locke to Bentham_ (London, 1920), ch. 7.\n\n42 Blease, _Short History of English Liberalism_ (London, 1913). Blease taught law at the University of Liverpool.\n\n43 Stephen, \"Liberalism,\" _Cornhill Magazine_ , 5 (1862), 72\u201373. See also Leonard Hobhouse, _Democracy and Reaction_ (London, 1904), 166.\n\n44 Dunning, \"A Century of Politics,\" _North American Review_ , 179\/577 (1904), 803.\n\n45 P. J. Macdonell, \"Historic Bases of Liberalism,\" in _Essays in Liberalism_ (London, 1897), 220. Hillaire Belloc also discussed the liberal tradition entirely in nineteenth-century terms (\"The Liberal Tradition,\" 1\u201330).\n\n46 Brown, _English Political Theory_ , 66. \"Locke had striven hard and striven successfully for more freedom, but he had never striven hard for more equality\" (66). On continuities between Whigs and Victorian liberals, see John Burrow, _Whigs and Liberals_ (Oxford, 1988).\n\n47 Dicey, _Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century_ [1914], 2nd ed., ed. Richard VandeWetering (Indianapolis, 2008), 67. The radical Whig Charles James Fox was occasionally identified as a founding father of liberalism. See A. C. Forster Boulton, \"Liberalism and Empire,\" _Westminster Review_ (1899), 486\u201391; N. W. Sibley, \"Edmund Burke,\" _Westminster Review_ (1897), 509; Macdonell, \"Historic Bases,\" 226\u201327. Thanks to Emily Jones for discussion on this point. Jones argues that conservatism was likewise crafted as a distinctive, coherent political philosophy (with Burke at the core) during the late Victorian and Edwardian years: Jones, \"Conservatism, Edmund Burke, and the Invention of a Political Tradition, c. 1885\u20131914,\" _Historical Journal_ , 58 (2015), 1115\u201339.\n\n48 Lord King, _The Life of John Locke_ (London, 1830); H. R. Fox-Bourne, _The Life of John Locke_ , vol. 2 (London, 1876), 524\u201340; Thomas Fowler, _Locke_ (London, 1880); A. Campbell Fraser, _Locke_ (Edinburgh, 1890); Samuel Alexander, _Locke_ (London, 1908).\n\n49 Hans Aarsleff, \"Locke's Influence,\" in _The Cambridge Companion to Locke_ , ed. Vere Chappell (Cambridge, 1997), 278. His writings on toleration were also well-known though they rarely fed into accounts.\n\n50 Pollock, \"The Social Contract in Hobbes and Locke,\" _Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation_ (1907), reprinted in Pollock, _Essays in the Law_ (London, 1922), 109. See also his \"Locke's Theory of the State\" (1904), 80\u2013102. Pollock was unusual in suggesting that Locke envisaged the contract as hypothetical. For an example of the conventional criticism\u2014that the contract was an (absurd) empirical claim about human history\u2014see Edwin Wallace, \"John Locke,\" _Westminster Review_ , 107 (1877), 193.\n\n51 Henry Craik, \"John Locke,\" _Quarterly Review_ , 169 (1889), 490.\n\n52 Sorley, \"John Locke,\" in _The Cambridge History of English Literature_ , ed. Adolphus William Ward and Alfred Rayney Waller (Cambridge, 1912), 8:390. Sorely succeeded Sidgwick as the Knightbridge Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge, a post he held until 1933.\n\n53 Gooch, _The History of English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century_ (Cambridge, 1898), 358. Gooch did not connect Locke with liberalism, though he suggested that Locke's account of self-ownership provided the theoretical basis for socialism (358).\n\n54 Sterling Lamprecht, _The Moral and Political Philosophy of John Locke_ (New York, 1918), 6, 150\u201351. Representative of Locke's changing designation, Lamprecht characterized him as a \"Whig and a liberal.\"\n\n55 Mill, _System of Logic_ (1843), _Collected Works_ , vol. 7, ed. John Robson (Toronto, 1974), 29, 305.\n\n56 Mill, \"Use and Abuse of Political Terms,\" _Collected Works_ , 18:11. In the book under discussion, George Cornewall Lewis's _Remarks on the Use and Abuse of Some Political Terms_ (1832), \"liberalism\" is absent and Locke's views are ridiculed.\n\n57 Mill, _On Liberty_ [1859], _Collected Works_ , vol. 18; Stephen, _Liberty, Equality, Fraternity_.\n\n58 Stephen, \"Locke on Government\" (1867), _Horae Sabbaticae_ , vol. 2 (London, 1892), 142.\n\n59 Spencer, _The Principles of Ethics_ , vol. 2, [1897] (Indianapolis, 1978), 111\u201312. Locke warrants a few brief mentions in Spencer's earlier _Social Statics_ (London, 1851). In the earlier published version of this chapter, I overlooked these earlier mentions, though they do not change the general point.\n\n60 Green, \"Introduction to Hume's Treatise of Human Nature\" [1874], in _Collected Works of T. H. Green_ (Bristol, 1997), 1:13; Green, _Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation_ [1886] (Bristol, 1997), 375. D. G. Ritchie was a partial exception. In the _Principles of State Interference_ (London, 1891), he linked English empiricism with liberalism, and praised the continuing political relevance of Locke's writings, though he derided their philosophical value (138, 128), while in his _Natural Rights_ (London, 1895), Locke was characterized as both an ideologue of 1688 and an early liberal (6, 239, 175, 186).\n\n61 Sidgwick, _The Development of European Polity_ (London, 1903), 364\u201367, 417\u201318. Locke is largely absent from Sidgwick's _Methods of Ethics_ (1874), _Principles of Political Economy_ (1873), or _The Elements of Politics_ (1891).\n\n62 Wallas, _Human Nature in Politics_ , 3rd ed. (London, 1909), 178.\n\n63 Stephen, _History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century_ , vol. 2 (London, 1876), 150, 135. However, he later acknowledged that Locke had unwittingly laid the foundations for Bentham's radicalism: \"Locke, John (1632\u20131704),\" in _The Dictionary of National Biography_ (London, 1893), 34:32.\n\n64 Green, _A Short History of the English People_ [1874] (London, 1878), 601\u20132.\n\n65 Acton, _Lectures on Modern History_ , ed. John Figgis and Reginald Laurence (London, 1906), 217.\n\n66 Arthur Lionel Smith, \"English Political Philosophy in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,\" in _The Cambridge Modern History_ , ed. Adolphus Ward, George Prothero, and Stanley Leathes (Cambridge, 1909), 6:805, 787.\n\n67 Maitland, _A Historical Sketch of Liberty and Equality_ (Indianapolis, 2000), 42, 52. Written in 1875, it was only published in 1911. In his _Constitutional History of England_ (Cambridge, 1908), Locke appeared very briefly as \"that excellent Whig\" (290).\n\n68 Dunning, _A History of Political Theories from Luther to Montesquieu_ (London, 1905), 368.\n\n69 On the comparative method, see Collini, Winch, and Burrow, _That Noble Science of Politics_ , ch. 7; Sandra den Otter, \"The Origins of a Historical Political Science in Late Victorian and Edwardian Britain,\" in _Modern Political Science_ , ed. Robert Adcock, Mark Bevir, and Shannon Stimson (Princeton, 2007), 37\u201366.\n\n70 Robert Adcock, _Liberalism and the Emergence of American Political Science_ (Oxford, 2014), ch. 5; James Farr, \"The Historical Science(s) of Politics,\" in _Modern Political Science_ , ed. Adcock, Bevir, and Stimson, 66\u201396; and chapter 13 in this volume.\n\n71 Maine, _Ancient Law_ [1861] (London, 1908), 101.\n\n72 Seeley, _Introduction to Political Science_ [1891], ed. Henry Sidgwick (London, 1919), 28; Freeman, _Comparative Politics_ (London, 1873).\n\n73 Mark Pattison, \"Philosophy at Oxford,\" _Mind_ , 1 (1876), 91.\n\n74 Ritchie, \"The Teaching of Political Science at Oxford,\" _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science_ , 2 (1891), 88.\n\n75 Sidgwick, \"Philosophy at Cambridge,\" _Mind_ , 1 (1876), 235\u201346.\n\n76 Jean McLachlan, \"The Origin and Early Development of the Cambridge Historical Tripos,\" _American Historical Review_ , 9 (1947), 99.\n\n77 J.G.A. Pocock, \"The Myth of John Locke and the Obsession with Liberalism,\" in _John Locke_ , ed. Richard Ashcraft and J.G.A. Pocock (Los Angeles, 1980); Goldie, \"Introduction.\"\n\n78 There is a huge literature on totalitarianism. For the most comprehensive survey of the term, see Abbott Gleason, _Totalitarianism_ (Oxford, 1997).\n\n79 Mussolini, _Fascism_ (1935), cited in Ira Katznelson, _Desolation and Enlightenment_ (New York, 2003), 23.\n\n80 Voegelin, \"Liberalism and Its History,\" _Review of Politics_ , 36 (1974), 504\u20135.\n\n81 De Ruggiero, \"Liberalism,\" in _Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences_ , ed. E. R. Seligman (London, 1933), 11:438.\n\n82 As late as 1963, C. Wright Mills claimed that _Liberalism_ was the best account of the subject. _The Marxists_ (Harmondsworth, 1963), 25n.\n\n83 Hobhouse, _Liberalism_ , 24\u201325, 8. For another clear usage, see A. W. Benn, _The History of English Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century_ , vol. 1 (London, 1906), 111. Compare Herbert Samuel, _Liberalism_ (London, 1902), which does not mention Locke and makes little effort to trace a genealogy.\n\n84 Michael Freeden, _The New Liberalism_ (Oxford, 1978); Stefan Collini, _Liberalism and Sociology_ (Cambridge, 1983).\n\n85 Freeden, _Liberalism Divided_ (Oxford, 1986).\n\n86 Collingwood, \"Translator's Preface,\" vii. See also the comments on the difference between the narrow (British) and expansive (Continental) uses of the term in John Morley, _Recollections_ (London, 1917), 1:21. Morley adopts the latter in his discussion.\n\n87 On the transition from progressivism to liberalism, see Gerstle, \"Protean Character.\" On the transatlantic dialogue between British and American thinkers, see James Kloppenberg, _Uncertain Victory_ (Oxford, 1986); Marc Stears, _Progressive, Pluralists, and the Problems of the State_ (Oxford, 2002).\n\n88 Stearns, _Liberalism in America_ (New York, 1919), 11, 16\u201317, 33\u201334. Charles Merriam dismissed it as a shallow exercise in partisan propaganda. _American Political Science Review_ , 14\/3 (1920), 511\u201312.\n\n89 Parrington, _Main Currents in American Thought_ , 3 vols. (New York, 1927\u201330). Gunnell argues that Parrington's trilogy marked the \"threshold of the adoption of liberalism as an American political identity\u2014both in politics and political theory.\" Gunnell, \"Archaeology,\" 132. Thanks to Robert Adcock for discussion of this topic.\n\n90 Parrington, _Main Currents_ , 1:74.\n\n91 Sabine, _A History of Political Theory_ (London, 1937), 679. In 1941 he observed that \"[to] give a practical definition of liberalism is virtually impossible.\" Sabine, \"The Historical Position of Liberalism,\" _American Scholar_ , 10 (1940\u201341), 490.\n\n92 Sabine, _A History of Political Theory_ (New York, 1951), 620. In a review, Macpherson noted the shift in meaning and concluded that the \"ideological atmosphere in America\" made an understanding of both liberalism and Marxism \"increasingly difficult.\" _Western Political Quarterly_ , 4 (1951), 145.\n\n93 Watkins, _The Political Tradition of the West_ (Cambridge, 1948), ix. Watkins made liberalism coextensive with freedom under the law. For an influential conservative political-theological account that adopted the same timeline but reversed the normative conclusion, see John Hallowell, _The Decline of Liberalism as an Ideology_ (Berkeley, 1943); Hallowell, _Main Currents in Modern Political Thought_ (New York, 1950).\n\n94 Sabine, review of Watkins, _Political Science Quarterly_ , 64 (1949), 147\u201349.\n\n95 The phenomenon was noted in Francis Coker, \"Some Present-Day Critics of Liberalism,\" _American Political Science Review_ , 47 (1953), 1\u20132.\n\n96 Dewey, _Liberalism_ , 3.\n\n97 Arthur Murphy, \"Ideals and Ideologies, 1917\u20131947,\" _Philosophical Review_ , 56 (1947), 386.\n\n98 Macpherson, \"The History of Political Ideas,\" _Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science_ , 7 (1941), 564\u201365.\n\n99 On neo-liberalism, see Ben Jackson, \"At the Origins of Neo-Liberalism,\" _Historical Journal_ , 53 (2010), 129\u201351; Angus Burgin, _The Great Persuasion_ (Cambridge, 2012). For a contemporary attempt to distinguish Ordo-liberalism and the work of the Mont Pelerin Society, see Carl Friedrich, \"The Political Thought of Neo-Liberalism,\" _American Political Science Review_ , 49 (1955), 509\u201325.\n\n100 Boyd Martin, \"Liberalism,\" _Western Political Quarterly_ , 1 (1948), 295.\n\n101 Niebuhr, \"Liberalism,\" _New Republic_ (1955). He endorsed the \"Lockean type of liberalism.\"\n\n102 Laski, _The Rise of European Liberalism_ (London, 1936), 9, 115. For a similar analysis, see Richard Crossman, _Government and the Governed_ (London, 1939), 69\u201380. Laski's analysis was not unchallenged: \"There is plenty of truth in this as a historical account, though it is a one-sided truth. But to speak of it as Liberalism shows a bad confusion of thought.\" G. C. Field, _Mind_ , 45 (1936), 527.\n\n103 See, for example, George Catlin, _The Anglo-Saxon Tradition_ (London, 1939); Catlin, _The Story of the Political Philosophers_ (New York, 1939); Michael Oakeshott, ed., _The Social and Political Doctrines of Contemporary Europe_ (Cambridge, 1939), xi-xviii; Thomas Cook, _History of Political Philosophy from Plato to Burke_ (New York, 1936), 710\u201311; J. P. Mayer, _Political Thought_ (London, 1939).\n\n104 Berlin, \"Political Ideas in the Twentieth Century,\" _Foreign Affairs_ , 28 (1950), 357.\n\n105 Minogue, _The Liberal Mind_ (London, 1962), 2.\n\n106 Laski, _Rise of European Liberalism_ , 9, 115.\n\n107 Macpherson, _The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism_ (Oxford, 1962); Losurdo, _Liberalism_.\n\n108 See, for example, M. Parmlees, \"Liberal Democracy, Fascism, and Bolshevism,\" _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science_ , 180 (1935), 47\u201354; J. A. Leighton, _Social Philosophies in Conflict_ (New York, 1937); Alfred Zimmern, ed., _Modern Political Doctrines_ (Oxford, 1939), xiv-xix; Crossman, _Government_ , 286\u201387, 294\u201396; J. A. Hobson, \"Thoughts on Our Present Discontents,\" _Political Quarterly_ , 9 (1938), 47\u201357; E. H. Carr, _The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919\u20131939_ (London, 1939), 37. See Oakeshott, _Doctrines_ , xvi-xix, for skeptical acknowledgement of the linguistic shift.\n\n109 A Google Ngram graph shows this post-1930 spike in usage: http:\/\/books.google.com\/ngrams\/graph?content=liberal+democracy&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3. Google Scholar also offers illustrative evidence. Scrubbed of false positives, the term \"liberal democracy\" is employed with the following frequency: 1900\u20131910: 6; 1911\u20131920: 33; 1921\u20131930: 24; 1931\u20131940: 143; 1941\u20131950: 216; 1951\u20131960: 374.\n\n110 Barker, \"Democracy since the War and Its Prospects for the Future,\" _International Affairs_ , 13 (1934), 757. On the threat, see Katznelson, _Fear Itself_.\n\n111 Wright, \"International Law and Ideologies,\" _American Journal of International Law_ , 48 (1954), 619.\n\n112 Hartz, _The Liberal Tradition in America_ (New York, 1955).\n\n113 Strauss, _Liberalism_ , vii. He also wrote, \"The conservatism of our age is identical with what originally was liberalism\" (ix). Cf. Voegelin, \"Liberalism,\" 507; Hayek, \"Liberalism,\" 113.\n\n114 Russell, _History of Western Philosophy_ (London, 1945\/1948), 711.\n\n115 Anthony Grafton, \"The History of Ideas,\" _Journal of the History of Ideas_ , 67 (2006), 1.\n\n116 Jotham Parsons, \"Defining the History of Ideas,\" _Journal of the History of Ideas_ , 68 (2007), 682\u201389.\n\n117 Francis Stonor Saunders, _Who Paid the Piper?_ (London, 1999), 338.\n\n118 Gilbert Allardyce, \"The Rise and Fall of the Western Civilization Course,\" _American Historical Review_ , 87 (1982), 706; Peter Novik, _That Noble Dream_ (Cambridge, 1988), 312.\n\n119 Stephen, \"Liberalism,\" 70.\nCHAPTER 4\n\nIdeologies of Empire\n\nThe world in which we live is largely the product of the rise, competition, and fall of empires. To attempt a survey of the role of ideology in this vast historical panorama would be hubristic\u2014that archetypical imperial vice. Consequently, in this chapter I limit my focus both geographically and temporally, concentrating attention on European, and principally British, imperialism during the last two hundred years. Moreover I confine it to a subset of the topics that it would be possible to discuss under the heading of ideology and empire. Even with these limitations in mind, my discussion will be synoptic and selective, drawing out some key issues while leaving many others unmentioned, or mentioned only in passing.\n\nThe terms empire and imperialism have no settled definition\u2014indeed the attempt to control and delimit their meaning has often formed a significant dimension of ideological disputation. Contemporary scholarly definitions come in narrow and broad varieties. On a narrow view, empire connotes the direct and comprehensive political control of one polity over another. It is, Michael Doyle writes, \"a relationship... in which one state controls the effective political sovereignty of another political society.\"1 Broad definitions, meanwhile, characterize an empire as a polity that exerts decisive or overwhelming power in a system of unequal political relations, thus encompassing very diverse forms of control and influence.2 The same variation holds for the concept of imperialism. On a narrow account, imperialism is a strategy or policy that aims to consolidate or expand a territorial empire. According to broader definitions it a strategy or policy\u2014or even an attitude or disposition\u2014that seeks to create, maintain, or intensify relations of inequality between political communities. A cross-cutting issue concerns the connection between formal and informal imperialism. Some restrict the term to direct intervention in, or control over, a given territory; others invoke imperialism to cover a wide range of formal and informal (nonterritorial) modes of influence.3 This can lead to substantial variation in the application of the terms. For example, utilizing a narrow definition it is possible to deny that the contemporary United States is an empire while acknowledging that it exhibits occasional imperialist aspirations, but adopting a broader definition supports the argument that it is and nearly always has been an empire.4 Empire and imperialism, then, are essentially contested concepts. Sidestepping these thorny conceptual debates, this chapter discusses positions from across the spectrum, not least because imperial advocates and critics have often mixed the different accounts together. Conceptual precision is vital for the scholarly analysis of empires, but impassioned ideological contestation rarely adheres to strict academic conventions.\n\nThe study of empire straddles the humanities and social sciences. The last three decades have witnessed a renaissance of interest in imperial history, a development that has recently catalyzed the increasingly popular field of \"global history.\"5 Following the work of Edward Said, Homi Bhabha, and Gayatri Spivak, among others, scholars of comparative literature have focused attention on the representation and legitimation of empire in diverse forms of cultural production, from the quotidian to the avant-garde.6 Such studies have illuminated the pivotal role of empire in the life-worlds of the modern \"West\"\u2014indeed in their very construction. Anthropology, a field once deeply implicated in the justification of imperial activity, now offers one of the most incisive scholarly sites for its investigation and critique. A similar case can be made about geography.7 Scholarship in all of these areas has been heavily influenced, though certainly not exhausted, by a range of \"postcolonial\" challenges to the \"Eurocentrism\" of Western scholarly and popular discourse.8 Rather ironically, international relations (IR), a field putatively dedicated to the analysis of world politics, has yet to engage adequately with the practices and the legacies of imperialism. Like many of the other social sciences, the origins and early disciplinary development of IR were bound up with imperial projects, but the dominant approaches continue to conceptualize global order, past and present, in terms of the relations between autonomous states acting under conditions of \"anarchy.\"9 However, as I discuss in chapter 2, scholars of politics have not ignored the imperial turn entirely. Spurred on by shifts in the wider world, historians and political theorists have begun to demonstrate the assorted ways in which the history of Western political thinking is profoundly entangled with imperial encounters.\n\nPractices of imperialism are not, of course, simply the product of a set of explicit theoretical arguments, and ideologies of empire cannot be analyzed solely through deciphering written texts. Studying ideology is an interdisciplinary endeavor, exploring social, economic, political, cultural, and intellectual phenomena. It encompasses the interpretation of texts, the study of social practices, and the analysis of visual and material culture, soundscapes, the built environment, and much more besides. For heuristic purposes it is worth drawing an ideal-typical distinction between theory, ideology, and imaginary. (In reality, the three blur together.) _Theories_ are systematic articulated bodies of argumentation\u2014the kind of accounts of empire produced by Hannah Arendt, Frantz Fanon, V. I. Lenin, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill. It is writing of this kind that has drawn the attention of historians of political thought in recent years. Following Michael Freeden, we can define _ideologies_ as \"clusters of ideas, beliefs, opinions, values and attitudes usually held by identifiable groups, that provide directives, even plans, of action for public policy-making in an endeavour to uphold, justify, change or criticize the social and political arrangements of a state or other political community.\"10 Such ideologies include liberalism, socialism, republicanism, conservatism, and fascism. Imperial ideologies, as I use the term in this chapter, are those elements of more general patterns of thought that relate to empire. Sophisticated theories often play a crucial role in such ideologies, but they do not exhaust them. The bulk of the chapters in this volume examine material falling in either or both of these categories. Finally, ideologies are nested within, and given shape by, _socialimaginaries_. Charles Taylor defines a social imaginary as \"the ways people imagine their social existence, how they fit together with others, how things go on between them and their fellows, the expectations that are normally met, and the deeper normative notions and images that underlie these expectations.\" Among other things, imaginaries constitute \"that common understanding that makes possible common practices and a widely shared sense of legitimacy.\"11 Imaginaries are more basic than ideologies insofar as they establish the background cultural and cognitive conventions that structure and animate them. Just as ideologies contain multiple and often competing theories, so imaginaries are compatible with varied ideologies. One of the central contentions of this chapter is that rival ideologies of empire often share key assumptions about the nature of the social world and that this can be explained through reference to underlying imperial imaginaries.\n\nIn the next section I explore aspects of the modern imperial imaginary. In the subsequent sections I distinguish three ideal-typical aspects of imperial ideology: justification, governance, and resistance. Ideologies of justification are those patterns of thought that provide reasons, explicit or implicit, for supporting or upholding imperial activity. They seek to legitimate the creation, reproduction, or expansion of empire. Ideologies of governance articulate the modalities of imperial rule in specific contexts. Particular ideologies of justification may be compatible with diverse and conflicting ideologies of governance, while precluding others. Finally, ideologies of resistance deny the legitimacy of imperial control. They too cover a broad spectrum, ranging from moderate positions that reject only some aspects of imperial rule and seek accommodation with the existing order, through to defenses of violent rebellion and the revolutionary transcendence of the system.\n\nImperial Imaginaries\n\nSocial imaginaries constitute \"the macromappings of social and political space through which we perceive, judge, and act in the world.\"12 Throughout history they have animated imperial ideologies, underwriting relevant conceptions of time and space, philosophical anthropologies, ethical assumptions, cosmologies, and metaphysical belief systems\u2014the \"deeper normative notions and images\" that Taylor suggests mold expectations about human collective life.13 In ancient China, for example, imperial authority was construed as mediating between heaven and earth, with the Han Emperor serving as the \"son of Heaven.\"14 Early modern European imperialism had to be legitimated in Christian terms. Modern imperial ideologies, too, are rooted in a widely shared set of assumptions and beliefs about the character of the social world.\n\nCharles Taylor and Manfred Steger have both probed the relationship between modern ideologies and social imaginaries. Steger argues that \"ideologies translate and articulate the largely pre-reflexive social imaginary in compressed form as explicit political doctrine\" and he contends that the key transition in the modern world is from a national imaginary to a global one, a process that was accelerated by the Second World War and is still unfolding today.15 The modern social imaginary, on this view, is constituted by various interlocking elements, including conceptions of linear time and progress, secularization, individualism, and forms of rationality and scientific knowledge. The spatial configuration of modern politics\u2014a system of territorial states\u2014is the institutional expression of this imaginary. Globalization signifies the ongoing and uneven transition to an emergent \"globalist\" system characterized by a growing consciousness of the world as an interconnected whole. For Taylor, meanwhile, the modern social imaginary is formulated in \"Lockean\" terms as a society of mutual respect among free autonomous agents, and it is institutionalized in the rise of civil society, popular sovereignty, and the capitalist system of market exchange.\n\nMy primary concern here is with what I will call the imperial imaginary: those aspects of social imaginaries that pertain to the justification or governance of empire. It is not clear how empire fits into Taylor's account, a lacuna that follows from his focus on the internal constitution of discrete societies\u2014what we might call his _methodological communitarianism_. For Taylor the modern moral order, in contrast to its medieval predecessor, \"gives no ontological status to hierarchy or any particular structure of differentiation. \"In other words,\" he writes, \"the basic point of the new normative order is the mutual respect and mutual service of the individuals who make up society.\"16 This fails to grasp the sociopolitical dynamics of modern imperialism, which is predicated on the hierarchical classification of peoples\u2014the sorting and categorizing of the world in ways that denied (either temporarily or permanently) equality and autonomy to large swathes of it. Moreover, imperial practices helped fashion the internal ordering of Western societies: empire cannot be bracketed off as something that happened elsewhere. As practitioners of the \"new imperial history\" rightly insist, imperial metropoles and peripheries need to be viewed as part of a \"single analytic field\"\u2014as dynamically connected and interpenetrating.17 Above all, the modern social imaginary, in its imperial dimensions, encodes \"civilizational\" (or racial) difference. This imaginary has framed European encounters with other peoples at least since the \"discovery\" of the Americas in the fifteenth century.18 In the remainder of this section, I discuss three elements of the modern Euro-American imperial imaginary: civilizational difference, conceptions of time and space, and what I will call \"the comparative gaze.\"\n\nPerhaps the most consequential element of the modern imperial imaginary is the way in which the world is envisioned as a space of inequality and radical difference.19 Peoples and societies are arrayed in a hierarchical manner. \"Civilization,\" the meta-concept of the modern imperial imaginary, is the term most frequently employed to characterize this stratification. It entered European political discourse in the mid-eighteenth century, first in France and then in England.20 But the underlying idea is not unique to modernity or to the West; the distinction was also common in Japan, China, and the Islamic states. The Chinese historiographical tradition, for example, \"invariably assumed that, by virtue of its superior civilization, China stood at the centre and apex of the universe, and that its emperor enjoyed a mandate from heaven not only to rule the empire, but also to exact deference and tribute from all other peoples known and unknown to the Chinese.\"21 Employing the language of \"civilization\" invokes a standard of assessment and a regime of difference\u2014it demands the drawing of normatively significant boundaries between \"advanced\" and \"backward\" societies, the latter to be viewed as inferior to (and hence open to rule by) the former.\n\nConceptions of civilization have varied considerably in modern imperial discourse. The appellation can mark either a process or a _telos_. It can be theorized in constructivist or essentialist terms: as the product of time, chance, luck, and skill, or alternatively as the result of ingrained (usually biological) difference. Conceptions of civilization come in both dynamic and static forms. The dynamic account, which from the late eighteenth century drew in particular on the historical sociology of the Scottish Enlightenment and later on universalistic theories of progress, holds that the differential levels of ethical and material development found in societies across the world are neither inevitable nor natural. This notion permeates assorted modern ideologies, including liberalism and socialism. Proponents of static accounts, which deny the implicit moral universality of dynamic perspectives, concentrate on the purportedly immutable markers of a people or \"race,\" arguing that progress amongst at least some groups (with Aboriginal Australians and sub-Saharan Africans regularly coded as paradigmatic) is virtually impossible. An extreme manifestation of this view, found in both scholarly and literary discourses throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, viewed the most \"uncivilized\" peoples as unable to socially reproduce in a world dominated by advanced white civilizations, and consequently as doomed to extinction. They were seen, in other words, as self-annihilating. As Patrick Brantlinger observes, this discourse was \"a specific branch of the dual ideologies of imperialism and racism.\"22 Most accounts of race and civilization in nineteenth- and twentieth-century imperial discourse blended together \"cultural\" and \"biological\" arguments to create a potent set of claims about the stratified character of world order. As such, they were figured as pervasive yet opaque _biocultural assemblages_.23\n\nAssumptions about European civilizational superiority were typically shared by enthusiastic imperialists and critics of empire alike, although they interpreted them in different ways. (This is one reason why the labels \"pro-imperial\" and \"anti-imperial,\" whilst perhaps unavoidable in some instances, are usually too crude for satisfactory historical and theoretical discrimination.) The justificatory argument from civilization was fairly straightforward: the civilized peoples of the world had a right, or even a duty, to spread civilization to the backward. Progress\u2014human \"improvement\"\u2014demanded it. Military and economic dominance proved to many Europeans the inherent superiority of their political and moral orders, justifying attempts to export their institutions and ideas across the globe. J. A. Hobson pinpointed the connection commonly drawn between material superiority and ethical orientation in dismissing the view that \"the power to do anything constitutes a right and even a duty to do it\" as \"the most 'natural' of temperamental fallacies.\"24 But it is important to recognize that civilization was also a key category for those critical of expansion. This position assumed several forms. First, a case could be made that the attempt to export civilization would invariably fail given the intrinsic difficulty of the task, and in particular the perceived recalcitrance of the target communities. This argument was increasingly popular towards the end of the nineteenth century, as anthropological and sociological accounts of the structure of \"native\" communities moved to the center of imperial debate.25 Alternatively, even if the spread of civilization was both feasible and universally beneficial there were more efficient or humane modes of transmission available\u2014a case made by many liberal internationalists, for whom the primary engine of transformation was international commerce. Finally, and most commonly, it could be argued that regardless of whether imperialism was an effective vehicle of civilization, it inevitably damaged the imperial metropole. The \"spirit of conquest,\" as Benjamin Constant famously labeled it, threatened the fragile achievements of civilization itself.26 This was the lesson that many post-Renaissance Europeans drew from the fall of Rome, and it formed a key element of the critiques of empire formulated by Bentham, Constant, Cobden, Spencer, and a long line of nineteenth-century radical political thinkers. It could also be argued, in an explicitly racist variation on this theme, that the pursuit of empire threatened the (racial) contamination of the civilized.\n\nConceptions of time and space structure the way in which ideologies and theories articulate political projects. Throughout history they have established the imaginative limits of the zones that empires set out to conquer and rule. In Victorian Britain, for example, novel communications technologies altered the way in which individuals perceived the physical world and the political possibilities it contained. Political forms previously regarded as utopian came to be seen as realizable. This was the period in which ideas about the \"annihilation of time and space\" began to be applied routinely to global politics.27 Once again, this aspect of the imaginary was pervasive but politically indeterminate. Many saw technological developments as facilitating, even necessitating, the construction of imperial institutions that in the past would have seemed the stuff of dreams, but to others they intensified the dangers of interpolity competition. As I explore in other chapters, this cognitive revolution acted as a condition of possibility for the emergence of ideas about a globe-spanning polity, a \"Greater Britain\" uniting Britain and its settler colonies in the South Pacific, North America, and southern Africa. It was claimed that instantaneous global communication could, for the first time in human history, sustain the bonds of identity between the members of a community\u2014the \"Anglo-Saxon race\"\u2014scattered across oceanic distances.28 Ideas about the potential scope of \"the people\" and the nature of \"the public\" were reconfigured, in a racialized precursor to contemporary debates about the emergence of a global public sphere.29\n\nFinally, the constitution of specific historical sensibilities has played a vital role in the imperial imaginary. The manner in which individuals and groups emplot historical trajectories, and the process through which these representations mold narrative constructions of the present and future, help to configure the scope and content of political discourse. They generate a repertoire of analogies, metaphors, \"lessons,\" and precedents that give shape to the field of action and determine assorted ethical imperatives about how and why to act. Cyclical conceptions of historical time have structured much Western imperial discourse. The trope of \"decline and fall\" infused accounts of empire from the ancient world until deep into the twentieth century\u2014a topic that I discuss in greater detail in chapter 5. Empires, on this account, are impermanent structures, subject to the vagaries of time, and as such they are either to be rejected (as bound to end in failure) or designed in such a way as to maximize their potential longevity (to defer failure for as long as possible). Modernity saw the emergence of a novel conception of historical time tied to open-ended notions of progress, and this in turn reshaped the ways in which the temporality of empires was conceived. While modern progressivist accounts have often been haunted by nightmares of eventual dissolution, they have not been burdened with the same sense of historical inevitability. History, on this account, need not repeat itself.\n\nModern imperial thought has also been shaped by a _habit of comparison_ , the imperial gaze stretching across the world and back through time. Other empires, past and present, have provided templates for ways of ruling, as well as cautionary tales about what to avoid. Historiography has been an authoritative mode of political thinking. European imperialists turned to the ancient world for validation, and Rome, above all, \"consistently provided the inspiration, the imagery and the vocabulary for all the European Empires from early modern Spain to nineteenth century Britain.\"30 Civic humanism offered ideological support for justifying global exploration, conquest, and occupation in early modern Europe, while the language of neo-Roman republicanism permeated eighteenth-century defenses of the British empire, especially in the North American colonies.31 The most obvious manifestation of this historicized sensibility, though, resided in the frequent reiteration of the classical debate over the corrupting relationship between empire and liberty.32 Yet comparisons between the ancients and the moderns were always selective and the imaginative resources extracted from Rome and Greece fed a variety of conflicting desires and demands.\n\nComparison could also be employed as a strategy to \"deflect moral anxiety\" about the governing practices of empire.33 The brutality of conquest and imperial rule could be relativized, and thus downplayed, either by comparing it favorably to the gross atrocities of past empires (usually the Spanish) or by arguing (as was widespread in British, French, and American debates) that the subject populations were better off governed by the most beneficent imperial power, whatever its defects, than by another more rapacious state. In a related move, it could be argued that Western imperial domination was invariably better than non-European alternatives. As James Mill once wrote about India, \"[e]ven the utmost abuse of European power, is better, we are persuaded, than the most temperate exercise of Oriental despotism.\"34 Counter-factual reasoning was routinely put at the service of imperialism.\n\nThese elements of the imperial imaginary continue to shape our world: Western political discourse is still shadowed by the specter of the civilizing mission. Although usage of the term \"civilization\" declined precipitously through the twentieth century, it is at least arguable that the underlying ideas never disappeared\u2014they were rearticulated in the form of \"modernization\" theory during the 1960s and 1970s and are now rendered in the more palatable language of \"development\" and \"democratization.\"35 Purportedly novel conceptions of time and space lie at the very heart of debates over globalization. During the twentieth century, the apparent \"shrinking\" of the world through advanced communications and transport technologies underpinned an array of proposals for trans-planetary political institutions\u2014regional unions, democratic alliances, even federal world-states.36 Finally, the fascination with the ancients and the power of the comparative gaze continues undiminished. In the post-9\/11 world, for example, both critics and admirers of the United States have routinely compared it with the nineteenth-century British empire and with Rome, seeking to identify patterns of similarity and difference that shed light on the contemporary condition.37 Defenders of liberal imperialism, meanwhile, still resort to cost-benefit calculations and counterfactual reasoning to argue that it was better than the available alternatives.38 _Plus \u00e7a change?_\n\nIdeologies of Justification\n\nJustifications of empire are often blended together in practice to form a powerful if inconsistent ideological amalgam. However, for the purposes of analytical clarity it is worth delineating some of the ideal-typical forms of argument that have been employed to justify conquest and rule in the modern era.39 I will briefly outline five: commercial-exploitative, realist-geopolitical, liberal-civilizational, republican, and martialist. They embody distinct logics, although they overlap in assorted ways. It is also worth noting that each kind of justification has found sophisticated expression in social scientific or historical explanatory theories during the last one hundred and fifty years. Ideological affirmation has transmuted into canons of systematic scholarship. For example, the everyday arguments of imperial strategists and military planners find their contemporary academic analog in \"realist\" explanations of imperial expansion offered by IR scholars and diplomatic historians. Meanwhile, arguments once adduced on behalf of the financial benefits of empire are now the raw material of economic historians of Western expansion. This highlights the complex entanglement of imperial politics and the evolution of the modern human sciences.\n\nRealist-geopolitical arguments focus attention on power politics. According to such views, imperial consolidation or expansion is often regarded as necessary to balance or trump the power of competing imperial states. The world is envisaged as a chessboard, with imperial strategy a vital ingredient of ultimate success. Imperialism is rarely seen as an end in itself but rather as a means to secure geopolitical advantage. This was the kind of argument proffered by Bismarck in Germany and Lord Salisbury in Britain. An underlying assumption is that scale translates into status; that the governance of large territorial spaces is a precondition for assuming the role of a \"great power.\" Realist-geopolitical arguments play a starring role in much IR and historical scholarship. For example, they were central to Robinson and Gallagher's seminal work on the \"official mind\" of British imperialism in the nineteenth century.40 In a recent iteration of the argument, Brendan Simms contends that the fulcrum of British foreign policy throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was to be found in Europe, not the empire, and insofar as Britain engaged in imperial activity in North America and Asia it was primarily to maintain the balance of power within Europe.41 One feature of this type of scholarship is that while it takes calculations of power and interest seriously, it pays little attention to wider ideological currents, focusing its attention on the views of small groups of elite policy-makers.\n\nCommercial-exploitative arguments justify empire principally in terms of the economic benefits that it generates for the metropole (or specific interests therein). Throughout history, empires have acted as engines of wealth extraction and redistribution, moving raw materials, manufactured products, and countless people\u2014whether administrators, domestic workers, family dependents, soldiers, or slaves\u2014through complex circuits of production and exchange. It is unsurprising, then, that economic concerns have stood at the heart of many imperial ideologies. But the particular form of justificatory argument employed has evolved over time, especially as the state of economic \"knowledge\" developed. There have been, in other words, performative consequences to the evolution of the discourse of political economy, from its origins in early modern Europe to the current dominance of its neoclassical variants. Commercial-exploitative arguments tend to focus on either the extraction of raw materials from an occupied territory or on opening new markets for trade. The shift in emphasis from the former to the latter represents one of the major ideological shifts in the modern history of empire.42 Whereas deep into the early modern era imperial conquest was often legitimated through mercantilist arguments\u2014with the Spanish Empire in the Americas serving as an exemplar43\u2014during the eighteenth century, political economists began to insist that free trade was the best strategy to secure national economic development. Adam Smith's critique of the \"old colonial system\" in the _Wealth of Nations_ was the most sophisticated elaboration of this argument. This shifted the burden of justification: imperial territories were increasingly regarded as either economic liabilities to be discarded or (more commonly) their role in the imperial order was reimagined. They were cast as nodes in a vast global trading system\u2014as reservoirs of cheap labor and goods, or as profitable zones for market exchange.\n\nThe relationship between capitalism and empire, then, stands at the core of debates over economic justifications of imperial rule. Marx was ambivalent about imperialism. While critical of the violence and cupidity of European expansion, he nevertheless approved of its power to transform societies stifled by moribund (\"oriental\") traditions.44 The task of developing a systematic theory of capitalist imperialism was taken up by many of his acolytes, among whom the most influential were Rudolf Hilferding, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Kautsky, Nikolai Bukarin, and Vladimir Illich Lenin, who famously argued that imperialism was the \"highest stage\" of capitalism.45 With the partial exception of Luxemburg, all of them focused on the dire consequences for European politics, largely ignoring the impact of empire on those subjected to it. Marxist theorizing was later reworked by scholars in colonial and postcolonial states. Most influential of all were the _dependencia_ theories that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, though as with earlier Marxist accounts, their advocates downplayed the role of ideology in seeking to explain the dynamics of imperialism.46 (Indeed the lack of attention paid to ideology was one of the main criticisms leveled at Marxist analyses by scholars working in a postcolonial idiom.) Arguments linking capitalism to imperialism are not, of course, the preserve of Marxists. Lenin himself drew on the writings of the British radical liberal J. A. Hobson, who dedicated his seminal _Imperialism: A Study_ to exposing the dynamics of the \"new imperialism\" of the late nineteenth century. Joining a long line of radical critics of empire, all of whom stressed the economic imperatives driving imperialism, Hobson had concluded that capitalism itself was not at fault, only a distorted financial variant of it.47 Other important analyses of the socioeconomic conditions generating European imperialism were penned by Hannah Arendt, Karl Polanyi, and Joseph Schumpeter. Most work linking capitalism and imperialism is critical of either one or both of them, but there are exceptions. Neo-imperialists like Niall Ferguson, for example, have been quick to praise the conjoined transformative energies of capitalism and liberal empire.\n\nIt would be foolish to deny the role of capitalism in motivating modern imperial activity, but it is nevertheless worth noting that, at least in the last two hundred years or so, few prominent thinkers have justified empire solely, or even primarily, in economic terms. Even Joseph Chamberlain, a British politician famous for his arguments about the economic benefits of empire, emphasized the absolute centrality of national honor and moral character in legitimating imperialism.48 What, then, is the relationship between imperial discourse and practice? One possibility is that the profession of noneconomic justifications is a self-serving distortion of reality\u2014ideology in the pejorative Marxist sense. Another possibility is that most imperial thinkers were motivated primarily by noneconomic factors. (This option is compatible with the claim that governments and capitalist enterprises were driven by economic imperatives.) Perhaps most plausible is the idea that reflective imperialists typically had mixed motives, interweaving views on the economic gains generated by empire with a variety of other arguments, including those emphasizing its ability to protect important national (or \"racial\") security interests and the world-transformative power of civilization. But not all advocates of empire were quite so Panglossian. Recognizing that trade-offs were necessary, John Stuart Mill, to give one prominent example, argued that the British should retain their settler colonies if possible, but that doing so would invariably amplify their military vulnerability.49 Costs had to be weighed against benefits. Difficult choices had to be made.\n\nThe relationship between liberalism and empire has generated a substantial body of scholarship\u2014including many of the chapters in this volume. Arguments range from the claim that liberalism is inherently imperial to the Schumpeterian position that the two are antithetical. Both poles of the spectrum are implausible, not least because liberalism is such an inchoate ideological tradition that generalizations about its content are usually misleading. It contains resources both to justify and to critique imperialism. Despite this qualification, it is undoubtedly the case that during the last two centuries a particular strand of \"liberal civilizing imperialism\" has thrived. Maintaining that liberal states have a right (even a duty) to spread \"civilization\" to the purportedly non-civilized peoples of the world, its advocates insist that empire is only legitimate if it is primarily intended to benefit the populations subjected to it. Any other benefits that it generates are derivative and incidental. As Mill argued in _On Liberty_ , \"[d]espotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end.\" Giuseppe Mazzini, writing in the early 1870s, likewise endorsed the \"moral mission\" of civilizing imperialism, suggesting that the Europeans were destined to transform Asia and that Italy \"should not lose out on this wonderful new movement.\"50 At the turn of the twentieth century, Chamberlain recorded the shift towards this \"altruistic\" vision of empire: \"[T]he sense of possession has given place to a different sentiment\u2014the sense of obligation. We feel now that our rule over their territories can only be justified if we can show that it adds to the happiness and prospects of the people.\"51 Most articulations of this argument link civilization to nationality and sovereignty. Civilization is seen as a necessary though not sufficient condition for the emergence of national self-consciousness, which in turn is regarded as essential to trigger liberal claims to the right of political self-determination. Once a society had developed to the point where it could be classified as civilized, and once it exhibited authentic national self-consciousness, it could justifiably claim independence, and the job of the liberal imperial power was complete. But the temporal coordinates were very rarely specified; freedom was deferred to some indefinite point in the future. In the meantime, attention was focused on refining the modes and modulations of imperial rule\u2014on ideologies of governance.\n\nLiberal civilizing imperialism coexisted with another kind of justificatory argument which we might characterize as \"republican.\" Republican imperialism is primarily motivated by a concern with the character of the imperial power, justifying empire in terms of a particular class of benefits that it generates for the state. Its proponents seek to foster individual and collective virtue in their compatriots, while upholding national honor and glory. Any other benefits that empire generates\u2014including economic gain and \"civilization\"\u2014are derivative and incidental. This kind of argument has deep roots in Western political thought, traceable to Rome. During the nineteenth century Alexis de Tocqueville, and a range of British commentators, including the historians J. R. Seeley and J. A. Froude, articulated republican defenses of empire. Though they employed the language of civilization to classify and order the world\u2014as we would expect, given its central role in the imperial imaginary\u2014they tended not to justify imperialism principally in terms of its civilizing agency. For example, although Froude often boasted about the greatness of the British empire, he placed little emphasis on \"civilizing\" occupied territories, focusing instead on the virtues that such power fostered in the British population.52 Republican justifications predate liberalism by centuries, and they offer a different kind of argument about the character and purpose of empire, as well as its potential fate.\n\nFinally, we can isolate a martialist justification of empire. Martialism is the view that \"war is both the supreme instrument and the ultimate realization of all human endeavour.\"53 It stresses the transcendent role of violence in shaping individual and collective character. The field of battle is seen as a space for enacting a form of warrior masculinity\u2014and for inculcating virility in a population. Although it found its most ardent supporters in _fin de si\u00e8cle_ Germany\u2014including Helmut von Moltke and Heinrich von Treitschke\u2014a \"martialist _Zeitgeist_ ,\" Karma Nabulsi contends, infused the thought and practice of many British soldiers, imperial administrators, and civil servants in the nineteenth century. It was expressed, though rarely in an explicit and straightforward sense, in the utterances of writers such as Thomas Carlyle and J. A. Cramb,54 and it can also be located in the works of some of the more jingoistic British poets of the age, such as W. E. Henley, who once proclaimed that \"War, the Red Angel\" was the lifeblood of the nation.55 Empire, on this view, is a space for forging character through exercising the will-to-power in rituals of destruction.\n\nIdeologies of Governance\n\nGovernance includes the discrete institutions of government but it also encompasses the assorted practices and structures\u2014educational systems, market orders, civil society actors, cultural agencies\u2014though which populations are administered and regulated. It focuses, then, on the multiple vectors for creating, maintaining, and contesting political legitimacy. The modalities of governance employed to rule empires, and to construct pliant imperial subjectivities, have varied greatly across time and space. For much of human history the ability of governments to rule territory was severely constrained by practical concerns, above all the difficulties of creating effective administrative systems. Only in the last couple of hundred years\u2014and in particular during the last century\u2014have states gained the capacity to systematically observe, measure, and regulate large populations, thus providing the necessary conditions for the comprehensive exercise of sovereign power.56 Governance of this kind has ascribed a central role to the construction and deployment of knowledge and expertise. In the British empire, for example, administrators and scholars were set to work classifying different castes in India, tribes in Africa, languages, legal systems, sexualities, geographies, even dreams.57 Such exercises created the \"colonial knowledge\" thought necessary to police and rule space, though it was rarely as effective as its advocates proclaimed.58 Mapping the \"human terrain\" as it has come to be called in the post-9\/11 era, was a vital element of imperial governance.\n\nThe question of whether formal or informal rule is the most effectual runs through modern imperial discourse. The scholarly debate on the topic was initiated by Robinson and Gallagher's famous argument about the \"imperialism of free trade\" in the nineteenth century. Where possible, they argued, the British preferred to subordinate other societies through economic instruments rather than formal occupation\u2014\"trade with informal control if possible; trade with rule when necessary.\"59 Exercising _de jure_ sovereignty over a political community was not indispensable to wielding profound and pervasive control over it. The mid-nineteenth century, then, was marked less by a retreat from empire, as was once commonly assumed, than a turn to novel nonterritorial forms of imperial governance. This kind of argument highlights how economic regimes\u2014specific configurations of state, market, and knowledge\u2014can shape modes of rule. Mike Davis, for example, argues that Britain's commitment to classical liberal economics facilitated the famines that ravaged the population of British India in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, killing uncounted millions.60 Linking imperialism directly to liberal economic ideology opens a space for arguing that the postcolonial world remains structured by imperialism. On this account, even if formal empires have retreated to the wings, imperialism remains embedded in the structures and ideology of the current global economic order. Neoliberalism can be seen as the latest manifestation of capitalist imperialism.61\n\nA key issue in imperial governance concerns the degree to which an imperial power tries to (re)construct the subjected society in its own image\u2014the extent to which empire becomes a totalizing project. This was a contested issue in the nineteenth-century debates over how and why the British should rule India. A new generation of liberal civilizing imperialists attacked what they saw as an outdated policy in which European intervention in local Indian affairs was minimized (whether this was a realistic picture is a separate question). They were adamant that the primary aim of empire was to civilize a barbarian land and not simply to extract revenue or provide an outlet for British geopolitical ambition. These contrasting ends implied very different governing means. In particular, the civilizational model demanded a much more intrusive governance regime. The character of public education assumed a fundamental role, spawning a famous ideological dispute between \"Orientalists\" and \"Anglicizers.\" Professing respect for Indian cultural achievements, the Orientalists favored allocating money to teaching Sanskrit and Arabic, while the Anglicizers insisted on making English the primary language.62 This was the occasion for T. B. Macaulay's notorious \"Minute on Indian Education,\" wherein he proclaimed that \"a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia.\"63 English should be supported because it conveyed the teachings of a superior civilization\u2014language was a vehicle for progress. At stake here was a question about both the purpose and the most appropriate governing technologies of empire.\n\nAn important transition occurred in the governing ideology of the British empire in the closing decades of the nineteenth century. Karuna Mantena has characterized this as the shift from \"ethical\" modes of imperialism (exemplified by John Stuart Mill) to informal \"alibis\" of empire (exemplified by Henry Maine). On this account, the British pulled back from the attempt to create imperial subjects in their own image, thus preparing the ground for liberal self-government, and instead turned increasingly to modes of rule that they claimed protected fragile native communities from destruction. \"Rather than eradicated or aggressively modernized, native social and political forms would now be patronized as they became inserted into the institutional dynamics of imperial power.\"64 Although this argument understates the extent to which \"ethical\" justifications continued to circulate\u2014a theme I discussed in chapter 2\u2014the gradual emergence of more indirect styles of governance was nevertheless highly significant. The major practical impact of this ideological shift was the transition towards government by indirect rule in Britain's African colonies and the later development of notions of trusteeship under the League of Nations.\n\nSettler colonialism, as I dissect in various chapters in this volume, produced (and was produced by) a range of distinctive justificatory and governing strategies.65 In a standard conceptual move, Mill distinguished two classes of British \"dependencies\": those composed of people of a \"similar civilization\" that were \"capable of, and ripe for, representative government\" and those, defined in hierarchical opposition, that remained \"a great distance from that state.\"66 The former group included Australia, Canada, New Zealand\u2014and had once included the United States\u2014while the latter encompassed India and British territories in the Caribbean and Africa. Since the settler colonies were seen as already populated by civilized subjects, they were justified and governed in different ways from the rest of the empire. In India the primary target of imperial governance, and the postulated locus of the problem it sought to rectify, was the mind of the \"barbarian.\" Discussion of the settler empire was likewise saturated with the imagery of childhood, except here the referent was different. The target was not the people, who were after all descendants or relations of the inhabitants of Britain, but rather the polities in which they lived. The collective not the individual, the whole not the part, required supervision. It was Australia, Canada, and New Zealand that were \"young\" and \"immature.\" They were governed in a different manner from the rest of the British empire: from the middle of the nineteenth century, for example, they were granted increasing domestic political autonomy (\"responsible government\").67 Furthermore, from the 1850s onwards most advocates of settler colonialism argued that the formal connection between \"mother country\" and colonies was only legitimate if subject to reciprocal assent. This stands in stark contrast to attitudes to the rest of the empire, where subjects were not regarded as sufficiently developed\u2014politically, cognitively, or morally\u2014to enter into such voluntaristic relations.\n\nViolence, and the threat of violence, is a necessary element of imperial governance. Empires are typically administered through a complex pattern of central rule and local collaboration, but violence is an ever-present possibility, employed both to enforce the existing order and to challenge it. During the nineteenth century, the utility of violence triggered disagreement between otherwise putatively \"liberal\" defenders of empire. For Tocqueville, an ardent proponent of French rule in Algeria, empire sometimes required brutal extra-judicial measures. \"In order for us to colonize to any extent,\" he asserted, \"we must necessarily use not only violent measures, but visibly iniquitous ones,\" and as such it was sometimes acceptable to \"burn harvests,... empty silos, and finally... seize unarmed men, women, and children.\"68 This kind of position horrified John Stuart Mill and many of his followers.69 For Mill, upholding the rule of law and treating subjects with due consideration was an indispensable element of enlightened despotism, differentiating it from illegitimate imperialism. This belief underpinned support for the campaign, in which Mill played a prominent role, to bring Governor Eyre to justice for his abuse of power in Jamaica in the 1860s.70 However, liberal imperialists were almost invariably blind to the lived experience of imperial rule, failing to recognize that routinized violence was inescapable in governing conquered spaces. While Mill became increasingly perturbed by the prevalence of colonial violence towards the end of his life, he nevertheless continued to preach the benefits of civilizing imperialism.71\n\nIn recent years, the legacy of imperial governance has shaped various aspects of world order. Imperial administrative practices forged in the early twentieth century have found a new lease of life as trusteeships and protectorates have been retooled by the United Nations in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere.72 Methods of colonial policing, meanwhile, have been widely employed in Iraq and Afghanistan, as \"counter-insurgency\" activities have been launched against resistance movements of various kinds. Western militaries are far more open about the colonial origins of such strategies\u2014forged in the battle spaces of Malaya, Algeria, and Vietnam, among others\u2014than the governments who sent them there. Indeed learning the lessons of previous colonial wars has been a central feature of the post-9\/11 national security apparatus. A further legacy of imperial governmentality can be seen in the deployment of social scientists\u2014and above all, anthropologists\u2014to the global south to provide the \"cultural knowledge\" necessary to combat insurgencies.73\n\nIdeologies of Resistance\n\nThere are as many ideologies of resistance as there are of justification and governance. Excavating them would involve working at multiple levels of analysis, and in a variety of scholarly registers, spanning what James Scott labels \"everyday forms of peasant resistance,\" through the ideas animating revolutionary movements, to the sophisticated theoretical critiques developed by philosophers.74 For the sake of convenience, we can divide such ideologies into two broad families. The first set emanates from the imperial metropole; they constitute a form of internal opposition to the practices of imperialism. The second set is produced by subjects of imperial rule. Historically the most prominent strands of metropolitan opposition focused largely (though not exclusively) on the damage that imperialism wreaks on the imperial power itself, paying scant attention to those subjected to the violence and the routine humiliation of empire. The second form of imperial resistance argument focuses largely (though not exclusively) on that violence and humiliation.\n\nThe term \"anti-imperialism\" is often misleading when applied to ideologies of resistance. Many of the arguments lumped under the umbrella do not reject imperialism in principle\u2014instead they focus on certain expressions of it. An important body of scholarship has sought to anatomize the tradition of \"liberal\" imperial critique in Western Europe, demonstrating that an array of important thinkers, including Diderot, Herder, Smith, Bentham, and Kant opposed imperial conquest.75 Edmund Burke has also been reinterpreted as an important source of anti-imperial theorizing, albeit less convincingly.76 Despite this opposition, however, it is worth bearing in mind that much \"Enlightenment\" thought was nevertheless shaped by the imperial imaginary. It is sometimes suggested that anti-imperial arguments were marginalized by the middle of the nineteenth century, supplanted by the unabashed liberal imperialism exemplified by John Stuart Mill. This is misleading, however, for the nineteenth century saw stinging attacks on empire\u2014as passionate and comprehensive as any launched by Smith, Bentham, or Kant\u2014from esteemed liberal philosophers (such as Herbert Spencer), politicians (such as Richard Cobden), and political economists (such as J. A. Hobson). Like the late eighteenth-century critics, though, they were rarely opposed to _all_ forms of empire; the \"anti-imperial\" critique only cut so deep. For example, many of them opposed the violent usurpation and rule of European powers in Asia, Africa, and Latin America while simultaneously endorsing the seizure of \"unoccupied\" lands by European settlers\u2014the kind of settler colonialism that led to the dispossession and death (sometimes through genocide) of innumerable people in Australasia and North America, among other places.77 Given the ubiquity of the imperial imaginary, it is unsurprising that arguments explicitly critical of empire were nevertheless typically underpinned by racial and civilizational assumptions.\n\nLiberalism was not an ideology confined to the metropole\u2014it was both a product and an agent of globalization. During the course of the nineteenth century it was spread throughout the world by European imperial powers, but it was then often indigenized, adapted to local circumstances and traditions to provide a repertoire of arguments that could be utilized as part of an anti-imperial struggle. As C. A. Bayly notes, the leaders of anti-imperial protests \"in places as far distant as Santiago, Cape Town and Canton invoked the notion of their 'rights' as individuals and as representatives of nations.\"78 An emergent Indian liberal tradition provided a powerful ideological resource to oppose empire.79 Modern Western empires often carried the ideological virus that eventually helped to kill them.\n\nLike liberalism, republicanism is capable of being utilized for both imperial and anti-imperial ends. Whereas republican imperialism contends that the pursuit of empire is important (or even necessary) for maintaining a virtuous political community, republican anti-imperialism asserts that the very existence of the republic is endangered by imperial activity: republican virtues are corroded by the \"spirit of conquest.\" According to republicans, Quentin Skinner argues, \"[y]ou can hope to retain your individual freedom from dependence on the will of others if and only if you live as an active citizen of a state that is fully self-governing, and is consequently neither dominating nor dominated.\" Offering a contemporary gloss on this venerable theme, Philip Pettit suggests that \"the free individual is protected against the domination of others by the undominating and undominated state.\"80 Republican anti-imperial arguments have been popular during the last couple of centuries, most notably in the United States, where the founding has been mythologized as an archetypal anti-imperial moment.81 Today they are deployed to challenge American hegemony. Chalmers Johnson, for example, laments that the American republic is being destroyed by militarism and the pursuit of global empire\u2014it faces nemesis, the product of hubris.82\n\nThe Marxist arguments I mentioned in the third section of this chapter can be seen both as attempts to explain the dynamics of imperialism and as contributions to ideologies of resistance. Marxism provided much of the intellectual impetus for anti-imperial praxis throughout the twentieth century, and variants of Marxism remain central to both anti-imperial social movements and to the politico-intellectual attack on the neoliberal order. In one of the most widely discussed recent interventions, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri argue that we are witnessing the emergence of a new form of network \"Empire.\"83 On this interpretation, Empire is \"a _decentred_ and _deterritorialising_ apparatus of rule that progressively incorporates the entire global realm within its open, expanding frontiers.\" Empire, they continue, can \"only be conceived as a universal republic, a network of powers and counterpowers structured in a boundless and inclusive architecture.\"84 (Their argument is notable among other things for underplaying the continued salience of the United States.) Traditional styles of resistance, based on nationalist forms of belonging, are as obsolete as the territorial modes of imperialism they originally challenged. Instead, Empire spawns its own agent of resistance\u2014the \"Multitude,\" the \"productive creative subjectivities of globalization.\"85 An amorphous, heterogeneous assemblage of workers, the dispossessed and the oppressed, the multitude is (somehow) supposed to offer an alternative way of being.86 Empire dialectically generates the specific mode of resistance that will dissolve or transcend it. Other Marxist theorists have recoiled from Hardt and Negri's grandiose metaphysics of resistance, and focused instead on unraveling the social dynamics of contemporary forms of neoliberal imperialism and its alternatives.87\n\nA plethora of anticolonial movements and ideologies sprang up in the world's occupied zones during the twentieth century. While impossible to do them justice in such a short space, it is worth highlighting two influential but contrasting models: the Gandhian and Fanonian. Perhaps more than any other anti-imperialist, Gandhi combined theory and practice as part of a seamless whole.88 In _Hind Swaraj_ he sketched both a stringent critique of Western civilization and elaborated an alternative nonviolent form of nationalist politics rooted in the celebration of Indian cultural practices. For Gandhi, Western civilization was poisoned by its materialism, its moral myopia, and its destructive individualism\u2014it was hypocritical to the core. Adopting a strategy of \"reversal,\" he denigrated the claims to normative superiority used by the British to legitimate their empire while affirming many of the \"traditional\" practices that they had belittled, finding in Indian civilization a productive source of ethical guidance and spiritual development.89 True (Indian) civilization embodied the virtues\u2014self-abnegation, duty, good conduct, self-control\u2014that Western culture was incapable of sustaining.90 Mixing romantic nostalgia, hard-headed political criticism and an iconoclastic account of nationalism, _Hind Swaraj_ served as a seminal (though selectively appropriated) text for the Indian Nationalist Movement and a source of inspiration for later anticolonial thinkers.\n\nFrantz Fanon, an Algerian psychiatrist and journalist, defended a radically different kind of resistance. Drawing on Marxism and psychoanalysis, his work illuminated the complex intersections of race and economic exploitation undergirding European empires.91 In his analyses of the social and racial dynamics of imperialism\u2014most famously _The Wretched of the Earth_ \u2014he emphasized its extreme violence and the damaging psychic consequences for the oppressed. Like Gandhi he dissected the hypocrisy of Western universalism, deriding its claims to superiority: \"[W]hen the native hears a speech about Western culture he pulls out his knife.\"92 Yet he diverged from Gandhi in at least two important respects. First, he was highly ambivalent about nationalism. Recognizing it as a necessary stage of anticolonial politics, he ultimately sought to transcend it, for rather than offering a vehicle to escape colonial rule, nationalism promised to reinscribe its hierarchical structures in novel forms. Fostering national consciousness served as a symbolic way for the new postcolonial elites to mask the mimetic dynamics of exploitation. The problem of oppression was not resolved by granting formal freedom, because capitalism was necessarily exploitative and freedom-constraining. This line of argument marked a powerful move, for much early anticolonial thought and practice was framed within the terms of a national imaginary. Indeed the nationalist impulse of much anticolonial activism provided one of the main targets for a later generation of postcolonial scholars.93 The second, and most controversial, way in which Fanon diverged from Gandhi was in his defense of the utility of violence in colonial contexts. Violence was an essential part of the anti-imperial struggle, necessary both to overcome the crushing power of the colonial state and to provide a form of catharsis for its victims. Liberation\u2014both political and psychological\u2014was only possible through a brutal clash of wills. It is in part through the exercise of such violence that colonial subjects can regain their agency. \"At the level of individuals, violence is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.\"94 Fanon's arguments resonated widely in a world caught in the throes of anticolonial struggle, while generating sharp criticism from those who rejected his advocacy of violence, including Hannah Arendt and Michael Walzer.95\n\nWe are left with a question about what forms of resistance are appropriate in the contemporary world. Modern history offers a range of answers, each of which finds its contemporary exponents. Liberal and republican thinkers and activists have offered forceful criticisms of imperial action, while Marxism continues to inspire social movements throughout the world, its arguments and strategies adapted to new forms of oppression. Gandhian nonviolence still finds enthusiasts.96 What of violent resistance? This is a topic that is rarely explored in contemporary political theory, yet if the current global order is a site of vast injustice, as many theorists suggest, should violence be ruled out? After all, to deny victims the right to resist their oppressors seems to conspire in their subjugation.97 The ghost of Fanon has not yet been exorcised.\n\nConclusions\n\nOne of the most famous passages written about imperialism is found in Joseph Conrad's _Heart of Darkness_ :\n\nThe conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much. What redeems it is the idea only. An idea at the back of it, not a sentimental pretence but an idea: and an unselfish belief in the idea\u2014something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to.98\n\nConrad here penetrates to the core of the issues that I have discussed in this chapter. Empire is never a \"pretty thing,\" and while no idea redeems it\u2014despite the claims of Conrad's narrator and the protestations of contemporary neo-imperialists\u2014modern imperialism cannot be understood adequately without grasping the ideas that have motivated its advocates, legitimated its practices, and animated resistance to it. We live in a world shaped by the histories, memories, and myths of past empires, and in which imperial power still determines the life chances of countless millions of people. It should remain a central topic of concern for students of political thought.\n\n1 Doyle, _Empires_ (Ithaca, 1986), 45. See also David Abernethy, _The Dynamics of Global Dominance_ (New Haven, 2000), 19.\n\n2 Michael Ignatieff, _Empire Lite_ (London, 2003), 109; Niall Ferguson, _Colossus_ (London, 2004).\n\n3 For discussions of different conceptions of (largely European) empire, see Anthony Pagden, _Lords of All the World_ (London, 1995); Patrick Wolfe, \"History and Imperialism,\" _American Historical Review_ , 102 (1997), 388\u2013420; David Armitage, ed., _Theories of Empire, 1450\u20131800_ (Aldershot, 1998); and James Muldoon, _Empire and Order_ (Basingstoke, 1999).\n\n4 Compare, for example, John Ikenberry, _Liberal Order and Imperial Ambition_ (Cambridge, 2006) and Niall Ferguson, _Empire_ (London, 2003).\n\n5 Dominic Lieven, _Empire_ (New Haven, 2002); Christopher Bayly, _The Birth of the Modern World_ (Oxford, 2004); John Darwin, _After Tamerlane_ (London, 2007); James Belich, _Replenishing the Earth_ (Oxford, 2009); Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper, _Empires in World History_ (Princeton, 2010).\n\n6 Said, _Orientalism_ (London, 1978); Said, _Culture and Imperialism_ (London, 1993); Bhabha, _The Location of Culture_ (London, 1994); Spivak, \"Can the Subaltern Speak?,\" in _Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture_ , ed. Cary Nelson and Laurence Grossberg (Urbana, 1988), 271\u2013313.\n\n7 For anthropology, see, from a long list, Eric Wolf, _Europe and the People without History_ (Berkeley, 1982); Marshall Sahlins, _How \"Natives\" Think_ (Chicago, 1995); Bernard Cohn, _Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge_ (Princeton, 1996); Ann Laura Stoler, _Along the Archival Grain_ (Princeton, 2010). For geography: Felix Driver, _Geography Militant_ (Oxford, 2001); Derek Gregory, _The Colonial Present_ (Oxford, 2004); Gerry Kearns, _Geopolitics and Empire_ (Oxford, 2009).\n\n8 Partha Chatterjee, _Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World_ (London, 1986); Dipesh Chakrabarty, _Provincializing Europe_ (Princeton, 2000); John Hobson, _The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics_ (Cambridge, 2012); cf. David Scott, _Conscripts of Modernity_.\n\n9 David Long and Brian Schmidt, eds., _Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations_ (Albany, 2005); Robert Vitalis, \"The Noble American Science of Imperial Relations and Its Laws of Race Development,\" _Comparative Studies in Society and History_ , 52 (2010), 909\u201338; Tarak Barkawi, \"Empire and Order in International Relations and Security Studies,\" in _The International Studies Encyclopaedia_ , ed. Robert Denmark (Oxford, 2010), 3:1360\u201379; Naeem Inayatullah and David Blaney, _International Relations and the Problem of Difference_ (New York, 2004). Notable exceptions include, Doyle, _Empires_ ; Alexander Motyl, _Imperial Ends_ (New York, 2001); Alexander Cooley, _Logics of Hierarchy_ (Ithaca, 2005); Daniel Nexon, _The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe_ (Princeton, 2009).\n\n10 Freeden, _Ideologies and Political Theory_ (Oxford, 1996), 6.\n\n11 Taylor, _Modern Social Imaginaries_ (Durham, NC, 2004), 23. Taylor distinguishes imaginaries from theories, the latter explicit bodies of doctrine, the former often-unstructured background features of social existence (24\u201325). In line with Manfred Steger, _The Rise of the Global Imaginary_ (Oxford, 2008), I suggest that ideologies occupy a middle position, nested within social imaginaries, but themselves (often) containing a variety of more or less distinguishable theories. Note that the categories are not mutually exclusive.\n\n12 Steger, _The Rise of the Global Imaginary_ , 6.\n\n13 Taylor, _Modern Social Imaginaries_ , 23.\n\n14 Alejandro Col\u00e1s, _Empire_ (Cambridge, 2007), 2.\n\n15 Steger, \"The Changing Face of Political Ideologies in the Global Age,\" _New Political Science_ , 31 (2009), 426.\n\n16 Taylor, _Modern Social Imaginaries_ , 12.\n\n17 Frederick Cooper and Ann Laura Stoler, \"Between Metropole and Colony,\" in _Tensions of Empire_ , ed. Cooper and Stoler (Berkeley, 1997), 4. Among historians of modern Britain there is a heated dispute about the extent to which society was (and is) shaped by empire: John Mackenzie, ed., _Imperialism and Popular Culture_ (Manchester, 1986); Catherine Hall, _Civilising Subjects_ (Cambridge, 2002); Bernard Porter, _The Absent-Minded Imperialists_ (Oxford, 2004); Andrew Thompson, _The Empire Strikes Back_ (London, 2005).\n\n18 On the dynamics of encounter, see Tzvetan Todorov, _The Conquest of America_ , trans. R. Howard (New York, 1992).\n\n19 The following discussion draws on material from Duncan Bell, \"Empire and International Relations in Victorian Political Thought,\" _Historical Journal_ , 49 (2006), 281\u201398.\n\n20 J.G.A. Pocock, _Barbarism and Religion: Vol. 4_ (Cambridge, 2005); Brett Bowden, _The Empire of Civilization_ (Chicago, 2009).\n\n21 Patrick O'Brien, \"Historiographical Traditions and Modern Imperatives for the Restoration of Global History,\" _Journal of Global History_ , 1 (2006), 18.\n\n22 Brantlinger, _Dark Vanishings_ , 1.\n\n23 For further discussion of this idea, see Duncan Bell, \"Beyond the Sovereign State,\" _Political Studies_ , 62\/2 (2014), 418\u201321.\n\n24 Hobson, _Imperialism_ (London, 1902), 157.\n\n25 Mantena, _Alibis of Empire_.\n\n26 Constant, \"The Spirit of Conquest and Usurpation and Their Relation to European Civilization\" [1814], in _Constant: Political Writings_ , ed. B. Fontana (Cambridge, 1988), 51\u2013165.\n\n27 Stephen Kern, _The Culture of Time and Space, 1880\u20131914_ (Cambridge, MA, 1983).\n\n28 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_. See also the discussion in Duncan Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_.\n\n29 I develop this argument in chapter 7.\n\n30 Anthony Pagden, _Peoples and Empires_ (London, 2001), 28.\n\n31 Andrew Fitzmaurice, _Humanism and America_ (Cambridge, 2003); Mikael H\u00f6rnqvist, _Machiavelli and Empire_ (Cambridge, 2004).\n\n32 David Armitage, _The Ideological Origins of the British Empire_ (Cambridge, 2000); Pagden, _Lords of All the World_ ; David Armitage, \"Empire and Liberty,\" in _Republicanism_ , ed. Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge, 2002), 2:29\u201347.\n\n33 Cheryl Welch, \"Colonial Violence and the Rhetoric of Evasion,\" _Political Theory_ , 31 (2003), 235\u201364.\n\n34 Mill, \"Review of Voyage aux Indes Orientales,\" by Le P. Paulin De S. Barth\u00e9lemy, _Edinburgh Review_ , 15 (1810), 371.\n\n35 Nils Gilman, _Mandarins of the Future_ (Baltimore, 2004).\n\n36 Wesley T. Wooley, _Alternatives to Anarchy_ (Bloomington, 1988); Jo-Ann Pemberton, _Global Metaphors_ (London, 2001). I discuss this topic in more detail in chapter 8.\n\n37 For the British comparison, see Ferguson, _Colossus_ ; Porter, _Empire and Superempire_ (London, 2006); for Rome, see Charles Maier, _Among Empires_ (Cambridge, MA, 2006); Margaret Malamud, _Ancient Rome and Modern America_ (Oxford, 2008).\n\n38 Most notably, Ferguson, _Empire_.\n\n39 Inconsistency is no bar to the political efficacy of an ideology; indeed there are ideological benefits to vagueness. Freeden, \"What Should the 'Political' in Political Philosophy Explore?,\" _Journal of Political Philosophy_ , 13 (2005), 113\u201334.\n\n40 Robinson and Gallagher, with Alice Denny, _Africa and the Victorians_ (London, 1961).\n\n41 Simms, _Three Victories and a Defeat_ (London, 2007).\n\n42 Burbank and Cooper, _Empires in World History_ , 219\u201351; Pagden, _Peoples and Empires_ , 103\u201377.\n\n43 J. H. Elliott, _Empires of the Atlantic World_ (London, 2006); Pagden, _Lords of All the World_.\n\n44 Gareth Stedman Jones, \"Radicalism and the Extra-European World,\" in _Victorian Visions of Global Order_ , ed. Duncan Bell (Cambridge, 2007), 186\u2013225.\n\n45 Anthony Brewer, _Marxist Theories of Imperialism_ , 2nd ed. (London, 1990); Wolfe, \"History and Imperialism.\"\n\n46 Lenin, _Imperialism_ [1917] (London, 1996). On dependency theory, see Brewer, _Marxist Theories of Imperialism_ , 136\u201398.\n\n47 On Hobson's political economy of empire, see especially Peter Cain, _Hobson and Imperialism_ (Oxford, 2002); Gregory Claeys, _Imperial Sceptics_ (Cambridge, 2010).\n\n48 Cain, \"Empire and the Languages of Character and Virtue in Later Victorian and Edwardian Britain,\" _Modern Intellectual History_ , 4 (2007), 249\u201373.\n\n49 Mill, _Considerations on Representative Government_ [1861], in _Collected Works_ , ed. J. Robson (Toronto, 1977), vol. 18, ch. 18.\n\n50 Mill, _On Liberty_ [1859], _Collected Works_ (Toronto, 1977), 18:224; Mazzini, \"Principles of International Politics\" [1871], in _Cosmopolitanism and Nations_ , ed. Stefano Recchia and Nadia Urbinati (Princeton, 2009), 238.\n\n51 Chamberlain, \"The True Conception of the Empire,\" 2:3.\n\n52 For more on Froude's imperial thought, see chapter 12.\n\n53 Karma Nabulsi, _Traditions of War_ , 126.\n\n54 Ibid., 110\u201319.\n\n55 Henley, \"Epilogue\" [1897], in _Poems_ (London, 1926), 241.\n\n56 James Scott, _Seeing like a State_ (London, 1998); Scott, _The Art of Not Being Governed_ (New Haven, 2009). The work of Michel Foucault has proven especially insightful in delineating the various modulations of power and \"governmentality\" involved in imperial subjugation. See, for prominent examples, Timothy Mitchell, _Colonising Egypt_ (Berkeley, 1991); Mitchell, _Rule of Experts_ (Berkeley, 2002); and Ann Laura Stoler, _Race and the Education of Desire_ (Durham, NC, 1995).\n\n57 On imperial dreaming, see Erik Linstrum, \"The Politics of Psychology in the British Empire, 1898\u20131960,\" _Past & Present_, 215 (2012), 214\u201333.\n\n58 Bernard Cohn, _Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge_ ; Susan Bayly, _Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age_ (Cambridge, 1999); Nicholas Dirks, _Castes of Mind_ (Princeton, 2001).\n\n59 Robinson and Gallagher, \"The Imperialism of Free Trade,\" _Economic History Review_ , 6 (1953), 13.\n\n60 Davis, _Late Victorian Holocausts_ (London, 2003).\n\n61 David Harvey, _The New Imperialism_ (Oxford, 2003); Harvey, _A Brief History of Neoliberalism_ (Oxford, 2005); Alex Callinicos, _Imperialism and the Global Political Economy_ (Cambridge, 2009).\n\n62 Lynn Zastoupil and Martin Moir, eds., _The Great Indian Education Debate_ (London, 1999).\n\n63 Macaulay, \"Minute of 2 February 1835 on Indian Education\" [1835], in _Macaulay, Prose and Poetry_ , ed. G. M. Young (Cambridge, MA, 1957), 721.\n\n64 Mantena, _Alibis of Empire_ , 2. The shift in India is traced in Thomas Metcalf, _Ideologies of the Raj_. Again highlighting the interpenetration between the modern social sciences and empire, Mantena shows how the origins of modern social theory were inflected with imperial concerns, not least through the development of the category of \"traditional society.\"\n\n65 Lorenzo Veracini, _Settler Colonialism_ (Basingstoke, 2010).\n\n66 Mill, _Considerations on Representative Government, Collected Works_ , 19:562.\n\n67 James Belich, _Replenishing the Earth_ , argues that the early nineteenth century saw a \"Settler Revolution\" that led to the explosive settlement of two related geo-economic regions, the \"American West\" and the \"British West\" (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa). This revolution cemented the rise of the \"Anglo-world,\" which continues to exert great power today. For a theoretical analysis of the racial-political formation, see Srdjan Vucetic, _The Anglosphere_ (Stanford, 2011).\n\n68 Tocqueville, \"Essay on Algeria (October 1841),\" in _Writings on Empire and Slavery_ , ed. J. Pitts (Baltimore, 2001), 83, 70.\n\n69 Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_.\n\n70 Rande Kostal, _A Jurisprudence of Power_ (Oxford, 2005).\n\n71 I trace Mill's shift in attitude in chapter 9.\n\n72 William Bain, _Between Anarchy and Society_ (Oxford, 2003); James Mayall and Ricardo Soares de Oliveira, eds., _The New Protectorates_ (London, 2011).\n\n73 John Kelly, ed., _Anthropology and Global Counterinsurgency_ (Chicago, 2010).\n\n74 Scott, _Weapons of the Weak_ (New Haven, 1985); Scott, _Domination and the Arts of Resistance_ (New Haven, 1990).\n\n75 Sankar Muthu, _Enlightenment against Empire_ (Princeton, 2003); Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_.\n\n76 See chapter 2 for further discussion of this line of interpretation. It is convincingly challenged in Daniel O'Neill, _Edmund Burke and the Conservative Logic of Empire_ (Berkeley, 2016).\n\n77 Dirk A. Moses, ed., _Genocide and Settler Society_ (New York, 2004); Moses, _Empire, Colony, Genocide_ (New York, 2008).\n\n78 Bayly, \"European Political Thought and the Wider World during the Nineteenth Century,\" in _The Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Political Thought_ , ed. Gregory Claeys and Gareth Stedman Jones (Cambridge, 2011), 835; Christian Reus-Smit, \"Struggles for Individual Rights and the Expansion of the International System,\" _International Organization_ , 65 (2011), 207\u201342.\n\n79 C. A. Bayly, _Recovering Liberties_ (Cambridge, 2012).\n\n80 Skinner, \"On the Slogans of Republican Political Theory,\" _European Journal of Political Theory_ , 9 (2010), 100; Pettit, \"A Republican Law of Peoples,\" _European Journal of Political Theory_ , 9 (2010), 77.\n\n81 David Mayers, _Dissenting Voices in America's Rise to Power_ (Cambridge, 2007). It was also present in Victorian Britain. See, for example, Stuart Jones's account of Frederic Harrison's republicanism, in \"The Victorian Lexicon of Evil,\" in _Evil, Barbarism and Empire_ , ed. Tom Cook, Rebecca Gill, and Bertrand Taithe (Basingstoke, 2011), 126\u201343. On Harrison, see chapter 2.\n\n82 Johnson, _Nemesis_ (New York, 2007).\n\n83 Hardt and Negri, _Empire_ (Cambridge, 2000); _Multitude_ (Cambridge, 2004).\n\n84 Hardt and Negri, _Empire_ , xii, 166.\n\n85 Ibid., 60.\n\n86 Hardt and Negri, _Multitude_.\n\n87 Harvey, _The New Imperialism_ ; Alexander Anievas, ed., _Marxism and World Politics_ (London, 2010).\n\n88 Bhikhu Parekh, _Gandhi's Political Philosophy_ (London, 1989); Steger, _Gandhi's Dilemma_ (Basingstoke, 2000); Karuna Mantena, \"Another Realism,\" _American Political Science Review_ , 106\/2 (2012), 455\u201370; Anthony Parel, _Gandhi's Philosophy and the Quest for Harmony_ (Cambridge, 2006).\n\n89 On anticolonial strategies of reversal, see Margaret Kohn and Keally McBride, _Political Theories of Decolonization_ (Oxford, 2011). \"Reversal describes attempts to undermine power relations by valorizing the cultural markers that the colonial system had denigrated as inferior.\"\n\n90 Gandhi, _Hind Swaraj and Other Writings_ [1909], ed. Anthony Parel (Cambridge, 1997), 67\u201368.\n\n91 Nigel Gibson, _Fanon_ (Cambridge, 2003).\n\n92 Fanon, _The Wretched of the Earth_ (London, 2001), 43.\n\n93 Chatterjee, _Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World_.\n\n94 Fanon, _The Wretched of the Earth_ , 74.\n\n95 Arendt, _On Violence_ (New York, 1970); Walzer, _Just and Unjust Wars_ (London, 1978), 204\u20136.\n\n96 See, for example, James Tully, _Public Philosophy in a New Key_ , 2 vols. (Cambridge, 2008).\n\n97 For further discussion, see Duncan Bell, \"To Act Otherwise,\" in _On Global Citizenship_ , ed. David Owen (Bloomsbury, 2014), 181\u2013207.\n\n98 Conrad, _Heart of Darkness_ , ed. Ross Murfin, 2nd ed. (London, 1996), 21.\nPART II\n\nThemes\nCHAPTER 5\n\nEscape Velocity\n\nAncient History and the Empire of Time\n\nFor a long time the greatness of the ancient world lay with an oppressive weight like an incubus upon the moderns.1\n\n\u2014J. R. SEELEY\n\n[T]here exists, no doubt, a prevalent feeling, that, in a certain sense, the doom of Athens is already ours.2\n\n\u2014HERMAN MERIVALE\n\nObsessed with decoding historical experience, the Victorians endlessly scoured the past for lessons about how best to comprehend and navigate their world. In his inaugural lecture at Cambridge in 1895, Lord Acton observed that the nineteenth century was saturated with \"historic ways of thought,\" which had come to be given the \"depressing names\" of \"historicism or historical-mindedness.\" Such was the power exerted by the injunction to seek knowledge and guidance from the annals of history that the constitutional theorist A. V. Dicey once complained that it \"was far better, as things now stand, to be charged with heresy, than to fall under the suspicion of lacking historical-mindedness, or of questioning the universal validity of the historical method.\"3 The imaginative construal of empire was no exception to this ubiquitous cultural practice. Debates over imperial order were inflected by two conflicting narratives of historical time, one cyclical, the other progressive.4 According to the former, empires followed a predetermined trajectory: they rose, they declined, and ultimately they fell. Counseling vigilance, Goldwin Smith, one time Regius Professor of History at Oxford, warned in the late 1870s that the \"decay of Empires is the theme of history.\"5 According to the other conception, the nineteenth century was an age of progress, of constant human improvement, with the British imperial state in the vanguard. The \"movement of humanity is not, as the ancients fancied, in cycles,\" declared the omnicompetent scholar-statesman James Bryce, \"but shows a sustained, though often interrupted, progress.\"6 Imperial discourse was shaped by an unremitting negotiation between the two positions, each of which can be seen as different modulations of historicism. Although they diverged over how the past informed the present, both posited historical experience as central to understanding contemporary politics. This was a clash of historical epistemologies, of what kind of knowledge could be ascertained from historical reflection. The progressivist view of empire was broadly Whiggish, divining in the evolution of ideas and institutions the teleological unfolding of cherished principles (most often liberty).7 The cyclical view encoded a model of eternal return, of repetition and recurrence, in which the destiny of the empire could be discerned by grasping the shape of the past.\n\nWhile belief in progress suffused Victorian political consciousness, the trope of proleptic decline supplied critics of empire with powerful ammunition. It implied that imperial orders always contained the seeds of their own destruction. Hence Smith's argument that in light of historical experience the British \"policy of aggrandizement\" was necessarily ruinous.8 However, it is important to distinguish between two different conceptions of imperial cyclicality, one universal, the other more institutionally specific. The universal variant, which could draw on Polybian archetypes or Christian providentialism, viewed all human institutions\u2014indeed all life\u2014as subject to the same temporal dynamics. Synecdochic exemplars, empires were an instance of a general historical pattern. While unusual in Victorian Britain, this position found eloquent defenders among liberal Anglican historians, including Thomas Arnold, though it was also articulated in other idioms, such as the modified classical republicanism of the historian J. A. Froude. The history of all living things, including commonwealths, Froude proclaimed in the late 1870s, was defined by \"recurring stages of growth and transformation and decay,\" and as such it was imperative to recognize the ephemeral quality of imperial governance.9 Despite its historical determinism, the universalist account allowed scope for human agency: impossible to defeat, historical fate could at least be deferred. \"The life of a nation, like the life of a man, may be prolonged in honour into the fullness of its time, or it may perish prematurely, for want of guidance, by violence or internal disorders.\"10 Knowledge of history could guide the wise statesman in battling time. The more popular cyclical vision regarded empire as atypical, a pathological form of political association fated to collapse due to its inherent weaknesses. Unlike the universal account, this view was compatible with the widespread Victorian belief in the sustained progressive development of humanity. It was deployed to characterize empire as an _untimely_ aberration, flagrantly rejecting the spirit of the age.\n\nMost imperialists maintained that the British empire was somehow exempt from historical precedent. Forestalling the cycle of imperial temporality, progress guaranteed an _escape velocity_ , the ability to break free from the gravitational pull of imperial declension. In what follows I explore two broad variations that were articulated across the human sciences and in public debate, focusing in particular on the writings of historians. In the first, the modern British empire was figured as uniquely progressive, as capable\u2014either in actuality or _in potentia_ \u2014of avoiding the social, economic, and political dynamics that had annihilated all previous specimens. This argument was most frequently employed in relation to India. The other strategy was to insist that the empire (or a part of it) was not really an empire at all, but rather a new form of political order that could circumvent the entropic degeneration of traditional imperial forms. To think otherwise was to make a category mistake. This argument was often applied to Britain and its settler colonies from the 1870s onwards. \"Greater Britain,\" as the settler colonial assemblage was often termed, could attain permanence, a kind of historical grace.\n\nThe Time of Empire: Narratives of Decline and Fall\n\nThe \"English,\" J. R. Seeley observed in 1880, \"guide ourselves in the great political questions by great historical precedents.\"11 Understandings of the past played a formative role in the construction, elaboration, and defense of political argument in Victorian Britain, and it was widely assumed that a proper appreciation of the vicissitudes of history could impart wisdom and sound judgment. \"History ought surely in some degree... anticipate the lessons of time,\" Seeley declared in _The Expansion of England_ , one of the key textbooks of the Victorian empire, and it was necessary to study it so that \"we may be wise before the event.\"12 Some epochs of history were far more important than others. The stories of Greece and Rome provided a common frame of reference, a claim of authority, and a productive repertoire of images and arguments for a classically educated elite to interpret contemporary culture and politics, and they played a privileged role in thinking about the nature of imperial rule.13 Yet the Victorians disagreed profoundly over which particular lessons to draw from which particular pasts, and the meaning of history was a topic of intense ideological contestation.\n\nThey inherited\u2014and sought to recalibrate or transvalue\u2014one of the most venerable Western accounts of historical temporality. The _Imperium romanum_ , Anthony Pagden reminds us, \"has always had a unique place in the political imagination of western Europe,\" infusing visions of self, society, state, and empire, and it supplied the \"ideologies of the colonial systems of Spain, Britain, and France with the language and political models they required.\"14 The Romans had bequeathed modern Europeans an evocative metanarrative of self-dissolution: the drive for expansion corrupted the polity and inevitably led to disaster. The _topos_ of decline and fall had for centuries shaped understandings of empire and the principles underlying historical development. Drawing on the history of Rome, as mediated by Sallust and Polybius, Machiavelli had argued in his _Discourses on Livy_ that states would inexorably seek to expand, but that in so doing would forfeit their liberty before collapsing under the moral and constitutional strain of the quest for _grandezza_.15 Subsequent critics of imperialism, including Montesquieu, Hume, Kant, Robertson, and Constant, likewise pointed to the moral and physical collapse of Rome to warn of a comparable fate for those who pursued rapacious military policies. As Hume once wrote, \"[t]here seems to be a Natural Course of Things, which brings on the Destruction of great Empires.\"16 Edward Gibbon's _History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ imprinted the narrative deeply into British historical consciousness: the disintegration of Rome \"was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness.\"17 In such accounts, the imperial dynamic was naturalized, and thus posited as unchanging, indelible, eternal. The critique of empire propagated by the \"country party\" Whigs during the eighteenth century warned about the corruption that destroyed Rome and threatened Britain as it carved out an empire in South Asia and the Caribbean.18 Alive to this classical precedent, British imperial ideologists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had routinely sought to avoid the fate of Rome by emphasizing the exceptional character\u2014commercial, maritime, and free\u2014of their new empire in North America.19 The narrative likewise exercised the imagination of both scholars and the political elite during the Victorian age. According to Seeley, the most significant imperial thinker of the period,\n\nEvery historical student knows that it was the incubus of the Empire which destroyed liberty at Rome. Those old civic institutions, which had nursed Roman greatness and to which Rome owed all the civilisation which she had to transmit to the countries of the West, had to be given up as a condition of transmitting it. She had to adopt an organisation of, comparatively, a low type. Her civilisation, when she transmitted it, was already in decay.20\n\nThe narrative of decline and fall, Julia Hell argues, is \"always already part of all acts of imperial mimesis, of their imaginaries and specific articulations of space and time.\"21 An inescapable bequest, and an epistemic burden, it helped to set the coordinates linking past, present, and possible futures. The premonition of the fall, of earthly annihilation, was etched into the iconographic order of empire, the reservoir of images and symbols that animated Victorian debate on the subject.22 It was captured by Kipling in his melancholy prayer-poem \"Recessional,\" published to mark Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897.\n\nFar called, our navies melt away;\n\nOn dune and headland sinks the fire\n\nLo, all our pomp of yesterday\n\nIs one with Nineveh and Tyre\n\nKipling's plaintive call to his compatriots was stark, even desperate: \"Lest we forget\u2014lest we forget!\"23 He later wrote that he had been \"scared\" by the national optimism accompanying the royal celebrations, and that he composed the poem as a \" _nuzzur-wattu_ ,\" \"an averter of the evil eye.\"24 But perhaps the most famous representation of declension was concocted by Macaulay in his depiction of the \"New Zealander.\" In a review of Ranke's _The Ecclesiastical and Political History of the Popes of Rome_ , he had marveled at the longevity of the Catholic Church, its centuries of uninterrupted existence. In comparison, other institutions seemed fragile, ephemeral, transient. \"She [the Church] may still exist in undimmed vigor when some traveler from New Zealand shall, in the midst of the vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruin of St. Pauls.\"25 Macaulay was utilizing a familiar rhetorical device, imagining the future ruins of the metropolis in order to place the contemporary within a historical frame defined by the rise and fall of civilizations. His own rendition identified early Victorian Britain with both the magnificence of Rome and its eventual fate.26 Thirty years later the monitory image was given haunting pictorial form in an engraving by Gustave Dore, with the \"tourist New Zealander upon the broken parapets, contemplating something matching\u2014the glory that was Greece\u2014the grandeur that was Rome.\"27 The New Zealander was the most famous Victorian example of a \"scopic scenario,\" an image that \"depicts the imperial subject contemplating the ruins of empire\" while simultaneously rendering the \"trope of decline and fall visible.\"28 By the mid-1890s the positivist Frederic Harrison could record that it had \"become a proverb, and is repeated daily by men who never heard of Macaulay, much less of von Ranke.\"29\n\nThe sepulchral voyager was put to very different ideological uses. In his unpublished _The New Zealander_ , penned as a social critique in 1855\u201356, Anthony Trollope admitted that the British empire would eventually decline and fall but nevertheless asserted that it was possible to \"postpone the coming of the New Zealander\" through a combination of moderate reform and a return to traditional values.30 Dissolution could be deferred by elevating political complacency to a principle. After inspecting the admirable sanitation facilities in New Zealand, Froude proffered a quotidian rejoinder to Macaulay's flamboyant imperial metaphysics, admitting that \"I have come to believe in that New Zealander since I have seen the country.\"31 Hostile to sociopolitical developments in Britain, he saw the future (or at least better toilet facilities) being constructed on the colonial periphery. Goldwin Smith invoked the time-traveler to reach a different conclusion. He drew a clear distinction between Britain and its empire, the former a site of productive energy, the latter destined to follow the pattern of all history. \"There is no reason why British virtue, energy, and industry should not continue as they are, or increase with the lapse of time; and therefore, there is no reason why the New Zealander should ever moralize over the ruins of the British nation; but the man of the future, whoever he may be, is pretty sure one day to moralize over the ruins of the British Empire.\" The lesson was clear: \"In England the strength of England lies.\"32 Joseph Chamberlain, the radical Secretary of State for the Colonies, dismissed the pessimism evoked by the image, vowing that the British empire was confidently embarked on a progressive trajectory. \"I do not ask you to anticipate with Lord Macaulay the time when the New Zealander will come here to gaze upon the ruins of a great dead city. There are in our present condition no visible signs of decrepitude and decay.\"33 In an equally bombastic vein Arthur Conan Doyle, fabulator of Sherlock Homes and passionate imperialist, observed in his justificatory account of the South African War that Macaulay, \"in his wildest dream of the future of the much-quoted New Zealander,\" never envisaged soldiers from that distant land coming to the relief of British forces in a conflict across the ocean.34 The New Zealander, then, did not travel the world to sketch the ruin of empire, but rather to help defend it against the very forces of dissolution that the image encoded. Macaulay's icon, became a fulcrum for contesting visions of the future.\n\nThe combination of narrative simplicity and analytical ambiguity helps explain the powerful resonance of the Roman plotline. At least three distinct (though often overlapping) interpretations of decline and fall percolated through Victorian political culture. First, it was frequently argued that Rome had collapsed principally as a result of the corrupting power of luxury, with moral debilitation issuing in political cataclysm. Luxury, it was thought, degraded both the political morality of the governing class and eroded the manly virtues of the populace. This account dominated both scholarly interpretation and vernacular renditions for much of the century.35 Froude offered a suggestive rendition of the story. \"Virtue and truth produced strength, strength dominion, dominion riches, riches luxury, and luxury weakness and collapse\u2014a fatal sequence repeated so often.\"36 It was favored by radical critics of empire who stressed the potential dangers of aristocratic nabobs, habituated to wielding despotic power, returning from colonial service and threatening British political virtue. \"Is it not just possible,\" asked Richard Cobden in 1860, \"that we may become corrupted at home by the reaction of arbitrary political maxims in the East upon our domestic politics, just as Greece and Rome were demoralized by their contact with Asia?\"37 Goldwin Smith worried about the political influence that wealthy Anglo-Indians might wield on their return to Britain. The danger to British national identity was clear: \"No political character could be stronger or more confirmed than that of the Roman, yet by Empire it was radically changed.\"38 Marshaling the authority of Gibbon (while ignoring his conclusions), Herbert Spencer claimed that \"in a conspicuous manner Rome shows how... a society which enslaves other societies enslaves itself.\" Extirpating the freedom of conquered peoples invariably corroded the freedom of the conquerors. \"And now what is the lesson?\" he demanded. \"Is it that in our own case Imperialism and Slavery, everywhere else and at all times united, are not to be united?\" Unfortunately, he complained, \"Most will say Yes.\"39 In his seminal _Imperialism: A Study_ , published as war in South Africa raged, the heterodox political economist J. A. Hobson answered Cobden's question by insisting that such corruption was \"inevitable.\" It is, he averred, \"a nemesis of Imperialism that the arts and crafts of tyranny, acquired and exercised in our unfree Empire, should be turned against our liberties at home.\"40 But the trope could also be deployed by advocates of imperialism, as both warning and call to action. In 1885 Montagu Burrows, Professor of History at Oxford, counseled that the \"danger of our not perceiving our real position is exactly the same as was experienced by the old Roman Empire. The decay of the center gradually makes its way to the extremities; and these drop off, one by one, till the seat of the Empire itself, unprotected and forlorn, goes down in the general crash.\"41 It could likewise serve as a salutary admonition that the problem was not empire itself but \"imperialism\"\u2014a militant, territorially-rapacious creed.42 With Disraeli in mind, Gladstone feared that like Rome, \"England, which has grown so great, may easily become little; through the effeminate selfishness of luxurious living; through neglecting realities at home to amuse herself everywhere else in stalking phantoms.\"43 Available to both critics of empire and its supporters, the trope was politically indeterminate.\n\nA second account blamed excessive imperial ambition. In the late 1870s Robert Lowe, a leading British liberal politician, suggested that the Roman precedent, and in particular the transition from the Republic to the Empire, taught important lessons. \"This signal and prerogative instance, to which it would be easy to add many others, seems to show that when a nation has attained a certain amount of freedom and self-government, no step can be more fatal than a career of successful conquests.\"44 \"I am amused at the people who call themselves Imperialists,\" wrote William Harcourt, another eminent liberal politician, for \"I always remember the first pages in Gibbon on the 'moderation of Augustus,' in which he shows how for the first two centuries of the greatest and wisest Empire that ever existed the cardinal principle was the non-extension of Empire, and whenever it was departed from they came to grief.\"45 Although acknowledging that \"moral decay\" engendered by luxury had played a role in the collapse of Rome, Seeley argued that the main problem was the lack of military manpower caused by over-ambitious expansion, a point reiterated by Herbert Samuel, \"new liberal\" thinker and later senior politician. Admitting that history demonstrated every previous empire had \"decayed and was dissolved,\" Samuel drew the lesson that imperial consolidation was preferable to further territorial conquest. \"Expansion that is too rapid and too wide may open the door to all three of the causes which, singly or in combination, have brought the downfall of the empires that have preceded\u2014attack from without, revolt from within, disunion and weakness at the centre.\" Benjamin Franklin, he continued,\n\n... in one of the darkest times of our history, offered to furnish Gibbon with materials for a new work, on the \"Decline and Fall of the British Empire.\" Four generations have passed since then, and events have not given room for a book on that subject. But if in a later day some historian is called upon to take up this melancholy task, it may well be that he would have to write down an excess of ambition as the chief cause of decay, and to point out that the most fatal danger which had faced the British Empire had been an over-fervent imperialism among the British people.46\n\nFinally, it was argued that the over-centralization of Roman institutions, and the concentration of power in the hands of the few, led to eventual collapse. This had been a major theme in Montesquieu's pioneering _Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline_ (1734). The liberal historian and politician John Morley picked up the thread, arguing that the idea of imperial federation, popular in the 1880s and 1890s, presupposed the centralization that had destroyed the Roman Empire, and that as a consequence it represented a grave threat to British political liberty.47 Hobson too ascribed the fall of Rome to over-centralization, asserting that it conveyed \"in brief the real essence of Imperialism,\" its inescapable dynamic.48 Economic \"parasitism\" by the political elite led to ever-increasing centralization of the \"instruments of government,\" immiserating the populace and breeding the seeds of dissent and rebellion. In _Imperium et Libertas_ (1901) Bernard Holland developed another variation on the theme. \"The Roman Empire perished not from over-greatness but from over-centralization, and the destruction of the provinces in favour of the metropolis.\" Yet he drew a different conclusion from Hobson: the \"failure of the Roman experiment does not prove that an empire which avoided this peril might not beneficially endure for a much longer period.\"49 Imperial nemesis could be evaded.\n\nThe Greek model of colonization presented an alternative conception of political termination. \"The ancient Greek city,\" explained Holland, \"when its population became too large for its rocky island or edge of mainland shore, sent out a colony as a beehive sends out a swarm. The colonists took possession of a new territory and there built a city, maintaining a pious regard, except when interests clashed, for the Mother City, but not a true political connection.\" This system, noted Seeley, \"gives complete independence to the colony, but binds it in perpetual alliance.\"50 It allowed for successful expansion without the internally corrosive dynamics of empire. This prospect appealed to many early Victorians, and in particular those associated with the \"colonial reform\" movement, prominent from the 1820s until the 1840s. Indeed in a survey written in 1856 Arthur Mills observed that the \"model of Colonial policy most frequently and prominently exhibited for the emulation of modern States is that of Greece.\"51 The Roman alternative was, James Mill had argued in 1823, \"so very defective,\" for in it the \"Few\" dominated the \"Many\" to such an extent that expansion was pursued only in the interests of the aristocratic class. Mill and assorted radical \"reformers\" thus argued that the Greek style of colonization, premised on peopling distant lands and establishing self-governing communities with strong affective ties to the \"mother country,\" offered a more suitable model to emulate\u2014although in a significant departure from the ancient precedent they were generally loathe to demand immediate independence for the colonies.52 In the 1840s John Stuart Mill eulogized the Greek colonies for \"flourishing so rapidly and so wonderfully\" and for guaranteeing freedom, order, and progress, and he argued that they served as a template for British colonization.53 The philosophic radical MP J. A. Roebuck sang a similar tune. \"Their colonies were very unlike those of the Roman,\" and had far more in common with modern British experience. In particular, the Greeks were bound by a \"gentle, kindly tie\" between the \"mother city\" and her colonial offspring, of the type \"we also wish to exist, and we endeavour to create.\"54 The reformers drew inspiration from the classics even as they made arguments structured by post-Smithian political economy and Benthamite utilitarianism.\n\nThe popularity of the Greek model of colonial independence waned from the 1870s onwards as advocates of Greater Britain sought to forge a _permanent_ political union between Britain and the settler colonies. For the pugnacious historian E. A. Freeman\u2014the subject of chapter 13\u2014this unionist vision clashed disastrously with a proper understanding of colonization. He argued that although the British colonies had much in common with their esteemed Greek predecessors, there was one crucial difference: they were not _ab initio_ independent. Under the Greek system, the \"metropolis claimed at most a certain filial respect, a kind of religious reverence, which was for the most part freely given,\" whereas the British settler colonies, despite their high degree of internal self-government, were nevertheless ultimately subject to the sovereignty of the Crown. Thus arguments propounding an indissoluble Greater Britain were at once conceptually flawed and historically na\u00efve. \"Let us at least remember that what is proposed is unlike anything that ever happened in the world before.\"55 This was a damning verdict from a man so sensitive to the moral and practical value of precedent, and it is little surprise that he promoted independence for the settler colonies. In an obituary note about his friend, Bryce observed that \"the analogy of the Greek colonies\" helped motivate Freeman's scathing criticisms of the imperial unionists, for \"[h]e appeared to think that the precedent of those settlements showed the true and proper relation between a 'metropolis' and her colonies to be not one of political interdependence, but of cordial friendship and a disposition to render help, nothing more.\"56 History could not be ignored.\n\nBy the turn of the twentieth century, classical accounts of imperial corruption had been reinforced by anxieties about national and racial degeneration underpinned by a range of new scientific discourses.57 In 1908 the former Prime Minister, Arthur Balfour, argued that many political communities, including Rome, were corrupted by mysterious bouts of decadence, but that through a combination of science and industry the British empire could probably escape this fate.58 He thus sought to neutralize more pessimistic renderings of the future. Perhaps the most (in)famous had been elaborated by the Australian historian and radical politician C. H. Pearson in his best-selling _National Life and Character_ (1894). Although it discussed the demise of Rome in some detail, the text focused principally on the contemporary exhaustion of political space, when little territory was left for the \"higher races\" to colonize.59 Only the year before, Frederick Jackson Turner had warned that the closing of the American frontier would dissipate the creative energies of American democracy.60 Pearson predicted a similar process writ global, as the Western empires, Britain foremost among them, would be undermined by a lethal combination of their own success in conquering territory and the pernicious domestic consequences of the emerging \"stationary\" socialist state. After gifting civilization to the rest of the world, the imperial powers would be thrown back onto their own continent by ungrateful subjects. Torpor, luxury, and decline would follow. This account both drew on and subverted progessivist justifications of empire. While Pearson viewed empire as an agent of improvement, the combination of imperial blowback and the exhaustion of planetary space meant that the future looked grim. Implicit in this argument were two claims. First, that other, perhaps less enlightened, forms of empire might be capable of reaching escape velocity, and second, that if only new spaces were discovered the restless dynamism of empire could be effectively channeled in their direction. It was this kind of thought, perhaps, that found expression in Cecil Rhodes's wistful proclamation that he would annex the planets if he could.61\n\nThe Victorians, then, absorbed two contrasting lessons from their incessant meditations on the history of empire, ancient and modern. Inherited from centuries of European political thought, the first insisted that history demonstrated the inevitability of imperial decline and fall. Foretelling a future of retreat and weakness, it implied that sooner or later the British empire would dissolve, and with it the claims of the British to world-historical significance. The other lesson, more popular and widely disseminated, allowed for the possibility of imperial redemption. Decline was _conceivable_ but not _inevitable_ ; the future was left open. Human choice\u2014political decision\u2014was thus accorded a central role, one that imperialists never tired of emphasizing. Though haunted by the image of failure, they were rarely fatalists.\n\nHarnessing the Time Spirit: On Imperial Progress\n\nReflecting on his long life, Morley remarked that the nineteenth century had seen belief in progress emerge as the \"basis of social thought,\" supplanting religion as the \"inspiring, guiding, and testing power over social action.\" Progress, he mused, could be seen as the \"Time Spirit\" of the modern world.62 Soon after he penned those words the first English-language history of the idea appeared. Its author, J. B. Bury, a prodigiously gifted historian and classicist, declared that progress was the \"animating and controlling idea of western civilization.\" He defined it in appropriately capacious terms as the view that \"civilization has moved, is moving, and will move, in a desirable direction,\" where the desire was identified with increased human happiness. Like Morley he argued that it had displaced religion as a source of meaning: \"The fate of an ultimate happy state on this planet, to be enjoyed for future generations, has replaced, as a social power, the hope of felicity in another world.\"63 On this account, the death of God was a precondition for the emergence of the idea of progress, since an active, world-shaping sense of human agency needed to escape the sociopolitical fatalism inculcated by religion.\n\nWhile Bury suggested that the idea of progress was predicated on the renunciation of \"active\" providentialism, it came in many flavors\u2014theological, agnostic, and secular\u2014during the Victorian age. Ubiquitous and multivalent, belief in progress structured social and political thought in assorted ways. It was typically assumed to encompass material, institutional, and moral dimensions. Materially, it was indexed by extraordinary advances in science and technology, which transformed the conditions of both social existence and political association. \"[I]n every science which deserves the name,\" Macaulay marveled, \"immense improvement may be expected.\" In institutional terms it was linked primarily to the development of individual freedom and representative government. Thus Macaulay could declaim that the history of England \"is emphatically the history of progress. It is the history of a constant movement of the public mind, of a constant change in the institutions of a great society.\"64 And finally, it encoded the idea that these new developments were altering the manners and _moeurs_ \u2014\"character,\" in Victorian nomenclature\u2014of the people.65 Confidence in the unilinear improvement of society reached its peak in the mid-Victorian era, when the various elements of progress were often read as mutually reinforcing. Many late Victorians were rather less sanguine, believing that they did not necessarily cohere or even that they conflicted. It was a common apprehension, for example, that the relentless development of science and technology was eroding public morality, advances in one domain leading to regress in another. The impact of Darwinism, disillusionment with political reform, the dizzying tempo of social life, an increasingly tense geopolitical environment, fear of urban degeneration: all contributed to the emergence of a more melancholy attitude. Most late Victorian thinkers, however, continued to believe in the possibility of progress, of constant human improvement, even as they expressed skepticism about its inevitability.\n\nThroughout this shift in temper the empire remained a space for the projection of fantasies about progressive development. This followed from the way in which progress was figured as the advance of civilization. The great French historian Francois Guizot had remarked in his influential _General History of Civilization in Europe_ that the \"first idea comprised in the word _civilization_... is the notion of progress, of development. It calls up within us the notion of a people advancing, of a people in a course of improvement and melioration.\"66 The Victorians tended to concur. Imperialists divided the world into those civilized spaces capable of self-sustaining progress (with Britain in the vanguard) and those in which progress had stalled (such as India) or had never even begun (including most of Africa). The empire was typically figured as an engine of civilization, a means to bring enlightenment to the backward spaces of the earth. Even if progress was slowing or even under threat in the \"mother country,\" there was still work to be done\u2014a duty to be fulfilled\u2014civilizing the rest of the world. Such was the conceit of many British imperialists. The most common proposition for escaping the cycle of rise and decline, then, was to insist that the British imperial model was itself uniquely progressive, a global agent of human advance. Past experience meant nothing, except perhaps as a hortatory reminder about what not to do. Liberal empire was simultaneously a cause and a consequence of civilizational progress.\n\nArguing that confidence in imperial progress was undercut by the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857 and successive moments of resistance, Karuna Mantena has recently questioned the durability of this civilizational justification of imperial rule. On this account, crisis and progress were figured as irreconcilable, and a markedly different \"culturalist\" narrative emerged, chiefly under the influence of the eminent comparativist Henry Maine. Emphasizing the fragility of local communities and the sheer difficulty of transforming colonized spaces in the image of liberal modernity, it provided Maine and his followers with an \"alibi\" for the prolongation of empire on the grounds that Western intervention had so weakened traditional forms of life that withdrawal would herald disaster.67 Valuable as it is in delineating Maine's position, this argument underestimates the continuities in British imperial discourse.68 As I argued in chapter 2, the civilizing vision of empire remained a staple of British imperial ideology, even its core feature, throughout the 1890s and deep into the twentieth century. In an address to the Imperial Institute in 1892, the historian W.E.H. Lecky sketched a characteristically Whiggish paean to the glories of imperial progress.\n\nRemember what India had been for countless ages before the establishment of British rule. Think of its endless wars of race and creed, its savage oppressions, its fierce anarchies, its barbarous customs, and then consider what it is to have established for some many years over the vast space from the Himalayas to Cape Comorin a reign of perfect peace; to have conferred upon more than 250 millions of the human race perfect religious freedom, perfect security of life, liberty and property; to have planted in the midst of these teeming multitudes a strong central government, enlightened by the best knowledge of Western Europe, and steadily occupied in preventing famine, alleviating disease, extirpating savage customs, multiplying the agencies of civilization and progress.69\n\nW. T. Stead used his editorial platform at the _Review of Reviews_ to broadcast a vision of \"responsible\" imperialism\u2014or what he also liked to call \"[i]mperialism within limits defined by common sense and the Ten Commandments\"\u2014aimed at improving the \"semi-civilised or wholly savage races.\"70 Indeed he called on the United States to assume its own responsibilities in civilizing Latin and South America. This call to assume the \"White Man's burden\" echoed widely during the decade as British imperialists sought to share the role of civilizing the world. Samuel too was spouting a clich\u00e9 when in 1902 he lavished praise on the transformative potential of the British empire. \"A barbarian race may prosper best if for a period, even for a long period, it surrenders the right of self-government in exchange for the teachings of civilization.\"71 It took the industrial slaughter of the First World War to create a significant transnational intellectual revolt that challenged the civilizing mission, chiefly by questioning the link between technological development and moral progress, though even that wasn't enough to fully derail the imperial desire to reorder the world.72\n\nA recurrent theme in imperial discourse was that the British empire was unique in its propagation of constitutional liberty. (The subjects of imperial coercion no doubt saw it rather differently.) The happy conjunction of altruistic civilizing ambitions (in South Asia and Africa) and a high-degree of colonial self-government (in the settler empire) was routinely praised as a matchless achievement. Combining _imperium et libertas_ , as Disraeli once boasted, they had managed to achieve stable rule, ordered freedom, and beneficent civilization in a single progressive ensemble.73 In so doing the British, with their self-proclaimed \"genius\" for governing, had cracked the temporal code. This \"civilized\" and \"civilizing\" imperial formation could, if managed carefully, escape the fate of all previous empires. Or so it was claimed. Writing at the turn of the twentieth century, as controversy over the war in South Africa raged, Charles Beresford, Tory MP and Admiral in the Royal Navy, celebrated freedom as the unique gift of the British. In standard Polybian vein, he catalogued the traditional causes of decline.\n\nThe great weakness of the nationalities which have been engulfed by the irresistible march of time has been the despotism which underlay their governments, the corruption which sapped their liberties, the luxury and indolence which ate into their vitality, and the remarkable fact that they became worn out and vicious, while the countries they had conquered, and the dependencies they had absorbed, at last broke away, imbued deeply with the vices and but few of the original virtues of the sovereign state.\n\nBut the \"irresistible march\" could be halted. Through accident or design, the British had forged an empire that could avoid the fate that befell all others. \"The Anglo-Saxon has so far, chiefly owing to the mixture of blood in his veins, kept alive side by side both the military and the commercial spirit; and it is this unique combination of talents which offers the best hopes for the survival of the Anglo-Saxon as the fittest of humanity to defy the decaying process of time.\"74 Bathed in philosophical idealism, the conservative historian and classicist J. A. Cramb glorified war, praised violence as a purifying force, and conceived of empire as a grand metaphysical principle, the vehicle for reason in history. It was, above all, \"the highest expression of the soul of the State; it is the complete, the final consummation of the life of the State.\" The British empire was insulated from troubling precedents, for while the \"Roman ideal moulds every form of Imperialism in Europe, and even to a certain degree in the East, down to the eighteenth century,\" the British offered the world a new model, \"not Roman, not Hellenic.\" The emphasis on freedom and justice was unprecedented. \"From this thraldom to the past, to the ideal of Rome, Imperial Britain, first amongst modern empires, completely breaks.\"75 It was attuned to the time spirit.\n\nAs Cramb was penning his encomium to imperial power, J. M. Robertson, a prominent radical liberal, scornfully dismissed imperialist attempts to escape the shadow of Rome.\n\nOne of the most unpromising symptoms of our case is the uncomprehending way in which the British imperialist always scans the story of ancient Rome. Noting the decadence which is the upshot of the whole, he seems to suppose that somehow Christianity will avail to save later empires from the same fate, though Rome was Christianized during the decline; or that haply the elimination of chattel slavery will avert decay, though Christian Spain was free from chattel slavery at home, or that industrialism will avail, though the Moors and the Florentines were tolerably industrial. Any theory will serve to burke the truth that the special cause of decay is just empire.76\n\nUnmoved by special pleading on behalf of the British, Robertson insisted that empires always and everywhere ended in annihilation. Products of avarice and arrogance, they were devoured by their own internal pathologies. \"For persistent empire in the end infallibly brings the imperator, be the process slow or speedy; and with the imperator comes in due time the decadence of empire, the humiliation and paralysis of the spirit that had aspired to humiliate its kind.\"77 He repeated the message in a scathing attack on the idealist philosopher D. G. Ritchie's justification of liberal civilizing imperialism. \"It seems the more necessary to point out that the _pax Romana_ was of old a plea for the kind of policy defended by our imperialists to-day; and that the pursuit of that policy meant the final conquest of Rome by its own brutality and moral barbarism as surely as the conquest of the surrounding world.\"78 Contra the reassuring fantasies of Cramb and Ritchie, this was the true destiny of imperial Britain.\n\nTroubled by intimations of mortality, advocates of imperial progress often saw the empire as fragile, beset on all sides by challengers and skeptics. As Peter Cain has demonstrated, normative justifications of empire during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century depended on a complex dialectical dance of \"character.\" It was frequently argued that British imperial greatness was largely the product of the superior character of its people, individually and collectively, and that this greatness underwrote both the capacity (military and economic strength) and the moral obligation (to spread the benefits of this character to others) motivating the pursuit of empire.79 Moreover, the practice of imperial governance fostered the very greatness on which empire depended. \"The creed of the ultra-imperialists could be simply expressed. \"Character,\"... had given Britain its empire and, without that empire, character would atrophy and die and Britain's moment of greatness would quickly pass.\"80 Imperial dissolution would not protect Britain but instead heralded its ruination. John Ruskin's inaugural lecture as Slade Professor of the History of Art at Oxford in 1870 included a stirring call for further imperial conquest, as the only alternative was to \"perish.\" \"She must found colonies as fast and as far as she is able.\"81 Expansion was the only way to avoid declension. \"If the empire should dissolve,\" Holland warned, \"England would doubtless decay and decline, exhausted by the effort of creating so many new states.\"82 A process of _imperial involution_ beckoned, the dismantling of the periphery leading inexorably to the degeneration of the metropole.\n\nThe universities were central to propagating the civilizational endeavor. Their importance was underscored in 1907 when Curzon, in his Romanes Lecture at Oxford, hailed the spirit of imperial patriotism and demanded that the elite arrayed before him hold the line against the forces menacing Western civilization.\n\nTo our ancient universities, revivified and re-inspired, I look to play their part in this national service. Still from the cloistered alleys and hallowed groves of Oxford... let there come forth the invincible spirit and the unexhausted moral fibre of our race. Let the advance guard of Empire march forth, strong in the faith of their ancestors, imbued with sober virtue, and above all, on fire with a definite purpose.83\n\nEmpire, then, was a bulwark against degeneration, that insidious fear stalking _fin de si\u00e8cle_ Victorian culture, while the elite universities were construed as institutions that could foster the imperial virtues necessary to neutralize the threat. The human sciences were assigned a crucial role, with history and classics at the forefront. Oxford was the principal site of imperial pedagogy. From the 1850s Benjamin Jowett, classicist and Master of Balliol, had been instrumental in directing graduates to the Indian Civil Service (ICS), the entrance examination for which placed great emphasis on knowledge of the classics.84 The results were palpable. Between 1874 and 1914, 27.1 percent of Balliol graduates went to work in the ICS, while between 1888 and 1905 three successive viceroys of India were products of the College. Sidgwick and Seeley, among others, tried to replicate this intimate imperial connection in Cambridge, though with only moderate success.85 The bequest of Cecil Rhodes, himself a proud Oxford product obsessed with the ancient world, only deepened the links between the university and the empire.86 George Parkin, a fervent Canadian imperialist and Secretary of the Rhodes Trust, purred that \"the relation of Oxford to the Empire is exceptional.\"87 Milner's \"Kindergarden,\" that group of thrusting young imperialists who played such an important role in both the Round Table movement and the formation of the South African state, were virtually all Oxford educated.88 The close links between Oxford and the imperial elite persisted until the era of decolonization.89\n\nEven as the universities produced a steady stream of recruits for the empire, they were also generating knowledge that ultimately, though often unintentionally, helped to undermine some traditional narratives of imperial legitimation. The closing decades of the nineteenth century witnessed a tectonic shift in the scholarship on Rome. For much of the Victorian era, the popular mythopoeic narrative of decline and fall\u2014and above all the account of corruption and decay\u2014had been bolstered by scholarly authority. So too was the idea that the Roman world taught pertinent lessons for the present. Niebuhr's _R\u00f6mische Geschichte_ in particular exerted a huge influence in the early Victorian era, helping to (re)establish for the nineteenth century the \"plot of Roman history as the recurrent story of the world.\"90 Indeed Niebuhr himself stressed the similarities between the British and Roman empires. A series of liberal Anglican writers, including Thomas Arnold and Charles Merivale, followed Niebuhr's example in seeking to collapse the temporal distance between the ancient and modern worlds, deriving lessons for the latter from the vicissitudes of the former. Their narratives of ancient Rome were infused with a moralized vision of the cycles through which all polities moved.91 But the credibility of this approach was challenged by the great German scholar Theodor Mommsen, whose influence increased steadily throughout the second half of the century. Providentialism was gradually superseded by a model of historical positivism, whose proponents celebrated its purported objectivity and scientific superiority over earlier, primitive accounts. In Britain, this ambition was realized above all in the writings of Bury, Acton's successor at Cambridge. In addressing the purported connection between Rome and Britain, Bury argued that \"luxury and immorality do not constitute, and need not be symptoms of, a disease that is fatal to the life of States,\" and he condemned \"all reasoning founded on historical analogy\" as \"futile.\"92\n\nThe thesis of British exceptionalism was reinforced by a burst of prominent writings comparing the Roman and British empires that appeared after 1900. The main examples were Bryce's long essay on \"The Ancient Roman Empire and the British Empire in India\"; _Ancient and Modern Imperialism_ , a short tract written by Evelyn Baring, the Earl of Cromer, one-time British consul-general in Egypt, then serving as President of the Classical Association; and C. P. Lucas's _Greater Rome and Greater Britain_ , the product of an imperial administrator turned Oxford don.93 To varying degrees, all drew on the shift in scholarship, and while they would have demurred from Bury's strident denial of the value of historical analogies, they were nevertheless adamant that the Roman and British empires were divided by far more than they shared. This act of disavowal served an important ideological function, allowing them to celebrate the unique virtues and continuing vitality of the British empire. All suggested that the British escaped the worst aspects of the Roman precedent\u2014its despotism, its political centralization, its crude militarism and absence of economic creativity. Lucas, for example, asserted that \"loss of freedom\" cemented the unity of the Roman Empire, whereas the diffuse British empire became increasingly decentralized \"as freedom has grown.\"94 Writing in a symposium on his book, Cromer stressed the radical difference between the ancients and the moderns. \"The records of the ancient world may be searched in vain for any guidance to show whether modern democracy... is capable of sustaining the burthens of Empire at all.\"95 They acclaimed an empire committed to freedom and justice, driven by largely humanitarian impulses and ruling in a civilizing manner, and this allowed them to boast of British superiority over even the most magnificent of their predecessors. The only area where the Romans were more successful was their ability to \"assimilate\" different conquered races.96 Yet here too the point was framed to signal the ultimate superiority of the British, for Roman success was relativized as the product of a smaller, less complex polity. The British faced profound difficulties because their ambition and reach were so much grander. The texts conveyed the message that uniquely among empires the British had escaped the gravitational pull of history. All three authors were also clear about the appropriate object of analysis, insisting that only India was suitable for comparison with Rome. Governed by radically contrasting principles, the British settler colonies \"differ wholly in kind.\"97 Ontologically distinctive, they presented yet another way in which advocates of settler colonialism sought to circumvent the fate of empire.\n\nThe Transfiguration of Empire\n\nCasting a skeptical eye over the British empire in 1892, the American scholar and journalist Albert Shaw found little to celebrate. \"If having an 'empire' means the acquiring of control over the territory and government of people of the races who happen for one reason or another to be weak, I can see nothing in that to be ardent about.\" Britain assumed its place in the long inglorious history of oppressive imperial powers, and as such it stood \"before the world in the garb of a perpetual candidate for dissolution.\" Yet hope remained, if only the British could fundamentally reform their empire by establishing it on progressive foundations, a noble task that could be achieved by creating a true imperial federation modeled on the United States. \"It would be an empire consisting of self-governing Britishers, in which each individual one of 'God's Englishmen' would have rights as extensive as any of his fellows and in the central ordering of which each autonomous group would be as influential, in the proportion of its numbers, as any other.\"98 Although few went as far as Shaw, many British thinkers argued that the settler empire, \"Greater Britain,\" constituted (or could constitute) a novel form of _post-imperial_ political association. As such, it could avoid the pattern of decline and fall.\n\nThe discourse of Greater Britain contained two distinct claims about novelty. The first recognized that the settler colonial system formed an integral part of the wider empire, but that it was nevertheless a new kind of imperial polity. The other denied that Greater Britain was an empire at all. While it had originated as part of an imperial order, it was now assuming a completely novel form, transfigured from empire to state (or commonwealth). On either account, Greater Britain was an unprecedented phenomenon that could be inserted into a progressive narrative of historical development. The novelty, it was commonly proclaimed, resided in the degree of self-government accorded to its constituent members and the civil and political freedoms already enjoyed by its (white) inhabitants.\n\nAt midcentury, Arthur Mills had observed that all of recorded history showed the pattern of imperial \"dismemberment and decay\" resulting in eventual \"dissolution.\" \"Is there any known principle of political life,\" he inquired, \"which history permits us to hope will be exceptional and peculiar to that cluster of communities which now own the rule of England?\" He answered in the affirmative. Political decentralization, and above all the granting of self-government to the settler colonies, allowed the process of decay to be circumvented.99 Later imperial unionists sought to harness this freedom in an overarching political structure. Half a century after Mills had praised the potential of self-government, Holland argued that the British could escape the fate of Rome because they had avoided destructive over-centralization. Sacrificing \"imperium\" in favor of more extensive \"libertas,\" they had saved the empire from the clutches of time. \"In the British empire, apart from India, we have learned... to concede to the Colonies the fullest liberty consistent with the maintenance of a common tie.\"100 \"The British Empire of to-day, it cannot be too often repeated,\" intoned Hugh Egerton, another prominent historian of empire, \"is without precedent in the past,\" chiefly because the colonies had been granted \"responsible government.\" In light of this splendid achievement, Egerton cautioned his readers against drawing false inferences from the past: \"It is at once the glory and the responsibility of nations that in their case, no ceaseless law of change is operating, to make dissolution and decay inevitable. To each generation, in its turn, is given the privilege and power to shape its own destinies.\"101\n\nFor Seeley, the former Professor of Latin and editor of Livy, the ancient world presented no important lessons for the \"boundless expanses\" of the settler colonies. In particular, viewing Britain as an heir to Rome was a serious error.102 In _The Expansion of England_ he argued that \"[o]ur colonies do not resemble the colonies which classical students meet with in Greek and Roman history, and our Empire is not an Empire at all in the ordinary sense of the word.\" He cited various reasons to account for this difference, including the \"ethnological unity\" of the Greater British population and the development of new communications technologies that \"annihilated\" time and space, facilitating the creation of a common identity and enabling effective governance across planetary distances.103 This did not mean, however, that the classical world failed to offer Seeley any insights into the patterns of contemporary international politics, for the Roman archetype, he argued, bore some resemblance to the British mode of rule in India. While the analogy was far from exact, they did share the status of \"superior races\" intent on \"civilizing\" those under their control. As the Roman Empire in the West was \"the empire of civilisation over barbarism,\" so the British empire in India was \"the empire of the modern world over the medieval.\" Such comparisons, though, had nothing to do with the settlement colonies.\n\nThe colonies and India are in opposite extremes. Whatever political maxims are most applicable to one, are most inapplicable to the other. In the colonies everything is brand-new. There you have the most progressive race put in the circumstances most favourable to progress. There you have no past and an unbounded future. Government and institutions are all ultra-English. All is liberty, industry, invention, innovation, and as yet tranquillity.\n\nIndia, by contrast, \"is all past and, I may almost say, has no future.\"104 For Seeley, the British governed spaces defined by two contrasting temporal regimes. One was characterized by novelty, creativity, movement, and flux, and its boundless energies were perfectly suited for progressive historical development. The other was stagnant, immobile, rigid, and thus incapable of progress without exogenous shock. It was as if past and future coexisted in the same historical moment.\n\nTwo decades later William Peterson, \u00e9migr\u00e9 classical scholar and Principal of McGill University, was likewise emphatic that the British empire represented a departure from the patterns of history, and above all its only other competitor for historical splendor:\n\nIt is by no means to its disadvantage or discredit that the British Empire is not altogether as other Empires have been. It was by the sword that old Rome, for instance, held what she had won by the sword. To her modern successor and representative has been left the glory of reconciling the two elements, which many of Rome's subjects found incompatible\u2014\"Empire\" and \"liberty.\" A Constitution which secures equal rights for all under the ample folds of the British flag has given a new meaning to the old motto, \" _Imperium et Libertas_.\" Never before in history has the unique spectacle been presented to the world of sovereignty wielded by the parent State on the slender basis of mutual consent.\n\nIndeed the settler colonial world, he maintained, might be described as \"a system of democratic republics under the gentle sovereignty of the Motherland.\"105 Many advocates of Greater Britain deliberately eschewed centuries of imperial political thought and the historicizing trends of the time by actively dismissing the relevance of ancient empires for thinking about the future. They often sought authority in the image of America\u2014a country that had, through the creation of a continental federal system, managed to solve many of the political problems facing the British.106 Above all, the Americans taught that it was possible to sustain individual freedom in a vast polity, reconciling liberty and empire as Thomas Jefferson had once promised.107 William Greswell, formerly a Professor of Classics in South Africa, accentuated the fundamental differences between the ancient empires and the modern British, and he emphasized, echoing an argument made famous by Constant, the superiority of modern freedom. \"The Britannica _civitas_ is a far wider, and we may be allowed to believe a far more honoured, privilege. It is a _civitas_ built upon freedom not despotism, upon tolerance rather than upon force, upon voluntary effort and individual enterprise rather than upon bureaucratic orders and state diplomacy.\" Greswell demanded a \"confederacy of the British race,\" but added the qualifier that it was foolhardy to \"refer for guidance to ancient or modern confederacies.\" Rather, it was instructive to look to the edifying example set by United States.108 In a historical irony that Macaulay might well have enjoyed, London Bridge, the shattered perch of his ubiquitous New Zealander, today sits intact in the blasted heat of Arizona, an unwitting symbol of the _translatio imperii_ dreamt by many Victorian imperialists.\n\nThe purportedly federal (or quasi-federal) character of Greater Britain meant that it was something wholly new. This was yet another expression of British imperial exceptionalism. In the _Considerations on Representative Government_ , Mill had referred to the colonial empire as an \"unequal federation,\" while four decades later Leonard Hobhouse talked of the \"loose, informal, quasi-Federalism of the British Colonial Empire,\" which he contrasted with the \"strict\" American variant.109 Some went as far as proclaiming that it already comprised a state\u2014or, alternatively, that it should be transformed into one. Considered \"as a state,\" argued Seeley, \"England has left Europe altogether behind it and become a world-state,\" and he called for the consolidation of this nascent polity into a vast permanent transoceanic polity.110 The transmutation of empire into state implied by schemes for imperial federation was acknowledged by A. V. Dicey, the leading constitutional theorist in the empire, who complained that they were demanding a \"new federated state.\"111 In the Edwardian years it was increasingly accepted that burgeoning colonial demands for autonomy meant that new forms of political order had to be devised. But the idea of a global Anglo-state did not disappear. In 1905 W. F. Monypenny, a leading journalist with the _Times_ , conceived of the empire as a \"world state,\" a polity defined by cultural homogeneity and unity of interests. It was, he claimed, the embodiment of a \"new political conception,\" which \"transcends nationality\" while simultaneously allowing the flourishing of separate nationalities within it.112 Leo Amery, meanwhile, wrote of the colonial empire as a \"single united whole, a great world-State, composed of equal and independent yet indissolubly united States.\" This was, he marveled, a \"new ideal,\" a \"great federation\" that corresponded to the \"wider outlook and broader humanity of advancing civilization.\"113 The idea of an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth was also central to the Round Table movement during the Edwardian era and beyond.114 I pick up its echoes in chapter 8.\n\nOther arguments stressed the priority of the periphery to the metropole. According to this picture, Britain may well be subject to the relentless logic of decline, but the settler colonies, creative offspring of an old and vulnerable world, could reach escape velocity. While Lecky believed in the progressive nature of British imperialism, he still acknowledged the power of historical precedent: \"Nations, as history but too plainly shows, have their periods of decay as well as their periods of growth.\" But even if Britain succumbed, the future of the British \"race\" was guaranteed as it had spread beyond the confines of the homeland to occupy vibrant, prosperous colonies throughout the world. \"[W]hatever fate may be in store for these Islands, we may at least confidently predict that no revolution in human affairs can now destroy the future ascendency of the English language and of the Imperial race.\"115 The (colonial) empire assured the permanence of the British people, their ability to transcend the vagaries of political institutions. This echoed arguments that figured the colonies\u2014above all New Zealand\u2014as a utopian space, a \"better Britain.\"116\n\nOnce again, the universities came to play a vital role in legitimating empire. Even as the new wave of Roman scholarship was starting to undermine traditional narratives of luxury, decadence, and decline, so a new field of knowledge was beginning to emerge and others were being revitalized. In Oxford, the prodigious classicist Alfred Zimmern developed a modernizing interpretation of ancient Athens that inspired the \"commonwealth\" vision of the British empire articulated by Lionel Curtis and other members of the Round Table.117 The Greek model entered a period of renaissance. Meanwhile Seeley's project to inject the study of the empire into the core of the emerging professional discipline began to bear fruit. During the early years of the twentieth-century imperial history, a new academic subfield financially underwritten by imperial interests was created to proselytize a specific ideological vision: to delineate Greater Britain as a singular political unit and to insist on its central importance for the future of Britain and the world. It was the hymn sung from the newly endowed chairs of imperial history in Oxford, Cambridge, and the University of London, and its intellectual inheritance persisted long into the twentieth century.118\n\nThroughout the Victorian age, then, commentators on empire wrestled with the meaning of history. This resulted in a clash between a vision predicated on either the possibility or inevitability of political progress, and a cyclical vision in which empires followed predetermined trajectories. Negotiating these temporal narratives required considerable intellectual dexterity. Most advocates of empire acknowledged the previous cycles of imperial history, but suggested that there was something radically different about the age in which they lived and the kind of empire they defended. Avatars of progress, the British had managed to birth a new form of empire, one that was not only compatible with a progressive understanding of human development, but which played a pivotal role in it. Critics demurred from this Panglossian view, suggesting that the British empire was bound to follow the course of all others, and that in doing so it threatened the very things\u2014liberty above all\u2014which made Britain great in the first place. The muse of history whispered to the Victorians in different voices.\n\n1 J. R. Seeley, _Introduction to Political Science_ , ed. Henry Sidgwick (London, 1896), 161.\n\n2 Herman Merivale, \"The Colonial Question in 1870,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 7 (1870), 153.\n\n3 Acton, \"Inaugural Lecture on the Study of History,\" _Lectures on Modern History_ , ed. J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence (London, 1906), 22; Dicey, _Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution_ , 4th ed. (London, 1893), 14. For a powerful questioning of that method, see Henry Sidgwick, \"The Historical Method,\" _Mind_ , 11\/42 (1886), 203\u201319; Sidgwick, _The Elements of Politics_ , 2nd ed. (London, 1897), ch. 1. Sidgwick, like Dicey, was cognizant that he was arguing against the grain.\n\n4 This chapter updates and extends the analysis of imperial temporality in Duncan Bell, The _Idea of Greater Britain_ , ch. 8.\n\n5 Smith, \"The Policy of Aggrandizement,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 22 (1877), 307.\n\n6 Bryce, \"An Age of Discontent,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 59 (1891), 29.\n\n7 It thus fits with what Mark Bevir calls \"developmental historicism.\" Bevir, \"Political Studies as Narrative and Science, 1880\u20132000,\" _Political Studies_ , 54 (2006), 583\u2013606.\n\n8 Smith, \"The Policy of Aggrandizement.\" For a similar critique of American empire, see Goldwin Smith, _Commonwealth or Empire?_ (New York, 1902).\n\n9 Froude, _Caesar_ (London, 1879), 2. On this dimension of Froude's imperial thought, see chapter 12.\n\n10 Ibid., 3\u20134.\n\n11 Seeley, \"Political Somnambulism,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 43 (1880), 32. On the role of historical imagination in political thinking, see especially John Burrow, _Whigs and Liberals_ (Oxford, 1988); Collini, Winch, and Burrow, _That Noble Science of Politics_ , chs. 6\u20137.\n\n12 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 169.\n\n13 There is a huge literature on Victorian appropriations of the classics. See, for example, Simon Goldhill, _Victorian Culture and Classical Antiquity_ (Princeton, 2012); Frank Turner, _The Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain_ (London, 1984); Richard Jenkyns, _The Victorians and Ancient Greece_ (Oxford, 1980); Norman Vance, _The Victorians and Ancient Rome_ (Oxford, 1997); Christopher Stray, _Classics Transformed_ (Oxford, 1998). For the imperial uses of the classics, see, inter alia, Mark Bradley, ed., _Classics and Imperialism in the British Empire_ (Oxford, 2010); Sarah Butler, _Britain and Its Empire in the Shadow of Rome_ (London, 2012); Christopher Hagerman, _Britain's Imperial Muse_ (Basingstoke, 2013); Phiroze Vasunia, _The Classics and Colonial India_ (Oxford, 2013).\n\n14 Anthony Pagden, _Lords of All the World_ (London, 1998), 11. See also Pagden, _The Burdens of Empire_ (Cambridge, 2015), 2\u20133.\n\n15 Machiavelli, _Discourses on Livy_ , ed. Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella (Oxford, 1997), bk. 2. See also David Armitage, \"Empire and Liberty,\" in _Republicanism_ , ed. Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge, 2002), 2:29\u201346; J.G.A. Pocock, _Barbarism and Religion, Vol. 3_ (Cambridge, 2003), esp. pts. 3-5.\n\n16 Hume, \"Hume's Early Memoranda, 1729\u20131740,\" _Journal of the History of Ideas_ , ed. E. C. Mossner, 9 (1948), 517. Hume attributed Roman decline to constitutional failures rather than moral debilitation.\n\n17 Gibbon, _The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ , ed. J. B. Bury (London, 1905), 4:161. Gibbon, though, made little of the connection between the British and Roman Empire. John Robertson argues that he was more interested in the fate of universal monarchy. Robertson, \"Gibbon's Roman Empire as a Universal Monarchy,\" in _Edward Gibbon and Empire_ , ed. Rosamond McKitterick and Roland Quinault (Cambridge, 1997), 247\u201371. On the popularity of the trope, see Vance, _The Victorians and Ancient Rome_ , 234\u201335; Richard Hingley, _Roman Officers and English Gentlemen_ (London, 2000), ch. 3; Jenkyns, _The Victorians and Ancient Greece_ , 73\u201377.\n\n18 On the Whig narrative, see Burrow, _Whigs and Liberals_. On the transmission of the critique into nineteenth-century imperial debate, see Miles Taylor, \"Imperium et Libertas?,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 19 (1991), 1\u201319.\n\n19 David Armitage, _The Ideological Origins of the British Empire_ (Cambridge, 1997).\n\n20 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 246.\n\n21 Hell, \"The Twin Towers of Anselm Kiefer and the Trope of Imperial Decline,\" _Germanic Review_ , 84\/1 (2009), 86.\n\n22 For further discussion of the iconographic order, see chapter 7.\n\n23 Kipling, \"Recessional,\" _Times_ , July 17, 1897.\n\n24 Ibid., _Something of Myself for My Friends Known and Unknown_ (London, 1937), ch. 6.\n\n25 Macaulay, \"History of the Popes\" [1840], in _Critical and Historical Essays_ , ed. A. J. Grieve (London, 1907), 2:39.\n\n26 On the trope, see David Skilton, \"Tourists at the Ruins of London,\" _Cercles_ , 17 (2007), 93\u2013119. For the romantic background, see Lawrence Goldstein, _Ruins and Empire_ (Pittsburgh, 1977).\n\n27 Gustave Dor\u00e9 and Blanchard Jerrold, _London_ (London, 1872), 188 (the words are by Jerrold). See also Robert Dingley, \"The Ruins of the Future,\" in _Histories of the Future_ , ed. Dingley and Alan Sandison (Basingstoke, 2000), 15\u201333. On the general theme of ruination, see Julia Hell and Andreas Schonle, eds., _Ruins of Modernity_ (Durham, NC, 2010); and for a meditation on artistic representations, Brian Dillon, _Ruin Lust_ (London, 2014).\n\n28 Hell, \" _Katechon_ ,\" _Germanic Review_ , 84 (2009), 284.\n\n29 Harrison, _Studies in Early Victorian Literature_ (London, 1895), 74. As I explored in chapter 2, positivists, including Harrison, provided some of the most stinging attacks on empire during the century. See especially Gregory Claeys, _Imperial Sceptics_ (Cambridge, 2012).\n\n30 Trollope, _The New Zealander_ , ed. N. J. Hall (Oxford, 1972), 211.\n\n31 Froude, _Oceana, or England and Her Colonies_ , new ed. (London, 1888), 236\u201337.\n\n32 Smith, \"The Policy of Aggrandizement,\" 308.\n\n33 Chamberlain, \"The True Conception of Empire,\" 2:5.\n\n34 Conan Doyle, _The Great Boer War_ (London, 1900), 306\u20137.\n\n35 Linda Dowling, \"Roman Decadence and Victorian Historiography,\" _Victorian Studies_ , 28 (1985), 579\u2013608.\n\n36 Froude, \"Calvinism\" [1871], in _Short Studies on Great Subjects_ (London, 1907), 2:26.\n\n37 Letter to Richard Hargreaves, August 4, 1860, in John Morley, _The Life of Richard Cobden_ , 2 vols. (London, 1881), 2:361.\n\n38 Smith, \"Policy of Aggrandizement,\" 308.\n\n39 Spencer, \"Imperialism and Slavery,\" in _Facts and Comments_ (New York, 1902), 162, 165. He traces the consequences in \"Re-Barbarization\" (172\u201388).\n\n40 Hobson, _Imperialism_ (London, 1902), 158, 160. Hobson also stressed the profound difference between ancient and modern empires, seeing in the former a \"genuine element of internationalism\" absent from modern variants (6).\n\n41 Burrows, \"Imperial Federation,\" _National Review_ , 4 (1884\u201385), 369. An undistinguished historian, Burrows was Chichele Professor of Modern History at Oxford from 1862\u20131900.\n\n42 On the late Victorian distinction between \"empire\" and \"imperialism,\" see the discussion in chapter 2.\n\n43 Gladstone, \"England's Mission,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 4 (1878), 584.\n\n44 Lowe, \"Imperialism,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 24 (1878), reprinted in _Empire and Imperialism_ , ed. P. J. Cain (Bristol, 1999), 265. See also the warning in Frederic Seebohm, \"Imperialism and Socialism,\" _Nineteenth Century_ (1880), in _Empire_ , ed. Cain, 309.\n\n45 Harcourt, letter to Rosebery, September 27, 1892, in A. G. Gardiner, _Life of Sir William Harcourt_ (London: Constable, 1923), 2:197. Widely distrusted by imperialists, Harcourt was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1886 and again in 1892\u201395.\n\n46 Seeley, \"Roman Imperialism, II,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 20 (1869), 54, 47\u201348; Samuel, _Liberalism_ (London, 1902), 342\u201343. Note that Seeley was inconsistent on this point (cf. Seeley, _Natural Religion_ (London, 1882), 237).\n\n47 Morley, \"The Expansion of England,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 49 (1884), 241\u201358.\n\n48 Hobson, _Imperialism_ , 388. Here he drew heavily on the American scholar Brooks Adams's, _The Law of Civilization and Decay_ (London, 1895).\n\n49 Holland, _Imperium et Libertas_ (London, 1901), 13\u201314 (though see also his extended comparison of Rome and Britain, 265\u201369). Holland was a barrister. The book was reviewed positively in the _Political Science Quarterly_ by the classicist John Finley and in the _American Historical Review_ by the historian A. L. Lowell.\n\n50 Holland, _Imperium et Libertas_ , 15; Seeley, _Expansion of England_ , 69.\n\n51 Mills, _Colonial Constitutions_ (London, 1856), xix-xx.\n\n52 Mill, \"Colony,\" _Essays from the Supplement to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Collected Works_ (London, 1995), 4, 5\u20139. See also the discussion of the differences between the Roman and Greek models in George Cornewall Lewis's influential, _Essay on the Government of Dependencies_ (London, 1841), 115\u201317, where he notes the similarity between British colonization in North America and the Greek experience. He also argued that governing a dependent empire damaged the \"political morality\" of the imperial power (251).\n\n53 Mill, \"Wakefield's 'The New British Province of South Australia,'\" in the _Examiner_ , July 20, 1843, reprinted in _Collected Works_ , 23:739. For his admiration of the \"Greek empire,\" see \"Grote's _History of Greece_ ,\" vol. 2, [1853], _Collected Works_ , 11:321\u201324. Edward Wakefield, key ideologue of early Victorian colonization and a major influence on Mill, also stressed the suitability of the Greek model: _A View on the Art of Colonization_ (London, 1849), 16\u201317.\n\n54 Roebuck, _The Colonies of England_ (London, 1849), 138. Utilitarian views of Greece were shaped heavily by George Grote's seminal _History of Greece_ (1846\u201356). See also, Grote, \"Institutions of Ancient Greece,\" _Westminster Review_ , 5 (1826), 269\u2013331.\n\n55 Freeman, \"Imperial Federation,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 51 (1885), 436 and 437\u201338. See also Freeman, _History of Federal Government_ (London, 1863), 5\u201326; and chapter 13.\n\n56 Bryce, \"Edward Augustus Freeman,\" _English Historical Review_ , 7 (1892), 502. Influenced by Thomas Arnold, Freeman was himself committed to a cyclical view of history: \"Historical Cycles\" in _Historical Essays_ , 4th series (London, 1892), 249\u201358, though he tended to locate patterns of repetition _within_ a political community.\n\n57 Daniel Pick, _Faces of Degeneration_ (Cambridge, 1989).\n\n58 Balfour, _Decadence_ (Cambridge, 1908).\n\n59 Pearson, National Life and Character (London, 1894). The book caused a sensation. Prior to his political career, Pearson was Professor of Modern History at King's College, London (1855\u201365).\n\n60 Turner, \"The Significance of the Frontier in American History,\" in _Rereading Frederick Jackson Turner_ , ed. J. M. Faragher (London, 1998). Jackson's frontier thesis is cited in Lord Curzon of Kedleston, _Frontiers_ (Oxford, 1907), 56.\n\n61 Rhodes, _The Last Will and Testament of Cecil J. Rhodes_ , ed. W. T. Stead (London, 1902), 190. For an intriguing, and ultimately ambivalent, narrative of the future Anglo-Saxon colonization of outer space, set in the year 2236, see Robert Cole, _The Struggle for Empire_ , ed. Richard Bleiler (London, 2013). Written in 1900, Cole's novel is now regarded as the first \"space opera\" in science fiction. I discuss this text in Bell, _Dreamworlds of Empire_ (forthcoming).\n\n62 Morley, _Recollections_ (London, 1917), 2:27, 30.\n\n63 Bury, _The Idea of Progress_ (London, 1920), vii, 2. \"[I]t was not till men felt independent of Providence that they could organise a theory of Progress\" (73). For more recent reflection on the notion of progress, see Reinhart Koselleck, _Futures Past_ , trans. Keith Tribe (Cambridge, MA, 1985).\n\n64 Macaulay, \"Sir James Mackintosh\" [1835], in _Critical and Historical Essays_ (London, 1848), 2:219, 226.\n\n65 On ideals of character, see Stefan Collini, _Public Moralists_ (Oxford, 1993), and, on its collective expression, Peter Mandler, _The English National Character_ (London, 2006).\n\n66 Guizot, _General History of Civilization in Europe_ [1828], ed. G. Knight (New York, 1896), 11. On John Stuart Mill and civilization, meanwhile, see Duncan Kelly, _The Propriety of Liberty_ (Princeton, 2011), ch. 4. See also Duncan Bell, \"Empire and Imperialism,\" in _The Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Political Thought_ , ed. Gregory Claeys and Gareth Stedman Jones (Cambridge, 2012), 864\u201391.\n\n67 Mantena, _Alibis of Empire_ ; Mantena, \"The Crisis of Liberal Imperialism,\" in _Victorian Visions of Global Order_ , ed. Duncan Bell (Cambridge, 2007), 113\u201336.\n\n68 See also, P. J. Cain, \"Character, 'Ordered Liberty,' and the Mission to Civilise,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 40\/4 (2012), 557\u201378; Peter Mandler, \"Looking around the World,\" in _Time Travelers_ , ed. Adelene Buckland and Sadiah Qureshi (Chicago, forthcoming).\n\n69 Lecky, _The Empire_ (London, 1893), 44\u201345. One of the most influential historians of the age, Lecky never held a formal academic post, though he was offered (and declined) the Regius Professorship of History at Oxford after Freeman's death in 1892. For an earlier version of the refrain, see James Fitzjames Stephen, \"Liberalism,\" _Cornhill Magazine_ , 5 (1862), 32.\n\n70 Stead, \"To All English-Speaking Folks,\" _Review of Reviews_ , 1\/1 (1890), 17. On Stead, see Lauren Brake et al., eds., _W. T. Stead_ (Chicago, 2012).\n\n71 Samuel, _Liberalism_ , 330.\n\n72 Michael Adas, \"Contested Hegemony,\" _Journal of World History_ , 15\/1 (2004), 31\u201363.\n\n73 Disraeli coined the (ungrammatical) phrase in 1851. Jenkyns, _The Victorians and Ancient Greece_ , 333. He claimed Roman pedigree when he reused it in 1879. Moneypenny and Buckle, _The Life of Benjamin Disraeli_ , 6 vols. (London, 1910\u201320), 6:495. As Norman Vance notes, however, his attribution was mistaken. Cicero once wrote of _imperio ac liberte_ , though he meant the power to uphold and enforce law, not territorial empire. Disraeli probably had Tacitus in mind, since he had famously been misquoted by Francis Bacon in _The Advancement of Learning_ (1605), where _principatum ac libertatem_ was rendered as _imperium et libertatem_ , before being translated by Bolingbroke in _The Idea of a Patriot King_ (1738) as \"Empire and Liberty.\" Vance, \"Anxieties of Empire and the Moral Tradition,\" _International Journal of the Classical Tradition_ , 18\/2 (2011), 251. Disraeli's phrase was widely employed in British imperial debate. See, for example, Freeman, \"Imperial Federation,\" 444; Herbert Spencer, \"Imperialism and Slavery,\" 117; Holland, _Imperium et Libertas_.\n\n74 Beresford, \"The Future of the Anglo-Saxon Race,\" _North American Review_ , 171\/529 (1900), 803, 806.\n\n75 Cramb, _Reflections on the Origins and Destiny of Imperial Britain_ (London, 1900), 216, 18, 23. Cramb was Professor of History at Queen's College, London. In Karma Nabulsi's terms, he can be seen as a \"martialist,\" one of the \"high priests of the temple of Janus,\" a species quite common in German intellectual circles at the time, though rarer in Britain. Nabulsi, _Traditions of War_ , ch. 4. See also my discussion of the category in Chapter 4.\n\n76 Robertson, _Patriotism and Empire_ , 3rd ed. (London, 1900), 151.\n\n77 Ibid., 157.\n\n78 Robertson, \"The Moral Problems of War,\" _International Journal of Ethics_ , 11\/3 (1901), 283. Cf. Ritchie, \"War and Peace,\" _International Journal of Ethics_ , 11\/2 (1901), 137\u201358.\n\n79 For relevant philosophical discussion of the civilizational obligations incurred by liberal empires, see J. H. Muirhead, \"What Imperialism Means,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 68 (1900), 177\u201387; Ritchie, \"War and Peace.\"\n\n80 Cain, \"Empire,\" 269.\n\n81 Ruskin, \"Inaugural Lecture,\" in _The Works of John Ruskin_ , ed. E. T. Cook and A. Wedderburn, 39 vols. (London, 1903\u201312), 20:41. See also his _Stones of Venice_ (1851) on how moral decline leads to imperial collapse ( _Works_ , 9:17).\n\n82 Holland, _Imperium et Libertas_ , 265.\n\n83 Curzon, _Frontiers_ , 57\u201358. Curzon was serving as Chancellor of the University at the time.\n\n84 Richard Symonds, _Oxford and Empire_ (Oxford, 1991); Vasunia, _The Classics and Colonial India_ , ch. 5. Oxford graduates dominated the system (though Trinity, Dublin, also produced a disproportionate number of entrants): Symonds, _Oxford and Empire_ , 180\u201391. Jowett's project was continued by his successor at Balliol, J. L. Strachan Davidson.\n\n85 Collini, Winch, and Burrow, _That Noble Science of Politics_ , 354\u201355.\n\n86 Philip Ziegler, _Legacy_ (London, 2008). Unable to read the original languages, Rhodes employed a team of classicists to translate all of the references found in Gibbon's _Decline and Fall_ , as well as numerous other classical texts, an exercise in historical recovery that filled over two hundred volumes in his personal library. See Victoria Tietze Larson, \"Classics and the Acquisition and Validation of Power in Britain's 'Imperial Century' (1815\u20131914),\" _International Journal of the Classical Tradition_ , 6\/2 (1999), 211.\n\n87 Parkin, _The Rhodes Scholarship_ (London, 1912), 211.\n\n88 On the Kindergarten, see Symonds, _Oxford and Empire_ ; John Kendle, _The Round Table Movement and Imperial Union_ (Toronto, 1975).\n\n89 These connections have recently become the focus of student activism aiming to force the university to acknowledge its historical role in imperialism. The campaign, drawing on developments in South Africa, is conducted under the name \"Rhodes Must Fall.\" Andr\u00e9 Rhoden-Paul, \"Oxford Uni Must Decolonise Its Campus and Curriculum, Say Students,\" _Guardian_ , June 18, 2015.\n\n90 Dowling, \"Roman Decadence and Victorian Historiography,\" 595.\n\n91 Duncan Forbes, _The Liberal Anglican Idea of History_ (Cambridge, 1952).\n\n92 Bury, \"The British Empire and the Roman Empire,\" _Saturday Review_ , June 27, 1896, 645. Bury later discarded his early positivism, emphasizing contingency and rejecting the possibility of discerning general patterns of cause and effect. _Selected Essays of J. B. Bury_ , ed. Howard Temperley (Cambridge, 1930), chs. 1\u20135. This shift is traced in R. G. Collingwood's review ( _English Historical Review_ , 43\/186 (1931), 461\u201365).\n\n93 Bryce, \"The Roman Empire and the British Empire in India,\" in Bryce, _Studies in History and Jurisprudence_ (Oxford, 1901), 1\u201371; Baring, _Ancient and Modern Imperialism_ (London, 1910); Lucas, _Greater Rome and Greater Britain_ (Oxford, 1912). For context, see Vasunia, _The Classics and Colonial India_.\n\n94 Lucas, _Greater Rome_ , 141.\n\n95 Cromer, \"History and Politics,\" _Classical Review_ , 24 (1910), 116.\n\n96 Lucas, _Greater Rome_ , 91\u2013112; see also Bryce, \"The Roman Empire,\" 54\u201363; Baring, _Ancient and Modern_ , 72\u201395.\n\n97 Lucas, _Greater Rome_ , 142; see also Bryce, \"The Roman Empire,\" 4\u20136; Baring, _Ancient and Modern_ , 17\u201318.\n\n98 Shaw, \"An American View of Home Rule and Federation,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 62 (1892), 311\u201312. An Anglophile, Shaw was the editor of the _American Review of Reviews_ , and thus a close associate of W. T. Stead. For his role in the foundation of American political science, see Robert Adcock, _Liberalism and the Emergence of American Political Science_ (Oxford, 2014), ch. 5.\n\n99 Mills, _Colonial Constitutions_ , xxxix-xl.\n\n100 Holland, _Imperium et Libertas_ , 14.\n\n101 Egerton, _A Short History of Colonial Policy_ (London, 1897), 455, 478. At the time of publication, Egerton worked in the Emigrants' Information Office. On the back of its considerable success, he was elected (in 1905) the first Beit Professor of Colonial History at Oxford. He retired in 1920.\n\n102 Seeley, \"Introduction\" to _Her Majesty's Colonies_ (London, 1886), xviii. For the misleading argument that Seeley saw the British as heirs to Rome, see Reba Soffer, \"History and Religion,\" in _Religion and Irreligion in Victorian Society_ , ed. R. W. Davis and R. J. Helmstadter (London, 1992), 142\u201343; Hingley, _Roman Officers_ , 24\u201325.\n\n103 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 51.\n\n104 Ibid., 51, 244, 176.\n\n105 Peterson, \"The Future of Canada,\" in _The Empire and the Century_ , ed. C. S. Goldman (London, 1905), 363\u201364.\n\n106 See Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_ , ch. 9, for more detail. Contra Mark Bradley, I do not deny that ancient precedents informed various aspects of British imperial discourse, only that advocates of Greater Britain tended to eschew them as models to emulate. Bradley, \"Introduction,\" in _Classics and Imperialism in the British Empire_ , ed. Bradley, 16\u201317.\n\n107 On this motif in American history, see Richard H. Immerman, _Empire for Liberty_ (Princeton, 2010).\n\n108 Greswell, \"Imperial Federation,\" in _England and Her Colonies_ (London, 1887), 7.\n\n109 Mill, _Considerations on Representative Government_ , 565; Hobhouse, _Democracy and Reaction_ [1904], ed. Peter Clarke (Brighton, 1972), 154. See also J. R. Seeley, \"Georgian and Victorian Expansion,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 48 (1887), 136.\n\n110 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 293, 169, 75. See also Seeley, \"Georgian and Victorian Expansion,\" 133.\n\n111 Dicey, _Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution_ , 8th ed. (London, 1915), lxxxiv. Dicey presented his own vision of an Anglo-Saxon future, focusing on an Anglo-American \"isopolity\" (a space of common citizenship). Duncan Bell, \"Beyond the Sovereign State,\" _Political Studies_ , 62\/2 (2013), 418\u201334. On how federation was seen by many eighteenth-century thinkers, including the authors of _The Federalist_ , as a way to reconcile liberty and empire, see Armitage, \"Empire and Liberty,\" 45\u201346.\n\n112 Monypenny, \"The Imperial Ideal,\" in _The Empire and the Century_ , ed. Goldman, 23 and 27.\n\n113 Amery, \"Imperial Defence and National Policy,\" in _Empire_ , ed. Goldman, 181\u201382.\n\n114 See, for example, Lionel Curtis, _The Problem of Commonwealth_ (London, 1916), 68.\n\n115 Lecky, _Empire_ , 47.\n\n116 Lyman Tower Sargent, \"Utopianism and the Creation of New Zealand National Identity,\" _Utopian Studies_ , 12\/1 (2001), 1\u201318.\n\n117 Zimmern, _The Greek Commonwealth_ (Oxford, 1911). He was later appointed to the first chair of International Relations (IR) in the world, at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, before returning to an IR chair at Oxford. See Jeanne Morefield, \"'An Education to Greece,'\" _History of Political Thought_ , 28 (2007), 328\u201361; Morefield, _Empires without Imperialism_ (Oxford, 2014), ch. 1; Tomohito Baji, \"Commonwealth: Alfred Zimmern and World Citizenship,\" PhD thesis, University of Cambridge (forthcoming).\n\n118 Amanda Behm, \"The Bisected Roots of Imperial History,\" _Recherches Britanniques_ , 1\/1 (2011), 54\u201377. On the \"British world\" scholarly network, see Tamsin Pietsche, _Empire of Scholars_ (Manchester, 2013).\nCHAPTER 6\n\nThe Idea of a Patriot Queen?\n\nThe Monarchy, the Constitution, and the Iconographic Order of Greater Britain, 1860\u20131900\n\nThe voice of Britain, or a sinking land,\n\nSome third-rate isle half-lost among her seas?\n\n_There_ rang her voice, when the full city peal'd\n\nThee and thy Prince! The loyal to their crown\n\nAre loyal to their own far sons, who love\n\nOur ocean-empire with her boundless homes\n\nFor ever-broadening England, and her throne\n\nIn our vast Orient, and one isle, one isle,\n\nThat knows not her own greatness1\n\n\u2014ALFRED TENNYSON\n\nTennyson, perhaps more than any other poet, expressed the profound symbolic connection between the institution of the monarchy, the heavily mediated persona of Queen Victoria, and the vast and \"ever-broadening\" expanses of the British empire. Victoria's long reign saw this connection grow in power and potency, as she assumed the role of an imaginative fulcrum at the center of an unprecedented global imperial system. In a later poem\u2014one of his most anthologized and parodied works\u2014Tennyson anointed her the \"Patriot Architect,\" and this chapter explores some of the ways in which this vision was articulated in the political theory of Greater Britain\u2014the political theory proclaiming the unity of the Anglo-Saxon settler colonies and the ostensible \"mother country\"\u2014during the closing decades of the nineteenth century.2\n\nIn his pioneering _Short History of British Colonial Policy_ (1897), H. G. Egerton argued that \"The Period of Greater Britain\" commenced in 1886.3 This was to place the starting point at least fifteen years too late, however, for debate over the future of the settler empire began in earnest in the early 1870s, drawing its terminological inspiration from Charles Dilke's popular travelogue _Greater Britain_ (1868).4 Faced with what appeared to be a momentous shift in the patterns of European and global politics, combined with the insidious fear of mass democracy following in the wake of parliamentary reform\u2014the latter an issue often marginalized or ignored by historians of imperial thought\u2014a considerable number of British political thinkers sought ways to consolidate or reinforce the apparently weakening position of the country; to secure the greatness of Britain. The most vociferous, as well as the most fractious, manifestation of this desire was the movement calling for imperial federation, a movement that at one time or another attracted luminaries as diverse as J. R. Seeley, Joseph Chamberlain, Cecil Rhodes, James Bryce, J. A. Froude, W. E. Forster, W. H. Smith, Lord Rosebery, W. T. Stead, and J. A. Hobson. The proponents of Greater Britain, and in particular the imperial federalists, represented one of a large number of competing and intersecting movements aiming to challenge and transform the way in which the British empire (and state) was understood. Drawing the support and opprobrium of some of the most prominent thinkers and politicians of the day, they expounded their views in the most high-profile outlets in British public culture, generating a large volume of articles, books, and pamphlets. Ultimately, however, they never gained substantial support outside sections of the metropolitan elite, nor did they convince enough of the leading politicians of the day, including Disraeli, Gladstone, and Salisbury, of the viability and necessity of their proposals. The campaigning drive for federation faltered and then collapsed in ignominy during the 1890s, although ideas about federal unity were to remain a staple of imperial debate until the eve of decolonization. The proponents of Greater Britain, whether they identified with the federalists or not, argued that it was essential to reconfigure relations between the \"mother country\" and the settler colonies, so as to form an enduring and closely integrated global polity, a worthy challenger to the reinvigorated United States, the purportedly rapacious Russians, and the nascent German state. Through a policy of massive and systematic emigration, moreover, they hoped simultaneously to strengthen the colonies and diffuse the conjoined dangers of over-population and \"socialism\" in the United Kingdom\u2014in the process transfiguring the emigrants into loyal imperial subjects.\n\nA variety of different models were proposed. For some, including both Dilke and Goldwin Smith, the key was to animate the idea of a planet-spanning British national-racial community and they stopped short of suggesting significant constitutional restructuring, believing it to be counterproductive.5 Instead, they relied on the moral power of kinship and sentiment. This vision ran parallel to an important strand in the federalist literature, which demanded the recognition and fortification of the (supposedly) strong emotional and cultural bonds between the people of the United Kingdom and the colonies. For others, however, the development of a powerful Greater Britain necessitated the creation of non-legislating Advisory Councils, or expanding the scope of the Privy Council, so as to give voice (but not substantive power) to the colonists.6 The more ambitious federalists demanded the construction of novel institutional structures, the establishment of a system of equal representation for the colonies, and, in its most radical form, the creation of a global federal state.7 As Seeley commented\u2014most probably drawing on Robert Browning's poignant imagery\u2014the result would be a \"world-Venice, with the sea for the streets.\"8\n\nThe monarchy played two important functions in the political theory of Greater Britain. Although analytically separable, both of these lines of reasoning were woven together through the fabric of imperial discourse. First, the institution, stretching back over centuries, could act as a temporal stabilizer, an anchor of permanence and constitutional fidelity in a reconstituted Greater Britain. Critics of such designs would be reassured that their fears of fundamental transformation were groundless\u2014that a thread of historical continuity ran through the proposals. The delicate balance between change and stability was an essential topic to confront in a Whiggish political culture that venerated the past, disdained revolutionary institutional upheavals, and drew constant inspiration from the evolutionary gradualism elaborated most famously by Edmund Burke.9 Secondly, Queen Victoria\u2014or at least an idealized representation of her\u2014served as the linchpin for a sense of global national identity. It was thought that the renown and respect that she (and the institution of monarchy itself) generated knit the distant peoples of her dominions in close communion. This sense of an imagined community was a necessary though not sufficient condition for the creation of a coherent global polity, and it was something that many of the advocates of Greater Britain, of nearly all political stripes, stressed repeatedly. Moreover, a specific (and largely inaccurate) image of Victoria figured in a distinctly \"civic humanist\" (or what might be labeled \"civic imperial\") strand of imperial political thought. Above the fray of party political intrigue, and acting as a beneficent and revered ruler\u2014indeed as a modified expression of the Bolingbrokian humanist ideal of the Patriot King\u2014she was seen as embodying the communal values essential for linking together the colonial populations and the \"mother country.\"\n\nThe British empire was a complex mosaic of political regimes, social institutions, and juridical forms. The proponents of Greater Britain were determined to carve out from this intricate multiracial assemblage a unified and homogeneous political-economic space. This was no easy task, and the conception of Greater Britain relied as much on the sentimental pull of the name and its associations as it did on any systematic theoretical explication. Its advocates often relied on the emotive force of what might be termed the _iconographic order_ of Greater Britain, the imaginative system of resonant symbols, stirring rituals, and vague poetic imagery that, in their writings and pronouncements, provided a coherent picture of a shared past, a troubled present, and a glorious destiny. This order comprised a constellation of semi-articulated markers of identity that sought to provide an authoritative conception of a (possible if not actual) harmonious, productive, and progressive global nation\u2014the Union Jack, Britannia ruling the waves, the ancient constitution, hardy and loyal colonists, the sacred freedoms of the English. Seeley, with typical condescension, argued that the people were \"necessarily guided by a few large, plain simple ideas.\"10 One of the most powerful of these ideas was that of the patriot monarch, standing watchful guard over her magnificent realms, and signifying permanence, unity, and strength.\n\nIn subsuming the scattered Anglo-Saxon colonies under a single, emotively charged name linked indelibly to the self-understanding of the British, the promoters of Greater Britain attempted to draw distant lands within the orbit, indeed to the very heart, of the metropolitan political imagination. The name itself implied two dimensions, one spatial, one moral. Spatially it referred to the vast scope of the British nation, stretching across the planet. This was an important issue in an age obsessed with the increasing size of political units. As one federalist warned, the \"present growth of the United States and Russia threatens to dwarf the old states of Europe, and wisdom counsels union to the English nation.\"11 Froude concurred: \"These are not the days for small states: the natural boundaries are broken down which once divided kingdom from kingdom; and with the interests of nations so much intertwined as they are now becoming, every one feels the benefit of belonging to a first-rate Power.\"12 Morally it referred to the superiority of both the people and the political system\u2014each interacting with and shaping the other in a complex dance of political progress\u2014of this great agglomeration of territory; Greater Britain was fully deserving of a providentially ordained position of global leadership. \"The fruits of political union will... be found,\" argued one excited federalist in 1885, \"in the progress of an intelligent and prosperous people, marching in the van of civilisation, for the benefit not only of themselves, but of mankind, bound together in one nationality, though widely scattered over the broad surface of the globe.\" He concluded: \"To this position the world's history offers no parallels; beside it Rome's range of influence sinks into comparative insignificance.\"13 But this vision was deeply unrealistic, not least because its devotees failed to comprehend either the skepticism of colonial elites or its lack of political feasibility in Westminster. The dissonance between fantasy and reality was typical of much of the imperial thought of the age.\n\nConstitutional Patriotism and the Monarchy\n\nThe use of the Queen, in a dignified capacity, is incalculable. Without her in England, the present English government would fail and pass away.14\n\n\u2014WALTER BAGEHOT\n\nThe popularity of the monarchy has waxed and waned over time. The nineteenth century saw considerable fluctuations in its fortunes, as the British political system underwent profound transformation: the compromise settlement of 1688 and the constitutional lineaments of the _ancien r\u00e9gime_ were uprooted and transfigured as a (quasi-)democratic polity slowly emerged. The monarchy demonstrated remarkable resilience and flexibility, adapting to the rapidly changing society, adopting new public faces and political roles. The Hanoverian monarchy had been associated with old age, infirmity, corruption, and greed, and the young queen Victoria, ascending to the throne in 1837, consequently appeared as a breath of fresh air, revitalizing the image of a moribund institution. Apart from a brief but vocal efflorescence of anti-monarchical sentiment in the late 1860s, Victoria was to remain a popular and venerated Queen.15 The reasons for this popularity are multiple and varied, and would include, at a minimum, the ideological functions of elaborate royal ceremony, the respect that her demeanor and apparent disdain for aristocratic mores generated, the vital role of the burgeoning mass media in projecting her into the imaginative lives of the public, and the close association of the monarchy with philanthropic endeavor.16 Historians continue to debate the balance between these factors, but for our present purposes what matters most is simply that \"Victoria was central to the ideological and cultural signifying systems of her age,\" and that this was likewise true of the iconographic order of Greater Britain.17\n\nDrawing on the ideas of the French syndicalist Georges Sorel, J.D.B. Miller once claimed that imperial federation was a \"utopian\" project.18 As such, in Sorel's terminology, it was an \"intellectual product,\" a fragile construct too weak to engender a powerful attachment to its cause. The \"effects of utopias,\" Sorel argued dismissively, have \"always been to direct men's minds towards reforms which can be brought about by patching up the system.\" As such, they were poor at galvanizing excitement and in generating affective bonds. This is a revealing way of comprehending the historical predicament of the proponents of a Greater British polity. However, it is not a self-portrait that they would have recognized. For many, the idea acted more as a Sorellian _myth_ , the antithesis of utopia. For Sorel, the myth acted as an ideal, a picture of the future, behind which people would coalesce and which served consequently to unify and motivate transformative action. Myths, he argued,\n\n... must be judged as a means of acting on the present; all discussion of the method of applying them as future history is devoid of sense. _It is the myth in its entirety which is alone important_ : its parts are only of interest in so far as they bring out the main idea.\n\nUnlike utopias, myths could not be refuted; they existed as an image in the mind, and acted as a guide to action in the present.19 They embodied the intuitive, emotional, and symbolic aspects of political action. Greater Britain was seen by many of its advocates in this sense, hence their common reluctance to propound any specific plans and their reliance on vague rhetoric about unity, glory, and destiny. Moreover, their ideas fell prey to the same problems that beset Sorel's thought. The main dilemma appeared in attempting to translate the myth of global unity, of a providential Greater Britain, into a plausible scheme in an intellectual and political environment both skeptical of their general ambitions and lacking in the revolutionary impetus that a Sorellian myth would require to function adequately (if at all).\n\nFor many of the promoters of Greater Britain, then, vagueness was a virtue. Rather than explicating systematic theoretical plans for the future, a course of action that many considered counterproductive, they often relied on passionate appeals to emotion, to shared values, and to the moral edification of their loosely sketched ideas. (This began to change in the late 1880s and through the 1890s, when the number of concrete proposals increased, with the result that, as the skeptics had warned, the plans were frequently dismissed as unworkable contributions to \"practical politics.\") One of the perennial problems of political theory concerns the complex relationship between ideas (and ideals) and the resources necessary to motivate action in their name. Far too often political theorists propound visions of society, and of the world more generally, that appear to most observers to be detached from the vicissitudes of everyday life. British imperial theorists were acutely aware of this problem. Not only were they keen to stress that their ideas fell within the domain of \"practical politics,\" they also placed great emphasis on the role of sentiment in political life. \"Patriotism,\" proclaimed Froude, \"may be sentimentalism, but it is sentimentalism nevertheless which lies at the root of every powerful nationality, and has been the principle of its coherence and growth.\"20 Such sentiments were generated and reproduced over time by the motivational power of a rich tapestry of symbolism, ritual, and myth. An idealized image of the constitution performed such a function in the iconographic order.21 \"All nations have their idols, the creatures of their own hands, which having manufactured, they bow down before as gods... The Englishman adores the British Constitution.\"22 It was, after all, the constitution, signifying strength and stability, which had kept at bay the revolutionary fervor that had washed over Europe, both in the 1790s and in the mid-nineteenth century.23 And it was the constitution, so it was thought, that guaranteed the conditions necessary for protecting freedom and encouraging prosperity, thus underpinning the fragile sense of progress, both moral and material, so vital in Victorian consciousness.\n\nThe monarchy was inescapably embedded in this Panglossian constitutional patriotism. Indeed, it was fundamental to the self-understanding of the vast majority of Victorians. It was a common imperialist claim that the monarchy generated, as Walter Bagehot had asserted, a \"mystic reverence\" and a \"religious allegiance\" amongst the people. A broadly Bagehotian understanding of the \"dignified\" elements of the constitution pervaded the discourse of Greater Britain. Bagehot wrote in the _English Constitution_ (1867) that the importance of the Queen lay in the fact that \"the mass of our people would obey no one else, that the reverence she excites is the potential energy\u2014as science now speaks\u2014out of which all minor forces are made, and from which lesser functions take their efficiency.\"24 Loyalty to, and affection for, the dignified elements of the constitution were far greater than that catalyzed by the \"efficient\" facets. Froude noted that the loyalty of British subjects worldwide was principally to the Queen.25 Egerton argued that there \"is in the Colonies... an abundant loyalty to the Queen and to the British flag, but there is little loyalty to the Imperial Parliament.\"26 Edward Salmon, a keen federalist, after stressing the \"innate loyalty of true Britons,\" likewise proclaimed that \"the great majority of Englishmen are enthusiastic supporters of the Throne.\" It is, he continued, \"an emblem of Imperial unity\u2014a golden incarnation of the brotherhood of Australia, Canada, the Cape, Great Britain, and other centres over which the Union Jack floats.\" \"What the disappearance of the monarchy would mean is pretty clear. With it would come the break-up of the Empire.\" The lesson of all of this was straightforward: \"[T]he Crown and the Colonies are rapidly becoming interdependent.\"27 Although this was perhaps more aspiration than astute political analysis, such beliefs led many of the proponents of Greater Britain to stress the importance of the monarchy in their plans for a global polity.\n\nThe relationship between crown and colonies would also be reciprocally beneficial. Imperial federation, and a strong association with the aims of Greater British unity, would aid the monarchy in times ahead. The royal family could and should play an active role in advocating, and in governing, the new polity. The future status of the colonial empire was uncertain, argued Salmon, and the chances of success for the federalist movement were slim without royal support: it was up to \"the action of the Crown\" whether or not Greater Britain had a future. And at a time of increasing criticism of the royal family, and in particular the more feckless offspring of Victoria, this would be a wise course of action. De Labilli\u00e8re suggested that the sons and brothers of the sovereign might act as colonial governors, thus entrenching the connections between the different parts of the colonial system. \"Its head, the Sovereign, and Royal Family, would be felt to belong, as much to Australia, Canada, South Africa, as to the people of the British Isles\u2014just as much as the Federal Parliament in which they would all be directly represented.\" And again: \"The sphere of its occupations, and of its usefulness might be greatly extended, by its members being brought into constant, advantageous and agreeable contact with the people in all our dominions.\"28\n\nNevertheless, despite the desire of many of the federalists and the understanding amongst the leadership of the Imperial Federation League (IFL) that royal patronage was essential if they were to succeed, royal attitudes to federation were mixed. Victoria was far more taken by the orientalist splendor of the imperial dependencies, India in particular, than she was with the settlement colonies. Her interest in the latter was \"intermittent at best.\"29 It would seem that the Queen's heart lay always, like that of her beloved Disraeli, in the East\u2014it was, after all, with the help of her loyal prime minister that she became Empress of India in 1876. Despite this, a number of other members of the royal family were active supporters of imperial federation. One of Victoria's daughters encouraged her to read _The Expansion of England_ : \"It is wonderful and so statesmanlike, so farsighted, clear, and fair.\" The Prince of Wales likewise expressed his admiration for Seeley's vision of Greater Britain.30 The most outspoken support came from Victoria's son-in-law, the Marquis of Lorne. A somewhat dilettantish man of letters, Liberal Unionist MP, and finally Governor-General of Canada, he argued in _Imperial Federation_ (1885) for relatively limited imperial reform, expressing his disquiet at more ambitious federalist plans advocating an overhaul of parliamentary institutions. Instead, he recommended the creation of an \"Advisory Council\" incorporated within a reconstructed Privy Council. Rather unsurprisingly, he emphasized the role of the Queen as a focus of global national identity, capable of generating loyalty and a sense of unity amongst her scattered subjects. During her reign, he maintained, the tie between the \"mother country\" and the colonies in particular was regarded,\n\n... with reverence and affection, and it is that which enables all citizens of this Empire to call themselves the subjects of the Queen. Her name has acquired a magic force, the strength of which can only be realized by those who have heard the national anthem sung by men, women, and children in regions many thousands of miles distant from England. It matters not whence it be heard, for in whatever part of the world her standard flies, that strain of music, and the thoughts which come with it, make the voices ring with the true loyalty that reverences women and loves the glorious sovereignty of freedom. The fervour to be heard in such notes should count for something in the calculation men are making as to the chance of keeping shoulder to shoulder wherever British hearts are beating.31\n\nVictoria was thus a central element in the iconographic order of Greater Britain, her name alone exerting a \"magic force,\" her image linked by musical and visual rituals of national identification to the idea of freedom itself. And, Lorne stressed, the power of such emotions was an important element in fashioning and sustaining global British unity, alongside more traditional concerns with shared security interests and cold economic calculation.\n\nAn especially clear evocation of the perceived role of the Crown was provided by Francis De Labilli\u00e8re, originally an Australian colonist, barrister of the Middle Temple, and a driving force behind the foundation of the IFL, of which he served subsequently as honorary secretary.32 De Labilli\u00e8re was a prolific booster of what he termed the \"great Constitutional Empire of Greater Britain,\" and the monarchy played an important role in his plans.\n\nFor our Empire... Monarchy, even were it not the existing form of government, will have the greatest advantages. It will impart to it greater dignity, in many ways. It would be preferable, were it only to save us from a periodical scramble for the chieftainship of the nation, between rival candidates, with months of noise, abuse, exaggeration, and party trickery.33\n\nIn this passage we witness, alongside the Bagehotian phraseology, an example of the widespread anxiety about the importation of American \"machine politics\" into British life, a fear that was especially pronounced during the 1880s.34 There was apprehension that public life would be degraded by incessant party squabbling, the unfortunate but inevitable consequence of democratic politics. In a Greater Britain, governed by a revered constitutional monarch, such a problem would be far less marked.\n\nFurthermore, focusing on the centrality of the monarchy allowed proponents of a federal Greater Britain to confront another challenge. One of the main criticisms leveled at federation, as a general mode of political organization, was that it ran counter to the notion of unitary sovereignty.35 It lacked, that is, a single determinate locus of political authority. For the federalists, Victoria, as sovereign, could provide a focal point, a substitute vision for that of the unitary sovereign state. In _Imperium et Libertas_ (1901) Bernard Holland argued that the Crown played a key role in the relations between the \"mother country\" and the colonies, providing a pivot for the \"confederate\" empire. However, as a new era was beginning to dawn, so too was there a \"rise in importance of the Throne.\" In a politically decentralized federal empire, the \"spiritual sovereignty\" of the Crown would be of ever-increasing significance. \"It is not merely the symbol but the real bond of unity\" and to this \"central point all lines converge from all the ends of the earth.\"36 As political power was devolved, so symbolic power was reaffirmed. A monarchical federation therefore offered the most effective way to avoid issues that had long plagued more conventional notions of federation. This partly explains why some federalists were keen to argue that the American constitution, which they so often held up as a model to emulate, was simply a derivation of the late eighteenth-century British constitution. J. N. Dalton, for example, presented the American brand as a subtle reworking of existing British political forms, and even claimed that the United States was governed by the \"Imperial Houses of Parliament in Congress.\"37 The President, in this vision, was a temporary elected monarch. American institutions were thus assimilable to the conventions of British political thought; their apparently anomalous, even antithetical, structures were merely an evolutionary development of long extant British ideas. Federation was not so alien after all. The federalists were selective in their cultural and political appropriation: in reading America through British eyes, they sought to square the circle of federation and centralized sovereign authority.\n\nThe liberal statesman W. E. Forster, a key imperial ideologue and the first president of the IFL, stressed the linkage between historical continuity, patriotism, and the Crown. In discussing the conditions necessary for the continuance of Greater Britain, he argued that \"allegiance to one monarch\" was at the top of the list, and that the \"very essence of such continuance is a common patriotism;\u2014the feeling throughout all the different communities that, notwithstanding the seas that roll between them, they are yet one nation; and that all their inhabitants are fellow-countrymen.\" He maintained that the English-speaking peoples of the world shared a common culture, for they \"look at life and its problems, especially the problems of Government, with much the same eyes everywhere.\" This included the Americans, and he claimed that the British monarchy had more in common with the United States republic than it did with any other state. Indeed, he argued that Britain had carried the torch of republicanism further than the Americans had done:\n\nMany millions of our race prefer a Republic to a Monarchy. Yes, but remember these facts: first, that we so treated their fathers that we almost forced them to become Republicans; Secondly, that many of them now acknowledge that at least it is a moot question whether, as regards the real meaning of the word, and its true significance, our Limited Monarchy is not a more complete Republic than their own.\n\nMoreover, the loyalty of the colonists was specifically to the Crown. Why was this so?\n\nNot merely because they honour and respect our Queen; not merely because of their personal feeling towards the Royal Lady under whose rule they have grown from childhood to lusty youth; but because they are as proud as we are of the traditions of our history, and as convinced as we are of the actual advantages of a hereditary executive.38\n\n\"Republicanism,\" the monarchy, and the empire were indissolubly yoked together.\n\nCivic Republicanism and the Colonial Order\n\nIt might seem that there is a certain irony attendant on linking the political theory of Greater Britain to the monarchy. After all, the phrase was coined originally by the radical liberal politician Charles Dilke, who was also one of the most reviled republicans of the age, a figure ostracized by Queen Victoria and her loyal followers.39 Miles Taylor has claimed, however, that Dilke was concerned more with the issues that had troubled the classical republicans and their post-Renaissance successors than with the existence of the monarchy itself.40 In other words, he was interested more in the nature of political authority\u2014in challenging the scope of and constitutional limitations on popular representation\u2014and the character of civic life than with any drastic anti-monarchical scheme. Attention to the protection of political stability, maintaining limits on the power of government, and encouraging an active and patriotic citizenry permeated _Greater Britain_ (1868). It is this version of civic republicanism on which the ensuing discussion focuses. It comprised an important but neglected strand of imperial political thought, infusing much of the debate over the future of the settler empire, and in particular the envisioning of a Greater British polity. I return to the topic in chapter 12.\n\nFor Stefan Collini, Victorian political thought was marked by \"survivals and mutations\" of the earlier language of civic humanism, and as John Burrow, Eugenio Biagini, and Frank Prochaska have all stressed, Victorian liberalism, amorphous and multidimensional as it was, frequently served as a vehicle for time-honored civic humanist ideas, which it incorporated and transformed in various ways.41 Translated via the transmission belts of Whiggism from the early modern debates into the late nineteenth century, republicanism played a significant, though by no means dominant, role in shaping political thinking. It was common at the time to identify Britain as a republic: Tennyson called the United Kingdom a \"crown'd republic,\" the positivist leader Frederic Harrison claimed that \"England\" was \"an aristocratic republic,\" whilst Bagehot argued that \"a Republic has insinuated itself beneath the folds of a Monarchy.\"42 None of these were pure republican ideals, all were partial, compromised, and mixed various political sensibilities and vocabularies\u2014as had their eighteenth-century predecessors.43\n\nCivic imperialism\u2014humanist language and themes applied to the expanses of the empire\u2014permeated the discourse of Greater Britain, centered as it (often) was on equalizing political relations between the \"mother country\" and the colonies, protecting the constitutional freedoms of its inhabitants, challenging the crass materialism and excess luxury of the modern age, and fostering a global nation of virtuous, vigorous, imperial patriots. Found in writers as diverse as Seeley, Dilke, and even Bryce, it was displayed most prominently in Froude's _Oceana_ (1886), a book written explicitly as an updated version of James Harrington's utopian fantasy _The Commonwealth of Oceana_ (1656). Froude's musings were pervaded by a sense of longing for the forgotten glories of the English past, of hardy yeomen, agrarian splendor, and the \"genius of English freedom\"\u2014republican nostalgia writ large, and drawn upon in the name of shaping the present and the future. A \"sound nation,\" he wrote,\n\n... is a nation composed of sound human beings, healthy in body, strong of limb, true of word and deed\u2014brave, sober, temperate, chaste, to whom morals are more important than wealth or knowledge\u2014where duty is first and the rights of man are second\u2014where, in short, men grow up and live and work, having in them what our ancestors called the \"fear of God.\"44\n\nSuch was Froude's dream for the British body politic\u2014simultaneously stretching back in time, and projected forwards. It was a dream common to many of the Greater British advocates, though most of their proposals were not quite as austere.\n\nVictoria was sometimes (though certainly not always) represented in the political theory of Greater Britain as the embodiment of a long-standing fantasy in British political consciousness: a nineteenth-century incarnation of the model found in Bolingbroke's late humanist tract, _The Idea of a Patriot King_ (1738).45 This was not an explicit comparison, a direct and self-conscious reference to a long-dead thinker, but key features and themes of earlier interpretations of patriot kingship were invoked frequently by imperial theorists. For Bolingbroke, the ideal monarch would stand above party strife, defending the constitution at home and promoting and protecting trade abroad. They would display three proud faces to the world: the enemy of corruption, the father of the people, and the strong but beneficent leader of a vibrant commercial people. Moreover, the patriot king was to stand firm against dangerous entanglement on the European mainland, secure in the belief in Britain's global maritime destiny. As David Armitage has demonstrated, this idea had multiple afterlives, and it was drawn upon by radicals, revolutionaries, and later by Tories in the impassioned ideological milieu of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Britain. Due to its lack of specificity, the image was \"perennially applicable.\" Following the death of William IV, the last monarch to whom the direct appellation of \"Patriot King\" was applied\u2014more as desire than accurate representation\u2014explicit references to the humanist dimensions of the Bolingbrokian idea seem to have disappeared. Indeed, from the 1830s onwards, and in particular in the hands of Disraeli and the Young England movement, Bolingbroke was retrospectively incorporated into the Tory ideological field.46 This was not the end of the story: the ideas that he had propagated, and that had acted as common political currency for generations, remained in circulation and can be seen resurfacing, albeit in a translated form, in late Victorian imperial thought. To many of the proponents of Greater Britain, Victoria exemplified all the moral and leadership qualities that the patriot king was supposed to possess. This was the key to her symbolic power. She also faced similar dangers. Whereas the Bolingbrokian target was oligarchic corruption and the decay of virtue, so the proponents of Greater Britain were keen to confront the corrosiveness of materialism, the greed and purported lack of patriotism displayed by capitalist businessmen, the ideas of the utilitarian political economists, and the moral decline of Britain in general. Political action in the name of public duty and the common good, not private interest, was the guarantee of the continued greatness of Britain.\n\nSir Frederick Young provided perhaps the most explicit articulation of this vision. An ardent liberal, Young had been a close associate of E. G. Wakefield in the colonization of New Zealand, and was a long-standing and tireless proponent of imperial federation. Instrumental in establishing the Royal Colonial Institute, of which he served as honorary secretary, he was also a prominent voice in the IFL, and later the British Empire League.47 In his contribution to an 1876 collection of letters on federation published originally in _The Colonist_ , Young stressed the necessity of binding the \"whole Empire into a homogeneous and indissoluble whole,\" and he demanded a \"radical reconstruction of the Imperial representative body.\"48 Indeed, he thought that the whole scheme was best conceptualized as a planetary \"national federation.\"49 This was a dream to which he remained faithful until his death over thirty years later.50 The monarchy was central to Young's scheme. His most revealing comments on the topic are found in _Exit Party_ (1900), a book charting (with stunning inaccuracy) what he saw as the decline of party politics in Britain. He wrote in an ode to Victoria:\n\nHer Most Gracious Majesty has, thank God, been preserved to us to the present hour, if it could be imagined possible, winning more and more veneration, the admiration, and the love of many millions of her people at home and beyond the seas by her supreme tact as a ruler, no less than her charming and beautiful womanly sympathy prompting her constant and wonderful personal activity in her unceasing desire for the promotion of the welfare of her subjects, throughout the length and breadth of her world-wide dominions.51\n\nLike many other commentators, Young employed a heavily gendered conception of the Queen, as a mother figure displaying not only the traditional stereotypical \"masculine\" qualities of leadership\u2014strength, fortitude, strategic calculation\u2014but adding to them such \"feminine\" qualities as grace, tact, and sympathy; an iron fist in a velvet glove. Just as Britain was the mother country to the colonists, so Victoria was the figurative mother to all the peoples of the global nation. This was not, however, an entirely new addition to the multifaceted reception of the idea of the patriot king. Bolingbroke had, after all, looked backwards to Elizabeth as the embodiment of the values that he cherished and desired to see replicated in future leaders. It is not a coincidence that Victoria herself was often linked in the public imagination with Elizabeth.52 Indeed, the Elizabethan age played an important role in the iconographic order of Greater Britain. Froude celebrated the \"forgotten worthies\" of the time, the old sea dogs who had helped make Britain great.53 Seeley located the origins of the \"national\" policy\u2014expansion at its core\u2014in the years of Elizabeth's rule.54 In particular, Young admired Victoria for standing above the fray of political intrigue, guiding the ship of state without being distracted by wearisome party machinations. In this, he argued\u2014implausibly\u2014she differed from many of her predecessors. \"With regards to her Parliament... her relations have been of the utmost and most uninterrupted harmony from the first moment she ascended the throne.\"55 Writing at the end of her long reign, Young hoped that her legacy would endure. Above all, it was essential to have a constitutional monarch standing at the head of a global imperial state. Citing James Douglas, a Canadian resident in the United States, he believed that such a monarch,\n\n... would represent in his person the traditions of the past, and embody the historical continuity of the race. Powerless to interfere arbitrarily, but not therefore bereft of influence, the creature of his subjects, though nominally the controller of their fate, his right to avert injustice and enforce fair play would exert a restraining power. Such a nominal head, called by whatever name the republican principle of the Federation would allow to be applied, would be a less dangerous and more picturesque chief than an elected president.56\n\nVictoria was, De Labilli\u00e8re likewise contended, the \"most perfect constitutional Sovereign that ever presided over a free people.\"57\n\nThe gap between vision and reality was sizeable, even by the standards of imperial political thought. Not only was Victoria more enamored with India than with the colonies, the representation of her as a disinterested leader, above and beyond party, was wholly incorrect. The political power of the monarch had been in steady decline over the course of the century, but it was still considerable, and far exceeded the limited rights ascribed to it by Bagehot.58 Victoria meddled incessantly in the day-to-day affairs of her ministers, and she perceived her role\u2014especially the prerogative of forming ministries\u2014as central to the constitutional machinery of the state.59 But the notion of her as an impartial leader was a powerful illusion. Victoria's \"civic publicness\" had, as John Plunkett remarks, been fostered most especially in the early years of her reign, when she was seen to represent a radical departure from her staid Hanoverian predecessors and the residues of Old Corruption, and during the second half of the century a newly vigorous and pliant media helped to sustain a potent image of her role. This image lingered throughout the rest of her reign, despite shifts in the intensity of adoration.60 Victoria was certainly patriotic, but she was no patriot queen.\n\nConclusions\n\nIn 1837 there was much talk of dissolution; in 1897 there is thought only of unity.61\n\n\u2014EDWARD SALMON\n\nThe monarchy, the monarch, and the empire were threaded together in the iconographic order of Greater Britain. Fantasies for politically unifying Britain and its colonies were grounded in a palpable sense of anxiety; fear for the future drove the construction of an image of the world rewritten according to a British script. Imperial unity became a prominent topic during the second half of Victoria's reign because it was viewed as a necessary response to domestic political pressures and foreign competition in an age of increasing globalization. For many, it was the only way of keeping Britain great.\n\nThe monarchy was essential to this dream. This chapter has sketched the outlines of that vision\u2014a more detailed examination would also explore the important role played by the ideal of the patriot queen in post-Repeal Act, pre-Fenian nationalist Ireland during the 1850\u201360s, the debate over Canadian federation (1867), and the attempt to \"unite\" South Africa in 1879\u201380. In all, Victoria stood as a symbolic marker of national and imperial sentiment, a focal point for loyalty. As an imperial figurehead, the matriarch of the British nation, she played a critical function in the matrix of British global identity and power. It was in this role that she could be seen as picking up the mantle of the patriot queen. The royal family might be criticized for waste, profligacy, inefficiency, or any number of other failings, but its existence in the British constitutional order was rarely questioned, even if the degree of its power was a subject of constant debate. The proponents of Greater Britain, on the whole, tended to reflect this common understanding of the importance of a constitutional monarchy. By emphasizing the centrality of the monarchy in their conceptions of the future, they hoped to ameliorate fears about the radical nature of many of the plans being adumbrated, and to root them in the soil of British historical tradition. A planet-spanning imperial polity\u2014even a global state\u2014was to be their gift to Britain, the world, and posterity itself. A timeless embodiment of the glory of the nation, ensconced safely and soundly at the center of a stable constitutional order, the monarch was at the core of this vision.\n\n1 Tennyson, \"To the Queen\" [1859], in _Poetical Works_ (Oxford, 1953), 441. Italics in original.\n\n2 Tennyson, \"On the Jubilee of Queen Victoria\" [1887], _Poetical Works_ , 784. On Tennyson and the empire, see especially Matthew Reynolds, _The Realms of Verse, 1830\u20131870_ (Oxford, 2001), pt. 3; Tricia Lootens, \"Victorian Poetry and Patriotism,\" in _The Cambridge Companion to Victorian Poetry_ , ed. Joseph Bristow (Cambridge, 2000), 255\u201380.\n\n3 Egerton, _A Short History of British Colonial Policy_ (London, 1897).\n\n4 Dilke, _Greater Britain_ , 2 vols. (London, 1868). Other early texts include: John Robinson, \"The Future of the British Empire,\" _Westminster Review_ , 38 (1870), 47\u201374; John Edward Jenkins, \"Imperial Federalism,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 16 (1871), 165\u201388; J. A. Froude, \"England and Her Colonies,\" _Fraser's Magazine_ , 1 (1870), 1\u201316; Andrew Robert Macfie, \"On the Crisis of the Empire,\" _Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute_ , 3 (1871\u201372), 2\u201312.\n\n5 See Dilke, _Problems of Greater Britain_ (London, 1890), vol. 2. For Smith's comments on \"Greater Britain\" as a moral community, see his letter to Professor Tyndall, October 6, 1882, in _A Selection from Goldwin Smith's Correspondence_ , ed. Arnold Haultain (London, 1910), 137.\n\n6 See, for example, Earl Grey, \"How Shall We Retain the Colonies?,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 5 (1879), 935\u201354; John Sutherland, _Imperial Federation_ (London, 1885).\n\n7 The most explicit account of global statehood is in Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , pt. 1. For the details of his analysis, see chapter 11.\n\n8 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 288. See also Robert Browning, \"A Toccata of Galuppi's\" [1855], in _Browning: Poetical Works, 1833\u201364_ , ed. Ian Jack (Oxford, 1970), 579.\n\n9 On the centrality of history and tradition in Victorian public culture, see, in general, Stefan Collini, _Public Moralists_ (Oxford, 1991); Burrow, _Whigs and Liberals_ (Oxford, 1988).\n\n10 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 190.\n\n11 Samuel Wilson, \"Imperial Federation,\" _National Review_ , 4 (1884), 386.\n\n12 Froude, \"England and Her Colonies,\" 15. See also Froude, \"England's War\" [1871], reprinted in _Short Studies on Great Subjects_ , 5 vols. (London, 1907), 3:276.\n\n13 Young, _An Address on Imperial Federation_ (London, 1885), 23. On the role played by Rome and Greece in late Victorian imperial thought, see chapter 5.\n\n14 Bagehot, _The English Constitution_ [1867], ed. Paul Smith (Cambridge, 2001), 34.\n\n15 On the status and popularity of anti-monarchical republicanism, see Richard Williams, _The Contentious Crown_ (Aldershot, 1997); David Nash and Anthony Taylor, eds., _Republicanism in Victorian Society_ (Stroud, 2003); Anthony Taylor, \" _Down with the Crown_ \" (London, 1999); Frank Prochaska, _The Republic of Britain, 1760\u20132000_ (London, 2000). The majority of commentators now agree that there was little mainstream support for (anti-monarchical) republicanism. Craig, \"The Crowned Republic?,\" _Historical Journal_ , 46 (2003), 167\u201385.\n\n16 David Cannadine, \"The Context, Performance, and Meaning of Ritual,\" in _The Invention of Tradition_ , ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (Cambridge, 1993), 101\u201364; William Kuhn, _Democratic Royalism_ (London, 1997); Walter Arnstein, _Queen Victoria_ , (Basingstoke, 2003), ch. 4; Dorothy Thompson, _Queen Victoria_ ; John Plunkett, _Queen Victoria_ (Oxford, 2003); Frank Prochaska, _Royal Bounty_ (London, 1995).\n\n17 The quotation is from Homans and Munich, \"Introduction,\" 2. For the historiographical debate, see Craig, \"The Crowned Republic?\"; Arnstein, _Queen Victoria_. On the importance of the monarchy for empire, see G. R. Searle, _A New England?_ (Oxford, 2004), 119; Thompson, _Imperial Britain_ (London, 2000), 7.\n\n18 Miller, \"The Utopia of Imperial Federation,\" _Political Studies_ , 4 (1956), 195\u201397.\n\n19 Sorel, _Reflections on Violence_ [1908], ed. Jeremy Jennings (Cambridge, 1999), 28\u201329, 116\u201317. Italics added. Miller intimates but does not develop this point.\n\n20 Froude, \"England and Her Colonies,\" 6. See, for other examples, Forster, \"Imperial Federation,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 17 (1885), 205; Anon., \"The Federation of the British Empire,\" _Westminster Review_ , 128 (1887), 492.\n\n21 On the importance of the constitution, and the way in which it was contested, see the essays in James Vernon, ed., _Re-Reading the Constitution_ (Cambridge, 1996); J. P. Parry, _The Politics of Patriotism_ (Cambridge, 2006).\n\n22 Froude, \"England's War,\" 136.\n\n23 Leslie Mitchell, \"Britain's Reaction to the Revolutions,\" in _The Revolutions in Europe, 1848\u20131849_ , ed. R.J.W. Evans and Hartmut Pogge von Strandmann (Oxford, 2000), 83\u201399.\n\n24 Bagehot, _The English Constitution_ , 4, 167. Cf. Michael Bentley, _Lord Salisbury's World_ (Cambridge, 2007), ch. 6. Note that Bagehot himself was skeptical of the claim often made by the advocates of Greater Britain that a shared race (defined in cultural terms) resulted in shared interests: \"It is begging the question to assume that the ties of common race and language make nations better inclined to enter into active political alliance or better suited for harmonic acting.\" Bagehot, \"An Anglo-Saxon Alliance\" [1875], in _The Collected Works of Walter Bagehot_ , ed. Norman St John-Stevas (London, 1965\u201386), 8:356\u201357.\n\n25 Froude, _Oceana_ (London, 1886), 221\u201322.\n\n26 Egerton, _Short History_ , 459.\n\n27 Salmon, \"The Crown and the Colonies,\" _National Review_ , 14 (1889\u201390), 200 and 202. For his views on federation, see Salmon, \"Imperial Federation,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 58 (1900), 1009\u201319.\n\n28 de Labilli\u00e8re, _Federal Britain_ (London, 1894), 248\u201349.\n\n29 Arnstein, _Queen Victoria_ , 180. On Victoria's longstanding love of and involvement with India, and the lack of connection between this and her public persona, see Miles Taylor, \"Queen Victoria and India, 1837\u201361,\" _Victorian Studies_ , 46 (2004), 264\u201374.\n\n30 Letter by the Crown Princess of Germany to Victoria, May 25, 1884, in _The Letters of Queen Victoria, 1879\u20131885_ , ed. George Buckle (London, 1926), 3:506; Sir Francis Knollys, letter on behalf of the Prince of Wales, to J. R. Seeley, May 13, 1887, Seeley Papers, University of London Library, MS903\/1B\/19. He was also President of the Royal Colonial Institute.\n\n31 Lorne, _Imperial Federation_ (London, 1885). In a letter to Sir Frederick Young, Lorne wrote that he had \"little faith\" in the idea of a new imperial parliament. Lorne to Young, April 10, 1884, Young Papers, Cambridge University Library, RCMS 54\/2\/3.\n\n32 On his pivotal role, see the letter from W. E. Forster, the president of the IFL, to de Labilli\u00e8re, May 24, 1885, in the IFL Minute Book, British Library Add Ms, 62778, 74.\n\n33 de Labilli\u00e8re, _Federal Britain_ , 248\u201349.\n\n34 See, for example, Paolo Pombeni, \"Starting in Reason, Ending in Passion,\" _Historical Journal_ , 37 (1994), 319\u201341; and Murney Gerlach, _British Liberalism and the United States_ (Basingstoke, 2001).\n\n35 Amongst the most prominent advocates of unitary sovereignty were John Austin, _The Province of Jurisprudence Determined_ (London, 1832), a book that became popular only posthumously; and A. V. Dicey, _Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Law of the Constitution_ (London, 1885).\n\n36 Holland, _Imperium et Libertas_ (London, 1901), 316\u201317, 318.\n\n37 Dalton, \"The Federal States of the World,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 16 (1884), 109. This was certainly not a universally recognized federalist strategy. For a denial of such connections, see Seeley, _Introduction to Political Science_ [1896], ed. Henry Sidgwick (London, 1923), 210.\n\n38 Forster, _Our Colonial Empire_ (Edinburgh, 1875), 25, 22, 23.\n\n39 On Dilke, see especially David Nicholls, _The Lost Prime Minister_ (London, 1995).\n\n40 Taylor, \"Republics versus Empires,\" in _Republicanism in Victorian Society_ , ed. Nash and Taylor, 25\u201334. Cf. Prochaska, _The Republic of Britain_ , 115\u201324.\n\n41 Collini, _Public Moralists_ , 108\u201310; Burrow, _Whigs and Liberals_ ; Biagini, \"Neo-Roman Liberalism,\" _History of European Ideas_ , 29 (2003), 55\u201372; Prochaska, _The Republic of Britain_ , chs. 4\u20135. In the historiography of European political thought, the terms \"civic humanism\" and \"civic republican\" are often used interchangeably.\n\n42 Tennyson, \"To the Queen,\" 464; Harrison, \"Our Venetian Constitution,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 7 (1867), 278; Bagehot, _The English Constitution_ , 44.\n\n43 On the mixed idioms of eighteenth-century republicanism, see J.G.A. Pocock, \"Between Gog and Magog,\" _Journal of the History of Ideas_ , 48 (1987), 325\u201346; Gregory Claeys, \"The Origins of the Rights of Labor,\" _Journal of Modern History_ , 66 (1994), 249\u201390.\n\n44 Froude, _Oceana_ , 1:154. See also Harrington, _The Commonwealth of Oceana_ (London, 1656). Froude wanted to see a \"commonwealth of Oceana,\" united \"as closely as the American states are united\" (91). He was, however, very critical of plans for a formal set of federal institutions, although he thought they may one day develop (395).\n\n45 Bolingbroke, _The Idea of a Patriot King_ [1738], in _Bolingbroke's Political Writings_ , ed. Bernard Cottret (London, 1997), 329\u2013421.\n\n46 Armitage, \"A Patriot for Whom?,\" _Journal of British Studies_ , 36 (1997), 417; Richard Faber, _Beaconsfield and Bolingbroke_ (London, 1961).\n\n47 See the brief biographical comments in Young, _A Pioneer of Imperial Federation in Canada_ (London, 1902), 215. For the extent of his advocacy, see his prolific correspondence with newspapers on federation, Young Papers, RCMS 54\/III\/21.\n\n48 Young, Letter 1, in _Imperial Federation of Great Britain and Her Colonies_ (London, 1876).\n\n49 Young, Letter, _Morning Post_ , September 2, 1897, Young Papers, 54\/III\/21.\n\n50 See, for example, Young, _Imperial Federation of Great Britain and Her Colonies_ , xix\u2013xx; Young, _On the Political Relations of Mother Countries and Colonies_ (London, 1885); Young, _Exit Party_ (London, 1900), 66; Young, _A Pioneer of Imperial Federation_ , ch. 8.\n\n51 Young, _Exit Party_ , 56.\n\n52 Nicola Watson, \"Gloriana Victoriana,\" in _Remaking Queen Victoria_ , ed. Homans and Munich, 79\u2013105; Burrow, _A Liberal Descent_ (Cambridge, 1981), 249.\n\n53 Froude, \"England's Forgotten Worthies,\" _Westminster Review_ , 2 (1852), 42\u201367.\n\n54 Seeley, _The Growth of British Policy_ (Cambridge, 1895). He argued that this policy did not fully triumph over its \"dynastic\" competitor until the eighteenth century.\n\n55 Young, _Exit Party_ , 56\u201357.\n\n56 Young, _A Pioneer of Imperial Federation in Canada_ (London, 1902), 221\u201322. The quotation is taken from Douglas, _Canadian Independence_ (New York, 1894), 19\u201320. Young says of these words that \"they express so forcibly and cogently my own general sentiments on the subject\" (222).\n\n57 de Labilli\u00e8re, _Federal Britain_ , 251\u201352.\n\n58 Bagehot, _The English Constitution_ , esp. chs. 2, 3.\n\n59 G.H.L. Le May, _The Victorian Constitution_ (London, 1979), ch. 3; Arnstein, _Queen Victoria_ , ch. 8.\n\n60 Plunkett, _Queen Victoria_ , ch. 1.\n\n61 Salmon, \"The Colonial Empire of 1837,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 61 (1897), 870.\nCHAPTER 7\n\nImagined Spaces\n\nNation, State, and Territory in the British Colonial Empire, 1860\u20131914\n\nThe old colonial system is gone. But in its place no clear and reasoned system has been adopted. The wrong theory is given up, but what is the right theory? There is only one alternative. If the colonies are not, in the old phrase, possessions of England, then they must be part of England; and we must adopt this view in earnest.1\n\n\u2014J. R. SEELEY\n\nDuring the late Victorian age, and deep into the twentieth century, a fierce debate raged among members of the British political and intellectual elite over the future of the empire. Could it be adapted to new economic, social, and political circumstances? What form should it take? Fear about the future was generated by concern over both the domestic consequences of democratic reform and about the precarious geopolitical position. Britain's status as a global power was at stake. Democratic reforms, first in 1867 and then more deeply in 1884, reshaped the political landscape. Large numbers of the (male) population were enfranchised, while socialism became an evermore popular and vocal force. Many advocates of empire saw these developments as a threat, worrying that the new mass public would harbor anti-imperial sentiments. The problem was reinforced by various geopolitical trends, and above all the rise of three main competitor states. First, post-unification Germany was well on the way to becoming the dominant power on the continent, and it appeared keen to flex its muscles on the global stage. Second, Russia was seen as a menace to the empire in India, and thus to British power globally. Finally, the post-Civil War dynamism of the United States challenged British economic dominance, and as it enthusiastically embarked on foreign imperial adventures in the 1890s it was figured as a formidable geopolitical competitor. To make matters worse, during the closing decades of the century Britain suffered a prolonged and severe economic depression.2 The country seemed to be weakening at the very moment when its hegemonic position was being challenged. The dynamics between \"domestic\" and \"foreign\" were mutually reinforcing; they signaled a vicious circle, a precipitate decline.\n\nWhat could be done? One of the main answers proposed to address the crisis of imperial confidence was to unite Britain with its scattered settler colonies. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and parts of South Africa could be fused together into a vast political-economic unit, straddling the planet. The movement advocating Greater Britain, as this behemoth was often called, appealed to people across the political spectrum. Its supporters ranged from Tory peers, through liberal \"public moralists\" to assorted socialist leaders, including H. M. Hyndman and Keir Hardie.3 All of them believed that it was essential, for Britain and the wider world, that the colonial empire prosper in an international system defined increasingly by huge omnicompetent political units. Yet they diverged over the ends this unity was supposed to produce, as well as over the means through which to bring about those ends. For radical liberals, always in the minority, colonial unity would help simultaneously to democratize Britain and the international system as a whole. It would constitute part of a progressive multilateral institutional order.4 In the early years of the twentieth century, following the war in South Africa, and against the backdrop of Chamberlain's tariff reform campaign, radical support for this vision dissipated, leaving the field dominated (although not exhausted) by conservative intellectuals and politicians.5 The dominant view, however, was that Greater Britain provided a way of securing British power while dampening the threat posed by democratic reform and any possible socialist challenge. Through a process of systematic emigration, the disruptive, corrosive potential of democracy would be neutralized as \"excess\" population was channeled from Britain (and in particular from its overcrowded and festering cities) into the huge open spaces of the colonies.6 This movement, it was argued, would simultaneously defuse the dangers of urban radicalism while populating the colonies with individuals who, as a result of a transformation in their natural and cultural environments, would be transmuted into rugged imperial patriots, citizen-subjects of the most powerful polity on earth.7\n\nIn this chapter I explore how _fin de si\u00e9cle_ imperialist intellectuals challenged some of the existing spatial categories used to map world politics, and in particular how they sought to erode the distinction between the \"domestic\" and the \"foreign.\" I focus on two related issues: the imagined _globalization of domestic politics_ and the emergence of ideas about a nascent _planetary public_. In the minds of many imperialists, the boundaries between the domestic and the foreign were fluid and changeable, and they developed an account of the \"domestic\"\u2014or _Innenpolitik_ \u2014as a space that stretched across the face of the earth, encompassing the vast settler colonies. This was often characterized in terms of a global British nation-state\u2014a political-cultural whole, bound by a strong sense of identity and belonging\u2014and it implied a novel conception of a \"translocal\" public sphere. Julius Vogel, a prominent New Zealand politician, objected to the view that the colonies were \"foreign\" territories; they were instead \"part of a mighty nation.\"8 The advocates of Greater Britain sought to reimagine the ontological and ethical status of home and abroad, while simultaneously emphasizing the important differences between the settler colonies and the rest of the empire. I am not suggesting that this novel line of argument led to any straightforward changes in government priorities or legislation. Rather, I focus on how and why a group of well-placed individuals located at the heart of the imperial metropole attempted to shift attitudes, to transform political consciousness, in order to redirect public policy. They were what contemporary theorists of international politics call \"norm-entrepreneurs.\"9 Through argument and political mobilization, they were seeking to alter the terms of the debate and to institute a new vision of global political order.\n\nSalvaging Empire\n\nWhile British society and politics were partially constituted through the imperial encounter, most advocates of empire thought that foreign and imperial affairs failed to register sufficiently in elite consciousness, let alone among the wider public. It was a commonplace lament during the period that domestic affairs, however trivial, took priority in all but the most momentous times in national history. Wars, such as the South African War, could occasionally stir the populace from its myopic slumber, at least if they were intoxicating or exotic enough, but little else did. Whether this picture was accurate or not, it was routinely argued that both the public and the political elite downplayed or ignored the importance of international affairs in general, and imperial affairs in particular.10 There was little new in this sense of alienation. In a speech in Westminster in 1833, Thomas Babington Macaulay complained that:\n\nA broken head in Cold Bath Fields produces a greater sensation among us than three pitched battles in India. A few weeks ago we had to decide on a claim brought by an individual against the revenues of India. If it had been an English question the walls would scarcely have held the members who would have flocked to the division. It was an Indian question; and we could scarcely, by dint of supplication, make a House.11\n\nHis sense of frustration is striking, and it was widely shared. Imperialists argued that their compatriots typically failed to grasp the precarious nature of British global power, or the roles and responsibilities associated with the possession of empire. Their writings and speeches were peppered with complaints about the failure of imperial interests and ambitions to register sufficiently with either the government or the people. John Stuart Mill was expressing a common grievance when in 1859 he bemoaned the \"indifference to foreign affairs\" displayed by the public, and when a decade later he castigated the \"indifference of official people in England about retaining the colonies.\"12 Another variation on the theme of indifference concerned the lack of vision displayed by British politicians. In a discussion of George Cornewall Lewis's ideas about the Suez Canal, for example, Walter Bagehot contended that, \"[t]hose who wish that the foreign affairs of England should be managed according to a far-seeing and elaborate policy will not like such voluntary short-sightedness; but the English people themselves rather have to have the national course fixed by evident, palpable, and temporary circumstances.\"13 The governing class, he implied, exhibited a distinct lack of leadership and foresight in foreign and imperial affairs, this absence mirroring the apathy of the people.\n\nWhile the charge of indifference was thought to apply to nearly all aspects of imperial and foreign affairs, it was often argued that the colonial empire suffered the most of all. In an essay published in 1870, the historian J. A. Froude set out the familiar indictment, grumbling that the public was \"alienated\" from the settler colonies.14 Indifference, it was argued, was leavened with ignorance, a lack of awareness about the nature and value of the empire. Speaking at the inaugural meeting of the Royal Colonial Society in 1869 the Marquis of Normanby, an eminent colonial governor, argued that \"[n]o person who takes an interest in colonial matters can help being struck with the extra-ordinary ignorance that exists in this country in regard to colonial matters.\" At the same meeting, Baillie Cochrane, a Tory MP and one of the original leaders of the Young England movement, lamented the \"indifference\" prevalent among the members of the public and the political class.15 Writing in the _Quarterly Review_ in 1870, John Martineau crystallized the frustration of many imperialists when he lambasted the \"carelessness and indifference with which the English Parliament, reflecting truly the apathy of the public, has treated the magnificent inheritance of our Colonial Empire.\"16\n\nImperial advocates tended to construct the situation as a _crisis_. They deployed the language of emergency to demonstrate the urgency of the problem, to insist on its immediacy and magnitude.17 Theirs was an imagined cartography of fear and foreboding. This emotive idiom made possible the claim that sweeping political change was imperative, that without it the empire, and British power itself, would dissolve. Imperialists had always been haunted by a sense of potential failure, of the fragility of dominance.18 The specter of Rome loomed over their warnings; as I argued in chapter 5, the trope of imperial decline and fall was etched into Victorian political consciousness. During the second half of the century, this apprehension of crisis intensified. The Sepoy Rebellion (1857) unsettled many Britons, who were simultaneously astonished at the lack of gratitude displayed by their imperial subjects and transfixed by the brutality of the revenge exacted, the \"war of no pity\" waged against the rebels.19 Focusing on the violent repression of an uprising in Jamaica in 1865, the Governor Eyre controversy generated a similar set of responses.20 Beset by unrest, populated by millions of potential insurgents, yet essential to British greatness, the empire came to be imagined as an arena of perpetual conflict and confrontation. Indeed from the late 1850s onwards the British empire was routinely figured as a space of permanent crisis. In his brilliant analysis of the conceptual history of crisis, Reinhart Koselleck writes that,\n\nApplied to history, \"crisis,\" since 1780, has become an expression of a new sense of time which both indicated and intensified the end of an epoch. Perceptions of such epochal change can be measured by the increased use of crisis. But the concept remains as multi-layered and ambiguous as the emotions attached to it. Conceptualized as chronic, \"crisis\" can also indicate a state of greater or lesser permanence, as in a longer or shorter transition towards something better or worse or towards something altogether different. \"Crisis\" can announce a recurring event, as in economics, or become an existential term of analysis, as in psychology and theology. All these possible uses can be applied to history itself.21\n\nAnd all of these possible \"uses\" can be found in British imperial discourse. The British _colonial_ empire was both part of the problem and one possible solution to it. The modality of crisis varied between the different forms of imperial connection: for the colonial empire the main fear was not about violence or insurgency, moral corruption or strategic overstretch, but rather about secession, the dissolution of the political bond. Yet if the government acted swiftly and surely to unify the empire, to treat the colonists as full citizen-subjects of a single polity, the colonies would be integrated into a permanent structure of British dominance impervious to the crises afflicting the rest of the empire. Or so it was claimed.\n\nThere were various ways to address the crisis, to overcome the indifference. The most practical was to mobilize on behalf of an alternative vision of the empire, and during this period numerous pressure groups and campaigning organizations, including the Imperial Federation League (IFL), were established.22 They lobbied hard for the importance of the colonial empire. The politics of knowledge assumed a starring role: indifference to empire, it was often argued, was generated and perpetuated by a lack of relevant information. Schools and universities were failing to equip their students, all future imperial subjects, with an adequate appreciation of the past and present glories of the British empire. This was one of the main complaints leveled at the British educational system in Seeley's best-selling book _The Expansion of England_.23 It is not a coincidence that the IFL, and cognate organizations, exerted considerable energy in supporting speaker tours, public lectures, and the production and dissemination of educational materials. It was vital, they thought, to shape the public mind. The Marquis of Lorne\u2014liberal politician, Queen Victoria's son-in-law, and future Governor-General of Canada\u2014argued in a speech to the Royal Geographical Society in 1886 that \"knowledge and sympathy are essential to the consolidation of the empire.\"24 The fact that this was thought necessary bears witness to the sense of indifference perceived by the proponents of empire. W. T. Stead, one of the pioneers of the \"new journalism,\" went so far as to propose that Seeley be placed in charge of a college dedicated to teaching the glories of the British nation.25 In short, the production of colonial knowledge was an integral element of the project to create a Greater British century.\n\nThe advocates of Greater Britain claimed some success in reshaping public views of the character and importance of the colonial empire, if not in fully redirecting British policy. But the feeling of indifference lingered. The historian C. P. Lucas, for example, commented in 1890 that while there had been a \"change in tone and feeling towards the colonies and dependencies\" over the course of the previous decade, a \"spirit of indifference\" was still pervasive.26 Moreover, the expanding scope of the demos brought forth a new set of worries. Leonard Hobhouse, a leading \"new liberal\" and qualified supporter of imperial federation, picked out one of the main concerns, borne of a sense of frustration with the rise of the mass media. The public, he worried, remained poorly informed, with the press acting as a bar to widespread interest in or knowledge about public affairs. Fed an impoverished intellectual diet, they were interested only in reading about battles and sport. \"In truth, there is not, and cannot at present be, any such thing as an effective popular control of foreign policy. The average man gives little time and much less thought to politics.\"27 This message resonated across the political spectrum.\n\nRemaking the People\n\nOne of the most intriguing elements of the debate over the future of the British empire was the way in which the imaginative scope of both \"the people\" and \"the public\" was reconfigured.28 I am using the idea of \"the people\" to refer to the set of individuals within a particular polity who are conceived of as bound together by\u2014and thus in some sense as unified through\u2014a range of common characteristics (most frequently \"race\" or \"nationality\" or some combination of the two). As such, \"the people\" is not coextensive with the totality of individuals falling under the jurisdiction of a particular system of governance, for many of those individuals, including resident aliens, fall outside of the recognized boundaries of community. (Indians, for example, were not regarded as a constitutive element of the British people.) But neither is the people coextensive with \"the public\"; the latter is a subset of the former. The public, as I am employing the term, refers to the set of the people accorded political significance within a particular polity. They are construed as belonging to a distinct and privileged group with at least a notional role in the governance of the state. This conception is closely linked to the set of the enfranchised, but it is not necessarily reducible to it. During the Victorian era both the size of the public, and the importance accorded to it, expanded considerably. During the twentieth century, with the extension of the franchise to include (nearly) all adult men and women, this gap narrowed further, though the two categories are still far from identical.29\n\nOne of the most prominent ways in which imperialists in the late nineteenth century attempted to address the \"crisis\" was by arguing that the very terms in which the trope of indifference was articulated were flawed. The future of the colonial empire was not, they argued, chiefly a problem of foreign or imperial policy; it was instead a problem of _domestic_ British politics. This argument required a significant cognitive shift, the willingness to recognize that the distant and scattered colonies (and colonists) were an integral part of the British polity. As Seeley argued, once this work of imagination was complete, \"Canada and Australia would be to us as Kent and Cornwall.\"30 Even the most common appellation for the unity of the United Kingdom with its settler colonies\u2014Greater Britain\u2014served to signal the seamless continuity between the \"mother country\" and the colonial diaspora. This represented, then, an argument for the globalization of domestic politics: the Anglo-Saxon population(s) of the British settler colonies constituted one unified \"people,\" spread across several noncontiguous geographical spaces.\n\nThis argument was premised on a reorientation in the perception of time and space.31 The links between political identity, territory, and the nation were, it was claimed, challenged fundamentally by new technologies. In particular, the development of transoceanic steam ships and (above all) the construction of a network of telegraph cables had a profound effect on the political imagination.32 The cables, boasted Rudyard Kipling, \"killed their father Time.\" 33 This death precipitated an imaginative rescaling of planetary space and a concerted effort to rethink imperial possibilities. Imperial discourse was soon saturated by a powerful form of techno-utopianism. Routinely exaggerating the capabilities of the new technology, imperial commentators celebrated the \"annihilation\" of time and space, arguing that this meant that the physical limits to political association had been transcended. Repudiating a long-standing argument about the impossibility of creating strong and enduring political institutions and identities across oceanic distances, advocates of colonial unity argued that a new era had dawned, an era in which nature, previously viewed as immutable, was capable of being reshaped by the powers of human technical ingenuity. Frederick Young, one of the most prolific imperial unionists, wrote that the \"marvellous and mysterious help of telegraphy\" had \"worked a veritable revolution in the affairs of the world.\"34 W. E. Forster, an influential liberal politician and one-time president of the IFL, argued in a speech in Edinburgh in 1875 that \"science has brought together the ends of the earth, and made it possible for a nation to have oceans roll between its provinces.\"35 He later stated that\n\nThe inventions of science have overcome the great difficulties of time and space which were thought to make separation almost a necessity, and we now feel that we can look forward, not to the isolated independence of England's children, but to their being united to one another with the mother-country, in a permanent family union.36\n\nThis radical shift in the plasticity of nature translated into a moment of political opportunity. The unification of the colonial empire was now both possible and necessary. According to F. P. De Labilli\u00e9re, an ardent proponent of the federal vision, \"[t]he prospect of a Federal Empire, which five-and-twenty years ago appeared very remote, and which 50 years since seemed almost a chimera, now assumes a pressing and tangible shape.\"37 \"It may be said,\" wrote the radical Australian barrister John Edward Jenkins, that at \"no very distant date steam communication with Australia will be so frequent, regular, and rapid, and the telegraph system so enlarged and cheap, that no practical difficulty would impede the working of a representative federal government.\"38 The shift in perceptions of time and space was a necessary though not sufficient condition for contending that it was now feasible to create a globe-spanning political institution underpinned by a powerful sense of cultural identity.\n\nThe debate was divided over the character of this identity, however. The vision of the globe-spanning British \"people\" assumed two main forms. One insisted that the key binding principle\u2014the social ontological foundation\u2014of the people was _race_. They were, above all, Anglo-Saxon members of the \"English race.\" As was typical in nineteenth-century Britain, usage of the term race was highly imprecise, but the definition usually focused on a combination of cultural markers\u2014historical memories, language, shared values, habitus\u2014circumscribed by \"whiteness.\"39 This view was compatible with (but did not entail) an argument that the populations of the individual colonies were themselves being transformed into new nationalities. The other account accepted the centrality of race, but emphasized the idea of a singular nationality: the (relevant) population of Greater Britain was the British nation writ global. Both conceptions sanctioned extensive exclusion. The indigenous populations of the settler colonies, and the vast majority of the people that Britain ruled over in the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia, fell outside the scope of either account of the people. (Class and gender exclusion was more pronounced in accounts of the public.) But none of these boundaries was fixed permanently: political contestation over the scope of both the public and the people constituted two of the main axes of British and imperial politics in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.\n\nFor some imperial thinkers, the colonies were in the process of forming new nations, or had even done so already. This process of differentiation from the originary British nation was regarded as a consequence of the radically different physical environments, social structures, economic systems, and nascent cultural traditions in which the colonists were enmeshed. Recognition of the increasing power of colonial nationality could lead in several directions. It could bolster the view that the colonies should be allowed to separate, even that this was now inevitable, and that the future of Greater Britain lay (at most) in a moral community of the Anglo-Saxon race. This was the view of Goldwin Smith, a prominent radical historian who was regarded as a dangerous enemy by many imperialists.40 And as I explore in chapter 13, it was also the position advocated by the historian E. A. Freeman, who focused in particular on the \"Teutonic\" racial community binding Britain and its ex-colonies in North America. The radical liberal politician Charles Dilke, who had popularized the term \"Greater Britain,\" defended another variation on the theme. He sketched an environmental conception of national character, where physical and social conditions, in dynamic combination, shaped the personality of individuals and collectives alike: Canadians and Americans, despite their (as he saw it) common racial origins, were very different in \"type.\" But they were anchored in the same foundations, in a \"Saxondom\" that incorporated both the United States and Greater Britain: \"That which raises us above the provincialism of citizenship of little England is our citizenship of the greater 'Saxondom' which includes all that is best and wisest in the world.\"41 But the belief in the growing strength of colonial \"nationalism\" was more commonly used to motivate urgent calls to confront this dangerous process. Crisis loomed if no action was taken.\n\nThe most popular view among late Victorian imperial thinkers was that the population of Greater Britain comprised a single nationality. Seeley argued for the \"general proposition\" that \"Greater Britain is homogenous in nationality.\"42 De Labilli\u00e9re, hoping for \"the permanent political unity of our race,\" asserted that the \"spirit of national unity has been one of the most beneficent influences in the enlightened progress of modern times. It has made Italy; it has made Germany... National magnetism, with the power of a loadstone [ _sic_ ] is drawing together Great and Greater Britain in closer Indissoluble union.\"43 The historian Hugh Egerton talked of the \"common nationhood\" binding together the peoples of Greater Britain, while a pamphlet produced for the IFL argued that federation was \"a means of securing the continued Union of our nation throughout the world.\"44 The nation, in this sense, acted as a form of social cement connecting the scattered elements of the empire, and allowing it to be represented both as a natural outgrowth of England and as a cohesive whole.\n\nIn the Edwardian era, a multinational commonwealth vision began to eclipse the Seeleyan global nation-state, in recognition of the burgeoning colonial demands for national autonomy. In other words, while the notion of a global polity never disappeared, it was increasingly decoupled from the idea of a singular global nation.45 This theme had not been absent from earlier debates, although neither was it especially prominent. For example, Lord Rosebery argued in a speech delivered in Adelaide in January 1884 that Australia could no longer be seen as a colony, but was \"a nation not in aspiration or in the future, but in performance and fact.\" The empire, he maintained, should be regarded as \"a commonwealth of nations.\"46 It was this account that became increasingly popular over time, not least because it mirrored the views of the political elites in the colonies. In 1905 the eminent journalist W. E. Monypenny suggested that the empire constituted a \"world state\" that \"transcends nationality\" while simultaneously allowing the flourishing of separate nationalities within it. By escaping the clutches of both a petty-minded \"national exclusiveness\" and a grim centralized \"Caesarian despotism,\" it pointed the way to a new form of political order, a truly \"cosmopolitan ideal.\"47 The idea of an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth was, meanwhile, central to the Round Table movement, because, as Lionel Curtis wrote in 1916, \"Canadians, Australians, and South Africans each think of themselves as nations distinct from the people of the British Isles, just as the British think of themselves as a nation distinct from the citizens of the United States.\" They had acquired, that is, a \"national consciousness of their own.\"48 Both the nation-centric and the race-centric accounts, however, embodied an argument about the global singularity of \"the people.\"\n\nTranslocalism: Expanding the Public\n\nThe extension of the scope of the people went hand in hand with an expansion of the compass of the public, of those individuals regarded collectively as politically significant. During the nineteenth-century the size and shape of the public shifted along two dimensions: _horizontal_ and _vertical_. The vertical dimension refers to the degree of formal political inclusion of a given public. This has been the focus of a very large body of scholarship; it is, indeed, the story of the development of democracy in the United Kingdom (and also of the parallel but uneven development of democracy in the individual colonies). Horizontal extension, on the other hand, refers to the spatial extent of a given public\u2014the degree to which it is linked to particular configurations of territory. This topic has received far less scholarly attention. Yet the arguments promulgating the unification of the British colonial empire embodied a claim\u2014sometimes made explicit, often not\u2014about the existence (or potentiality) of an ocean-transcending public. This was a significant moment in the history of modern global consciousness, an early step on the road to the idea of a global public sphere.\n\nAt the peak of the globalization boom in the 1990s the anthropologist Arjun Appadurai argued that the contemporary nation-state\u2014conceived of as \"a compact and isomorphic organisation of territory, ethnos, and governmental apparatus\"\u2014was undergoing a profound crisis; it was in \"serious trouble.\"49 In particular, political loyalties and territorial sovereignty were being wrenched apart as individuals increasingly came to identify with\u2014and feel a sense of belonging to\u2014communities and groups that transcended, indeed challenged, the nation-state. While states remained territorial entities, political identities were often unconstrained by formal boundaries, escaping the relentless topological imperatives of modern politics. \"Translocal\" affiliations\u2014affiliations, that is, to imagined communities that burst the territorially circumscribed foundations of political identity\u2014assumed a pivotal role. \"The most important feature of these emergent cartographies is that they do not appear to require horizontally arranged, contiguous, and mutually exclusive claims to territory.\"50 While Appadurai maintained that translocalism could take many forms, he drew a sharp distinction between two main categories. In the first, the imagined spaces are separate from, and come into conflict with, existing state configurations. An example would be the Sikh idea of Khalistan or the Islamic ummah.51 In the second, the idea is to rework existing configurations by extending the reach and power of one community over others. Appadurai's example is the German neo-fascist view that the Aryan peoples should be united into a single political community, thus expanding the scope of the German state.\n\nAppadurai leaves open the question about whether such dynamics existed in the past. Here we can offer a response which gives some historical flesh to his theoretical account, while employing that account to help shed light on the dynamics of late Victorian intellectual life. First, translocal dynamics have formed a central part of the history of modernity, not least through the globalizing agencies of empire.52 Yet, second, we also witness a significant shift within the politics of modernity, a shift that signals an important moment in the history of global consciousness. This shift was catalyzed by the transformation in the perception of time and space discussed above. As the world appeared to shrink (and as time appeared to contract) so it became possible to argue\u2014however unrealistically\u2014that a strong sense of affiliation and belonging could be felt with individuals scattered throughout the world. Adam Smith once referred to British colonists living in North America as \"strangers.\"53 In the last three decades of the nineteenth century this common (and commonsensical) understanding was overturned: distance no longer entailed alienation. Communal identification need not be rooted in or constrained by geography. This was not a novelty of the post-1989 world; it is not unique to contemporary forms of globalization. It was instead a product of the nineteenth-century communications revolution, and it spawned a major rethinking of the nature of political association, territory, and space. It was as a result of these developments that proponents of colonial unity in late Victorian and Edwardian Britain can be seen as imagining a form of globe-spanning translocal politics. However, whereas many of the examples explored by Appadurai are \"counterhegemonic\"\u2014seeking to challenge the established power structures and sources of authority54\u2014the attempted reworking of British racial-national consciousness in the Victorian age was a hegemonic project, an effort to establish and prolong the dominance of an empire through novel articulations of political identity.\n\nYet that project does not fit neatly into either of the two categories identified by Appadurai. The imperial unionists were neither seeking to create a space outside of or in opposition to the existing state, and nor were they chiefly focused on extending the scope of British nationality by conquering other established states. Instead, they sought to extend the scope of the British polity to encompass, on equal terms, colonial spaces that had previously been regarded as subordinate communities. It was for this reason that many of the supporters of colonial union did not regard the colonies as part of the empire\u2014a term that connoted hierarchy and difference\u2014but instead as integral elements of a transcontinental British state.55 This imaginative projection involved a double process of deterritorialization and reterritorialization.56 The British polity was no longer to be conceived of as a small group of islands lying off the northwest coast of continental Europe (deterritorialization). Instead it was to be seen as encompassing a vast range of territories in North America, the Pacific, and Southern Africa (reterritorialization). This new space was a nascent form of global state.\n\nIn envisioning a translocal cartography, the idea of the public itself was refashioned. This was a direct challenge to conventional understandings of the scope of the public sphere, which had seen it as falling within, and indeed constrained by, the territorial boundaries of the British Isles. The conventional view was compatible with the claim that the colonies had their own emergent publics, but these were nevertheless regarded as separate from, and inferior and subordinate to, that of Britain. This was the standard position adopted until the last three decades of the nineteenth century. John Stuart Mill, a defender of the value of the colonial empire, articulated it clearly in the _Considerations on Representative Government_ (1861), arguing that one of the key reasons why a federation of the colonies would fail to satisfy the \"rational principles of government\" was that the colonists were \"not part of the same public\" as the British people.57 A basic harmony of both interests and sympathies was absent. The alternative vision\u2014the vision that found expression in the debates over Greater Britain\u2014was of a single, translocal public sphere, encompassing the publics of the United Kingdom and the settler communities. This allowed the most ambitious imperial unionists to outline plans for the creation of representative institutions, a federal constitution, even a new imperial senate, that would bind the various publics together in a new political order. This polity was to be the home of an innovative form of imperial citizenship.58 The public sphere, circumscribed by race, had been stretched over the face of the earth.\n\nConclusions\n\nDuring the late Victorian and Edwardian years numerous imperial commentators sought to reimagine the British state, nation, and empire. In seeking to challenge the purported indifference of their compatriots, in attempting to respond to the perceived threats posed by both domestic and geopolitical developments, and in light of the cognitive transformations wrought by new communications technologies, many of them argued for novel understandings of territory, borders, and political identity. This prominent group sought to globalize domestic politics by arguing that a vast polity, grounded in a single people and containing a single (albeit differentiated) public sphere, could already be discerned, but that it was in danger of being lost if urgent political action was not taken to secure and strengthen it. Such a failure, they warned, would hasten the decline and fall of the British empire. Their arguments implied a refashioning of the boundaries between local and global, domestic and foreign, nation and empire.\n\nThe views that they professed\u2014hubristic, conceited, and deeply na\u00efve\u2014echoed powerfully down the years, and can be seen again today in the growing interest in the so-called \"Anglosphere,\" the globe-spanning body of the heirs of the British colonial diaspora. The main difference now, of course, is that the internal balance of power has shifted firmly across the Atlantic, with Washington assuming the mantle of imperial metropolis.59 The echo can be heard too, albeit more indirectly, in the arguments propagating a league or concert of democracies. As Tony Smith observes, these visions often embody \"a claim to cultural superiority and an encouragement to belligerent behaviour\" that represent \"an update of race theory.\"60 They are the latest incarnation of a long-standing set of arguments about the duties of purportedly advanced states to spread, by force if necessary, the enlightened benefits of civilization to the benighted, \"barbaric\" corners of the earth. We would do well to ignore their dangerous clarion call.\n\n1 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 158.\n\n2 For useful general accounts of British society and politics at the time, see Theodore Hoppen, _The Mid-Victorian Generation, 1846\u20131886_ (Oxford, 1998) and Geoffrey Russell Searle, _A New England?_ (Oxford, 2005).\n\n3 On socialist support for imperial federation, see especially Gregory Claeys, _Imperial Sceptics_ , ch. 3. Hyndman was leader of the Social Democratic Federation and a booster of Marx, while Hardie was a founder of the Labour Party. See also the discussion of Hobson and Hobhouse in chapter 14.\n\n4 See chapter 10 of this volume, and Casper Sylvest, _British Liberal Internationalism, 1880\u20131930_ (Manchester, 2009).\n\n5 Daniel Gorman, _Imperial Citizenship_ (Manchester, 2006); Peter J. Cain \"The Economic Philosophy of Constructive Imperialism,\" in _British Politics and the Spirit of the Age_ , ed. Cornelia Navari (Keele, 1996), 41\u201365.\n\n6 On the general fear of degeneration, see Daniel Pick, _Faces of Degeneration_ (Cambridge, 1989); John Burrow, _The Crisis of Reason_ (London, 2000). On republican imperialism, see also chapters 2 and  of this volume.\n\n7 For further discussion, see Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_ , ch. 2.\n\n8 Julius Vogel, \"Greater or Lesser Britain,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 1 (1877), 813; Vogel, \"The British Empire,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 3 (1878), 617.\n\n9 Martha Finnemore and Kathryn Sikkink, \"International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,\" _International Organization_ , 52 (1998), 887\u2013917; see also the discussion of \"innovating ideologists,\" in Quentin Skinner, _Visions of Politics_ (Cambridge, 2002), vol. 1, esp. chs. 7, 8, 10.\n\n10 There is considerable debate over the extent to which empire did register among the public and elites (and of what might follow from this). See, for example, Michael Bentley, _Politics without Democracy_ , 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1999), xviii, 182; Peter Durrans, \"The House of Commons and the British Empire, 1868\u20131880,\" _Canadian Journal of History_ , 9 (1974), 19\u201345; Bernard Porter, _The Absent-Minded Imperialists_ (Oxford, 2004); Catherine Hall, _Civilizing Subjects_ (Cambridge, 2002).\n\n11 Macaulay, \"Speech on the Renewal of the East India Company Charter\" [July 10, 1833], reprinted in Macaulay, _The Complete Works_ (London, 1898\u20131906), 11:558. Cold Bath Fields was a notorious prison in London.\n\n12 Mill, \"A Few Words on Non-Intervention\" [1859], in _Collected Works_ (Toronto, 1963\u201391), 21:17; Mill, letter to Henry Samuel Chapman, January 14, 1870, _Collected Works_ , 18:1685.\n\n13 Walter Bagehot, \"Sir George Cornewall Lewis\" [1863], in _Biographical Studies_ , ed. Richard Holt, 2nd ed. (London, 1889), 212\u201313.\n\n14 Froude, \"England and Her Colonies,\" _Fraser's Magazine_ , 1 (1870), 4\u20135; L. J. Trotter, \"British India under the Crown,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 15 (1870), 113\u201332.\n\n15 Both men were responding to Lord Bury's \"Inaugural Speech\" [March 15, 1869], reprinted in the _Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute_ , vol. 1 (1869\u201370), 51\u201362. George Phipps, Marquis of Normanby, had served as Governor of Nova Scotia in the 1840s; during the 1870s and 1880s he was Governor of Queensland, New Zealand, and Victoria.\n\n16 John Martineau, \"New Zealand and Our Colonial Empire,\" _Quarterly Review_ (1870), 128, 135.\n\n17 See, for example, Andrew Macfie, \"On the Crisis of the Empire,\" _Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute_ , 3 (1871\u201372), 2\u201312.\n\n18 Piers Brendon, _The Decline and Fall of the British Empire: 1781\u20131997_ , (London, 2007); John Darwin, \"The Fear of Falling,\" _Transactions of the Royal Historical Society_ , 5th series, 36 (1986), 27\u201345; and the discussion of time in chapter 5.\n\n19 Christopher Herbert, _War of No Pity_ (Princeton, 2007).\n\n20 Rande Kostal, _A Jurisprudence of Power_ (Oxford, 2006); Karuna Mantena, \"The Crisis of Liberal Imperialism,\" in _Victorian Visions of Global Order_ , ed. Bell (Cambridge, 2007), 89\u2013113.\n\n21 Koselleck, \"Crisis,\" _Journal of the History of Ideas_ , 67 (2006), 357.\n\n22 Andrew Thompson, _Imperial Britain_ (London, 2002).\n\n23 On the institutional ecology of imperial campaigning, see Seeley, _The Expansion of England_. In an obituary, H.A.L. Fisher commented: \"I question whether any historical work has exercised so great an influence over the general political thinking of a nation.\" H.A.L. Fisher, \"Sir John Seeley,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 60 (1896), 193. For Seeley's imperial political theology, see chapter 11.\n\n24 Lorne, \"The Annual Address on the Progress of Geography, 1885\u20131886,\" _Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society_ , 8 (1886), 420; Felix Driver, _Geography Militant_ (Oxford, 1999).\n\n25 Stead, in _The Life of W. T. Stead_ , ed. Frederick Whyte (London, 1925), 2:209\u201310.\n\n26 C. P. Lucas, \"Introduction\" to George Cornewall Lewis, _An Essay on the Government of Dependencies_ (Oxford, 1891), xxxviii, lviii.\n\n27 Hobhouse, _Democracy and Reaction_ 1904], ed. P. F. Clarke (Brighton, 1973), 144\u201345. For more on Hobhouse, see [chapter 14.\n\n28 I do not follow nineteenth-century usage, where there was no settled meaning for either the \"people\" or \"public.\" Boyd Hilton argues that the idea of a public, as we would understand it, did not really exist before 1850. _A Mad, Bad, and Dangerous People?_ (Oxford, 2006), 310\u201311. I use the concepts as analytical categories to help make some sense of a confused debate. For a useful theoretical discussion, see Margaret Canovan, _The People_ (Cambridge, 2005).\n\n29 On the philosophical issues involved, see Arash Abizadeh, \"Citizenship, Immigration, and Boundaries,\" in _Ethics and World Politics_ , ed. Duncan Bell (Oxford, 2010), 358\u201377, and, more recently, Sarah Fine, \"Democracy, Citizenship, and the Bits in Between,\" _Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy_ , 14\/5 (2011), 623\u201340.\n\n30 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 63. Leo Amery, \"Imperial Defence and National Policy,\" in _The Empire and the Century_ , ed. C. S. Goldman (London, 1905), 182.\n\n31 For the widespread transformation in perceptions of time and space in European culture, see Stephen Kern, _The Culture of Time and Space, 1880\u20131918_ (Cambridge, MA, 2003); Nicholas Daly, _Literature, Technology, and Modernity, 1860\u20132000_ (Cambridge, 2004); Wolfgang Schivelbusch, _The Railway Journey_ (Oxford, 1986).\n\n32 The Atlantic was straddled in 1866 (after an abortive attempt in 1858). Cables reached Australia in 1872, New Zealand in 1876, and South Africa in 1879.\n\n33 Kipling, \"Deep-Sea Cables\" [1896], in _Rudyard Kipling's Verse, 1885\u20131932_ (London, 1932), 173.\n\n34 Young, _Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute_ , 8 (1876\u201377), 118\u201319.\n\n35 Forster, \"Our Colonial Empire,\" _Times_ , November 6, 1875, 9; Francis de Labilli\u00e9re, \"British Federalism,\" _Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute_ , 24 (1893), 110.\n\n36 Forster, _Imperial Federation_ (London, 1884), 27.\n\n37 de Labilli\u00e9re, _Federal Britain, or, Unity and Federation of the Empire_ (London, 1894), 12.\n\n38 Jenkins, \"An Imperial Confederation,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 17 (1871), 78.\n\n39 Peter Mandler, \"'Race' and 'Nation' in Mid-Victorian Thought,\" in _History, Religion, and Culture_ , ed. Stefan Collini, Richard Whatmore, and Brian Young (Cambridge, 2000), 224\u201345; Stuart Jones, \"The Idea of the Nation in Victorian Political Thought,\" _European Journal of Political Theory_ , 5 (2006), 12\u201321. Since this chapter was first published, I have further developed this argument about race as \"biocultural assemblage.\" Bell, \"Beyond the Sovereign State,\" _Political Studies_ , 62\/2 (2014), 418\u201334.\n\n40 Smith, _The Empire_ (London, 1863); Smith, \"The Empire,\" in _Essays on Questions of the Day_ [1893], 2nd ed. (New York, 1894), 141\u201395. On Smith, see Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_ , ch. 7.\n\n41 Dilke, _Greater Britain_ (London, 1868), 2:150, 156.\n\n42 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 49; Seeley, \"Introduction\" to _Her Majesty Colonies_ (London, 1886), xxiv\u2013xxv.\n\n43 de Labilli\u00e9re, _Federal Britain_ , 35\u2013171; S. Wilson, \"A Scheme for Imperial Federation,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 17 (1885), 590; Young, _An Address on Imperial Federation_ (London, 1885), 23.\n\n44 Egerton, _A Short History of British Colonial Policy_ , 477; \"What Is Imperial Federation?\" [1890], _Minute Book of the General Committee of the Executive Committee of the I.F.L_., BL, Add MS, 62779, 256.\n\n45 See also the discussion in Gorman, _Imperial Citizenship_.\n\n46 Speech in Adelaide, January 18, 1884, George Bennett, _The Concept of Empire_ , 2nd ed. (London, 1962), 283; Forster, \"Imperial Federation,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 17 (1885), 201; Douglas Cole, \"The Problem of 'Nationalism' and 'Imperialism' in British Settlement Colonies,\" _Journal of British Studies_ , 10 (1971), 160\u201382.\n\n47 Monypenny, \"The Imperial Ideal,\" in _The Empire and the Century_ , ed. Goldman, 23, 27.\n\n48 Curtis, _The Problem of Commonwealth_ (London, 1916), 68; John Kendle, _The Round Table Movement and Imperial Union_ (Toronto, 1975).\n\n49 Appadurai, \"Sovereignty without Territoriality,\" in _The Geography of Identity_ , ed. P. Yaeger (Ann Arbor, 1996), 40\u201359; Appadurai, _Modernity at Large_ (Minneapolis, MN, 1996); Peter Mandeville, \"Territory and Translocality,\" _Millennium_ , 28 (1999), 653\u201367.\n\n50 Appadurai, \"Sovereignty without Territoriality,\" 51.\n\n51 Ibid., 55.\n\n52 A. G. Hopkins, ed., _Globalization in World History_ (London, 2002) and Tarak Barkawi, _Globalization and War_ (Lanham, MD, 2006); John Gerard Ruggie, \"Territoriality and Beyond,\" _International Organization_ , 47 (1993), 139\u201374; Friedrich Kratochwil, \"Of Systems, Boundaries and Territoriality,\" _World Politics_ , 39 (1986), 27\u201352.\n\n53 Smith, _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_ , ed. W. B. Todd (Oxford, 1976), 622.\n\n54 Appadurai cites (51n) Paul Gilroy, _The Black Atlantic_ (Cambridge, MA, 1993).\n\n55 Bell, \"The Victorian Idea of a Global State,\" in _Victorian Visions of Global Order_ , ed. Bell, 159\u201386.\n\n56 See Appadurai, \"Sovereignty without Territoriality,\" 54.\n\n57 Mill, _Considerations on Representative Government, Collected Works_ , 19, 564. See also the discussion in chapter 9.\n\n58 Gorman, _Imperial Citizenship_ ; J. Lee Thompson, _A Wider Patriotism_ (London, 2007).\n\n59 James C. Bennett, _The Anglosphere Challenge_ (New York, 2004); Bennett, _The Third Anglosphere Century_ (Washington, 2007); Robert Conquest and Andrew Roberts, among others, have been pushing a similar idea in recent years. Conquest, _Reflections on a Ravaged Century_ (London, 2000), 267\u201381; Roberts, _A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900_ (London, 2006). For analysis of the idea, see Srdjan Vucetic, _The Anglosphere_ (Stanford, 2011).\n\n60 Tony Smith, _A Pact with the Devil_ (London, 2007), 108.\nCHAPTER 8\n\nThe Project for a New Anglo Century\n\nRace, Space, and Global Order\n\nI believe that the twentieth century is par excellence \"The Anglo-Saxon Century,\" in which the English-speaking peoples may lead and predominate the world.1\n\n\u2014JOHN RANDOLPH DOS PASSOS\n\nProphets have long dreamed of schemes to govern a violent and unpredictable world. This chapter sketches a synoptic intellectual history of a prominent variation on the theme: the attempt to unify the constituent elements of the \"Anglo-world\" into a single globe-spanning community, and to harness its purported world-historical potential as an agent of order and justice.2 Since the late nineteenth century numerous commentators have preached the benefits of unity, though they have often disagreed on the institutional form it should assume. These are projects for the creation of a new Anglo century.\n\nThe opening two sections of the chapter explore overlapping elements of the _fin de si\u00e8cle_ Anglo-world discourse. Synthesizing some of the arguments made in previous chapters in this volume, I first analyze the relationship between Britain and its colonial empire, before turning to a range of intersecting arguments over the future relationship between the empire and the United States. The third section traces the echoes of these debates through the twentieth century, discussing the interlacing articulation of imperial-commonwealth, Anglo-American, democratic unionist, and world federalist projects. Despite important differences between them, most versions of these grand supranational schemes were heirs of the earlier debates. In the final section I discuss contemporary accounts of Anglo-world supremacy. While none of the most radical plans came to fruition, the evolving debate over the nature of the Anglo-world formed a central element in the cultural construction of the \"West,\" and illustrates the extravagant hopes that have been invested in the \"Anglo-Saxons\" over the course of a brutal century. This constitutes, then, an important strand in the history of modern political thought.\n\nEmpire, Nation, State: On Greater Britain\n\nTo govern, Foucault argues, is \"to structure the possible field of action of others.\"3 The second half of the nineteenth century saw a profound transformation in both the scale of the field of action and the ways in which it could be structured. It witnessed the emergence of a novel governance _episteme_ \u2014an imaginative regime wherein established conventions and presuppositions about political order were overturned.\n\nDaniel Deudney aptly labels this the \"global industrial period.\" The spread of the industrial revolution was a \"primal development\" for global politics, as new technologies intensified interactions across the planet, reshaping the material and imaginative contexts in which debates over the future took place. \"As the scale and tempo of human affairs changed, a major and tumultuous reordering of large-scale political relationships and institutions seemed imminent and inevitable.\"4 The thinkers of the time\u2014the \"industrial globalists\"\u2014proselytized a wide array of schemes for transcending the anarchic international system, including pan-regional imperial structures, European union, the federation of the British empire, and even the future development of a world state. The debates about the Anglo-world were an integral element of this more general discourse.\n\nThis period also saw the rearticulation of the global politics of race. In 1900, at the meeting of the Pan-African Congress in London, W.E.B. DuBois predicted that the \"problem of the twentieth century\" would be \"the problem of the color line.\"5 Fears about racial contamination were rife. A civilizational dividing line was constructed between \"white\" peoples and others, resulting in the initiation of numerous exclusionary practices, including racist immigration controls. This was a paradoxical process: \"The imagined community of white men was transnational in its reach, but nationalist in its outcomes, bolstering regimes of border protection and national sovereignty.\"6 Those debating the future of the Anglo-world insisted on carving out a space within the general identity of whiteness, establishing a stratified geo-racial imaginary. Usage of the term \"race\" was highly imprecise, but it typically designated a combination of cultural markers\u2014historical mythscapes, habitus, shared language, cultural values, and political ideals\u2014circumscribed by \"whiteness.\" It was simultaneously cultural and biological. The French, the Germans, the Russians, and the Hispanics were all considered inferior to the Anglo-Saxons. They in turn ranked higher on the scale of civilization than other nonwhite racial constellations populating the world outside the Euro-Atlantic zone and its diasporic outposts. In this conception of world politics, the basic ontological unit was race, and political institutions, including the state, were only of derivative importance.\n\nThe sweeping debate over the future of the British colonial empire was conducted under the sign of \"imperial federation,\" while the assemblage of communities under discussion was frequently labeled \"Greater Britain.\"7 The debate formed a key building block in the ideological construction of the twentieth-century Anglo-world. As I argue in _The Idea of Greater Britain_ , and elsewhere in this volume, it was driven by two intersecting imperatives. Fear that British relative power was threatened by the rise of formidable states\u2014notably Germany, Russia, and the United States\u2014led many commentators to argue for the construction of a globe-spanning political association, encompassing Britain and its settler colonies in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and (more ambivalently) South Africa, either to balance the new threats or to deter them from attempting to compete. These geopolitical concerns were reinforced by anxieties about the onset of democracy, with many imperial observers worrying that an expanding electorate would fail to recognize the importance of the empire, concentrating its energies and ambitions on domestic reform. It was feared\u2014prematurely as it turned out\u2014that a democratic polity would invariably be anti-imperial. Creating a federal Greater Britain, and populating it in part through an accelerated program of \"systematic\" emigration from the \"mother country,\" was thought to be one way of neutralizing these threats. Yet even some radical advocates of democracy, including J. A. Hobson, H. M. Hyndman, and Keir Hardie, saw benefits in imperial federation. For them, Greater Britain could simultaneously hasten the peaceful development of the international system and help to democratize Britain itself through the importation of progressive practices from the more egalitarian colonies.8\n\nAccording to Hobson, great federal political communities would dominate the future, and it was thus essential to erect a \"Pan-Saxon\" one. As he proclaimed in _Imperialism_ , \"Christendom thus laid out in a few great civilizational empires, each with a retinue of uncivilized dependencies, seems to me the most legitimate development of present tendencies and one which would offer the best hope of permanent peace on an assured basis of inter-Imperialism.\"9 Hobhouse, meanwhile, argued that imperial federation \"is a model, and that on no mean scale, of the International State.\"10 These arguments illustrate the two broad temporal logics that underpinned debates over Anglo-union deep into the twentieth century. In one of them, union represented the terminal point of future political development: the polity would take its place among other competing pan-racial or regional units. In the other, Anglo-union was figured as a transitional institutional formation, one that could serve as a template, catalyst, and leader of a future global political association.\n\nTime was of the essence. Haunted by memories of the American Revolution, many feared that the rapidly expanding colonies would secede, either establishing independent countries or fusing with another state\u2014most likely the United States\u2014thus further weakening Britain. The imperial advocates were determined to refute Alexis de Tocqueville's prediction, made in the closing lines of _Democracy in America_ , that Russia and America would dominate the future.11 Greater Britain was their answer.\n\nA significant number of British unionists fantasized about the incorporation of the United States within an imperial federation, though most of them recognized that this was unrealistic (at least in the short term). Nevertheless, America played a crucial role in imperial discourse. First, it was regarded as a potential challenger to British supremacy, thus motivating the call for action. This was especially apparent in the wake of the McKinley Tariff of 1890, which incited the demand throughout Britain and its colonies for the creation of a system of imperial preference.12 Second, the turbulent history of American-British relations, and in particular the War of Independence, preoccupied British imperial unionists, teaching them that the demands of colonial subjects had to be treated seriously. This meant granting them greater political autonomy. And finally, the United States demonstrated the power of federalism as a political technology by proving that individual liberty was compatible with vast geographical extent. This was welcome in an age in which it was commonly believed that the future belonged to huge omnicompetent political units. The radical politician Charles Dilke, author of the influential _Greater Britain_ , cautioned that \"[i]t is small powers, not great ones, that have become impossible.\"13 Three decades later Joseph Chamberlain, arch-federalist and Secretary of State for the Colonies, concurred: \"The days are for great Empires and not for little States.\"14 Size mattered.\n\nThe debates over Greater Britain generated hundreds of proposals, differing in ambition, detail, and rationale. Three general institutional models were discussed.15 The least ambitious was \"extra-parliamentary\" federation, wherein a group of distinguished individuals\u2014organized as an imperial Advisory Council\u2014would offer the British Parliament nonbinding advice on imperial affairs. A more constitutionally far-reaching model was \"parliamentary federalism,\" in which the colonies were to send elected representatives to sit in Westminster. This had been a common exhortation since the late eighteenth century, though it was much less popular in the closing decades of the Victorian age. Finally, \"supra-parliamentary federalism\" connoted the formation of a sovereign federal chamber supervening on the individual political assemblies of the empire. This model followed the example, above all, of the United States.16\n\nThe leading constitutional scholar A. V. Dicey observed that many imperial federalist proposals implied the creation of a \"new federated state.\"17 According to prevailing conceptions of statehood, all supra-parliamentary schemes\u2014and indeed most parliamentary ones\u2014could be viewed as demanding the construction of a globe-spanning Anglo-state, a polity composed of people belonging to the same nation and\/or race, governed by a system of representative institutions subordinate to a supreme federal legislative chamber. The local legislatures would have a high degree of autonomy over specified domains of policy, though supreme authority would reside in either a newly created imperial chamber (sometimes labeled a \"senate\") or a reconfigured Parliament in Westminster. This body would determine questions of war and peace, trade, and any other general issues that concerned the whole polity. The case of the extra-parliamentary advocates is less straightforward, for they were simply trying to reanimate the existing structure and were far less willing to promote significant constitutional engineering. Many of them did, however, predict radical developments in the future.\n\nYet not all advocates of Greater Britain proposed the development of a vast federal polity. For many of them the key to the future lay in the shared identity of the British people spread across the world, and they argued that further institutionalization was unnecessary\u2014it either fell outside the scope of \"practical politics\" or it was counterproductive. Instead, they maintained that it was essential to nourish the existing connections. This was the course that the British government ultimately followed. Dilke and Goldwin Smith, both leading public intellectuals and critics of imperial federal schemes, extolled the superiority of the British \"race\" and promoted a vision in which the Anglo-Saxons, acting as a collective of independent states, would shape the future. They supported the independence of the British settler colonies, but as a means to the end of Anglo-unity, not its termination. For Dilke, the \"strongest of arguments in favour of separation is the somewhat paradoxical one that it would bring us a step nearer to the virtual confederation of the English race.\"18 Both of them also included the United States in their vision. The cultural-racial conception of \"virtual confederation\" proved the most enduring; it remains an important factor in world politics to this day.\n\nArguments about both Greater Britain and Anglo-American union were premised on a cognitive revolution, a fundamental transformation in the perception of time and space. It was this, above all, that shaped the new governance _episteme_. In his _Considerations on Representative Government_ , John Stuart Mill argued, in an idiom common throughout the eighteenth and much of the nineteenth centuries, that physical distance thwarted the union of Britain and its settler colonies. It contradicted the principles of \"rational government\" and precluded the necessary degree of communal homogeneity.19 From the 1860s onwards, new communications technologies radically altered the way in which individuals perceived the physical world and the sociopolitical possibilities it contained, spawning fantasies about the elimination of geographical distance that prefigure late twentieth-century narratives of globalization. H. G. Wells declared that \"modern mechanism\" had created \"an absolute release from the fixed conditions about which human affairs circled.\" For J. R. Seeley, the leading intellectual of the imperial federalist movement, the \"unprecedented facility of communication which our age enjoys seems to be creating new types of state.\"20 A Greater British state was now realizable. Techno-utopianism underpinned arguments about the existence of a trans-planetary British political community. \"When we have accustomed ourselves to contemplate the whole [colonial] Empire together and call it England,\" Seeley proclaimed, \"we shall see that here too is a United States. Here too is a homogeneous people, one in blood, language, religion, and laws, but dispersed over a boundless space.\"21 Previously viewed as immutable, nature was now open to manipulation, even transcendence.\n\nAll of these projects depended on claims about the common identity of the dispersed Anglo people(s).22 As I discussed in the last chapter, the argument assumed two main forms. One insisted that the social ontological foundation of the people was _race_. They were, above all, Anglo-Saxon or members of the \"English race.\" This view was compatible with (but did not entail) an argument that the populations of the individual colonies were coalescing into new nationalities, and that the United States already comprised a distinct nation. The other account accepted the centrality of race, but emphasized the idea of a singular _nationality_ : the (relevant) population of Greater Britain was the British (or \"English\") nation writ global. Both conceptions sanctioned extensive discrimination. The indigenous populations of the settler colonies, and the vast majority of the people that Britain ruled over in the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia\u2014and that the USA came to rule over in Hawaii and the Philippines\u2014fell outside the scope of either account of the singular people.\n\nThe \"nationality\" view prevailed among late Victorian imperial thinkers. Seeley was only the most prominent to claim that \"Greater Britain is homogenous in nationality.\"23 During the Edwardian years, a multinational commonwealth vision began to eclipse the Seeleyean global nation-state. This alternative option was not without precedent, for Lord Rosebery, the future British prime minister, had argued in 1884 that the empire should be regarded as \"a commonwealth of nations.\"24 This position became increasingly popular over time, not least because it mirrored the views of the political elites in the colonies. Greater Britain morphed into a post-national (or multinational) political association. Both the nation-centric and the race-centric accounts, however, centered on an argument about the singularity of \"the people.\"\n\nThe imaginative extension of the scope of the people was conjoined with an expansion of the compass of the public\u2014of the set of individuals within the totality of the people regarded as politically significant. Arguments promulgating the unification of the British colonial empire (and also Anglo-America) embodied a claim about the existence or potentiality of an ocean-spanning public. As I discuss in chapter 7, this was a racially delimited precursor to the idea of a global public sphere. Indeed one of the most conceptually innovative features of the discourse, prominent especially in the early twentieth century, was the effort to inaugurate a system of Greater British imperial citizenship.25 It is possible to view the Anglo-racial imaginary as an example of what Arjun Appadurai terms \"translocal\" affiliation\u2014of an emergent cartography that escaped the topological imperatives of the modern territorially bounded nation-state.26 As time and space were reordered, so it was increasingly argued that a strong sense of identity and belonging bound Britain and its colonial populations. However, whereas many of the examples explored by Appadurai are \"counterhegemonic\"\u2014seeking to challenge extant power structures and sources of authority\u2014the attempted reworking of \"Anglo-Saxon\" racial-national consciousness in the Victorian age was a hegemonic project involving a double process of deterritorialization and reterritorialization.27 The British polity was no longer to be conceived of as a small group of islands lying off the northwest coast of continental Europe (deterritorialization), but rather as incorporating a vast range of territories in North America, the Pacific, and Southern Africa (reterritorialization). A similar georacial logic also helped underpin arguments about Anglo-American unity.\n\nThe Reunion of the Race: On Anglo-America\n\nThe unity of the Anglo-world was not preordained. For much of the nineteenth century, relations between the British empire and the United States were antagonistic. Resentment about the colonial past, incessant disputes over the Canadian border, the bitter divide over the Civil War and its aftermath, pervasive cultural condescension from the British, and widespread Anglophobia in American public life: all fanned the flames of antipathy. Mutual suspicion was the norm. It was only during the last two decades of the century, and in particular during the late 1890s, that the animosity thawed. This \"rapprochement\"\u2014and the subsequent creation of an Anglo-American security community\u2014has long been the subject of intense scrutiny by diplomatic historians and IR specialists. Yet insufficient attention has been paid to the political thought of the episode.\n\nIt was during the 1890s that the debate over Anglo-American union moved to the center of political debate. The Venezuelan boundary dispute (1895\u201396) led to acrimonious exchanges between Washington and London, but it also prompted anguished commentators on both sides of the Atlantic to recoil from the prospect of war. Numerous proposals for Anglo-American union appeared. The clamor for racial unity was partly a result of the new assertiveness of the United States, for although it had been engaged in imperial conquest since its founding, the annexation of Hawaii and the Spanish-American War (1898) signaled its first sustained burst of extra-continental imperialism. This was seen as marking a new phase in American history: either a moment when the country assumed its predestined role as a great power, or when it betrayed the founding principles of the republic. Many observers on both sides of the Atlantic insisted that the British and Americans should be united, not divided, under conditions of global imperial competition. Arguments ranged from a minimalist position that simply encouraged deeper political and economic cooperation between the two \"kindred\" powers, through intermediate proposals seeking a formal defensive alliance, to maximalist plans for uniting the two countries in a novel transatlantic political community.\n\nPlans for a formal alliance blended \"realist\" concerns over shared security interests with assertions about underlying cultural affinities. The British imperial commentator Arthur Silva White declared that schemes for a comprehensive political union were \"at present impossible,\" but that there \"remains but one expedient\u2014an alliance, or accord, which would pave the way to concerted action in the future.\"28 Yet many commentators were skeptical about such an alliance, either because they opposed closer connections in the first place, or because they thought it would instrumentalize (and potentially distort) a more fundamental form of unity.29 The esteemed American naval strategist Alfred T. Mahan argued that it was vital to \"avoid all premature striving for alliance, an artificial and possibly even an irritating method of reaching the desired end.\" Instead, he continued, \"I would dwell continually upon those undeniable points of resemblance in natural characteristics, and in surrounding conditions, which testify to common origin and predict a common destiny.\"30 A British military writer concurred, warning against the \"artificial and temporary arrangements miscalled 'alliances,' which provide occupation for European chancelleries.\"31 The \"organic\" bonds of \"kinship\" were sufficient. Fearful that talk about the Anglo-Saxons was dangerously triumphalist, Benjamin Harrison, the former US president, insisted that friendship was quite enough. \"Are not the continuous good and close relations of the two great English-speaking nations\u2014for which I pray\u2014rather imperilled than promoted by this foolish talk of gratitude and of an alliance, which is often made to take on the appearance of a threat, or at least a prophecy, of an Anglo-Saxon 'paramountcy?'\"32 This was a prescient warning.\n\nAt the core of the Anglo-American vision lay a novel set of arguments that ruptured the isomorphic relation between state, citizen, and political belonging. Advocates of racial unity frequently decoupled the state from both citizenship and patriotism. Citizenship was reimagined as a political institution grounded ultimately in racial identity, not state membership. Dicey offered the most sophisticated elaboration of the idea of common citizenship, or _isopolity_ , arguing in 1897 for \"the extension of common civil and political rights throughout the whole of the English-speaking people.\" Rejecting the idea of a transatlantic (or imperial) federation, he insisted that \"reciprocal\" citizenship would be enough to secure permanent unity. The idea was, he averred, simply a return to a prior condition, for such a connection had existed before the Anglo-Saxon peoples were ripped apart by the War of Independence.33 Patriotism, meanwhile, was also reconfigured as a form of allegiance owed, in the first instance, to the race. Arguments about \"race patriotism\"\u2014a term usually associated with Arthur Balfour, a future prime minister\u2014circulated widely.34 They implied that people were enmeshed in a concentric circle of belonging and affect, the outer (and most important) ring of which was the race. Alfred Milner, a leading imperial thinker and official, summed it up neatly: \"My patriotism knows no geographical, but only racial limits... It is not the soil of England, dear as it is to me, but the speech, the tradition, the spiritual heritage, the principles, the aspirations of the British race.\"35 Quoting Balfour, Charles Beresford, a British Tory politician and senior naval officer, observed that\n\n[I]n addition to our domestic patriotism and our Imperial or American patriotism, we also have an Anglo-Saxon patriotism, which embraces within its ample folds the whole of that great race which has done so much in every branch of human effort, and in that branch of human effort which has produced free institutions and free communities.36\n\nTraditional notions of state citizenship and patriotism were thus seen as acceptable only insofar as they were compatible with attachment to the wider racial encompassing group.\n\nAndrew Carnegie, the Scottish-born industrialist, argued repeatedly for racial fusion and the \"reunion\" of Britain and America. Though usually lauded or reviled as an anti-imperialist, Carnegie, like Hobson, highlights how opposition to certain kinds of imperial activity\u2014in his case, British occupation of India and Africa and the American assault on the Philippines\u2014was consistent with ardent support for projects of racial unity or superiority. Carnegie dismissed the idea of an Anglo-American alliance as failing to grasp the far more important issues at stake. \"Alliances of fighting power form and dissolve with the questions which arise from time to time. The patriotism of race lies deeper and is not disturbed by waves upon the surface.\" \"[M]y belief,\" he declared, is that \"the future is certain to see a reunion of the separated parts and once again a common citizenship.\" This federated \"British-American Union\" would constitute a \"reunited state.\" Yet this vision was irreconcilable with imperial federation: the British had first to grant independence to their settler colonies, which would then be welcome to join the union as equal members.37 Although perturbed by the South African War, and by the exuberant imperialism of the American administration, he kept faith in the transformative potential of the Anglo-Saxon race.\n\nSkeptics were quick to point to the empirical inadequacies of unionist plans. One of their main complaints focused on the pertinence of arguments about racial unity. America, they complained, was simply not a lineal \"Anglo-Saxon\" descendent of Britain. \"There is,\" one critic observed, \"no fundamental reason rooted in human nature by virtue of a community of blood and religion why Americans as a nation should regard England with instinctive sympathy and friendship.\"38 Another stressed the multi-ethnic composition of the American population. \"What about the descendants of French men, of Germans, of Slavs, and of Scandinavians, who do not admit Anglo Saxon superiority?\" And what about the Irish or African-Americans?39 But such demographic arguments failed to register with the proponents of unity, not least because their conception of race was fluid. As one unionist observed,\n\nIt is quite true that, if the census of descent were taken as the test, the sons or descendants of Englishmen by no means make up the majority of American citizens. But there is descent other than that of birth and a lineage beside that of blood. The unity of language, literature, and law between England and America is a threefold cord that cannot be broken. To have our English Bible, our English Shakespeare, our English Blackstone all absolutely American in reverence and influence outweighs, outvotes and overwhelms all questions of racial compositeness.40\n\nIn general, then, what identified the United States as an Anglo-Saxon country was its dominant political culture\u2014its White Anglo-Saxon Protestant institutions, values, and ideals. Pointing to his own Portuguese origins, Dos Passos celebrated the American polity as a machine for turning (white) immigrants into Americans, and thus into adherents to an Anglo-Saxon creed. The \"foreign element,\" he argued, \"disappears, almost like magic, in the bosom of American nationality.\"41 Carnegie, meanwhile, suggested that immigration had barely altered the racial composition of America: \"[I]n race\u2014and there is a great deal in race\u2014the American remains three-fourths purely British... The amount of blood other than Anglo-Saxon or Germanic which has entered into the American is almost too trifling to deserve notice, and has been absorbed without changing him in any fundamental trait.\"42 Moreover, skepticism about racial commonality did not preclude support for political union. The eminent Anglo-American archaeologist Charles Waldstein argued that the notion of \"Anglo-Saxon\" racial identity was both misleading and dangerous: \"[I]t opens the door to that most baneful and pernicious of modern national diseases, namely, Ethnological Chauvinism.\" Yet he was adamant that Britain and the United States shared enough features in common to constitute \"one nationality,\" and he toasted the future creation of \"a great English-speaking Brotherhood.\"43\n\nCecil Rhodes was another formidable proponent of Anglo-American unity. At the heart of his vision lay an account of the fractured nature of history: its progressive course had been diverted by the catastrophic estrangement of the United States and Great Britain. This could only be put right if the two great institutional expressions of the race were reunited permanently. As a self-proclaimed \"race patriot,\" Rhodes was largely agnostic about whether Britain or the United States should lead the Anglo-Saxons in fulfilling their destiny, suggesting that a \"federal parliament\" could rotate between Washington and London.44 One of Rhodes's most practical contributions to realizing the dream of global racial dominance was the establishment of the Rhodes Trust, endowed following his death in 1902 with the intention of strengthening bonds between the elites of the Anglo-world, as well (initially) as Germany, that other Teutonic power. The radical journalist W. T. Stead agreed with his friend Rhodes that the \"English-speaking race is one of the chief of God's chosen agents for executing coming improvement in the lot of mankind,\" and he utilized his position as a prominent author and editor to preach the gospel of Anglo-unity, seeking to \"constitute as one vast federated unity the English-speaking United States of the World.\"45 Like many of his contemporaries, Stead sensed a gradual intra-racial shift in the balance of power. In _The Americanization of the World_ , he argued that the Americans had overtaken the British in most aspects of social and economic life, observed that Britain itself was slowly Americanizing, and determined that those ruling in London now faced a stark choice: ally with the United States in a grand project of earthly redemption, or become increasingly irrelevant as the empire slowly weakened and the settler colonies sought independence and looked to Washington for leadership. This was a cause for celebration: \"[T]here is no reason to resent the part the Americans are playing in fashioning the world in their image, which, after all, is substantially the image of ourselves.\"46 American success was an expression of British power, institutions, and values. This was a common trope in British accounts of Anglo-America, with Dilke, for example, boasting that \"[t]hrough America, England is speaking to the world.\"47\n\nH. G. Wells also dreamt of an Anglo enunciation of modernity. In _Anticipations_ , published in 1902, he prophesized the emergence of a world state ruled over by a new techno-managerial class of \"efficients\"\u2014the \"kinetic men\" of the future.48 This was a theme he was to pursue, in one way or another, until his death in 1946. In this early vision, the unification of the \"English-speaking\" peoples assumed a central role: they were to serve as pioneers of the world-state-to-come. By the year 2000 the English-speaking people would constitute a federal state, united by \"practically homogenous citizenship,\" with its headquarters in the United States. They would govern all the \"non-white states of the present British empire, and in addition much of the South and Middle Pacific, the East and West Indies, the rest of America, and the larger part of black Africa.\"49 His vision was vanguardist in a double sense. Not only were the English-speaking peoples to lead the way to a further global \"synthesis,\" but this drive was itself led by a select group of individuals, men of energy, determination, and drive, who would help to dissolve\u2014either through social revolution or in the wake of war\u2014the remaining barriers to its realization found in \"deliquescing\" modern societies. The New Republicans would act as a largely uncoordinated \"Secret Society\" to help inaugurate a fresh dawn in human history. This notion of a clerisy acting behind the scenes to secure race unity was echoed by Rhodes and Stead.\n\nWells was not the only fiction writer to propagate Anglo-unity. Arthur Conan Doyle was another enthusiast, dedicating his historical novel _The White Company_ to \"the Hope of the Future, the Reunion of the English-Speaking races.\" He even enlisted Sherlock Holmes, who declaimed that history should not prevent \"our children from being someday citizens of the same world-wide country whose flag should be a quartering of the Union Jack with the Stars and Stripes.\"50 Writing to his brother William, Henry James observed in 1888 that \"I can't look at the English-American world, or feel about them, anymore save as a big Anglo-Saxon total, destined to such an amount of melting together that an insistence on their difference becomes more and more idle and pedantic.\"51\n\nWhile many of the proposals for unity were motivated by pragmatic security concerns, an equally large number made drastic claims about the world-transforming potential of racial unity. We can thus interpret aspects of the pre-1914 Anglo-race discourse as expressions of utopian desire.52 A political project can be considered utopian, I submit, if and only if it invokes or prescribes the transcendence or elimination of at least one of the pervasive practices or ordering principles that shape human collective life. These include poverty, inequality, war, the state, the biochemical composition of the environment, or the ontological constitution of human beings, including death itself. Utopianism is not best employed as a synonym for any ambitious project of political change or seen as a general feature of the human condition, a universal striving for a better life. Rather, it identifies a particular species of transformative social and political thought.\n\nThe utopianism of this racial vision resided in the belief that if the United States and Greater Britain were properly aligned, the \"Anglo-Saxon\" race would help to bring peace, order, and justice to the earth. Carnegie argued that the \"new nation would dominate the world and banish from the earth its greatest stain\u2014the murder of men by men.\" Lyman Abbott, a prominent American Congregationalist theologian, dreamed of an Anglo century\u2014even millennium. \"[T]hese two nations, embodying the energy, the enterprise, and the conscience of the Anglo-Saxon race, would by the mere fact of their cooperation produce a result in human history which would surpass all that present imagination can conceive or present hope anticipate.\"53 For Albion Tourg\u00e9e, American soldier, diplomat, and judge, the Anglo-Saxons were, quite simply, the \"peacemakers of the twentieth century.\" Rhodes once wrote: \"What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost America, or even if now we could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly and our House of Commons, the peace of the world is secured for all eternity!\" In 1891, he predicted that union with the United States would mean \"universal peace\" within one hundred years. Stead agreed, envisaging that \"war would by degree die out from the face of the earth.\"54 This, then, was the promise of an Anglo-racial utopia.\n\nAfterlives of Empire: Anglo-America and Global Governance\n\nDuring the twentieth century, proposals for supranational political unions were divided among (at least) five models. One of them emphasized regional federation, and centered above all on combining the states of continental Europe. It was this vision that ultimately had the most practical effect, though only after the cataclysm of a genocidal war. The other four\u2014which I will label imperial-commonwealth, Anglo-American, democratic unionist, and world federalist\u2014placed the transatlantic British-American connection at the core of global order. All were descended, in part or wholly, from the earlier Anglo-world projects. Some offered only minor modifications to earlier imperial schemes, while others pushed out in new directions. Perhaps most importantly, though, the majority of the interwar and midcentury projects regarded the \"Anglo\" powers as a nucleus or vanguard. And even those schemes that expanded beyond the institutional limits of the Anglo-world were almost invariably liberal democratic and capitalist in form, and as such they exemplified, even embodied, the values and institutions on which the Anglo-world was based, and over which its advocates claimed paternity.\n\nThe imperial-commonwealth model focused on the continuing role of the British empire. During the Edwardian years and beyond, the Round Table and other British imperial advocacy groups continued to campaign on behalf of Greater British unity. The imperial federalist project reached its zenith during the First World War with the creation of an Imperial War Cabinet in 1917, which incorporated the prime ministers of the dominions. This was the nearest the dream of a politically unified Greater Britain came to fruition. Yet the war also accelerated calls for further independence in the colonies. While the efforts of the imperial federalists did not go completely unheralded in the United States, they found, perhaps ironically, a more receptive audience in continental Europe, with a number of them\u2014notably Philip Kerr (Lord Lothian)\u2014playing an important role in shaping the ideological foundations of European union.55\n\nDuring the 1920s the balance of power continued to shift within the British empire, and as the colonies were granted further autonomy they frequently came into conflict with London.56 In the interwar period it became increasingly popular to reimagine the empire as the \"British Commonwealth\"\u2014the two terms were often used interchangeably\u2014and to see it either as a self-contained system capable of balancing other great political orders, or as the embryonic form of a future universal political system. Britain and its settler colonies remained at the center of the model, although India and other elements of the empire were sometimes allotted subordinate roles. In the second half of the twentieth century, following decolonization, the imperial-commonwealth vision morphed into a postcolonial international organization.57 Today it lingers on, a pale shadow of the hopes once invested in it.\n\nThe Anglo-American model centered on the Anglo-Saxon\u2014or \"English-speaking\"\u2014peoples, and in particular on a British-American axis. Relations between London and Washington continued to strengthen in the wake of the late Victorian \"rapprochement,\" and the alliance was cemented during the First World War when the United States joined the Franco-British cause in Western Europe. It remained close for the rest of the twentieth century, though not quite as close as many of its cheerleaders, then as now, like to boast. The First World War had a catalytic effect on American foreign policy discourse, spawning the development of a powerful, though often fractious, East Coast policy elite oriented towards greater American involvement in world politics, in cooperation (even alliance) with Britain.58 During the interwar era, a variety of institutions and informal networks were created to foster closer links between the United States and Greater Britain. They constituted an emergent epistemic community dedicated to emphasizing the importance of Anglo-world global leadership. The Council on Foreign Relations in New York and the International Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) in London served as institutional hubs of Anglo-world thinking, in both its Anglo-American and British imperial-commonwealth articulations.59\n\nWhile the 1920s saw constructive cooperation between Britain and the United States, relations during the 1930s were strained; it was only with the outbreak of war, and especially between 1940 and 1942, that the two powers were forced into a tight embrace.60 This peaked with the signing of the Atlantic Charter in August 1941, dedicated to the promotion of \"certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hope for the common world,\" though tension continued between London and Washington over the future of the British empire. As American power increased, and it became clear that Britain would be a junior partner in any future relationship, so once again the dream of an Anglo-American order faded. Perhaps its last gasp can be found in Churchill's \"iron curtain\" speech in March 1946, in which he popularized the term \"special relationship\" and insisted that peace was impossible without \"the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples.\"61 Like the contemporary Commonwealth, the \"special relationship\" in the postwar years was a weak imitation of the ideal that had inspired many British, and even a few American, commentators over the previous decades.\n\nAnother model envisioned the creation of a league (or concert) of democracies. Before 1945 this essentially meant a transatlantic union of the United States, Great Britain, and assorted western European countries. As such, it moved beyond the \"racial\" limits of the Anglo-world. In the 1950s this idea sometimes mutated into an Atlanticist vision centered on the NATO countries. The most influential interwar democratic unionist vision was propounded by Clarence Streit, a journalist with the _New York Times_. In _Union Now_ , he proposed a federation, on the model of the constitution of 1787, of the fifteen democracies of the Atlantic world. The union would serve three main purposes:\n\n(a) to provide effective common government in our democratic world in those fields where such common government will clearly serve man's freedom better than separate governments, (b) to maintain independent national governments in all other fields where such government will best serve man's freedom, and (c) to create by its constitution a nucleus world government capable of growing into universal world government peacefully and as rapidly as such growth will best serve man's freedom.62\n\nHe followed this up with _Union Now with Britain_ , in which he argued that the creation of an Anglo-American union would guarantee the defeat of the Axis.63 Streit's later work highlights the way in which the Cold War constrained the imagination of democratic unionists. The West, figured as an \"Atlantic community\"\u2014a term first used by Walter Lippmann64\u2014took center stage. In 1961 Streit published _Freedom's Frontier_ , suggesting that the fifteen countries of NATO already constituted the nucleus of an immanent Atlantic federal state: \"Atlantica.\"65 This fed into a popular Atlanticist current of thought. Expressing a common view, Livingston Hartley, a former State Department official, demanded \"the political integration of the Atlantic community, the citadel and the powerhouse of freedom.\"66 For many, European union and Atlantic union went hand in hand, the development of the former helping to strengthen the viability of the latter.67 For others, though, the creation of a European union threatened the more desirable goal of Atlantic union. For Streit, avatar of Atlanticism, America needed to take the lead in creating a new order, \"preferably teamed closely with Canada,\" while European integration threatened transatlantic division.68\n\nThe veteran British peace campaigner Norman Angell followed a similar trajectory to Streit. An early advocate of democratic federal union as a precursor to world federation, during the Second World War he too emphasized the vital leadership role of the Anglo-states (and the British empire) in this future global order. Like so many other post-state visionaries, he insisted that a \"nucleus of authority\" was required to catalyze and then direct the transition to world federation, and that this nucleus \"must be the English-speaking world,\" by which he meant the United States and the \"British peoples.\"69 Rather than the latest manifestation of Anglo-Saxon imperialism, he was adamant that this Anglo core could act as the embryo of a true universalism. The empire should, then, be transformed into a \"nucleus of integration\" rather than dissolved into independent sovereign states.70 By the late 1950s, in Streitian vein, he was arguing that \"the West\" as a whole should act as the advance guard in any future transformation. \"A world government would have to work on the basis of 80 or 100 nationalisms, emphasizing widely differing cultures and ways of life.\" The common social basis for political unity did not (yet) exist. As such, he concluded, the adoption of the \"federal principle\" was necessary to unify the West in the face of Soviet totalitarianism, and as an essential step on the road to a more wide-ranging union.71 The unionist axis had shifted from the British empire, through Anglo-America, to the West as a whole, but the Anglo-world remained at the heart of the project.\n\nThe major difference between \"Anglo\" and \"Democratic unionist\" models concerns the identity claim on which they are based. The Anglo model is confined to a finite set of British diasporic communities; its potential spatial extent is delimited by a specific historical trajectory. A league of democracies is in principle more expansive, designating a community that shares a minimal set of political values and institutions, all of them hypothetically exportable. Yet in practice, at the heart of this picture, were (and are) the Anglo-states. Moreover, the values and institutions associated with such a community\u2014the architecture of liberal-democratic capitalism\u2014were either implicitly or explicitly ascribed by contemporaries to the British and American intellectual traditions. Once again, social science offered authoritative epistemic support. The empirical analysis, and the normative affirmation, of the Anglo-world were high on the agenda of early postwar behavioral political science. Most notably, the hugely influential idea of a \"security community\" was forged in the crucible of Atlanticist politics. Pioneering political scientist Karl Deutsch argued, for example, that the North Atlantic security community was anchored in the most highly integrated states, namely the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.72\n\nThe final model was a universal world polity. Ideas about world government have percolated through the history of political thought, ebbing and flowing in popularity.73 The 1940s witnessed an efflorescence of utopian political thinking, catalyzed by the old Kantian premonition that the route to perpetual peace would most likely wind its way through the valley of death\u2014that a brutal war might, once and for all, force people throughout the world to recognize the necessity of federation. Advocates of a global polity typically conceived of it as a long-term ideal rather than something within immediate grasp.74 Nevertheless, many of them called for a federal institutional structure with an Anglo nucleus, while numerous advocates of democratic or Anglo-racial union saw their own more limited goals as temporary steps on the road to\u2014and often agents in the creation of\u2014a universal federation.\n\nPerhaps the most famous world federalist was Wells, who proselytized on behalf of a post-sovereign cosmopolitan order in a seemingly endless stream of publications. After the First World War he turned his attention to the creation of a functionalist world state, suggesting in vague terms that a future world polity would result from the coagulation of regional and racial groupings.75 Like most of his contemporaries, his account of a cosmopolitan world state never escaped the ethnocentric assumptions that had marked his earlier writings. Evolving through various iterations, his vision of a future global order was rooted in the purported superiority of the Western powers, and in particular the Anglo-Americans. He longed for the (re)union of the English-speaking peoples. In 1935, for example, he argued that \"the commonsense of the world demands that the English-speaking community should get together upon the issue of World Peace, and that means a common foreign policy.\" It also meant economic unification, for \"the world revival\" would not materialize \"unless we homologize the financial control and monetary organization of our world-wide group of people.\"76 Wells exemplified the technocratic aspect of the world federalist project, even flirting with fascist methods during the 1920s and 1930s in order to help bring about a new global order.\n\nWorld federalist thinking flourished in Britain and the United States in the 1940s and early 1950s, drawing in a wide array of intellectuals and politicians, from Albert Einstein and Aldous Huxley to Henry L. Stimson and John Foster Dulles. Campaigning organizations\u2014notably the United World Federalists (1947)\u2014were formed, politicians lobbied, newsletters and pamphlets circulated. Wendell Willkie's _One World_ sold over two million copies.77 Henry Usborne, a British Labour MP, created a Parliamentary Group for World Government and signed up over 200 MPs.78 Under the leadership of its president, Robert M. Hutchins, the University of Chicago created a Committee to Frame a World Constitution.79 House Concurrent Resolution 64, in 1949, was proposed as a \"fundamental objective of the foreign policy of the United States to support and strengthen the United Nations and to seek its development into a world federation.\" It secured 111 votes, including those of John F. Kennedy, Gerald Ford, Mike Mansfield, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Henry Jackson. The movement peaked in early 1950, with 150,000 members worldwide.80\n\nIn the shadow of the bomb, political realists had their own one world moment. John Herz and Hans Morgenthau, among others, argued that human survival demanded the creation of a world state, though both were skeptical of its plausibility.81 The world federalist movement was stifled by the onset of the Cold War.82 The dream of unity struggled on, finding a variety of intellectual outlets, including the World Orders Model Project most closely associated with Richard Falk.83 But it was an early victim of bipolar ideological confrontation. Once a topic of mainstream concern for scholars, public intellectuals, journalists, and politicians, Thomas Weiss argues that today ideas about a global federal state are \"commonly thought to be the preserve of lunatics.\"84 Yet there are signs of a revival of interest in the idea, at least among scholars.85 In IR, for example, Alexander Wendt and Daniel Deudney have offered theoretically sophisticated accounts of the plausibility, even inevitability, of a world state.86\n\nThe proponents of democratic leagues and world federation often drew inspiration from\u2014and shared personnel with\u2014the imperial federal movement. Lionel Curtis is a prominent example. An enthusiastic advocate of imperial and then world federalism over the course of five decades, his political thought was riddled with the tensions between universalism, Atlanticism, and imperialism.87 Curtis's magnum opus, the sprawling politico-theological treatise _Civitas Dei_ , posited that a federated British empire could serve as a kernel and a model for a future universal commonwealth of nations, because of all extant political communities it offered the most appropriate space for human personality to find its fullest expression.88 The most difficult stage in creating a world federal state was the first one; the \"most experienced commonwealths\" needed to show leadership. He identified the core of the global order in the union of Great Britain, New Zealand, and Australia.89 The Second World War only reinforced his belief in the necessity of political transformation. In the early 1950s Curtis angrily denounced intellectuals for upholding the myth of sovereign statehood; they were, he charged, \"responsible for the bloodshed of this century\" and \"answerable for the suffering, poverty, and death that millions are now facing.\" Federation, with an Anglo core, was the only way to escape the killing machine. An arch Anglo-supremacist who died in 1956, Curtis was frequently hailed as one of the pioneers of the world federalist movement.90\n\nA notable aspect of the debates over global order, in both the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries, was that the United States often served as a template for the future. Both American political experience and political philosophy were routinely cited as inspirational, even formative. Streit modeled his plan for an Atlantic union of democracies on the US Constitution. Indeed, he went so far as to call for a Federal Convention, similar to its namesake in Philadelphia in 1787, to deliberate over the desirability and potential form of a transatlantic union. This proposal gained the support of the Canadian Senate and dozens of US senators.91 Twentieth-century British imperial federalists, meanwhile, regularly invoked the genius of the American founders, often interpreted through the prism of F. S. Oliver's _Alexander Hamilton_. Curtis, for example, was explicit about his debt to the _Federalist Papers_ ; they taught him, he recorded, about both the problem of political order and the best solution to it, fundamentally influencing his views over half a century of federalist agitation.92 America was both model and motive. Indeed, many world federalist plans can be read as demanding the Americanization of the planet.\n\nMillennial Dreams, or, Back to the Future\n\nWhile today there are few advocates of a global federal state outside of universities and think tanks, the vision of a \"concert\" or \"league\" of democracies has resurfaced in public life. \"Democracy\" has supplanted \"civilization\" as the defining feature in discourses of global governance. Democratic unionist arguments have been given a powerful boost by the popularity of theories of the \"democratic peace,\" once again highlighting the complex entanglement of twentieth-century social science with projects for global order. This line of reasoning is directly descended from the mid-twentieth-century discourse. Michael Doyle, for example, identifies Streit as the first modern commentator to point to \"the empirical tendency of democracies to maintain peace among themselves.\"93 Uniting liberal internationalists with neoconservatives, the idea of a league of democracies has wide ideological appeal among members of the American political elite, even if it has resonated far less in Europe. Advisors to both Barack Obama and John McCain promoted the idea during the 2008 election campaign, and McCain endorsed it.94 It has found its most systematic articulation in the Princeton Project on National Security, coordinated by Anne-Marie Slaughter and John Ikenberry, which proposes the creation of a global \"Concert of Democracies\" to \"institutionalize and ratify the 'democratic peace.'\"95\n\nRecent years have also witnessed a brief flurry of arguments focusing on the Anglo dimension of world politics\u2014the imperial dream that never expires. They are variations on the earlier themes of imperial federation and Anglo-American unity. In addition to the old rubric of the \"English-speaking peoples,\" a new term (coined in a science fiction novel) has entered the lexicon: the \"Anglosphere.\"96 Advocacy of Anglo superiority has assumed different forms. One popular version, outlined in a bestselling book and a popular television series, is Niall Ferguson's paean to British imperial power, and the necessity of the American empire assuming the responsibility\u2014the old \"White Man's burden\"\u2014of hegemonic stabilizer and civilizing agent.97 Other widely discussed proposals have emanated from the American businessman James Bennett and the British historian Andrew Roberts.\n\nEchoing earlier discussions about the world-historical function of the telegraph, Bennett contends that the Internet can serve as a medium through which the geographically scattered but culturally and politically aligned members of the \"Anglosphere\" can come into closer communion, and act together for the planetary greater good.98 He sees this as both desirable and necessary, given the likely development of other competing network \"spheres\"\u2014Sino, Luso, Hispano, and Franco. He concludes that the inherited political and economic traditions of the Anglosphere mean that it is uniquely equipped to thrive in the coming century. Roberts, meanwhile, seeks to pick up where Churchill finished his own bombastic history of the English-speaking peoples.99 Rather than advocating formal union, he outlines a vision, grounded in a hubristic reading of twentieth-century history, in which the English-speaking peoples are united by \"common purposes\" and in defeating waves of totalitarianism, today exemplified by Islamic fanaticism. Superior political institutions mean that when they act in unison, the whole world benefits. Roberts's vision of the English-speaking peoples is limited to the United States, the United Kingdom \"and her dependencies,\" New Zealand, Canada, and Australia, as well as the British West Indies and Ireland\u2014though of the latter two, the first is largely ignored while the second is routinely assailed for failing to live up to the standards set by the others. Reproducing earlier arguments about race patriotism, Roberts decenters the state: the ontological foundation of his argument is a singular people, while the political units of this singularity play a secondary function. \"Just as we do not today differentiate between the Roman Republic and the imperial period of the Julio-Claudians when we think of the Roman Empire, so in the future no one will bother to make a distinction between the British Empire-led and the American Republic-led periods of English-speaking dominance.\"100 The book secured him an invitation to George W. Bush's White House.101\n\nNone of these authors proposes a formal political union, instead hymning the powers of shared culture, traditions, and interests. But the vision of an institutionalized Anglo-union has not disappeared completely. Robert Conquest, eminent poet and historian, has called for the \"English-speaking\" countries of the world to join a \"flexibly conceived Association,\" something \"weaker than a federation, but stronger than an alliance.\" A \"natural rather than artificial\" association, this \"Anglo-Oceanic\" polity would act as a progressive hyperpower.102 Like Roberts, Conquest is driven in part by a sense of anger at the duplicity of British politicians signing up to European integration, and thus betraying their true kin in the dominions and across the Atlantic.\n\nThere are notable continuities between the contemporary projects for an Anglo century and their predecessors. All have been framed by war or imperial action. While Cuba, the Philippines, and South Africa set the context for the first outburst of writing on Anglo-America, and the rise of Hitler, the Second World War, and then the onset of the Cold War helped initiate the second, today it is Iraq, Afghanistan, and the \"War on Terror\" that provide the general ideological milieu. All of them depend on a form of \"othering,\" an imaginative geography of fear and loathing. Over time, the Anglo-Saxons have been arrayed against Japan, France, Russia, Germany, the Soviet Union, and now an amorphous \"radical Islam.\" Each phase has also been predicated on hyperbolic claims about the power of new communications technologies to transform the nature and scope of political association. Since the late nineteenth century, radical visions of formal political union have been accompanied by more modest proposals for strengthening existing connections and fostering close cooperation. Yet all of these varied projects, however ambitious, have been based on claims about translocal identity and belonging. They have insisted that the members of the Anglo-world share much in common\u2014a language, a history, a set of values, political and economic institutions, and a destiny.\n\nBut there are also some notable differences. The _fin de si\u00e8cle_ and mid-twentieth-century debates about supranational political unions were much wider ranging and more prominent; they drew in many of the leading public intellectuals, journalists, and politicians of the day. While the current debate over the league of democracies has a high profile, the ambitions of its proponents are far more limited than those urged by their mid-twentieth-century precursors. They do not seek to replace the state system, only to carve out a powerful coalition within it.\n\nThe contemporary Anglospheric discourse, meanwhile, is a pale imitation of previous iterations. This is partly because of its ideological coloring. Whereas the older debate crossed political lines, the contemporary discourse is almost exclusively confined to the political right, and in particular to neoconservatives. Another significant difference is that the utopian dimension of the earlier projects is largely absent. In the reheated version, the Anglosphere is figured as a force for good in the world, securing and helping to spread freedom, democracy, and liberal capitalism\u2014it upholds the new civilizing mission. This is a form of imperial idealism, but it is not equivalent to the earlier claims that the unity of the Anglo-Saxon race would eliminate war, or that it would inaugurate a universal world state. The messianic impulse has dissolved.\n\nThe last one hundred and fifty years, then, have seen the elaboration of numerous projects to unify or coordinate the scattered polities of the Anglo-world. Initially they centered on British imperial federation, before the focus switched to the Anglo-American relationship. Proposals for a league of democracy, Atlantic union, even world federalism were heirs of this Anglo discourse, not discrete and incompatible models of global order. They emerged from the earlier imperial-racial debates, and many of the proposals for transcending the existing system were similar in form and ambition to the projects for Anglo-world imperium. To chart the \"growth of nations,\" Tocqueville once wrote, it is an imperative to remember that they carry with them \"some of the marks of their origin.\"103 The same is true of projects of global governance. We have yet to escape the will to empire and the seductive call of the civilizing mission.\n\n1 Dos Passos, _The Anglo-Saxon Century and the Unification of the English-Speaking People_ , 2nd ed. (New York, 1903), vii. Dos Passos, a prominent Republican lawyer and author, was the father of the famous novelist.\n\n2 For the term \"Anglo-world,\" see James Belich, _Replenishing the Earth_ (New York, 2009).\n\n3 Foucault, \"The Subject and Power,\" in _Michel Foucault_ , ed. Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, 2nd ed. (Chicago, 1983), 221.\n\n4 Deudney, _Bounding Power_ (Princeton, 2007), 215, 219.\n\n5 See, in particular, the argument in DuBois, _The Soul of Black Folk_ (New York, 1903).\n\n6 Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds, _Drawing the Global Colour Line_ (Cambridge, 2008), 4.\n\n7 I expand on the argument in this section in Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_.\n\n8 On Hobson and Hobhouse, see chapter 14. The idea of importing reform from the colonial periphery was prevalent in wider social reform debates: Daniel Rodgers, _Atlantic Crossings_ (Cambridge, MA, 2000).\n\n9 Hobson, _Imperialism_ [1902], ed. Philip Siegelman (Ann Arbor, 1997), 332.\n\n10 Hobhouse, _Liberalism_ , ed. J. Meadowcroft (Cambridge, 1994), 116. Note that Hobson later abandoned his support for imperial federation. P. J. Cain, _Hobson on Imperialism_ (New York, 2002).\n\n11 Tocqueville, _Democracy in America_ [1835\u201340], trans. Henry Reeve, 2 vols. (London, 1862), 2:456\u201357.\n\n12 Marc-William Palen, \"Protection, Federation and Union,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 38 (2010), 395\u2013418; P. J. Cain and A. G. Hopkins, _British Imperialism, 1688\u20132000_ (London, 2002), ch. 7.\n\n13 Dilke, _Greater Britain_ (London, 1868) 1:274, 48.\n\n14 Chamberlain, _The Life of Joseph Chamberlain_ [1902], ed. J. L. Garvin and J. Amery (London, 1968), 177.\n\n15 This schema is derived from Ged Martin, \"Empire, Federalism and Imperial Parliamentary Union, 1820\u201370,\" _Historical Journal_ , 16 (1973), 65\u201392.\n\n16 For an example of the former model, see Marquis of Lorne, _Imperial Federation_ (London, 1885); for an example of the latter, see Francis de Labilli\u00e9re, _Federal Britain_ (London, 1894).\n\n17 Dicey, _Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution_ , 8th ed. (London, 1915), lxxxiv. On contemporary ideas about statehood, see Duncan Bell, \"The Victorian Idea of the Global State,\" in _Victorian Visions of Global Order_ , ed. Bell (Cambridge, 2007), 159\u201386.\n\n18 Dilke, _Greater Britain_ , 2:157.\n\n19 Mill, _Considerations on Representative Government_ (1861), in _Collected Works_ , vol. 19, ch. 18. See also the discussion in chapter 9 of this volume.\n\n20 Wells, _Anticipations_ [1902] (Mineola, NY, 1999), 38, 44; Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 62.\n\n21 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 158\u201359.\n\n22 For further details, see chapter 7.\n\n23 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 49.\n\n24 Bruce Bennett, _New Zealand's Moral Foreign Policy 1935\u201339_ (Wellington, 1962), 283.\n\n25 Daniel Gorman, _Imperial Citizenship_ (Manchester, 2006).\n\n26 Appadurai, \"Sovereignty without Territoriality,\" in _The Geography of Identity_ , ed. Patricia Yaeger (Ann Arbor, 1996).\n\n27 Ibid., 54.\n\n28 White, \"An Anglo-American Alliance,\" _North American Review_ , 158 (1894), 492\u201393; see also Walter Besant, \"The Future of the Anglo-Saxon Race,\" _North American Review_ , 163 (1896), 129\u201343.\n\n29 On the former, see in particular Henry Cabot Lodge, \"England, Venezuela, and the Monroe Doctrine,\" _North American Review_ , 160 (1895), 651\u201358. Indeed Lodge, a Massachusetts senator, regarded the British empire as a dangerous geopolitical competitor.\n\n30 Mahan, and Charles Beresford, \"Possibilities of an Anglo-American Reunion,\" _North American Review_ , 159 (1894), 554.\n\n31 G. S. Clarke, \"Imperial Responsibilities a National Gain,\" _North American Review_ , 168 (1899), 141.\n\n32 Harrison, \"Musings upon Current Topics II,\" _North American Review_ , 172 (1901), 354. On the history of the concept of the \"English-speaking peoples,\" usage of which originated in the 1870s and peaked during the early decades of the twentieth century, see Peter Clarke, \"The English-Speaking Peoples before Churchill,\" _British Scholar_ , 4 (2011), 199\u2013231.\n\n33 Dicey, \"A Common Citizenship for the English Race,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 71 (1897), 458.\n\n34 On Balfour's \"race patriotism,\" see Jason Tomes, _Balfour and Foreign Policy_ (Cambridge, 1997), chs. 2\u20134. On Milner, see J. Lee Thompson, _A Wider Patriotism_ (London, 2007).\n\n35 Milner, \"Credo,\" _Times_ , July 25, 1925.\n\n36 Beresford, \"The Future of the Anglo-Saxon Race,\" _North American Review_ , 171 (1900), 809.\n\n37 Carnegie, \"Americanism versus Imperialism,\" _North American Review_ , 162 (1899), 5\u20136; Carnegie, _The Reunion of Britain and America_ (Edinburgh, 1893), 9; Carnegie, \"The Venezuelan Question,\" _North American Review_ , 162 (1896), 132.\n\n38 Mayo Hazeltine, \"The United States and Great Britain,\" _North American Review_ , 162 (1896), 597.\n\n39 John Fleming, \"Are We Anglo-Saxons?,\" _North American Review_ , 153 (1891), 254.\n\n40 William Crosswell Doane, \"Patriotism,\" _North American Review_ , 166 (1898), 318.\n\n41 Dos Passos, _The Anglo-Saxon Century_ , 101, 104.\n\n42 Carnegie, _Reunion_ , 9.\n\n43 Waldstein, \"The English-Speaking Brotherhood,\" _North American Review_ , 167 (1898), 225, 230, 238.\n\n44 Rhodes, _The Last Will and Testament of Cecil J. Rhodes_ , ed. W. T. Stead (London, 1902), 73.\n\n45 Stead, _The Americanization of the World_ (New York, 1901), 100, 397.\n\n46 Ibid., 2.\n\n47 Dilke, _Greater Britain_ , 318.\n\n48 Wells, _Anticipations_ , ch. 8. On Wells, see also Deudney, _Bounding Power_ , pt. 3.\n\n49 Wells, _Anticipations_ , 146.\n\n50 Doyle, _The White Company_ (London, 1891); Doyle, \"The Adventures of the Noble Bachelor,\" in _The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes_ (London, 1892).\n\n51 Letter to William James, October 29, 1888, _The Letters of Henry James_ , ed. Percy Lubbock (New York, 1920), 1:141.\n\n52 For more on this argument, see Bell, \"Dreaming the Future,\" in _The American Experiment and the Idea of Democracy in British Culture, 1776\u20131914_ , ed. Ella Dzelzainis and Ruth Livesey (Aldershot, 2013), 197\u2013210.\n\n53 Carnegie, _Reunion_ , 12\u201313; Abbott, \"The Basis of an Anglo-American Understanding,\" _North American Review_ , 166 (1898), 521.\n\n54 Tourg\u00e9e, \"The Twentieth Century Peacemakers,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 75 (1899), 886\u2013908; Rhodes, _Last Will and Testament_ , 73, 66; Stead, _The Americanization of the World_ , 435. I develop this line of argument in Bell, \"Before the Democratic Peace,\" _European Journal of International Relations_ , 20\/3 (2014), 647\u201370.\n\n55 For the American reception, see, for example, William Roy Smith, \"British Imperial Federation,\" _Political Science Quarterly_ , 36 (1921), 274\u201397; George Burton-Adams, _The British Empire and a League of Peace_ (New York, 1919). On the impact on European debates, see John Kendle, _Federal Britain_ (London, 1997), ch. 6; Andrea Bosco, \"Lothian, Curtis, Kimber and the Federal Union Movement (1938\u20131940),\" _Journal of Contemporary History_ , 23 (1988), 465\u2013502; Michael Burgess, _The British Tradition of Federalism_ (London, 1995), pt. 3; John Turner, ed., _The Larger Idea_ (London, 1988).\n\n56 Margaret MacMillan, \"Isosceles Triangle,\" in _Twentieth-Century Anglo-American Relations_ , ed. Jonathan Hollowell (Basingstoke, 2001), 1\u201325.\n\n57 Timothy Shaw, _The Commonwealth_ (London, 2008).\n\n58 Priscilla Roberts, \"The Anglo-American Theme,\" _Diplomatic History_ , 21\/3 (1997), 333\u201364.\n\n59 Nicholas Cull, \"Selling Peace,\" _Diplomacy and Statecraft_ , 7 (1996), 1\u201328; Priscilla Roberts, \"The Transatlantic American Foreign Policy Elite,\" _Journal of Transatlantic Studies_ , 7 (2009), 163\u201383; Inderjeet Parmar, \"Anglo-American Elites in the Interwar Years,\" _International Relations_ , 16 (2002), 53\u201375; Paul Williams, \"A Commonwealth of Knowledge,\" _International Relations_ , 17 (2003), 35\u201358.\n\n60 David Reynolds, _The Creation of the Anglo-American Alliance, 1937\u201341_ (London, 1981); Reynolds, \"Roosevelt, Churchill, and the Wartime Anglo-American Alliance, 1939\u201345,\" in _The Special Relationship_ , ed. William Roger Louis and Hedley Bull (Oxford, 1986), 17\u201341.\n\n61 Robert Rhodes James, ed., _Winston S. Churchill_ (New York, 1974), 289. Churchill advocated a common citizenship between Britain and the USA. See Henry Butterfield Ryan, _The Vision of Anglo-America_ (Cambridge, 1987), ch. 3; Richard Toye, _Churchill's Empire_ (London, 2010), 240.\n\n62 Streit, _Union Now_ (New York, 1938), 2.\n\n63 Streit, _Union Now with Britain_ (New York, 1941).\n\n64 Lippmann, _US Foreign Policy_ (Boston, 1943), 83.\n\n65 Streit, _Freedom's Frontier_ (New York, 1961).\n\n66 Hartley, _Atlantic Challenge_ (New York, 1965), 92.\n\n67 Robert Strauz-Hupe, James Dougherty, and William Kintner, _Building the Atlantic World_ (New York, 1963).\n\n68 Streit, \"Atlantic Union,\" _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science_ , 288 (1953), 8. While Streit routinely talked of uniting \"all democracies,\" he also stressed \"Atlantic Union,\" thus leaving unclear the role of the non-Atlantic parts of Greater Britain.\n\n69 See the argumentative shift between Angell, _The Political Conditions of Allied Success_ (New York, 1918), and Angell, \"The English-Speaking World and the Next Peace,\" _World Affairs_ , 105 (1942), 10.\n\n70 Angell, \"The British Commonwealth in the Next World Order,\" _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science_ , 228 (1943), 65\u201370.\n\n71 Angell, \"Angell Sums Up at 85,\" _Freedom & Union_ (December 1958), 7\u201311.\n\n72 Deutsch et al., _Political Community and the North Atlantic Area_ (Princeton, 1957); see also Bruce Russett, _Community and Contention_ (Cambridge, MA, 1963).\n\n73 For analyses of such ideas, see Derek Heater, _World Citizenship and Government_ (Basingstoke, 1996); Jens Bartelson, _Visions of World Community_ (Cambridge, 2009).\n\n74 Jo-Ann Pemberton, _Global Metaphors_ (London, 2001); Wesley Wooley, _Alternatives to Anarchy_ (Bloomington, 1988).\n\n75 Wells, _The Outline of History_ (London, 1925), 708.\n\n76 Wells, _The New America_ (London, 1935), 24.\n\n77 Dulles, _War, Peace, and Change_ (New York, 1939); Willkie, _One World_ (New York, 1943).\n\n78 For further detail, see Joseph Preston Baratta, _The Politics of World Federation_ , 2 vols. (Westport, 2004), 162\u201364.\n\n79 Hutchins et al., _Preliminary Draft of a World Constitution_ (Chicago, 1948); See also G. A. Borgese, _Foundations of a World Republic_ (Chicago, 1953).\n\n80 Thomas Weiss, \"What Happened to the Idea of World Government?,\" _International Studies Quarterly_ , 53 (2009), 258; John Preston Baratta, \"The International Federalist Movement,\" _Peace & Change_, 24 (1999), 342.\n\n81 Craig Campbell, _Glimmer of a New Leviathan_ (New York, 2003); Deudney, _Bounding Power_ , ch. 8.\n\n82 Baratta, _The Politics of World Federation_. This transition was mirrored in the mutation of an \"astrofuturist\" discourse that focused on the possibilities of the exploration and conquest of outer space. This discourse emerged in the interwar years in the USA, Germany, Britain, and Russia, and flowered in the second half of the century, chiefly in the USA. It reached its apotheosis with the moon landing in 1969. During the interwar period it had been largely internationalist in orientation\u2014albeit infused with the justificatory strategies of imperialism\u2014whereas its post-1945 fortunes saw it tied increasingly to the priorities of the national security state. DeWitt Clinton Kilgore, _Astrofuturism_ (Philadelphia, 2003).\n\n83 Falk, _A Study of Future Worlds_ (New York, 1975). Falk drew on Louis Sohn and Grenville Clark, _World Peace through World Law_ (Cambridge, MA, 1958).\n\n84 Weiss, \"World Government?,\" 258.\n\n85 For discussion, see Luis Cabrera, \"World Government,\" _European Journal of International Relations_ , 16 (2010), 511\u201330.\n\n86 Wendt, \"Why a World State Is Inevitable,\" _European Journal of International Relations_ , 9 (2003), 491\u2013542; Deudney, _Bounding Power_.\n\n87 On his life and religious views, see Gerald Studdert-Kennedy, \"Christianity, Statecraft and Chatham House,\" _Diplomacy & Statecraft_, 6 (1995), 470\u201389; Deborah Lavin, _From Empire to International Commonwealth_ (Oxford, 1995).\n\n88 Curtis, _Civitas Dei_ , 3 vols. (London, 1937).\n\n89 Curtis, \"World Order,\" _International Affairs_ , 18 (1939), 309; cf. Curtis, _Civitas Dei_ , vol. 3. Curtis also expressed admiration for Streit's alternative Atlanticist plan. Curtis, \"World Order,\" 310; Curtis, \"The Fifties as Seen Fifty Years Hence,\" _International Affairs_ , 27 (1951), 273\u201384.\n\n90 Curtis, \"The Fifties,\" 284. On his role as a pioneer, see Streit, \"Lionel Curtis,\" _Freedom & Union_, 10 (1956), 10.\n\n91 Streit, \"Atlantic Union\"; Curtis, \"The Fifties,\" 275\u201376.\n\n92 Oliver, _Alexander Hamilton_ (London, 1906); Curtis, \"World Order,\" 302\u20137. Deudney's fascinating discussion of republican security in _Bounding Power_ is also modeled on American experience.\n\n93 Doyle, \"Liberalism and World Politics,\" _American Political Science Review_ , 80 (1986), 1162n2; cf. Ikenberry, _After Victory_ (Princeton, 2001), 178\u201379. For further discussion, see Duncan Bell, \"Before the Democratic Peace,\" _European Journal of International Relations_ , 20\/3 (2014), 647\u201370.\n\n94 McCain, \"An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom,\" _Foreign Affairs_ , 86 (November\/December 2007), 19\u201334. See also Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, \"Democracies of the World, Unite,\" _American Interest_ , 2 (2007), 5\u201315; Francis Fukuyama, _America at the Crossroads_ (London, 2006); James Huntley, _Pax Democratica_ (London, 1998).\n\n95 Ikenberry and Slaughter, _Forging a World of Liberty Under Law_ (2006), Princeton Project on National Security, 2006), accessed July 22, 2011, <http:\/\/www.princeton.edu\/~ppns\/report\/FinalReport.pdf>, 7.\n\n96 For an insightful analysis, see Srdjan Vucetic, \"Anglobal Governance?,\" _Cambridge Review of International Affairs_ , 23 (2011), 455\u201374; Vucetic, _The Anglosphere_ (Stanford, 2011).\n\n97 Ferguson, _Empire_ (London, 2004).\n\n98 Bennett, _The Anglosphere Challenge_ (Lanham, MD, 2007).\n\n99 Roberts, _A History of the English-Speaking Peoples_. Cf. Churchill, _A History of the English-Speaking Peoples_ , 4 vols. (London, 1956\u201358). On the term \"English-speaking peoples,\" see Clarke, \"The English-Speaking Peoples.\"\n\n100 Roberts, _A History of the English-Speaking Peoples_ , 381.\n\n101 Jacob Weisberg, \"George Bush's Favourite Historian,\" _Slate_ , March 28, 2007, accessed July 26, 2011, <http:\/\/www.slate.com\/id\/2162837\/>.\n\n102 Robert Conquest, _Reflections on a Ravaged Century_ (London, 2000).\n\n103 Tocqueville, _Democracy in America_ , 13.\nPART III\n\nThinkers\nCHAPTER 9\n\nJohn Stuart Mill on Colonies\n\nThe question of government intervention in the work of Colonization involves the future and permanent interests of civilization itself.1\n\n\u2014JOHN STUART MILL\n\nDuring the last three decades, the study of imperialism has moved from the periphery to the center of work in the humanities and social sciences. The importance of viewing metropolitan and imperial spaces within a \"single analytic field\"\u2014as dynamically connected, interpenetrating, even mutually constitutive\u2014has been a key theme in this flourishing scholarship.2 This productive insight points historians of political thought in two main directions. First, to the value of comparative political theory, encompassing the study of non-Western traditions and the attempt to trace the manifold ways in which political ideas circulate across and around different geo-cultural zones. And second, in drawing attention to how past thinkers conceptualized the world, how they constructed and deployed categories including the domestic, the foreign, the imperial, and the colonial.\n\nIn this chapter I explore some important yet neglected aspects of John Stuart Mill's vision of global order. Mill has played a pivotal role in the recent wave of scholarship dedicated to unraveling the entanglement of Western political thought and imperialism.3 The reasons for this are obvious: he occupies a talismanic position in the liberal canon, and his career and writings provide fertile ground for analysis and critique. At the age of seventeen he began work at the East India Company, where he rose to high rank and left only after the company lost its charter in 1858. He continued to defend the British occupation until his death in 1873. While this scholarship has illuminated various aspects of Mill's imperial thought, especially his views on India, it has passed over other areas in near silence, and has often failed to account for the divergent ways in which he imagined and justified different modes of imperial rule. In particular, scholars have tended to ignore or downplay his extensive writings on (settler) colonization\u2014the establishment, as Mill saw it, of new \"civilized\" communities in North America and the South Pacific.4 (Throughout the essay, I use the term colonization to denote _settler colonization_ , not as a synonym for imperialism.) Historians of economic thought, meanwhile, have probed Mill's account of the political economy of colonization, but they have largely refrained from linking these arguments to other aspects of his social and political theory.5\n\nIn Victorian Britain it was common to delineate different types of imperial territory.6 Mill identified two classes of British \"dependencies\": those composed of people of a \"similar civilization\" that were \"capable of, and ripe for, representative government,\" and those, defined in hierarchical opposition, that remained \"a great distance from that state.\"7 The distinction between settler colonies and other imperial spaces encodes a problem, for it erases some of the key similarities between them. All forms of imperialism involved the violent dispossession of and rule over indigenous peoples. All had roots deep in the political and intellectual history of Europe. And all generated diverse forms of opposition, at home and abroad.8 Unreflexively reproducing the categories reinscribes the presumption underlying much nineteenth-century political thought, namely that the territories settled by Europeans were \"unoccupied,\" devoid of sovereign communities or rational autonomous agents.9 Marx was simply following convention when he referred to \"virgin soils, colonised by free immigrants.\"10 Nevertheless, the distinction is important for without understanding the uses to which it was put by historical agents, it is impossible to map the imaginative geography of empire. Despite the similarities between the forms of conquest, there were also key differences. Two are especially salient for interpreting Mill: the role of mass emigration and the desire to create _permanent_ \"civilized\" societies on distant continents.\n\nThis chapter explores Mill's defense of colonization. In his mind, Britain and its colonies (chiefly in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) formed part of a single analytical field: they could not be viewed as discrete, autochthonous units. The singularity was itself predetermined by the theoretical machinery of utilitarianism and post-Ricardian political economy. He saw the world as a space of movement and exchange, the colonies and Britain as inextricably bound by flows of capital, labor, and information. This was reinforced by his belief that progressive colonies could play a catalytic role in the global \"improvement\" of humanity. Mill's arguments on the subject require reconstruction, drawing together material from books, journalism, official reports, and personal correspondence. In what follows, I analyze three key thematics in Mill's colonial writings: (1) his evolving account of the political economy of colonization; (2) his views on \"responsible government\" and character formation; and (3) finally, his elaboration of the role played by conceptions of physical space, and of the constitutional structure of the imperial system.\n\nI also pursue two subsidiary lines of argument. First, I identify how Mill's justificatory account of colonization shifted over time. We witness a movement from the particular to the universal, from arguments justifying colonization primarily in terms of the benefits that it generated for the British state (and especially the working classes) to arguments that stressed the value of colonization (and especially British colonization) for the world as a whole. This signaled a subtle but significant change in emphasis, a change that sheds light on his understanding of the trajectory of modern politics. It is explained chiefly by his mutating perception of prevailing conditions. His account of colonial order\u2014like his political thought as a whole\u2014was structured by the dynamic interplay of general principles and interpretations of the exigencies of social, economic, and political life. While circumstances did not radically transform his core philosophical commitments, they did qualify them or identify some political options (or institutional configurations) as preferable to others.\n\nThe other line of argument focuses on how Mill framed his narrative. David Scott has drawn attention to the literary modes of emplotment shaping anticolonial nationalist writings and much postcolonial criticism. Both construct history, he contends, as a romantic narrative of heroic overcoming and redemption.11 Jennifer Pitts, meanwhile, has emphasized the significance of \"rhetorical practices\" in structuring moral discourse about empire, arguing that there was a strong correlation between anti-imperialism and the authorial use of irony and humor. In Mill's \"imperial liberalism\" she identifies a distinct \"earnestness\" that distinguished him from Burke and even Bentham.12 In the colonial context we see a transition in Mill's writings from a broadly romantic narrative to a position I label _melancholic colonialism_. Mill's colonial romance charted a story of unfolding enlightenment, in which a vanguard of far-sighted \"philosophical legislators\" transcended a reactionary past, opening up new vistas of human possibility. It was an optimistic story, untroubled by misgivings or doubt. Melancholic colonialism, in contrast, was marked by anxiety, even despondency, about the direction of (colonial) history, but it ultimately refused to reject the ideal, suggesting that the worst excesses could be mitigated, if not eradicated entirely. The transition occurred in the last decade of Mill's life, and was engendered above all by his increased awareness of the pathologies of colonialism, and especially the prevalence of settler violence. It signals an important shift in the way in which he conceived of the ethico-political potential of colonization.\n\nWhile Mill regarded Britain and the colonies as part of a single analytic field, there were cognitive and theoretical limits to his vision. He always saw the colonies as embryonic nations, bound ultimately for independence, their sheer physical distance from Britain rendering them indissolubly separate. They did not constitute part of a _single political field_ \u2014a field in which the colonies and Britain were envisioned not simply as bound together by economic flows, shared interests, and webs of communication, but as comprising a durable political community grounded in a thick common identity. Mill never thought that Britain and its colonies formed (or could form) a single integrated polity. Around the time of his death this alternative vision, which underpinned a normative defense of the permanence of the colonial connection, came to dominate imperial discourse, pushing his position to the sidelines.\n\nOn Systematic Colonization: From Domestic to Global\n\nEarly nineteenth-century Britain was characterized by \"a constant sensation of fear\u2014fear of revolution, of the masses, of crime, famine, and poverty, of disorder and instability, and for many people even fear of pleasure.\"13 Profound apprehension shadowed, and helped to motivate, political thought. Mill's political economy of colonization was shaped by two intersecting debates. The first concerned the material benefits and burdens of colonization; the second concentrated on how best to respond to the social and political turmoil that gripped Britain following the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. Focused inwards on the apparently perilous state of Britain, these concerns drove Mill's earliest forays into colonial advocacy.\n\nPolitical economists had long disagreed over the value of colonies. Adam Smith had derided them as a sink for capital and labor, as had Bentham and James Mill.14 Yet during the 1820s and 1830s, an increasing number of thinkers, including Nassau Senior, Robert Torrens, and Herman Merivale, came to view colonies in a more positive light\u2014as potential sites of economic productivity, social amelioration, and civilizational potential.15 At the heart of this reorientation stood Edward Gibbon Wakefield, a rogue political economist who exerted a profound influence over mid-nineteenth-century colonial discourse.16 Marx's analysis of \"The Modern Theory of Colonisation\" in _Das Kapital_ focused almost solely on Wakefield's arguments, while Mill regarded him as \"one of the most vigorous and effective writers of our time.\"17 He was to play a key role in the development of Mill's colonial vision.\n\nWriting from a London prison\u2014where he was interned for abducting a young heiress\u2014Wakefield published his _Letter from Sydney_ in 1829.18 On his release, he founded the National Colonization Society (1830) to promote his views. The elderly Jeremy Bentham, a friend of Wakefield's father, was an early convert, as was the young John Stuart.19 In 1830 Mill, then a precocious twenty-four, described emigration as a \"momentous subject,\" constituting the \"only feasible mode of removing the immediate pressure of pauperism,\" and throughout the following decade he proselytized on behalf of state-sponsored systematic colonization.20 Above all, he argued, colonization could alleviate suffering among the British working classes. In 1834 he joined the recently founded South Australian Association, which included among its members a number of the other leading philosophic radicals, notably George Grote, whose work was soon to refigure the place of democracy in British political consciousness, and Sir William Molesworth, the editor of Hobbes.21 It campaigned vociferously for the creation of a new colony in South Australia, \"as like as possible to a country which is perfectly civilized, but not over-peopled.\"22 While he thought that many aspects of this project were novel, the result of innovative theoretical advances in moral philosophy and political economy, Mill also suggested that in some respects it resembled the noble experiments of the ancient Greeks.\n\nLike the Grecian colonies, which flourished so rapidly and so wonderfully as soon to eclipse the mother cities, this settlement will be formed by transplanting an intire society, and not a mere fragment of one. English colonies have almost always remained in a half-savage state for many years from their establishment. This colony will be a civilized country from the very commencement.23\n\nThe \"colonial reformers,\" as they came to be known, were the heroes of Mill's colonial romance, battling against tradition and the political establishment. And Mill himself was ready to practice what he preached: during the 1830s he considered emigrating to Australia.24\n\nJonathan Riley distinguishes between Mill's \"Ricardian science\" and his \"liberal utilitarian art.\" The science \"consists of abstract 'laws' or theorems which presuppose that any person is motivated primarily by a desire for wealth,\" while recognizing that this motive is sometimes constrained by other nonmaterial desires (such as the pursuit of leisure). The art, which was shaped by but not reducible to the science, takes the \"laws\" and \"converts and rearranges them into a system of practical rules, and then applies the rules in concrete circumstances to promote the general welfare.\"25 The distinction is important for understanding Mill's conception of colonization (although so too is recognition of Mill's deviations from Ricardian orthodoxy).26 The science specified the reasons for the economic and social turmoil, while the art identified colonization in general\u2014and systematic colonization in particular\u2014as a viable solution available to enlightened political leaders, if they were willing to grasp its potential. Mill came to regard this willingness as a marker of political imagination and maturity.27\n\nAccording to Wakefield and Mill, the social crisis in Britain was caused by a shortage of land and an excess of capital and labor. This produced low levels of growth, a stagnant labor market, and increasing unrest. Emigration to the underpopulated colonies offered the most effective answer.28 It rendered \"the vast productive resources of our colonies available for the employment and comfortable subsistence of the unemployed poor of our country,\" and it could provide \"material relief\" to the \"labouring classes from the pressure of their own excessive competition.\"29 But Mill was wary of unregulated flows of people; rational order was necessary to maximize utility. Emigration should be neither a piecemeal voluntaristic process nor a crude attempt to \"shovel out paupers,\" but instead part of a coordinated state-sponsored scheme of colonization.30 In pushing for the creation of further colonies in Australia, Mill waxed lyrical about the \"the enlightened view of Colonization\" and the \"honesty and patriotism\" that underpinned this ambition.31 He emphasized two aspects. First, it would relieve socioeconomic pressure at home. And second, it would be financially self-supporting. The latter, Mill thought, was unprecedented: \"[F]or the first time in the history of overpopulation, emigration will now be made to pay its own expenses; and whatever relief it can allow to the pressure of population against subsistence in our own country, will be clear gain\u2014pure, unalloyed good.\"32 Indeed he suggested that colonization was the most important factor in the progressive development of the working classes. It would, he argued in 1837, \"produce a more immediate and obvious benefit to the industrious classes generally, and to the labouring class above all, than even the great constitutional changes which we are contending for.\"33 It was more far-reaching, that is, than the extension of the franchise. Systematic colonization, combined with the repeal of the Corn Laws, would unleash the productive promise of the British economy and help to emancipate the \"labouring class.\"34\n\nMill's most thorough discussion of systematic colonization can be found in the _Principles of Political Economy_ , first published in 1848.\n\nThe system is grounded on the important principle, that the degree of productiveness of land and labour depends on their being in due proportion to one another; that if a few persons in a newly-settled country attempt to occupy and appropriate a large district, or if each labourer becomes too soon an occupier and cultivator of land, there is a loss of productive power, and a great retardation of the progress of the colony in wealth and civilization.35\n\nYet despite this obvious problem, the \"instinct... of appropriation\" meant that emigrant laborers typically tried to secure as much land as possible, aiming to \"become at once a proprietor.\" Consequently there were too few laborers to support the investment of capital. Systematic colonization would disrupt this self-defeating process, so that \"each labourer is induced to work a certain number of years on hire\" before assuming a proprietary role. This was necessary to create a \"perpetual stock\" of laborers for the provision of public goods\u2014roads, canals, irrigation projects\u2014and the development of thriving towns.36 He planned to \"check the premature occupation of land\" and the dangerous \"dispersion of people\" by instituting a strict regime of land pricing. The basic idea was to sell \"all unappropriated lands at a rather high price, the proceeds of which were to be expended in conveying emigrant labourers from the mother country.\" The income could finance colonial emigration, creating a steady flow of wage-laborers fit to service an expanding capitalist economy. Wakefield and Mill added further refinements. They insisted on the importance of urbanization for creating \"civilized\" communities.\n\nIt is a beneficial check upon the tendency of the population of colonists to adopt the tastes and inclinations of savage life, and to disperse so widely as to lose all the advantages of commerce, of markets, of separation of employments, and combination of labour.37\n\nMetropolitan concentration, not the frontier virtues of agrarian republicanism, offered the greatest moral and political promise.38 Bourgeois modernity was urban. Likewise, they argued that it was vital to prioritize the emigration of young families to normalize social relations and accelerate population growth.39 In short, they conjoined three different types of argument: a diagnosis of the social question, a prescription for solving it, and the identification of specific institutional mechanisms to realize their plans.\n\nIt is unsurprising that Wakefield's analysis drew Marx's attention. For Marx, \"virgin\" colonies offered the potential to serve as free spaces for labor. While Wakefield had identified correctly the \"anti-capitalist cancer of the colonies,\" he sought to excise it by privatizing property. Wakefield's \"great merit,\" Marx proclaimed, was to have\n\n... discovered in the Colonies the truth as to the conditions of the capitalist production in them. As the system of protection at its origin attempted to manufacture capitalists artificially in the mother country, so Wakefield's colonisation theory... attempted to effect the manufacture of wage workers in the Colonies.40\n\nNote, though, that for Marx the \"evils\" of British settler colonialism lay chiefly in the spread of capitalist social relations rather than in the injustice of occupation itself.41 He seemed to think that an uncorrupted form of colonial emigration might allow people to escape the relentlessly dehumanizing logic of modern capitalism. This pointed to an alternative, noncapitalist form of colonial romance.\n\nMill's advocacy of systematic colonization was not insulated from his wider social and political theory. In the next section I discuss how it related to his views on character and nationality. Here, however, it is worth stressing that in the _Principles_ the argument was embedded in an account of the legitimate role of government, and especially of the justified exceptions to the policy of _laissez-faire_. In his analysis of the \"functions of government in general\" in Book 5, Mill divided \"the province of government\" into \"necessary\" and \"optional\" aspects. The former were those functions that were \"either inseparable from the idea of government, or are exercised habitually and without objection by all governments,\" while the latter were those \"which it has been considered questionable whether governments should exercise them or not.\" This did not render the optional aspects unimportant, it meant only that the \"expediency\" of the government exercising those functions did not amount to necessity.42 Mill was concerned here, as elsewhere, with a dual task: defending a version of Ricardian economic science whilst identifying legitimate exceptions to a libertarian interpretation of the functions of government. He challenged the view that the state should only provide protection against \"force and fraud.\"\n\nMill introduced systematic colonization in a discussion of \"cases in which public intervention may be necessary to give effect to the wishes of the persons interested.\"43 These cases identify a collective action problem in which the uncoordinated (instrumentally) rational actions of individual agents resulted in suboptimal outcomes for everyone involved. While individuals might benefit in the short term, the colony was damaged by existing emigration practices.\n\nHowever beneficial it might be to the colony in the aggregate, and to each individual composing it, that no one should occupy more land than he can properly cultivate, nor become a proprietor until there are other labourers ready to take his place in working for hire; it can never be the interest of an individual to exercise this forbearance, unless he is assured that others will not do so too... It is the interest of each to do what is good for all, but only if others will do likewise.44\n\nThe lack of guaranteed reciprocity meant that there was an overriding case for government regulation. If colonization was to benefit everybody, the enterprise must \"from its commencement\" be undertaken \"with the foresight and enlarged views of philosophical legislators.\"45 Here we see an instance of Mill's long-standing belief in the role of disinterested expertise. Just as he thought that India was best governed by the bureaucracy of the East India Company, and that representative democracy was best regulated by the expertise of the enlightened, so he also thought that colonial development needed to be directed by a class of \"philosophical legislators\" who understood the art and the science of political economy, and who recognized the duty to seek the improvement of humanity. The need for such legislators only increased as the century wore on, as the colonies grew in strength and size, and as their institutions increasingly diverged from those in Britain. In a letter written in 1870, for example, he argued that because colonial societies were \"much more democratic than our own\" it required imagination to support them. \"[O]nly very exceptional persons in our higher and middle classes... could either reconcile themselves to it or have the foresight and mental adaptability required for guiding and organising the formation of such a community.\"46 By then he had come to realize, much to his dismay, that such persons were very rare.\n\nWhereas Mill's colonial advocacy in the 1830s and early 1840s had principally emphasized the domestic benefits of systematic colonization\u2014its ability to address the \"social problem\" in Britain\u2014this began to change in the late 1840s. The shift was apparent in the _Principles_ , and became increasingly pronounced in the following years. In the _Principles_ Mill stressed, in a way that he had not done previously, the global economic benefits of (British) systematic colonization.\n\nTo appreciate the benefits of colonization, it should be considered in its relation, not to a single country, but to the collective economical interests of the human race. The question is in general treated too exclusively as one of distribution; of relieving one labour market and supplying another. It is this, but it is also a question of production, and of the most efficient employment of the productive resources of the world.47\n\nLaborers in the colonies were more productive than those in Britain, and their migration would expand the colonial economies while easing the restrictions on domestic growth.48 This in turn would catalyze further productivity. Everybody would benefit. While this line of argument had been implicit in the logic of Mill's earlier writings, he had placed little weight on it. From the late 1840s onwards it moved to center stage.\n\nThis shift in emphasis was the product of a series of changes in British, colonial, and global politics. This confluence of events reoriented Mill's normative account of the main purposes\u2014the ultimate aims\u2014of colonization. In 1846, the Corn Laws were repealed. In 1848, Britain avoided the revolutionary tumult that gripped the continent, in part because of the \"safety valve\" provided by the empire.49 The Chartist agitation ended in a damp squib. The economy prospered, while the \"social question\" receded from the forefront of political consciousness. The ghost of Malthus was temporarily exiled.50 It was also a period during which the colonies were granted self-governing status (under the aegis of \"responsible government\"), and in which their populations and economies grew rapidly.51 Mill saw confirmation of his optimistic predictions. Writing to an Australian correspondent in 1856, he was cheered by the fact that the colonies \"seem to be the most prosperous and rapidly progressive communities.\" This \"unexampled growth,\" was chiefly the result of the \"Wakefield system.\"52 A glorious new era was unfolding. Overcoming obdurate politicians and an indifferent public, outfoxing recalcitrant colonial officials and fighting the historical baggage of the pernicious \"old colonial system,\" the once embattled colonial reformers had triumphed. This was the apotheosis of colonial romanticism.\n\nAs well as triggering a shift in the purposes of colonization, the change in empirical conditions also forced Mill to reassess the significance of specific elements of Wakefield's scheme. In the 1865 edition of the _Principles_ , for example, he added a new passage to his discussion of the most effective ways to relieve pressure on the labor market. The onset of free trade, combined with a \"new fact of modern history,\" had transformed the situation. While his argument for systematic colonization remained \"true in principle,\" material advances had rendered it less urgent. \"The extraordinary cheapening of the means of transport... and the knowledge which nearly all classes of the people have now acquired... of the condition of the labour market in remote parts of the world, have opened up a spontaneous emigration from these islands to the new countries.\"53 The new dispensation, then, had both material and epistemic dimensions. The lowering of costs, combined with an increase in wages, meant that more people than ever had the economic _capacity_ to emigrate without government support. As such, one of the key pillars of the Wakefield system\u2014the self-financing provision\u2014was less relevant than before.54 But equally important was _knowledge_ , and in particular a growing awareness of the opportunities available.55 The novel communications technologies that were beginning to shrink the world in the imagination of Mill's contemporaries simultaneously aided in the diffusion of information, which made ocean-spanning travel seem appealing and feasible. This \"new fact\" offered further openings for civilizing the British, and perhaps most of all for educating the workers into responsible citizenship. The respite had, he argued, \"granted to this overcrowded country a temporary breathing time, capable of being employed in accomplishing those moral and intellectual improvements in all classes of the people, the very poorest included, which would render improbable any relapse into the over-peopled state.\"56 Moreover, the perceived change in conditions meant that political priorities had shifted: \"[O]ur politicians,\" he wrote, \"have grown more afraid of under than of over population.\"57 As a result, any impetus to stimulate emigration would now have to come from the colonies.\n\nSoon after Mill added this qualifier to the _Principles_ , he was perturbed to discover that his arguments for the protection of infant industries were being utilized by advocates of protectionism in the United States and the colonies.58 He engaged in an extensive correspondence on the issue\u2014several of his letters were printed in the colonial press\u2014rebutting the suggestion that his arguments applied there.59 This led him to rethink aspects of his position. Indeed, he indicated in a couple of letters written in 1868 that he no longer supported protection, preferring instead the idea of an annual grant from the treasury.60 Once again, we witness his prescriptions\u2014aspects of his art\u2014shifting in light of unforeseen developments.\n\nFrom the start of his career, then, Mill advocated systematic colonization. During the 1830s, when the economic plight of Britain seemed desperate, he viewed it chiefly as a means to answer the \"social question.\" Yet the situation was dynamic: the rapid development of the colonies and the stabilization of Britain rendered this narrow justification obsolete. His account of the utility of colonization therefore shifted along with his interpretation of empirical conditions. In particular, we witness two moves. First, his arguments from political economy increasingly emphasized the universal benefits of colonization. And second, as I explore in the rest of this chapter, the political economy arguments were increasingly reinforced, if not displaced, by a new range of geopolitical and ethical concerns.\n\nColonial Autonomy, Character, and Civilization\n\nWhile both Mill and Wakefield agreed on the underlying economic causes of the crisis afflicting Britain, as well as the best remedy for it, they presented different visions of the future, although this was never made explicit. Wakefield was motivated by fear of revolution. In _England and America_ (1833), the text that had drawn Marx's ire, he warned of the impending dangers:\n\n[F]or a country now situated like England, in which the ruling and the subject orders are no longer separated by a middle class, and in which the subject order, composing the bulk of the people, are in a state of gloomy discontent arising from excessive numbers; for such a country, one chief end of colonization is to prevent tumults, to keep the peace, to maintain order, to uphold confidence in the security of property, to hinder interruptions to the regular course of industry and trade, to avert the terrible evils which, in a country like England, could not but follow any serious political convulsion.61\n\nHis conception of colonization was ultimately more conservative than Mill's. He wanted to transpose hierarchical British social relations onto the colonies, recreating the new societies in the image of the old. Mill's vision was dynamic; he viewed the colonies as spaces for innovation and forms of progressive self-fashioning. They provided an escape from the parochialism and class-bound rigidities of British life, allowing\u2014even demanding\u2014experimentation in ways of living.\n\nExperimentation was central to Mill's account of the development of \"character,\" both individual and collective.62 For Mill, character was not a biological given, but rather a product of the environment, and throughout his writings he stressed the \"extraordinary susceptibility of human nature to external influences.\"63 He saw the colonies, I would argue, as laboratories of character development, as vast case studies of his proposed science of \"ethology.\"64 Systematic colonization offered the opportunity to create new advanced political communities, populated by industrious, confident, democratic individuals. This points to a significant discrepancy between Mill's account of colonization and his views on India. Uday Singh Mehta suggests that liberalism \"found the concrete place of its dreams\" in empire.65 For Mill, though, different elements of the empire spawned different dreams. India was a site for the reformist utilitarian project, for the mission to bring civilized enlightenment to a \"backward\" corner of the earth. Imperial governance, on this view, was a political technology that aimed to reshape the people who already lived there, bringing into being a different form of life, new modes of subjectivity, a fresh cultural-political constellation. Settler colonization, on the other hand, did not aim to transform the character of indigenous populations, or even to radically refashion the emigrants. It sought instead to provide an environment in which their existing civilizational potential could be realized. Such environments were conducive to the production of virtuous individuals and communities. The romance of colonialism was thus premised on the ethological opportunities opened up in distant \"virgin\" lands.\n\nWhile Mill spent much of the early 1830s focusing on Australia, in the second half of the decade his attention was increasingly drawn across the Atlantic to Canada, which he had previously regarded as one of the decaying \"colonies on the old system.\"66 The rebellions in Canada in 1837\u201338 provided a rare chance to refound a corrupt polity. For Mill, the crisis was never simply about the status of Upper and Lower Canada. After all, he assumed that in the future Canada would achieve full political independence. It was important for two other reasons: the legitimacy of imperial rule _in general_ and the fate of British political radicalism. The colonies and the metropole were once again figured as part of the same analytic field.\n\n\"[l]n an evil hour,\" Mill later reflected, the Canada question \"crossed the path of radicalism.\"67 The lightning rod here was the unlikely figure of Lord Durham. A vain, sickly, hugely wealthy scion of the Whig aristocracy, Durham had managed to alienate his colleagues in government while attaining great popularity among liberal and radical thinkers. Mill viewed Durham as a potential leader for the Radical party that he was attempting to create. In December 1837, news reached Britain that the French Canadians of Lower Canada had risen up against the colonial government. The rebellion was swiftly extinguished.68 Durham, a man who had previously shown little interest in colonial affairs, was appointed Governor-General and instructed to resolve the situation. One product of his brief stay in Canada\u2014he resigned in October 1838 following government censure of some of his activities\u2014was his report on \"the affairs of British North America,\" which came to be seen as one of the key documents in nineteenth-century British imperial history.69\n\nThe Canadian rebellions threatened an imperial legitimation crisis. For Mill the moral justification of the settler empire was different from that of the Raj. Empire in general could be justified if, and only if, it benefitted those subjected to it, but if those subjects lacked sufficient rationality\u2014if they failed to pass a (fluid) threshold of civilization\u2014then they could claim little control over their own form of government. Unless or until they passed that threshold, their destinies were best left to more enlightened peoples. This was, of course, how Mill saw India, and it generated a paternalist justification of despotism.70 In settler communities, on the other hand, the purportedly civilized character of the populations meant that questions of recognition and reciprocity were paramount. The colonies were legitimate expressions of political power only insofar as this was accepted by those they ruled over. In this sense, the relationship was voluntaristic. Colonial rule depended on a stable normative order in which everyone knew their assigned place, and challenges to this order broke the compact between governments and subjects. Mill feared that an inappropriate response to the Canadian rebellion would threaten the legitimacy of the colonial empire. Britain, he argued, should treat its (settler) colonial populations fairly, on both intrinsic grounds (because justice demanded it) and for more instrumental reasons. It was vital that Britain maintained\u2014and was _seen_ to maintain\u2014its reputation for \"wisdom and foresight, for justice, clemency, and magnanimity\" in the \"eyes of all nations.\"71 Legitimacy was as much a matter of perception as right action.\n\nIn line with many of his fellow radical liberals, Mill argued that the Canadians, while imprudent, had a \"just cause\" for revolting, for they had challenged a tyrannical system of government, an oppressive \"foreign yoke\": \"They are styled rebels and traitors. The words are totally inapplicable to them.\"72 The justice of the rebellion was a product of the illegal and immoral way in which the British government had overridden Canadian constitutional arrangements. \"The people of Canada,\" argued Mill, \"had against the people of England legitimate cause of war. They had the provocation which, on every received principle of public law, is a breach of the conditions of allegiance.\"73 He insisted that it was important to \"understand\" and to address the legitimate grievances of the rebels. Refusal to do so undermined the legitimacy of British rule. He saw Durham's mission as an opportunity to transform Canada from an unjustly governed polity into a model colony. It was a \"tabula rasa,\" open to Durham to \"inscribe what character he pleases.\"74\n\nFollowing what he assumed were the outlines of Durham's proposal, Mill argued for the creation of a broadly federal system uniting Lower and Upper Canada.75 This would guarantee political justice to both sides. With skillful institutional design, minority protection could be assured. Moreover, in the long run it would also help to eliminate one of the residual problems encountered in Canada: the problem of nationalities. A positive side effect of federation, he claimed, was that it provided the \"only legitimate means of destroying the so-much-talked-of nationality of the French Canadians,\" compelling them to see themselves not as a \"separate body\" but as \"an integral portion of a larger whole.\" Combining the best characteristics of each \"race\" would create a \"nationality of country,\" a sense of commitment to the state as opposed to the particularism of ethnic interests. It would forge them into \"British Americans.\"76 But it was not to be. Following Durham's humiliating resignation, Mill attempted to defend him, suggesting that he had demonstrated his fitness to lead the \"great reform party of the empire.\"77 This represented the triumph of hope over reality. By 1840 the plan was dead: Durham's activities had alienated many radicals, and he was not interested in the role that Mill envisaged for him.78\n\nThe intersection of race, nationality, and colonization can also be witnessed in Mill's analysis of the Irish famine a few years after the Canadian turmoil. As Pitts observes, he had a far more sympathetic understanding of the travails of the Irish peasantry than he did of the Indians, ascribing to the former \"a moral dignity and rationality\" he never accorded the latter.79 Yet the Irish still remained subordinate in Mill's imperial topography; his sympathy did not translate into granting them civilizational equality. Once again, his comments on this issue emerged in relation to a set of ongoing arguments about how best to respond to crisis. Did state-sponsored colonization offer an apposite solution to the problems of Ireland? In a letter penned to Tocqueville's travelling companion, Gustave Beaumont, in October 1839, Mill argued that it did.80 Yet by the mid-1840s, as the famine began to wreak its terrible havoc, he had changed his mind. While acknowledging the very serious problems in Ireland, he contended that they could be resolved by enacting a system of peasant proprietorship on reclaimed waste lands.81\n\nHe offered two reasons why systematic colonization was inappropriate in Ireland. First, it was prohibitively expensive: there were simply too many people who would need financial support to emigrate. The second reason goes to the heart of Mill's views on race, nationality, and ethology. He did not consider the Irish suitable apostles of civilization; their characters were too deformed by their blighted environment. This differentiated them from the settler populations in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. In a newspaper article published in October 1846, he argued that \"it is not well to select as missionaries of civilization a people who, in so great a degree, yet remain to be civilized.\" Encouraging Irish emigration would retard the progressive potential of colonization. \"It is a serious question,\" he continued, \"whether, in laying the foundation of new nations beyond the sea, it be right that the Irish branch of the human family should be the predominant ingredient.\" He thought it \"desirable\" that the Irish should \"enter into the admixture,\" as the Saxon race needed \"to be tempered by amalgamation with the more excitable and imaginative constitution and the more generous impulses of its Celtic kinsfolk,\" yet this process had to remain asymmetric, the Irish qualities tempering but not displacing the dominant Saxon racial configuration.82 Mill's argument centered, once again, on the issue of character. The modern Irish character was deformed by economic exploitation and religious subservience. The Irish, he continued, lack \"individual hardihood, resource, and self-reliance\"; they demanded instead \"to be led and governed.\" And, moreover, they had been \"made lawless and disorderly\" by centuries of British misrule.83 With this common liberal move, Mill simultaneously acknowledged an earlier British injustice while employing its results to undermine political claims in the present. Not only did the Irish fail to display the moral resources necessary for successful colonization, they now exhibited the potential to disrupt the colonial order through lack of discipline, even criminal excess. Their behavior would give colonization a bad name. Instead, he looked elsewhere: \"The English and Scotch are the proper stuff for the pioneers of the wilderness.\"84 Racial difference, figured as civilizational capacity, structured Mill's analytical field, identifying a hierarchy of peoples ranked according to their ability to fabricate civilization in wild and distant locations.\n\nMelancholic Colonialism and the Pathos of Distance\n\nDuring the last decade and a half of his life we witness a distinct shift in the _tone_ of Mill's colonial writings. The romance faded, to be replaced by something more somber, even downcast. We also witness an increasing emphasis placed on noneconomic arguments. The most extensive analysis of colonization in Mill's later career is found in chapter 18 of the _Considerations on Representative Government_ (1861). The direct economic benefits of colonization play only a subsidiary role in his analysis. His earlier concern with the urgency of emigration is also absent. Indeed Mill suggested that the material costs generated by the colonies offset the benefits. \"England derives little advantage, except in prestige, from her dependencies; and the little she does derive is quite outweighed by the expense they cost her, and the dissemination they necessitate of her naval and military force.\"85 Not only was it expensive to maintain a colonial empire, it was also potentially dangerous, leading to extensive global military commitments. Imperial overstretch beckoned. \"Great Britain,\" Mill concluded, \"could do perfectly well without her colonies.\" Despite this, he argued that the colonies were still valuable, for they produced a wide range of other benefits, both for Britain and (perhaps more importantly) the world.\n\nMill starts the chapter by noting that only in the \"present generation\" had the British realized the \"true principle\" of colonial government. Previously they had meddled incessantly in colonial affairs. This was a \"corollary\" of the \"vicious theory\" of colonization that had long guided European policy, and which was premised on the view that colonies existed primarily for economic exploitation. The habit of meddling had outlasted the mercantile system, and it was the \"persistence in domineering\" that had caused the Canadian rebellion. However, out of this disaster had flowed enlightenment, for the foresight of Durham, Wakefield, Buller, and Roebuck\u2014and of course Mill himself\u2014had led to the abandonment of the \"vicious theory.\" Durham's report had inaugurated a \"new era\" in which the colonies were granted \"the fullest measure of internal self-government.\" This system bore little relation to previous modes of coercive colonial rule. Indeed if the colonies were to remain part of the British imperial system, it had to be on a voluntary basis. \"[O]n every principle of morality and justice,\" he argued, \"she [Great Britain] ought to consent to their separation, should the time come when, after full trial of the best form of union, they deliberately desire to be dissevered.\"86 The lessons of the American Revolution were etched deeply into Mill's political consciousness.\n\nMill offered three separate reasons for maintaining the colonial empire. First, he sketched an argument about what international relations theorists refer to as the \"security dilemma.\" The dilemma arises when two or more states coexisting in a condition of anarchy\u2014lacking a global leviathan to regulate their interactions\u2014are drawn into a conflictual posture despite their (potentially) nonaggressive intent.87 In a condition of uncertainty, political leaders are compelled to engage in actions that can inadvertently generate further insecurity. The greater the number of sovereign units populating the international system, the greater the probability of conflict. Mill thought that the colonial empire helped to mitigate this problem. It was, he argued, a step \"towards universal peace, and general friendly cooperation among nations.\" He offered two distinct arguments. In the first instance, it \"renders war impossible among a large number of otherwise independent communities.\" It dampened the dilemma by reducing the number of units in the system. Second, it prevented any of the colonies \"from being absorbed into a foreign state, and becoming a source of additional aggressive strength to some rival power, either more despotic or closer at hand, which might not always be so unambitious or so pacific as Great Britain.\"88 It restrained the growth of potentially belligerent states while maintaining British predominance. A stable international system enhanced British security, as did the inability of other states to absorb the colonies. The rest of the world benefitted, moreover, for despite its faults Britain remained the most progressive of nations.\n\nMill's second reason for maintaining the colonial system concerned the moral and economic exemplarity of Britain's commitment to free trade. The existence of the colonies \"keeps the markets of the different countries open to one another, and prevents that mutual exclusion by hostile tariffs, which none of the great communities of mankind, except England, have yet completely outgrown.\" Britain could offer an alternative, and superior, model of economic organization to the protectionism that was sweeping Europe and the United States. Mill's final argument focused on liberty. The colonial empire, he contended,\n\n... has the advantage, specially valuable at the present time, of adding to the moral influence, and weight in the councils of the world, of the Power which, of all in existence, best understands liberty\u2014and whatever may have been its errors in the past, has attained to more of conscience and moral principle in its dealings with foreigners, than any other great nation seems either to conceive as possible, or recognise as desirable.89\n\nThis conceited picture was a staple of British political thought. The British frequently saw themselves\u2014and liked to think that they were seen by others\u2014as the avatars of liberty. Consequently, the greater the reach of their institutions, the greater the benefits for all. Even Mill, a man deeply critical of many aspects of his society, held this as an article of political faith.\n\nAs I have suggested already, until the early 1860s Mill presented a remarkably optimistic picture of the potential of settler colonialization. This was colonization as romance: an uplifting story of progressive forces overcoming numerous obstacles, supplanting a \"vicious\" theory with an \"enlightened\" one, and consequently heralding a bright new dawn for the peoples of Britain and the world. Yet in the last decade of his life his optimism faded, to be replaced by a more disenchanted, anxious stance. In part this was because reality had caught up with the fantasy: as the colonies grew in population and power, and as they secured significant political autonomy, Mill realized that they were failing to play their allotted roles. There were three main problems. First, the colonies were becoming increasingly protectionist, thus adopting an economic system that he had spent decades inveighing against. Second, the new colonial authorities had failed to deal properly with the land question. Finally, and perhaps most devastatingly, the colonists themselves seemed to be resorting to barbarism in their treatment of indigenous peoples. Granting colonial autonomy had undercut the civilizing potential of colonization. When enacted, sound liberal principles came into destructive conflict.\n\nAn early hint of Mill's disquiet can be found in the _Considerations_. He observed that an example of \"how liberal a construction has been given to the distinction between imperial and colonial questions,\" was seen in the \"uncontrolled disposal\" of \"unappropriated lands\" in the colonies. \"[W]ithout injustice,\" Mill lamented, the land could have been employed \"for the greatest advantage of future emigrants from all parts of the empire.\"90 In his correspondence he was adamant that in failing to fully implement systematic colonization the new colonies were undermining their own developmental potential. The \"unoccupied\" lands, he complained in 1871, should have been \"reserved as the property of the empire at large until much greater progress had been made in peopling them.\"91\n\nDuring the 1860s, Mill became increasingly critical of the violent behavior of the settlers.92 While he had occasionally lamented brutality in the past, his earlier work was marked by a notable silence over colonial violence. During the 1830s and 1840s, the years of his most intense interest in Australia, some of the colonists were perpetrating the genocide of the Tasmanians, and engaging in widespread aggression against indigenous populations elsewhere.93 Although this topic was discussed in Britain, Mill failed to address it. It would have disrupted his colonial romance. During the final decade of his life, however, he returned repeatedly to the topic, though never in print. The \"common English abroad,\" he wrote, were \"intensely contemptuous of what they consider inferior races\" and sought to attain their ends by \"bullying and blows.\"94 This injustice threatened the normative justification of colonization. Mill appeared genuinely perturbed, yet he pulled back from arguing that colonization was _inherently_ cruel, and thus from abandoning the colonial project. (His continued commitment to this project may explain why he refrained from publishing his concerns.) Instead, he implied that certain categories of people\u2014oafish settlers and inexperienced officials among them\u2014were more prone to violence than others. With the right policies and people the injustices could be corrected. This is an example of what Cheryl Welch calls \"antiseptic containment,\" the attempt to confine colonial violence in a quarantined space.95 By locating responsibility in this manner, Mill denied the possibility that violence and injustice were systemic. The main problem for Mill, and the source of his despondency, was that those best placed to control the colonists\u2014the Crown government in London\u2014no longer had the political power to do so. Rather than leading to progress, colonial autonomy facilitated injustice. This profound tension remained unresolved at the time of his death.\n\nOne final issue came to the fore in the 1860s, and it again goes to the heart of some core issues in Mill's political thinking. This concerned the most appropriate form of political organization suitable for coordinating a globe-spanning colonial empire. In the _Considerations_ , Mill argued that it already constituted a weak quasi-federal political order. \"Their union with Great Britain is the slightest kind of federal union; but not a strictly equal federation, the mother country retaining to itself the powers of a Federal Government, though reduced in practice to their very narrowest limits.\" This system was defensible, but it meant that the colonists had \"no voice\" in vital areas of foreign policy, above all in questions of war and peace.96 In denying that the Irish should be accorded self-government, Mill explained that they were actually better off than the semi-autonomous Canadians, for through their incorporation in Westminster they \"had something to say in the affairs of the empire,\" whereas Canada was but a dependency\" and consequently voiceless. \"A union such as this,\" he concluded, \"can only exist as a temporary expedient, between countries which look forward to separation as soon as the weaker is able to stand alone, and which care not how soon it arrives.\"97 Throughout the nineteenth century, various constitutional schemes had been proposed to give colonial governments an increased role in imperial decision-making, thus consolidating the colonial connection. Some advocated the representation of the colonies at Westminster, or, more radical still, the creation of a new supreme imperial legislature. The latter of these options was, Mill observed, a plan to constitute a \"perfectly equal federation.\" But he dismissed further political integration. The idea was doomed to fail, he argued, for an equal federation of the colonies and Great Britain was so inconsistent with the \"rational principles of government\" that it is \"doubtful if they have been seriously accepted as a possibility by any reasonable thinker.\" Quite simply, \"[e]ven for strictly federative purposes, the conditions do not exist, which we have seen to be essential to a federation.\" The main obstacle was physical distance.\n\nCountries separated by half the globe do not present the natural conditions for being under one government, or even members of one federation. If they had sufficiently the same interests, they have not, and never can have, a sufficient habit of taking counsel together. They are not part of the same public; they do not discuss and deliberate in the same arena, but apart, and have only a most imperfect knowledge of what passes in the minds of one another. They neither know each other's objects, nor have confidence in each other's principles of conduct.\n\nRepresentatives from Canada and Australia, he continued, \"could not know, or feel any sufficient concern for, the interests, opinions, or wishes of the English, Irish or Scotch.\"98 The size and spatial extent of the \"public\" was ultimately constrained by the immutability of physical space. Rational deliberation, the key to democratic development, was impossible across such vast expanses, as was the formation of a substantive political (national) identity.99 It was cognitively impossible. Mill defended, then, a variant of Edmund Burke's influential argument from nature against colonial representation: \" _Opposuit natura_ \u2014I cannot remove the barriers of the creation.\"100 Similar arguments were adumbrated by Adam Smith, who once referred to British colonists living in North America as \"strangers,\" and by Bentham, who asked incredulously of colonists whether it was to their \"advantage to be governed by a people who never know, nor ever can know, either their inclinations or their wants.\"101 On this view, which Mill reiterated until his death, geography circumscribed the spatial extent of political community. \"I do not think,\" he wrote to a correspondent in 1871, \"that the federal principle can be worked successfully when the different members of the confederacy are scattered all over the world,\" and he concluded that \"the English people would prefer separation to an equal federation.\"102\n\nThe importance of physical space\u2014and in particular of what we might call the pathos of distance\u2014runs through Mill's colonial writings. We have already seen that Mill (following Wakefield) insisted that spatial dispersion undermined the potential of civilization.103 Moreover, he argued that the role of distance was vital in shaping British attitudes toward various parts of the imperial system. This was one of the reasons why they were less prepared to tolerate dissent in Ireland than in Canada. \"Canada is a great way off and British rulers can tolerate much in a place from which they are not afraid that the contagion may spread to England.\"104 Finally, the remoteness of the scattered elements of the empire\u2014\"at the distance of half the globe\" from Britain105\u2014had profound psychosocial consequences. One implication of Mill's \"associationist\" conception of character formation, albeit one that he never discussed, was that the colonies would never be suitable for full integration into a globe-spanning British colonial polity. While civilization could be transplanted, it would invariably assume different and increasingly divergent forms across the world, as it adapted to the local environment and developed its own constellation of institutions and _moeurs_. Over time, then, the underlying cultural unity necessary for maintaining a healthy political community would dissolve.\n\nIt was the argument from nature, above all, that marked the difference between Mill's promotion of the colonial empire and the proselytizers of the following generation. Mill himself had intimated change in an extraordinary letter in 1866:\n\nOne of the many causes which make the age in which we are living so very important in the life of the human race\u2014almost, indeed, the turning point of it\u2014is that so many things combine to make it the era of a great change in the conceptions and feelings of mankind as to the world of which they form a part. There is now almost no place left on our planet which is mysterious to us, and we were brought within sight of practical questions which will have to be faced when the multiplied human race shall have taken full possession of the earth.106\n\nBlending anxiety and awe, Mill recognized, without being able to put his finger on it, the profound transformation in political consciousness generated by the revolution in communications technology\u2014the (purported) elimination of the \"mystery.\" This revolution meant that the types of argument proffered by Burke, Bentham, Smith, and Mill were soon pushed aside, although they never disappeared completely. Whereas for Mill nature imposed definite limits on the spatial extension of community, many of his successors adopted a more ambitious line. From the early 1870s onwards, it was increasingly argued that the colonial empire formed part of a _single political field_ , that it constituted a unified community stretching across the globe. As a result, it became a commonplace to argue that the federation of the British colonial world was feasible, even necessary.107 This new generation of colonial advocates saw \"the public,\" and with it the limits of political community itself, as open to reconfiguration by novel technologies. Deliberation across space was possible; the interests of Britain and the colonies could be harmonized. Likewise, Wakefield's ideas\u2014the very backbone of Mill's colonial thought\u2014fell from favor. While emigration remained an abiding concern for colonial advocates, the specificities of Wakefield's scheme seemed redundant. As the author of the 1878 entry on \"emigration\" in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ wrote, the \"discussion thirty or forty years ago on organized methods of colonization have mostly disappeared in these later times. We hear no more of Mr Wakefield's scheme.\"108 Mill's insistence on the political limits imposed by geographical space and his adherence to Wakefield's theoretical ideas meant that his arguments looked increasingly obsolete in the years following his death.\n\nConclusions\n\nRecent scholarship on Mill has deepened our understanding of how his political thought was shaped by questions of empire, civilization, and progress. Yet his evolving vision(s) of global order can only be grasped adequately by recognizing the importance that he accorded to settler colonization. This was an issue he returned to repeatedly over the course of forty years, although as I have argued we can discern various shifts in his thought over time. Above all, we see an increased emphasis on the universal benefits of colonization, and on geopolitical and moral, as opposed to political-economic, justificatory arguments. He always imagined the metropole and the colonies within the same analytical field, a field structured but not exhausted by his political economy and his utilitarianism, but he never regarded them as part of a single political field, as part of the same community of interests, identity, and affect. The colonies were, as they had been for Bentham, nascent independent countries, distant spaces of hope. Because of their far-flung locations they would never constitute an integral element of the British polity. Ideally, and like their ancient Greek exemplars, they would remain bound by ties of kinship, economic exchange, and the warm glow of a mythopoeic past.\n\n1 J. S. Mill, _Principles of Political Economy_ [1848], in _Collected Works_ , 3:963.\n\n2 Ann Laura Stoler and Frederick Cooper, \"Between Metropole and Colony,\" in _Tensions of Empire_ , ed. Cooper and Stoler (Berkeley, 1997), 4.\n\n3 See, for example, Uday Singh Mehta, _Liberalism and Empire_ (Chicago, 1999); Jennifer Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_ (Princeton, 2005); Martin Moir, Douglas Peers, and Lynn Zastoupil, eds., _J. S. Mill's Encounter with India_ (Toronto, 1999); Lynn Zastoupil, _John Stuart Mill and India_ (Stanford, CA, 1994).\n\n4 Valuable exceptions include: Margaret Kohn and Daniel O'Neill, \"A Tale of Two Indias,\" _Political Theory_ , 34 (2006), 192\u2013228; Katherine Smits, \"John Stuart Mill on the Antipodes,\" _Australian Journal of Politics and History_ , 51 (2008), 1\u201315. Both Nicholas Capaldi, _John Stuart Mill_ (Cambridge, 2004), and Richard Reeves, _John Stuart Mill_ (London, 2007) underemphasize colonization.\n\n5 Bernard Semmel, _The Rise of Free Trade Imperialism_ (Cambridge, 1970); Winch, _Classical Political Economy_ ; R. N. Ghosh, \"John Stuart Mill on Colonies and Colonization,\" in _John Stuart Mill_ , ed. John Cunningham Wood (London, 1987), 4:354\u201367; Samuel Hollander, _The Economics of John Stuart Mill_ , 2 vols. (Oxford, 1985), 2:753\u201358.\n\n6 George Cornewall Lewis, _An Essay on the Government of Dependencies_ (London, 1841); Arthur Mills, _Colonial Constitutions_ (London, 1856); Henry Jenkyns, _British Rule and Jurisdiction beyond the Seas_ (Oxford, 1902), 1\u20139.\n\n7 Mill, _Considerations on Representative Government, Collected Works_ , 19:562. He defines a dependency as: \"outlying territories of some size and population... which are subject, more or less, to acts of sovereign power on the part of the paramount country\" (562). See also Mill, \"The East India Company's Charter\" [1852], _Collected Works_ , 30:49\u201350.\n\n8 See also Robert Hind, \"'We Have No Colonies,'\" _Comparative Studies in Society and History_ , 26 (1984), 3\u201335. Cf. Bruce Buchan, _Empire of Political Thought_ (London, 2008).\n\n9 This type of argument is today often characterized in terms of _terra nullius_ \u2014the occupation of \"empty land.\" This idea is ancient (as are the practices of conquest that can follow from it), but the terminology is a product of the late nineteenth century. Andrew Fitzmaurice, \"The Genealogy of _Terra Nullius_ ,\" _Australian Historical Studies_ , 129 (2007), 1\u201315.\n\n10 Marx, _Capital_ , vol. 1, in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, _Collected Works_ (London, 1975), 35:751n.\n\n11 Scott, _Conscripts of Modernity_.\n\n12 Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_ , 6. On Tocqueville's rhetorical moves, see Cheryl Welch, \"Colonial Violence and the Rhetoric of Evasion,\" _Political Theory_ , 31 (2003), 235\u201364.\n\n13 Boyd Hilton, _A Mad, Bad, and Dangerous People?_ (Oxford, 2006), 31.\n\n14 Adam Smith, _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_ , ed. R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner (Oxford, 1976 [1776]), 4:556\u2013641; James Mill, \"Colony\" [1818], in _Essays from the Supplement to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Collected Works_ [1823] (London, 1995), 3\u201333. J. C. Wood, _British Economists and the Empire_ (London, 1983), ch. 1.\n\n15 William Nassau Senior, _Remarks on Emigration_ (London, 1831); Senior, _An Outline of a Science of Political Economy_ (London, 1836); Robert Torrens, _Colonisation of South Australia_ (London, 1835); Torrens, _Self-Supporting Colonization_ (London, 1847); Merivale, _Lectures on Colonisation and Colonies_.\n\n16 On Wakefield, see W. Metcalf, ed., _Edward Gibbon Wakefield and the Colonial Dream_ (Wellington, 1997).\n\n17 Marx, _Capital_ , vol. 1, ch. 33; Mill, \"Wakefield's Popular Politics,\" _Examiner_ , January 29, 1837, _Collected Works_ , 24:788. Mill still professed adherence to Wakefield's views decades later. Mill, \"The Westminster Election of 1865,\" [1], July 3, 1865, _Collected Works_ , 28:16; letter to A. M. Francis, May 8, 1869, _Collected Works_ , 27:1599.\n\n18 It was published initially (and anonymously) in the _Morning Chronicle_ ; it appeared as a book, edited by Robert Gouger, and entitled _A Letter from Sydney, the Principal Town in Australasia, Together with the Outline of a System of Colonization_ (London, 1830).\n\n19 For Bentham on colonies, see Philip Schofield, _Utility and Democracy_ (Oxford, 2006), ch. 8; Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_ , ch. 4. On his conversion, see Richard Mills, _The Colonization of Australia (1829\u20131842)_ [1915] (London, 1968), 152\u201353; Edward Gibbon Wakefield, _England and America_ , 2 vols. (London, 1833), 2:252n.\n\n20 Mill, \"The Labouring Agriculturalists,\" _Examiner_ , December 19, 1830, _Collected Works_ , 22:218.\n\n21 On the aims of the group, see Edward Gibbon Wakefield, _The New British Province of South Australia_ (London, 1838). The \"philosophic radicals\" were divided over Wakefield's ideas, with Bowring, Perronet Thompson, and the _Westminster Review_ , critical of them; the more influential, including Grote, Molesworth, Roebuck, Buller, both Mills, and the _London Review_ , supported the plan.\n\n22 Mill, \"Wakefield's _The New British Province of South Australia_ ,\" _Examiner_ , July 20, 1834, _Collected Works_ , 23:739, 742.\n\n23 Mill, 739. On his admiration for the \"Greek empire,\" see also Mill, \"Grote's History of Greece,\" vol. 2 1853], _Collected Works_ , vol. 11, esp. 321\u201324. On the role of Greek models in imagining British colonialism, see [chapter 5 of this volume.\n\n24 Capaldi, _John Stuart Mill_ , 107. He later bought land in New Zealand, although he never visited the country: letter to Henry Chapman, November 12, 1845, _Collected Works_ , 18:687.\n\n25 Riley, \"Mill's Political Economy,\" in _The Cambridge Companion to Mill_ , ed. John Skorupski (Cambridge, 1998), 294\u201395.\n\n26 Scholars disagree over whether Mill's support for Wakefield signaled a break from Ricardo and Say. Much turns on whether Wakefield's arguments on economic growth were\u2014as he proclaimed\u2014inconsistent with them, or whether he had misread Ricardo (as Mill claimed: _Principles_ , 735\u201336). Donald Winch argues that Mill only supported Wakefield's policy proposals (Winch, _Classical Political Economy_ , 139\u201340), while Samuel Hollander argues that Wakefield and Mill consistently extended Ricardian insights ( _Economics of John Stuart Mill_ , 1:166, 475\u201379). I here follow Hollander.\n\n27 For an example, see Mill, letter to Arthur Helps, March 28, 1870, _Collected Works_ , 17:1710.\n\n28 For an early articulation, see Mill, \"Wakefield's 'The New British Province of South Australia,'\" 740\u201341. Mill argued that emigration, while vital, remained insufficient ( _Principles_ , 194).\n\n29 Mill, \"The Emigration Bill,\" _Examiner_ , February 27, 1831, _Collected Works_ , 22:271\u201372.\n\n30 For the debates over the issue, see H.J.M. Johnson, _British Emigration Policy, 1815\u20131830_ (Oxford, 1972).\n\n31 Mill, \"The New Colony,\" [1], _Examiner_ , June 29, 1834, _Collected Works_ , 23:733\u201334.\n\n32 Mill, \"The New Colony\" [2], _Examiner_ , July 6, 1834, _Collected Works_ , 23:737.\n\n33 Mill, \"The Sale of Colonial Land,\" _Sun_ , February 22, 1837, _Collected Works_ , 24:792.\n\n34 Mill, _Principles_ , 711. See also Mill, \"Torrens's Letter to Sir Robert Peel,\" _Spectator_ , January 28, 1843, _Collected Works_ , 24:841; Mill, \"On the Necessity of the Uniting of the Question of Corn Laws with That of the Tithes,\" _Examiner_ , December 23, 1832, _Collected Works_ , 23:539. On emigration as \"palliative,\" see Mill, \"The Claims of Labour,\" _Edinburgh Review_ [1845], _Collected Works_ , 4:387.\n\n35 Mill, _Principles_ , 958.\n\n36 Ibid., 958.\n\n37 Ibid., 958\u201359, 965\u201366. See also Mill, letter to Cairnes, December 12, 1864, _Collected Works_ , 15:1046.\n\n38 For the republican view, see chapters 2, , and , in this volume.\n\n39 Wakefield, _England and America_ , 2:215\u201317; Mill, \"The Emigration Bill,\" 273. See also Mill, \"Female Emigrants,\" _Examiner_ , February 26, 1832, _Collected Works_ , 23:419.\n\n40 Marx, _Capital_ , 753, 758.\n\n41 On Marx's views on empire more broadly, see Gareth Stedman Jones, \"Radicalism and the Extra-European World,\" in _Victorian Visions of Global Order_ , ed. Duncan Bell (Cambridge, 2007), 186\u2013215.\n\n42 Mill, _Principles_ , 800.\n\n43 Ibid., 965\u201367. He also discusses hours of labor. On Mill and collective action, see Richard Tuck, _Free Riding_ (Cambridge, MA, 2008), 133\u201335.\n\n44 Mill, _Principles_ , 959.\n\n45 Ibid., 963. See also Mill's letter to John Campbell, April 4, 1866, _Collected Works_ , 26:1155.\n\n46 Mill, letter to Arthur Helps, March 28, 1870, _Collected Works_ , 17:1710.\n\n47 Mill, _Principles_ , 963.\n\n48 Ibid. Mill had long utilized the argument about differential labor productivity. \"The Emigration Bill,\" 272.\n\n49 Miles Taylor, \"The 1848 Revolutions and the British Empire,\" _Past & Present_, 166 (2000), 146\u201380.\n\n50 Hilton, _A Mad, Bad, and Dangerous People?_ ; Anthony Howe, _Free Trade and Liberal England, 1846\u20131946_ (Oxford, 1998)\n\n51 Increasing political independence was accompanied, however, by growing economic dependence. P. J. Cain and A. G. Hopkins, _British Imperialism, 1688\u20132000_ , 2nd ed. (London, 2002), ch. 8.\n\n52 Letter to Hardy (1856), 511. This was despite the fact, Mill stated, that the plan had only ever been properly executed in New Zealand. He wanted to show that Australian growth could not be explained by the gold rush in the early 1850s. He also claimed that the \"opinions\" of the Australians were generally \"ahead\" of those in Britain. Letter to Henry Chapman, October 5, 1863, _Collected Works_ , 15:888. Moreover, he wrote that he and Harriet \"read every book we can get about the Australian colonies always with fresh interest\" (Letter to Hardy [1856], 511).\n\n53 Mill, _Principles_ , 378. Cf. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, _The Communist Manifesto_ [1848], ed. Gareth Stedman Jones (Harmondsworth, 2002), 224.\n\n54 See also Hollander, _The Economics of John Stuart Mill_ , 2:754\u201355, 756\u201357.\n\n55 See, in general, Robert Grant, _Representations of British Emigration, Colonisation and Settlement_ (Basingstoke, 2005).\n\n56 The argument is found in Mill, _Principles_ , vol. 5, ch. 10, sec. 1.\n\n57 Mill, letter to W. L. Johns, January 22, 1867, _Collected Works_ , 16:1230. And conversely, \"the colonies will not allow us to cast our paupers into them.\" Letter to Henry Chapman, January 14, 1870, _Collected Works_ , 17:1685.\n\n58 See here Mill, _Principles_ , vol. 5, ch. 10, sec. 1.\n\n59 See, for example, his letters to Frederick Miles Edge (of the _Chicago Tribune_ ), February 26, 1866, _Collected Works_ , 16:1150\u201351; Henry Soden, May 2, 1865, _Collected Works_ , 16:1043\u201344; George Kenyon Holden, July 5, 1868, _Collected Works_ , 16:1419\u201320. He notes in a letter to the political economist J. E. Cairnes, on February 4, 1865 ( _Collected Works_ , 16:989\u201390), that he had modified various passages in the 6th edition (5:919\u201321) to \"give a fuller expression of my meaning.\"\n\n60 Mill, letter to Archibald Michie, December 7, 1868, _Collected Works_ , 16:1516; letter to Edward Stafford, December 11, 1868, _Collected Works_ , 16:1520\u201321.\n\n61 Wakefield, _England and America_ , 2:105\u20136.\n\n62 Stefan Collini, _Public Moralists_ (Oxford, 1991), ch. 3; Janice Carlisle, _John Stuart Mill and the Writing of Character_ (Athens, 1991); Duncan Kelly, _The Propriety of Liberty_ (Princeton, 2010); and, on India, Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_ , ch. 5.\n\n63 Mill, _The Subjection of Women_ [1869], _Collected Works_ , 21:277; cf. Mill, _System of Logic, Collected Works_ , vol. 8, bk. 6, pp. 904\u20135.\n\n64 On Mill's writings on women, democratic institutions, and himself, as ethological \"case studies\" see Terence Ball, \"The Formation of Character,\" _Polity_ , 33 (2000), 25\u201348.\n\n65 Mehta, _Liberalism and Empire_ , 37. For a critical discussion of this argument, see chapter 2 in this volume.\n\n66 Mill, \"New Australian Colony,\" _Morning Chronicle_ , October 23, 1834, _Collected Works_ , 23:750.\n\n67 Letter to Edward Lytton-Bulwer, March 5, 1838, _Collected Works_ , 13:382. See William Thomas, _The Philosophic Radicals_ (Oxford, 1979), ch. 8; Michael Turner, \"Radical Agitation and the Canada Question in British Politics, 1837\u20131841,\" _Historical Research_ , 79 (2006), 90\u2013114.\n\n68 A smaller uprising followed in Upper Canada in December 1837. See Peter Burroughs, _The Canadian Crisis and British Colonial Policy, 1828\u20131841_ (London, 1972); P. A. Buckner, _The Transition to Responsible Government_ (Westport, 1985).\n\n69 C. P. Lucas, ed., _Lord Durham's Report on the Affairs of British North America_ [1839] (Oxford, 1912). Wakefield played a significant role in formulating the report. For a harsh indictment, see Ged Martin, _The Durham Report and British Policy_ (Cambridge, 1972).\n\n70 Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_ , ch. 5; and chapter 12 in this volume.\n\n71 Mill, \"Lord Durham and His Assailants,\" _London and Westminster Review_ (1838), _Collected Works_ , 6: 448.\n\n72 Mill, \"Radical Party and Canada,\" _London and Westminster Review_ (1838), _Collected Works_ , 6:414. See also Mill, \"Penal Code for India,\" _London and Westminster Review_ (1838), _Collected Works_ , 30:30.\n\n73 Mill, \"Radical Party and Canada,\" 417. \"A constitution, once conferred, is sacred\" (418). The point at issue was a series of punitive resolutions passed at Westminster in March 1837, which removed various powers from the Lower Canadian assembly, including the power of refusing to grant money for local administration, originally enshrined in the 1791 Constitution.\n\n74 Ibid.,\" 429.\n\n75 Ibid., 433\u201334. See also Mill's letter to John Robertson, December 28, 1838, _Collected Works_ , 13:393\u201334. Mill's article on \"Lord Durham and His Assailants\" was heavily shaped by Charles Buller's inaccurate account of Durham's plans. Thomas, _The Philosophic Radicals_ , 402\u20133.\n\n76 Mill, \"Lord Durham and His Assailants,\" 458, 459. On Mill's \"heterotic\" view of national absorption, see Georgios Varouxakis, _Mill on Nationality_ (London, 2002), esp. 15\u201319. Compare this with Will Kymlicka, _Multicultural Citizenship_ (Oxford, 1995), 53, where Mill is accused of advocating \"coercive assimilation.\"\n\n77 Mill, \"Lord Durham and His Assailants,\" 461. See also Mill, _Autobiography_ [1873], _Collected Works_ , 1:164\u201366, 223.\n\n78 For Mill's recognition of this, see his letter to Robertson, April 6, 1839, _Collected Works_ , 13:396\u201397.\n\n79 Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_ , 148.\n\n80 Letter to Beaumont, October 18, 1839, _Collected Works_ , 17:1990\u201392.\n\n81 See, in general, Bruce Kinzer, _England's Disgrace?_ (Toronto, 2001), esp. chs. 2\u20133.\n\n82 Mill, \"The Condition of Ireland,\" (11), _Morning Chronicle_ , October, 26, 1846, _Collected Works_ , 24:915.\n\n83 Ibid., 973.\n\n84 Mill, (25), _Morning Chronicle_ , December 2, 1846, _Collected Works_ , 24:973. Mill argued that the abject conditions meant that \"Ireland was once more a tabula rasa, on which we might have inscribed what we pleased.\" Letter to the _Examiner_ , May 1848, _Collected Works_ , 25:1098.\n\n85 Mill, _Considerations_ , 565. For his defense of the colonial system, see also his letter to Cairnes, November 8, 1864, 964\u201366.\n\n86 Mill, _Considerations_ , 562\u201363, 565.\n\n87 For a useful analysis of the idea, see Ken Booth and Nicholas Wheeler, _The Security Dilemma_ (Basingstoke, 2007).\n\n88 Mill, _Considerations_ , 565.\n\n89 Ibid. On the debate over the morality of free trade, see Frank Trentmann, _Free Trade Nation_ (Oxford, 2008).\n\n90 Mill, _Considerations_ , 563\u201364, 92.\n\n91 Mill, letter to Arthur Patchett Martin, October 10, 1871, _Collected Works_ , 32:232. But, he argued, \"[t]he renunciation of them was by no means a necessary consequence of the introduction of responsible government\" (232). See also letter to Chapman (1870), 1865\u201366.\n\n92 As detailed in Smits, \"John Stuart Mill on the Antipodes.\" Cf. Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_ , 159\u201360. For an argument that there is a general shift in justifications of British imperial rule during the closing decades of the century, see Karuna Mantena, _Alibis of Empire_.\n\n93 Benjamin Madley, \"From Terror to Genocide,\" _Journal of British Studies_ , 47 (2008), 77\u2013106. The issue was raised, for example, in Herman Merivale's _Lectures on Colonisation and Colonies_ , 2:150. Mill certainly read the second (1861) edition of these lectures. Letter to J. E. Cairnes, November 8, 1864, _Collected Works_ , 15:647\u201348.\n\n94 Letter to A. M. Francis (1869), 1599. See also the following letters: to Robert Pharazyn, August 21, 1866, _Collected Works_ , 16:1194\u201396; to Henry Chapman, August 7, 1866, _Collected Works_ , 16: 1135\u201336; to Charlotte Manning, January 14, 1870, _Collected Works_ , 17:1685\u201387.\n\n95 Welch, \"Colonial Violence and the Rhetoric of Evasion,\" 251\u201352.\n\n96 Mill, _Considerations_ , 564. A similar account of colonial \"quasi-federalism\" can be found in L. T. Hobhouse, _Democracy and Reaction_ [1904], ed. P. F. Clarke (Brighton, 1972), 154. Cf. Bell, \"The Victorian Idea of a Global State.\"\n\n97 Mill, \"England and Ireland\" [1868], 4th ed. 1869, _Collected Works_ , 6:524\u201325.\n\n98 Mill, _Considerations_ , 564, 565. Mill thought that a \"loose federation\" of the European states was a future possibility: letter to E. Cliffe Leslie, August 18, 1860, _Collected Works_ , 15:703; letter to M. C. Halstead, January 19, 1871, _Collected Works_ , 17:1800\u20131801.\n\n99 On the importance of deliberation in his political philosophy, see Nadia Urbinati, _Mill on Democracy_ (Chicago, 2002).\n\n100 Edmund Burke, \"Speech on Conciliation with America\" (March 22, 1775), in _The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke_ , ed. W. Elofson and John Woods (Oxford, 1996), 3:152.\n\n101 Smith, _Wealth of Nations_ , 622; Jeremy Bentham, \"Emancipate Your Colonies\" [1830], in _Rights, Representation, and Reform_ , ed. Philip Schofield, Catherine Pease-Watkin, and Cyprian Blamire (Oxford, 2002), 292.\n\n102 Mill, letter to Arthur Patchett Martin (1871), 233. See also, Mill, letter to Henry Chapman (1870), 1865.\n\n103 A point also made in Mill, \"Civilization,\" _Collected Works_ , 18:117\u201349.\n\n104 Mill, \"England and Ireland,\" 525.\n\n105 Mill, \"Lord Durham and His Assailants,\" 460.\n\n106 Mill, letter to Henry Chapman, August 7, 1866, _Collected Works_ , 16:1137.\n\n107 See, for example, Seeley, _The Expansion of England_.\n\n108 Robert Somers, \"Emigration\" [1878], _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ , 9th ed. (London, 1875\u201389), 8:176. For a brilliant analysis of the nature of the encyclopedia, see Alistair Maclntyre, _Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry_ (South Bend, IN, 1990), ch. 1.\nCHAPTER 10\n\nInternational Society in Victorian Political Thought\n\nT. H. Green, Herbert Spencer, and Henry Sidgwick\n\n_With Casper Sylvest_\n\nI grew up as an ardent believer in optimistic liberalism. I both hoped and expected to see throughout the world a gradual spread of parliamentary democracy, personal liberty, and freedom for the countries that were at that time subject to European Powers, including Britain. I hoped that everyone would in time see the wisdom of Cobden's arguments for Free Trade, and that nationalism might gradually fade into a universal humanism.1\n\n\u2014BERTRAND RUSSELL\n\nIf... one were to press the theoretic issue, whether a state or nation is a morally independent being, or whether it is in some sense or degree a member of what maybe called an incipient society of states or nations, nearly everyone would sustain the latter view. 2\n\n\u2014J. A. HOBSON\n\nThroughout the Victorian era, British liberal attitudes to international order were shaped by a complex interplay between conceptions of universalism, sovereignty, progress, and civilization. This chapter explores a prominent idea that permeated the thinking of the British liberal intelligentsia in the closing decades of the century, at the very apogee of the imperial age: a vision of international society as both an empirical account of progressive trends identifiable in global politics and as a normative project.3\n\nThis chapter analyzes the overlapping ideas about international society to be found in the political thought of three leading late Victorian liberal thinkers: T. H. Green (1836\u201382), Herbert Spencer (1820\u20131903), and Henry Sidgwick (1838\u20131900). In so doing it focuses on what Stefan Collini has labeled the world of the \"public moralists\"\u2014the world, that is, of influential and well-connected British intellectuals who flourished in the universities, in Parliament, and in the press.4 During the late nineteenth century it is possible to identify amongst the liberal sections of this elite a widely shared, if often only vaguely articulated, belief in the existence of a nascent and evolving international society. It was a belief that was to survive both world wars, albeit in a more disenchanted key. This was the vision that Bertrand Russell grew up believing in, only to have his hopes dashed by the horrors of the atom bomb and the Holocaust, and that Hobson claimed was \"sustained\" by \"nearly everyone\" in 1920.\n\nDespite their manifold political and philosophical differences, Green, Spencer, and Sidgwick shared and articulated complementary visions of the past, present, and future of international society. This was not simply a happy coincidence of views\u2014it was an understanding of international politics generated from within their distinctive intellectual systems. They simultaneously reflected and contributed to late Victorian liberal thinking about international affairs. Their significance in this respect lies, at least in part, in their attempt to theorize liberal internationalism in a sophisticated manner, thereby giving it both intellectual respectability and political force. Moreover, by approaching this theme from different philosophical viewpoints they managed to provide internationalism with an ideological flexibility that proved crucial for its survival and development in a period witnessing both major shifts in the intellectual current and considerable turbulence in global politics.5\n\nThe structure of this chapter is as follows. Section 2 provides a sketch of the political context in which liberal internationalism flourished during the late Victorian era as well as a brief analysis of key arguments employed by its proponents. Section 3 examines the international thought of Green, Spencer, and Sidgwick, and the way in which they derived overlapping notions of international society from their divergent philosophical systems. Finally, section 4 highlights some of the ways in which their internationalism was circumscribed by ideas about the boundaries of civilization and the role of empire. It was the moral and practical standing of empire that brought to the surface the internal tensions, and the ethical limitations, of late nineteenth-century liberal conceptions of international society.\n\nProgress, Justice, and Order: On Liberal Internationalism\n\nDuring the late nineteenth century liberal internationalism was, like the liberalism that spawned it, a many-stranded phenomenon. Nevertheless, it had at its core a cluster of ideas about how best to organize and reform global politics, to which virtually all liberals subscribed, including, in their different ways, Green, Spencer, and Sidgwick. This liberal internationalism was founded on a belief that it was possible to build a just international order on the basis of existing patterns of cooperation between distinct political communities. Such thinking was neither strictly cosmopolitan (insofar as it did not attempt to transcend the state) nor was it crudely nationalist (insofar as it did not prioritize national self-interest over the interests of \"humanity\"). It drew on a combination of long-standing radical ideas about the dangers of militarism and aristocratic privilege and fused them with more mainstream liberal concerns about the value of commerce (and in particular free trade) in creating a morally acceptable international order. In short, liberal internationalists yoked a political project to the idea of sustained moral development.6 In doing so, they projected, in what is often labeled the \"domestic analogy,\" their conception of the nature and sources of domestic order onto the plane of international politics.7 War was not a tragic inevitability. Internationalists insisted that the problem resulting from the lack of an overarching global leviathan\u2014that determinate source of political authority identified by so many thinkers at the time (and today) as one of the primary causes of interstate conflict\u2014was surmountable without recourse to the dreaded singularity of universal empire.\n\nNineteenth-century British liberalism was marked by two defining characteristics. The first was its political and ideological ascendancy, especially in the early and mid-Victorian eras. The second was its polyphonic variation, which was most marked in the closing decades of the century.8 The two are not unrelated\u2014liberalism was many things to many people. This was both a strength and a weakness. Its strength lay in the possibility of coopting and coordinating a variety of different political interests and philosophical outlooks and uniting them behind a broad vision of economic, political, social, and international reform. Its weakness resulted from the fragility of this compound. Liberalism's hold over both the popular political imagination and the intellectual elite was very pronounced, and for a few decades in the third quarter of the century it lay at the core of political discourse, the position against which others were forced to define (and often defend) themselves. Scholars often argue that the mid-Victorian era was comparatively harmonious, characterized by \"stability, optimism, social solidarity, relative affluence, and liberality.\"9 It was a moment of heightened confidence. Liberalism flourished in this comparatively sunny climate\u2014although the \"equipoise\" was often qualified by the common dread of war. The \"generation of William Whewell,\" noted Henry Maine in 1887, \"may be said to have had a dream of peace,\" exemplified by the atmosphere in the years surrounding the Great Exhibition of 1851. But the \"buildings of this Temple of Peace had hardly been removed when war broke out again, more terrible than ever,\" and Maine pointed to the Crimean War as having inaugurated a new period of conflict, which to believers in the possibility of peace had been \"a bitter deception.\"10 John Morley concurred: \"Heavy banks of cloud hung with occasional breaks of brighter sky over Europe; and all the plot, intrigue, conspiracy, and subterranean scheming... was but the repulsive and dangerous symptom of a dire conflict in the depth of international politics.\"11 Optimism about the future was tempered by fear about the potential derailment of progress, a fear that increased in intensity, as winter succeeded autumn, in the closing decades of the century.\n\nFrom the late 1880s until their landslide electoral victory in 1906, liberals repeatedly found themselves cast in the party-political wilderness. Moreover, challenges to liberal ideology became evermore obvious to contemporaries, sympathetic and hostile alike. As L. T. Hobhouse wrote in 1911, \"[w]hether at home or abroad those who represented Liberal ideas had suffered crushing defeats... [i]ts faith in itself was waxing cold.\"12 In the domestic sphere the furore over Irish Home Rule, increasing class antagonism, and the emergence of socialism as a serious political force, together with challenges to the shibboleth of free trade amid disappointment with the results of democratic expansion after 1867 and 1884, all combined to dampen the confidence of liberals. This trend was exacerbated by escalating European militarization, catalyzed in particular by the unification of Germany following the Franco-Prussian War (1870\u201371), the ensuing \"scramble\" for imperial territories in Africa, fear about a Russian challenge to British supremacy in India, and the perception that the British economy was rapidly weakening relative to other major states. But liberal optimism did not disappear altogether, and indeed the grim international environment led to a redoubling of efforts to find a way out of the political impasse. It was in this ideological milieu that _fin de si\u00e8cle_ liberal internationalism was forged, drawing on classical liberal (and radical) themes, Gladstone's global messianism, and the ideas of the \"new liberals\" and philosophical idealists.13\n\nIn general, liberal internationalists advocated the development of international law, arbitration, free trade, and multilateralism as the most appropriate strategies for states to pursue in search of a just international order. They also predicted the development of various supranational structures, including political federations, at the regional, inter-imperial or international level, although they rarely pushed for the immediate construction of such institutions. Two analytically distinct logics can be discerned in internationalist thought during this period, although they were usually interwoven in the writings of individual figures. Witness, for example, the Cambridge international lawyer T. J. Lawrence. One line of thought held that reform would come about mainly through a shift in moral norms (\"international morality\"); another held that the best route was through institutional engineering. The former, dominant, logic focused on transforming the values of domestic society and in particular it promoted democracy while lambasting aristocratic militarism and excessive capitalist accumulation. Writing in the 1880s Lawrence claimed that the three greatest forces of modern life, \"Commerce, Democracy and Christianity,\" facilitated peace, and when he examined war \"in light of the theory of Development\" he \"found reason for believing that a state of perpetual peace will be gradually evolved upon earth.\" The second logic foreshadowed and promoted the creation of a variety of institutional structures. These included regional and imperial federations and, rather less ambitiously, international arbitration bodies, or what Lawrence called \"authoritative tribunals.\"14 For most internationalists writing prior to the First World War, including Lawrence, the two logics were usually sequenced in a particular manner; moral transformation was seen as a necessary first step before institutions could be created to harness and embed this internationalist vision.15\n\nCommerce and law were generally seen as the two key engines of liberal internationalism. They were assigned distinctive and complementary roles in bringing about a new moral order. In the case of commerce it was held that free trade led to increasing levels of interdependence and cooperation between states, and thus reduced the probability of violent conflict. In other words, political cooperation would follow from economic interaction. This view had found its most forceful advocate in Cobden, and was to reach its apotheosis in \"Norman Angellism\" during the late Edwardian era.16 It can be seen today in the stultifying debates over the pacifying powers of neoliberal globalization. The legal vision focused mainly on constructing a regime based on international legal norms that would lock into place certain types of behavior, including reciprocity and arbitration, with the expectation that over time states would become socialized into new modes of peaceable and cooperative interaction. As the liberal historian Frederic Seebohm wrote in 1871, \"we enter into commercial treaties, and become more and more dependent upon maintenance of international peace and justice,\" which in turn required \"more adequate security for international justice which shall at the same time be less injurious to the interests of nations.\"17 Law and commerce were not only symptomatic of the general progress of humanity but would also be the means of bringing about a more fundamental transformation: the necessary (if not inevitable) moral development of the species. For James Bryce, famed anatomist of democracy, this process could be identified in the unfolding of history, which, despite repeated frustrations, was moving ever \"upwards.\" The best evidence for this was to be found in the fact that \"evils which men once accepted as inevitable have now become intolerable.\"18 The liberal jurist Sheldon Amos concurred:\n\nWar, as modified by the laws and restrictions which the conscience of the civilised world, working in concurrence with the dictates of military and political convenience, imposes, marks an intermediate and, it may be hoped, transitory stage, between an absolute oblivion of moral obligations, and such an ascendancy of the sense of these obligations, as would render the cruel hardships and bitter passions, which are inevitable, even in the best conducted Wars, an anachronism.19\n\nThis fusion of moral and institutional technologies of reform characterized liberal internationalism from the mid-Victorian era through the early decades of the twentieth century.\n\nInternational Society: Green, Spencer, Sidgwick\n\nGreen, Spencer, and Sidgwick occupied important positions in late Victorian intellectual life. Whereas Green, White's Professor of Moral Philosophy at Oxford, was the most important figure in translating philosophical idealism into a British creed, Herbert Spencer, a man who never held an academic post, has some claim to be described as the single most influential philosopher of the nineteenth-century Anglo-American world\u2014and well beyond. The popularity of his social evolutionary ideas stemmed, at least in part, from their ability to crystallize the hopes and anxieties of educated Victorians, as well as quenching their thirst for knowledge of self and society.20 Henry Sidgwick, the Knightbridge Professor of Moral Philosophy at Cambridge, provided the most sophisticated defense of utilitarianism in the closing decades of the century. Unlike Green, whose writings focused primarily on philosophical topics, Sidgwick's published output ranged widely across philosophy, history, political economy, and contemporary politics, although he never attained the level of popularity enjoyed by Spencer.\n\nThe three philosophers differed very considerably in temperament and style, and they were often found on opposite\u2014and not always predictable\u2014sides of major intellectual and political debates. Green and Sidgwick were both skeptical of Spencer's social evolutionism and his attempt (as they saw it) to reduce moral philosophy to a science. Green was also sharply critical of Spencer's metaphysical assumptions, and in particular how these translated into his writings on psychology.21 Spencer and Sidgwick, meanwhile, remained unconvinced by the idealism that Green was so instrumental in elaborating. Spencer objected to what he saw as the speculative, \"continental\" nature of idealism, while Sidgwick was more concerned with Green's inability to address or resolve what he regarded as the fundamental conundrums of philosophy, such as the reconciliation of different modes of ethical reasoning.22 While the two professional academics conducted their conversations in a technical philosophical language, Sidgwick's utilitarian ethical system was ultimately more compatible with that of Spencer, the academic outsider. They also diverged politically. Green and Spencer's views on the relationship between the individual and the state stood poles apart\u2014indeed the idealist disciples of Green regarded Spencer's utilitarianism and radical individualism as one of their main targets, both theoretically (as an indefensible view of the self) and politically (as justifying damaging inequalities). And despite his support for an idiosyncratic form of socialism, Sidgwick was much more of a traditional individualist liberal, an exponent, as D. G. Ritchie put it, of utilitarianism grown \"tame and sleek.\"23\n\nNotwithstanding this plurality of ideas and ideals, when it came to international politics they shared a bifocal vision that implied, first, that an incipient international society was discernible, even if only faintly, in the existing configuration of global politics and, second, as a normative ideal, that it should be nourished, strengthened, and expanded in the future. In other words this society was immanent, if not imminent. While they differed on its potential structure as well as on the temporal dimensions of its full realization, their views coalesced behind a coherent (though vague) concern with the possibility of bringing a measure of order, justice, and tranquility to international politics. Moral transformation was central to this vision. But Green, Sidgwick, and Spencer thought that this transformation required some form of institutionalization, and they therefore advocated new legal mechanisms, including arbitration bodies; in the longer term it would mean working towards the creation of federal modes of government at the international level. Starting from very different philosophical premises, they ended up arguing for very similar political goals.\n\n_Thomas Hill Green_\n\nIn approaching Green's international thought, it is crucial not to be swayed by the hostile interpretation of idealism orchestrated at the beginning of the twentieth century, largely but not exclusively by Hobson and Hobhouse. In a characteristic formulation, Hobhouse argued, with direct reference to idealism, that if \"all that is real is rational, it is difficult to resist the view that what wins is right.\"24 The prevailing view today is that idealism was not of itself anti-internationalist.25 This is especially true of Green, who was, as Melvin Richter once remarked, \"the last person in the world to be convinced of the moral virtue of a nation by its success in war.\"26 There was always a radical tint to Green's liberalism, particularly in terms of foreign policy, as is illustrated by his great admiration for the anti-militarist internationalism of Bright and Cobden.27 Moreover, his intellectual trademark\u2014the focus on the ethical dimension and potential of \"man\"\u2014was always carefully phrased in language that precluded militarism.\n\nGreen's liberalism can be seen as a halfway house between the classical liberalism of Mill and the new liberalism of the early twentieth century.28 He valued individuality and freedom and defended a conception of persons as essentially communal and moral beings bearing social responsibilities and rights. The political implications of this philosophical vision were formulated most clearly in the posthumously published _Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation_ (1886), where Green argued that\n\nthe claim or right of the individual to have certain powers secured to him by society, and the counter-claim of society to exercise certain powers over the individual, alike rest on the fact that these powers are necessary to the fulfilment of _man's vocation as a moral being, to an effectual self-devotion to the work of developing the perfect character in himself and others_.29\n\nAfter setting out the objective of freedom as self-development and self-realization, Green argued that the true function of government was to make possible this ideal. Although this reformulation has often been seen as a precursor to \"new liberal\" arguments about the role of the state in achieving social equality, to Green the implications were not straightforwardly interventionist.30 Although his view of state intervention was much more permissive than Spencer's, its task remained primarily ethical, being devoted to sustaining and harmonizing individual relations.31 The state was a facilitating space for individual self-realization. On the other hand, Green also stressed that the citizen ideally should be an active participant in political life, not simply a passive recipient of its benefits, a view that fitted with his conception of \"man\" as inconceivable apart from community.32 He was a persistent critic of dualisms\u2014citizen-state, individual-society\u2014and repeatedly insisted on their mutual interdependence. This philosophical notion of unity had a moral and political equivalent in Green's avowal of the social and individual dimensions of pursuing the common good, a common good that anchored collective life. With this guiding idea Green provided\u2014or was seen to provide\u2014an answer to materialistic hedonism in an age of increasing religious doubt.33 This answer also embodied a progressive element in which institutions (including the state), and the individuals composing them, were seen as gradually fulfilling their true nature.34\n\nGreen's conception of the international was continuous with this vision of moral development. Green began his lecture \"The Right of the State over the Individual in War,\" delivered in the academic year of 1879\u201380, with a discussion of the essential \"wrongdoing\" of war, arguing that even if it was undeniable that \"many virtues are called into exercise by war, or that wars have been a means by which the movement of mankind... has been carried on,\" this did not diminish the wrong committed. Green then turned to the relationship between the right of (particular) states to act in their own interest and the rights that individuals acquired through membership in (a universal) human society. For Green, though, this implied a false dichotomy, because \"the source of war between states lies in their incomplete fulfilment of their function; in the fact that there is some defect in the maintenance or reconciliation of rights among their subjects\":\n\nThere is no such thing as an inevitable conflict between states. There is nothing in the nature of the state that, given a multiplicity of states, should make the gain of the one the loss of the other. The more perfectly each one of them attains its proper object of giving free scope to the capacities of all persons living on a certain range of territory, the easier it is for others to do so; and in proportion as they all do so the danger of conflict disappears.35\n\nThis statement follows from Green's understanding of the relationship between state and citizen and was intended also as a challenge to the fatalistic view, which he associated with Spinoza and which he saw as resurgent in contemporary political life. In a previous lecture Green had discussed Spinoza's approach to war, and especially the view that \"two commonwealths are enemies by nature.\" He complained that among \"the enlightened... there has of late appeared a tendency to adopt a theory very like Spinoza's, without the higher elements which we noticed in Spinoza; to consider all right as a power attained in that 'struggle for existence' to which human 'progress' is reduced.\"36 Green was to spend much time attempting to counter such crude notions of struggle, whether they were employed in debate about domestic or international politics.\n\nThe fulfillment of the real purpose of the state would remove the motives and opportunities for war, \"while the bonds of unity become stronger.\" This development was linked directly to \"Manchesterism.\" Despite some reservations about free trade, Green held that increasing levels of trade would strengthen \"the sense of common interests\" between citizens of different states, which war would otherwise violate. This logic can point in the direction of cosmopolitanism and a universal society of humankind, and there is indeed some evidence that this is what Green sought. Throughout his short life he argued against militarist patriotism, and he lamented that in international politics people were rarely influenced by \"the idea of the universal brotherhood of men,\" and by the notion of \"mankind as forming one society with a common good.\"37 This suggests that Green was committed to a conception of what might be labeled \"transcendent\" community, the belief that ideally once individuals are members of one community they are members of all communities.38 Two factors, however, complicate a simple \"cosmopolitan\" reading. First, Green was no straightforward individualist. Although he argued that in a nation, \"however exalted its mission,\" there was nothing \"which is not in the persons composing the nation or the society\" and that our \"ultimate standard of worth is an ideal of _personal_ worth,\" he also insisted that individuals could not possess \"moral and spiritual qualities, independently of their existence in a nation.\"39 In thinking about morals, he suggested, we have to start with a notion of moral community that does not encompass the whole of humanity. Second, even if Green was a cosmopolitan, his attainable ideal, his view, that is, of what it was at least plausible to aim for, was premised on the existence of nation-states. This emerges from his discussion of the claim that projects \"of perpetual peace, to be logical, must be projects of all-embracing empire.\" Although Green conceded that there was some merit in this, he argued that a world of nations expressing particularistic sentiments was more realistic and perhaps also more fulfilling. If these were properly constituted and directed towards the common good, not only would \"the occasions of conflict between nations disappear,\" those nations would also by virtue of the same development acquire a more altruistic \"organ of expression and action\" for dealing with each other.40\n\nGreen's ideal was, then, of a society of rightly constituted nations coexisting in anti-egoistic ways and developing within a larger circle of humanity. Even in _The Prolegomena to Ethics_ (1883), wherein he discussed the possibility of communities widening continually so as to increase the range of persons whose common good was sought, he did not dispense with (nation) states as long as they fulfilled their potential. He employed, for example, the equivocal phrase \"the fraternity of men and nations.\" More importantly, Green acknowledged that the prime impediment to the maintenance and formation of a fellowship was selfishness, a problem that was exacerbated as they expanded in scale and scope. Nevertheless he confidently asserted that \"where selfishness of man has proposed, his better reason has disposed.\" Thus he saw the formation of independently law-governed nations and communities as an expression of reason because they facilitated both the subordination of the individual to the common good and underpinned the language of rights instrumental in realizing wider interpersonal commitments.41 It was against this background that he could \"dream of an international court with authority resting on the consent of independent states.\"42 As with his conception of the relationship between individual and society the relationship between (nation) states and the \"society\" they form was potentially harmonious. But such a development depended on states becoming more fully realized and thereby recognizing their common interests.\n\n_Herbert Spencer_\n\nUnmistakably a child of the English provincial radicalism that flourished in his home town of Derby, Herbert Spencer was a self-made thinker who, from the 1850s onwards, worked out a \"synthetic Philosophy\" spanning biology, psychology, sociology, and ethics.43 Following a brief career in the booming railway industry and as a journalist at the _Economist_ , he published _Social Statics_ in 1851. From an explicitly deist perspective, which he later abandoned, the book developed deductively a system of ethics for the perfect condition towards which mankind was progressing. In later life Spencer would move away from this exclusive focus on \"absolute ethics\" and begin to deal also with non-ideal \"relative ethics.\" At this stage, though, he had not yet identified the evolutionary mechanisms of progress even if its existence and direction was clear: \"Progress... is not an accident, but a necessity. Instead of civilization being artificial, it is a part of nature.\" This conviction was so strong that Spencer could proclaim that evil and morality would disappear and that man would become \"perfect.\"44 In this projected future condition, a principle of equal freedom\u2014\" _Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man_ \"45\u2014would guide human action. Many essential elements of Spencer's utilitarianism and of his mature philosophical system were thus present in his early work.46\n\nSo too was his political liberalism. Spencer was a ruthless advocate of the ideal-typical \"nightwatchman\" state, as demonstrated both in _Social Statics_ and in a series of letters to the _Nonconformist_ entitled _The Proper Sphere of Government_ (1842\u201343). Progress meant progressively less government.47 The international consequences of this ideology corresponded with the arguments of the Anti-Corn Law League and its icons, Cobden and Bright, and as such Spencer can be located in a tradition of political radicalism highly critical of British foreign policy and imperialism.48 This emerges clearly in _The Proper Sphere of Government_ , where he argued that war was \"the source of the greatest of England's burdens.\" War made nations aggressive and hindered industry and commerce, \"the real sources of wealth.\" But it was the moral evils of war that exercised Spencer the most. It was, after all, \"inconsistent with the spirit of Christianity,\" tending \"greatly to retard the civilisation of the world,\" and it acted as \"the grand bar to the extension of that feeling of universal brotherhood with all nations, so essential to the real prosperity of mankind.\"49\n\nThe same notion of an incipient and immanent society of nations is found in _Social Statics_ , but at this stage he predicted that it would manifest itself in a global federal structure. It is vital to stress, however, that Spencer was not willing to actively advocate the establishment of such an institution. The logic was much more circumvented:\n\nA federation of peoples\u2014a universal society, can exist only when man's adaptation to the social state has become tolerably complete. We have already seen... that in the earliest state of civilization, when the repulsive force is strong, and the aggregative force weak, only small communities are possible; a modification of character causes these tribes and satrapies, and _gentes_ , and feudal lordships, and clans, gradually to coalesce into nations; and a still further modification will allow for further union. That the time for this is now drawing nigh, seems probable... The recognition of its desirableness foreshadows its realization. In peace societies, in proposals for simultaneous disarmament, in international visits and addresses, and in the frequency with which friendly interventions now occur, we may see that humanity is fast growing towards such a consummation. Though hitherto impracticable, and perhaps impracticable at the present moment, a brotherhood of nations is being made very practicable by the very efforts used to bring it about.50\n\nImpersonal forces governing human development would in time bring about a full manifestation of the international society that was then only discernable _in embryo_. Spencer indicated that this trajectory should be located in the larger timescales of history and that inter-societal conflict had acted as a crucial mechanism of development. In order to understand how this argument worked in any detail, it is important to briefly examine Spencer's understanding of social evolution.\n\nA rudimentary notion of evolution was clearly present in Spencer's earlier writings, but it was not until he conceived of the \"synthetic philosophy\" that it was theorized more thoroughly, and arguably its full realization was parasitic on the development of the various branches of the entire philosophical system. In Spencer's philosophical groundwork, _First Principles_ , published originally in 1860, evolution was defined as \"an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion; during which the matter passes from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity; and during which the retained motion undergoes a parallel transformation.\"51 At the core of this \"total evolutionism\" were two separate but interlinked concepts, individuation and differentiation.52 At a general level Spencer held that organisms became distinct from other organisms\u2014\"individualised\"\u2014by a process of the differentiation of organs, but this process also implied another kind of individuation as the organism in question simultaneously became more integrated. The mechanism of these evolutionary developments was Lamarckian rather than Darwinian\u2014that is, adaptation to the environment took place through the ability of organisms to inherit acquired characteristics from previous generations rather than through the more random Darwinian process of variation and selection. This allowed Spencer to conceive of progress in an orderly\u2014and almost speculatively guidable\u2014fashion.53 It points to a crucial feature of the interlocking nature of Spencer's political ideology and theory of evolution: while the latter was presented as a disinterested scientific theory, in reality it was constantly fashioned and refashioned so as to confirm the main impetus of the former.54\n\nSpencer's sociology, which encompassed what today we would term \"political science,\" is important in understanding how he conceived of this process.55 He contended that from the early stages of history the necessity for security and collective action caused humans to form groups, which in turn triggered a process of struggle that was followed by further \"compounding\" of groups and societies. In these early stages of history it was possible to discern an intercommunal struggle, where only the fittest survived and grew. These societies were mostly \"militant\" in an ideal-typical sense: hierarchical, oriented solely towards security and survival, and providing little space for individual freedom. As Spencer later described this turn in his thinking,\n\nIt had to be reluctantly admitted that war, everywhere and always hateful, has nevertheless been a factor in civilization, by bringing about the consolidation of groups\u2014simple into compound, doubly-compound, and trebly-compound\u2014until great nations are formed. As, throughout the organic world, evolution has been achieved by the merciless discipline of Nature, \"red in tooth and claw\"; so, in the social world, a discipline scarcely less bloody has been the agency by which societies have been massed together and social structures developed.56\n\nYet the power of war was also limited because human societies could escape this logic. For example, the activity of war produced the skills needed for voluntary cooperation, and when a particular stage was reached the advantages of war were exceeded by its disadvantages.57 According to Spencer, admitting the centrality of war in evolution was\u2014viewed in the long term\u2014not incompatible with \"the belief that there is coming a stage in which survival of the fittest among societies, hitherto affected by sanguinary conflicts, will be affected by peaceful conflicts.\"58 The outcome of the evolutionary process was the establishment of \"industrial\" societies characterized by, among other things, voluntary association, minimal government, individual freedom, and purely defensive military capabilities.59 This development was paralleled in the domain of ethics, where egoism was gradually replaced by social altruism and rational\/transfigured egoism until international conditions allowed for the emergence of internationalist altruism. Spencer could thus proclaim that there \"needs but a continuance of absolute peace externally, and a rigorous insistence on nonaggression internally, to ensure the moulding of men into a form characterized by all the virtues.\"60\n\nThere are numerous problems with this explanatory logic, many of which are connected to the relationship between Spencer's ideology and his \"science,\" but these can be left aside. It is more fruitful to focus on the consequences that followed for the way in which he viewed the future of international relations and, more specifically, the \"brotherhood of nations,\" the burgeoning international society that figured in his early writings. First, the concept of social evolution and the distinction between militant and industrial societies possessed considerable rhetorical power for Spencer as a critic of foreign policy. Progress could be thrown into reverse by militaristic adventures and misconceived visions of empire as an agent of civilization. Consequently Spencer castigated the actions and ideas of politicians and aristocrats, the clergy, historians, generals, and imperialists of all stripes.61 The lesson was obvious: accelerating social evolution was virtually impossible, but much could be done to obstruct the development of peace. Spencer's internationalism thus simultaneously embodied optimistic analysis and ferocious criticism. Second, it becomes clear that although he was not a nationalist (and certainly not a patriot), he was no straightforward cosmopolitan either. In line with many other liberals, Spencer seems to have \"naturalized\" the idea of the nation to the extent that a world without nations was unimaginable. However, the nation was not conceptualized in a sophisticated manner. Rather, Spencer's ideal demanded the development of complex industrial societies cooperating within a larger context of an evolving humanity. Indeed, the benign coexistence of nations amounted to an international society. This emerges again in the final pages of _The Principles of Sociology_ (1896), although by this stage the ideal is much more heavily institutionalized. In speculating about the international order of the future, which Spencer thought (and hoped) would be federal, he argued that \"future competitions\" between nations would follow the general law of evolution, displaying not only increasing heterogeneity (in terms of structural and cultural differences) but also the trait of the \"primary process of evolution,\" increasing integration. This development was necessary for completing human evolution; its potential benefits were obvious:\n\nAs, when small tribes were welded together into great tribes, the head chief stopped inter-tribal warfare; as, when small feudal governments became subject to a king, feudal wars were prevented by him; so, in time to come, a federation of the highest nations, exercising supreme authority (already foreshadowed by occasional agreements among \"the Powers\"), may, by forbidding wars between any of its constituent nations, put an end to the re-barbarization which is continually undoing civilization. When this peace-maintaining federation has been formed, there may be effectual progress towards that equilibrium between constitution and conditions\u2014between inner facilities and outer requirements\u2014implied in the final stage of human evolution.62\n\nSpencer, it should be stressed, did not advocate the construction of specific international institutions. In general, he held that the quality of political institutions was \"relative to the natures of citizens,\" meaning that moral transformation had to precede successful institutional engineering. And of course, for Spencer, such transformation was slow and, to judge by its contemporary manifestations, sometimes regressive. Here lay the kernel of his increasing disenchantment with the conduct of international politics. Human evolution still had a long way to go before peace could break out. As with so many other aspects of his thought, the purported existence of a peaceful international society was more ideological assertion than scientific forecast.\n\n_Henry Sidgwick_\n\nSidgwick appears at first markedly different from Spencer, and much more like his friend Green. Although he admired Spencer's ethical system, Sidgwick was unsympathetic to what he saw as its utopian implications. In particular he was critical of Spencer's (early) privileging of \"absolute ethics,\" describing it as \"an investigation not of what ought to be done here and now, but of what ought to be the rules of behaviour in a society of ideally perfect human beings.\" This was too far removed from political realities: \"Thus the subject-matter of our study would be doubly ideal: as it would not only prescribe what ought to be done as distinct from what is, but what ought to be done if a society that itself is not, but only _ought_ to be.\"63 Although both Sidgwick and Spencer took the pursuit of truth\u2014and perhaps especially moral truth\u2014extremely seriously, this disagreement reflects a difference in confidence. Spencer relegated metaphysical uncertainty to his notion of the \"Unknowable\" on which it was intellectually fruitless (and, for Spencer, unhealthy) to dwell; instead, he focused on the remaining intellectual terrain where he felt confident that truths could be ascertained and then proselytized. Sidgwick, in contrast, was more skeptical and self-critical, often lambasting the emerging field of sociology, of which Spencer was the leading British light, for its predilection for utopian prophecy.64 In a very un-Spencerian fashion, Sidgwick constantly agonized over the risk that ethical truths, like religious truths, were built on sand.65 John Maynard Keynes's notorious remark that Sidgwick \"never did anything but wonder whether Christianity was true and prove it wasn't and hope it was\" should be read in this light.66\n\nThe readiness to engage the world as it really appeared is also testimony to Sidgwick's proximity to the British political elite; he had, after all, a future prime minister and a future Archbishop of Canterbury as brothers-in-law. His close links to the Tory establishment also raise a question about labeling Sidgwick a liberal. Like some other leading public moralists, including Henry Maine and A. V. Dicey, Sidgwick became increasingly conservative towards the end of his life. Although he displayed relatively little of the inflated fears about collectivism that beset Maine and Dicey, he was still skeptical about many contemporary political developments, most obviously the Gladstonian push for Irish Home Rule.67 Sidgwick warmed to the Unionist perspective (sometimes even the Tory variant), and he was critical of party political liberalism. Nevertheless, the conservative elements in his thought should not be overestimated\u2014the legacy of the academic liberalism of the 1860s and 1870s weighed heavily on him, shaping his views on various domestic issues, including female education.68 Although he considered himself an independent, and although he has been described (with Maine) as a \"terrible political hypochondriac,\" Sidgwick also remained decidedly liberal in his views about international politics.69\n\nDespite these qualifications, Sidgwick and Spencer displayed close intellectual and political affinities. Unlike many later thinkers Sidgwick took Spencer's ideas very seriously, lecturing and writing widely on them. And as David Weinstein has argued, the philosophical differences between them should not be exaggerated.70 In terms of international politics, moreover, they shared a number of fundamental assumptions and a normative vision. Sidgwick agreed with Spencer\u2014reiterating an argument common at the time\u2014that there existed an irreversible tendency towards ever-smaller numbers of large omnicompetent political units.71 He shared (and often quoted) Spencer's dictum that \"ideal conduct... is not possible for the ideal man in the midst of men otherwise constituted.\"72 One of the lessons that both men drew from this dictum was that it was impractical to work directly for the establishment of new political institutions. Nevertheless, Sidgwick also shared with Spencer the view that the future would (or at least should) be federal; the nations of the \"civilized\" world would be united under one government that ensured order on a global scale, although his optimism about this potential development increased during the 1890s. Following an exposition of the various factors generating the tendency towards larger unions\u2014the dangers and economic burdens of war, increasing competition, the industrial character of modern societies, better facilities and habits of communication, and rising consciousness of a common civilization\u2014Sidgwick warned that it would be vain to expect the development of a singular European nationality and of \"an extensive federation of civilised states strong enough to put down wars among its members.\" In its pure form the ideal was not attainable, so Sidgwick opted for the second best:\n\nThe practically dominant political ideal of the present age does not include an extension of government beyond the limits of the nation. As in Greek history the practically dominant ideal is a society of City-states, independent, though observing in their mutual relations some kind of common law, so, in the period to which we belong, it is a society of Nation-states under \"International Law.\"73\n\nSidgwick's formulation of the internationalist ideal is interesting in several respects. First, his admiration of federalism grew stronger towards the end of his life.74 As the 1890s unfolded, Sidgwick seems\u2014despite his earlier criticisms of evolutionary optimism\u2014to have become more open to the idea of evolutionary progress, and this in turn made him more inclined to speculate about the future.75 In the final lecture of the course that was later published as _The Development of European Polity_ (1903), he felt \"disposed to predict a development of federality.\" As he argued, \"When we turn our gaze from the past to the future, an extension of federalism seems to me the most probable of the political prophecies relative to the form of government.\"76 Second, Sidgwick seems to have become steadily more internationalist during the 1890s. The tentative acceptance of evolutionary progress was indicative of his increasing optimism about international affairs\u2014or perhaps \"defiant optimism\" considering the political developments at the time\u2014which in turn might have catalyzed a more robust internationalist position. The most compelling evidence for such a development is to be found in some of the revisions Sidgwick made to writings published in the early 1890s.77\n\nFinally, Sidgwick's internationalism contained a practical dimension. After setting out the ideal of a society of nations under International Law, he attempted to delineate the ethical principles that this idea involved and compared these to existing international practices. Behind this analysis lay the conviction that order and ethical progress in world politics were not only possible but also necessary. Although Sidgwick accepted the special anarchical character of international relations\u2014the \"absence of a common government which has hitherto rendered wars between nations inevitable\"78\u2014he nevertheless had a habit of distinguishing only in degree between domestic and international politics.79 Despite the neo-Machiavellianism of \"respectable,\" mainly German, \"thinkers of our century,\" Sidgwick was adamant that statesmen and states were not exempt from the demands of public morality.80 He conceded that if (when?) states could not expect reciprocity in their political dealings with other states, they were allowed a \"corresponding extension of the right of self-protection, in the interest of humanity at large no less than in its own interest.\" But this did not mean that he drove a wedge between private and public morality, for a similar situation could also be imagined with regard to the dealings of individuals. Sidgwick pressed home the point that\n\nIn both cases equally it must be insisted that the interest of the part is to be pursued only in such manner and degree as is _compatible with the interests of the larger community of which it is part_ ; and that any violation of the rules of mutual behaviour actually established in the common interests of this community, so far as it is merely justified by its conduciveness to the sectional interest of a particular group of human beings, must receive unhesitating and unsparing censure.81\n\nSide-stepping the fundamental problem in this passage\u2014the question of what censure can achieve in the face of the violation of rules\u2014it is important to note how this insistence on viewing states as moral beings forming part of a \"larger community\" is as much a premise as it is a conclusion. If states are moral beings they form part of a community, and vice versa. The crucial point, however, is that insofar as moral progress is possible in international affairs (and Sidgwick clearly thought it was), such progress would manifest itself in strengthening that burgeoning international society that he had already identified.\n\nSidgwick was able to provide his readers with a more detailed discussion than Green and Spencer of what consequences for ethics followed from his internationalism, and in spelling this out he achieved a fuller balance between hardheaded analysis and ideological speculation. He was aware of the implausibility of internationalism ever gaining a complete victory, and in this sense he was a skeptic. But it was a skepticism that often translated into pragmatism rather than fatalism. It was this predilection for political pragmatism\u2014which from another perspective simply means falling prey to power\u2014and his criticism of Spencer's \"unphilosophical\" anti-imperialism, that with hindsight appear to compromise this brand of internationalism.\n\nCivilization, Empire, and the Limits of International Morality\n\nGreen, Spencer, and Sidgwick adumbrated compatible understandings of \"international society,\" and this vision formed part of their wider liberal internationalism, a generally optimistic picture of world order grounded on a progressive account of international development. However, they disagreed fundamentally over the role of empire, a topic that fiercely divided liberals in late Victorian Britain. Indeed many of the fault lines and silences in liberal thinking about empire that I explore throughout this book were reflected in their contrasting positions. In this section the limitations\u2014conceptual, territorial, and political\u2014of the liberal internationalist vision are explored.\n\nVictorian internationalists sketched a highly circumscribed picture of the present and future, their implied universality constricted by a civilizational narrative of human moral and political development. Only those societies characterized as \"civilized\" were included within the scope of international society, at least in the present; most, though, were not accorded sovereign equality and were not considered bound by norms of legal and moral reciprocity. John Stuart Mill, famously, excluded from the remit of his \"one very simple principle\" of liberty \"backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage.\"82 The spatial limits of civilization\u2014an elusive, always slippery concept\u2014were not, however, etched naturally into the fabric of the world. Liberal internationalism contained a dynamic conception of \"international society,\" a picture in which civilization always emanated outwards, in concentric circles, from a European core. Progress was defined by a dual track of development, not only by the degree to which the already civilized powers were socialized into new and increasingly pacific modes of behavior, but also by the extent to which the sphere of civilization could be widened. The idea was that over time, and often with the explicit intervention of imperial powers, the uncivilized could reach the level of development necessary for reclassification. This notion of potentially expansive inclusion underpinned a progressive evolutionary conception of historical time, projecting the circumscribed \"international society\" from its embryonic present into an optimistic, but almost always deferred, global future.\n\nThroughout the nineteenth century, liberal politicians and intellectuals contested the nature and boundaries of civilization. Debate tended to focus on \"liminal\" societies\u2014those that, like China, Japan, and the Ottoman Empire, were thought to possess the potential for full inclusion.83 Although opinions differed over the problems involved in bestowing the sacred moniker of civilization on these states, the overall trend was to argue that most societies were simply not prepared. Levels of civilization were calculated in relation to theological orientation, stage of technological development, ascribed racial characteristics, economic success, the form of political institutions that predominated, individual moral and intellectual competence, or (as was typically the case) some combination of these factors. It was, moreover, a common argumentative move to associate a civilized society with a particular form of political consciousness\u2014nationality. A country that was civilized possessed a sense of nationhood, and as such displayed the political (and moral) capacity for self-determination. This was a necessary, but rarely sufficient, condition of entry into international society. India was, in the most common articulation of this argument, frequently seen as failing to meet the criteria. There was also a specific temporal dimension embedded in internationalist discourse. \"Civilization\" was a marker of the present, and a guide to the future; it was a classification independent of any historical greatness. Whilst the Indians could offer up their contributions to architecture, science, and philosophy as indicators of their civilizational status, this was not seen to reflect accurately the \"barbarism\" of the present. The Chinese, likewise, were frequently lambasted for their \"stationariness,\" their failure to live up to the splendor of their own ancient history.84 Different regions, and even different countries within a region, were labeled and judged (albeit often in conflicting ways) and placed on a ladder, with the \"white\" countries, and especially Britain, perched at the top. But this account allowed for the possibility of movement up (and even down) the ladder, and thus for eventual inclusion in international society. This, at least, was the theory, although there were very few discussions of the actual timescale involved.\n\nQuestions of race, empire, and progress were woven through late Victorian political debate. Few internationalists followed Spencer in his almost complete opposition to empire (more on this below)\u2014and most ended up defending at least some aspects of its existence. Many distinguished between varieties of \"good\" and \"bad\" imperialism. The aggressive, militaristic \"jingo\" imperialism associated with Disraeli and, later, Joseph Chamberlain, which reached its pinnacle in the \"scramble for Africa\" and the South African War, was widely condemned by liberal internationalists, including Morley, Hobson, and Hobhouse.85 But empire itself was rarely considered unjustifiable. Two general lines of argument can be discerned; these were often but not always combined, although the weight afforded to each differed from individual to individual.86 The first was a long-standing one, articulated most powerfully in the writings of John Stuart Mill, which stressed the benefits that enlightened imperial governance could bring to the \"barbarous\" regions of the world. This was often phrased, to use a pervasive metaphor, in terms of adults training children for induction into society.87 Although faith in the \"civilizing mission,\" which reached its peak in the 1830s and 1840s, had been slowly undermined by a series of imperial crises (most notably the 1857 Sepoy Rebellion and the Eyre controversy of the 1860s) and by a more general loss of confidence in the ability of the British to remake the world in their own image, belief in the civilizing role of empire still carried considerable weight (a topic I discuss further in chapter 2).88 The empire, in this account, was seen as a giant engine for global social reform, the agent of civilization itself. The second line of argument focused more on the role of the settler empire, stressing the economic, cultural, political, and racial commonalities between the United Kingdom and Australia, New Zealand, and Canada\u2014and often the United States. This union of the \"Anglo-Saxon\" peoples, whether cast in terms of a formal political alliance (most frequently in terms of \"imperial federation\") or a vague moral unity, was seen by a number of prominent internationalists, including Hobson and Hobhouse, as a step on the road to a more pacific global order.89\n\nGreen, Sidgwick, and Spencer embodied the ambiguities and ambivalences, as well as many of the prejudices, of liberal internationalism. Green had the least to say about civilization and empire, although this was largely a consequence of the level of abstraction at which his work was pitched. His undergraduate essays, written in the mid-1880s, had supported the conventional civilizing rationale of the British empire, arguing that \"the progress of our dominion [in India] seems to have been the inevitable result of the action of civilization on barbarism.\"90 He was never especially critical of the consequences of empire for Britain's imperial subjects.91 However, in the _Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation_ he argued, albeit in an aside, that British rule in India was both internally and externally destabilizing, leading to the propagation of an unhealthy \"military character\" in England while simultaneously contributing to dangerous international rivalry.92 Ironically, this muted critique was launched from Green's base in Balliol, an institution that, under the inspiring leadership of his former tutor, Benjamin Jowett (1817\u201393), primed young men for a life of service on the frontier: between 1874 and 1914, 27.1 percent of Balliol graduates worked in the imperial \"outposts of progress\" for at least two years.93 Moreover, Green's teaching deeply influenced many of the men who left Balliol to become imperial administrators, and the impact of idealism on Edwardian conceptions of imperialism, ranging from ideas about the Anglo-Saxon \"commonwealth\" through to Tory visions of global grandeur, was pronounced.94\n\nSidgwick frequently wrote in a racialized idiom, and his work is studded with examples of crude (albeit standard) civilizational stereotyping.95 It is the \"business\" of civilized nations to \"educate and absorb\" the savage nations, he wrote once when criticizing Spencer's ethics.96 He was an ardent defender of the British empire; indeed he sought to replicate in Cambridge the success of Oxford in training young men for imperial service.97 He argued that while the empire exhibited many potential downsides these were ultimately outweighed by its positive effects. The downsides included the loss of life involved (mainly but not only among the \"civilized\"), the geopolitical vulnerability to which it exposed Britain, the difficulty of defending such a globally extended frontier, and the temptation to drag other great powers into competition. These could in principle be offset, however, by a combination of material and moral benefits. Materially, imperialism could generate increased military power and national wealth, although this was by no means certain. Above all, though, it was ideas about Britain's civilizational task and \"spiritual expansion,\" the \"sentimental advantages, derived from justifiable conquests,\" that anchored Sidgwick's support for empire:\n\nSuch are the justifiable pride which the cultivated members of a civilised community feel in the beneficent exercise of dominion, and in the performance by their nation of the noble task of spreading the highest kind of civilisation; and a more intense though less elevated satisfaction\u2014inseparable from patriotic sentiment\u2014in the spread of the special type of civilisation distinctive of their nation, communicated through its language and literature, and through the tendency to imitate its manners and customs which its prolonged rule, especially if on the whole beneficent, is likely to cause in a continually increasing degree.98\n\nThis was a vision of liberal civilizational imperialism, remaking the manners as well as the map of the world, and drawing on a long-standing argument about the occupation of \"unoccupied\" territory leavened with late Victorian moralism about the duty of imperialists to indigenous populations.99\n\nHowever, as I have stressed throughout the chapters in this book, liberalism was far from monolithic when it came to justifying imperial ventures, and sweeping claims about the imperial logic inherent in liberalism, or of the essential connection between liberal political thought and empire, need to be treated with caution. Spencer was a vitriolic critic of empire and imperialism. He was at his most acute in identifying the \"re-barbarization\" of England, the reversion to militarism and authoritarian practices, a process that he argued was inseparable from imperialism. At the turn of the century he wrote that the \"coincidence in time between the South African war and the recent outburst of Imperialism, illustrates the general truth that militancy and Imperialism are closely allied\u2014are, in fact, different manifestations of the same social condition. It could not, indeed, be otherwise.\"100 As noted earlier, Spencer predicted the development of industrial societies and their peaceful coexistence. Although he had never specified a timeline, the closing years of the nineteenth century offered very little support for this prophecy. Spencer reacted by indicting the whole political culture of late Victorian Britain:\n\nFrom the people who daily read their Bibles, attend early services, and appoint weeks of prayer, there are sent out messengers of peace to inferior races, who are forthwith ousted from their lands by filibustering expeditions authorized in Downing Street; while those who resist are treated as \"rebels,\" the deaths they inflict in retaliation are called \"murders\" and the process of subduing them is named \"pacification.\"101\n\nMost people took their \"nominal creed\" from the New Testament and their \"real creed from Homer,\" and it was against this background that the by-now-agnostic Spencer claimed often to find himself trying to convert \"Christians to Christianity.\"102 This is not to suggest that he was free from the prejudices of his age; his writings are, after all, peppered with racialized turns of phrase (one only has to look closely at the passage just quoted).103 The point is that Spencer's biting radicalism and his sense of betrayal gave him a critical distance from the establishment and the policies it pursued, especially in contrast to Sidgwick's \"government house\" internationalism. It was this distance that made it possible for him to refer to dark and white savages in the same breath, to identify the \"diffusion of military ideas, military sentiments, military organization, military discipline... going on everywhere,\" and to lament the \"general retrogression shown in the growing Imperialism and accompanying re-barbarization.\"104\n\nConclusions\n\nDespite considerable political and philosophical differences, the views on international society articulated by Green, Spencer, and Sidgwick were overlapping. They emphasized the potential of a variety of trends discernible in international politics, in particular the importance of free trade and the evolution of international law, and they shared a broadly complementary normative vision of the future, of a pacific, stable, and expanding society of civilized states. Their conceptions of empire were, however, very different. The potential universalism of Sidgwick's vision was, like that of so many of his contemporaries, circumscribed by arrogance towards and ignorance about other societies. The sphere of civilization, whilst in principle capable of encompassing the whole planet, was still considered very small. This vision of international society was constrained, that is, by an account of racial difference. Green appears rather more ambivalent on this matter, whereas Spencer, while often prejudiced, was contemptuous of imperialism and feared the degrading effects of foreign dominion on British politics.\n\nThe intellectual life of the late Victorians was marked by often-vicious debate over a host of political issues. Despite the fissiparous nature of the period, it is nevertheless possible to identify a relatively coherent internationalist ideology promulgated by liberal public moralists. Green, Spencer, and Sidgwick were able to systematically theorize lines of thought which others held as articles of political faith. In the twentieth century the liberal ideal of international society was gradually, albeit incompletely, realized following two catastrophic world wars, reaching its formal legal recognition with the end of the drawn-out and bloody process of decolonization. Yet this new society embodied the Janus-faced approach to international order found in the tradition of British liberalism, one of its main intellectual progenitors. While finally achieving a form of universality through encompassing the entire globe, the new international society failed to completely escape the hierarchical differentiation associated with the always shifting standard of \"civilization.\" This remains the case to this day.\n\n1 Bertrand Russell, \"Hopes: Realized and Disappointed,\" in _Portraits from Memory and Other Essays_ (London, 1956), 46.\n\n2 J. A. Hobson, _The Morals of Economic Internationalism_ (Boston, 1920), 3\u20134.\n\n3 In the late nineteenth century the terms \"society\" and \"community\" were often used interchangeably; in this chapter, for the sake of consistency, we stick to \"society.\" In current international relations theory \"international society\" is associated with the \"English School\"; see Hedley Bull, _The Anarchical Society_ (London, 1977); Alex Bellamy, ed., _International Society and Its Critics_ (Oxford, 2004). We are not using it in this latter sense.\n\n4 Collini, _Public Moralists_ (Oxford, 1991).\n\n5 The degree to which their liberal internationalism permeated British society as a whole is, though, an open question. The dangers of over-generalization, often resulting from the frequent mismatch between authorial intention and audience reception, are manifest in many studies of Victorian political culture\u2014on which see Peter Mandler, \"The Problem of Cultural History,\" _Social and Cultural History_ , 1 (2004), 94\u2013118. However, it is not implausible to conjecture that this internationalist vision had a wide following outside the highbrow world of the public moralists, although in this chapter we limit our attention to this world. To take a few examples: the success of Gladstone's Midlothian campaign relied, at least in part, on the wide resonance of his views amongst significant elements of the electorate (H.C.G. Matthew, _Gladstone, 1809\u20131898_ (Oxford, 1997), pt. 2, ch. 2); moreover, as Anthony Howe argues, from the 1860s onwards free trade was an essential element in popular political identity: Howe, _Free Trade and Liberal England, 1846\u20131946_ (Oxford, 1997), 113, Furthermore, the relative prominence of the peace movement demonstrates the wide reception of broadly liberal internationalist ideas. Paul Laity, _The British Peace Movement, 1870\u20131914_ (Oxford, 2001); N. W. Summerton, \"Dissenting Attitudes to Foreign Relations, Peace and War, 1840\u20131890,\" _Journal of Ecclesiastical History_ , 28 (1977), 151\u201378. Finally, much of the outlook of the labour movement, including the groups that later coalesced into the Labour Party, can also been seen as liberal in the sense that we employ the term. Henry Winkler, _British Labour Seeks a Foreign Policy, 1900\u20131940_ (London, 2005), ch. 1. Popular liberalism could also be taken in a more militant (though not necessarily anti-internationalist) direction. See Eugenio Biagini, \"Neo-Roman Liberalism,\" _History of European Ideas_ 29 (2003), 55\u201372.\n\n6 On the continuity in radical attitudes, especially towards empire, see Miles Taylor, \"Imperium et Libertas?,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 19 (1991), 1\u201323; Peter Cain, \"Radicalism, Gladstone, and the Liberal Critique of Disraelian 'Imperialism,'\" in _Victorian Visions_ , ed. Bell, 215\u201339.\n\n7 Hidemi Suganami, _The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals_ (Cambridge, 1989).\n\n8 On parliamentary and popular politics, see J. P. Parry, _The Rise and Fall of Liberal Government in Victorian Britain_ (London, 1993); John Vincent, _The Formation of the Liberal Party, 1857\u20131868_ (London, 1966); Eugenio Biagini, _Liberty, Retrenchment, and Reform_ (Cambridge, 1992).\n\n9 Lawrence Goldman, _Science, Reform, and Politics in Victorian Britain_ (Cambridge, 2002), 59; Martin Hewitt, ed., _An Age of Equipoise?_ (Aldershot, 2001).\n\n10 Maine, _International Law_ (London, 1888), 3\u20135.\n\n11 Morley, _The Life of William Ewart Gladstone_ , 3 vols. (London, 1903), 2:318\u201319.\n\n12 Hobhouse, _Liberalism and Other Writings_ [1911], ed. J. Meadowcroft (Cambridge, 1994), 103. See also John Morley, _On Compromise_ [1874], 2nd ed. (London, 1886), 29; A. V. Dicey, _Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century_ [1905], 2nd ed. (London, 1914), 444.\n\n13 On new liberalism, see Peter Clarke, _Liberals and Social Democrats_ (Cambridge, 1978); Michael Freeden, _The New Liberalism_ (Oxford, 1978); Avital Simhony and David Weinstein, eds., _The New Liberalism_ (Cambridge, 2001). On philosophical idealism see the references and discussion in section 3 below.\n\n14 Lawrence, _Essays on Some Disputed Questions in Modern International Law_ [1884], 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1885), vii, 24, 240.\n\n15 See here Casper Sylvest, \"Continuity and Change in British Liberal Internationalism, c.1900\u20131930,\" _Review of International Studies_ , 31 (2005), 263\u201383; and, in general, Jens Bartelson, \"The Trial of Judgement,\" _International Studies Quarterly_ , 39 (1995), 255\u201379.\n\n16 See especially Norman Angell, _The Great Illusion_ (London, 1910).\n\n17 Seebohm, _On International Reform_ (London, 1871), 70, 91.\n\n18 Bryce, \"An Age of Discontent,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 49 (1891), 14\u201329.\n\n19 Amos, _Political and Legal Remedies for War_ (London, 1880), 340\u201341.\n\n20 Rom Harr\u00e9, \"Positivist Thought in the Nineteenth Century,\" in _The Cambridge History of Philosophy, 1870\u20131945_ , ed. Thomas Baldwin (Cambridge, 2003), 11\u201326; C. A. Bayly, \"European Political Thought and the Wider World during the Nineteenth Century,\" in _The Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Political Thought_ , ed. Gregory Claeys and Gareth Stedman Jones (Cambridge, 2011), 835\u201362.\n\n21 Green, _Mr. Herbert Spencer and Mr. G. H. Lewes, Collected Works of T. H. Green_ , ed., Peter Nicholson, 5 vols. (Bristol, 1997), 1:373\u2013541. Hereafter _Collected Works_. The first three volumes of this new collection are reprints of _Works of Thomas Hill Green_ , ed. R. L. Nettleship, 3 vols. (London, 1885\u201388).\n\n22 See, for example, Spencer to Alexander Bain, April 25, 1902, and Spencer to Professor Masson, April 26, 1902, in David Duncan, _The Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer_ (London, 1908), 457\u201358. See also Henry Sidgwick, \"Green's Ethics,\" _Mind_ , 9 (1884), 169\u201387, and the discussion in Bart Schultz, _Henry Sidgwick_ (Cambridge, 2004), 362.\n\n23 Ritchie, \"Review of Henry Sidgwick, _The Elements of Politics_ ,\" _International Journal of Ethics_ , 2 (1891\u201392), 256. See also Bernard Williams, \"The Point of View of the Universe\" [1982], in _Making Sense of Humanity_ (Cambridge, 1994), 153\u201371.\n\n24 Hobhouse, \"Introduction to the Second Edition\" [1909], in _Democracy and Reaction_ [1904], ed. P. F. Clarke (New York, 1973), 274. Hobhouse partly exonerated Green from this critique (276). See also Hobson, _International Government_ (London, 1915), esp. 178; Hobhouse, _The Metaphysical Theory of the State_ [1918] (London, 1960), 25. For an early, tentative suggestion along the same lines see Sidgwick, \"Public Morality\" [1897], in _Practical Ethics_ (London, 1898), 66.\n\n25 Peter Nicholson, \"Philosophical Idealism and International Politics,\" _British Journal of International Studies_ , 2 (1976), 76\u201383; David Boucher, \"British Idealism, the State, and International Relations,\" 671\u201394; Boucher, \"Introduction,\" in _The British Idealists_ , ed. Boucher (Cambridge, 1997), vii-xxxiii.\n\n26 Richter, _The Politics of Conscience_ (London, 1964), 89.\n\n27 On Green's admiration for Bright and Cobden, and his corresponding hatred of Palmerston and Louis Napoleon, see R. L. Nettleship, \"Memoir\" [1888], in _Collected Works_ , vol. 3, xx and xxiii-xxiv. Green was a staunch defender of the principle of non-intervention in international politics. See Green, \"Can Interference with Foreign Nations in Any Case Be Justifiable?,\" _Collected Works_ , 5:15\u201319; Christopher Harvie, _The Lights of Liberalism_ (London, 1976), 102. On his domestic radicalism, see Colin Tyler, \"T. H. Green, Advanced Liberalism and the Reform Question 1865\u20131876,\" _History of European Ideas_ , 29 (2003), 437\u201358.\n\n28 Michael Freeden, _Ideologies and Political Theory_ (Oxford, 1996), 179.\n\n29 Green, _Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation_ [1886], _Collected Works_ , 2:347, sec. 21. Italics added.\n\n30 Mill, _Political Obligation_ , 345\u201346, sec. 18.\n\n31 Mill, \"Lecture on Liberal Legislation and Freedom of Contract\" [1880], _Collected Works_ , 3:365\u201386.\n\n32 Mill, _Political Obligation_ , 454, 436, secs. 143, 122. See also Peter Nicholson, \"Introduction,\" in _The Political Philosophy of the British Idealists_ , ed. Nicholason (Cambridge, 1990), 1\u20136.\n\n33 For a discussion of Green's theology, see Colin Tyler, \"T. H. Green,\" _Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy_ , <http:\/\/plato.stanford.edu>.\n\n34 Richter, _The Politics of Conscience_ , 105.\n\n35 Green, _Political Obligation_ , 473, 478, 476\u201377, secs. 163, 167, 166.\n\n36 Ibid., 357\u201359, 373, secs. 34\u201335, 50.\n\n37 Ibid., 483, 484, 464\u201365, secs. 174, 155. See also Richter, _Politics of Conscience_ , 207, 216. For examples of Green's criticisms of patriotism, see his undergraduate essay \"Loyalty\"; his speech \"Against Disraeli's Foreign Policy,\" January 26, 1878; and his speech on \"National Loss and Gain under a Conservative Government,\" December 5, 1879, _Collected Works_ , 5:12\u201314, 313\u201317, 347\u201355.\n\n38 See Green, _Prolegomena to Ethics_ [1883], in _Collected Works_ , vol. 4, bk. 3, 160\u2013314; Nettleship, \"Memoir,\" cxxxviii-cxxxix.\n\n39 Green, _Prolegomena to Ethics_ , 193, sec. 184. Original italics.\n\n40 Green, _Political Obligation_ , 480\u201381, 484, secs. 170\u201371. This notion of \"cosmopolitan nationalism,\" to use a slightly paradoxical formulation, was not uncommon. See Stuart Jones, \"The Idea of the National in Victorian Political Thought,\" _European Journal of Political Theory_ , 5 (2006), 12\u201321; Duncan Bell, \"Unity and Difference,\" _Review of International Studies_ , 31 (2005), 559\u201379; and Georgios Varouxakis, \"'Patriotism,' 'Cosmopolitanism' and 'Humanity' in Victorian Political Thought,\" _European Journal of Political Theory_ , 5 (2006), 100\u2013118. See also my discussion of J. R. Seeley's political thought in chapter 11.\n\n41 Green, _Prolegomena to Ethics_ , 218\u201319, 229\u201330, secs. 207, 216.\n\n42 Green, _Political Obligation_ , 485, sec. 175.\n\n43 On his life and career see J.D.Y. Peel, _Herbert Spencer_ (London, 1971); David Wiltshire, _The Social and Political Thought of Herbert Spencer_ (Oxford, 1978). Since this chapter was first published, another important biographical study has appeared: Mark Francis, _Herbert Spencer and the Invention of Modern Life_ (Ithaca, 2007).\n\n44 Spencer, _Social Statics_ (London, 1851), 65.\n\n45 Ibid., 103. Italics in original.\n\n46 See David Weinstein, Equal Freedom and Utility (Cambridge, 1998); M. W. Taylor, Men _versus the State_ (Oxford, 1992).\n\n47 Spencer, _The Proper Sphere of Government_ [1842\u201343], in _Man versus the State_ (Indianapolis, 1982), 187.\n\n48 For a valuable analysis (in which Spencer is not mentioned), see A.J.P. Taylor, _The Trouble Makers_ (London, 1957); and also Taylor, \"Imperium et Libertas?\"; Cain, \"Radicalism.\"\n\n49 Spencer, _The Proper Sphere of Government_ , 211\u201313.\n\n50 Spencer, _Social Statics_ , 272\u201373. Italics in original.\n\n51 Spencer, _First Principles_ (London, 1867), 396. The wording of this definition changed slightly as Spencer revised the work.\n\n52 The phrase is from Maurice Mandelbaum, _History, Man, & Reason_ (London, 1971), 90.\n\n53 See especially John Burrow, \"Historicism and Social Evolution,\" in _British and German Historiography, 1750\u20131950_ , ed. Benedikt Stuchtey and Peter Wende (Oxford, 2000), 251\u201364.\n\n54 This had already been noted by Sidgwick, who castigated Spencer for his \"irrepressible and unwarrantable optimism.\" Sidgwick, _Lectures on the Ethics of T. H. Green, Mr. Herbert Spencer and J. Martineau_ (London, 1902), 228.\n\n55 Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_ , 3 vols. (London, 1876\u201396), vol. 1, v.\n\n56 Spencer, \"The Filiation of Ideas\" [1899], in Duncan, _Life and Letters_ , 569.\n\n57 Mike Hawkins, _Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860\u20131945_ (Cambridge, 1997), 92.\n\n58 Spencer, \"Filiation of Ideas,\" 569.\n\n59 The importance of the distinction between militant and industrial societies to Spencer's sociology is hard to overestimate. It is developed in most detail in Spencer, _Political Institutions_ , esp. chs. 17, 18; Spencer, _The Principles of Ethics_ [1879\u201393], 2 vols. (Indianapolis, 1978), 2.\n\n60 Spencer, _Principles of Ethics_ , 1, 504.\n\n61 See the discussion below in section 4.\n\n62 Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_ , 3:600, sec. 853.\n\n63 Sidgwick, _The Methods of Ethics_ [1874], 7th ed. (London, 1907), 18, and the accompanying footnote. Italics in original. See also Sidgwick, \"Mr. Spencer's Ethical System,\" _Mind_ , 5 (1880), 216\u201326; Sidgwick, _Lectures_ , 206. Already in 1873 Sidgwick felt moved to criticize Spencer \"somewhat severely.\" H. S. to F.W.H. Myers [February 1873], Sidgwick papers, Wren Library, Trinity College, Cambridge, Add.ms.100\/237.\n\n64 Sidgwick, \"The Scope and Method of Economic Science\" [1885] and \"Political Prophecy and Sociology\" [1894], in _Miscellaneous Essays and Addresses_ (London, 1904), 170\u201399, 216\u201334; Sidgwick, \"The Relation of Ethics to Sociology,\" _International Journal of Ethics_ , 10 (1899), 1\u201321.\n\n65 Sidgwick acknowledged this gulf between him and Spencer: A. and E. M. Sidgwick, _Henry Sidgwick, A Memoir_ (London, 1906), 421.\n\n66 John Maynard Keynes to Bernard Swithinbank, March 27, 1906 (Keynes Papers, King's College, Cambridge), quoted in Schultz, _Henry Sidgwick_ , 4.\n\n67 Spencer also opposed Home Rule. See Spencer to Auberon Herbert, June 16, 1890, and Spencer to the Earl of Dysart, May 27, 1892, both in Duncan, _Life and Letters_ , 300\u2013301, 315.\n\n68 On \"academic liberalism,\" see Harvie, _Lights of Liberalism_ ; on Sidgwick's reformist credentials, see Schultz, _Henry Sidgwick_.\n\n69 Collini, _Public Moralists_ , 279; Collini, \"My Roles and Their Duties,\" in _Henry Sidgwick_ , ed. Ross Harrison (Oxford, 2001), 9\u201349, esp. 38.\n\n70 David Weinstein, \"Deductive Hedonism and the Anxiety of Influence,\" _Utilitas_ , 12 (2000), 329\u201346. See also Sidgwick, \"Political Prophecy and Sociology,\" 222; Sidgwick, \"The Relation of Ethics to Sociology,\" 2.\n\n71 Sidgwick, _The Elements of Politics_ [1891], 3rd ed. (London, 1907), 218\u201319. Valorizing massive political units was common at the time, as for example in the writings of Sidgwick's colleague J. R. Seeley. For a liberal critique of the \"megalophiles,\" see J. M. Robertson, _An Introduction to English Politics_ (London, 1900), 251\u201358.\n\n72 See, e.g., Sidgwick, \"Public Morality,\" 72. Sidgwick, _Elements of Politics_ , 239\u201340nn. See also Spencer, _Principles of Ethics_ , 1:307.\n\n73 Sidgwick, _Elements of Politics_ , 219\u201320.\n\n74 Ibid., 267, 301\u20132, 310; Sidgwick, _Memoir_ , 576.\n\n75 Weinstein, \"Deductive Hedonism,\" 337.\n\n76 Henry Sidgwick, _The Development of European Polity_ , ed. E. M. Sidgwick (London, 1903), 439. This book differed from the _Elements of Politics_ in being inductive, historical, and avowedly \"scientific,\" focusing on what _is_ or _has been_ (as opposed to his previous, deductive, and ethical concern with what _ought to be_ ).\n\n77 See, for example, \"The Morality of Strife,\" in Sidgwick, _Practical Ethics_ , 83\u2013112 (first published in _International Journal of Ethics_ , 1 (1890), 1\u201315); and compare ch. 15 of the first (1891) edition of _The Elements of Politics_ to later editions (1896 onwards). See also Collini, \"My Roles and Their Duties,\" 27\u201329.\n\n78 Sidgwick, \"Public Morality,\" 77.\n\n79 See, for example, the simultaneous discussion of the ethical dimensions of domestic and international conflict in \"Public Morality\" and in the revised edition of \"The Morality of Strife.\"\n\n80 Sidgwick, \"Public Morality,\" 60. Sidgwick appears to have drawn this analysis from Lord Acton's introduction to Burd's edition of Machiavelli. Acton, \"Introduction,\" in _Il Principe_ , by Niccol\u00f2 Machiavelli, ed. Burd (Oxford, 1891), xix\u2013xl.\n\n81 Sidgwick, \"Public Morality,\" 81\u201382. Italics added.\n\n82 Mill, _On Liberty_ [1859], _Collected Works_ , 18:224.\n\n83 For debate amongst lawyers, see Jennifer Pitts, \"The Boundaries of Victorian International Law,\" in _Victorian Visions_ , ed. Bell, 67\u201389.\n\n84 On the trope of Chinese \"stationariness,\" see Collini, _Public Moralists_ , 108, 274.\n\n85 See also Bernard Porter, _Critics of Empire_ (London, 1968).\n\n86 For debates among progressives, including Hobson, Herbert Samuel, J. M. Robertson, and C. P. Trevelyan, on the question of empire and civilization that bear out the following discussion, see Michael Freeden, ed., _Minutes of the Rainbow Circle, 1894\u20131924_ (London, 1989), 45\u201346, 58\u201360, 69\u201379, 115\u201326.\n\n87 Ashis Nandy, \"Reconstructing Childhood,\" in _Traditions, Tyranny, and Utopia_ (Delhi, 1987), 56\u201376; Uday Singh Mehta, _Liberalism and Empire_ (Chicago, 1999), 28\u201336.\n\n88 Mantena, _Alibis of Empire_.\n\n89 Hobson, _Imperialism_ 1902], ed. Philip Siegelman (Ann Arbor, 1997), 332; Hobhouse, _Democracy and Reaction_ , 153\u201354. See also Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_. Hobson and Hobhouse later changed their positions on this issue, as I discuss in [chapter 14.\n\n90 Green, \"British Rule and Policy in India,\" _Collected Works_ , 5:22. See also Green, \"Interference with Foreign Nations,\" 15\u201319. In later writings the British empire, in India or elsewhere, is rarely mentioned.\n\n91 For example he argued that the only \"lasting defence of the Indian Empire is in contentment of the Indian people.\" See Green's notes on his speech on \"National Loss and Gain under a Conservative Government,\" delivered on December 5, 1879, in _Collected Works_ , 5:352.\n\n92 Green, _Political Obligation_ , 483, sec. 173.\n\n93 Richard Symonds, _Oxford and Empire_ (Oxford, 1991), 28\u201329, 306. Since the 1850s, Jowett had been instrumental in directing Oxford and Cambridge graduates to the Indian Civil Service. See Phiroze Vasunia, \"Greek, Latin, and the Indian Civil Service,\" _Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society_ , 51 (2005), 35\u201371, esp. 44\u201347. In the years between 1888 and 1905, three successive viceroys of India came from Balliol. Vasunia, \"Greater Rome and Greater Britain,\" in _Classics and Colonialism_ , ed. Barbara Goff (London, 2005), 34\u201368, esp. 45. For the phrase \"outposts of progress,\" see Joseph Conrad, \"An Outpost of Progress\" (1896\u201397), in _Heart of Darkness, and Other Tales_ , ed. Cedric Watts (Oxford, 2002). See also the discussion in chapter 5.\n\n94 E.H.H. Green, _Ideologies of Conservatism_ (Oxford, 2001), 42\u201372; Morefield, _Covenants without Swords_.\n\n95 See especially Sidgwick, _The Elements of Politics_ , 311\u201328; Schultz, _Henry Sidgwick_ , ch. 7.\n\n96 Sidgwick, _Lectures_ , 236.\n\n97 Collini, Winch, and Burrow, _That Noble Science of Politics_ , 354\u201355; Vasunia, \"Greek, Latin, and the Indian Civil Service.\"\n\n98 Sidgwick, _The Elements of Politics_ , 312, 313, 256.\n\n99 For a discussion of so-called _terra nullius_ arguments, see Anthony Pagden, \"Human Rights, Natural Rights, and Europe's Imperial Legacy,\" _Political Theory_ , 31 (2003), 171\u201399. Since this chapter was originally published, a comprehensive study has appeared: Andrew Fitzmaurce, _Sovereignty, Property and Empire, 1500\u20132000_ (Cambridge, 2014).\n\n100 Spencer, \"Imperialism and Slavery,\" in _Facts and Comments_ (London, 1902), 112\u201321, esp. 113.\n\n101 Spencer, _Principles of Ethics_ , 2:277.\n\n102 Spencer to E. Cazelles, December 6, 1896, in Duncan, _Life and Letters_ , 399\u2013400.\n\n103 Although see the discussion in Peel, _Herbert Spencer_ , ch. 6. Note also that Spencer did offer heavily qualified support for privatized forms of settler colonialism, as I discuss in chapter 2.\n\n104 Spencer to Cazelles, and also Spencer to Moncure D. Conway, July 17, 1898, in Duncan, _Life and Letters_ , 410; Spencer, \"Re-Barbarization\" and \"Regimentation,\" in _Facts and Comments_ , 236, 138.\nCHAPTER 11\n\nJohn Robert Seeley and the Political Theology of Empire\n\nWhen we have accustomed ourselves to contemplate the whole Empire together and call it England, we shall see that here too is a United States. Here too is a homogenous people, one in blood, language, religion, and laws, but dispersed over a boundless space.1\n\n\u2014J. R. SEELEY\n\nJohn Robert Seeley (1834\u201395) was the most prominent imperial thinker in late nineteenth-century Britain. His writings about the past, present, and future of British expansion were hugely popular, and his name became a byword for the world-straddling ambition of the country. Lord Acton crowned him \"the philosopher of national greatness.\"2 Published in 1883, his most famous book, _The Expansion of England_ , was an instant success, helping to set the terms of late Victorian debate about empire and remaining a standard reference point for decades to come. \"I question,\" H.A.L. Fisher wrote in an obituary, \"whether any historical work has exercised so great an influence over the general political thinking of a nation.\"3 A quarter of a century later, G. P. Gooch marveled that it occupied \"a place in political history as well as in a record of historiography,\" such was its impact.4 It remained in print until 1956, the year of Suez.\n\nSeeley set himself two main tasks in the book. First, he sought to rewrite the plotline of British historical development. Displacing the center of gravity from domestic constitutional reform to imperial expansion, he contended that modern Britain was forged chiefly in conflicts over territory and sovereign control in North America and Asia, not in the corridors of Parliament or on the battlefields of Europe.5 \"History,\" he boomed, \"is not constitutional law, nor parliamentary tongue-fence, nor biography of great men, nor even moral philosophy. It deals with states, it investigates their rise and development and mutual influence, the causes which promote their posterity or bring about their decay.\"6 He thus rejected the Whiggish line that the epicenter of the national story was the evolution of constitutional government and individual liberty. Secondly, he emphasized the significance of what we might term the _second settler empire_ in Australia, Canada, the Cape, and New Zealand, insisting that this transoceanic political association was both more durable and more important than India. \"When we inquire into the Greater Britain of the future we ought to think much more about our colonial than our Indian empire.\"7 Seeley presented these arguments as a case study of his historical method. Committed to the view that the main purpose of analyzing the past was to inculcate political knowledge in citizens and (especially) members of the political elite, he argued that history was a \"school of statesmanship.\"8 Through the rigorous inductive dissection of the historical record, and in particular through tracing the development of states, it was possible to cultivate political wisdom and foresight. If it was \"worth anything,\" he argued, history must surely \"anticipate the lessons of time. We shall all no doubt be wise after the event; we study history that we may be wise before the event.\" Studying the past necessarily involved a \"practical object,\" insofar as it shaped perceptions of the world, and in doing so (hopefully) conditioned ethical judgment and political action.9 \"Though he did not coin the phrase 'History is past politics, and politics present history,'\" G. W. Prothero once wrote, \"it is perhaps more strictly applicable to his view of history than to that of its author.\"10\n\nDespite its importance, and despite the apparent clarity of its argument, _The Expansion of England_ remains poorly understood. This is partly a matter of genre. Based on a course of undergraduate lectures, and rewritten for a general audience, it doesn't include any sustained discussion of the sources that Seeley drew from, the conceptual architecture underpinning his argument, or the political and intellectual positions he sought to overturn. In this chapter I argue that many of the ideas Seeley employed in his account of empire\u2014nation, state, history, science, civilization\u2014had specific theological connotations, and his political thought as a whole was underwritten by his eccentric interpretation of the sacred. Religion, he professed, was \"the soul of all healthy political organization,\" and on it \"depends the whole fabric of civilization, all the future of mankind.\"11 This silence may also have been a matter of intention. Seeley wrote two major works of theological reflection, _Ecce Homo_ (1866) and _Natural Religion_ (1882), the former a literary sensation, the latter his most systematic treatment of the subject, but they were published anonymously, and even when their authorship was widely known Seeley refused to put his name to them.12 Both _Ecce Homo_ and _The Expansion of England_ , \"each in its own sphere,\" Fisher later reflected, \"may be held to mark an epoch in the education of the Anglo-Saxon race.\"13 Seeley did not regard those spheres as distinct or separable.\n\nSeeley's brand of liberal political theology blended the impulse to transform aspects of society with a Burkean gradualism and respect for tradition. A willfully syncretic thinker, he drew on a variety of sources. Comtean positivism, Rankean historicism, German romanticism, the doctrines of Broad Churchmanship derived ultimately from Coleridge and transmitted through Thomas Arnold and F. D. Maurice, the \"comparative method\" so popular among late Victorian scholars: all found their allotted place in his capacious intellectual system. In the next section I dissect Seeley's understanding of theology and religion.14 Section 3 probes his views on the sacred character of nationality, and shows how he attempted to reconcile particularism and universalism in what I will call a \"cosmopolitan nationalist\" vision. In section 4 I argue that _The Expansion of England_ should be understood as an expression of his basic political-theological commitments, and I also make the case that he conceived of Greater Britain as a global federal nation-state, modeled on the United States. I conclude by discussing the role of India and Ireland in his polychronic, stratified conception of world order.\n\nEnthusiasm for Humanity\n\nSeeley followed an intellectual trajectory typical of the son of \"extreme\" evangelicals.15 Bypassing the early crisis of faith so common amongst his contemporaries, he glided from a youthful immersion in evangelicalism to a less unforgiving incarnationalism, from a harsh and apocryphal vision of the cosmos to a milder one in which the life of Jesus served as a noble example for human behavior. In particular, Seeley drew inspiration from the \"Broad Church\" theologians, A. P. Stanley, F. W. Robertson, and especially Thomas Arnold and F. D. Maurice.16 The term \"Broad Church,\" happily embraced by Seeley, had been introduced to encompass those sharing a more liberal theological sensibility in the face of the radical supernaturalism and biblical literalism that united the otherwise conflicting High (Anglo-Catholic, Tractarian-influenced) and Low (Evangelical) Churches.17 In the background hovered Samuel Taylor Coleridge, whose ideas about the relationship between Church and State influenced the Broad Church theologians, and whose notion of a \"clerisy\" Seeley also embraced and updated.18 Seeley's latitudinarianism seems to have been reinforced by the time he spent in London, where he moved in the overlapping circles of the emerging Comtean positivist movement and the Christian Socialists.19 Learning from both, he never fully joined either. Indeed he can be seen as a fairly conventional Broad Church theologian, focusing on the interrelationship between (the usually capitalized) Church and State, the quest to reconcile modernity and tradition, and a concomitant desire to fashion national unity through the eradication of interdenominational and class strife. Extremely critical of the Church of England, Seeley believed that it was failing in its appointed task of educating the nation morally, of providing a sense of concord and purpose for society.20 As the century unfolded, he began to shift the burden of this task away from traditional religious institutions and onto the shoulders of what he hoped would become a reconfigured historical discipline, a new clerisy. Historians were to act not simply as literary chroniclers of the past but as apostles of national destiny. It was their job to animate and inform public opinion and to guide wise statecraft.\n\nIn _Ecce Homo_ he outlined a view of Christian morality appropriate for the modern world. Bracketing off the supernatural abilities attributed to Christ he focused on the life of Jesus, figuring him as a luminous moral exemplar.21 Christians, Seeley averred, have a \"divine inspiration\" that should ideally allow them to identify the appropriate course of action in all circumstances, inspired by \"the passion of humanity raised to high energy by the contemplation of Christ's character, and by the society of those in whom the same enthusiasm exists.\"22 Jesus, according to Seeley, thus established a divine universal society dedicated to the \"improvement of morality.\"\n\nHis morality required that the welfare and happiness of others should not merely be remembered as a restraint upon action, but should be made the principal motive of action, and what he preached in words he preached still more impressively and zealously in deeds. He set the first and greatest example of a life wholly governed and guided by the passion of humanity.23\n\nCentral to Christ's revolutionary impact was a transformation of the idea of duty. \"The Christian moral reformation may indeed be summed up in this\u2014humanity changes from a restraint to a motive.\" By this, Seeley meant that an \"active\" dimension (\"thou shalt\") was added to the extant negative dictates of morality (\"thou shalt not\"), and as such the range of duties that human owed to one another was vastly expanded. \"To the duty of not doing harm, which may be called justice, was added the duty of doing good, which may properly receive the distinctively Christian name of Charity.\"24 This was both a historical assertion about the early development of Christianity, and a claim about the best way to understand morality in the present. Moral improvement was\u2014or at least should be\u2014the guiding task of Christianity, its continuing lesson and gift to the world. Much to the chagrin of his friend Henry Sidgwick, Seeley dismissed modern secular accounts of ethics as incapable of motivating right conduct, solely reliant as they were on rational argumentation. Only a system rooted in the passionate exemplarity of Christ was sufficient.25\n\nSeeley's political theology developed in critical dialogue with Comtean positivism. Throughout his writings he attempted to combine elements of positivism, not least its respect for the wonders of modern science and its universalism, with a specifically Christian conception of moral life. He was far from alone in attempting this kind of synthesis. During the second half of the nineteenth century, numerous theologians grappled with Comte's elaborate system, which was widely understood to present a deep challenge to the main tenets of Christianity, principally through its corrosive skepticism about the ability to know the unobservable world. B. F. Westcott, J. B. Lightfoot, F.J.A. Hort, Charles Kingsley, and Maurice, among others, sought either to domesticate or tame its more radical epistemological claims.26 Like many liberal theologians of the era, Seeley was both attracted to and repelled by positivism. We can catch a glimpse of his ambivalent attitude from a letter he wrote in 1869 to Kingsley, his predecessor at Cambridge:\n\nI certainly do not feel equal to the task of opposing Comte. But you are right in thinking that, if I could, I would oppose his atheism as strongly as yourself. But just at present Comtism seems so irresistibly triumphant, that I have contented myself lately with pointing out that it is in a sense a Christian movement and with trying to induce the Church to appropriate what is good in it.27\n\nThe influence of positivism was most pronounced in _Ecce Homo_ , though it also inflected many of the concerns and categories of _Natural Religion_ , including Seeley's advocacy of \"enthusiasm\" for humanity and his emphasis on love as the basis of morality. Throughout his writings, Seeley sought to undercut one of the main implications of Comte's teaching, the strict division, both epistemic and historical, between science and religion.28 Rather than condemning the latter to a past rendered obsolete by the former, he (like Maurice) asserted that science itself could be seen as a form of divine revelation. Contra Comte and his legion of followers, then, science and religion were not only compatible, both were necessary to underpin a progressive vision of humanity.\n\n_Ecce Homo_ spawned impassioned debate about both the identity of its author and its religious teaching. Some theologians, including John Henry Newman, dismissed it as an amateurish essay.29 The evangelical seventh Earl of Shaftesbury condemned it as the worst work \"vomited from the jaws of hell.\"30 Others, though, were far more receptive to its message. Among its greatest admirers was Gladstone, who published a sympathetic response and subsequently propelled Seeley into the Regius Professorship of Modern History at Cambridge.31 Four decades after its publication, the liberal theologian and historian Hastings Rashdall described it as \"the most striking expression of the appeal which Christ makes to the Conscience of the modern world,\" one that had \"proved a veritable fifth Gospel to many seekers after light.\"32 As the First World War engulfed the world Seeley had known, the American theologian Arthur McGiffert praised _Ecce Homo_ as \"epoch-making\" due to its role in shifting attention to the personal example of Christ, while as late as 1927 Charles Gore, the Christian socialist Bishop, could write that there was \"still no book about the teaching of our Lord which can rival _Ecce Homo_.\"33\n\nDespite the success of _Ecce Homo_ , or perhaps because of it, Seeley was determined to outline his basic theological commitments in a more comprehensive fashion. His friend Richard Jebb once asked him why he had not written _Ecce Deus_ , the sequel dedicated to the divine aspects of Christ promised in the preface to _Ecce Homo_. Much to Jebb's surprise, Seeley replied that he had done so in the _Life and Times of Stein_ , his three-volume study of the reformist Prussian statesman.34 This curious remark provides us with an insight into the profound relationship Seeley discerned between politics, history, and religion. His holistic vision was articulated in what he considered his two most important books, _Natural Religion_ and _Stein_.35 The former was an attempt to systematically explore the bases of belief and the purposes of faith in a world in which the naturalistic impulse, the will to science, was central. The latter was a detailed study of the career and ideas of a man whom Seeley regarded as a founding \"father\" of modern Germany, and as portending many of the crucial developments of the ensuing century. They were conceived and written during the same period and should be viewed as two elements of the same intellectual compound, one the articulation of his political theology, the other a case study of some of the most important aspects of this as put into political practice. They establish the conceptual architecture essential for understanding his argument in _The Expansion of England_.\n\n_Natural Religion_ never achieved the prominence of _Ecce Homo_. Anatomizing _The Varieties of Religious Experience_ , William James observed that it was \"too little read, I fear.\"36 It was, nevertheless, a well-respected contribution to theological discussion. In 1911 W. W. Fenn, Unitarian theologian and Dean of the Harvard Divinity School, acknowledged that it was \"almost forgotten\" but went on to praise its \"prophetic insight and power\" and judged it \"one of the most significant contributions ever made to the subject.\" He concluded that it should have \"marked a turning-point in thought concerning natural religion.\"37 Establishing the exact theological status of _Natural Religion_ proved difficult, which may partly explain its muted reception. Praising it as \"one of the most striking [books] in our theological literature,\" Alfred Caldecott argued that Seeley articulated a potent brand of \"ethical theism,\" while a decade later the American theologian Durant Drake characterised it as the \"clearest popular exposition of the pantheistic conception.\"38 The philosopher A. W. Benn assigned Seeley a leading role in his influential history of rationalism, arguing that _Natural Religion_ , more than any other book, marked the \"retreat of religious belief before reason.\"39 In contrast, the eminent church historian Francis Warre Cornish declared that Seeley, along with Arnold, had curbed the tide of the \"forces which, since 1789, under the garb of liberation, were tending to irreligion.\"40 Seeley would most likely have approved of the judgments of Caldecott and Cornish. He came not to bury existing religious practice, but to reanimate it. And in this he achieved some success. His writings, for example, exerted a powerful influence over the fledgling \"ethical society\" movement that flowered on both sides of the Atlantic from the 1890s onwards. One of its key texts listed the favored authors of the society as Matthew Arnold, Emerson, Milton, Burke, and Seeley.41 Stanton Coit, a socialist and leading figure in the society, even dedicated his _National Idealism and a State Church_ to Seeley, praising his visionary account of the moral mission of a national church.42\n\nIn _Natural Religion_ Seeley attempted to move beyond both eighteenth-century natural theology and nineteenth-century Comtean positivism, whilst incorporating the most valuable aspects of both. He argued that there were two distinct but related forms of knowledge, the _theoretical_ and the _practical_. In relation to the sacred\u2014\"in the realm of observing God\"43\u2014the two corresponded to theology (theoretical) and religion (practical). \"By theology the nature of God is ascertained and false views of it eradicated from the understanding; by religion the truths thus obtained are turned over in the mind and assimilated by the imagination and the feelings.\" Theology was concerned with \"the attitude of Nature towards human beings,\" where nature was defined as \"the uniform laws of the Universe as known in our experience.\"44 These included scientific laws of the kind revealed with ever-greater frequency during the nineteenth century, as well as social laws, such as those governing the formation and growth of nations. It also examined meta-ethical questions including the character of virtue, the nature of temptation, and the role and limits of human conscience. \"In one word,\" he inquired, \"is life worth having, and the Universe a habitable place for one in whom the sense of duty has been awakened?\"45 Since for Seeley the scientific analysis of nature was an exploration of the laws of the universe, science was \"in the strictest sense Theology,\" and since history was an exploration of the laws of social development, it was also, in the \"proper sense,\" theological.46 To read Seeley as a straightforward \"scientific\" historian or as a progenitor of a secular political science misses the point that his conceptions of history and science were themselves theological.\n\nReligion, on the other hand, was grounded on admiration, on the impulse to (and act of) _worship_. Whereas theology engaged reason, religion was concerned chiefly with sensitivity, empathy, and imagination. It was as much about emotion as it was about rationality. This capacious understanding of religion attracted much commentary at the time.47 Religion, for Seeley, was constituted by three elements: \"that worship of visible things which leads to art, that worship of humanity which leads to all moral disciplines, and principally the Christian, and that worship of God which is the soul of all philosophy and science.\"48 The third panel of this triptych focused on the worship of God-in-nature as clarified by the theological disciplines of history, natural science, and philosophy. _Natural Religion_ was concerned primarily with this aspect. The aesthetic focus of the first panel pointed towards Seeley's intense love of literature and poetry, and in particular the works (and the sensibility) of the great romantic writers.49 Like Maurice, Seeley admired Byron, Wordsworth, and above all Goethe, whom he regarded as the model of modern cultivation, the human embodiment of excellence in the simultaneous pursuit of art, science, and philosophy, and hence as a \"religious\" thinker of the highest rank.50\n\nThe middle panel of Seeley's triptych clarified his notion of morality: it was his understanding of religion as worship that underpinned his system of ethics. Again, when discussing Stein we can discern the lineaments of his own considered position: \"As religion without morality would be to him a monstrosity, so he cannot understand any morality without religion.\"51 In _Natural Religion_ Seeley continued his campaign against the relevance of secular philosophy for ethics, arguing that it lacked the affective power to motivate action. Earlier, he had written to Sidgwick that utilitarian ethics were insufficient, for reason alone was incapable of identifying the \"instinct for sympathy\" that lay at the root of morality. Nor, he continued, could the \"methodological\" teachings of the philosophers help to inculcate the \"one law which is to be obeyed for itself, viz., love.\"52 It was this insight that he attempted to systematize in _Natural Religion_ , and which remained the centerpiece of his moral vision. He was also deeply critical of a system of morality derived from supernaturalism, the belief that human behavior should be regulated by certainty in the eternal pleasures or punishments of the afterlife.53 This \"legal school of morals,\" as he termed it, was both theologically indefensible and the source of political inaction.54 \"To hope even with enthusiastic conviction for a future life is one thing; to be always brooding over it so as to despise the present life in comparison with it is another.\" Moreover, he continued, by \"the side of such a vision everything historical, all the destiny of states and nations, fades away, and men become quietists if not monks.\"55 Rather than subscribing to what he considered a fallacy of eighteenth-century deism, Seeley suggested that his view of natural religion as the worship of nature (broadly defined) could sustain a system of morality focused on the worship of humanity, of humans. People were to teach themselves, and be guided by the historical clerisy, to be generous and humane to one another. The religion \"that leads to virtue,\" he intoned, \"must be a religion that worships men.\"56\n\nIt is worshipped under the form of a country, or of ancestors, or of heroes, or great men, or saints, or virgins, or in individual lives, under the form of a friend, or mother, or wife, or any object of admiration; who, once seizing the heart, made all humanity seem sacred, and turned all dealings with men into a religious service.57\n\nThe ordering he gives to the objects of worship is indicative, for he places the \"country\" at the top of his list. The state is the sphere within which the other objects either live or lived, and as such it takes precedence over them. But as we shall see, not all states were created equal.\n\nOn Nationalist Cosmopolitanism\n\nSeeley was dismissive of the \"modern\" conception of the secular liberal state, in which religion was pressed into a hermetically sealed private sphere.58 It was both ethically problematic and historically anomalous, for the vast panorama of the human past was painted largely by the brush strokes of religious ferment. Religious institutions and patterns of belief had played a fundamental role in social and political development, indeed in the origins and evolution of the state system itself. The locus of religion in the modern world was the _nation-state_. For Seeley, any human community could be labeled, almost interchangeably, \"by the name State or Church.\"59 Common among Broad Church thinkers, this claim was derived from his view of the Church as an institution constituting \"the atmosphere of thought, feeling and belief that surrounds the State; it is in fact its civilization made more or less tangible and visible.\"60 An ahistorical understanding of the interpenetration of politics and religion, one that failed to grasp this point, was inadequate for the contemporary age. In Arnoldian vein, he thought that a life without religion was mechanical and largely meaningless.\n\nFor Seeley, the most important consequence of the \"Anti-Napoleonic Revolution\" was the increasing awareness and power of the \"nationality doctrine.\" In a quasi-Hegelian spirit, the nineteenth century witnessed the emergent self-consciousness of the nation-state. This phenomenon was witnessed first in Spain, where the armies of Napoleon had crushed the institutions of the Spanish state but had then faced the onslaught of the Spanish nation, which after surviving the initial destruction had sought to reclaim its political destiny. Seeley wrote admiringly that when \"the state fell to pieces the nation held together and proceeded to put forth out of its own vitality a new form of state.\"61 It was in this period that \"a new idea took possession of the mind of Europe. That idea was not democracy or liberty... it was nationality.\"62 This argument, and Seeley's vision of modern politics as a whole, presupposed a clear distinction between the \"state\" and the \"nation.\" The former, Seeley wrote in _Stein_ , \"is merely a machinery by which a number of men protect their common interests.\" It was an administrative unit, a specified territory ruled over by government institutions. The latter was a distinct group of people whose bonds \"are more instinctive, and as it were, more animal.\" Consequently, the \"state which is also a nation is an organism far surpassing in vigour and vitality the state which is only a state.\"63 In _The Expansion of England_ , Seeley argued that there were three essential preconditions for (nation) state unity: the existence of a community of race, a community of religion, and a community of interest.64 Of these, religion was the \"strongest and most important\"; it was the \"great state-building principle.\"65 Powerful nation-states would combine all three, and as both a presupposition and a consequence they would have to be socially and politically uniform to succeed. \"States are composed of men who are in some sense homogeneous, and not only homogeneous in blood and descent, but also in ideas or views of the universe.\"66 Modern history began with the completion of the state by the principle of nationality.\n\nSeeley's vision of nationality drew on two main sources: the ideas of the German romantics, especially as instantiated by Stein, and the theology of the Broad Church, which was itself, through the work of Coleridge, influenced by the currents of Germanic organic romanticism. Seeley praised Fichte's _Addresses to the German Nation_ (1807\u20138) for stressing the role of national education, promulgating a holistic ideal of national unity, and conceiving of the state as a moral entity.67 \"Here certainly is heard the tocsin of the anti-Napoleonic Revolution and of all the Nationality Wars that were to follow.\" Seeley discerned a foreshadowing of his distinction between the nation and the state. \"Fichte proclaims the nation not only to be different from the state, but to be something far higher and greater.\"68 Seeley's nationalism was ultimately a branch of his political religion, and the religiosity of his conception of nationality can be seen in his argument that, in Fichte's hands, the union of past and present in the doctrine of the nation \"secures to the actions of man an earthly immortality.\"69 It was the quest for the earthly immortality of the Anglo-Saxon race that ultimately shaped Seeley's vision of Greater Britain.\n\nSeeley's thought was marked deeply by the ideas of Coleridge, and Coleridge's follower, F. D. Maurice. In a discussion of the prophetic seers of British politics, those who he labeled the \"genius politicians,\" he focused on Milton, Carlyle, Ruskin, and Coleridge, arguing that the key to their powers as political thinkers was that they tended to have one simple idea that they reiterated tenaciously. For Coleridge, the \"one conviction\" that ran through his writings was \"the hollowness of all hand-to-mouth statesmanship, and the necessity of grounding politics upon universal principles of philosophy and religion.\"70 Seeley concurred wholeheartedly. Indeed, it is imperative to view Seeley's dogged intellectual exertion on behalf of Greater Britain in this light. Whilst he thought that Coleridge was the greatest philosopher, in formulating his conception of the state he drew more on Thomas Arnold and Maurice.71 Coleridge had argued that the Church of England should be legally recognized as an integral component of the constitution, as a balance to the great landed and commercial interests of the country. It was an essential but quasi-autonomous element of the political nation.72 Arnold went further, arguing that church and state were in a sense \"perfectly identical\" and, in his _Postscript to Principles of Church Reform_ (1833), that the \"state in its highest perfection becomes the Church.\"73 Maurice, meanwhile, provided a forceful exposition of the ideal of a spiritual nation, in which church and state were coterminous and mutually constitutive.74 Seeley's conception of nationality wove together the threads of Fichte's romantic nationalism and the reworking of liberal Anglican theology by Arnold and Maurice.\n\nHorace Bridges, leader of the Chicago Ethical Society, once called Seeley \"the one great modern English philosopher of religious nationalism.\"75 This underplays the universalism of Seeley's political theology. Indeed he is perhaps best characterized as a _cosmopolitan nationalist_. His conception of international politics and the empire was grounded in the idea of the ultimate (albeit only vaguely articulated) unity of humankind. And as we have seen, it was animated by an ethical system that centered on \"enthusiasm for humanity.\" The future, he predicted, \"will witness national religions flourishing inside a grand universal religion.\"76 We see here echoes of Maurice's ideal of a \"Universal Church\" in which all of humanity was united in a nonsectarian spiritual society.77 And it was the idea of love, expressed in the worship of humans, and grounded in a non-parochial attachment to national-political communities that underpinned this complex admixture. For Seeley, there were two churches: the universal church, accommodating all the species, believers and nonbelievers alike, and the national churches as institutionalized in the form of the modern state. The latter took priority, as the highest embodiment of human communal life, but it was embedded in the wider domain of the former. However, this neat binary was upset by Seeley's constant reference to a third (less clearly conceptualized) sphere; between the universal and the national he interposed an intermediary plane, namely Western Christendom, which he regarded as a form of transnational civilization.78 He argued that the states of Europe\u2014including their dynamic offspring in the United States\u2014constituted a \"society,\" bound to a certain extent by common values and a common culture.79 The \"European brotherhood of nation-states\" were between them responsible for the glories of modern civilization.80 Seeley thus adumbrated a multilayered and hierarchically arranged conception of global order, but one underwritten by a universal religious community.\n\nDespite his constant avowal of the glories of the nation, Seeley was not an uncritical proponent of nationalism. In 1870 he warned that if left unchecked, the \"more victories the nationality principle wins,\" the greater the likelihood that the world would be engulfed by a wave of violence, as \"energetic popular states\" waged war on each other with the \"unrelieved fierceness of national antipathy.\"81 A decade later he complained that the pure ideal had often been corrupted, that in practice it was usually \"too narrow and provincial.\"82 He worried about the increasing militarization of Europe, of the great armies eyeing each other suspiciously from one end of the continent to the other.83 Wary of the dangers of revolution, he was scathing of the Jacobite descent into terror. It was the association of the French Revolution with the thought of the _philosophes_ that led Maurice to prefer the use of the term \"humanity\" to the otherwise equally appropriate \"cosmopolitan\" when outlining his own vision.84 Given his admiration for Maurice, his hatred of Revolutionary France, and the theological vocabulary that he adopted, I think it plausible that Seeley's view was similar. In _Ecce Homo_ he scorned \"universal patriotism,\" which, without the instantiation of the state, was simply a form of \"Jacobinism.\"85 Critical of the abstract \"universal man\" of the Jacobins, he preferred to focus attention on individual persons and their communities. In _Stein_ he had sided with his hero's critique of the purportedly disembodied cosmopolitanism of Goethe and Herder, whilst, drawing on Coleridge, he defended the virtues of national patriotism.86 But as we can see from an earlier essay, his use of the term was qualified:\n\nThe abuse of patriotism is not to be cured by destroying patriotism itself; but patriotism is to be strengthened by being purified, by being deprived of its exclusiveness, and ultimateness. The Christian unity of mankind is to be taught as a final lesson, which will be easiest learnt, or rather will only be learnt, by those who have already realized the unity of the state.87\n\nThe nation was not an insular political order, the antithesis of wide human sympathies. Rather, it was a necessary condition for their practical realization. Once again, Seeley was following in the wake of Maurice, who had argued that \"Christ's Kingdom of Peace\" was \"a Kingdom for all _nations_. Unless there are Nations, distinct Nations, this Kingdom loses its character; it becomes a world Empire.\"88 And world empires were associated with despotism and the eradication of difference. \"I have endeavored to shew [ _sic_ ] you how much mischief has proceeded from every effort to constitute a Universal divine Society which shall swallow up... distinctions into itself.\"89 It is little wonder that Seeley was so critical of Napoleon and his attempt to revive the ideal of a universal monarchy, or that he refused to label Greater Britain an empire, preferring instead to call it a \"world-state.\" However, Seeley's cosmopolitanism was heavily attenuated. While his \"purpose\" was to seek an ideal of national coexistence within a wider framework of progressive humanity, it simultaneously helped to justify the existing power structures of international politics and the ethos of global racial hierarchy.\n\nExpanding England: Democracy, Federalism, and the World-State\n\nThe early years of Seeley's career provided few hints about his later role as the leading ideologue of a united Greater Britain. Indeed during the late 1860s and early 1870s he appeared sanguine about the possible future independence of the colonies.90 All of this was to change. During the 1880s the idea of strengthening the bonds between Britain and its settler colonies swept through the political elite, provoking numerous expressions of support and skepticism. The movement advocating unity coalesced under the rubric of \"imperial federation.\"91 _The Expansion of England_ was its bible, Seeley one of its chief prophets. \"I should like to be a working apostle of the doctrine which interests me so much.\"92 He was so successful that W. T. Stead, the most famous journalist of the day, proposed that he be placed in charge of a college designed to spread the gospel of Greater Britain.93 In 1894 Seeley was knighted at the instigation of Lord Rosebery, the prime minister and sometime president of the Imperial Federation League. The award, Rosebery wrote to him, was not merely a testimony to \"my admiration for yourself and your work, but to my staunch adherence to the principles of empire that you have so eloquently set forth.\"94 While those principles could be read in secular terms, as Seeley presumably intended, they were nevertheless grounded in his political theology.\n\nThe central argument of _The Expansion of England_ \u2014and of much of Seeley's subsequent writings\u2014was that the most important development of modern history was the steady growth of the English state into a globe-spanning empire. Furthermore, within the diffuse space of the empire, Greater Britain had developed into a distinct political community, even a nascent \"world-state,\" and it constituted the most fundamental element of Britain's enormous network of power. The most significant chapter in this story had been victory over France in the second \"hundred years' war\" during the long eighteenth century.95 Both the public and the historians whose role it was to shape the popular mind had missed the importance of these events due to the prevailing \"insular\" comprehension of British history, a form of parochial Whiggery that celebrated the history of parliamentary debate and the post-1688 evolution of liberty.96 Macaulay was the preeminent source of this erroneous view, with J. R. Green the latest popular exponent.97 This was as much a political as an intellectual failure, for in losing sight of the importance of Greater Britain, Seeley warned that the people and the historians had forgotten the foundations as well as the purpose of colonial unity. The mid-Victorian years had been pervaded by a dangerous \"system of indifference\" that nearly led to a repeat of the American fiasco: \"We began to provoke and suggest secession.\"98 Although things had improved since that dark time, Seeley thought it was still essential to reconnect the people to their grand inheritance, to educate them about their sacred role.\n\nPart of the background to this argument can be discerned in Seeley's outline of a theory of political development. For Seeley stagnation connoted political death.99 \"It is impossible that the history of any state can be interesting unless it exhibits some sort of development. Political life that is uniform has no history, however prosperous it might be.\" Associated habitually with \"Asiatic\" modes of political order, reverting to a \"stationary\" condition was a characteristic liberal fear during this period.100 Averse to violent revolution, and drawing on fashionable biological metaphors, Seeley suggested that political \"organisms\" demonstrated their health in perpetual change, in their active response to internal and external pressures. \"Surely we moderns do not believe much in cataclysms. Development is our word. The present grows out of the past.\"101 In a revealing passage analyzing the development of the Church, he argued that an \"institution is healthy in proportion to its independence of its own past, to the confident freedom with which it alters itself to meet new conditions.\" Elsewhere he wrote of the state that the \"development of its institutions [was] the result of the effort which organisms make to adapt themselves to their environment.\"102 To remain healthy, therefore, institutions needed to be adaptable, fitting comfortably into the evolving political environment in which they were embedded. Failure in this delicate process of adjustment and calibration would result in inexorable degeneration. Grasping what we might term this \"environmentalist\" conception of politics sheds light on the reason why Seeley considered imperial federation a necessity and also on his belief that it could be realized. The shifting\u2014and increasingly threatening\u2014geopolitical situation, combined with the febrile condition of British domestic politics, sparked both the internal and external stimuli for change. This in turn necessitated constitutional revision and the strengthening of Greater Britain. To stand still, frozen, was to court disaster. _The Expansion of England_ at once sought to alert people to the dangers and present them with the best solution.\n\nSeeley warned that the people of Greater Britain faced a stark choice: separation or federal unification. \"Such a separation would leave England on the same level as the states nearest to us on the continent, populous, but less so than Germany and scarcely equal to France.\"103 Shorn of its dominions, England would be dwarfed. \"The other alternative,\" he suggested, was that \"England may prove able to do what the United States has done so easily, that is, hold together in a federal union countries very remote from each other.\" If it achieved this goal, Greater Britain would become, \"in time far greater than any political union the world has known.\"104 As if to prove his disinterested \"scientific\" curiosity about the subject, he cautioned that, \"[w]e ought by no means to take for granted that this is desirable.\"105 His lectures sought, he stated, to explore the two options in order to divine which was best for the country. The answer, though, was predetermined by the very language, structure, and tone of his analysis, and it was underpinned by his suggestion that the aim of British policy should be to secure \"the foundation of a solid and permanent union.\"106\n\nIn _The Idea of Greater Britain_ I argued that debate over Greater Britain was motivated by two intersecting fears, of international geopolitical competition and of the dangers posed by mass democracy to British greatness. Many saw a united colonial empire as an answer to both challenges, a means to buttress British preeminence and to diffuse the worst excesses of democracy, the latter chiefly through the agency of large-scale emigration, which could neutralize the rise of socialism and the insurrectionary dangers fostered by intensive urbanization.107 Seeley was no exception. During the 1880s he too became increasingly nervous about democracy. In 1881, for example, he wrote to his sister that \"[w]e are nearer to a Revolution than we have been since before I was born.\" \"Radicalism,\" he fretted, \"is triumphant everywhere.\" By the end of the decade, he had become, he admitted, \"a great skeptic about the current political system.\"108 This skepticism was less about franchise extension and the institutional paraphernalia of representative democracy, than it was about the underlying social conditions, and in particular the pronounced deficit in the English \"character.\" \"We have everything except decided views and steadfast purpose\u2014everything in short except character! We have emotions, sentiment, thought, knowledge in abundance, only not character! And so to foreigners this nation seems degenerate\u2014a nation in decay.\"109\n\nThe British educational system (and the Church) was to blame for the debasement of culture, the rise of crass materialism, and the divorce of the majority of the population from their glorious national heritage. An appreciation of the \"higher\" aspects of life was conspicuously absent from society. \"That bareness in ideas, that contempt for principles, that Philistinism which we hardly deny to be an English characteristic, was not always so,\" he lamented.110 This was not simply the complaint of a cultural elitist (although it was that also), for as we have seen Seeley's conception of culture was ultimately theological, and it underlay his notion of the \"higher\" life of the nation. To be uneducated was to lack the refinement and knowledge necessary to imagine oneself as part of a community; it was to be deficient in the prerequisites of full citizenship. The \"man\" lacking a decent awareness of national literatures, suggested Seeley, \"can have no link whatever with the past, he can have no citizenship, no country.\"111 For Seeley, then, the lack of a proper education, including a wide schooling in English literature and history, as well as in the centrality of empire, was an important _political_ problem. Although it beset all classes, it affected the workers in particular for the majority of them were \"childishly ignorant of larger political questions.\"112 Their ignorance endangered the country: as well as being unaware of their heritage and lacking adequate national consciousness, they were still beholden to superstitions, including the belief in the possibility of a political \"utopia,\" such as that promised by socialists. This was a potential harbinger of revolution. \"In England the ideas of the multitude are perilously divergent from those of the thinking class.\"113 Now, more than ever, it was essential for the historian to fulfill his destiny as shaper of the national mind and as spiritual healer of the body politic. For Seeley, the ideal nation-state needed to strike a fine balance between democracy and aristocracy (understood in its classical sense as rule by the most suitably qualified).114 Progress was fragile and in need of constant sustenance and supervision. The lack of national bonds of unity led to alienation between the individual and the state, and also between the different classes. This portended the possibility of increasing unrest, even revolt. It is little surprise, then, that Seeley emphasized the importance of mobilizing the support of the working classes to create a viable Greater Britain.115\n\nSeeley fretted that the collective \"imagination\" and \"ways of thinking\" about the empire acted as a brake on necessary reforms. Most people continued to view the colonies as entirely separate from the homeland, fragments of foreign land scattered over the distant reaches of the planet. It was thus imperative for the historical clerisy to bring \"home to our imaginations\" the true nature of the situation, for until that task was achieved \"[w]e have not really then as yet a Greater Britain.\"116 Political consciousness preceded legislative action; shifts in imagination initiated parliamentary change. The \"true moment of revolution,\" he had written in a different context, \"is not so much that in which the new legislation takes place as that in which the conviction becomes universal that a change must come.\"117 National education and political mobilization were thus interwoven, and in particular Seeley emphasized the increasing influence of public opinion in shaping British politics.118 But public opinion needed to be organized and directed. The conditions were ripe, he argued, for the previous decades had witnessed the power of public opinion and the role of pressure groups in catalyzing momentous political change. One of the most important forces guiding the \"English Revolution of the Nineteenth Century,\" and one of the main reasons for the corrosion of the pervasive monopolies of the _ancien r\u00e9gime_ , was the influence of the assorted \"Leagues\" that had demanded the repeal of the Corn Laws, and extensive parliamentary and religious reform. \"These Leagues may be considered as a kind of occasional system of government set up for a particular purpose beside the permanent government of the country.\" It is in the context of his views on the efficacy of the \"occasional systems of government\" that Seeley's involvement with the Imperial Federation League should be understood.119\n\nThe year 1887 was, declared Seeley, a time of \"of depression, confusion, and anxiety.\"120 Despite this, and many similar proclamations, he was not an abject pessimist, and his views about the future were somewhat ambiguous. While at times he wrote in the vein of a doom-laden prophet, a latter-day Carlyle, he also preserved a large measure of optimism. Apprehensive about the political life of the \"mother country,\" he was also keen to stress that things had improved markedly since the first few decades of the century, and as he became increasingly concerned about the international situation\u2014warning of the \"international danger, the gigantic discords, the gigantic armies!\"\u2014so he was also keen to stress the increasing strength and unity of the colonial empire. The continued expansion of England, and its consolidation since the troubled midcentury years, represented the \"brightest side\" of the Victorian age, and it gave him great hope for the future.121 In Greater Britain lay a potential resolution to his fears about both the \"mother country\" and the wider world.\n\nBut what kind of polity did Seeley envisage when he wrote that \"England has left Europe altogether behind it and become a world-state,\" or when he argued that it was essential to create a \"great and solid World-State\" that would supplant the existing fragile one?122 I would argue that he had in mind a supra-parliamentary federal polity, a United States of Greater Britain. In the _Introduction to Political Science_ , based on lectures delivered in the mid-1880s, Seeley traced the various forms that states had assumed across time and space. Seeley initially defined the state so broadly that it encompassed nearly all forms of human community, and as such it might be argued that there was nothing unusual in his assertion that Greater Britain was a state.123 But in evaluating the status of Greater Britain, he was actually drawing on a much narrower conception of the \"nation-state.\" Recall his three essential preconditions for (nation) state unity: the existence of a \"community of race,\" a \"community of religion,\" and a \"community of interest.\"124 All existed in the colonial empire. Colonists were not simply deracinated migrants lost to distant, alien lands, but (echoing Robert Browning) citizens of a \"world-Venice, with the sea for the streets.\"125 While in the past there had been a Greater France, a Greater Spain, and a Greater Holland, the experience of the late Victorian British was unique, and the expansion of England, he maintained, \"can be paralleled by nothing in the history of any other state.\"126 Previous empires had neither the geographical extension nor the degree of cultural and political unity exhibited by Greater Britain. In an age that had witnessed the power of the \"nationality doctrine,\" a new form of global British political consciousness was beginning to emerge, fusing together the scattered components of a global state. Greater Britain, wrote Seeley,\n\n... is a vast English nation, only a nation so widely dispersed that before the age of steam and electricity its strong natural bonds of race and religion seemed practically dissolved by distance. As soon as it is proved by the example of the United States and Russia that political union over vast areas has begun to be possible, so soon Greater Britain starts up, not only a reality, but a robust reality.127\n\nSeeley acknowledged that it was hardest to make the case for a \"community of interest.\" Indeed one of the main criticisms leveled at the imperial federalists was that Greater Britain was little more than a sentimental dream, based on an inability to recognize the divergent interests of the far-flung colonies.128 In the _Considerations on Representative Government_ , Mill had argued that spatial dispersion of the colonial empire meant that it was incapable of \"rational government.\"129 Seeley rejected this line of reasoning, arguing that new conditions meant that the \"old Utopia\" of Greater Britain was now realizable\u2014indeed it was necessary.130 The construction of a \"great and solid\" political association was predicated on a cognitive and affective revolution. Spread so widely, the empire had until recently been \"practically dissolved by distance.\" Separated by great distances, and working under a warped mercantile economic system, the fragments of the first British empire did not share the same vital interests. But new communications and transport technologies had fundamentally reshaped the world and its political potential.131 \"Science has given the political organism a new circulation, which is steam, and a new nervous system, which is electricity.\" A world of glorious possibility was opening up. In the eighteenth century Burke \"thought a federation quite impossible across the Atlantic Ocean,\" but since then the Atlantic had \"shrunk till it seems scarcely broader than the sea between Greece and Sicily.\"132 This was an age, he hymned, \"when inventions have drawn the whole globe close together, and a new form of state on a larger scale than was known in former ages has appeared in Russia and the United States.\"133 Greater Britain was such a state\u2014or at least it could be.\n\nAlthough Seeley never discussed the institutional form that he thought Greater Britain would or should assume, I believe that he had in mind a fully-fledged federal state, encompassing the assorted settler colonies and Britain. During the closing decades of the ninetieth century, federation was a topic of intense interest among liberal political thinkers, chiefly due to the dynamic success of the United States. Sidgwick was far from alone in predicting that \"an extension of federalism seems to me the most probable of the political prophecies relative to the form of government.\"134 In \"The United States of Europe\" Seeley had argued that a \"close\" federation, modeled on the United States, was the only way to halt the internecine violence that plagued Europe. What was required was \"Europe constituted into a single State, with a Federal executive and legislature,\" wherein its \"authority must be brought to bear directly upon individuals.\"135 In the long term it might come about, following a social revolution, but there were many obstacles in the way. In particular, the divergent national identities of the European states generated a clash of interests, meaning that if aggregated they could not satisfy his three conditions for proper statehood. Without such unity, Seeley argued elsewhere, a successful federation was impossible\u2014it was, after all, \"an arrangement so extremely difficult\" to construct.136 Such problems did not afflict Greater Britain, which was, he argued in the _Expansion of England_ , \"on the whole free from that weakness which brought down most empires, the weakness of being a mere mechanical forced union of alien nationalities.\"137 The social and technological conditions for crafting a successful federation were in place.\n\nSeeley's most thorough examination of federalism is found in the _Introduction to Political Science_.138 He argued that the strict distinction drawn between \"federal\" and \"unitary\" states was misleading, as it was \"too purely formal and verbal.\" Since all large countries were ultimately composite states, insofar as they comprised a number of semi-autonomous administrative units, it made little sense to sharply differentiate them from federations. \"I deny, then, that between the unitary state and the federation or federal state there is any fundamental difference in kind; I deny that the one is composite in any sense in which the other is simple.\" As such, there was \"no fundamental difference in the kind of union\" between French Departments, American States, and British Counties. The key to assessing states was to determine the extent of authority vested in local government. \"Where locality prevails, we can call this federal, where centralization prevails, we can call this unitary.\"139 Indeed, he proclaimed that every \"political union which has not sufficient central power to deserve the name of a unitary state must in our system be called federal,\" and he surmised that \"almost all very large empires\" are federations, \"because in them the central power cannot act vigorously at such a great distance.\" Just as all polities could be called states, so all empires could be called federations. But once again Seeley had something much more specific in mind for Greater Britain. It was essential to distinguish between two different types of federal entity: the \"federal state\" and the \"system of confederate states.\" Seeley was very critical of confederations, arguing that they were intrinsically weak. The vast majority of empires fitted that category. Federal states, on the other hand, could prosper, but they required \"a complete apparatus of powers, legislative, executive and judicial... raised above all dependence on the State governments.\"140 He pointed to the United States as a \"vigorous, strongly and sufficiently organized\" example.141 And like the United States, successful federations were predicated on a unified nation. Once again, Greater Britain fitted the bill. Already an immanent polity, it had the potential to become a fully-fledged federal nation-state, if only the imagination of the people and their leaders could be reoriented.\n\nEmpire as Polychronicon: India and Ireland\n\nOne of the most striking things about Seeley's imperial political thought was the absence of Africa. In his 1887 Rede Lecture on \"Georgian and Victorian Expansion,\" published at the pinnacle of the European frenzy to carve up the world, he declared that the greatest achievement of the Victorian age was the expansion and consolidation of the British empire. Africa did not warrant a single mention. India and Ireland, on the other hand, were frequent points of reference in his writings.\n\nPart 2 of _The Expansion of England_ was dedicated to an analysis of the past, present, and future of British rule in India. Far more ambiguous about the benefits of the imperial mission in South Asia than he was about Greater Britain, Seeley maintained that the two zones were simply not comparable. While Greater Britain was populated by transplanted British citizens bound loyally to the mother country, India comprised a separate and degraded political order, its countless inhabitants falling outside the scope of the English state and nation. Drawing on the findings of contemporary philology he argued that the Indians were an Aryan race, but that this was where the similarity with Europe ended. Once great, they had fallen by the wayside of history. \"The country has achieved nothing in modern times.\"142 Now moribund, India displayed the unmistakable symptoms of a diseased body politic, denuded of the \"vigour\" that Seeley considered essential for a healthy political \"organism.\"\n\nThe colonies and India are in opposite extremes. Whatever political maxims are most applicable to one, are most inapplicable to the other. In the colonies everything is brand-new. There you have the most progressive race put in the circumstances most favourable to progress. There you have no past and an unbounded future. Government and institutions are all ultra-English. All is liberty, industry, invention, innovation, and as yet tranquility.\n\nIn contrast, India \"is all past and, I may almost say, has no future.\"143 This was a vision of empire as a polychronic space, carved into zones characterized by diverse temporal stages of development within an imagined universal history. The ancient, medieval, and modern were juxtaposed in Seeley's fertile imagination, the various constellations of territory and time forming stratified levels of civilization. Arrayed hierarchically, each was subject to different modes of assessment and political prescription.\n\nIn the _Introduction to Political Science_ Seeley divided states into two broad classes, the _organic_ and the _inorganic_ , and while the book was mainly dedicated to classifying the varieties of organic states, he occasionally drew comparisons between the two types. Organic states were typically vibrant and capable of progress, whereas inorganic states were inert, thus failing to meet the criteria of proper statehood. They owed any substantive unity that they displayed to interference from outside powers. Products of conquest, they manifested a \"similar appearance to the organic state\" only because they adopted and imitated \"the organisation of it.\" They were more accurately termed \"quasi-states,\" the two defining features of which were low vitality and massive size. Again with Seeley we find ambiguity on a key point. Given both his conceptual analysis and his reading of Asian history, India could be classified as an example\u2014perhaps the prime example\u2014of an inorganic state. It was composed of multiple nationalities, immense, lacking in political consciousness\u2014and it had been subjected to invasions for centuries. Never a \"conscious political whole,\" the \"homogeneous community does not exist there, out of which the State properly so called arises.\"144 Yet Seeley rejected the obvious inference. This is probably because he regarded such states as the victims of aggressive conquest, where \"everything is founded on violence and conquest\" and a grim despotism was the norm, and he didn't want to associate the British with this pattern of behavior.145 This is also the most likely explanation for his determination to prove that the English had never actually \"conquered\" India in the first place. To conquer a country, he argued, is to presuppose that it was a unified entity in the first place, and since India had \"no sense whatever of nationality\" there had been \"no India\" to defeat. Rather, the spread of the early British traders and later the East India Company was due to the fortuitous circumstance of an \"internal revolution.\"146 It was as if they were sucked into a political vacuum, and both for their own good and that of the Indians, took control and brought stability and order.\n\nFor Seeley, then, India was an artificial country populated by a mix of races and religious creeds. Indeed any unity it possessed was created, not extinguished, by the British. A condition of \"anarchy seems almost to have been chronic in India since Mahmoud,\" and \"it may be said that India has never really been united so as to form one state except under the British,\" at least during the Governorship of Lord Dalhousie. Self-determination meant nothing there, for the \"love of independence presupposes political consciousness,\" and the name India, he argued, \"ought not to be classed with such names as England or France, which correspond to nationalities, but rather with such as Europe, marking a group of nationalities which have chanced to obtain a common name owing to some physical separation.\"147 Since it did not constitute a nation, the \"fundamental postulate cannot be granted, upon which the whole political ethics of the West depend.\"148 The liberal maxims that Seeley applied to the states of Europe and North America were irrelevant. This was not to suggest that India would remain permanently locked in a servile position, for \"Brahmanism\" presented the \"germ\" of a potential nationality movement, but independence was not on the horizon, and for the moment the British should accede to such demands. \"It is impossible for the present to think of abandoning the task we have undertaken there.\"149 A man with no direct experience of or knowledge about Indian culture or political life, Seeley could discern no signs of it at the time.150 Two years after _The Expansion of England_ was published, the Indian National Congress was formed.\n\nSeeley's views on Ireland exhibit a family resemblance to his account of India. Underpinning his assessment of the Irish question was a fiercely critical portrayal of Catholicism. In this, he shared the prejudices of his fellow Broad Church thinkers, who saw Catholicism as embodying all that they rejected in religious life, most notably dogmatic and exclusive adherence to doctrine. Viewing it as the least developed of the Christian denominations, Seeley argued that Catholicism was bound by rigidity and prone to undermine the possibility of good government.151 The mysticism of the Indians and the feudal superstitions of the priests both obscured the horizon of progress. Ireland, like India, fell outside the boundaries of the British nation. Or so he argued in 1870.152 However, by the time he published _The Expansion of England_ his position had changed, and he claimed that all of Greater Britain (including Ireland, but still excluding India) was bound together as one consolidated nation. In order to argue against home rule he modified his understanding of the boundaries of nationality; theoretical consistency gave way to the convenience of political maneuver. In a letter to his wife written in 1887 he noted that the \"public struggle goes pretty well. The _Times_ is really tackling Parnell with some vigour.\"153 He would have regarded it as energy well spent. He also sought to improve relations between the English and the Irish, believing that the ideal solution lay in the trends that had fermented the nineteenth-century \"English Revolution,\" chiefly the destruction of monopolies, including the closed labor market in the industrialized North.154 In 1870 at least, he thought that such a course of action would create a more just relationship. But his optimism faded, and by 1885 he was writing that the Irish were \"more hopelessly alienated than ever.\"155 No solution appeared to be forthcoming. This was all the more reason to focus on a perceived British success story, to find in Greater Britain a distraction from the fraught situation in Ireland.\n\nLike numerous other Victorian liberals, Seeley was critical of many facets of the history of British expansion. He lamented British behavior in Ireland.156 He also regretted the \"unjustifiable means\" by which the early imperial pioneers in India acquired power. The greatest crime of all was slavery. In the seventeenth century, he reminded his audience, Great Britain had pioneered the abominable practice: \"From this date I am afraid we took the leading share, and stained ourselves beyond other nations in the monstrous and enormous atrocities of the slave trade.\" Even in the Victorian age, there was \"nothing to boast of\" in the treatment of indigenous populations under British control. But he always qualified his critique by arguing that that the behavior of the British was \"not as bad as many others,\" and he stressed that such \"crimes\" as had been committed \"have been almost universal in colonisation.\"157 He thus employed what Cheryl Welch calls a \"rhetoric of evasion.\"158 In particular, Seeley utilized the argumentative strategy of \"comparison as vindication,\" at once admitting that the British had acted reprehensibly at times but also that their record was morally superior to their competitors. Past injustice, on this account, was no bar continued British involvement in India.\n\nBut why? Given the polychronic variation between Greater Britain and the Indian empire, why not simply advocate the abandonment of the latter, perhaps (even especially) in order to strengthen the former? After all, Seeley was skeptical of the material advantages accrued by holding India: \"[I]t is not at once evident that we reap any benefit from it.\"159 While acknowledging the economic importance, he also stressed the substantial noneconomic costs that occupation imposed, notably the dangers of war with other great powers, and especially Russia.160 Despite these worries, and the priority he assigned to Greater Britain, he recoiled from separation. The debates over Greater Britain were infused by a marked dissonance between skepticism about the benefits of the Indian empire and a fervent but often poorly explained desire to hold onto it anyway.\n\nSeeley argued that in the distant future it might be necessary to leave India, but that in the meantime it was \"obligatory to govern her as if we were to govern her forever.\" This was nothing to do with honoring the past, for such groundless romanticism belonged to a \"primitive and utterly obsolete class of ideas.\" Rather, Seeley presented two arguments. The first was that the British had a duty to remain. Because they had incapacitated Indian governing institutions, the British could not simply depart, leaving chaos in their wake. If political judgments were to be made purely on the grounds of national interests, the British would probably be better off withdrawing; however, it was imperative to place the interests of the Indians first. A \"very moderately good Government,\" argued Seeley, \"is incomparably better than none. The sudden withdrawal even of an oppressive government is a dangerous experiment.\" This echoed the argument made by Henry Maine.161 The British, Seeley professed, had a duty to finish the mission, with \"vast and almost intolerable responsibilities\" to uphold.162 This was owed as much to themselves as to the Indians, for self-denying conceptions of duty were a central tenet in the moral and political discourse of the Victorians, a core component in the formation of an admirable character.\n\nThe second argument centered on what we might call a sacred conception of the \"civilizing mission.\"163 Seeley argued that the ancients taught a valuable lesson about the nature of good governance and the priorities of virtuous politics. Liberty was not the only admirable quality in politics, nor was it necessarily the most suitable at any given time. Bewitched by vague and illusory notions about the irreducibility of freedom, this was an important truth that many of his countrymen failed to grasp.164 Other great qualities included civilization and nationality. What distinguished, and also in a sense justified, the Roman and Greek Empires was that they were of a vastly superior level of civilization in comparison with those they were ruling.165 So too the British in India. His compatriots had huge reservoirs of knowledge to impart to a people stranded in time. A \"grand object of the modern Church,\" he proclaimed in _Natural Religion_ , \"would be to teach and organise the outlying world, which for the first time in history now lies prostrate at the feet of Christian civilisation.\" For Seeley, then, civilization had an explicitly sacred connotation: it was the \"public aspect\" of the religious impulse.166 His conception of the civilizing mission was religious not in the sense that its principal aim was to proselytize Christianity (though it might include that goal), but that the very practice of spreading civilization was itself a religious act, an expression of admiration and worship motivated by \"enthusiasm for humanity.\"\n\nWestern civilization was defined by three main features. Firstly, it facilitated and encouraged science and the set of attitudes towards truth and verification that accompanied it. Secondly, it presumed a cosmopolitan view of humanity, defined as the ability to think beyond the confines of the tribe or nation, and including such features as respect for women and the principle of liberty. And finally, it generated \"delight and confidence\" in nature, as opposed to the besetting superstition and mysticism of other, less sophisticated ways of life. Seeley thought it important to export this complex of values and beliefs to \"backward\" regions, both at home and abroad. It was necessary, he argued, to teach \"the races outside it or the classes that have sunk below it.\"167 India was one such target, a vast tissue of superstitious beliefs and torpid social and political institutions. It had been civilized once, and the British were not therefore dealing with a properly \"backward\" people, but rather with one stuck in time. England's sacred mission was \"to raise India out of the medieval and into the modern phase.\" It was ripe for education. We \"stand out boldly,\" he proclaimed, \"as teachers and civilizers,\" imparting the \"superior enlightenment we know we ourselves possess.\"168 This education required the erasure of indigenous traditions and knowledges, the wiping clean of the slate. \"The true view of the universe must be opened to the population of India, even though it should seem to blot out and cancel all the conceptions in which they have lived for three thousand years.\"169 Such was the nature of progress.\n\n1 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 158\u201359.\n\n2 Acton, review of Seeley, _A Short History of Napoleon, English Historical Review_ , 2\/7 (1887), 598. The most detailed discussions of Seeley are Deborah Wormell, _Sir John Seeley and the Uses of History_ (Cambridge, 1980); David Worsley, \"Sir John Robert Seeley and His Intellectual Legacy,\" unpublished PhD, University of Manchester, 2001.\n\n3 Fisher, \"Sir John Seeley,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 60 (1896), 193.\n\n4 Gooch, _History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century_ (London, 1920), 371. See also Gooch, \"Imperialism,\" in _The Heart of Empire_ , ed. C.F.G Masterman (London, 1901), 309. \"Its influence can be traced in the pronouncements of three generations of political leaders (of all political parties)\": John Darwin, \"Empire and Ethnicity,\" _Nations and Nationalism_ , 16\/2 (2010), 394.\n\n5 His claim about the primacy of Asia in eighteenth-century British history still sparks rebuttals. \"It was not: the history of eighteenth-century Britain was in Europe.\" Brendan Simms, _Three Victories and a Defeat_ (London, 2007), 1.\n\n6 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 151.\n\n7 Ibid., 11.\n\n8 Seeley, \"The Teaching of Politics,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 21 (1870), 433\u201344. On his methodological claims, see Collini, Winch, and Burrow, _That Noble Science of Politics_ , ch. 7; Ian Hesketh, _The Science of History in Victorian Britain_ (London, 2011); Wormell, _Seeley_ , ch. 4.\n\n9 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 169, 1.\n\n10 Prothero, \"Preface,\" Edward Seeley, _The Growth of British Policy_ , 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1895). The phrase was coined by Freeman (see chapter 13). Seeley had his own less pithy formulation: \"Politics are vulgar when they are not liberalised by history, and history fades into mere literature when it lose sight of its relation to practical politics\" ( _Expansion_ , 166).\n\n11 [Seeley], _Natural Religion_ (London, 1882), 259, 218.\n\n12 With _Ecce Homo_ (London, 1866), he was keen to avoid upsetting his family; his reasons for keeping the authorship of _Natural Religion_ secret are less clear. For a discussion of his anonymity, see Ian Hesketh, \"Behold the (Anonymous) Man,\" _Victorian Review_ , 38 (2012), 93\u2013112.\n\n13 Fisher, \"Sir John Seeley,\" 183.\n\n14 Good discussions of Seeley's theological views can be found in Richard Shannon, \"John Robert Seeley and the Idea of a National Church,\" in _Ideas and Institutions of Victorian Britain_ , ed. Robert Robson (London, 1967), 236\u201367; Wormell, _Seeley_ , ch. 1. Neither, though, reads his conception of empire in theological terms (and nor does any other scholarship on Seeley).\n\n15 Boyd Hilton, _The Age of Atonement_ (Oxford, 1988), 334. His father was R. B. Seeley, a prominent religious publisher and author of _Essays on the Church by a Layman_ (London, 1834), a fierce antiliberal, evangelical tract. For a comparison of father and son, see Reba Soffer, \"History and Religion,\" in _Religion and Irreligion in Victorian Society_ , ed. R. W. Davis and R. J. Helmstadter (London, 1992), 133\u201351. On the \"familial\" context of Victorian patterns of faith, see Frank Turner, _Contesting Cultural Authority_ (Cambridge, 1993), 73\u2013101; David Hempton, _Evangelical Disenchantment_ (New Haven, 2008).\n\n16 By the late 1850s, in correspondence with his family, Seeley was expressing admiration for the Broad Church. J. R. Seeley to R. B. Seeley, September 29, 185?, Seeley Papers, MS903\/2A\/2 and J. R. Seeley to Mary Seeley, April 3, 1855, Seeley Papers, MS903\/2B\/1. See also Seeley, \"The Church as a Teacher of Morality,\" in _Essays in Church Policy_ , ed. W. L. Clay (London, 1868).\n\n17 See for example, W. J. Conybeare, \"Church Parties,\" _Edinburgh Review_ , 98 (1853), 273\u2013342. See also C. R. Sanders, _Coleridge and the Broad Church Movement_ (London, 1972); Tod Jones, _The Broad Church_ (Lanham, MD, 2003).\n\n18 Coleridge, _On the Idea of the Constitution of the Church and State_ (London, 1830). The most explicit of Seeley's (published) references to Coleridge can be found in \"Milton's Political Opinions,\" _Lectures and Essays_ , 99. On the shifting meanings of clerisy, see Ben Knights, _The Idea of the Clerisy in the Nineteenth Century_ (Cambridge, 1978).\n\n19 Wormell, _Seeley_ , ch. 1. His main contact with the positivists was through Edward Beesly. His educational environment was also liberal. John Burrow, \"The Age of Reform,\" in _Christ's_ ed. David Reynolds (London, 2004), 111\u201343.\n\n20 Seeley, _Natural Religion_ , 43, 135\u201337. See also Seeley, \"The Church as a Teacher of Morality.\"\n\n21 The degree to which Seeley \"got rid\" of the traditional deity and the supernatural paraphernalia accompanying it is far from clear: in _Ecce Homo_ he gestured repeatedly to a belief in the transcendent realm, in _Natural Religion_ his starting point was to disavow such a belief, and in the preface to the 3rd edition (1891) he restated his heterodox Christianity, therein describing supernaturalism as \"accidental\" to the religion.\n\n22 Seeley, _Ecce Homo_ , 180.\n\n23 Ibid., 188.\n\n24 Ibid., 186, 189.\n\n25 Ibid., chs. 13\u201314. Unsurprisingly, Sidgwick rejected this argument: \"Ecce Homo,\" _Westminster Review_ (1866), reprinted in _Miscellaneous Essays and Addresses_ , ed. Eleanor Sidgwick and Arthur Sidgwick (London: Macmillan, 1904). For analysis, see J. B. Schneewind, _Sidgwick's Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy_ (Oxford, 1977), 28\u201335, 45\u201347.\n\n26 For Maurice's engagement with Comte, see, for example, Maurice, _Social Morality_ (London, 1869), 18\u201319, Lecture 19. The positivists, as I discuss in chapter 2, were among the most ardent critics of imperialism. See Greg Claeys, _Imperial Sceptics_ , ch. 1 (and p. 118) for Beesly's criticism of Seeley's _Expansion_ as spreading the \"poison of Imperialism.\" The positivist flavor of Seeley's writings did not go unnoticed, and it was a prominent theme in conservative criticisms of his views. Charles Cashdollar, _The Transformation of Theology, 1830\u20131890_ (Princeton, 1989), 179, 198, 437. Rather surprisingly, Seeley plays no role in T. R. Wright's _The Religion of Humanity_ (Cambridge, 1986).\n\n27 Seeley to Kinglsey, 1869, quoted in Cashdollar, _The Transformation of Theology_ , 437. Kingsley had been tasked by Gladstone to sound out Seeley's views on Comte, before he recommended him for appointment to the Regius chair. See Sheldon Rothblatt, _The Revolution of the Dons_ (London, 1968), 153, 160\u201361, 177; Wormell, _Seeley_ , 41\u201342.\n\n28 Cashdollar, _The Transformation of Theology_ , 426\u201330. Cashdollar claims that Seeley's theological thought was so heavily influenced by positivism that it \"pushed the definition of Broad Church to its very limits, and some would have said beyond\" (427). This is an exaggeration.\n\n29 Newman, \"An Internal Argument for Christianity\" [1866], in _Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects_ , 4th ed. (London, 1882), 363\u201398.\n\n30 Quoted in Wormell, _Seeley_ , 23.\n\n31 Gladstone, _Ecce Homo_ (London, 1868).\n\n32 Rashdall, _Philosophy and Religion_ (London, 1909), 62. See also Rasgdall, \"Professor Sidgwick on the Ethics of Religious Conformity,\" _International Journal of Ethics_ , 7\/2 (1897), where he described it as \"the book from which in great measure I have learned all that I have been trying to convey\" (166n).\n\n33 McGiffert, _The Rise of Modern Religious Ideas_ (London, 1915), 271; Gore, _Christ and Society_ (London, 1928), 59.\n\n34 Caroline Jebb, _The Life and Letters of Sir Richard Claverhouse Jebb_ (Cambridge, 1907), 85\u201386. The nonconformist Joseph Parker did publish an _Ecce Deus_ (Boston, 1868) in response to Seeley, arguing that the main problem with _Ecce Homo_ was that it had failed to take the incarnation of Jesus seriously. Thanks to Michael Ledger-Lomas for this reference.\n\n35 _Natural Religion_ was first published in serial form in _Macmillan's Magazine_ between 1875\u201378, during the period in which Seeley was researching and writing _Stein_. It was published in 1882, the year during which the lectures on which the _Expansion of England_ were being delivered.\n\n36 James, _The Varieties of Religious Experience_ (London, 1902), 77n.\n\n37 Fenn, \"Concerning Natural Religion,\" _Harvard Theological Review_ , 4\/4 (1911), 472.\n\n38 Caldecott, _The Philosophy of Religion in England and America_ (London, 1901), 361, 191\u201392; Durant Drake, \"Seekers after God,\" _Harvard Theological Review_ , 12\/1 (1919), 71\u201372. Formerly Dean of St. John's Cambridge, Caldecott was Professor of Logic and Mental Philosophy at King's College London. For his views on empire, see chapter 2.\n\n39 Benn, _The History of English Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century_ , 2 vols. (London, 1906), 2:441. Benn defined rationalism as the use of reason for the (partial or total) destruction of religious belief (\"Preface\").\n\n40 Cornish, _The History of the English Church in the Nineteenth Century_ , 2 vols. (London, 1910), 2:207. Cornish described Seeley as \"less brilliant, but perhaps a more solid student of religion\" than Thomas Arnold (206). Cf. Bridges, _Some Outlines_ , 8, on Seeley as \"liberator.\"\n\n41 Horace Bridges, Stanton Coit, G. E. O'Dell, and Harry Snell, _The Ethical Movement_ (London, 1911), 12. On the movement, see I. MacKillop, _The British Ethical Societies_ (Cambridge, 1986).\n\n42 Coit, _National Idealism and a State Church_ (London, 1907). See also Horace Bridges, _Some Outlines of the Religion of Experience_ (London, 1916), 8, 78\u201379, 232, 258. While Seeley admired the ambition of the Ethical Societies to incubate a broad ethical sensibility in a world that had lost its bearings, he cautioned against ignoring the role of the Christian churches. Seeley, \"Ethics and Religion,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 45 (1889), 501\u201314\n\n43 Seeley, _Natural Religion_ , 52.\n\n44 Ibid., 53, 66, 68.\n\n45 Ibid., 66.\n\n46 Ibid., 56, 257.\n\n47 For positive accounts: Arthur McGiffert, _The Rise of Modern Religious Ideas_ (London, 1915), 67\u201368; James, _Varieties_ , 76\u201377. For rejection of his definition as \"excessively broad,\" see J. H. Leuba, \"The Definition of Religion,\" _American Journal of Theology_ , 16\/4 (1912), 644\u201345; Leuba, \"The Psychological Nature of Religion,\" _American Journal of Theology_ , 13\/1 (1909), 84. A. C. Bradley engaged Seeley at length in his 1907 Gifford lectures, faulting him for failing to adopt the absolutist idealist metaphysics propounded by his brother, F. H. Bradley. Bradley, _Ideals of Religion_ (London, 1940), ch. 5.\n\n48 Seeley, _Natural Religion_ , 131\u201332.\n\n49 Seeley wrote widely on literature, including essays on Milton and a book on Goethe: _Goethe Reviewed after Sixty Years_ (London, 1894). He also published some (bad) poetry of his own: [Seeley], _David and Samuel_ (London, 1869).\n\n50 Seeley, _Natural Religion_ , 96\u2013111; Seeley, _Goethe Reviewed_. See also Frederick Denison Maurice, _The Life of Frederick Denison Maurice_ , vol. 2 (London, 1884), 59. On Seeley's \"striking\" account of the aesthetic dimension of religion, see Caldecott, _Philosophy of Religion_ , 356\u201361.\n\n51 Seeley, _The Life and Times of Stein, or Germany and Prussia in the Napoleonic Age_ , 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1878), 3:556.\n\n52 Seeley, letter to Sidgwick, July 2, 1867, Sidgwick Papers, Trinity College, Cambridge, Add Ms c95\/64\u201373.\n\n53 Seeley, _Natural Religion_ , 160.\n\n54 Ibid., 166.\n\n55 Ibid., 254.\n\n56 Ibid., 166.\n\n57 Ibid., 168.\n\n58 Ibid., 183\u201385.\n\n59 Ibid., 185.\n\n60 Ibid., 200.\n\n61 Seeley, _Stein_ , 2:20.\n\n62 Ibid., 2:17. Italics added. See also Seeley, \"Georgian and Victorian Expansion,\" 126.\n\n63 Seeley, _Stein_ , 2:35, 17. See also Seeley, \"History and Politics, II,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 40 (1879), 297; \"Georgian and Victorian Expansion,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 48 (1887), 126.\n\n64 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 11, 50, 220. He sometimes casually slipped between \"state\" and \"nation-state.\"\n\n65 Ibid., 154.\n\n66 Seeley, _Political Science_ , 137.\n\n67 See the extensive discussion in Seeley, _Stein_ , 2:29\u201342. See also Fichte, _Addresses to the German Nation_ [1807\u20138], ed. Isaac Nakhimovsky, B\u00e9la Kapossy, and Keith Tribe (Indianapolis, 2013). For the context of Fichte's argument, see Isaac Nakhimovsky, _The Closed Commercial State_ (Princeton, 2011).\n\n68 Seeley, _Stein_ , 2:34.\n\n69 Ibid., 2:41.\n\n70 Seeley, \"Milton's Political Opinions,\" 99.\n\n71 The claim about Coleridge can be found in Seeley, \"Milton's Political Opinions,\" 98. He once wrote in a letter to his father that he was \"more of an Arnoldite than a Mauriceite.\" Seeley to R. B. Seeley, [n.d. 185?], Seeley Papers, MS903\/2A\/2. The respectful distance was reciprocated, as Maurice wrote of _Ecce Homo_ , which he admired greatly (Maurice to A. Macmillan, January 2, 1886, Seeley Papers, MS903\/3A\/1). Despite these proclamations, I would argue that whilst Seeley might have shared more theological ground with Arnold (at least in the 1850s), his political thought appears to owe considerably more to Maurice, although this might simply be because Maurice lived longer and thus wrote on questions which were also pressing to Seeley.\n\n72 Coleridge, _Constitution of the Church and State_.\n\n73 Arnold, \"The Church and the State\" [1839] and \"National Church Establishments\" [1840], in _The Miscellaneous Works of Thomas Arnold_ , ed. Arthur Stanley (London, 1845), 466\u201375, 486\u201392; Arnold, _Postscript to Principles of Church Reform_ (London, 1833), 19. This was a vision supported by many Whig MPs.\n\n74 Maurice, _The Kingdom of Christ_ (London, 1838); Maurice, _Social Morality_. On Maurice's social and political thought, see Jeremy Morris, _F. D. Maurice and the Crisis of Christian Authority_ (Oxford, 2008), chs. 4\u20135.\n\n75 Bridges, _Some Outlines of the Religion of Experience_ , 228. Bridges was a British emigrant to the United States.\n\n76 Seeley, _Natural Religion_ , 207. On the universalism of the church, see Seeley, letter to Sidgwick, May 15, 1866, Sidgwick Papers.\n\n77 _The Life of Frederick Denison Maurice_ , 1:166.\n\n78 This was most apparent in Seeley, \"United States.\"\n\n79 Seeley, \"Our Insular Ignorance,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 18 (1885), 869. He continued: \"In the main I hold that it is healthy for a nation to live in society. Like an individual a nation should study its behaviour to its fellows, and for this purpose it should listen respectfully and anxiously to their opinion\" (869). See also Seeley, _Expansion_ , 225.\n\n80 Seeley, _Political Science_ , 88.\n\n81 Seeley, \"United States,\" 447.\n\n82 Seeley, _Natural Religion_ , 200.\n\n83 Seeley, \"The Eighty-Eights,\" _Good Words_ (1888), 380.\n\n84 Maurice, _Social Morality_ , 19.\n\n85 Seeley, _Ecce Homo_ [1866], ed. John Robinson (London, 1970), 121. See also the discussion in Shannon, \"John Robert Seeley,\" 245\u201346; Maurice, _Social Morality_ , 122\u201323.\n\n86 Seeley, _Stein_ , 2:384\u201388. On patriotism (and its absence), see Seeley, \"Our Insular Ignorance\" and \"Georgian and Victorian Expansion.\"\n\n87 Seeley, \"The Church as a Teacher of Morality,\" 277. In _Constitution of the Church and State_ , Coleridge had counterposed his conception of the national church with the universal church of Christ, which knew no legal or political borders. The two could coexist in the same space, but should not be confused.\n\n88 Maurice, _Social Morality_ , 209. Italics in original. On the connection between nationalism and internationalism, see Georgios Varouxakis, \"'Patriotism,' 'Cosmopolitanism' and 'Humanity' in Victorian Political Thought,\" _European Journal of Political Theory_ , 5 (2006), 100\u2013118.\n\n89 Maurice, _Social Morality_ , Lecture 13, 481.\n\n90 See, for example, Seeley, \"The British Race\" [1872], _Education_ , vol. 1 (1881), 309\u201328; Seeley, \"The British Empire,\" _Bradford Observer_ , March 22, 1872.\n\n91 I explore this debate in Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_.\n\n92 \"Sir John Seeley and National Unity,\" letter quoted by H. F. Wilson, _Cambridge Review_ , 16 (1895), 197.\n\n93 Stead, _The Life of W. T. Stead_ , ed. Frederick Whyte (London, 1925), 2:209\u201310. Influenced by Seeley, Stead was an ardent imperial federalist. See Stead, \"The English beyond the Sea,\" _Pall Mall Gazette_ , October 4, 1884, 1. He later wrote to his close confidant, Cecil Rhodes, that he was \"drawing up... a course of reading\" for Rhodes's assistant, \"beginning with Seeley's The Expansion of England.\" Stead to Rhodes, May 21, 1891, Rhodes Papers, Rhodes House Library, Oxford, MSS Afr. s 228 C28, ff. 43\u201345.\n\n94 Rosebery to Seeley, March 5, 1894, Seeley Papers, MS903\/1B\/14.\n\n95 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 26, Lecture 2; Seeley, \"Georgian and Victorian Expansion.\"\n\n96 In the most cogent critique of Seeley, John Morley argued that this claim to historiographical novelty was exaggerated. \"The Expansion of England,\" _Macmillans's Magazine_ , 49 (1884), 241\u201358.\n\n97 Seeley, _Political Science_ , 236, 253, 385; Seeley, _The Growth of British Policy_ , 1\u20132. Seeley later upset the young G. M. Trevelyan by dismissing his great uncle as a \"charlatan.\" David Cannadine, _G. M. Trevelyan_ (London, 1992), 27. Seeley cited Green's _Short History of the English People_ in the original manuscript of the _Expansion_ , but was persuaded to drop it by Alexander Macmillan, the publisher of both men. Leslie Howsam, \"Imperial Publishers and the Idea of Colonial History, 1870\u20131916,\" _History of Intellectual Culture_ , 5\/1 (2005), 5.\n\n98 Seeley, \"Introduction,\" to _Her Majesty's Colonies_ (London, 1886), xv. On the trope of indifference, see also chapter 7, section 2.\n\n99 Seeley, _Natural Religion_ , 61. See also Seeley, \"Roman Imperialism\" [1869], vol. 2, in _Lectures and Essays_ , 45.\n\n100 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 117. For Seeley's views on Asia, see \"Roman Imperialism,\" 3:66\u201368; _Natural Religion_ , 61. See, for other examples, Matthew Arnold, \"Democracy,\" in _Culture and Anarchy, and Other Writings_ , ed. Stefan Collini (Cambridge, 1993), 10, 21; John Stuart Mill, _On Liberty_ [1859], _Collected Works_ , 18:273.\n\n101 Seeley, \"Ethics and Religion,\" 514.\n\n102 Seeley, _Natural Religion_ , 217; Seeley, _Political Science_ , 340.\n\n103 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 15\u201316.\n\n104 Seeley, \"Introduction,\" xi, xii. Intriguingly, he also referred to America as a \"world state\" ( _Expansion_ , 293).\n\n105 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 16.\n\n106 Seeley, \"Georgian and Victorian Expansion,\" 139.\n\n107 Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_ , ch. 2.\n\n108 Seeley to Bessie Seeley, April 9, 1881, Seeley papers, MS903\/2B\/1; Seeley, \"The Impartial Study of Politics,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 54 (1888), 59. On the important role of Irish Home Rule in this switch, see Seeley, letter to Oscar Browning, April 6, 188[?], Browning Papers, Modern Archive Centre, King's College, Cambridge, OB\/1\/1455A.\n\n109 Seeley, \"Ethics and Religion,\" 503, 508.\n\n110 Seeley, \"Liberal Education in Universities\" [1867], _Lectures and Essays_ (London, 1870), 215.\n\n111 Seeley, \"English in Schools,\" _Lectures and Essays_ , 238.\n\n112 Seeley, \"Political Somnambulism,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 43 (1880), 42.\n\n113 Seeley, \"The Political Education of the Working Classes,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 36, (1877), 145; Seeley, _Natural Religion_ , 208.\n\n114 Seeley, _Introduction to Political Science_ , 357. For his extended discussion on the nature of aristocracy, see 321\u201331. He is here echoing a Coleridgian argument about the necessity of aristocracies of talent.\n\n115 Seeley, \"Sir John Seeley and National Unity,\" _Cambridge Review_ , 197; Seeley, \"Political Education of the Working Classes,\" 143\u201345.\n\n116 Seeley, \"Introduction,\" vii; Seeley, _Expansion_ , 8, 61.\n\n117 Seeley, \"The English Revolution in the Nineteenth Century,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 22 (1870), 1:241, 2:353. See also the comments on public opinion (in regard to India) in _Expansion_ , 190.\n\n118 For context, see James Thompson, _British Political Culture and the Idea of \"Public Opinion,\" 1867\u20131914_ (Cambridge, 2013), 85\u201386, 93.\n\n119 Seeley, \"English Revolution,\" 2:353. On his support for the IFL, see Seeley, \"The Journal of the League,\" _Imperial Federation_ , 1\/1 (1886), 4; Seeley, \"The Object to Be Gained by Imperial Federation,\" _Imperial Federation_ , 1\/6 (1886), 206; Seeley, Speech to the Imperial Federation League in Cambridge, May 29, 1891, reprinted in \"Professor Seeley at Cambridge,\" _Imperial Federation_ , 6\/6 (1891), 176.\n\n120 Seeley, \"Georgian and Victorian Expansion,\" 124.\n\n121 Seeley, \"The Eighty-Eights,\" 380; Seeley, \"Georgian and Victorian Expansion,\" 127.\n\n122 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 293, 169, 75.\n\n123 Seeley, _Political Science_ , 16\u201318. On this broad account, \"human beings almost everywhere belong to states.\" This point is noted in Meadowcroft, _Conceptualizing the State_ (Oxford, 1995), 45\u201347; Jens Bartelson, _The Critique of the State_ (Cambridge, 2001), 52. The volume was, wrote philosopher D. G. Ritchie, \"a valuable addition to political science and, it might be added, to English literature.\" Ritchie, review of _Political Science, International Journal of Ethics_ , 7\/1 (1896), 114. For further discussion of Seeley's conception of the state, see Henry Ford Jones, _The Natural History of the State_ (Princeton, 1916), 4\u20135, 150\u201352. Jones was Professor of Politics at Princeton.\n\n124 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 11, 50, 220; also Seeley, _Political Science_ , 68\u201370.\n\n125 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 288. In \"A Toccata of Galuppi's\" [1855], Browning wrote of Venice: \"Ay, because the sea's the street there; and 't'is arched by... what you call \/... Shylock's bridge with houses on it, where they kept the carnival: \/ I was never out of England... it's as if I saw it all.\" Browning, _Poetical Works_ , ed. Ian Jack (Oxford, 1970), 579.\n\n126 Seeley, \"Introduction,\" xv.\n\n127 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 72\u201373, 75; Seeley, \"Georgian and Victorian Expansion,\" 138\u201339.\n\n128 See, for example, Robert Lowe, \"The Value to the United Kingdom of the Foreign Dominions of the Crown,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 22 (1877), 618\u201330.\n\n129 Mill, _Considerations on Representative Government, Collected Works_ , 19, 564\u201365.\n\n130 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 74. On utopianism and Greater Britain, see Duncan Bell, \"Dreaming the Future: Anglo-America as Utopia, 1880\u20131914,\" in _The American Experiment and the Idea of Democracy in British Culture, 1776\u20131914_ , ed. Ella Dzelzainis and Ruth Livesey (Aldershot, 2013), 197\u2013210.\n\n131 For further discussion, see Bell, _Greater Britain_ , ch. 3, and chapters 6 and  in this volume.\n\n132 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 74\u201375. Cf. Burke, \"Speech on Conciliation with America\" (March 22, 1775) and \"Address to the Colonists\" (January 1777), in _The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke_ , ed. W. M. Elofson (Oxford, 1996), 3:285, 152.\n\n133 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 257, 288; Seeley, \"Georgian and Victorian Expansion,\" 137.\n\n134 Sidgwick, _The Development of European Polity_ , ed. Eleanor Sidgwick (London, 1903), 439.\n\n135 Seeley, \"United States,\" 445, 443.\n\n136 Seeley, _Stein_ , 3:238.\n\n137 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 46.\n\n138 Like many other federalists, Seeley used the terms \"federation\" and \"confederation\" interchangeably (e.g., _Political Science_ , 63, 85, 205). As his later discussion made clear, however, he was well aware of the differences pertaining between different forms of federation. See Seeley, \"United States,\" 440\u201344.\n\n139 Seeley, _Political Science_ , 94\u201395. Rather confusingly, Seeley then proceeds to identify two kinds of unitary state, the centralised and decentralised, before moving on to discuss different types of federation (97).\n\n140 Seeley, \"United States,\" 440.\n\n141 Seeley, _Political Science_ , 97\u201399. See also the discussion in Seeley, \"United States,\" 440\u201343.\n\n142 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 242, 243. He (242n) cites Max M\u00fcller's, _India, What Can It Teach Us?_ (Oxford, 1883). On the discourse of Aryanism, see Tony Ballantyne, _Orientalism and Race_ (Basingstoke, 2001).\n\n143 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 51, 244, 176. For discussion of this passage, see also chapter 5.\n\n144 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 185\u201386, 202, 204. This is why only a localized \"village-patriotism\" could be found (206).\n\n145 Seeley, _Political Science_ , 73\u201374, 76, 367\u201368, 168.\n\n146 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 203, 207\u20138, 228. For a similar argument, drawing on Seeley, see Alfred Caldecott, _English Colonization and Empire_ , 69\u201370.\n\n147 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 228, 221.\n\n148 Ibid., 205. According to Charles Dilke, Seeley wrote \"more suggestively and more profoundly upon the history of British government in all parts of the world than any other writer,\" and yet when it came to India his analysis was contradictory. Dilke, _Problems of Greater Britain_ (London, 1898), 2:98. Dilke also disagreed with Seeley over the priority of the settler colonies, insisting that India was more important: Dilke, _The British Empire_ (London, 1899), 17.\n\n149 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 194.\n\n150 Ibid., 198, 224, 226\u201327.\n\n151 Seeley, _Natural Religion_ , 168\u201369; see also Seeley, \"English Revolution,\" 2:450.\n\n152 Seeley, \"English Revolution,\" 2:446.\n\n153 Seeley, letter to Mary Seeley, April 22, 1887, Seeley Papers, MS903\/2A\/1. See also Christopher Harvie, _The Lights of Liberalism_ (London, 1976), 225\u201326.\n\n154 Seeley, \"English Revolution,\" 2:446\u201348.\n\n155 Seeley, \"Our Insular Ignorance,\" 862. On his darkening view of British politics in the 1870s and 1880s, see Bell, _Greater Britain_ , 164\u201368.\n\n156 Seeley, \"English Revolution,\" 2:446.\n\n157 Seeley, \"Our Insular Ignorance,\" 135\u201336; Seeley, \"Introduction,\" xiii.\n\n158 Cheryl Welch, \"Colonial Violence and the Rhetoric of Evasion,\" _Political Theory_ , 31 (2003), 235\u201364.\n\n159 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 183.\n\n160 Ibid., 187, 191\u201392, 289\u201390. On the importance of Indian trade, see Seeley, _Expansion_ , 191, 258\u201359, 263\u201364, 304.\n\n161 On which, see Mantena, _Alibis of Empire_.\n\n162 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 194\u201396, 183, 195.\n\n163 Rather surprisingly, Deborah Wormell asserts that Seeley disdained the civilizing mission and criticized the moralizing vision of \"helping\" other races. Wormell, _Seeley_ , 159.\n\n164 Liberty, he argued, \"in all cases will be but comparative,\" and moreover it \"will appear to be a good, or a bad thing according to circumstances.\" Seeley, _Political Science_ , 26\u201327. To the American political philosopher W. W. Willoughby, Seeley analyzed the concept of liberty \"in a thoroughly philosophical manner, and the idea in its correct meaning is applied to concrete conditions in a way that cannot but afford sound practical information.\" Willoughby, review of _IPS, Political Science Quarterly_ , 11\/3 (1896), 548.\n\n165 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 238\u201339.\n\n166 Seeley, _Natural Religion_ , 221, 201.\n\n167 Ibid., 201\u20132.\n\n168 Seeley, _Expansion_ , 244\u201345, 248, 252, 260.\n\n169 Seeley, _Natural Religion_ , 243.\nCHAPTER 12\n\nRepublican Imperialism\n\nJ. A. Froude and the Virtue of Empire\n\nSo far as I can judge, the characteristics of modern mankind, French, English, or American, are levity and selfishness, and out of these qualities you cannot build up republics.1\n\n\u2014J. A. FROUDE\n\nIn recent years, much scholarly attention has been lavished on the ideology of \"liberal imperialism.\" Against a backdrop of the omnipresent debates over the dynamics and consequences of globalization and the aggressive foreign policy of the United States and its allies, historians and political theorists have revisited the history of Western political thinking in order to identify the conceptual structure and to track the diffusion of liberal visions of imperial rule. This has propelled some scholars back to early modern Europe, and in particular to the colonial writings of John Locke. The other most popular destination is the nineteenth century, the crucible of liberalism and a period during which the power, geographical extent, and sheer ambition of the Western empires reached an unprecedented level.\n\nFocusing on liberal imperialism in this manner, whilst an important exercise, often generates more heat than light. First, the term itself is problematic: \"liberal imperialism\" implies commonalities and coherence, where the political thought of the nineteenth century was marked by dissonance and diversity. As I argued in chapter 2, not all liberals were imperialists, and those who were diverged very significantly in the intensity of their support, the types of empires that they envisaged, and the justifications that they offered. For example, alongside the standard \"liberal imperial\" position there existed a parallel and frequently overlapping mode of justification that I term republican (or civic) imperialism.2 The main purpose of this chapter is to elaborate on this claim. I proceed as follows. Utilizing John Stuart Mill's writings for illustrative purposes, section 2 sketches the basic features of the \"liberal civilizational\" position. The following section outlines, in broad terms, the republican alternative. The complex relationship between empire and liberty has been a prominent theme in European political thought for over two millennia. For many writers, the two were intimately linked: liberty at home was compatible with (or even required) empire abroad\u2014although empire itself, if understood and enacted improperly, could pose a threat to that very liberty.3 Such concerns also permeated Victorian public debate. Sections 4 and 5 interpret the political thought of the eminent Victorian historian and public moralist J. A. Froude (1818\u201394) in republican terms.\n\nIn ideal-typical form, the two types of imperial justification differed in both motivational structure and geographical orientation. The Millian variant of liberal imperialism contended that in the modern world empire was legitimate if (and only if) it was primarily intended to benefit the populations subjected to it. Any other benefits that it generated were derivative and incidental. It sought to \"civilize\" the \"barbarian,\" and it focused consequently on specific spaces in the imperial archipelago (most commonly India). It is this line of argument that has been at the center of recent scholarship. Republican imperialism, on the other hand, was primarily motivated by a concern with the character of the imperial power, defending empire in terms of the benefits that it generated for the state. Its proponents sought to foster individual and collective virtue in their compatriots, while striving to defend or enhance national honor and glory. Any other benefits that it generated\u2014including the gift of \"civilization\"\u2014were derivative and incidental. Given these concerns, republican imperialism tended to focus more on the settlement colonies, most notably (in the British case) in North America and the South Pacific. Yet republican and liberal civilizational modes of imperial justification were not antithetical, either in theory or practice. Republican defenses of empire were offered by self-professed liberals, as well as by non-liberals, while advocates of the \"civilizing\" potential of empire could be found across the political spectrum. Like those today, Victorian languages of imperial justification were complex, contested, and frequently inconsistent.\n\nJohn Stuart Mill and Liberal Civilizing Imperialism\n\nLiberal imperialism is usually understood to center on the \"civilizing mission,\" the idea that liberal states have a right\u2014and, in a strong version of the argument, a duty\u2014to spread \"civilization\" to the purportedly non-civilized peoples of the world. It is thus structured by a bifocal vision, dividing peoples into two separate categories: \"civilized\" and \"barbarian\/savage.\"4 Societies are arrayed along (and judged according to their position on) a single developmental trajectory, where both the logic and pace of change, as well as the status to be realized, are characterized in terms of \"progress.\" Although this vision allows for considerable variation within each category, crossing the threshold from \"barbarity\" to \"civilization\" is conceived of as a monumental step, one which (depending on the version of the argument employed) will either take an inordinate amount of time given prevailing social and political conditions, or would be impossible without exogenous assistance.5 Both versions justify imperial rule, and both were common in the nineteenth century, above all in Britain, France, and Germany.\n\nMost articulations of this generic liberal imperial argument link civilization to sovereignty. Civilization is seen as a necessary if not sufficient condition for the emergence of a sense of national self-consciousness, which in turn is regarded as essential to trigger liberal claims about the rights of national self-determination. Since most political communities were not thought to exhibit a sense of nationality, imperialism was legitimate if (and only if) it was intended to help bring about a significant progressive change in the social, political, and moral status of the subject people. Once a society had developed to the point where it could be classified as civilized, and once it exhibited authentic national self-consciousness, it could justifiably claim independence, and the job of the liberal imperial power was complete. Froude, who as we shall see was a critic of this argument, summarized the narrative of liberal transformation as follows:\n\nAt present in our enthusiasm for self-government we imagine that our Eastern subjects are by-and-by to learn to govern themselves as we do. We are their trustees while they are in their political infancy. Our duty is to train them in our own image, that when they are fit to receive their inheritance, we may pass it into their own hands. The Asiatic, we are persistently told, is the inferior of the European only in the disadvantages with which he has been surrounded. If he be educated, as we are educated, lifted gradually into freedom, with his rights and powers enlarged as he shows himself capable of their exercise, we shall elevate him into an equality with ourselves, and our mission will be ended.6\n\nThe projected _telos_ of this liberal project, was a world of \"civilized\" nation-states coexisting on a formally equal basis under an expanding regime of international law and commerce. Imperialism was thus part of a wider international reformist vision.7 But the temporal coordinates of this process were very rarely specified; freedom remained deferred to some indefinite point in the future. In the meantime, attention was focused on refining the modes and modulations of imperial rule.\n\nJohn Stuart Mill was the archetypal nineteenth-century proponent of liberal civilizing imperialism. He was certainly not the first to preach the creed, and nor were his imperial arguments especially novel, but he was nevertheless one of its most systematic and forceful advocates. He stands at the heart of contemporary scholarship on the subject\u2014indeed at times he almost seems to exhaust it.8 This is partly a result of his prominence during the Victorian era, his reputation as a philosopher, political economist, social reformer, and public moralist.9 But it is also a function of his place in the canon of modern political thought, a canon that retrospectively classifies individuals as worthy of scholarly attention, and which often identifies them (sometimes explicitly, often implicitly) as representatives either of their age or of the politico-theoretical positions they articulated. Mill is thus often seen as a symbol of nineteenth-century liberalism, and through this, of liberal imperialism. Yet as I argue in chapter 2, and as I further elaborate on below, this type of identification can lead to misinterpretations of the wider ideological context. The reasons for Mill's identification with liberal imperialism, though, are not hard to fathom. Following in the footsteps of his father, he went to work at the East India Company at the age of seventeen, and there he remained, rising to senior rank, until the charter of the Company was revoked in 1858. Having left the services of the Company, he continued to ruminate on the nature and value of the British empire until his death in 1873.\n\nFor Mill, civilization was a rare and fragile achievement; it was a status attained by only a very few communities.10 India was not one of them. He had very decided views on \"barbarians.\"11 Like many of his contemporaries Mill argued that India had once been an advanced society, but that this was no longer the case. It was moribund, mired in superstition, and beholden to primitive traditions. The scope of his putatively universal ambitions was circumscribed\u2014spatially not temporally\u2014by the limits of civilization. His famed definition of liberty, the \"one very simple principle\" that governed his ideal conception of society, did not apply to those who had failed to reach the \"maturity of their faculties.\" Children, the mentally disabled, and those \"backward states of society in which the race itself may be considered as in its nonage\" were not included within its embrace. \"Liberty, as a principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion.\"12 This was the spatial limitation\u2014for Mill, this argument excluded the vast majority of the world's population. Only a select few states had reached the prescribed level of maturity. The link to national self-consciousness is clear. \"[B]arbarians,\" Mill stated in an essay published in 1859, \"have no rights as a _nation_ , except a right to such treatment as may, at the earliest possible period, fit them for becoming one.\"13 This was because they were incapable of reciprocity and of following rules. The \"minds\" of those lacking civilization, he wrote, \"are not capable of so great an effort.\"14 The universality was reinscribed in temporal terms: in the future the \"barbarians\" will reach civilization, and when they do they will be welcomed into a society of states regulated by binding laws and enforceable rights. The job of the liberal state was to help them in this process, to act as the midwife of modernity.\n\nFor Mill, ever the utilitarian, the British empire, and in particular the empire in India, was an engine of improvement. It provided a vast laboratory for his \"ethology,\" the science of individual and collective \"character\" that he sketched (although never fully developed) in the _System of Logic_ (1843).15 Since human character\u2014both individual and collective\u2014was relatively plastic, and could be (re)shaped by environmental conditioning, it was possible to transform barbarous societies into progressive ones, given time, patience, and skill.16 This was the only legitimate type of imperial rule in the modern world. As he wrote in _On Liberty_ (1859), \"[d]espotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end.\"17 He reiterated the point in the _Considerations on Representative Government_ , published two years later, arguing that imperialism as a\n\n... mode of government is as legitimate as any other, if it is the one which in the existing state of civilization of the subject people, most facilitates their transition to a higher stage of improvement. There are... conditions of society in which a vigorous despotism is in itself the best mode of government for training the people in what is specifically wanting to render them capable of a higher civilisation.18\n\nTraditional motives for conquest, whether financial gain, geopolitical rivalry, or national glory, were obsolete.\n\nMill argued, then, that the primary duty of an imperial power was, through a combination of coercion and example-setting, to help educate subject populations until they were \"capable\" of attaining responsible self-government. The key point for the present discussion is that for Mill\u2014and for many other liberals\u2014this was the _only_ way in which despotism could be justified. Empire may generate other benefits (and Mill certainly argued that it did so), but these were necessarily incidental to the transformative project.\n\nRepublican Themes in Victorian Political Thought\n\nThe term \"republican\" has played an important role in historical writing over the last few decades, although it has assumed a number of different and sometimes conflicting meanings.19 In applying it to British imperial discourse, it is essential to be clear about the nature of the claims being advanced. (For example, I am not employing republican in the sense it is often used to describe French imperialism, especially in the years of the Third Republic, a vision in which _la mission civilatrice_ played a constitutive role.)20 It is therefore necessary to explore briefly both the generic structures of republican argumentation and the ways in which scholars have discussed republican legacies in the Victorian era.\n\nHistorians have traced republican themes in various nineteenth-century contexts. Two stand out. Firstly, they have identified a powerful republican inheritance among radicals, a line of argument that was transmitted from Thomas Paine and through to the Chartists, and which lingered until the 1880s when it was supplanted by socialist theories of political economy (especially those inspired by Karl Marx).21 Radical republicans stressed the close connection between the ownership of property and liberty, they criticized the Crown and the aristocracy for holding arbitrary power over them, and they regarded the state as corrupt. The solution to these problems lay, they argued, in political (as opposed to economic or social) transformation. A second stream of research has charted how republican themes shaped various aspects of an emergent liberalism, focusing in particular on the transmission belts of Whiggism. These themes were expressed in a variety of commonplace Victorian tropes. Stefan Collini, for example, argues that eighteenth-century conceptions of \"virtue\" and Victorian notions of \"character\" shared a number of key features, most notably their asceticism and demanding political ethic. Victorian thought, he concludes, was marked by \"survivals and mutations\" of the earlier language of civic humanism.22\n\nWhat unites these streams of scholarship is that they bypass empire. Yet it is in the domain of empire that we hear some of the clearest and most consistent echoes of republicanism in the Victorian age. The key point of imaginative anchorage lay in the prevalence and cultural authority of narratives of imperial decline and fall (a topic I explore in chapter 5). The dangers and the dynamics of imperial corruption, heralded by Sallust and Polybius and rearticulated most famously by Edward Gibbon, infused Victorian political consciousness.23 Collini maintains that the Victorians and their civic humanist predecessors differed in at least one important respect: their \"sense of nemesis.\"24 This difference resulted from divergent conceptions of historical time, for the eighteenth-century humanists, he argues, feared corruption, grounded in a cyclical account of rise and decline, while the Victorians feared stagnation as a threat to their open-ended notion of a progressive future. For many of those with their eyes fixed on the fortunes of the British empire, however, the sense of nemesis remained exactly the same: the seemingly inexorable logic of imperial declension. The imperial imagination was partially structured by interpretations of the political dynamics of the ancient world.\n\nThe most significant context for republican imperialism was the late nineteenth-century debate over the future of the settler colonies. Because India has been the focus of so much recent research, the pivotal importance of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the Cape in the Victorian political imagination has often been overlooked. The three best-selling books on imperial questions published during the second half of the century\u2014Charles Dilke's, _Greater Britain_ (1868), J. A. Froude's, _Oceana_ (1886), and J. R. Seeley's, _The Expansion of England_ (1883)\u2014all stressed the primary importance of the settler colonies. And all exhibited, to varying degrees, the complex and diffuse legacy of republican thinking. Republican imperialism was opposed to radical individualism, emphasizing instead public duty, self-denying altruism, and the promotion of a virtuous patriotism; its proponents worried, to varying degrees, about the corrupting powers of materialism, capitalism, and \"luxury\"; they stressed duty above rights, politics above economics, and the enchanted national above the unencumbered cosmopolitan. They contrasted the passive subject with the active imperial patriot. They also repeatedly invoked the benefits bestowed by propertied independence, and especially the ownership and active usage of productive agricultural land (at home and especially in the colonies). This helps to explain the suspicion expressed by many Victorian imperialists about urbanization.25 This anxiety is not surprising given the deep historical roots, stretching back to Rome, of the connection between farming and the planting of people. After all, the Latin term _colonia_ , derived from the verb _colere_ , means to cultivate, or to farm.26 This imaginative link has been a central theme in the history of Western imperial expansion.\n\nThe late Victorian colonial debates were not an unmediated replay of the eighteenth-century clash over the respective merits of the ancients and moderns. Rather, republican imperialism was a language adapted to and shaped by the late nineteenth-century imperial context.27 Born of an industrial capitalist society, its advocates were simultaneously proud of the achievements of modern commerce and wary of the dangers of the commercial spirit extending too far. Republican imperialism was defined as much by what it was opposed to as by what it stood for. Among the main targets were liberals infected with the \"virus of Manchesterism.\"28 This strand of liberalism was characterized, it was claimed, by utilitarian reasoning, a debilitating individualism, and a narrow obsession with profit and the doctrines of _laissez-faire_ political economy. Above all else, it was seen to underpin an attitude critical of empire: during the 1860s in particular liberalism came to be associated, albeit inaccurately, with \"indifference, if not hostility, towards the Colonies.\"29 It was against these forms of liberalism (or at least a crude caricature of them) that the republican imperial position was articulated most forcefully. Materialism, it was thought, was destructive in three distinct ways, although they frequently overlapped. First, it could corrupt individuals. The perfidious sensuality and vice of the East rebounding to undermine the polity from within was a long-standing (orientalist) concern, rising to prominence in the eighteenth century where it was exemplified in Burke's dogged pursuit of Warren Hastings. It reverberated throughout the nineteenth century.30 Modern luxury could even damage those not directly involved in the empire, either by entrenching social and economic conditions that debilitated the working classes, emasculating their virile energies, or through the creation of a rich but effete ruling class. Combined, this fashioned a society unable to, and uninterested in, expanding its strength and glory. The second dimension reinforced this polarization. Commercial society generated increasing economic inequality, triggering potentially destabilizing political consequences as well as fueling fear of the working classes rising to challenge their oppressors. Finally, there was a further indirect effect: the commercial spirit, it was often argued, corroded patriotism and the belief in a transcendent common good. Individuals became increasingly egotistical, placing self-interest above public duty.31 The \"materialists\" were perfectly happy to see the empire either fall into a state of disrepair or, in some cases\u2014most notably that of the self-proclaimed \"last of the Manchester school,\" Goldwin Smith\u2014to demand the \"emancipation\" of the colonies.32 Julius Vogel, a former premier of New Zealand, warned in 1877 of the dangers of Britain, stripped of its colonies, \"sinking into a small money-loving State\u2014a second Holland.\"33\n\nThese lines of thought came together in a powerful defense of the virtues of settler colonialism. Much of the debate over \"Greater Britain\"\u2014as the unity of Britain and the settler colonies was frequently labeled\u2014centered on the type of character necessary for and produced by successful colonization. Emigration lay at the heart of this process.34 For much of the nineteenth century, emigration was looked upon either as a \"safety valve\" for social problems or as a means of escape for greedy young men and the less talented sons of the aristocracy. While political economists had repeatedly insisted on the financial benefits of colonies, the colonists themselves were frequently scorned. The \"colonial reformer\" and political economist E. G. Wakefield wrote in _A View on the Art of Colonization_ (1849), that \"speaking generally, colonies and colonists are in fact, as well as in the estimation of the British gentry, inferior, low, unworthy of much respect, properly disliked and despised by people of honour here, who happen to be acquainted with the state of society in the colonies.\"35 Throughout the century settlers were also routinely criticized for their brutality to indigenous populations, often by Britons (including John Stuart Mill) who supported the empire but were worried about how some of its constituent elements were governed.36 The debates over Greater Britain witnessed a sustained attempt to transform this negative image, both to help encourage further emigration and to shift the general perception of the value of the colonies. As I discuss in Chapter 2, the colonies were reimagined as integral elements of the \"mother country\"; the existing colonists as loyal, hardy, and rugged patriots.37 Republican imperialism was not exclusively found in Britain. It can be seen, for example, in Alexis de Tocqueville's writings on Algeria. Unlike many other French nineteenth-century thinkers, Tocqueville was not especially interested in \"civilizing\" imperial subjects. He was concerned primarily with the benefits that colonialism would bring to mainland France, and he sought to reinvigorate the _patria_ through foreign conquest. With \"time, perseverance, ability, and justice,\" he prophesized, \"I have no doubt that we will be able to raise a great monument to our country's glory on the African coast.\"38 This monument would restore French greatness and transform the citizenry. American political thought at the turn of the twentieth century expressed many of the same concerns. It was in nineteenth-century Britain, however, that we find some of the most powerful echoes of republican imperialism.\n\nJ. A. Froude and the Pathologies of the Moderns\n\nAn anatomist of religious crisis, an influential historian, and a fierce social critic, Froude was one of the leading \"public moralists\" of the second half of the nineteenth century.39 His monumental twelve-volume study of the English reformation, the _History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada_ (1856\u201370), sold tens of thousands of copies. His writings on empire reached a similarly large audience.40 In these writings we see the articulation of a distinctive republican argument.\n\nFroude is often characterized as a straightforward disciple of Thomas Carlyle. However, although he admired Carlyle enormously, and although he followed him in various ways, Froude was nevertheless an independent thinker, fully capable of carving out his own path. The complexion of his political thought has proven notoriously elusive\u2014something of which he would be proud. Michael Bentley characterizes him as a \"great liberal,\" Peter Mandler a \"liberal Carlylean,\" while for John Burrow he was a \"radical Tory.\"41 By the 1850s he had shed his youthful radicalism and he increasingly identified with conservative policies and politicians. His writings grew increasingly reactionary in tone and content. He hated Gladstone and was an enthusiastic admirer of Disraeli. He was no \"great liberal.\" But nor was he a great Tory. He liked to project himself as a man above and beyond trivial partisan struggles, his energies focused on the good of the \"commonwealth.\" Indeed his writings, like those of Seeley, abound with harsh criticisms of the factionalism and myopia of \"party.\" He once wrote:\n\n[I]t is the very nature of \"party\" that party leaders shall never see things as they really are, but only as they affect for the moment the interests of one section of the community. They are as men who, having two eyes given them by nature, deliberately extinguish one. There is the point of view from the \"right\" and the point of view from the \"left,\" and from each, from the nature and necessity of the case, only half the truth can be seen. A wise man keeps both his eyes, belongs to no party, and can see things as they are.42\n\nFroude's eyes were fixed on the multifarious failings of his contemporaries, on the lessons that could be drawn from both the character and the fate of the Roman Republic and, ultimately, on how to secure the future glory of the British \"race\" in the wide expanses of the colonies.\n\nFroude had nearly become a colonist. In the 1840s he was on the verge of emigrating to Hobart, in Van Diemen's Land, to take up a teaching position, before the offer was rescinded in the wake of the controversy generated by the publication of his autobiographical novel _The Nemesis of Faith_ (1849). Burned publicly in his Oxford college, the book cost him his cherished fellowship as well as a potential new career. Yet it was only in the 1870s that he turned to writing at length about the empire. In a series of essays and books published between 1870 and his death in 1894 (two years after being appointed Regius Professor of History at Oxford), Froude elaborated a distinctive republican vision of the empire. It was republican in two specific senses. First, his imperial thought was shaped by an interpretation of the corruption of the Roman republic. From this narrative, Froude drew lessons that he applied directly to the contemporary world, identifying the same (or analogous) mechanisms at work in Britain. This was a fairly common argumentative strategy amongst his contemporaries, although (as I show in Chapter 5) it could be used to defend a wide variety of positions. Second, in a more innovative move, he argued that the answer to this impending catastrophe lay in creating a global polity populated by individuals exhibiting many of the same virtuous characteristics that he discerned amongst the inhabitants of the Roman Republic. Both his diagnosis and his prescriptions were drawn from the Greco-Roman world. Froude mixed these arguments with an idealized view of the \"ancient\" feudal system in Britain. Although he often talked in vague terms about the greatness of the \"English Empire,\" he placed little emphasis on the providential rights and duties of the British to \"civilize\" the rest of the world, and he prioritized the settler colonies above all.43 They were, he argued, \"infinitely more important to us than even India.\" The reason for this was simple: \"[I]t is because the entire future of the English Empire depends on our availing ourselves of the opportunities which those dependencies offer to us.\"44 Indeed he barely touched on India, and when he did it was in terms that would have horrified Mill. He suggested that, due to its role in promoting national greatness, the British should stay in India in perpetuity. \"Our Indian Empire was won by the sword, and by the sword it must be held; and to suppose that we can ever abandon it except in defeat and disgrace is to surrender ourselves wilfully to the wildest illusion.\"45\n\nFroude saw corruption wherever he looked in the modern world. \"[W]e are passing,\" he warned, \"through a crisis in our national existence.\"46 Obsessed with the \"genius of English freedom,\" a genius he saw as largely consigned to the past, he believed that the only hope for the future lay in the unity of the settler empire. But it was important, he argued, to recognize that the colonies were not simple imperial possessions, and that \"[o]ne free people cannot govern another free people.\"47 With the necessary checks and balances they could govern a non-free people\u2014this is presumably how he saw India\u2014but to impose their will on a \"free\" people was both to commit an injustice (made worse in this case because they were \"English\" and therefore part of the same \"nation\") and also to potentially corrupt the polity.\n\nFroude's views on the specific content of \"freedom\" were rather elusive. He was not a systematic theorist, and his comments on the issue are scattered and frequently opaque. It is nevertheless clear what he was opposed to. The modern state, he argued, \"disclaims abstract considerations of justice, and knows nothing but expediency.\" It existed only \"to secure the greatest liberty to the greatest number\u2014liberty meaning the absence of constraint,\" and it was driven by a simple philosophy: \"Let every man prove his private advantage with all the faculties that belong to him, and nature and competition will take care of the rest.\"48 His own conception of freedom was much less clearly articulated. He repeatedly harked after an \"old\" England\u2014the dates of which remained unspecified\u2014where the people were free in a different sense; it was this historical phantasm that he often linked to (or conflated with) the early Roman Republic. In this feudal ideal, freedom was an attribute of citizenship granted for the performance of valuable social roles. In such a society everybody knew their place, recognizing that they were enmeshed in a complex web of obligations and duties. \"In the old days a 'freeman' was a master of his craft, and not till he had learnt to do, and do well, some work which was useful for society did he enter upon his privileges as a citizen.\"49 In such a world, \"[l]iberty in the modern sense, liberty where the rights of man take the place of the duties of man,\" was neither \"sought nor desired.\"50 He summarized this view in \"On Progress,\" arguing that:\n\nAs a member of society man parts with his natural rights, and society in turn incurs a debt to him which it is bound to discharge. Where the debt is adequately rendered, where on both sides there is a consciousness of obligation, where the rulers and ruled alike understand that more is required of them than attention to their separate interests, and where they discern with clearness in what the \"more\" consists, there is at once good government, there is supremacy of law... and there, and only there, is freedom.51\n\nAs long as they were enacted for the betterment of the commonwealth, laws were not (as liberals purportedly argued) impediments to liberty. \"Just laws are no restraint upon the freedom of the good, for the good man desires nothing which a just law will interfere with. He is as free under the law as without the law, and he is grateful for its guidance when want of knowledge might lead him wrong.\"52 But freedom was increasingly undermined by the logic of capitalism, for under the iron rule of the political economists, Froude argued, English workers were overly dependent on their masters. The worker existed in \"an enchanted circle of necessity\u2014that he must stay passive under the barest of wages which will keep life in him and his, under penalty of starvation if he resist to make an effort to escape.\" We \"mock him with the name of freedom,\" he declared.53 Independence, which he routinely (although inconsistently) tied to property, was the anchor of freedom; and the freedom of the individual and the freedom of the polity were intimately connected, for the \"units composing it [the state] are free in the freedom of the body. If they seek a separate freedom of their own, they can obtain it only by degradation.\"54\n\nDreaming of Rome: The Uses of History and the Future of \"Oceana\"\n\nIn order to understand the nature of and the inspiration for Froude's views on Britain and the empire it is necessary to turn to his interpretation of ancient history, and in particular the history of Rome. This was a constant point of reference in his writings, and it played a fundamental role in shaping his political thought. It is this imaginative engagement with the ancients, as much as anything else, that marks his distance from Carlyle. The early republic offered Froude a partial template for his global British polity; and the causes of its decline presented a stark warning about both the mechanisms and the consequences of corruption. \"To the student of political history, and to the English student above all others,\" he wrote in the opening passage of his biography of Julius Caesar, \"the conversion of the Roman Republic into a military empire commands peculiar interest. Notwithstanding many differences, the English and the Romans essentially resemble one another.\"55 The twilight of the republic was, he continued, a period \"in so many ways the counterpart of our own,\" and the \"[t]endencies now in operation may a few generations hence land modern society in similar conclusions.\" If this came to pass, \"free institutions\" would be destroyed.56\n\nThe reason that Rome seemed such an apposite exemplar derived, at least in part, from Froude's conception of historical time. He believed that all living things, including \"commonwealths,\" followed the same trajectory: \"recurring stages of growth and transformation and decay.\"57 This was one of the reasons why he was generally suspicious of the cult of progress that he discerned amongst his contemporaries. But the pattern of history was not fully predetermined. The speed at which decay metastasized through the body politic remained within the domain of human agency, and as such, Froude thought that the Commonwealth could be ruled in such a manner as to extend its existence\u2014and conversely, that certain courses of action would accelerate decline. Fate could not be defeated, but it could be held at bay. \"The life of a nation, like the life of a man, may be prolonged in honour into the fullness of its time, or it may perish prematurely, for want of guidance, by violence or internal disorders.\" The study of history offered one way in which to inculcate wisdom, for the causes of decline could be identified and acted upon.58 This was yet another reason why he insisted that the fall of Rome was of such \"peculiar\" interest to the \"English student.\" Although Froude dissented from Harrington's specific proposals for overcoming the tension between expansion and liberty, he nevertheless thought that through reordering the moral and political constitution of the British people, and through incorporating vast expanses of the colonies within an enlarged polity, the inevitability of decline could be resisted, perhaps even indefinitely.\n\nFroude's vision of \"Oceana\" demanded the translation of the virtues of the early Roman republicans into the contemporary world. This was partly a matter of recovering their personal virtues. The inhabitants of the \"early commonwealth of Rome,\" he wrote, were \"distinguished by remarkable purity of manners.\" The \"marriage tie was singularly respected\" and the \"Latin yeomen, who were the back-bone of the community, were industrious and laborious,\" living their lives \"with frugality and simplicity,\" and raising their children \"in a humble fear of God or the gods as rulers to whom they would one day have to give an account.\" This was a society where \"[t]he whole duty of man lay in _virtus_ \u2014virtue, manliness.\" Then corruption set in, and the last years of the republic were marked by the \"incredible depravity of manners, the corruption of justice, the oppression of the provinces [and] the collapse of the political fabric in a succession of civil wars.\"59 The result was catastrophic: the \"free institutions which had been the admiration of mankind were buried under the throne of the Caesars.\"60\n\nFroude argued that a sense of religion had regulated the life of the republicans, motivating and giving shape to the other virtues.61 Under the wise rule of Augustus, order and justice were reinstated, but following his death it soon became apparent that the moral fabric of the republic had disintegrated.\n\nThe administration of Augustus was the most perfect system of secular government ever known, and the attributes assigned to Augustus were the apotheosis of it. The principle of Augustus was the establishment of law and order, of justice and decency of conduct. Of the heroic virtues, or even the modest virtues of purity and sense of moral responsibility, such a system knew nothing, and offered no motive for moral enthusiasm. Order and law and decency are the body of society, but are a body without a soul; and, without a soul, the body, however vigorous its sinews, must die and go to corruption.62\n\nAnd so it came to pass. The reign of justice could not last, and the decline and fall of Rome ensued as corruption and vice spread widely and decisively. The moral orientation provided by an overarching religiosity disappeared, and the collapse of virtue invariably followed. Such was the story that Froude recounted. The focus on religion was unusual\u2014and drew directly from Froude's own fragile spiritual sensibility\u2014but the general narrative of rise and decline was firmly etched in the consciousness of educated late Victorians. The ancient republic provided Froude with a model for the future, and a way to judge\u2014and judge scathingly\u2014the world around him. The character traits that he most admired in the ancients\u2014a sense of public duty, hardiness and frugality, \"manliness,\" an intimate connection with the land, and so forth\u2014were those that he considered necessary to escape the debasement of the moderns.63 The mechanisms of corruption that had destroyed the republic were those that he feared were hollowing out his beloved England from within. Froude also employed the fate of Rome to inculcate a number of specific lessons. One concerned the depredations of urbanization. England, he warned, was in danger of becoming a \"country of cities.\"64 This had two main consequences. First, it was leading to the moral and physical degeneration of the population. He drew on a passage from Horace to illustrate the point. As people flocked from the fields to the cities they were exposed to ever increasing levels of vice. \"Decay is busy at the heart of them, and all the fate of Rome seemed to me likely to be the fate of England if she became what the political economists desired to see her.\"65 Second, it meant that the number of \"free holders\"\u2014those owning their own plots of land or with secure tenure\u2014went into rapid decline. The ownership of property, the very anchor of freedom, was being eliminated. The likely consequences could again be traced in the fate of Rome.\n\nThe armies which made the strength of the Roman republic were composed of the small holders of Latium and afterwards of Italy. When Rome became an empire, the freeholder disappeared; the great families bought up the soil and cultivated it with slaves, and the decline and fall followed by inevitable consequence.66\n\nA similar process was happening around him, for as the people left the countryside to work in the factories large landowners increasingly swallowed up the lands they had vacated.67 Many of these men sat in Parliament, which partly explained the shameful state of British politics, for their main interest lay not in defending the common good but in the pursuit of personal gain. \"Their grandfathers cared for the English commonwealth. It is hard to say what some of these high persons care for except luxury.\"68 Froude also looked to puncture what he saw as facile complacency about progress. Gibbon, he noted, had identified the period between the accession of Trajan and the death of Marcus Aurelius as the \"time in which the human race had enjoyed more general happiness than they had ever known before.\" But this was a fatal mistake, for \"during that very epoch, and in the midst of all that prosperity, the heart of the empire was dying out of it. The austere virtues of the ancient Roman were perishing with their faults. The principles, the habits, the convictions, which held society together were giving way, one after the other, before luxury and selfishness.\"69 As with the Romans, warned Froude, so with his compatriots.\n\nFroude argued that the problems of the modern world could be laid squarely at the feet of liberalism, or at least a species of it. Liberalism promoted three crippling vices: materialism, individualism, and a minimalist (\"nightwatchman\") conception of the state. Materialism was the popular religion of the country; and luxury, understood as the excessive accumulation of personal wealth and its ostentatious display, was its progeny. \"Luxury,\" he lamented, was \"no longer deprecated as an evil,\" as it was by the ancient writers, but was instead \"encouraged as a stimulus to labour.\" Again: the \"modern creed [of liberalism] looks complacently on luxury as a stimulus to trade. Fact says that luxury has disorganized society, severed the bonds of goodwill which unite man to man, and class to class, and generated distrust and hatred.\"70 Luxury was allowed to polarize society because the modern liberal conception of the state failed to provide the necessary resources to deal with the threat\u2014indeed it encouraged it. In this rendering, the state was no more than the uncoordinated aggregation of egoistic individuals, a hollow shell lacking common purpose. This vision itself was premised on a rampant individualism that, according to Froude, corroded the affective bonds necessary to unite communities, reconcile classes, and ensure greatness. \"In these modern times men govern themselves, and therefore their loyalty is to themselves.\"71 He hankered after an older understanding of self, society, and state, praising the \"ancient notion of a community,\" one which fostered virtues \"which Englishmen used most to desire,\" the virtues of \"Patriotism, loyalty, fidelity, self-forgetfulness, a sense of duty.\" In such a society the \"sense of what is due to a man's self\u2014his rights, as he calls them\u2014is conspicuously absent.\"72 Individuals should be bound by duty, not seen as possessing inalienable rights; society was a cooperative hierarchical arrangement united by common purpose and interests; and the state was a moral entity, the priorities of which were clear: \"To repress needless luxury, to prevent capitalists from making fortunes at the cost of the poor, and to distribute in equitable proportions the profits of industry.\"73 A \"sound nation,\" he declared,\n\n... is a nation composed of sound human beings, healthy in body, strong of limb, true in word and deed\u2014brave, sober, temperate, chaste, to whom morals are more important than wealth or knowledge\u2014where duty is first and the rights of man are second\u2014where, in short, men grow up and live and work hard, having in them what our ancestors called the \"fear of God.\"\n\nThis was, of course, exactly the way he had described the virtues of the inhabitants of the \"early republic.\" Unlike the radical republicans, Froude believed that democracy fostered rather than eliminated these dangers. In democracies, he warned, the \"pursuit of wealth becomes the predominant passion, degrades the national character, raises to eminence the least worthy of elevation, corrupts those who obtain it by luxury.\"74 The main counter to these tendencies was strong government and, ideally, a patriotic aristocracy ruling in the best interests of the commonwealth. \"The natural leaders in a healthy country are the gentry; public-spirited and patriotic because their own fortunes are bound up with the fortunes of their country.\"75 They would act as a bulwark against the vagaries of \"commercial speculation.\" Here lay the roots of his (qualified) admiration for Disraeli. Whereas Carlyle \"despised\" Jews and had regarded Disraeli as a \"fantastic ape,\" Froude described himself as a \" _quasi_ follower\" of the Tory politician, although this is unsurprising as he attributed to him a vision of politics that almost exactly mirrored his own.76 After all, he claimed, Disraeli venerated the \"old conception of the commonwealth,\" where a just and beneficent aristocracy ruled in the name of the people, and he hoped that some version of this might be restored if only the aristocrats could relearn \"the habits of their forefathers.\"77 Once again we witness Froude's admixture of classical ideals and a mythopoeic vision of the feudal past. Aristocratic rule provided the backbone for republican life.\n\nRepublics have held together as long as they have been strong with patrician sinews; when the sinews crack the republic becomes a democracy, and the unity of the commonwealth is shivered into a heap of disconnected atoms, each following its own laws of gravitation towards its imagined interests. Athens and Rome, the Italian Republics, the great kingdoms which rose out of the wreck of the Roman Empire, tell the same story.78\n\nAnd this story was repeating itself before his very eyes. In language strikingly similar to that he employed to chart the decline of Rome, he argued that the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867 had created an environment in which individuals focused solely on their own interests, \"a process under which the English people are becoming a congregation of contending atoms, scrambling every one of them to snatch a larger portion of good things than its fellow.\"79 Froude's vision was a paternalistic one in which a beneficent elite governed a contented free people, bound together in loyalty to the nation and by the interdependence and mutual reliance of all classes.\n\nFroude argued that the cure for the assorted evils that he identified lay in the wide-open spaces of Greater Britain. His dream, which was never specified with any precision, was of a \"united Oceana,\" a polity \"united as closely as the American states are united.\"80 The colonies were important for two different, though related, reasons. The first concerned scale and power. \"These are not the days for small states: the natural boundaries are broken down which once divided kingdom from kingdom; and with the interests of nations so much intertwined as they are now becoming, every one feels the benefit of belonging to a first-rate Power.\"81 Only a united Oceana could secure the freedoms of the (global) English nation. Secondly, the colonies offered vast tracts of land that could absorb millions of emigrants from the \"mother country.\" Froude was obsessed with emigration\u2014both the dangers of the continuing flow of people to the United States, and also the need for the British government to finance a system of systematic emigration to the colonies. The former was a problem because it simultaneously weakened Britain whilst strengthening a formidable competitor. The latter was vital because of the increasing urbanization and consequent degradation of Britain. In the colonies emigrants would be transfigured into freemen and patriots\u2014rugged, hardy, and industrious. \"You who are impatient with what you call a dependent position at home, go to Australia, go to Canada, go to New Zealand, or South Africa.\"82 The vile cities could be halved in size, the colonies restocked. Fearful of the \"plagues which are consuming us,\" Froude argued that emigrants would be able to lead \"a happier and purer life\" in the colonies.83 \"If,\" he argued,\n\n... the millions of English and Scotch men and women who are wasting their constitutions and wearing out their souls in factories and coal mines were growing corn and rearing cattle in Canada and New Zealand, the red colour would come back to their cheeks, their shrunken sinews would fill out again, their children, now a drag upon their hands, would be elements of wealth and strength while here at home the sun would shine again, and wages would rise to the colonial level, and land would divide itself, and we should have room to move and breathe.84\n\nThe aim of British government policy should be to create a polity strong and \"healthy\" enough to postpone the inevitable, to \"defy the storms of fate.\"85\n\nWas Froude simply reiterating Carlyle's views on empire? Their positions overlapped on many points. Both contended that the settler colonies were more important than India.86 Both expressed horror at the state of British cities, demanded more support for emigration, and waxed lyrical about the revivifying open spaces of the colonies. Both called for an end to the reign of the political economists and a more interventionist role for the state. But their thinking was marked by numerous differences, and when they did concur it did not necessarily mean that they had arrived at their conclusions in the same manner.87 We should not be surprised by this: their writings on empire were produced in different political contexts. Carlyle's scattered remarks on colonization were published during the 1840s and 1850s (primarily in _Chartism_ and _Past and Present_ ), while Froude's date mainly from the 1870s and 1880s. Carlyle's conception of the spiritual value of labor shaped his views on colonization, whereas Froude, who did not share Carlyle's account, articulated a more instrumental position\u2014it was beneficial for everybody to have a trade so that they could be independent, and thus capable of securing their freedom.88 Whereas Carlyle looked benignly on British emigration to America, Froude was horrified by it, regarding the United States as a challenger to British preeminence.89 \"We have raised up against us a mighty empire to be the rival, it may be the successful rival, of our power.\"90 For Carlyle, the colonies were important mainly as an answer to the \"social question,\" and he placed little emphasis on geopolitics; for Froude, on the other hand, the domestic and the international were combined in an intricate dialectic. Due to a combination of geopolitical competition and internal decay British greatness was under threat, and the colonies offered the only solution. Finally, while Carlyle expostulated on the benefits of emigration and colonial life, he never conceived of the empire, or the settlement empire within it, as a distinctive and integrated social and political unit. Froude, meanwhile, dreamed of a united Oceanic commonwealth.\n\nConclusions\n\nRecent interest in tracing the history of \"liberal imperialism\" has illuminated important dimensions of nineteenth-century political thought and action. The relevance of this exercise for contemporary political theory and social criticism is palpable. Yet focusing exhaustively on ideas about the liberal desire to \"civilize\" the \"barbarian,\" and to transmit British manners, values, and institutions throughout the world, has also meant that the variety and complexity of Victorian imperial thought is often obscured. Many liberals, and indeed many non-liberals, looked on the map of the world as an open invitation for projects of transformation\u2014social, political, and moral. But not all did so. Other parallel, intersecting, and sometimes contradictory forms of argument were also common, offering different accounts of justification for overseas expansion, coercion, and rule. In this chapter I have highlighted one such position, which I have termed republican. Yet it is important to stress that republican imperialism was not a discrete autonomous \"tradition\" completely separate from other imperial ideologies\u2014it was instead a bundle of arguments, even a sensibility, concerning the sources, nature, and value of overseas conquest and government. It was possible, for example, to offer a republican defense of settler colonization and insist on the imperatives of the civilizing mission elsewhere. Republican themes were threaded through the tapestry of Victorian political thought, cutting across liberalism, conservatism, even socialism. The clearest and most consistent articulation of republican imperial argument can be found in Froude's writings. Much as Froude was indebted to Carlyle, his hero and often his inspiration, those interested in tracing the sources and character of his political thought need to pay more attention to the imaginative debt he owed to the ancient world, and in particular to his appropriation of Roman republicanism, than is usually the case. His understanding of the pathologies and potential of the British (global) polity was shaped by, and anchored in, his understanding of the practices and intellectual worlds of the early Romans. Only by drawing vital lessons from the pre-capitalist past, he insisted, would it be possible to map a glorious future for \"Oceana.\" Otherwise the fate of Rome would befall the corrupted British.\n\n1 J. A. Froude, letter to Theodor Stanton, 1888, reprinted in Waldo Hilary Dunn, _James Anthony Froude_ , 2 vols. (Oxford, 1961\u201363), 2:560. Stanton was a professor at Cornell.\n\n2 I am not arguing that this distinction captures all of the variety of nineteenth-century imperial thought, only that it helps us to understand some significant aspects of it. For other modulations of imperial ideology, see the discussion in Chapter 3.\n\n3 David Armitage, \"Empire and Liberty,\" in _Republicanism_ , ed. Quentin Skinner and Martin van Gelderen (Cambridge, 2003), 2:29\u201347; Andrew Fitzmaurice, _Humanism and America_ (Cambridge, 2003); Mikael H\u00f6rnqvist, _Machiavelli and Empire_ (Cambridge, 2004); Mikael H\u00f6rnqvist, \"The Two Myths of Civic Humanism,\" in _Renaissance Civic Humanism_ , ed. James Hankins (Cambridge, 2000), 105\u201343.\n\n4 It is important to note, however, that during the nineteenth century \"civilization\" remained a highly fluid concept, lacking specificity and open to various ideological uses. See here: Gerritt Gong, _The Standard of \"Civilization\" in International Society_ (Oxford, 1984); Bruce Mazlish, _Civilization and Its Contents_ (Stanford, 2005); Jennifer Pitts, \"Boundaries of Victorian International Law,\" in _Victorian Visions of Global Order_ , ed. Duncan Bell (Cambridge, 2007), 67\u201389.\n\n5 Most nineteenth-century European thinkers ranked the \"civilized\" powers according to a variety of criteria, usually placing their own society at the peak. See Georgios Varouxakis, \"'Great' versus 'Small' Nations,\" in _Victorian Visions_ , ed. Bell, 136\u201359. Non-Western peoples were also coded in hierarchical terms, often with indigenous Australians placed at the bottom, and the more \"warlike\" of the Indian peoples, as well as the Maoris of New Zealand, accorded a higher position. Some of these peoples were thought to be heading for inevitable extinction. Patrick Brantlinger, _Dark Vanishings_ ; Mark Hickford, \"'Decidedly the Most Interesting Savages on the Globe,'\" _History of Political Thought_ , 27 (2006), 122\u201367.\n\n6 Froude, \"England's War,\" _Fraser's Magazine_ , 1871, reprinted in _Short Studies on Great Subjects_ , 5 vols. (London, 1907) (hereafter _Short Studies_ ), 3:272\u201373.\n\n7 Some variations of this argument also envisaged the eventual creation of regional (and even global) federations. On liberal internationalism, see Jens Bartelson, \"The Trial of Judgement,\" _International Studies Quarterly_ , 39 (1995), 255\u201379; Casper Sylvest, _British Liberal Internationalism, 1880\u20131930_ (Manchester, 2009); and chapter 10.\n\n8 For examples, see the discussion in chapter 2. Notably absent from the recent wave of scholarship on Mill is recognition of the value he placed on (and the arguments he offered for) settler colonization. For correctives, see Katherine Smits, \"John Stuart Mill on the Antipodes,\" _Australian Journal of Politics and History_ , 51 (2008), 1\u201315; and the discussion in chapter 9.\n\n9 Yet it is important to note that while Mill was widely admired, he also had numerous detractors, including self-proclaimed liberals, and his political writings in particular were subjected to sustained attack, both during his lifetime and afterwards. He was not, in other words, a straightforward representative figure of any position. See, for example, Stefan Collini, _Public Moralists_ (Oxford, 1991), esp. chs. 4, 8; Bruce Kinzer, _A Moralist In and Out of Parliament_ (Toronto, 1992).\n\n10 Mill, \"Civilization\" [1836], in _Collected Works_ , 18:117\u201349.\n\n11 From a very early age Mill was exposed to his father's highly influential writings on India, which he seems to have absorbed. For Mill's shifting ideas about race in India, see Zastoupil, _John Stuart Mill and India_.\n\n12 Mill, _On Liberty_ [1859], _Collected Works_ , 18:224.\n\n13 Mill, \"A Few Words on Non-Intervention\" [1859], _Collected Works_ , 21:119. Italics in original. See also Mill, _Considerations on Representative Government_ [1861], _Collected Works_ , 19:566\u201367.\n\n14 Mill, \"A Few Words on Non-Intervention,\" 118.\n\n15 Mill, _A System of Logic_ [1843], _Collected Works_ , 7:861\u201375.\n\n16 This view of development was grounded in an \"associationist\" account of psychology, a view that Mill had inherited from his father. For the most illuminating account of how this was to work in practice, see Mill's account of his own education in his _Autobiography_ (1873).\n\n17 Mill, _On Liberty_ , 224.\n\n18 Mill, _Considerations on Representative Government_ , 416.\n\n19 For examples, see Skinner and van Gelderen, eds., _Republicanism_ ; Eric Nelson, \"Republican Visions,\" in _The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory_ , ed. John Dryzek, Bonnie Honig, and Anne Phillips (Oxford, 2005), 193\u2013211; Iseult Honohan, _Civic Republicanism_ (London, 2002). This section extends my discussion of civic imperialism in Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_ , ch. 5.\n\n20 Alice Conklin, _A Mission to Civilize_ (Stanford, 1998), esp. ch. 1. Nor am I employing it to map the history of \"republican\" arguments about freedom and security, as in Daniel Deudney's fascinating, _Bounding Power_ (Princeton, 2007).\n\n21 Mark Bevir, \"Republicanism, Socialism, and Democracy in Britain,\" _Journal of Social History_ , 34 (2000), 351\u201368. For examples, see Eugenio Biagini, \"Neo-Roman Liberalism,\" _History of European Ideas_ , 29 (2003), 55\u201372; Biagini, \"Radicalism and Liberty,\" in Peter Mandler, ed., _Liberty and Authority in Victorian Britain_ (Oxford, 2006), 101\u201325; Duncan Kelly, \"Reforming Republicanism in Nineteenth-Century Britain,\" in _Republicanism in Theory and Practice_ , ed. Iseult Honohan and Jeremy Jennings (London, 2006), 41\u201352; Gregory Claeys, \"The Origins of the Rights of Labor,\" _Journal of Modern History_ , 66 (1994), 249\u201390; and, most influentially, Gareth Stedman Jones, \"Rethinking Chartism,\" in _Languages of Class_ (Cambridge, 1983).\n\n22 Collini, _Public Moralists_ , 108\u201310. See also John Burrow, _Whigs and Liberals_ (Oxford, 1988). Some scholars have pointed to the continuities between Mill's language and that of the civic humanists of the eighteenth century (for example, Burrow, _Whigs and Liberals_ , 85), but this does not refer to his vision of empire.\n\n23 In his highly critical overview of eighteenth-century political thought, Leslie Stephen scoffed that the discourse of the time was comprised of \"generalities about liberty, corruption, and luxury.\" Leslie Stephen, _English Thought in the Eighteenth Century_ (London, 1876), 2:111. Mill made a similar point about Gibbon: \"Carlyle's French Revolution\" (1837), _Collected Works_ , 20:134, 136. On the pervasiveness of the classics in the Victorian era, see Frank Turner, _The Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain_ (New Haven, 1981); and Norman Vance, _The Victorians and Ancient Rome_ (Oxford, 1997).\n\n24 Collini, _Public Moralists_ , 108\u201310.\n\n25 In classical republican thought, the city was often viewed as the most appropriate site of political life. During the nineteenth century the idea of the city was transformed, in the wake of industrialism and the vast growth of urban populations. Cities were reimagined as vast spaces of vice and danger rather than the seedbed of virtue.\n\n26 Moses Finley, \"Colonies\u2014An Attempt at a Typology,\" _Transactions of the Royal Historical Society_ , 5th series, 6 (1976), 173.\n\n27 For an analysis of the wide-ranging eighteenth-century debates over luxury, see Istvan Hont, \"Luxury and Commerce,\" in _The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Political Thought_ , ed. Mark Goldie and Robert Wokler (Cambridge, 2006), 379\u2013419.\n\n28 Edward Salmon, \"The Colonial Empire of 1837,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 61 (1897), 863.\n\n29 The quotation is from Hugh Egerton, _A Short History of British Colonial Policy_ (London, 1897), 455. Froude concurred: _The Earl of Beaconsfield_ (London, 1890), 238\u201339.\n\n30 Miles Taylor, \"Imperium et Libertas?,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 19 (1991), 1\u201323.\n\n31 Seeley's defense of classical notions of (merit-based) aristocracies, above party intrigue, noble, and acting in the name of the common good, can be seen as a response to this. Seeley, _Stein_ , 3:564; Seeley, _Introduction to Political Science_ , ed. Henry Sidgwick (Cambridge, 1896), 328\u201330.\n\n32 Goldwin Smith, _The Empire_ (London, 1863); Smith, \"The Expansion of England,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 45 (1884), 524\u201340; Smith, \"The Empire,\" in _Essays on Questions of the Day_ [1893], 2nd ed. (New York, 1894), 141\u201395.\n\n33 Vogel, \"Greater or Lesser Britain,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 1 (1877), 831.\n\n34 On the importance of emigration, see Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_ , ch. 2.\n\n35 Wakefield, _A View on the Art of Colonization_ [1849], in _The Collected Works of Edmond Gibbon Wakefield_ , ed. M. F. Lloyd-Prichard (Glasgow, 1968), 837. See also Arthur Mills, _Systematic Colonization_ (London, 1847), 33\u201334.\n\n36 Mill, _Considerations on Representative Government_ , 771\u201372. This was one of the central concerns of the prosecutors of Governor Eyre. See here Rande Kostal, _A Jurisprudence of Power_ (Oxford, 2006); Smits, \"John Stuart Mill on the Antipodes.\"\n\n37 The representation of the colonies in publicity material often drew on classical images of the virtue (and purity) of femininity. Dominic David Alessio, \"Domesticating 'The Heart of the Wild,'\" _Women's History Review_ , 6 (1997), 239\u201369. On the gendering of colonialism, see also Robert Grant, _Representations of British Emigration, Colonisation, and Settlement_ (Basingstoke, 2005), ch. 8.\n\n38 Tocqueville, \"Second Letter on Algeria\" [1837], in _Writings on Empire and Slavery_ , ed. J. Pitts (Baltimore, 2001), 24. Though for a switch in tone and emphasis, see also his \"First Report on Algeria\" [1847], _Writings_ , 146. For a valuable discussion of Tocqueville's thought, which identifies its republican dimensions, see Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_ , chs. 6\u20137.\n\n39 Froude's writings on his brutalized youth ( _Shadows of the Clouds_ , 1847) and the spiritual turmoil of his early adulthood ( _The Nemesis of Faith_ , 1849) provide two of the most psychologically rich explorations of the Victorian crisis of faith. Julia Markus contends that he was the author of the most important pre-Freudian biography (on Jane and Thomas Carlyle) in the English language: Markus, _J. Anthony Froude_ (New York, 2005), 76. Other studies of Froude, none of which make the argument I am pursuing, include Dunn, _James Anthony Froude_ ; A. L. Rowse, _Froude as Historian_ (Gloucester, 1987); and Walter Thompson, _James Anthony Froude on Nation and Empire_ (London, 1998). Since this chapter was originally published, a major new intellectual biography has appeared: Ciaran Brady, _James Anthony Froude_ (Oxford, 2013). In relation to the empire, it is especially good on Ireland and the Caribbean.\n\n40 For his conception of history, see John Burrow, _A Liberal Descent_ (Cambridge, 1981); Jane Garnett, \"Protestant Histories,\" in _Politics and Culture in Victorian Britain_ , ed. Peter Ghosh and Lawrence Goldman (Oxford, 2006), 171\u201392; Rosemary Jann, _The Art and Science of Victorian History_ (Columbus, OH, 1985), 105\u201340; Jeffrey von Arx, _Progress and Pessimism_ (Cambridge, MA, 1985), 173\u2013200. Burrow also notes Froude's reliance on the \"language of Bolingbroke and the eighteenth-century Country Party\" ( _Liberal Descent_ , 282), though he does not make enough of the civic elements of his imperialism. On Froude's largely negative reception among professionalizing historians at the time, see Ian Hesketh, \"Diagnosing Froude's Disease,\" _History and Theory_ , 47 (2008), 373\u201395.\n\n41 Bentley, _Lord Salisbury's World_ (Cambridge, 2001), 225; Burrow, _Liberal Descent_ , Part III; Mandler, _The English National Character_ (London, 2006), ch. 3. Elsewhere, Mandler writes that Froude and Carlyle were \"as close to organic conservatives as British intellectual life gets,\" but that they were ultimately paternalists who believed in the ability of leaders to shape the people \"at will.\" Mandler, \"The Consciousness of Modernity?,\" in _Meanings of Modernity_ , ed. Bernhard Rieger and Martin Daunton (Oxford, 2001), 123. The letter to Stanton cited in note 1 above also indicated Froude's ambivalent attitude towards radicalism and political change during the 1880s: \"The future of Radicalism these days I conceive to be the burning up of rubbish. The grass will spring up again by and by out of the ashes. But the burning process is disagreeable to me however I may see it to be inevitable.\" He also referred to radical reformers as \"indispensable persons\" because they were at the forefront of criticizing corruption and excess luxury in government. Froude, \"Party Politics,\" _Short Studies_ , 4:351 ( _Fraser's Magazine_ , 1874).\n\n42 Froude, _Oceana_ , cited in Dunn, _James Anthony Froude_ , 523\u201324. He uses a similar formulation in \"Party Politics,\" 326\u201327. Froude's _Oceana_ is of course named after James Harrington, _The Commonwealth of Oceana_ (London, 1656).\n\n43 Aside from _Oceana_ , which focused mainly on Australia, the Cape, and New Zealand (as well as the United States), Froude also wrote _The English in the West Indies, or the Bow of Ulysses_ (London, 1888). Pessimistic and deeply racist, this is his most Carlylean book. It focuses more on the degraded state of the British settlers than on \"civilizing\" the nonwhite population. He very briefly mentions that Russia and Britain were both engaged in bringing \"civilization\" to the \"Eastern nations\" in _The Earl of Beaconsfield_ (244), but he did not expand on this issue.\n\n44 Froude, \"England's War,\" 276.\n\n45 Ibid., 274\u201375.\n\n46 Froude, _Oceana_ , 395.\n\n47 Ibid., 2.\n\n48 Froude, \"Reciprocal Duties of State and Subject,\" _Short Studies_ , 3:118\u201320 ( _Fraser's Magazine_ , 1870).\n\n49 Froude, _The Earl of Beaconsfield_ , 189.\n\n50 Ibid., 75\u201376.\n\n51 Froude, \"On Progress,\" _Short Studies_ , 3:173 ( _Fraser's Magazine_ , 1870).\n\n52 Froude, \"Reciprocal Duties of State and Subject,\" 138.\n\n53 Froude, \"England's War,\" 287; Froude, _The Earl of Beaconsfield_ , 189.\n\n54 Froude, \"Party Politics,\" 341.\n\n55 Froude, _Caesar_ (London, 1879), 1. See also Froude, \"Society in Italy in the Last Days of the Roman Republic,\" _Short Studies_ , 5:205.\n\n56 Froude, _Caesar_ , 4, 8.\n\n57 Ibid., 2 (and also 536). Carlyle also held to a cyclical conception of historical time, though his was more violent and destructive than Froude's. See the discussion in Burrow, _Liberal Descent_ , 253. Compare this with Mill's ambiguous view: Mill, _Considerations_ , 388.\n\n58 Froude, _Caesar_ , 3\u20134. \"[T]here are courses of action which have uniformly produced the same results\" (4).\n\n59 Ibid., 257.\n\n60 Froude, \"Divus Caesar\" [1867?], _Short Studies_ , 5:258, 257; Froude, \"Society in Italy,\" 215.\n\n61 Froude, \"Divus Caesar,\" 250, 290. In \"Party Politics,\" Froude wrote that religion leads people \"into a recognition of their higher destiny and of the obligations attaching to it\" (342). In _Caesar_ , he refers to the religion of the Romans as \"the foundation of the laws and rule of personal conduct\" (7). He also writes that: \"The 'virtues' which the Romans made into gods [valor, truth, good faith, modesty, charity and concord] contain in them the essence of real religion, that in them and in nothing else has the characteristic which distinguished human beings from the rest of animated things\" (14).\n\n62 Froude, \"Divus Caesar,\" 283. Froude's most famous discussion of the \"heroic\" virtues amongst his (Elizabethan) countrymen came in his early essay, \"England's Forgotten Worthies,\" _Short Studies_ , vol. 3 [1852].\n\n63 Froude's portrait of the early Romans mirrors his admiring description of Dutch colonists\u2014the \"true colonists\"\u2014in southern Africa. See his speech at Bloemfontein, December 1874, reprinted in Dunn, _Froude_ , 2:414. See also his positive assessment in \"Leaves from a South African Journal,\" 378, 397. Froude was keen to see the Boers and the English settlers confederate. He was sent on a mission by the Colonial Secretary, the Earl of Carnarvon, during 1874\u201375 to investigate this possibility. On this episode, see Dunn, _Froude_ , vol. 2, ch. 26.\n\n64 Froude, \"England and Her Colonies,\" _Short Studies_ , 3:19 ( _Fraser's Magazine_ , 1870).\n\n65 Froude, _Oceana_ , 10. Elsewhere he lamented \"the poisoned atmosphere of our huge and hideous towns.\" Froude, \"England's War,\" 278.\n\n66 Froude, \"England and Her Colonies,\" 21. The same was true, he argued, of the famous commercial cities\u2014Venice, Genoa, Florence: \"Their greatness was founded upon sand.\" See also Froude, \"On Progress,\" 153.\n\n67 There was one difference, however. While the \"Roman capitalists\" filled their lands with slaves, the same was not true of the moderns. While this meant that the specific mechanisms of decline were somewhat different, it did not alter the general picture of freedom being eradicated, and of a dangerous migration to the overcrowded cities. See Froude, _Caesar_ , 7, 8\u20139; and Froude, \"On the Uses of a Landed Gentry,\" _Short Studies_ , 4:310 [1876].\n\n68 Froude, \"The Colonies Once More,\" _Short Studies_ , 3:207 ( _Fraser's Magazine_ , 1870).\n\n69 Froude, \"On Progress,\" 151.\n\n70 Froude, \"Reciprocal Duties,\" 123; Froude, \"On Progress,\" 181.\n\n71 Froude, \"Reciprocal Duties,\" 118.\n\n72 Froude, \"Party Politics,\" 342\u201343.\n\n73 Froude, \"Reciprocal Duties,\" 122.\n\n74 Froude, \"Party Politics,\" 329\u201330.\n\n75 Froude, \"Landed Gentry,\" 312. He frequently criticized aristocracies, past and present, for failing in their duties. In his Rector's address at St. Andrews in 1869, he praised John Knox for challenging an \"unworthy aristocracy.\" \"Education,\" _Short Studies_ , 3:227. He scalded the existing British aristocracy for falling into the grip of luxury and for diverting its attention from the common good. Froude, \"England's War,\" 278; \"Party Politics,\" 356\u201357. _Caesar_ was a harsh indictment of the corruption of the Roman aristocracy.\n\n76 Froude, _Beaconsfield_ , 84, 92, 93. Italics in original. For Froude's assessment of Disraeli's political thought, see 107, 216\u201318. He ultimately remained ambivalent about Disraeli, regarding his years in office as a wasted opportunity (ch. 16).\n\n77 Ibid., 82, 107. The connections between this and the civic humanist vision are not, however, that distant. The key link\u2014at least for Disraeli\u2014was Viscount Bolingbroke, whose _Idea of a Patriot King_ (1838) was a key \"country party\" text (Disraeli, though, stripped much of the radicalism from Bolingbroke's prescriptions). See Richard Faber, _Beaconsfield and Bolingbroke_ (London, 1961); David Armitage, \"A Patriot for Whom?,\" _Journal of British Studies_ , 36 (1997), 397\u2013418. See also the discussion of Victoria as a patriot queen in chapter 6.\n\n78 Froude, \"Cheneys and the House of Russell,\" _Short Studies_ , 5:347\u201348.\n\n79 Ibid., 375. Elsewhere he wrote that in a democracy the state was in danger of being \"reduced finally to the congregation of self-seeking atoms\" (\"Party Politics,\" 356).\n\n80 Froude, _Oceana_ , 91, 354\u201356.\n\n81 Froude, \"England and Her Colonies,\" 29. On the geopolitical necessity of Oceana, see also Froude, \"Party Politics,\" 333\u201334; \"England's War,\" 276.\n\n82 Froude, \"Landed Gentry,\" 319.\n\n83 Froude, \"England's War,\" 282\u201383.\n\n84 Ibid., 283\u201384. The \"wealth of a nation,\" he argued in _Oceana_ , \"depends in the long run upon the conditions mental and bodily of the people of whom it consists, and the experience of all mankind declares that a race of men sound in soul and limb can be bred and reared only in the exercise of plough and spade, in the free air and sunshine, with country enjoyments and amusements, never amidst foul drains and smoke blacks and the eternal clank of machinery\" (8, 246).\n\n85 Froude, _Oceana_ , 15.\n\n86 For Carlyle's views on India, see John Morrow, _Thomas Carlyle_ (London, 2006), chs. 2\u20133.\n\n87 Even on these points, however, tracing a direct line of influence is far from straightforward, for many of them were commonplaces of imperial political discourse.\n\n88 For example: \"I accept without qualification the first principle of our forefathers, that every boy born into the world should be put in the way of maintaining himself in honest independence.\" Froude, \"Education,\" 240, and also, 250\u201351; see also, Froude, \"On Progress,\" 164\u201369, and for his admiring views of the multi-dimensional education (and the \"universal practical accomplishments\") of the Romans, _Caesar_ , 231. On Carlyle's metaphysical view of labor, see Morrow, _Thomas Carlyle_ , chs. 4\u20135.\n\n89 For Carlyle's views, see Carlyle, _Collected Works_ , 6:378; and, in general, K. J. Fielding, \"Carlyle and the Americans,'\" _Carlyle Studies Annual_ , 15 (1995), 55\u201364.\n\n90 Froude, \"Education,\" 249. Indeed he feared that unless they were united with Britain the colonies might seek to join the United States. Froude, \"England and Her Colonies,\" 29\u201330.\nCHAPTER 13\n\nAlter Orbis\n\nE. A. Freeman on Empire and Racial Destiny\n\nWhere there is Empire, there is no brotherhood; where there is brotherhood, there is no Empire.1\n\n\u2014E. A. FREEMAN\n\nFreeman was a celebrated historian in a culture that venerated the historical arts as a privileged source of truth about the human condition. His historical writing was always political; his political thinking always historical. Indeed he once defined history in Aristotelian terms as \"the science of man in his character as a political being.\"2 A scholar of prodigious energy, he pioneered the application of the \"comparative method\" to the study of politics and contributed to a wide range of contemporary debates. He was, that is, an archetypal public moralist. Freeman gave the role two distinctive twists. The first, inspired by Thomas Arnold, stressed the \"unity of history,\" denying any radical break between the ancient and the modern\u2014\"that wretched distinction\"\u2014and emphasizing continuities and \"survivals\" more than rupture and innovation. The \"great truth\" to be discerned from studying the past was that \"history is one,\" that \"every part has a bearing on every other part.\"3 This led him to see events in a deep (and often distorting) historical perspective and to express suspicion of novelty. Freeman's second characteristic move was to underscore the spatial dimensions of political life, contrasting the unity of historical time with the disunity of geographical space, the manner in which different constellations of geology, climate, and territory shaped political institutions, racial character, and individual subjectivities. Indeed he can be seen as an early exponent of geopolitics.4 In combination, these intellectual commitments produced a body of work at once expansive in ambition and attenuated in execution.\n\nOscillating between Burkean gradualism and sentimental radicalism, Freeman was a self-declared searcher after truth and justice, his political activity marked, he claimed, by \"zeal for right against wrong.\" Proud of his devotion to individual and collective freedom, he boasted that he was \"for the oppressed everywhere, whoever may be the oppressor.\"5 While his myopic vision of justice rarely extended beyond the limits of Western Christendom, it nevertheless underpinned his skepticism about imperial order. Unconvinced by the purported benefits of British rule in India and Africa, he was hostile to plans for further imperial expansion and advocated immediate independence for the settler colonies. Yet Freeman was no straightforward \"Little Englander,\" for he defended an alternative model of global racial imperium in which the \"Teutonic\" peoples, and above all \"the English folk,\" would order the world. The English nation, on this account, was an immanent community distributed across North America, Britain, southern Africa, and the South Pacific. Its potential as an agent of progress was undermined by the misguided pursuit of empire. The bonds of \"race\" were more fundamental than those of formal political institutions. \"Surely the burthen of barbaric Empire is at most something that we may school ourselves to endure; the tie of English brotherhood is something that we may rejoice to strive after.\"6\n\nI start by dissecting some of Freeman's arguments about time, space, and politics. The rest of the chapter analyzes his views on racial kinship and empire, focusing initially on his critique of the idea of imperial federation, one of the most prominent political debates of the 1880s and 1890s, before moving to his alternative conceptualization of global order. He argued that dismantling the British settler empire was both a matter of justice and a precondition for establishing the proper sense of racial \"brotherhood\" necessary to realize the higher purpose of the English-speaking peoples. The manifest destiny of the race was thus premised on recognition of the deep unity of Britain and the United States.\n\nPalimpsest: A World of Worlds\n\nOn us a new light has come.7\n\n\u2014E. A. FREEMAN\n\nFreeman once claimed that reading Aristotle taught him the \"power of discerning likenesses and unlikeness, of distinguishing between real and false analogies,\" and that this lesson informed both his historical and political thought.8 Supremely confident in his ability to decipher the palimpsest of human experience, Freeman carved multiple worlds from the historical record, each defined by a specific configuration of territory and social organization, each subject to the perennial forces of expansion, contraction, dispersal, and even annihilation. Populated by civilizations, races, empires, cities, and states, his imaginative geography ranged across different scales, from the local to the planetary, but the practice of worlding\u2014of classifying communities and assigning them meaning in a universal story of human endeavor\u2014was a recurrent theme in his writings. It enabled him to trace patterns of continuity and change across continents and centuries. The privileged role of the historian was to map the fate of worlds and divine salutary lessons from the perpetual cycle of creativity and destruction.\n\nThe most fundamental division was expressed in the \"eternal Eastern Question,\" the millennia-long struggle between East and West. Stretching from \"the opening chapters of Herodotus\" to \"this morning's telegrams,\" it was an epic battle between \"light and darkness, between freedom and bondage,\" an enduring topography of fear and loathing. Originally centered on the Greek conflict against the barbarians, its most recent incarnation was the clash between Christianity and Islam.9 His hatred of the \"Turk\" motivated Freeman's political interventions during the 1850s and 1870s, when he took a lead in campaigning against the depredations of the Ottoman Empire.10 The Ottomans\u2014with the insidious support of the \"Jew\" Disraeli\u2014presented a fundamental threat to the progressive Western world, centered on Teutonic Europe. Blending anti-Semitism with a vitriolic hatred of Islam and the barbarism of \"the Orient,\" Freeman's racism infected his political vision and his historical writing in equal measure.11\n\nFreeman was drawn above all to the ancient Greeks. The rediscovery of classical learning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, he marveled, must have \"been like the discovery of a new sense,\" indeed like the \"discovery of a new world of being, as it opened up the vistas of human knowledge and experience, granting access to the manifold treasures that had been lost from view.\"12 The Hellenic world provided Freeman with a uniquely rich inventory of ideas and institutions to measure all other worlds against, and as we shall see this classicizing gaze undergirded his account of the pathologies of empire and the potentiality of racial kinship. It also shaped his understanding of historical pedagogy. He once wrote that the \"great lesson of history is that the nature of man, or at any rate of civilized European man, is the same in all times and places, and that there is no time or place whose experience may not supply us with some teaching.\"13 Yet some times and places taught the true philosophical historian more than others. By focusing on a great but comprehensible civilization, students and scholars could uncover universal truths about history, politics, and the human condition.14 A microcosm of human experience, the Greek world was a laboratory of enlightenment and political virtue. While Freeman's views can be read as an expression of bathetic nostalgia, he never yearned for a mimetic recreation of the past; rather, the ancient Greek order was a yardstick and a navigation aid, both map and compass, for helping to comprehend his own world.\n\nFreeman regarded the \"comparative method\" as the intellectual polestar of the nineteenth century, a \"new light\" arguably more significant that the Renaissance encounter with the ancients\u2014the illuminator of worlds.15 Scholars such as Max M\u00fcller and Henry Maine provided tools to analyze the Aryan race and its Teutonic heirs through the study of symbols, myths, and above all language. They had demonstrated that unity could be found in difference and that human progress was essentially the story of the Aryans and their offspring. \"Civilization,\" as Maine once declared, \"is nothing more than a name for the old order of the Aryan world, dissolved but perpetually reconstituting itself.\"16 But Freeman thought that more still could be achieved, that enacting the \"true philosophy of history\" required knowledge of the important _institutional_ similarities connecting descendants of the ur-race, and he thus sought to track distinctive \"forms of government\" across time and space\u2014this was the overarching aim of the field he named \"comparative politics.\"17 Chains of racial descent could now be ascertained beneath ephemeral surface phenomena.\n\nLike the revival of learning, it has opened to its votaries a new world, and that one not an isolated world, a world shut up within itself, but a world in which times and tongues and nations which before seemed parted poles asunder, now find each one its own place, its own relation to every other, as members of one common primeval brotherhood.18\n\nHarnessing this dazzling intellectual power necessitated the cultivation of a new scholarly identity. The creation and maintenance of scholarly personae express a form of spirituality, characterized as they are by \"an array of acts of inner self-transformation, of work on the self by the self,\" with the intention of fostering \"an open ended variety of ethical aspirations, psychological deportments, cognitive dispositions, public duties, and private desires.\"19 Freeman's historico-political project is a telling example. To become a true comparative scholar required arduous training in various scholarly arts and the mastery of a vast body of historical knowledge\u2014\"[o]f some branches he must know everything, but of every branch he must know something.\"20 Moreover, it fostered a cognitive disposition to view the sensory output of the everyday with suspicion, allowing the scholar to delineate the fundamental patterns of history and politics. This was a kind of second sight, a trained capacity to identify \"analogies which are to be seen between the political institutions of times and countries most remote from one another\" and in particular where the \"most profitable analogies, the most striking cases of direct derivation, are not those which are most obvious at first sight.\"21 He was exceedingly proud of his mastery of the method, his self-proclaimed ability to perceive the importance of the unfamiliar and the counterintuitive.\n\nThe project of comparativism was predicated on an account of racial descent, the original Aryan ur-people spawning assorted lineal descendants, the most important of which were the Greeks, Romans, and Teutons. These three races\u2014of which the Teutons were the greatest\u2014either had been or were the \"rulers and the teachers of the world.\"22 This was at once their burden and their sacred mission. While M\u00fcller and Maine had focused on the philological, mythical, and cultural connections between them, Freeman traced the descent of \"forms of government,\" including state, monarchy, and representative assembly.23 Whereas the splendor of the Greeks and the Romans lay in the past, the Teutons now stood as the foremost race in the world, with the English their dominant branch. The itinerant English had three homes: their primeval base on the European mainland, their main dwelling in Britain, populated by those who travelled with Hengst in the fifth century, and their newest offshoot in the United States.24 Whether they realized it or not, they were united by the indestructible bonds of kinship.\n\nThe intercalating of geography and politics shaped Freeman's conception of both the possibilities and limitations of British power. He presented Britain as an \"alter orbis,\" another world, due to its island status. This spatial accident was freighted with historical meaning. \"It is the insular character of Britain which has, beyond anything else, made the inhabitants of Britain what they are and the history of Britain what it has been.\"25 Geographical otherness was the most important fact about British history, more significant even than the Norman Conquest. It explained crucial variations between the \"insular\" and the \"continental\" branches of the Teutons, and in particular why the Romans (and romance languages) never fully colonized Britain.26 \"We grew up as a Teutonic people, in some things more purely Teutonic than our kinsfolk of the mainland. For we never accepted the law of Rome, we never saw a roman empire of the English Nation.\"27 Shaped by a fortuitous concatenation of history and physical geography, the liberty-loving character of the English was present wherever they settled, including the United States, that \"newer and vaster England beyond the Oceans.\"28\n\nSpace could be recoded\u2014at least in part\u2014by human agency. Like so many of his contemporaries, Freeman was fascinated by the power of machines to master nature, though rather unusually he thought that this induced a welcome sense of temporal dislocation. Technological prosthetics, above all the electrical telegraph, furnished the recovery of the greatest of Greek political gifts: active citizenship. Freeman followed convention by arguing that small city-states (and their analogues) provided the ideal ground for the creation of political \"character.\" In such communities\u2014with Athens the template\u2014men \"are raised to the highest level and sharpened to the finest point,\" as all citizens had a stake in the life of the society.29 Such social intimacy was impossible to recreate in large communities, but the wondrous products of Victorian technoscience finally allowed people separated by vast distances \"direct personal knowledge\" of political affairs, creating a bond of solidarity between individuals and groups who might never meet face-to-face. For Freeman, always the time-traveler, this meant that it was now possible to replicate the political ethos of the Greeks.\n\nVery few Englishmen ever saw or heard Walpole or Pulteney, Pitt or Fox. Now the whole land has well-nigh become a single city; we see and hear our leading men almost daily; they walk before us as the leaders of the Athenian democracy walked before their fellow-citizens; they take us into their counsels; they appeal to us as their judges; we have in short a share in political life only less direct than the share of the Athenian freeman, a share which our forefathers, even two or three generations back, never dreamed of.30\n\nThose inventions meant that the world of Freeman's fellow subjects was closer to that of Periclean Athens than to their Georgian predecessors. The same technological developments also made it both possible and necessary to harness the power of race and the links of kinship uniting the English-speaking peoples.\n\nThe \"Dark Abyss\": Freeman on Imperial Federation\n\n\"I am no lover of 'empire,'\" Freeman once declared. \"I am not anxious for my country to exercise lordship over other lands, English-speaking or otherwise.\" While such lordship was sometimes a necessary evil\u2014\"a solemn and fearful duty\"\u2014it was never a \"matter for rejoicing or boasting.\"31 His main intervention in imperial debates came during the 1880s and early 1890s, at a time when arguments raged about the possible unification of Britain and its settler colonies. Plans for \"imperial federation\" tended to fall into three categories. Some advocated parliamentary representation for the colonists, others called for the creation of an extra-parliamentary council (or some equivalent institution) to offer nonbinding advice to Parliament on imperial affairs, while the most radical plans envisaged a globe-spanning federal polity. Railing against the \"dark abyss\" of imperial federation, Freeman established himself as one of the most trenchant critics of the project.32\n\nA great admirer of federalism, Freeman was widely regarded as the leading British authority on the subject. He was prone to wax lyrical about its possibilities. _The Federalist_ , he once wrote to Bryce, \"[is] one of the wisest books ever written. I used to call Polybius and it the Old and New Testament on the subject.\"33 He was skeptical, though, that many of his compatriots understood the complexities of the system\u2014\"so few know,\" he complained.34 For a government to be classified as federal, Freeman had argued in his _History of Federal Government_ , it had to meet two conditions: \"On the one hand, each of the members of the Union must be wholly independent in those matters that concern each member only. On the other hand, all must be subject to a common power in those matters which concern the whole body of members collectively.\" An ideal federation, then, \"in its perfect form, is one which forms a single state in its relations to other nations, but which consists of many states with regard to its internal government.\"35 As such, an authentic \"federal commonwealth\" could be seen simultaneously as a state and a collection of states, as singular and plural. It all seemed to depend on the angle of vision. Yet he had been clear that colonies could not be parts of a federal commonwealth, for despite their high degree of internal independence their \"relations towards other nations are determined for [them] by a power over which the Colony nor its citizens have any sort of control.\"36\n\nTo Freeman's fastidious mind \"imperial federation\" could only be interpreted coherently in two senses: the federation of either the whole British empire or the totality of the English-speaking peoples.37 Both were fatally flawed. In the former, the nonwhite population of the Empire would have a huge numerical advantage, which denoted, he wrote to James Bryce, \"a Federation in which we shall be outvoted by Hindoos and Mahometans.\" This entailed the ludicrous conclusion that \"barbarians\" would rule over their racial superiors.38 Encompassing the English-speaking peoples, on the other hand, meant incorporating the independent United States while excluding most of the extant British empire.39 Although this would solve one problem\u2014getting \"rid of the barbarians\"\u2014it was predicated on the fantasy that the US would willingly rejoin the very colonial power against which it had rebelled.40 However, he at least acknowledged the possibility. \"I believe that no-one proposes that the Federation of the English-speaking people shall take in the United States of America; if any one does so propose, I honour him as being more logical than his brethren.\"41 In both cases, Freeman was being disingenuous. Most imperial federalists were explicit about the racial exclusivity of their plans and some did argue for the absorption of the United States.42\n\nHe lambasted imperialists for misunderstanding the true meaning of both federalism and empire. \"On the principle that language was given to man to conceal his thoughts, 'Imperial Federation' is surely the wisest name ever thought of. On any other principle it is surely the most foolish.\"43 Freeman found it hard to believe that any sentient being might support it, and he was astonished when Bryce accepted the Presidency of the Oxford branch of the Imperial Federation League. \"For to me,\" he wrote to his friend, \"Imperial Federation seems to be, not an intelligible proposal which one deems unjust or inexpedient, and therefore argues against, but a mere heap of vague, meaningless, and contradictory phrases.\" The reasoning was simple: \"[W]hat is Imperial cannot be Federal, and what is Federal cannot be Imperial.\"44 Derived from Roman usage, empire had a distinct meaning, \"the rule of some person or power over some other,\" whereas Federation was a system of government that implied \"the unity of certain powers or communities, presumably on equal terms.\"45 The former was premised on political hierarchy, the latter on parity. They were antithetical.\n\nFreeman contrasted the superior Greek model of colonization with the ruinous behavior of post-Renaissance Europeans. In the Hellenic world, political obligation and patriotic loyalty were directed to a fixed space: the city. \"The Greek was before all things a citizen.\" The modern European notion of personal allegiance, a type of feudal fealty that bound individuals to the sovereign, was alien to them: \"The Greek would have regarded himself degraded by the name of 'subject.'\"46 The difference between subjecthood and citizenship determined the modality of colonization, for \"while the active duties of the citizen of a commonwealth can hardly be discharged beyond the territories of that commonwealth, the duties of the subject of... a personal master, are as binding on one part of the earth's surface as on another.\" The Greeks planted free cities populated by free citizens, as Corinth seeded Syracuse.\n\nParent and child were on the political side necessarily parted; the colonist could exercise no political rights in the mother-city, nor did the mother city put forward any claim to be lady and mistress of her distant daughter. Still the love, the reverence, due to a parent was never lacking. The tie of memory, the tie of kindred, the tie of religion, were of themselves so strong that no tie of political allegiance was needed to make them stronger.47\n\nIn contrast, the modern European colonists, including the British, remained bound to their \"mother land\" by formal and subordinate ties of political allegiance.48 Freeman's sympathies were clear: the connections between metropole and colony were the \"brightest facts of Greek or Phoenician political life,\" while those of the modern colonial system were \"among the darkest.\"49 This history of subjection bestowed a dangerous legacy, for when the modern colony sought independence, as it invariably would, the relations between it and the \"mother country\" were often poisoned, as demonstrated by lingering Anglophobia in the United States.50\n\nFreeman suggested that imperial federation would be more theoretically intelligible if it drew on the Roman precedent: absorbing colonies within an expanded state. \"By this process the ruling state gives up nothing; it simply admits others, not so much to its own level as into its own substance.\"51 However, this act of constitutional transubstantiation would mean extending full parliamentary representation to the British settler colonies, an idea that Freeman thought open to a battery of objections. Perhaps the most important \"moral\" taught by Roman history, he argued, was that the quest for empire resulted in the extinction of freedom at home and abroad, with citizens demoted from citizenship to subjecthood.52 But there were also practical difficulties to overcome. Despite the wonders of modern science, the colonial empire was still too geographically dispersed for political unification.53 Moreover, the colonies would be unwilling to cede their _de facto_ autonomy to a federal government dominated by England. \"[S]ubjection, in short, formally abolished, would practically be made more complete.\"54 Many colonial subjects concurred.\n\nSir John Colomb's idea of \"Britannic Confederation\" struck Freeman as the most intellectually credible plan for colonial unity. Its name was not self-contradictory and its scope was clearly specified: a federation of Britain, Australia, Canada, and South Africa.55 Yet it was neither feasible nor desirable. Establishing a durable connection was impossible between geographically fragmented territories bound only by sentimental attachment, especially when that sentiment was directed at the metropole but not each other. Colonial affect was bidirectional not multilateral, and Freeman predicted that this augured badly for the longevity of the empire. He regarded competition between constituent units as a weakness of all federations, but he thought it would be exacerbated in a distended noncontiguous one. Finally, he pointed to the lack of historical precedent for creating such a political association.56 Neither space nor time were on Colomb's side.\n\nMany advocates of imperial federation had failed to grasp the implications of their plans for the fate of Britain itself. Federation, he complained to Bryce, meant \"the degradation, if not the destruction, of England and its institutions,\" chiefly because Parliament would either be abolished or transformed \"into the Legislature of a Canton.\"57 Elsewhere he compared the status of a federated England to that of \"the State of New York or the State of Delaware.\"58 Again, history offered no precedent. Federations were typically instituted when a number of small states banded together against an external threat, but the imperialists proposed to conjoin a dominant state with several weaker entities, and as such \"a great power, an ancient power, a ruling power, is asked to come down from its place, to rank for the future simply as one member alongside its own dependencies, even though most of those dependencies are its own children.\"59 This upset the natural order of things. The lack of precedent carried great epistemological and moral authority. The historian G. W. Prothero once observed that \"if a proposal threatened to change the fundamental character of a thing or an institution, then, for Mr Freeman, it stood condemned.\"60 Such was the case with empire. Absence of a precedent \"does not of itself prove the proposed scheme is either impossible or undesirable,\" he admitted, but it was \"a fact worth bearing in mind,\" and it was always \"dangerous to imagine a precedent where there is none.\"61 Bryce too acknowledged the role of past experience in shaping the political views of his friend. Freeman's reading of the Greeks prompted him to think \"that the relation between the 'metropolis' and her colonies to be one not of political interdependence, but of cordial friendliness and a disposition to render help, nothing more.\"62 The historical record taught colonial independence, not union.\n\nFreeman played a Janus-faced role in the debates over imperial federation, cited as an authority by advocates and opponents alike. Both Sir Frederick Young, enthusiastic unionist and Honorary Secretary of the Royal Colonial Institute, and Francis De Labilliere, one of the most radical federalists, drew inspiration from Freeman's earlier influential work on federalism.63 So too did liberal politician W. E. Forster, the co-President of the Imperial Federation League, who utilized Freeman's account in outlining his own vision of a federal Greater Britain.64 Freeman retorted that Forster was confusing the _Bundesstadt_ , the \"perfect\" type of federation, with the _Staatenbund_ , a much weaker form that was bound to fail, and he attacked those who claimed the colonial empire already constituted a nascent federation.\n\nAll the elements of federation are wanting. There is no voluntary union of independent states, keeping some powers to themselves and granting other powers to a central authority of their own creation. There is instead a number of dependent bodies, to which a central authority older than themselves has been graciously pleased to grant certain powers. This state of things is not federation, but subjection.\n\nThe colonies, indeed, were not \"states\" in the relevant sense, but rather subordinate \"municipalities on a great scale.\"65\n\nWhile he complained that his objections fell on deaf ears, numerous critics deployed Freeman's arguments to bolster their attacks on imperial federation.66 Imperial federalists, meanwhile, often felt the need to respond to him. George Parkin, an energetic Canadian proselytizer, sought to rebut Freeman's argument about the absence of intra-colonial sentiment.67 He also suggested that Freeman's failure to understand imperial federation could be traced to his admission that he knew little about commerce, manufacturing, or agriculture. Praising Freeman for keeping \"faith\" in federalism during the American Civil War, Labilliere \"regretted\" that the great historian had \"written decadently against Imperial Federation\" and questioned the significance of historical precedent. He also denied that imperial federation would damage relations with the United States.68 Others acknowledged the force of Freeman's objections while stressing their limited scope. The journalist W. T. Stead conceded that Freeman was \"quite right in pointing out... [that] Imperial Federation is an absurdity when used by those who are really aiming at the federation of all the English-speaking peoples,\" but insisted that \"this criticism advances the matter very little,\" presumably because such a union wasn't the main object of the debate. \"Against those who have plans and are ready with paper constitutions for an Imperial England,\" wrote Sir Robert Stout, a senior colonial politician, \"Mr Freeman's criticism may hold good,\" but it failed to challenge those \"who strive to prevent separation and who are as yet unable to formulate the new form of government.\"69 Indeed it was a common federalist trope that preaching the general _idea_ of unity was more important than specifying constitutional details. Vagueness, on this account, was a political virtue, albeit not one that Freeman would have acknowledged. Archly characterizing Freeman as a man \"with a keen sense for the political antiquities of political terms,\" the idealist philosopher D. G. Ritchie accepted that imperial federation was an \"absurd\" idea if projected onto historical empires, but he argued that modern political experience demonstrated its feasibility.\n\n[J]ust as representative government was the great political invention of the middle ages, so federation (as distinct from mere leagues or confederacies) is the greatest political invention of modern times. To the Greek philosopher a republican _nation_ would have seemed an impossibility. A federal Empire (like Germany), a federal republic, a federation of self-governing communities with dependencies more or less autocratically governed according to their degree of civilization\u2014all these forms now seem possible to us.70\n\nUltimately, though, Freeman's skepticism was more realistic and support for imperial federation drained away after the turn of the century. But it did not disappear. The leading post-Victorian theorist of imperial union, Lionel Curtis, drew mixed messages from Freeman's work. Writing during the First World War, Curtis embraced Freeman's Teutonism, and borrowed heavily from his account of ancient federalism, to construct a celebratory narrative about \"English\" racial destiny, but he dismissed his criticisms of imperial federation.71 Like Freeman, though, Curtis sought legitimacy in historical precedent, claiming that the principle of \"commonwealth,\" which he regarded as the chief intellectual justification for imperial federation, was itself a product of Teutonic political experience.\n\nOn Racial Solidarity\n\nTo me most certainly the United States did not seem like a foreign country; it was simply England with a difference.72\n\n\u2014E. A. FREEMAN\n\nAlthough skeptical of constitutional models of union, Freeman nevertheless propounded a form of racial \"brotherhood,\" declaiming that true greatness was to be found in the diffusion of the English people(s) across the world. His was one voice among many. While debates between imperial federalists and their critics were heated, the participants often shared more than they were willing to concede, including a commitment to the basic unity and superiority of the \"English-speaking peoples\" (or \"Anglo-Saxons\").73 Their disagreements centered on the best means of realizing this racialized form of global dominion. Thus Goldwin Smith, widely reviled as an anti-imperialist, insisted that he had the \"greatest respect for the aspirations of the Imperial Federationists, and myself most earnestly desire the moral unity of our race and its partnership in achievement and grandeur.\"74 Freeman promoted a similar vision. Racial unity was, he argued, \"a thought higher and dearer than any thought of a British Empire.\"75 Above all, he vested his hopes in the United States, \"brethren in a higher brotherhood, born of one ancient stock, speaking one ancient tongue, sharer under different forms of one ancient freedom.\"76 Race was the basic ontological category of global politics, far more significant than the state, let alone the artificial shell of empire.\n\nPrimed by the \"comparative method\" to recognize \"survivals\" of the Teutonic order, Freeman unsurprisingly found them wherever he looked during his 1882 visit to the United States. He regarded his public lectures as an act of filial persuasion, an attempt to remind Americans that they were part of one great racial family. \"The feeling of unity between the two severed branches is really present in the American breast, but it needs something special to wake it up.\"77 He was happy to serve as an alarm clock. Like many keen on strengthening cooperation with the United States, Freeman sought to defuse lingering Anglophobia, which he interpreted optimistically as a sign of familial intimacy, although he admitted that memory of the War of Independence and of 1812 remained \"a formidable historic barrier\" to reconciliation.78 As it was, the very existence of the British empire circumvented the transformation of sentiment necessary to unlock racial destiny. Not only did the existence of a large \"dependent colony\" (Canada) on the borders of the \"independent colony\" (the United States) stand as a permanent reminder of the historical injustice of British rule, \"inconsistent with the full acknowledgement of the general brotherhood of the English folk,\" but the mixture of dependent and independent polities in the English world meant that suspicion would remain the norm. This quandary could only be resolved by granting independence to the colonies.79 Intra-racial equality was a perquisite for justifying global inequality between races.\n\nIn a lecture delivered in Oxford in 1886 to commemorate the birth of George Washington, he criticized the imperial unionists and outlined an alternative vision. Entitled \"George Washington, the Expander of England,\" the lecture was a provocative riposte to J. R. Seeley's _The Expansion of England_ , the bible of the imperial federation movement. As I discuss in chapter 11, Seeley argued that the true greatness of British history lay in its imperial expansion during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries rather that in a Whiggish unfolding of liberty, and he promoted the creation of a \"great and solid world-state.\"80 Freeman turned the historical argument on its head, arguing that Washington\u2014rebel and founder\u2014was the real \"Expander of England,\" not the men who had pilfered swathes of South Asia. True expansion meant establishing permanent independent communities, a feat that Washington had achieved through dismembering the British empire.81 The act of rebellion was thus a paradoxical but productive moment in the history of racial \"brotherhood.\"\n\nIn a world thrown into close communion by modern technoscience, it was possible to deepen those racial bonds through replicating the political ideas and ethos of the ancients. \"Geographical distance, political separation, fierce rivalry, cruel warfare, never snapped the enduring tie which bound every Greek to every other Greek. So the Englishman of Britain, of America, of Africa, of Australia, should be each to his distant brother as were the Greek of Massalia, the Greek of Kyr\u00ean\u00ea, and the Greek of Chers\u00f4n.\"82 Misunderstanding the power of affect, the imperial federalists failed to grasp that the \"tie of national brotherhood, the abiding feeling of the oneness of the folk, lives on through physical distance, through political separation, through political rivalry and wasting war.\"83 A heterogeneous assemblage of territories, peoples, and forms of government, \"patched up out of men of every race and speech under the sun,\" the empire failed even to approximate the necessary conditions for successful union. In prioritizing empire over the race-nation they endangered racial unity. He concluded his peroration on Washington by sketching a glorious future:\n\nI shall hardly see the day; but some of you may see it, when the work of Washington and Hamilton may be wrought again without slash or blow, when, alongside the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America, the United States of Australia, the United States of South Africa, the United States of New Zealand, may stand forth as independent homes of Englishmen, bound together by the common tie of brotherhood, and bound by loyal reverence, and by no meaner bond, to the common parent of all.84\n\nHere, then, was a suitable application of federalism to the English-speaking world. Just as communications technologies had transformed the potential scope of citizenship, so they had reanimated federalism, allowing its extension across vast political spaces. \"It is by the help of modern discoveries that the federal systems of old Greece can be reproduced on a gigantic scale, that a single Union of States can embrace a continent stretching from Ocean to Ocean instead of a peninsula stretching from sea to sea.\" The United States exemplified the wonderful possibilities. It demonstrated that federal government was appropriate for uniting territorially contiguous colonial polities, thus fashioning powerful independent states like Australia that would constitute the elements of an immense racial brotherhood.85 But empire itself was of little value. \"The sentiment is possibly unpatriotic,\" Freeman wrote, \"but I cannot help looking on such a friendly union of the English and English-speaking folk as an immeasurably higher object than the maintenance of any so-called British Empire.\"86\n\nAlthough wary of formal political institutions, Freeman hinted at a political technology that could help to fuse the brotherhood: _common citizenship_. \"I have often dreamed,\" he wrote, \"that something like the Greek \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1, a power in the citizens in each country of taking up the citizenship of the other at pleasure, might not be beyond hope; but I have never ventured to dream of more than that.\"87 Although he didn't live to see it, the idea of common citizenship attracted considerable support during the 1890s and beyond, its advocates including Bryce and A. V. Dicey.88 In the early 1890s the industrialist Andrew Carnegie demanded the \"reunion\" of Britain and America. His call resonated widely, feeding the intellectual currents helping to drive the \"rapprochement\" between the two powers. Carnegie commended Freeman's \"wider and nobler patriotism\"\u2014the elevation of race over empire\u2014and he likewise advocated \"a common British-American citizenship\" while calling for the independence of the British settler colonies as a precondition for racial union.89\n\nFreeman's greatest intellectual influence, though, was exercised in the \"western home\" of his beloved English folk. His Teutonist account of the racial foundations of the English-speaking peoples, and his outline of the field of \"comparative politics,\" played a formative role in the development of the human sciences in North America.90 His main disciple was the historian Herbert Baxter Adams, who established a famous \"seminary\" at Johns Hopkins University to train American scholars in the arts of \"historical and political science\"\u2014a veritable laboratory for constructing \"comparativists.\" Alongside Bluntschli and Maine, Freeman was one of its guiding lights, his pithy motto \"history is past politics and politics are present history\" adorning both the wall of the library, where it \"stares every man in the face who enters,\" and the front page of the influential _Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science_.91 During his visit to the United States, Freeman spent time with Adams and his students, lecturing on the \"eternal Eastern question.\"92 Adams hailed the sage: \"He had come to the Western Empire of the English people, which, expanding with the great Teutonic race from local centres, is repeating in the continental island of Atlantis and in the continent of Asia, with Egypt and Ocean between, the experiment of the Roman People upon a grander and nobler scale.\" He also endorsed Freeman's mission to inculcate \"national belief in the civic kinship and religious unity of Britain and America.\"93 Adams considered Freeman \"the founder of our new walls,\" the \"godfather\" of his project. Freeman reciprocated, contributing an article to the first edition of Adams's journal, arguing that local institutions in the United States were expressions of the Teutonic branch of the \"Aryan family.\"94 Contra Freeman, Adams praised the ambition to federate the Teutons, although he also recognized that the solidarity of race was stronger and more enduring than institutions. \"England and the United States will probably never be federated together in that magnificent imperial system which some people in your country are now advocating; but they will always remain one in blood and thought and speech, which are better ties than politics.\"95\n\nFreeman also exerted a powerful spell over the philosopher and historian John Fiske, who was arguably the most widely read Teutonist in the United States.96 \"No student of political development in our time,\" Fiske declared, \"has made more effective use of the comparative method,\" and none had done as much to establish the continuities in transatlantic Teutonic history.97 Fiske even shared Freeman's prejudices, congratulating him for expressing \"very sound and wholesome views of the unspeakable Turk and the Everlasting Eastern Question.\"98 Like many of its adherents, he translated Teutonism into a conservative and racist vision of the present, and it is no coincidence that he served as Honorary President of the Immigration Restriction League, for he believed that the Teutonic greatness of the people was threatened by an influx of racial inferiors. The admiration was returned. Praising Fiske's attempt to trace the Teutonic origins of American history, Freeman lamented that it \"is so strangely hard to get people on either side of the Ocean to take in the simple fact that Englishmen on both sides of the Atlantic are one people.\"99 \"Truly,\" Freeman wrote after reading Fiske's popular _American Political Ideas Viewed from the Standpoint of Universal History_ , \"you preach exactly the same doctrine as I do.\"100 Fiske later dedicated _The Discovery of America_ to Freeman, a \"scholar who inherits the gift of Midas, and turns into gold whatever subject he touches.\"101\n\nNot all American intellectuals were so impressed. Henry Adams, for one, derided Freeman's \"parade of knowledge\" and asserted that he had never written anything \"really solid.\"102 Unsurprisingly, the Teutonic interpretation of American institutions generated fierce criticism. Describing Freeman, Goldwin Smith, Froude, and Matthew Arnold as the most distinguished \"British chauvinists,\" one commentator talked of \"an idea received with enthusiasm by some here in America, with indifference by others, but by a large section of our people by dislike, because it is false and because it is offensive.\"103 The archaeologist Charles Waldstein called it a \"modern version of the old story of national lust for power,\" and dismissed the Saxonist account for its \"pedantic pretensions of its inaccurate ethnological theories,\" while historian H. Morse Stephens labeled it a \"perverted and inaccurate view of the past as a source for political arguments in the present.\"104 While popular during the 1880s and early 1890s, by the turn of the century Teutonism had largely been displaced as the central interpretive framework to understand American political development, though it claimed a dwindling band of enthusiasts deep into the twentieth century. As it sank, so too did Freeman's reputation in the most recent \"home\" of the English.\n\n1 Freeman, \"George Washington, the Expander of England,\" in _Greater Greece and Greater Britain_ (London, 1886), 102.\n\n2 Freeman, \"A Review of My Opinions,\" _The Forum_ (1892), 152; Freeman, _The Methods of Historical Study_ (London, 1886), 117.\n\n3 Freeman, _Comparative Politics_ (London, 1873), 293\u201394.\n\n4 This novelty was acknowledged. C.R.M., \"The Late Professor E. A. Freeman and His Services to Geography,\" _Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society_ , 14 (1892), 401. Halford Mackinder critiqued Freeman in \"The Geographical Pivot of History,\" _Geographical Journal_ , 23 (1904), 423\u201324.\n\n5 Freeman, \"A Review of My Opinions,\" 150, 157. On this uneasy oscillation, as well as shifts in the emphasis of his thought between the 1860s and 1880s, see Collini, Winch, and Burrow, _That Noble Science of Politics_ , 219\u201326; Burrow, _A Liberal Descent_ (Cambridge, 1981), pt. 3.\n\n6 Freeman, \"George Washington,\" 84.\n\n7 Freeman, \"Unity of History,\" _Comparative Politics_ , 301.\n\n8 Freeman, \"Review,\" 152.\n\n9 Freeman, \"A Review,\" 155, 156. See Vicky Morrisroe, \"'Eastern History with Western Eyes,'\" _Journal of Victorian Culture_ , 16 (2011), 25\u201345; William Kelley, \"Past History and Present Politics,\" in _Making History_ , ed. G. A. Bremner and Jonathan Conlin (Oxford, 2015), 119\u201339.\n\n10 Richard Shannon, _Gladstone and the Bulgarian Agitation, 1876_ (London, 1963), 81, 223\u201330.\n\n11 On Freeman's racism, see the contrasting accounts in Vicky Morrisroe \"'Sanguinary Amusement,'\" _Modern Intellectual History_ , 10 (2013), 27\u201356; Theodore Koditschek, _Liberalism, Imperialism and the Historical Imagination_ (Cambridge, 2011), 240\u201350; Christopher Parker, \"The Failure of Liberal Racialism,\" _Historical Journal_ , 24\/4 (1981), 825\u201346.\n\n12 Freeman, \"Unity of History,\" 297. The downside, he continued, was that it led people to venerate the Greeks and the Romans at the expense of the rest of history.\n\n13 Freeman, \"Greater Greece and Greater Britain,\" _Greater Greece_ , 59.\n\n14 This was a thought that he tried to translate into pedagogical reform: R. N. Berard, \"Edward Augustus Freeman and University Reform in Victorian Oxford,\" _History of Education_ , 9 (1980), 287\u2013301. It is little surprise that one of his main political preoccupations was the fate of modern Greece: \"A Review of My Opinions,\" 148.\n\n15 Freeman, \"Unity of History,\" 301\u20132; Freeman, _Comparative Politics_ , 1, 18. On the \"comparative method,\" see Collini, Winch, and Burrow, _That Noble Science of Politics_ , ch. 7; Sandra den Otter, \"The Origins of a Historical Political Science in Late Victorian and Edwardian Britain,\" in _Modern Political Science_ , ed. Robert Adcock, Mark Bevir, and Shannon Stimson (Princeton, 2007), 66\u201396.\n\n16 Maine, \"The Effects of the Observation of Modern European Thought,\" in _Village Communities in the East and West_ , 3rd ed. (London, 1876), 230.\n\n17 Freeman, _Comparative Politics_ , 33, 19. Maine said that Freeman's lectures on the topic were the most interesting he had ever heard. Maine to Freeman, December 22, 1873, Freeman papers, John Rylands Library, University of Manchester, EAF\/1\/7.\n\n18 Freeman, \"Unity of History,\" 302.\n\n19 Ian Hunter, \"The Persona of the Philosopher and the History of Early Modern Philosophy,\" _Modern Intellectual History_ , 4 (2007), 574. See also the discussion in Duncan Bell, \"Writing the World,\" _International Affairs_ , 85\/1 (2009), 3\u201322, and Joel Isaac, \"Tangled Loops,\" _Modern Intellectual History_ , 6 (2009), 397\u2013424. For the sources of this argument, see especially Pierre Hadot, _Philosophy as a Way of Life_ , trans. M. Chase (Oxford, 1995).\n\n20 Freeman, \"Unity of History,\" 308.\n\n21 Freeman, _Comparative Politics_ , 18, 20. On his understanding of historical \"method,\" see Herman Paul \"'Habits of Thought and Judgment,'\" in _Making History_ , ed. Bremner and Conlin, 273\u201393.\n\n22 Freeman, _Comparative Politics_ , 38.\n\n23 Freeman, _Lectures_ 3\u20135. On Freeman and \"democratic Teutonism,\" see Peter Mandler, _The English National Character_ (London, 2006), 86\u2013105. On Freeman as a \"universal historian,\" see Arnaldo Momigliano, \"Two Types of Universal History,\" _Journal of Modern History_ , 58\/1 (1986), 235\u201346.\n\n24 Freeman, \"The English People in Its Three Homes,\" in _Lectures to American Audiences_ (Philadelphia, 1882), 7\u2013204.\n\n25 Freeman, \"Alter Orbis,\" _Historical Essays_ , 4th series (London, 1892), 221. See also Freeman, _Comparative Politics_ , 47\u201350; Freeman, _The History of the Norman Conquest of England, Its Causes and Its Results_ (London, 1870),1:556.\n\n26 Freeman, \"Alter Orbis,\" 223, 229.\n\n27 Ibid., 234.\n\n28 Ibid., 221\u201322.\n\n29 Freeman, \"Greater Greece,\" 13; Freeman, _History of Federal Government in Greece and Italy_ , ed. J. B. Bury (London, 1893), 29\u201332; Freeman, _Comparative Politics_ , 93\u201397.\n\n30 Freeman, \"Greater Greece,\" 14\u201315.\n\n31 Freeman, \"The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity,\" in _Britannic Confederation_ , ed. Arthur Silva White (London, 1892), 56; Freeman, \"George Washington,\" 90.\n\n32 Freeman, \"The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity,\" 45. On the debates over imperial federation, see Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_ , and the chapters in part II of this volume. Freeman's nemesis, J. A. Froude\u2014the subject of chapter 12\u2014was among the most prominent imperial federalists, which may well have stoked Freeman's animosity to the idea.\n\n33 Letter to Bryce, July 10, 1884, _The Life and Letters of Edward A. Freeman_ , 2 vols, ed. W.R.W. Stephens (London, 1895), 2:324.\n\n34 Letter to Bryce, May 22, 1887, _Life and Letters_ , 2:367.\n\n35 Freeman, _History of Federal Government_ (London, 1863), 3, 9. \"It is enough,\" he wrote, \"for a commonwealth to rank... as a true Federation, that the Union is one which preserves to the several members their full internal independence, while it denies to them all separate action in relation to foreign powers\" (15). Criticizing Freeman's definition, Murray Forsyth argues that once a polity is federal it takes on its own state-like properties and cannot be seen in this bifocal manner. Forsyth, _Unions of States_ (Leicester, 1981), 7.\n\n36 Freeman, _History of Federal Government_ , 3, 9, 26.\n\n37 Freeman, \"Imperial Federation,\" 140\u201341.\n\n38 Letter to Bryce, February 7, 1887, _Life and Letters_ , 2:359.\n\n39 Freeman, \"Greater Greece,\" 38\n\n40 Letter to Bryce, February 7, 1887, 359; Freeman, \"Greater Greece,\" 39, 87.\n\n41 Freeman, \"Imperial Federation,\" 141.\n\n42 S. R. Mehrota, \"Imperial Federation and India, 1868\u20131917,\" _Journal of Commonwealth Political Studies_ , 1 (1961), 29\u201340. For American incorporation, see, for example, John Redpath Dougall, \"An Anglo-Saxon Alliance,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 48 (1885), 693\u2013707.\n\n43 Freeman, \"The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity,\" 45.\n\n44 Letter to Bryce, December 16, 1886, 356; Freeman, \"The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity,\" 45. He also dismissed the idea of \"Greater Britain.\" Freeman, \"Greater Greece,\" 1.\n\n45 Freeman, \"The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity,\" 45.\n\n46 Freeman, \"Greater Greece,\" 18, 23; Freeman, \"Imperial Federation,\" 142.\n\n47 Freeman, \"Greater Greece,\" 29.\n\n48 Ibid., 23, 30, 27.\n\n49 Freeman, \"Imperial Federation,\" 121.\n\n50 Freeman, \"Greater Greece,\" 36.\n\n51 Ibid., 55.\n\n52 Freeman, _Comparative Politics_ , 99. On ancient models in imperial thought, see chapter 5.\n\n53 Freeman, \"Greater Greece,\" 56\u201357.\n\n54 Freeman, \"Imperial Federation,\" 125; Freeman, \"The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity,\" 53\u201355.\n\n55 Freeman, \"Political and Physical,\" 49; Colomb, \"A Survey of Existing Conditions,\" in _Britannic Confederation_ , ed. White, 1\u201331. Colomb was a Tory MP and prominent writer on naval affairs.\n\n56 Freeman, \"The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity,\" 52, 53\u201354.\n\n57 Freeman to Bryce, February 7, 1887, 360. See also his letter to Bryce (February 7, 1887), 360, where he picks out Rhode Island. Freeman had consulted A. V. Dicey on the constitutional status of the British colonies. Dicey to Freeman, February 21, 1885, Freeman papers, EAF\/1\/7.\n\n58 Freeman, \"Greater Greece,\" 52; Freeman, \"The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity,\" 55.\n\n59 Freeman, \"Greater Greece,\" 54\u201355; Freeman, \"Imperial Federation,\" 120; Freeman, _Federal Government_ , ch. 2.\n\n60 Prothero, _English Historical Review_ , 8 (1893), 385. Casper Sylvest, _British Liberal Internationalism, 1880\u20131930_ (Manchester, 2009), emphasizes Freeman's influence on Bryce. See also H. A.L. _Fisher, James Bryce_ (London, 1927), 1:113\u201314, 2:308\u20139.\n\n61 Freeman, \"Imperial Federation,\" 122.\n\n62 Bryce, \"Edward Augustus Freeman,\" _English Historical Review_ , 7 (1892), 502.\n\n63 Young, _On the Political Relations of Mother Countries and Colonies_ (London, 1883), 22; de Labilliere, _Federal Britain_ (London, 1894), 94\u201395.\n\n64 Forster, _Our Colonial Empire_ (Edinburgh, 1875), 31; Forster, _Imperial Federation_ (London, 1885), 1. See also James Stanley Little, _The United States of Britain_ (Guilford, 1887), 17.\n\n65 Freeman, \"Imperial Federation,\" 114, 117, 118\u201319.\n\n66 Letter to Bryce, February 7, 1887, 360. For examples, see: P. Glynn, _Great Britain and Its Colonies_ (Adelaide, 1892), 3; Anon., \"Greater Greece and Greater Britain,\" _Spectator_ , September 18, 1886, 15; E. Burton, \"Federation and Pseudo-Federation,\" _Law Quarterly Review_ , 5 (1889), 176; Alpheus Henry Snow, \"Neutralization versus Imperialism,\" _American Journal of International Law_ , 2:3 (1908), 569\u201370; G. W. Wilton, \"Solidarity without Federation,\" pts. 1 and 2, _Juridical Review_ , 4 (1892), 317\u201334; 5 (1893), 248\u201362.\n\n67 Parkin, _Imperial Federation_ (London, 1892), 40\u201343, 44n. See also, E. T. Stuart-Linton, _The Problem of Empire Governance_ (London, 1912), 60\u201361. For other responses, see H. Mortimer-Franklyn, _The Unit of Imperial Federation_ (London, 1887), 20, 24, 32, 41, 60; _Imperial Federation League in Canada_ (Montreal, 1885), 28; [Urquart Forbes], \"Imperial Federation,\" _London Quarterly Review_ , 4 (1885), 325\u201326.\n\n68 Labilliere, _Federal Britain_ , 89n1, 206\u20137, 213.\n\n69 Stead, _Review of Reviews_ , 4\/20 (1891), 164; Stout, \"A Colonial View of Imperial Federation,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 21 (1887), 356.\n\n70 Ritchie, \"War and Peace,\" _International Journal of Ethics_ , 11 (1901), 152.\n\n71 Curtis, _The Commonwealth of Nations_ (London, 1916), ch. 2 (on Teutonism) and pp. 227\u201330, 594\u201395 (for criticism of Freeman). Curtis was the chief ideologue of the Round Table movement.\n\n72 Freeman, _Some Impressions of the United States_ (London, 1883), 10.\n\n73 Freeman rejected the designation \"Anglo-Saxon,\" largely on etymological grounds (Lectures, 38\u201367).\n\n74 Smith, \"Straining the Silken Thread,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 58 (1888), 242.\n\n75 Freeman, _Some Impressions of the United States_ , 16.\n\n76 Freeman, _Lectures to American Audiences_ , 10.\n\n77 Freeman, _Some Impressions of the United States_ , 19. For an account of his trip, see Conlin, \"The Consolations of Amero-Teutonism,\" in _Making History_ , ed. Bremner and Conlin, 101\u201319.\n\n78 Freeman, _Some Impressions of the United States_ , 7\u20139, 21.\n\n79 Ibid., 23, 24.\n\n80 Freeman, \"George Washington,\" 66; Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 169, 75.\n\n81 Freeman, \"George Washington,\" 89, 69\u201370. A quarter of a century later, an American scholar was still praising the lecture: \"[T]he English historian was right, and the title was correct.\" Edwin Mead, \"The United States as a World Power,\" _Advocate of Peace_ , 75 (1913), 58.\n\n82 Freeman, _Some Impressions of the United States_ , 24.\n\n83 Freeman, \"George Washington,\" 72. See also Freeman, _Comparative Politics_ , 82\u201385.\n\n84 Freeman, \"George Washington,\" 102\u20133.\n\n85 Freeman, \"Greater Greece,\" 16. See also Freeman, _Federal Government_ , 4, 86\u201387.\n\n86 Freeman, \"Imperial Federation,\" 143.\n\n87 Ibid., 142. In a letter to Goldwin Smith, August 19, 1888, _Life and Letters_ , 2:384, he summarized the idea as the \"taking up of citizenship at pleasure\u2014between Great Britain, United States of America, United States of Australia, and so on.\"\n\n88 Bryce, \"The Essential Unity of England and America,\" _Atlantic Monthly_ , 82 (1898), 29; Dicey, \"A Common Citizenship for the English Race,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 71 (1897), 457\u201376. For an analysis of the idea, see Duncan Bell, \"Beyond the Sovereign State,\" _Political Studies_ , 62 (2014), 418\u201334.\n\n89 Carnegie, _The Reunion of Britain and America_ (Edinburgh, 1893), 22, 10. On Carnegie, see Duncan Bell, \"Race, Utopia, Perpetual Peace,\" in _Intellectual Histories of American Foreign Policy_ , ed. Jean-Francis Drolet and James Dunkerley (forthcoming).\n\n90 Anthony Brundage and Richard Cosgrove, _The Great Tradition_ (Stanford, 2007), 34\u201342; Dorothy Ross, _The Origins of American Social Science_ (Cambridge, 1991), 68\u201373; James Farr, \"The Historical Science(s) of Politics,\" in _Modern Political Science_ , ed. Adcock, Bevir, and Stimson, 66\u201396. On the role of the seminary at Johns Hopkins, see Robert Adcock, _Liberalism and the Emergence of American Political Science_ (Oxford, 2014), ch. 5. Freeman's Saxonism was also influential in Australia. Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds, _Drawing the Global Colour Line_ (Cambridge, 2008), 50\u201352.\n\n91 Adams to Freeman, July 10, 1883, Freeman papers, EAF\/1\/7. Freeman called the motto a \"chance proverb.\" \"A Review of My Opinions,\" 157. See also Adams, \"Is History Past Politics?,\" _Johns Hopkins University Studies_ , 13 (1895), 67\u201370. Following Adams's death in 1901 the motto was removed, symbolizing the shifting fortunes of the Teutonic thesis.\n\n92 Adams, \"Mr. Freeman's Visit to Baltimore,\" _Johns Hopkins University Studies_ , 1\/1 (1882), 10. On why Freeman's work\u2014and his historical method\u2014should play a central role in American education, see Adams, _The Study of History in American Colleges and Universities_ (Washington, 1887).\n\n93 Adams, \"Mr. Freeman's Visit to Baltimore,\" 11.\n\n94 Adams to Freeman, January 12, 1885, June 9, 1882, and December 25, 1882, Freeman papers, EAF\/1\/7; Freeman, \"An Introduction to American Institutional History,\" _Johns Hopkins University Studies_ , 1\/1 (1882), 13.\n\n95 Adams to Freeman, September 5, 1884, Freeman papers, EAF\/1\/7.\n\n96 Fiske, _American Political Ideas Viewed from the Standpoint of Universal History_ (Boston, 1885).\n\n97 Fiske, \"Edward Augustus Freeman,\" in _A Century of Science and Other Essays_ (Boston, 1899), 268.\n\n98 Ibid., 275.\n\n99 Freeman to Fiske, August 9, 1889, in John Spencer Clark, _The Life and Letters of John Fiske_ (Boston, 1917), 414.\n\n100 Freeman to Fiske, November 10, 1889, in _Life and Letters_ , 415.\n\n101 Fiske, _The Discovery of America_ , 2 vols. (Boston, 1892).\n\n102 W. C. Ford, _The Letters of Henry Adams_ (New York, 1930), 1:236.\n\n103 John Fleming, \"Are We Anglo-Saxon?,\" _North American Review_ , 153 (1891), 253.\n\n104 Waldstein, \"The English-Speaking Brotherhood,\" _North American Review_ , 167 (1898), 227; Stephens, \"Nationality and History,\" _American Historical Review_ , 21\/2 (1916), 227.\nCHAPTER 14\n\nDemocracy and Empire\n\nJ. A. Hobson, L. T. Hobhouse, and the Crisis of Liberalism\n\nWhat would the new century bring?\" At the close of the nineteenth century, according to Jay Winter, most European and American writers, politicians, and artists were sanguine about the coming era: \"[I]maginings of the twentieth century celebrated progress on a global scale and projected it optimistically into the foreseeable future.\" Although dark prognostications were penned by H. G. Wells and Joseph Conrad, among others, it was confidence that triumphed.1 Winter may be correct about the general tenor of literary and artistic life, but many of those in Britain concerned with the future of geopolitics were deeply anxious. Threats appeared to emanate from multiple directions, at home and abroad. British global power was being challenged: foreboding abounded.2 Thinkers across the political spectrum grappled incessantly with questions about the past, present, and future of world order.\n\nIn this chapter, I explore how two of the leading social and political thinkers in _fin de si\u00e8cle_ Britain\u2014J. A. Hobson (1858\u20131940) and L. T. Hobhouse (1864\u20131929)\u2014viewed the prospects for international affairs in the decade and a half before the outbreak of the First World War. A self-described \"economic heretic,\" Hobson was and is best known as the author of _Imperialism: A Study_ (1902), arguably one of the most influential political tracts of the twentieth century.3 Hobhouse, meanwhile, was trained as a philosopher, held the first chair in sociology in Britain, and quickly made a name for himself as an innovative political theorist. Both men were political radicals, pivotal in the emergence of the \"new liberalism.\"4 Both were public moralists, combining scholarship with abundant political campaigning and popular writing. And both wrote widely on international and imperial affairs. Their work provides a revealing insight into how reflective liberals thought about the future of world order as a new century dawned.\n\nHobson and Hobhouse have drawn considerable scholarly interest, and in what follows I do not attempt an exhaustive analysis of their political thought.5 Rather, I outline some of the key issues shaping political thought at the time, and then explore how Hobhouse and Hobson conceived of the relationship between democracy, empire, and international politics. I focus on two main themes, neither of which has received sufficient attention. First, I highlight how they figured themselves within narratives charting the evolution of liberal thought and practice, allowing them simultaneously to pay homage to their predecessors while carving out a space for the new liberal project. Second, I discuss their writings about the settler colonies in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Their accounts of colonialism undermine neat distinctions between \"domestic,\" \"international,\" and \"imperial\" politics and political theory. For Hobson and Hobhouse, as well as for many of their contemporaries, the colonies exhibited characteristics of all three: constitutive elements of the empire, they were nevertheless semi-autonomous states purportedly composed of people of the same nationality and race as the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. According to this perspective, the British colonial empire could be viewed as an embryonic intermediary institution occupying the space between the territorially delimited modern state and an all-encompassing world state. Grounded in and bound by the cultural singularity of the \"British race,\" it promised, if understood properly, to unite colonial communities scattered across the planet, creating a vast polity that would maintain or expand British geopolitical strength while acting simultaneously as an agent of global progress. This was the apotheosis of British imperial ambition.\n\nConfronting Modernity\n\nBritish international thought at the turn of the twentieth century was structured by a wide variety of assumptions and preoccupations, some old, others new. It is productive to interpret many of the thinkers in this period as wrestling with the politics of modernity\u2014as confronting, that is, a world that seemed to be undergoing a period of intense and rapid transition in which many of the existing categories and concerns of politics were being transformed, even revolutionized.6\n\nFirst, as I have stressed throughout this book, technology was radically altering the way in which individuals perceived the physical world. New sociopolitical possibilities\u2014new horizons of expectation\u2014were opened up as a result.7 From the 1860s onward, the electrical telegraph, which promised instantaneous global communication, spawned fantasies about the elimination of geographical distance, the \"annihilation of time and space,\" that prefigure late twentieth-century accounts of globalization.8 Vast ocean liners, the motorcar, and the airplane all reinforced this belief during the two decades straddling 1900.9 Yet the political conclusions drawn from these changes were indeterminate. Many saw technological developments as facilitating, even necessitating, the construction of institutions and modes of politics that in the past would have seemed the stuff of dreams. But to others, they were potentially threatening, intensifying the dangers of competition and conflict.10\n\nThis cognitive shift reinforced the sense that Britain's global position was under threat. The dominance of the mid-Victorian years, when the country was thought of as the \"workshop of the world,\" was superseded by a period of anxiety and tension, especially from the 1880s onward. The \"age of equipoise,\" of stability, prosperity, and untrammelled optimism, had come to an end.11 An economic depression bit deeply. The post-Civil War dynamism of the United States, the rise of Germany at the heart of Europe and of Russia at the periphery, and, in the early Edwardian years, the emergence of Japan as a formidable force in Asia, seemed to augur the end of British hegemony. A new geopolitical constellation was materializing. This was felt keenly throughout the British intellectual and political elite.\n\nPolitical thought in Britain, meanwhile, was in a state of transitional flux. As I discuss in chapter 3, liberalism was being revised and reformulated by a new generation of thinkers, Hobson and Hobhouse prominent among them. The emergence of the \"new liberalism\" pointed many liberals in a social democratic direction, eschewing the perceived atomism of an older generation of reformers and focusing instead on the value of an interventionist state and on questions of social justice. In this their arguments overlapped, and sometimes fused, with those made by socialists, who since the 1880s had become an increasingly significant force in British political culture, terrifying many conservatives while expanding the space of political debate. British international thought was dominated, though far from exhausted, by forms of liberal internationalism. Liberal internationalists insisted on both the possibility and the moral necessity of progressive change in the structures and norms of world order. They sought to tame, even to eliminate, conflict while intensifying cooperation between \"civilized\" states, chiefly through the powers of international commerce and international law.12 The question of empire, however, divided the new liberals as it had the old. It was also a point of contention among socialist writers.13 Although some thinkers argued that empire was inimical to progress, for others it was, if enacted properly, a virtuous agent of it. The contest for the souls of liberalism and socialism was mirrored in a diverse array of visions of global order.\n\nDuring the closing decades of the century, democracy came to play a central role in debates over domestic and global politics. For much of the nineteenth century, mass democracy in Britain was a liberal aspiration and a conservative nightmare, its possible impact predicted but not yet felt. America acted as a model\u2014often mediated through the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville\u2014for this new form of politics, but it was far from clear how it would function in a European context. The Reform Bills of 1867 and, above all, 1886 were seen by many, despite their manifold limitations\u2014not least the failure to enfranchise women\u2014to initiate a democratic age. Yet a general sense of disillusionment with the realization of democracy and its failure to live up to expectations soon set in. The relationship between democracy and empire, which came to a head during the South African War (1899\u20131902), became a touchstone for debates over the future of liberalism and world politics.\n\nIn light of these various challenges, many commentators came to regard federalism as an answer to the political perplexities of the modern age. In a world undergoing profound changes, institutional technologies that could reconcile unity with difference were eminently desirable. Federalism seemed to fit the bill. It was prescribed for local, regional, imperial, and global politics. Although federalism had often been floated as a possible answer to the internecine warfare of European politics, it had rarely been considered a realistic option for governing on a global scale. At the end of the nineteenth century, as the world itself seemed to shrink, this skepticism receded. In Britain, debate raged about the potential unification of the settler colonies into an \"imperial federation,\" a vast polity stretching across the face of the earth. The possibilities for international organization were reshaped. Federalism joined democracy as an object of desire, confusion, and endless debate. All of this helped to fuel an ever-increasing fascination with the past, present, and future of the United States.\n\nFinally, this was a period marked by a growing tension between specialist and expert knowledge.14 Intellectuals increasingly had to negotiate between appealing to an ever-expanding public hungry for information (and entertainment) and the imperatives of a rapidly professionalizing academic world. At the same time, universities were being transformed by the development of new disciplinary fields constituted by professional norms that derided, and institutional structures that hampered, existing models of knowledge production.15 Such pressures were reinforced by the emergence of a global news service that helped to expand the geographical scope of the \"public.\"16 These shifts complicated the role of the \"public moralist,\" for it became progressively more difficult to satisfy the conflicting demands of multiple audiences. Some managed to navigate the terrain, including Hobhouse and Hobson, but it was treacherously difficult.\n\nHobson and Hobhouse were both contributors to, and shaped by, these various political and intellectual trends. They addressed questions that many of their contemporaries were puzzling over and in doing so they drew on a wide range of existing intellectual resources. But they were also important agents in structuring the terms of those debates, outlining arguments that were to play a significant role in fashioning the political thinking of their age.\n\nHobhouse and the Ironies of Liberal History\n\nIn 1901\u20131902, Hobhouse published a series of hard-hitting essays in the liberal weekly the _Speaker_. These were republished, in amended form, as _Democracy and Reaction_ (1904). His central message was clear: in recent years, Britain had entered a period of \"reaction\" that infected most aspects of public life and threatened to undermine the progress that had characterized the previous century. \"The nineteenth century,\" Hobhouse wrote later, \"might be called the age of Liberalism, yet its close saw the fortunes of that great movement brought to their lowest ebb.\"17 This reaction, which manifested itself most obviously in the war in South Africa, demanded a reconsideration of the limits of and opportunities for progressive politics. In his writings between the turn of the century and the First World War, Hobhouse meditated on the ironies of history, the unintended effects of success, and the failures of judgment that had befallen him and his colleagues.\n\nHe identified two main problems infecting British political life. First, the victorious march of liberalism had helped to seed its nemesis, its triumph paving the way for its supersession. In this dialectical movement, progress was potentially, although not necessarily, self-undermining. The key to this historical tragedy could be found in the recent history of the empire, and in particular the settlement colonies. Second, the historical self-understanding of the new liberals had contributed to the growth of reaction by failing to grasp the similarities between the old and the new liberalism.\n\nLiberals, Hobhouse observed, were only very rarely opposed to all aspects of empire. Historically, they had denigrated the \"old colonial system,\" but this was often conjoined with support for the establishment of settler colonies, which were seen as pioneer outposts of civilization. Indeed, the phenomenal growth of the settler colonies during the nineteenth century, from minor appendages of the imperial order to large self-governing political communities, was attributable chiefly to the ideas and energy of the Benthamite radicals. \"Paradoxical as it may seem,\" Hobhouse argued, \"the new conception of empire had its roots, politically speaking, in the older Liberalism.\" Cloaked in the language of progress and freedom, the new imperialism was thus powerfully \"seductive\" to the \"modern liberal.\"18 Looking to the settler colonies, they thought that \"the problem of reconciling Empire with liberty had been solved.\"\n\nUnder this mild sway each component State of the Empire enjoyed full internal self-government, and yet the whole had advantages which small free States cannot claim. Over a great area of the world there was, it seemed, peace; there was the machinery for adjusting disputes between different parts, should such disputes arise; and there was the consciousness of a wider fraternity, of a vaster common heritage, than the citizens of any small community, however proud, could enjoy. In all of this taken in full sincerity, there was much to appeal to Liberals, little to repel them.19\n\nYet the seduction was dangerous. Some liberals, he observed later, were becoming \"imperialists in their sleep.\" Falling for the rhetoric, they ignored the squalid reality\u2014a form of dissonance that could be applied to numerous liberal advocates of empire, then and now. This was an acute failure of moral and political judgment, for a political theory \"must be judged not only by its profession but by its fruits.\"20 And the fruits of the new imperialism were strange indeed. \"Under the reign of Imperialism the temple of Janus is never closed. Blood never ceases to run. The voice of the mourner is never hushed.\"21 Imperialism, for Hobhouse, was antithetical to liberalism properly understood. The \"central principle\" of the former was self-government; that of the latter, the \"subordination of self-government to Empire.\" They were impossible to reconcile. Those liberals who had supported imperialism, above all in South Africa, had fallen into a trap, and were now committed to an incoherent set of beliefs. \"The trap laid for Liberals in particular consisted in this\u2014that they were asked to give in their adhesion to Imperialism as representing admiration for an Empire which more and more has been shaped upon Liberal lines. Having given their assent, they were insensibly led on to the other meaning of Imperialism\u2014a meaning which, for all practical purposes, these principles set aside.\"22 Liberal success in reshaping the colonial empire in the second half of the century, then, had dulled the senses of many liberals, anesthetizing them against the profoundly antiliberal character of modern imperialism.\n\nThe second problem was a function of the historical understanding and intellectual self-fashioning of the new liberals. Hobhouse argued that they had erred badly in traducing their immediate predecessors, ignoring their strengths while exaggerating their weaknesses. To mark their distance from the _laissez-faire_ liberals of the mid-Victorian years, the new generation had glossed over the points of similarity, the connections in \"spirit and intention\" that linked them. \"The old individualism was standing in our way and we were for cutting it down.\"23 The consequences of this act of youthful rebellion were deeply regrettable, for in their rush to fell the old liberalism, the new liberals had inadvertently aided their reactionary adversaries. \"The socialist development of Liberalism paved the way for Imperialism by diminishing the credit of the school which had stood most for the doctrines of liberty, fair dealing, and forbearance in international affairs.\"24 In _Democracy and Reaction_ , Hobhouse lavished praise on Cobden for his assiduous defense of freedom and his sustained anti-imperialism. In his classic volume _Liberalism_ (1911), he went much further, sketching a historical narrative that charted, albeit briefly and in rather vague terms, the origins and trajectory of liberalism. This account identified the \"old liberalism\" as a necessary step in the evolution of liberal political thought and practice.25 On this view, liberal history had largely comprised a \"negative\" account in which liberals fought against the excessive and unjust powers of state and church.\n\nThus Liberalism appears first as a criticism, sometimes even as a destructive and revolutionary criticism. Its negative aspect is for centuries foremost. Its business seems not to be so much to build up as to tear down, to remove obstacles which block human progress, rather than to point out the positive goal of endeavour or fashion the fabric of civilization. It finds humanity oppressed, and would set it free. It finds a people groaning under arbitrary rule, a nation in bondage to a conquering race, industrial enterprise obstructed by social privileges or crippled by taxation, and it offers relief.26\n\nThe closing years of the century had witnessed the emergence of a more constructive form of liberalism, marked by greater attention to questions of economic inequality, social justice, and the positive role of state intervention. It is arguable that Hobhouse's narration of liberal history was, at least in part, a belated response to his perception of the failures of liberals to recognize the continuities in their own tradition. And as I suggested in Chapter 3, it played an important role in the reimaging of the liberal tradition that took place during the Edwardian years.\n\nHobhouse viewed the relationship between old and new liberal views on international affairs through the same prism. Whereas the old liberalism had prescribed strict adherence to the doctrine of nonintervention and skepticism about international entanglements, the \"positive\" dimension of the new liberalism, adapted for a democratic age, necessitated instead the creation of powerful international institutions.27 Although the means differed, the ends remained the same: peace and cooperation in world politics. And the enemies of this vision remained the same also: the imperialists. The tragedy of the situation was palpable. Although Hobhouse deplored the avarice and violence found throughout the British empire\u2014he focused repeatedly on the issue of racial injustice, without wholly escaping many of the racialized assumptions of his age\u2014he was primarily concerned with the destruction wrought on British society and politics. In this, he followed in a long line of radical critics of empire, from Bentham and Constant through to Cobden, Spencer, and beyond. Above all, he feared that the imperialist reaction \"paralysed democratic effort at home.\"28 Imperialism, that is, threatened to undermine Britain from within, infecting both political institutions and public morality. Like Constant, writing nearly a century beforehand, Hobhouse worried that the corruption of political discourse\u2014triggered above all by the disingenuous recourse to justifying imperial aggression in terms of honor, glory, and national defense\u2014was as dangerous as imperial policy itself. It was, Hobhouse averred, perhaps more corrupting than \"the unblushing denial of right.\"29 The spirit of conquest was malevolently intoxicating.\n\nDemocracy had failed to live up to its promise. The period of reaction had confounded the commonplaces of political prophecy. \"Both the friends and enemies of democracy,\" he noted, had previously \"inclined to the belief that when the people came into power there would be a time of rapid and radical domestic change combined in all probability with peace abroad.\" Democracy was supposed to usher in a new world order, yet the democratic state had been slow to reform, and its people had been enthusiastic supporters of the unjust war in South Africa. Moreover, the \"humanitarian sentiment\" that had shaped much of nineteenth-century British politics was being eroded. Humanitarianism was concerned \"not merely with the direct alleviation of suffering and prevention of cruelty, but with the removal of fetters, the opening of opportunity to individual and national self-development, the utilisation of vastly increased material resources for the common benefit, the bringing in of the humblest to the banquet of civilisation.\"30 It was a constituent element of the emergent liberalism. The corrosion of humanitarianism was caused by a number of factors, but above all Hobhouse emphasized the role played by mistaken understandings of evolutionary biology and the rise of philosophical idealism, both of which he thought legitimated a potentially authoritarian account of the state. This latter worry became an increasing fixation, reaching its peak in his polemical attack on _The Metaphysical Theory of the State_ (1918). The combination of German metaphysics and notions of the \"survival of the fittest\" meant the naturalization of might over right, the validation of selfishness and aggression in politics.\n\nYet rather than dismiss evolution and democracy as fatally flawed, Hobhouse defended specific articulations of each of them. His general philosophy was grounded in an account of \"orthogenic\" evolution.31 As an essentially ethical process, he affirmed, evolution was capable of rational human control; its end result and index was cooperation, not conflict. It served as an antidote to brute competition, not its justification. The political implications of this vision were obvious. Progress was defined by increasing cooperation between individuals in society and between different societies. The logical conclusion was a form of global institution that simultaneously entrenched political and economic interdependence while fostering particularity, and especially nationality, which Hobhouse, in common with many liberals, regarded as a progressive force in world politics.32 Imperial federation, as we shall see, offered him a microcosmic variant of this ambitious project.\n\nDemocracy, properly understood, was both an agent and a _telos_ of progress. Democracy and imperialism, he argued, were opposed in principle: \"Democracy is government of the people by itself. Imperialism is government of one people by another.\" But although the theory of democracy was clear on the matter, Hobhouse wondered whether modern political and economic developments had rendered it obsolete. He focused in particular on the issue of scale. Was democracy impossible in a world of vast states? To answer this question, he delineated two conceptions of democracy: _direct participation_ and _popular sovereignty_. On the former view, democracy implied \"a direct participation of the masses of ordinary citizens in the public life of the commonwealth.\" This was an ideal that had nearly been realized in \"the great assemblies and large popular juries\" of ancient Athens. It meant that ordinary citizens were entrusted with complex public functions, despite having little appropriate training or expertise. The modern way to neutralize this tendency was the creation of a bureaucracy, a disinterested technocratic civil service. Popular sovereignty, on the other hand, implied that the people constituted the only legitimate source of authority, which was achieved in practice through the institutions of representative government and through free and full public discussion.33 \"Given these conditions, on the one hand the recognised supremacy of the law which it makes, on the other hand perfect freedom to inform itself and make itself heard, democracy in the sense of ultimate popular sovereignty, is not necessarily incompatible with vastness of territory or complexity of interests.\" But this alone did not eliminate the conjoined problems of scale and complexity, for local differences threatened to undermine the unity, and thus the viability, of modern political communities. Centrifugal forces challenged their \"democratic character.\"34\n\nFederalism presented the best answer to the conundrum. Although the United States offered the world the main example of \"strict federalism,\" there were other forms available. For example, the British colonial empire was linked by what Hobhouse characterized as a \"loose, informal quasi-Federalism,\" in which the \"development of internal autonomy for each separate part is the means of reconciling democracy with empire.\" Although he recognized the potential friction that might arise between the claims of a united colonial empire and the nationalist aspirations of the individual colonies, he nevertheless argued that democracy, federalism, and empire (not imperialism) were theoretically compatible, and that this compound was partly, if precariously, realized in the British colonial system. \"Democracy,\" he argued, \"may be compatible with Empire in the sense of a great aggregation of territories enjoying internal independence while united by some common bond, but it is necessarily hostile to Empire in the sense of a system wherein one community imposes its will on others no less entitled by race, education, and capacity to govern themselves.\" This was to distinguish between progressive and reactionary forms of imperial government, those that were on the right side of history from those that held it back. He concluded by arguing that whatever its fate in the British colonial context, federalism, \"as the natural means whereby over large areas unity can be reconciled with the conditions of popular government,\" had a bright future.35 This argument aligned Hobhouse with the numerous proponents of imperial federation, who had been campaigning actively on behalf of the ideal since the late 1870s. Imperial federation was a vague term, identifying plans that ranged from the moderate\u2014simply reinforcing existing ties between Britain and its colonies\u2014to the truly audacious\u2014including the creation of a globe-spanning racial-national state ruled by directly elected representatives sitting in a new imperial senate in London. However, the very vagueness of the project, or at least its elasticity, was also part of its strength, for it allowed individuals and groups, often with different agendas, to form a broad coalition to pressure the government over the direction of British foreign and imperial policy.\n\nIn an earlier article reviewing _Imperialism_ , Hobhouse praised the imperial federal project outlined by Hobson\u2014to which I will return later\u2014although his endorsement was qualified. \"It is true,\" he wrote, \"that a democratic Empire, or let us say a democratic world State, might be conceived as a possibility,\" but, he continued, such a \"state could only be built up by Federation, probably by a complex system of Federation within Federation, and it would rest not on the annihilation, but in the peaceful development of nationality.\"36 Once again, and more forcefully than Hobson, Hobhouse insisted on the need to reconcile nationality and imperial federation. If the correct balance could be struck between demands for national autonomy and the centralizing tendencies of an overarching political structure, imperial federation would be a normatively desirable objective. Returning to the issue in _Liberalism_ , Hobhouse sketched a powerful, albeit highly abstract, argument for the viability, even necessity, of imperial federation. A united British colonial empire could act as both a model for the future and a possible agent of global transformation. Modes of international organization had to adapt to a changing world. \"Physically the world is rapidly becoming one,\" he argued, \"and its unity must ultimately be reflected in political institutions.\" In this quasi-determinist account, new technologies were modifying the conditions of both political possibility and of necessity. These developments were generated by, and further helped to generate, the orthogenic evolution of mind. The result was the simultaneous growth of support for the principle of nationality and a challenge to traditional conceptions of state sovereignty. The \"old doctrine\" of \"absolute sovereignty\" was \"absolutely dead.\" The largest modern states, continued Hobhouse, \"exhibit a complex system of government within government, authority limited by authority, and the world-state of the not-impossible future must be based on a free national self-direction as full and satisfying as that enjoyed by Canada and Australia within the British Empire at this moment.\"37 Here the British colonies acted as the vanguard of a democratic future, harbingers of a global polity to come. The fate of the indigenous populations of these \"free\" states was not considered worthy of attention.\n\nAlthough liberalism was antithetical to the \"imperial idea,\" it was fully alive to the forces that bound the colonies together, that is, \"to the sentiment of unity pervading its white population, to all the possibilities involved in the bare fact that a fourth part of the human race recognizes one flag and one supreme authority.\"38 This raised an important challenge for the new liberals. Because the colonial communities were the most democratic in the world, their union with Britain was often viewed as a force for progress, and as such it was considered imperative that the empire was not left to the reactionary imperialists. It was therefore vital \"to devise means for the more concrete and living expression of this sentiment without impairing the rights of self-government on which it depends.\"39 This was a difficult balancing act. As a first step, he proposed the creation of an Imperial Council to coordinate relationships between the colonial states, although he failed to offer any details about how it might work. This move would constitute, he implied, an initial step toward a deeper union, a union that would help to bind together, and give institutional expression to, the \"sentiments\" of the English-speaking peoples. \"Such a union is no menace to the world's peace or to the cause of freedom. On the contrary, as a natural outgrowth of a common sentiment, it is one of the steps towards a wider unity which involves no backstroke against the ideal of self-government. It is a model, and that on no mean scale, of the International State.\"40 Like many thinkers of his generation, Hobhouse saw a dual challenge. Not only was it vital to calibrate relationships with the colonies, it was simultaneously important to deepen the connection with \"the other great commonwealth of the English-speaking people,\" namely, the United States. If the democratic peoples of the Anglo-Saxon race could be aligned, then progress could be secured.\n\nFor Hobhouse, then, _imperialism_ , understood as the aggressive foreign expansion of the state, offered a dangerous challenge to the progressive development of humanity. It was the ultimate manifestation of reaction, antithetical to democratic theory and practice. But _empire_ , if regarded as a political vehicle uniting the colonial communities, was not only compatible with democracy, it could help to bring about the democratization of the international system through strengthening the bonds, moral and political, that linked the various Anglo-Saxon communities scattered across the earth. History had come full circle. Although the success of liberalism had helped to spawn the period of reaction, the rise of imperialism in turn triggered the revival of liberalism, waking many\u2014though not all\u2014liberals from their slumber. In the preface to the second edition of _Democracy and Reaction_ , published in 1909, Hobhouse identified the span of the period of reaction as 1880 to 1902, although it had antecedents and \"some currents\" were \"still flowing.\"41 In _Liberalism_ , published two years later, he identified the key turning point as Campbell-Bannerman's famous speech delivered in 1901 on the \"methods of barbarism\" employed by the British in South Africa.42 \"Liberalism,\" he concluded, \"has passed through its Slough of Despond, and in the give and take of ideas with Socialism, has learnt, and taught, more than one lesson.\"43 It seemed that Minerva's owl had flown: the period of reaction could only be comprehended at the moment it drew to a close.\n\nHobson and the Crisis of Liberalism\n\nWhen Hobson came to reflect on _The Crisis of Liberalism_ in 1909, his analysis dovetailed neatly with that of Hobhouse.44 He sketched, albeit in less detail and with less finesse, a grim account of recent political and intellectual developments. Liberals, he argued, had \"shown defects of vision and of purpose,\" with the result that for \"over a quarter of a century Liberalism has wandered in this valley of indecision, halting, weak, vacillating, divided, and concessive.\" Hobson sought to anatomize and correct this drift.\n\nLike Hobhouse, Hobson thought that liberals were engaged in a bitter conflict with the forces of reaction. He maintained that the Tories controlled the press, the political machinery, the city, the church, the armed services, and even the sporting establishment.45 Yet he remained optimistic, interpreting the intensity of the conservative reaction as a sign of the popularity and power of new liberal ideas. In characteristic radical style, he distinguished the people from the elites who ruled (and manipulated) them, placing his hope in the progressive potential of the former. The vitality of the new liberalism was demonstrated above all by the fact that the \"vested interests\" defended their class privileges by appeals to reason and justice; they were forced, that is, to use the terms of their opponents. This appeal took two main forms. First, they denied the existence of (structural) social and economic problems, focusing instead on \"individual moralization\" as the engine of progress. This was an attempt to neutralize demands for systemic social reform. Second, they tried to \"foster the combative competitive instincts of the lower nature of man by urging the necessity and utility of industrial competition with other States.\" They legitimated brutal competition through a combination of misapplied biological arguments, which led to politics being conceived of as a \"struggle for life,\" and the \"authoritative conservatism of Hegelian dogmas.\"46 The overlap with Hobhouse is clear.\n\n_The Crisis of Liberalism_ was Hobson's call to arms, an attempt to inject fighting spirit into the liberals by reorienting their priorities. The new liberalism, he argued, stood for an assault on monopolies and \"unearned property.\" To achieve this, it demanded a \"new conception of the functions of the State,\" and a reinterpretation of the meaning of, and the conditions necessary for securing, individual liberty.47 Like Hobhouse, Hobson also sought to embed the new liberalism in a developmental history of liberal thought and practice. This historical emplotment allowed him to argue that although the older individualist liberalism was in many respects obsolete, it nevertheless contained important truths that should not be jettisoned. Principles always needed to be adapted to contemporary conditions. \"Each new generation of liberals will be required to translate a new set of needs and aspirations into facts.\" It also meant that time was of the essence; reaction had to be defeated before it was too late. \"This is the last chance for English Liberalism.\"48 Hobson stressed two points. First, that the older liberalism had never been as etiolated as both its critics and its heirs proclaimed. \"The negative conception of liberalism, as a definite mission for the removal of certain political and economic shackles upon personal liberty, is not merely philosophically defective,\" he contended, \"but historically false.\" Liberals had never been committed to a radically atomistic individualism. Although he aimed to save the older liberals from the condescension of posterity, he nevertheless criticized their arguments, maintaining that the \"old Radicalism\" had been \"crippled\" by \"positive hostility to public methods of cooperation,\" and had placed \"an excessive emphasis upon the aspect of liberty which consists in the absence of restraint, as compared with the other aspect which consists in presence of opportunity.\"49 Second, he identified the continuities between the old and the new, which centered on the value assigned to individual liberty. In seeking the \"fuller realization of individual liberty contained in the provision of equal opportunities for self-development,\" 50 the new liberals could be seen as completing the historical mission inaugurated by their predecessors.\n\nAgain like Hobhouse, he argued that liberal weakness and indecision had encouraged the enemies of liberalism, facilitating their assaults on its core achievements in politics and social policy. Above all, he lamented that imperialism, the \"great arch-enemy of the age,\" had \"found a too facile entrance among the ranks of her dejected followers.\" Its popularity, then, was partly a function of liberal vacillation and loss of confidence. Imperialism, he continued, had been exploited by the conservatives to derail projects for reform, and it served as a natural ally for economic protectionism.51 In a perverse turn of events, liberals were thus colluding in the destruction of their own creed and the overturning of their historical achievements. Few of Hobson's readers were likely to be surprised by this diagnosis. He was, after all, well known as the author of _Imperialism: A Study_ (1902), a coruscating attack on the \"new imperialism\" being practiced by the United States, Germany, France, and, above all, the United Kingdom. This volume had followed in quick succession from two earlier books, both based on his experiences as a correspondent for the _Manchester Guardian_ during the South African War.52\n\nDuring the first few years of his career, Hobson had been a fairly conventional supporter of the liberal imperial mission to civilize, only transmuting into a new liberal thinker, and avowed enemy of imperialism, in the early 1890s. Yet this transition was never complete, and pronounced traces of his earlier views remained. His political thinking selectively combined elements of Fabian thought, Spencer's political sociology of industrial modernization, utilitarianism, positivism ultimately derived from the writings of Auguste Comte, and Ruskin's conception of organic economic society.53 By the late 1890s, he became convinced that the \"new\" imperialism, unfolding mainly in Africa and Asia, represented an overriding danger to British democracy. It threatened \"peace, economy, reform, and popular self-government,\" catalyzing instead militarism, reaction, and jingoism.54 _Imperialism_ presented a multicausal explanation for the emergence of the \"earth hunger\" that had gripped the imperial powers since roughly 1870. Its \"leading characteristic\" was competition between great capitalist empires.55\n\nThe main stimulus was investment. Oversaving among capitalists and underconsumption by the masses meant that the rich could not invest their money profitably in the domestic market. In search of a high rate of return, they pushed for the opening of foreign markets, which in turn required territorial acquisitions. This system benefitted the few\u2014chiefly financiers and their allies in the political establishment\u2014at the expense of the many. The \"business interests of the nation as a whole are subordinated to those of certain sectional interests that usurp control of the national resources and use them for their private gain.\"56 Employing a common radical trope, he argued that imperialism was \"irrational from the standpoint of the whole nation,\" although \"it is rational enough from the standpoint of certain classes in the nation.\" Using various forms of manipulation and misleading propaganda, this profit-driven imperialism was disguised as necessary government policy; it was a \"calculating, greedy type of Machiavellianism\" wrapped in the evocative language of \"national destiny\" and the spread of \"civilization.\"57 Like Hobhouse, he warned against the corrupting effects of disingenuous language.\n\nEmpire was not the problem, only its malignant forms. Hobson never gave up on the idea that higher civilization bestowed rights on some states or peoples to override the claims to self-determination of others. He also offered a strong defense of the value of settler colonization, insisting on the \"radical distinction between genuine colonialism and Imperialism.\"58 An advocate of imperial federation, he once sketched out an ambitious outline of the future of international organization in which vast federations, each rooted in \"common blood, language, and institutions,\" dominated, and helped to pacify, world politics.\n\nHolding, as we must, that any reasonable security for good order and civilization in the world implies the growing application of the federation principle in international politics, it will appear only natural that the earlier steps in such a process should take the form of unions of States most closely related by ties of common blood, language, and institutions, and that a phase of federated Britain or Anglo-Saxondom, Pan-Teutonism, Pan-Slavism, and Pan-Latinism might supervene upon the phase already reached... Christendom thus laid out in a few great federal empires, each with a retinue of uncivilized dependencies, seems to me the most legitimate development of present tendencies and one which would offer the best hope of permanent peace on an assured basis of inter-Imperialism.59\n\nImperial federation would also derail the aggressive ambitions of the rapidly expanding colonies. Hobson worried that the colonies were in danger of turning into semi-autonomous imperial powers, seeking to dominate the \"lower races\" in their regions and dragging Britain into hazardous entanglements with other powerful states. The threat was the same as in the \"mother country\": the influence of local cohorts of financiers pushing for market expansion and plotting the \"subversion of honest, self-developing democracy.\"60 On this account, empires bred other empires, as the will to dominate and exploit spread from the \"mother country\" to its imperial outposts like a virus.\n\nIn a book long remembered as a model of anti-imperialism, Hobson unambiguously defended the benefits of imperial federation and the civilizing potential of global Anglo-Saxon power. However, over the course of the next few years, his views on imperial federation shifted, and by the time he came to publish _The Crisis of Liberalism_ , he had lost his earlier enthusiasm for the project. Indeed, he poured scorn on those who professed support for it\u2014while conveniently failing to mention his earlier advocacy. \"Those British imperialists who with the events of the last few years before their eyes, still imagine a closer Imperial federation in any shape or form practicable, are merely the dupes of a Kiplingesque sentimentalism.\"61\n\nWhat spurred his change of heart? Part of the answer lies in Hobson's changing views on the practical effects of federalism and the dynamics of colonial development. When he turned to discussing the postwar situation in South Africa, he noted that much support for the union of South Africa, which was to be achieved in 1910, emanated from those (notably Carnarvon and Chamberlain) who had long sought a \"larger federation, or other reconstitution of the self-governing sections of the British Empire.\" They had assumed that the federation of South Africa would be a step on the road to imperial federation, a vanguard that heralded wider transformation of the imperial system. Hobson doubted this logic, arguing that federation and state consolidation in Australia, Canada, and South Africa made imperial federation _less_ feasible, for as the colonies have \"grown in size and strength, they have increasingly asserted their larger rights of independent government.\" National federation acted as a centrifugal force, reducing the likelihood of the wider imperial federal project acquiring sufficient support among the newly emboldened colonists. The leaders of the colonies would not think it in their national interest to federate with the \"mother country.\" Contrary to popular belief, moreover, the links between the colonies and Britain were growing weaker despite the \"greater physical accessibility\" facilitated by new communications and transport technologies and that space-eliminating instrument of modern capitalism, the \"great machinery of modern investment.\"62 These were outweighed by countervailing tendencies demanding increased national autonomy. Such skepticism about the transformative powers of technology highlights the political indeterminacy of technological change.\n\nIn the movement of Joseph Chamberlain's ideas, Hobson divined the direction of imperial federalist discourse, and above all the shift from arguments propounding political federation to those focusing on economic unity. \"Mr Chamberlain,\" he wrote, \"soon saw that the front-door of political federation was shut, bolted and barred. He thereupon sought the tradesman's entrance, claiming to knit the colonies and the mother country into an indissoluble union by means of a set of preferences which he hoped might eventually give free trade within the Empire.\" But, Hobson continued, this new project was also doomed to fail\u2014it was \"futile\"\u2014and for the same reasons: the perceived national interests of the colonial states.63 As such, the only possible mechanism for drawing the empire together was imperial defense. Here too he was skeptical. In particular, he turned his attention to the hollowness of imperial rhetoric:\n\nIt might well appear a profitable and glorious task to co-operate in the protection of a \"free, tolerant, unaggressive Empire.\" But it is not equally glorious or profitable to enter a confederation under which a necessarily dominant partner can claim his blood and money to help hold down India, to quell some struggles for liberty in Egypt, or to procure some further step in the tropical aggrandisement at the bidding of some mining or rubber syndicate.64\n\nAlthough this was a powerful critique from the perspective of a metropolitan new liberal, it was not convincing in its own terms. As Hobson lamented in _Imperialism_ , the colonies themselves claimed a right to engage in their own imperial activities. Indeed, one of the reasons that he had originally defended imperial federation was that he thought it would limit their expansionist ambitions. He concluded his dissection of imperial federation with the summary claim that \"no abiding unity can be found for an Empire half autocratic and half self-governing.\"65\n\nA further reason for the unacknowledged switch lies in Hobson's interpretation of the nefarious role of Chamberlain. Although in the 1890s Hobson had been a cautious admirer of Chamberlain, he soon came to associate him with the forces of imperialist reaction, above all in South Africa.66 This was made all the worse by Chamberlain's early political radicalism; his subsequent trajectory was a gross act of betrayal. The tariff reform campaign, launched by Chamberlain in 1903, was the final nail in the coffin for Hobson.67 He was also confronted with empirical evidence that challenged the feasibility of any constitutional scheme for imperial federation. During 1905, Hobson traveled around Canada, writing reports for the _Daily Chronicle_ , which he soon turned into a short book. Two main themes ran through it: the increasing \"Americanization\" of Canada and the failings of protectionism as an economic policy. Canada, he argued, was undergoing a profound transformation. Following the lead of its southern neighbor, its people were displaying boundless optimism; the country was \"conscious, vocally, uproariously conscious, that her day has come.\" Despite the professed anti-Americanism he discerned among many of its elite, Canada was also becoming more American. The food, the architecture, the economic infrastructure, even the accents and physical dispositions of the people: all were more American than British. Average Canadians, he proclaimed, \"are American through and through,\" although they retained a substantial residue of Britishness. \"In fact,\" Hobson concluded, \"Canada presents as yet a sub-American variety of civilization, though in some ways rapidly assimilating to the States.\"68 He maintained that Canada's destiny was bound up with increasing economic interaction with the United States. Imperial federation, which was based on an assumption about the cultural unity of the global British diaspora, would find it extremely difficult to flower in this environment.\n\nCanada was also gaining a sense of national unity, drawing the distinct interests and peoples of the country together. \"Every visitor to Canada is powerfully impressed by a growing conscious spirit of nationality,\" a spirit that was bound to \"find expression in demands for even larger liberty than is enjoyed now.\" This further undermined schemes for imperial federation. Despite widespread sentimental attachment to the British empire\u2014Hobson discerned little enthusiasm for complete independence\u2014he contended that \"it would not be possible to devise, even in general terms, any scheme of Imperial federation to which the most pro-British group of Canadians would assent when they understood what it implied.\" This was a consequence of both national consciousness and democratic development. Canadians were not prepared to lose \"one jot of the power of self-government\" or shut themselves off from \"any further degree of independence to which they may aspire in the future.\" Yet this is exactly what any serious federal scheme would involve. \"For, either an Imperial Council would be an amiable farce, or it would be a real political body, capable of committing the peoples of the Colonies to some course of action, involving pecuniary and military obligations, and directing, at any rate, their foreign policy.\" The idea that a \"democratic country\" like Canada would \"hand powers over to some Privy Council committee\" was, he thought, \"preposterous.\" Democratic sentiment heralded the death knell for federalist dreams\u2014a diagnosis that was largely accurate. The future for Canada lay elsewhere: \"Canada is not staying as she was: both in sentiment and in practical policy she is moving along the road towards national independence, either within or outside the Empire.\"69 Whereas imperial federation had once seemed an appealing prospect\u2014and there is no reason to think that he changed his mind on the abstract arguments in its favor\u2014it had now been rendered obsolete by a combination of political developments. Not only was it less feasible than before, it had also been hijacked by the forces of reaction. Hobson clearly agreed with Hobhouse's injunction to take the \"fruits\" as well as the intentions of political theories seriously.\n\nYet despite his disavowal of formal schemes for imperial federation, Hobson did not give up on the civilizing potential of empire. The problem with contemporary imperialism, he argued, was its lack of accountability and the fact that it was often pursued for self-interested motives. The \"radical moral defect of Imperialism,\" he contended, \"is due to lack of any true sanction from a society of nations to the interference of an imperialist nation with the life of a lower people.\" This implied that if such sanctions could be enacted, then it would be possible to distinguish morally corrupt from just forms of imperial governance. Indeed, he looked forward to a paternalist form of multilateral imperialism, the legitimacy of which could be secured through the collaboration of a variety of \"civilized\" states.\n\nIf there existed a fairly developed form of international society, in which all peoples, great and small, were in some sense represented, and such a society delegated England or France in the interests of civilisation to take under her tutelage some backward or degraded people which lay on their borders, maintaining order, developing the natural resources of the country, and helping to teach the arts of civilisation, this would afford some moral basis for Imperialism. Actual imperialism differs widely from this condition.70\n\nIn a move that prefigures the arguments of many late twentieth-century liberal imperialists, and arguably some of the most powerful norms of the post-1945 international order, Hobson defended a vision of a benevolent multinational civilizing imperialism.\n\nConclusions\n\nIn the wake of the war in South Africa, a war that divided British liberals like no other, Hobson and Hobhouse set out a penetrating autocritique of the recent failings of liberalism and offered an alternative vision for the future. They focused their critical energies on the purported enemies of liberalism: neo-Hegelian philosophy, misapplied notions of evolution, and vested class interests. But they also addressed the failings of liberalism in general, and the new liberals in particular. These failings were both practical and cognitive. Liberalism had been a successful force during the nineteenth century, but it had grown weak and divided, hamstrung by the moral and political limits of the older liberalism and by the failure of the new liberals to recognize the powerful intellectual resources bequeathed by their predecessors. Liberalism, that is, had been partially undermined by the careless way in which its history had been narrated and absorbed by the new liberals. Hobson and Hobhouse sought to rectify this failure of historical judgment by offering an alternative account of development, one that simultaneously allowed them to praise the virtues and the foresight of the earlier liberals while insisting that new conditions meant that it was essential to adopt new arguments\u2014to at once acknowledge and redirect the legacy of their forebears. In doing so, they provide an early example of what would become common practice as the twentieth century wore on: the writing and rewriting of the \"liberal tradition,\" with a canon of great thinkers at its core. This had been largely absent in prominent nineteenth-century constructions of liberalism.\n\nEmpire played a central, although ambivalent, role in their political projects. Initially both Hobson and Hobhouse supported the federation of the British colonies, arguing that it could harness unity and diversity within a single political organization and provide an institutional foundation for further progress in international politics. It had the potential to become a democratic new liberal polity stretched across the globe. During the Edwardian years, however, Hobson changed his mind. He came to regard imperial federation as both impractical and reactionary. Hobhouse, meanwhile, appeared to strengthen his support for the idea, although he rarely engaged with concrete details. Their shifting arguments about empire exemplified the deep ambiguity of liberal visions of global order at the turn of the twentieth century.\n\n1 Winter, _Dreams of Peace and Freedom_ (London, 2006), 11.\n\n2 This sense of foreboding found literary expression in a genre of fiction imaging future wars: I. F. Clarke, _Voices Prophesying War_ , 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1992); Charles Gannon, _Rumors of War and Infernal Machines_ (Liverpool, 2005), chs. 1\u20134. Some of the stories are reprinted in I. F. Clarke, ed., _The Tale of the Next Great War, 1871\u20131914_ (Liverpool, 1995).\n\n3 Hobson, _Imperialism_ (London, 1902). His autobiography was entitled _Confessions of an Economic Heretic_ (London, 1938).\n\n4 See, for example, Peter Clarke, _Liberals and Social Democrats_ (Cambridge, 1978); Michael Freeden, _The New Liberalism_ (Oxford, 1978); Aviral Simhony and David Weinstein, eds., _The New Liberalism_ (Cambridge, 2001).\n\n5 Stefan Collini, _Liberalism and Sociology_ (Cambridge, 1979); Peter Cain, _Hobson and Imperialism_ (Oxford, 2002); Michael Freeden, ed., _Reappraising J. A. Hobson_ (London, 1990); Jules Townshend, _J. A. Hobson_ (Manchester, 1990); David Long, _Towards a New Liberal Internationalism_ (Cambridge, 1995); David Weinstein, \"Consequentialist Cosmopolitanism,\" in _Victorian Visions of Global Order_ , ed. Duncan Bell (Cambridge, 2007), 267\u201391.\n\n6 I pursue this line of argument in more detail in Bell, \"Dreaming the Future,\" in _The American Experiment and the Idea of Democracy in British Culture, 1776\u20131914_ , ed. Ella Dzelzainis and Ruth Livesey (Aldershot, 2013), 197\u2013210. For the connotations of modernity in Britain, see Martin Daunton and Bernhard Rieger, eds., _Meanings of Modernity_ (Oxford, 2001).\n\n7 On \"horizons of expectation,\" see Reinhard Koselleck, _Futures Past_ , trans. Keith Tribe (Cambridge, MA, 1985).\n\n8 In general, see Stephen Kern, _The Culture of Time and Space, 1880\u20131914_ (Cambridge, MA, 1983); on how this affected views of global order, see Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_ , ch. 3; Jo-Ann Pemberton, _Global Metaphors_ (London, 2001).\n\n9 Bernhard Rieger, _Technology and the Culture of Modernity in Britain and Germany, 1890\u20131945_ (Cambridge, 2005).\n\n10 The language of competition was also fueled by the popularity of evolutionary arguments, although they too were politically indeterminate. Mike Hawkins, _Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860\u20131945_ (Cambridge, 1997); Paul Crook, _Darwinism, War and History_ (Cambridge, 1994).\n\n11 W. L. Burn, _The Age of Equipoise_ (London, 1964); Martin Hewitt, ed., _An Age of Equipoise?_ (Aldershot, 2000).\n\n12 For further discussion of liberal internationalism, see chapter 10.\n\n13 Gregory Claeys, _Imperial Sceptics_ , ch. 3.\n\n14 See, in general, Martin Daunton, ed., _The Organisation of Knowledge in Victorian Britain_ (Oxford, 2005); Amanda Anderson and Joseph Valente, eds., _Disciplinarity at the Fin de Si\u00e8cle_ (Princeton, 2002).\n\n15 Collini, Winch, and Burrow, _That Noble Science of Politics_ ; Robert Adcock, Mark Bevir, and Shannon Stimson, eds., _Modern Political Science_ (Princeton, 2007), chs. 1\u20136.\n\n16 See, for example, Simon Potter, _News and the British World_ (Oxford, 2003). On the perceived shift in the scope of the public, see chapter 7.\n\n17 Hobhouse, _Liberalism_ [1911], ed. J. Meadowcroft (Cambridge, 1994), 103.\n\n18 Hobhouse, _Democracy and Reaction_ [1904], ed. Peter Clarke (Brighton, 1972), 18. On Bentham's views, see Philip Schofield, _Utility and Democracy_ (Oxford, 2006), ch. 7; Jennifer Pitts, _A Turn to Empire_ (Princeton, 2005), ch. 4. On utilitarianism, see Bart Schultz and Georgios Varouxakis, eds., _Utilitarianism and Empire_ (Oxford, 2005).\n\n19 Hobhouse, _Democracy and Reaction_ , 24\u201325.\n\n20 Ibid., 107, 28.\n\n21 Ibid., 28.\n\n22 Ibid., 48. One definition of imperialism that he offered was \"the doctrine of racial ascendency and territorial aggression.\" Hobhouse, \"The Growth of Imperialism,\" _Speaker_ , January 25, 1902, 474. This conception of the empire spawned the view, upheld by \"Lord Milner and Mr. Rhodes,\" that it comprised a \"great gold-producing machine.\"\n\n23 Hobhouse, _Democracy and Reaction_ , 11, 210.\n\n24 Ibid., 12. For a spirited defense of classical liberalism against the charges leveled by the new liberals (among others), see Goldwin Smith, \"The Manchester School,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 67 (1895), 377\u201390.\n\n25 _Liberalism_ was once described by C. Wright Mills as the \"best twentieth-century statement of Liberal ideals.\" Mills, _The Marxists_ (Harmondsworth, 1963), 25n. On Cobden, see Peter Cain, \"Capitalism, War, and Internationalism in the Thought of Richard Cobden,\" _British Journal of International Studies_ , 5 (1979), 229\u201345; Claeys, _Imperial Sceptics_ , ch. 2.\n\n26 Hobhouse, _Liberalism_ , 8.\n\n27 See Casper Sylvest, _British Liberal Internationalism_ (Manchester, 2009), on the difference between \"moral\" and \"institutional\" conceptions of progress in international politics.\n\n28 Hobhouse, _Democracy and Reaction_ , 49.\n\n29 Ibid., 29. Constant, \"The Spirit of Conquest and Usurpation and Their Relation to European Civilization\" [1814], in _Political Writings_ , ed. B. Fontana (Cambridge, 1988), 51\u201381.\n\n30 Hobhouse, _Democracy and Reaction_ , 49\u201350, 58\u201359.\n\n31 See especially, Hobhouse, _Mind in Evolution_ (London, 1901); _Morals in Evolution_ , 2 vols. (London, 1906); _Social Evolution and Political Theory_ (New York, 1911); _Development and Purpose_ (London, 1913).\n\n32 On liberal conceptions of nationality, see H. S. Jones, \"The Idea of the National in Victorian Political Thought,\" _European Journal of Political Theory_ , 5 (2006), 12\u201321.\n\n33 Hobhouse, _Democracy and Reaction_ , 147, 148\u201349, 151. Without providing details, Hobhouse also argued that the idea of \"direct participation\" was \"held by observers to have materially influenced American public life, and not to have influenced it for the good,\" 149.\n\n34 Ibid., 152\u201353.\n\n35 Ibid., 154, 156\u201357, 155.\n\n36 Hobhouse, \"Democracy and Empire,\" _Speaker_ , October 18, 1902, 75. He concluded that \"Mr. Hobson's book will become one of the text-books of reviving Liberalism\u2014the Liberalism which is finding itself again in opposition to Imperialism, and is recognising that a choice must be made between Democracy and Empire.\" Hobhouse was far from alone in thinking that the end result of imperial federation was better characterized as a \"world state\" not an empire. Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_ , ch. 4.\n\n37 Hobhouse, _Liberalism_ , 105, 115.\n\n38 Ibid., 115\u201316. Note the conflation here between the \"white\" settler colonies and the remainder of the empire.\n\n39 Ibid, 116.\n\n40 Ibid.\n\n41 Hobhouse, _Democracy and Reaction_ , 247, 250. 1886 saw the rejection of Gladstone's Home Rule Bill while 1902 was marked by the Peace of Vereeniging, bringing hostilities in South Africa to a close.\n\n42 See here C. C. Eldridge, _Victorian Imperialism_ (London, 1978), 13; John Ellis, \"'The Methods of Barbarism' and the 'Rights of Small Nations,'\" _Albion_ , 30 (1998), 49\u201375.\n\n43 Hobhouse, _Liberalism_ , 107, 109.\n\n44 Hobson, _The Crisis of Liberalism_ (London, 1909). This volume, like _Democracy and Reaction_ , was composed of a series of previously published articles.\n\n45 Ibid., x. All of this was \"thrown together by the class instinct of self-preservation,\" 188.\n\n46 Ibid., 183\u201384, 185, 187. Like Hobhouse, Hobson thought that evolution, properly understood, generated \"mutual aid or conscious co-operation,\" 185.\n\n47 Ibid., xi. The American Progressive scholar Charles Beard observed that \"At Albany or Harrisburg, Mr. Hobson's philosophy would be instantly branded as 'rank socialism' and dangerous utopianism, but at Westminster things are different.\" Beard, _Political Science Quarterly_ , 25 (1910), 530.\n\n48 Hobson, _The Crisis of Liberalism_ , 135.\n\n49 Ibid., 92\u201394. Yet he painted liberalism with a very broad brush, for, as Michael Freeden notes, he expended little effort in engaging with past thinkers, even Mill, and preferred to discuss his contemporaries. Freeden, _Liberal Languages_ (Princeton, 2005), 94.\n\n50 Hobson, _The Crisis of Liberalism_ , xii. This was a \"more constructive and evolutionary idea of liberty,\" 93.\n\n51 Ibid., viii.\n\n52 Hobhouse, _The War in South Africa_ (London, 1901); Hobhouse, _The Psychology of Jingoism_ (London, 1901).\n\n53 On Ruskin and Spencer, see Cain, _Hobson and Imperialism_ ; on the links to positivism, see Claeys, _Imperial Sceptics_ , ch. 4; and on utilitarian themes, see David Weinstein, _Utilitarianism and the New Liberalism_ (Cambridge, 2007), ch. 6.\n\n54 Hobson, _Imperialism_ , 126.\n\n55 Ibid., 13, 19.\n\n56 Ibid., 46. Like many contemporary critiques of finance capitalism, Hobson's views were tainted with anti-Semitism (Cain, _Hobson and Imperialism_ , 84, 92\u201393). On earlier socialist and radical theories of finance imperialism, see Claeys, _Imperial Sceptics_. His account highlights that Hobson's argument about finance capital was not especially original.\n\n57 Hobson, _Imperialism_ , 47, 12\u201313. Claeys ( _Imperial Sceptics_ , ch. 4) shows that this was grounded in, among other things, a Vattelian argument about the rights of occupation of underutilized land. See also Andrew Fitzmaurice, \"The Resilience of Natural Law in the Writings of Sir Travers Twiss,\" in _British International Thinkers from Hobbes to Namier_ , ed. Ian Hall and Lisa Hill (New York, 2009), ch. 8.\n\n58 Hobson, _Imperialism_ , 36.\n\n59 Ibid., 332.\n\n60 Ibid., 345.\n\n61 Hobhouse, _The Crisis of Liberalism_ , 238.\n\n62 Ibid., 236, 237, 239.\n\n63 Ibid., 239. On Chamberlain's own change of heart, see Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_ , 56\u201358.\n\n64 Hobson, _The Crisis of Liberalism_ , 241.\n\n65 Ibid., 242.\n\n66 On his early support for and respect of Chamberlain, see Cain, _Hobson and Imperialism_ , 53, 61.\n\n67 On the debates around tariff reform, see, inter alia, Anthony Howe, _Free Trade and Liberal England, 1846\u20131946_ (Oxford, 1998); Frank Trentmann, _Free Trade Nation_ (Oxford, 2008).\n\n68 Hobson, _Canada To-Day_ (London, 1906), 3, 50\u201351. Although it had long been in use, the term \"Americanization\" was popularized by W. T. Stead, _The Americanization of the World_ (London, 1902).\n\n69 Hobson, _Canada To-Day_ , 99\u2013101, 103.\n\n70 Hobhouse, _The Crisis of Liberalism_ , 259.\nCoda\n\n(De)Colonizing Liberalism\n\nIn 2004, with American and British troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a ferocious global \"war on terror\" in full swing, empire was once again high on the agenda. In a now infamous outburst an anonymous official in Washington boasted that \"[w]e're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality... We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.\"1 Most of the protagonists I have (just) studied in this book would likewise have seen themselves as belonging to an exclusive group of history's actors, the handful of states that had fundamentally remade the world, shaping their own reality, and whose political and intellectual leaders often believed that they were entitled, even destined, to continue doing so deep into the future. Like empire, hubris is a transhistorical phenomenon.\n\nThe preceding chapters have addressed a variety of themes and thinkers in the history of modern British imperial ideology (and beyond). Although I have concentrated on the \"age of empire,\" the half century prior to the outbreak of the First World War, I have also pushed back into the early Victorian era to trace the development of assorted doctrines, and moved through the twentieth century and into the present, across decades in which the British empire dissolved and the United States achieved a long foretold position of global supremacy. Whether wittingly or not, the anonymous official hymning the power and virtue of contemporary American empire was a lineal heir of those earlier ideologists, imaginatively beholden to a mythopoeic vision of the British empire and its role in the long nineteenth century. My analysis has been motivated by curiosity about the ways in which historical actors made sense of their world, and a conviction that studying their ideas can shed light on key moments and movements in the past, while also helping to inform contemporary political thinking. I have probed the meanings of liberalism, forms of imperial argumentation, conceptions of time and history, and accounts of global racial order. In doing so, I have investigated the writings of various individuals, some still famous, venerated even, but the majority of whom have been lost to the condescension of posterity. Only by recovering the political concerns, languages, anxieties, and fantasies of such a motley cast of characters can we begin to apprehend the content and complexity of imperial political thought at the apogee of the largest empire in history.\n\nThroughout _Reordering the World_ I have emphasized the importance of both \"historical-mindedness\" and of settler colonialism in nineteenth-century imperial discourse. Emigration and settlement had long been a conspicuous theme in English (and later British) political discourse. The colonization of North America provoked vociferous debate, drawing in many of the leading minds of the age.2 The subsequent loss of the thirteen colonies haunted later imperial thinkers, prompting anguish about the future, and melancholy ruminations about what might have been if only the British empire had remained intact. Although I am skeptical that we can learn much about modern imperial ideology from studying the writings of John Locke, it is nevertheless clear that in order to understand the character of much early modern political thought it is necessary to grapple with attitudes to settlement and occupation.3 I have traversed less well-trodden ground, analyzing intellectual debates over what I call the second settler empire. Whereas the first settler empire was geographically concentrated in North America, and was fatally wrenched apart by what Seeley termed the \"Schism in Greater Britain,\" the second was spread across oceans and continents, encompassing vast territories (and more modest populations) in Canada, the South Pacific, and southern Africa.4\n\nThis new empire\u2014or imperial subsystem\u2014was slow to form and slower still to ignite the political imagination. It coalesced piecemeal from the scattered remnants of the late eighteenth-century colonial order and the steady accumulation of new territories. Initially maligned, frequently ignored, its inhabitants routinely derided, it was only during the second half of the nineteenth century that it came to be seen as part of a single integrated system.5 During the same period it was transvalued: colonization was recoded as a laudable ideal, the colonies reimagined as spaces of virtue and desire. This fundamental switch in fortunes had several sources, some deep-rooted, others proximate. The early nineteenth century was marked by what James Belich terms a \"Settler Revolution,\" the \"explosive\" development of two interconnected geo-economic regions, the \"American West\" and the \"British West\" (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa). Although the seeds of the revolution could be located earlier, a phase of \"hyper-colonialism\" erupted with the \"settler transition\" of 1815\u201320, as emigration reached a critical mass and became a significant historical force. It was the joint product of novel transport technologies and a shift in collective psychology, such that embarking on life in the colonies came to seem both practicable and attractive to millions of people. It was sustained by a new ideology of \"settlerism,\" praising the manifold benefits, material and spiritual, of colonization.6 In a wave of creative destruction\u2014characterized by an economic cycle that saw frenetic booms followed by sudden collapse and then sustained periods of \"re-growth\"\u2014the settler world became a powerful engine of economic development and a space for the reproduction of Anglo-societies. The nineteenth-century \"great divergence,\" then, was powered by the astonishing rise of an Angloworld formed by the \"organic unity\" of the British settler empire and the United States.7\n\nEconomic vitality alone was insufficient to captivate and enthuse generations of liberal thinkers. It was the specific political status\u2014or at least self-image\u2014of the colonies that provided the key. The period of the \"great transition\" was also, as Lisa Ford argues, the moment when settler sovereignty was consolidated.8 Exclusive spaces of jurisdiction were established, such that (for example) indigenous resistance was no longer treated as a matter for diplomatic resolution between distinct communities but as an instance of domestic criminality to be dealt with by the settler legal system. Regulated by violence, this new regime of territorial sovereignty established the juridical and symbolic foundations of the settler state. Above all, though, it was the grant of \"responsible government\" in the 1840s and 1850s that elevated the colonies in the eyes of so many liberal thinkers, rendering them worthy subjects of sustained attention and affirmation. Imagining colonies as semi-autonomous, collectively self-governing communities, free of the feudal vestiges of British society, and populated overwhelmingly by energetic \"civilized\" white people, aligned them with liberal visions of political progress. Indeed it was this political transformation that many liberals later boasted was the major liberal contribution to the British empire during the nineteenth century. This was _their_ empire, something of which they could be proud and in which they could invest their hopes. While most were happy to claim the title of preeminent civilizing agent for Britain, many also felt that the occupied territories in India, the Caribbean, and Africa were ultimately fated for independence and that the despotism required to govern them, while in principle compatible with liberal ideology, was not something that they could endorse with the same confidence as the project of settler colonization. This is why I have suggested, contra Uday Singh Mehta, that it was in the colonies, not India, that many liberals found the concrete place of their dreams.9 Liberal support for settler colonialism was premised on the belief that the colonies had performed a remarkable act of political synthesis, reconciling liberty and empire in a manner unprecedented in the annals of Western history. It was usually based on a willful downplaying of the violence necessary to construct and govern settler communities. The colonies were polities based on the _herrenvolk_ principle of white racial supremacy.\n\nWhile liberals frequently celebrated the progressive dimensions of colonization, they disagreed fiercely about how best to institutionalize the settler world. At midcentury, one of the most common positions\u2014maybe even the dominant one\u2014was a modern variation on the ancient Greek template, which envisaged the colonies securing formal independence and thereafter remaining tightly bound to Britain through a dense web of economic interactions, migrant flows, and the power of racial affect. Encompassing a cluster of geographically dispersed states\u2014including the United States\u2014joined symbolically by shared culture, history, and political institutions, the Angloworld would comprise a microcosmic international order. Despite the mosaic of independent polities, however, its underlying racial unity meant that it would remain one of history's actors. Others, including John Stuart Mill, were keen to maintain the sovereign connection between the \"mother-country\" and the colonies, but only on a voluntary basis, anchored in common interests and mutual recognition.10 During the 1880s and 1890s plans for consolidating the settler empire shaped the terms of debate, often under the elastic rubric of \"imperial federation.\" Whether formal or informal, visions of colonial unity were predicated on a cognitive revolution, a transformation in perceptions of time and space, and thus of the parameters of political feasibility, that allowed the scattered fragments of the settler world to be imagined as a single united domain. For all the intellectual energy exerted on the subject, little came of plans to create a Greater British polity, though the idea of closer Angloworld collaboration advocated by more judicious imperialists sowed a far more enduring legacy.11\n\nAntoinette Burton has recently called on historians to study phenomena that cannot be enclosed within the imaginative or juridical boundaries of nation or empire.12 One such transversal was the ideology of whiteness, \"at once global in its power and personal in its meaning, the basis of geo-political alliances and a subjective sense of self.\"13 Claims about the nature and value of whiteness were central to debate over settler colonialism and imperial federation. During the 1880s and beyond, moreover, conceptions of whiteness (and in particular Anglo-Saxonism) underlay numerous calls to reconcile Greater Britain and the United States. Once again, liberals assumed a leading role. Ambitious demands emanated from such apparently incongruent figures as H. G. Wells, Andrew Carnegie, Cecil Rhodes, and W. T. Stead, who fired some of the opening salvos in the campaign to politically unify the Angloworld.14 This represented an attempt to wrestle with the problem of _translatio imperii_ , of calibrating the transition from one imperial order to another, only this time it was construed as both an interstate and an intra-racial predicament, a shift in the balance of power between polities that were composed of the same people. In chapter 13 I discussed one of the main intellectual sources for the ideology of transatlantic whiteness, namely E. A. Freeman's argument for the shared Teutonic foundations of Britain and the United States. For Freeman, race was the most basic ontological element of the sociopolitical world, and as such political institutions should be arrayed to reflect this primacy. The British empire failed this test, incorporating as it did copious \"alien\" elements while excluding the most significant political expression of the race. Some prophets of Angloworld unity, such as Rhodes and Wells, called for the foundation of a vast transatlantic Anglo-American polity.15 Less ambitious proponents, including Freeman and James Bryce, recommended the creation of an \"isopolity,\" based on shared (racial) citizenship.16 More cautious devotees of the Angloworld simply emphasized the importance of closer cooperation between its two main powers, destined to reorder the world between them. As I discussed in chapter 8, the overlapping discourses of Greater Britain and Anglo-America spawned a variety of other models of global governance during the twentieth century, including leagues of democracies and world federalism. They continue to inform debates about global order today.\n\n_Reordering the World_ makes no claims to comprehensiveness. A broader study of the thought-worlds of the settler empire would incorporate a greater range of material, as well as shifting between different modalities of historical investigation. It would need to scrutinize conceptions of the world produced in the colonies, identifying how they helped to mold local politics and how they circulated around the imperial commons. It would need to address the gendered character of colonial discourse, as well as its theological dimensions. It would need to engage with the complex legal arguments utilized to claim land and establish sovereign jurisdiction.17 It would need to move beyond elite discourses to excavate the political languages of a larger cast of individuals, organizations, and movements. It would need to recover, where possible, the intellectual production of the assorted indigenous communities that were the main victims of the \"settler revolution.\" It would need to address the interstitial status of Ireland, at once a zone of colonial settlement and an integral part of the British state. There is also much work to be done in analyzing the intellectual history of the metropolitan elite. In this book, and especially in part III, I have dedicated a considerable amount of space to the work of historians and philosophers. This choice is not accidental, insofar as they produced some of the most interesting and influential accounts of colonialism, but nor is it exhaustive. Poets and novelists were amongst the most searching colonial fabulists, and appraising their output offers rich rewards for students of political thought.18 Political economists, in particular, are due greater attention. Although I have touched on aspects of the political economy of settler colonialism\u2014for example, in my discussion of Mill's work\u2014I have not engaged it in depth. Metropolitan political economists were especially significant in shaping debate during the first half of the century, chiefly through the theoretical work and activism of the colonial reform movement, but they also played a significant role in arguments over imperial federation, and later returned to center stage in the Edwardian clashes over Chamberlain's plans for imperial tariff reform.19 A new comprehensive study of the economic thought of empire across the nineteenth century is long overdue.\n\nElucidating the impact of alien rule in the history of modern European political thought produces a relatively clear dividing line between supporters and critics of empire, facilitating the creation of canons of \"anti-imperial\" and \"imperialist\" thinkers, liberal or otherwise. Injecting settler colonialism back into the narrative blurs this distinction. Most so-called \"anti-imperialists\" from the late eighteenth century to the late nineteenth, from Bentham through Spencer to Hobson and Hobhouse, promoted settler colonialism of one kind or another. Although there is no necessary conceptual or theoretical connection between liberalism and settler colonialism, such that authentic liberals must sanction the practice, the historical record demonstrates that (British) liberals overwhelmingly endorsed it. This support was frequently conjoined with the rejection, even fierce denunciation, of empire-as-alien-rule. The crucial task of decolonizing liberalism thus needs to start with an acknowledgment that many (liberal) critics of imperialism were simultaneously proponents of settler colonialism. This Janus-faced attitude was at once simple and complex. It was simple insofar as it was based on a claim that colonization belonged to a completely different category of political order\u2014that \"[w]hatever political maxims are most applicable to one, are most inapplicable to the other,\" as Seeley put it in one of the pithier renditions of the mantra.20 They shouldn't be confused or conflated. The complexity resided in disentangling them, specifying exactly how and why settler colonies were different, when all forms of empire involved conquest and repressive governance. Here there was considerable disagreement, though most supporters concurred on a few basic points, above all the importance of racial similarity and self-government. The settler colonies were imagined as _white_ , as populated by civilized peoples capable of governing themselves (preferably within an overarching imperial framework) and of instituting sovereign control over territory that could be appropriated legitimately from its unworthy original inhabitants. The liberal case for exceptionalism, for transcending or escaping the despotic logic of traditional modes of imperial rule, was premised on a racialized picture of global hierarchy.\n\nThinking through the political and theoretical implications of settler colonialism, past and present, involves formidable challenges.21 Such states are usually founded on acts of systematic violence against indigenous peoples. (The same could of course be said of many other states as well). The United States is but the largest example. Throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries a succession of presidents, including Jefferson, Jackson, Grant, and Roosevelt, were quite open about the genocidal character of the frontier wars waged against the \"Indian.\"22 Civilization or extermination: such was the choice. In a discussion of Michael Walzer's account of American citizenship, Mahmood Mamdani writes that the \"American [national] biography is written as the autobiography of the settler. The native has no place in it.\"23 As such, pluralism and multiculturalism \"flowered on a bed prepared by the conquest and decimation of tribes in America,\" and \"[t]he uncritical embrace of the settler experience explains the blind spot in the American imagination: an inability to coexist with difference, indeed a preoccupation with civilizing natives.\" \"American cosmopolitanism,\" he concludes, \"has been crafted through settler lenses.\"24 Facing up to this situation is not only a matter of recognizing an obligation to address past injustice, but admitting that the current political order is founded on, and continues to be shaped by, an ideology of settlerism. \"Engaging with the native question would require questioning the ethics and politics of the very constitution of the United States of America. It would require rethinking and reconsidering the very political project called the USA.\"25 Efforts to rethink and reconsider have been attempted with varying degrees of enthusiasm across the other elements of the British settler world in recent years, spawning controversial campaigns for restitution, apology, and new forms of political participation, though with mixed results.26\n\nI offer no solutions to this quandary. But if the legacy of empire in general, and settler colonialism in particular, is to be confronted properly it will require a fundamental reconsideration of the political institutions and norms of settler states, including the ideologies that they created and profess. Liberalism is one such ideology. This rethinking need not entail a wholesale rejection of liberalism\u2014if such a thing is even possible now. Even at the height of British imperial arrogance, liberalism contained resources to both justify empire (of various kinds) and to launch stinging critiques of it. If those criticisms were often muted, their very possibility at least offers some hope. Today liberalism has expanded so broadly that it virtually monopolizes political theory and practice in the Angloworld, and as such it is vital to establish whether there are liberal forms of anti-imperialism suitable for the contemporary world, and what they might look like. It is essential to creatively engage with liberalism, joining the conflict between its tessellated factions.27\n\nIn _Liberalism and Empire_ , Mehta argued that the \"liberal involvement with the British empire was largely coeval with liberalism itself.\"28 I have challenged this historical narrative, suggesting that it both misdates the origins of liberalism and oversimplifies the character of liberal attitudes to empire in the nineteenth century. The British empire was forged long before the emergence of liberal political ideology: liberalism supervened on, while adapting and supplementing, existing ideas and practices. A relentless focus on the assumptions, theoretical architecture, and political entailments of liberalism carries the risk of overlooking the deeper intellectual and political currents on which it drew and to which it was a response\u2014perhaps above all the coevolving relationship between the modern state and global capitalism.29 In particular, I would contend that British liberalism was broadly coeval with the second settler empire. It was, in large part, a product of the violent dissolution of the thirteen colonies in North America, the revolutionary upheavals in France, and the tidal wave of economic, social, and political change that they unleashed. Perhaps more importantly, the development of liberal political theory and the second settler empire was interconnected. The repercussions of this historical imbrication have yet to be fully explored. In order to decolonize liberalism, it is first necessary to (re)colonize it, acknowledging the vital role that the project and ideology of settler colonialism played in its emergence and historical evolution.\n\n1 Ron Suskind, \"Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush,\" _New York Times Magazine_ , October 17, 2004. The phrase is often attributed to Karl Rove. On the debate over American empire, see Paul Macdonald, \"Those Who Forget Historiography Are Doomed to Republish It,\" _Review of International Studies_ , 35\/1 (2006), 45\u201367; Craig Calhoun, Frederick Cooper, and Kevin Moore, eds., _Lessons of Empire_ (New York, 2006).\n\n2 For two important accounts of early modern colonization, see David Armitage, _The Ideological Origins of the British Empire_ (Cambridge, 2000); Andrew Fitzmaurice, _Humanism and America_ (Cambridge, 2007).\n\n3 For wide-ranging analyses of imperial justification and contestation, see Lauren Benton, _A Search for Sovereignty_ (Cambridge, 2010); Andrew Fitzmaurice, _Sovereignty, Property, and Empire, 1500\u20132000_ (Cambridge, 2014); Anthony Pagden, _The Burdens of Empire_ (Cambridge, 2015). For a brilliant meditation on the construction of political space in European political thought, see Annabel Brett, _Changes of State_ (Princeton, 2011).\n\n4 This is the title of chapter 8 in Seeley, _The Expansion of England_.\n\n5 For a near-contemporaneous account of the gestalt switch, see J. E. Cairnes, \"Colonization and Colonial Government\" (1863), in _Political Essays_ (London, 1873), 158. On some of the key midcentury protagonists, see Edward Beasley, _Empire as the Triumph of Theory_ (London, 2004); Beasley, _Mid-Victorian Imperialists_ (London, 2005).\n\n6 Belich, _Replenishing the Earth_ , 153\u201356. For a comprehensive account of emigration around the British empire, see Marjory Harper and Stephen Constantine, eds., _Migration and Empire_ (Oxford, 2010).\n\n7 Belich, _Replenishing the Earth_ (Oxford, 2009), 51.\n\n8 Lisa Ford, _Settler Sovereignty_ (Cambridge, MA, 2010). Her book is based on a comparative analysis of Georgia and New South Wales. See also the discussion in Russell Smandych, \"Colonialism, Settler Colonialism, and Law,\" _Settler Colonial Studies_ , 3\/1 (2013), 82\u2013101.\n\n9 The quote is from Mehta, _Liberalism and Empire_ , 37.\n\n10 Mill, _Considerations on Representative Government_ (1861), _Collected Works_ , vol. 18, ch. 18. For the details of his argument, see chapter 9.\n\n11 On the legacies of the Angloworld in twentieth-century global politics, see Srdjan Vucetic, _The Anglosphere_ (Stanford, 2011); Peter Katzenstein, ed., _Anglo-America and its Discontents_ (London, 2012). On the weaknesses of the imperial federal movement, see Duncan Bell, _The Idea of Greater Britain_ , ch. 10.\n\n12 Burton, \"Getting Outside of the Global,\" in _Empire in Question_ (Durham, NC, 2011), 279\u201380.\n\n13 Marilyn Lake and Henry Reynolds, _Drawing the Global Colour Line_ (Cambridge, 2008), 3. See also Bill Schwarz, _The White Man's World_ (Oxford, 2011).\n\n14 I analyze fantasies of Anglo-America in Bell, _Dreamworlds of Empire_ (forthcoming).\n\n15 Rhodes, _The Last Will and Testament of Cecil J. Rhodes_ , ed. W. T. Stead (London, 1902); _Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human Life and Thought_ 1902] (Mineola, 1999). For more detailed proposals for formal union, see W. T. Stead, _The Americanization of the World_ (London, 1902); John Dos Passos, _The Anglo-Saxon Century and the Unification of the English-Speaking Peoples_ , 2nd ed. (New York, 1903). See further discussion in [chapter 8.\n\n16 Bryce, \"The Essential Unity of England and America,\" _Atlantic Monthly_ , 82 (1898), 22\u201329. For Freeman's account, see chapter 13. On isopolity, see Duncan Bell, \"Beyond the Sovereign State,\" _Political Studies_ , 62 (2014), 418\u201334.\n\n17 See, for examples, Benton, _A Search for Sovereignty_ ; P. G. McHugh, _Aboriginal Societies and the Common Law_ (Oxford, 2004); Fitzmaurice, _Sovereignty, Property and Empire_ ; Mark Hickford, _Lords of the Land_ (Oxford, 2011).\n\n18 For recent examples of work on this topic, see Helen Lucy Blyth, _The Victorian Colonial Romance with the Antipodes_ (Basingstoke, 2014); Terra Walston Joseph, \"Bulwer-Lytton's _The Coming Race_ and an Anglo-Saxon Greater Britain,\" _Nineteenth-Century Contexts_ , 37 (2015), 233\u201348; Philip Steer, \"Greater Britain and the Imperial Outpost,\" _Victorian Review_ , 35 (2009), 79\u201395; Lyman Tower Sargent, \"Colonial and Postcolonial Utopias,\" in _The Cambridge Companion to Utopian Literature_ , ed. Gregory Claeys (Cambridge, 2010), 200\u2013223.\n\n19 See, for example, the discussion in A. C. Howe, _Free Trade and Liberal England, 1846\u20131946_ (Oxford, 1998); E.H.H. Green, _The Crisis of Conservatism_ (London, 1996), chs. 2, 7; Gregory Claeys, _Imperial Sceptics_ ; P. J. Cain, _Hobson and Imperialism_ (Oxford, 2002). As far as I am aware, there are no recent histories of political economy that focus on colonial thought from the early Victorian era to the First World War.\n\n20 Seeley, _The Expansion of England_ , 244. Seeley was comparing the settler colonies to India.\n\n21 The journal _Settler Colonial Studies_ is an excellent source of analysis. Now a vibrant, multidisciplinary enterprise, the field of settler colonial studies was in its infancy when I embarked on my research into discourses of Greater Britain. I have learned much from it since then. For a valuable overview, see Lorenzo Veracini, _The Settler Colonial Present_ (Basingstoke, 2015).\n\n22 Benjamin Madley, \"Reexamining the American Genocide Debate,\" _American Historical Review_ , 120 (2015), 109\u2013110.\n\n23 Mamdani, \"Settler Colonialism,\" _Critical Inquiry_ , 41 (2015), 596. For an excellent discussion that takes this settler dimension into account, see Aziz Rana, _The Two Faces of American Freedom_ (Cambridge, MA, 2010). See also Alyosha Goldstein, ed., _Formations of United States Colonialism_ (Durham, NC, 2014); Kevin Bruyneel, \"The American Liberal Colonial Tradition,\" _Settler Colonial Studies_ , 3 (2013), 311\u201321.\n\n24 Mamdani, \"Settler Colonialism,\" 598\u201399. He is critiquing a line of argument that runs through Michael Walzer, _What It Means to Be an American_ (New York, 1996). On the peculiar form of sovereignty enacted by indigenous populations in the US, see Kevin Bruyneel, _The Third Space of Sovereignty_ (Minneapolis, MN, 2007).\n\n25 Mamdani, \"Settler Colonialism,\" 602\u20133.\n\n26 On official policies of reconciliation and apology, see Miranda Johnson, \"Reconciliation, Indigeneity, and Postcolonial Nationhood in Settler States,\" _Postcolonial Studies_ , 14\/2 (2011), 187\u2013201; Dirk Moses, \"Official Apologies, Reconciliation, and Settler Colonialism,\" _Citizenship Studies_ , 15\/2 (2011), 145\u201359.\n\n27 For valuable attempts to rethink liberalism, see Duncan Ivison, _Postcolonial Liberalism_ (Cambridge, 2002); Tully, _Strange Multiplicity_ (Cambridge, 1995). See also the discussion in Charles Mills, \"Occupy Liberalism!,\" _Radical Philosophy Review_ , 15\/2 (2012), 305\u201323.\n\n28 Mehta, _Liberalism and Empire_ , 4.\n\n29 For a magisterial account of the political thought of these developments, to which I am much indebted, see Istvan Hont, _Jealousy of Trade_.\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\n\nManuscript Sources\n\nOscar Browning papers, Modern Archive Centre, King's College, Cambridge\n\nAndrew Carnegie papers, Library of Congress, Washington\n\nE. A. Freeman papers, John Rylands Library, University of Manchester\n\nImperial Federation League papers, British Library, London\n\nJohn Robert Seeley papers, University of London Library\n\nHenry Sidgwick papers, Trinity College, Cambridge\n\nW. T. Stead papers, Churchill Archives Centre, Churchill College, Cambridge\n\nCecil Rhodes papers, Rhodes House Library, University of Oxford\n\nRoyal Commonwealth Society papers, University of Cambridge Library\n\nClarence Streit papers, Library of Congress, Washington\n\nH. G. Wells papers, Rare Book and Manuscript Library, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign\n\nFrederick Young papers, University of Cambridge Library\n\nPrimary Printed Sources\n\nAnon., \"A Colony and Parliament,\" in _Imperial Federation of Great Britain and Her Colonies_ , ed. Frederick Young (London: Silver, 1876), 151\u201356.\n\nAnon., \"The Federation of the British Empire: Thoughts for the Queen's Jubilee on Imperial Federation,\" _Westminster Review_ , 128 (1887), 484\u201394.\n\nAnon., \"Greater Greece and Greater Britain,\" _Spectator_ , September, 18, 1886, 15\u201316.\n\nAnon., \"Imperium et Libertas,\" _Westminster Review_ , 57 (1880), 91\u2013111.\n\nAnon., \"Our Australian Possessions,\" _London Quarterly Review_ , 1 (1853), 517\u201357.\n\nAnon., \"A Proposed Reform of the English Constitution,\" _Fraser's Magazine_ , 8 (1873), 600\u2013607.\n\nAbbott, Lyman, \"The Basis of an Anglo-American Understanding,\" _North American Review_ , 166 (1898), 513\u201321.\n\nActon, John Emerich Edward Dalberg, \"Nationality,\" in _Selected Writings of Lord Acton, Vol. 1: Essays on the History of Liberty_ , ed. J. Rufus Fears (Indianapolis: Liberty, 1985), 409\u201339.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, review of Seeley, _A Short History of Napoleon, English Historical Review_ , 2\/7 (1887), 593\u2013603.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Introduction,\" in _Il Principe_ , by Niccol\u00f2 Machiavelli, ed. L. Arthur Burd (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1891), xix\u2013xl.\n\nActon, John Emerich Edward Dalberg, _Lectures on Modern History_ , ed. J. N. Figgis and R. V. Laurence (London: Macmillan, 1906).\n\nAdams, Brooks, _The Law of Civilization and Decay: An Essay on History_ (London: Macmillan, 1895).\n\nAdams, Herbert, \"Mr. Freeman's Visit to Baltimore,\" _Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science_ , 1 (1882), 5\u201312.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Study of History in American Colleges and Universities_ (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1887).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Is History Past Politics?,\" _Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science_ , 13 (1895), 67\u201381.\n\nAlexander, Samuel, _Locke_ (London: Constable, 1908).\n\nAmery, Leopold Stennett, \"Imperial Defence and National Policy,\" _The Empire and the Century_ , ed. Goldman, 174\u201397.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Imperial Unity,\" in _Union and Strength: A Series of Papers on Imperial Questions_ , ed. Leopold Stennett Amery (London: Edward Arnold, 1912), 1\u201321.\n\nAmos, Sheldon, _Political and Legal Remedies for War_ (London: Cassell, 1880).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Science of Politics_ (London: Kegan Paul, 1890).\n\nAngell, Norman, _The Great Illusion: A Study of the Relation of Military Power in Nations to Their Economic and Social Advantage_ (London: Heinemann, 1910).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Political Conditions of Allied Success: A Plea for the Protective Union of the Democracies_ (New York: Putnam, 1918).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The English-Speaking World and the Next Peace,\" _World Affairs_ , 105 (1942), 7\u201312.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The British Commonwealth in the Next World Order,\" _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science_ , 228 (1943), 65\u201370.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Angell Sums Up at 85\u2014Urges Union of the West,\" _Freedom & Union_, 13\/12 (December 1958), 7\u201311.\n\nArendt, Hannah, _The Origins of Totalitarianism_ (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1985 [1951]).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Origins of Totalitarianism_ (New York: Schocken, 2000 [1954]).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _On Violence_ (New York: Mariner, 1970).\n\nArnold, Edwin, \"The Duty and Destiny of England in India,\" _North American Review_ , 154\/423 (1892), 168\u201388.\n\nArnold, Thomas, _Postscript to Principles of Church Reform_ (London: Fellowes, 1833).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Church and the State\" [1839], in _The Miscellaneous Works of Thomas Arnold... Collected and Republished_ , ed. Arthur Stanley (London: Fellowes, 1845), 466\u201375.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"National Church Establishments\" [1840], in _Miscellaneous Works of Thomas Arnold_ , ed. Stanley, 486\u201392.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Democracy\" [1861], _Culture and Anarchy and Other Writings_ , ed. Stefan Collini (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 1\u201325.\n\nAustin, John, _The Province of Jurisprudence Determined_ (London: John Murray, 1832).\n\nBagehot, Walter, \"Sir George Cornewall Lewis\" [1863], in _Biographical Studies_ , 2nd ed., ed. Richard Holt (London: Longmans, 1889).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Meaning and the Value of the Limits of the Principle of Nationalities\" [1864], in _The Collected Works of Walter Bagehot_ , ed. Norman St. John-Stevas (London: Routledge, 1965\u201386), 8:149\u201353.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The English Constitution_ [1867], ed. Paul Smith (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"An Anglo-Saxon Alliance\" [1875], _Collected Works_ , 8:335\u201339.\n\nBalfour, Arthur, _Decadence_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1908).\n\nBaring, Evelyn, _Ancient and Modern Imperialism_ (London: John Murray, 1910).\n\nBarker, Ernest, _Political Thought in England from Herbert Spencer to the Present Day_ (London: Williams, 1915).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Democracy since the War and Its Prospects for the Future,\" _International Affairs_ , 13 (1934), 751\u201371.\n\nBeard, Charles, \"Review of _The Crisis of Liberalism_ , by J. A. Hobson; _Liberalism and the Social Problem_ , by Winston Spencer Churchill,\" _Political Science Quarterly_ , 25 (1910), 529\u201331.\n\nBenn, A. W., _The History of English Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century_ , 2 vols. (London: Longmans, 1906).\n\nBentham, Jeremy, \"Emancipate Your Colonies!\" [1793\/1830], in _Rights, Representation, and Reform: Nonsense upon Stilts and Other Writings on the French Revolution_ , ed. Philip Schofield, Catherine Pease-Watkin, and Cyprian Blamires (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 289\u201390.\n\nBeresford, Charles, \"The Future of the Anglo-Saxon Race,\" _North American Review_ , 171 (1900), 802\u201310.\n\nBerlin, Isaiah, \"Political Ideas in the Twentieth Century,\" _Foreign Affairs_ , 28 (1950), 351\u201385.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Two Concepts of Liberty\" [1958], in _Liberty_ , ed. David Miller (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 33\u201357.\n\nBesant, Walter, \"The Future of the Anglo-Saxon Race,\" _American Review_ , 163 (1896), 129\u201343.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Future of the Empire_ (London: Marshall, 1897).\n\nBlease, W. Lyon, _A Short History of English Liberalism_ (London: Unwin, 1913).\n\nBluntschli, Johann, _The Theory of the State_ , trans. D. G. Ritchie, P. E. Matheson, and R. Lodge (Oxford: Clarendon, 1885).\n\nBolingbroke, Viscount Henry St. John, _The Idea of a Patriot King_ [1738], in _Bolingbroke's Political Writings_ , ed. Bernard Cottret (London: Houndmills, 1997), 329\u2013421.\n\nBorgese, G. A., _Foundations of a World Republic_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953).\n\nBrabazon, Reginald, \"State-Directed Colonization,\" _National Review_ , 9 (1887), 525\u201337.\n\nBradley, F. H., _Ideals of Religion_ (London: Macmillan, 1940).\n\nBradshaw, W. J., \"Imperial Federation,\" in London Chamber of Commerce, _England and Her Colonies_ (London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1887), 73\u201389.\n\nBrassey, Lord, \"On Work and Wages in Australia,\" in _Papers and Addresses of Lord Brassey_ , ed. Arthur H. Loring and R. J. Beardon (London, 1895), 235\u201347.\n\nBridges, Horace, _Some Outlines of the Religion of Experience_ (London: Macmillan Books, 1916).\n\nBridges, Horace, Stanton Coit, G. E. O'Dell, and Harry Snell, _The Ethical Movement: Its Principles and Aims_ (London: Union of Ethical Societies, 1911).\n\nBrown, Ivor, _English Political Theory_ (London: Methuen, 1920).\n\nBrowning, Robert, _Poetical Works_ , ed. Ian Jack (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970).\n\nBryce, James \"An Age of Discontent,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 49 (1891), 14\u201329.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Edward Augustus Freeman,\" _English Historical Review_ , 7 (1892), 497\u2013509.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Essential Unity of England and America,\" _Atlantic Monthly_ , 82 (1898), 22\u201329.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Ancient Roman Empire and the British Empire in India,\" in _Studies in History and Jurisprudence_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1901), 1:1\u201384.\n\nBuckle, George, ed., _The Letters of Queen Victoria, 1879\u20131885_ , 2nd series, vol. 3 (London: John Murray, 1926).\n\nBull, Hedley, \"What Is the Commonwealth,\" _World Politics_ , 11 (1959), 577\u201387.\n\nBurke, Edmund, \"Opening of Impeachment\" [February 16, 1788], in _The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke: Vol. VI, India: The Launching of the Hastings Impeachment 1786\u20131788_ , ed. P.J. Marshall (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 312\u201373.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Speech on Conciliation with America,\" in _The Writings and Speeches of Edmund Burke_ , ed. Warren Elofson and John A. Woods (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 3:102\u201369.\n\nBurrows, Montague, \"Imperial Federation,\" _National Review_ , 4 (1884\u201385), 365\u201380.\n\nBurton, E., \"Federation and Pseudo-Federation,\" _Law Quarterly Review_ , 5 (1889), 170\u201378.\n\nBurton-Adams, George, _The British Empire and a League of Peace; Suggesting the Purpose and Form of an Alliance of the English-Speaking Peoples_ (New York: Putnam, 1919).\n\nBury, John Bagnell, \"Inaugural Speech\" [March 15, 1869], _Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute_ , vol. 1 (1869\u201370), 51\u201362.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The British Empire and the Roman Empire,\" _Saturday Review_ , June 27, 1896.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Idea of Progress: An Inquiry into Its Origin and Growth_ (London: Macmillan, 1920).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Selected Essays of J. B. Bury_ , ed. Howard Temperley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930).\n\nC.R.M., \"The Late Professor E. A. Freeman and His Services to Geography,\" _Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society_ , 14 (1892), 401\u20134.\n\nCairnes, J. E., \"Colonization and Colonial Government,\" _Political Essays_ (London: Macmillan, 1873), 1\u201358.\n\nCaldecott, Alfred, _English Colonization and Empire_ (London: J. Murray, 1891).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Philosophy of Religion in England and America_ (London: Methuen, 1901).\n\nCampbell Fraser, A., _Locke_ (Edinburgh: Blackwood, 1890).\n\nCarnegie, Andrew, \"Imperial Federation: An American View,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 30 (1891), 490\u2013508.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Reunion of Britain and America: A Look Ahead_ (Edinburgh: Andrew Elliott, 1893).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Venezuelan Question,\" _North American Review_ , 162 (1896), 129\u201344.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Distant Possessions: The Parting of the Ways,\" _North American Review_ , 167\/501 (1898), 239\u201348.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Americanism versus Imperialism,\" _North American Review_ , 162 (1899), 129\u201344.\n\nCarr, Edward Hallett, _The Twenty Years' Crisis, 1919\u20131939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations_ (London: Macmillan, 1939).\n\nCatlin, George, _The Anglo-Saxon Tradition_ (London: Kegan, 1939).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Story of the Political Philosophers_ (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939).\n\nChamberlain, Joseph, \"The True Conception of the Empire,\" in _Mr Chamberlain's Speeches_ , vol. 2, ed. Charles W. Boyd (London: Constable, 1896), 1\u20136.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Life of Joseph Chamberlain_ [1902], ed. Garvin and Amery (London: Macmillan, 1968).\n\nCheng, Seymour, _Schemes for the Federation of the British Empire_ (New York: Columbia University Press, 1931).\n\nChurchill, Winston, _A History of the English-Speaking Peoples_ , vols. 1\u20134 (London: Cassell, 1956\u201358).\n\nClarke, G. S., \"Imperial Responsibilities a National Gain,\" _North American Review_ , 168 (1899), 129\u201341.\n\nCobden, Richard, \"How Wars Are Got Up in India: The Origin of the Burmese War,\" in _Writings of Richard Cobden_ (London: Unwin, 1886), 397\u2013460.\n\nCoit, Stanton, _National Idealism and a State Church: A Constructive Essay on Religion_ (London: Williams and Norgate, 1907).\n\nCoker, Francis, \"Some Present-Day Critics of Liberalism,\" _American Political Science Review_ , 47 (1953), 1\u201327.\n\nCole, Robert, _The Struggle for Empire: A Story of the Year 2236_ [1900], in _Political Future Fiction, Vol. 1: The Empire of the Future_ , ed. Kate MacDonald (London: Pickering and Chatto, 2013).\n\nColeridge, Samuel Taylor, _On the Idea of the Constitution of the Church and State_ (London: Hurst, Chance, 1830).\n\nCollingwood, Robin George, \"Translator's Preface,\" in _The History of European Liberalism_ [1927], by Guido De Ruggiero, trans. R. G. Collingwood (Boston: Beacon, 1959), vii-viii.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Review,\" _English Historical Review_ , 43\/186 (1931), 461\u201365.\n\nColomb, John, \"A Survey of Existing Conditions,\" in _Britannic Confederation_ , ed. White, (London: Council of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, 1892), 1\u201331.\n\nComte, Auguste, _System of Positive Polity_ , ed. and trans. Richard Congreve, 4 vols. (London: Longmans, 1877 [1854]).\n\nCongreve, Richard, et al., _International Policy_ (London: Chapman and Hall, 1866).\n\nConrad, Joseph, \"An Outpost of Progress\" [1896\u201397], in _Heart of Darkness, and Other Tales_ , ed. Cedric Watts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 1\u201326.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Heart of Darkness_ , ed. Ross Murfin, 2nd ed. (London: St. Martins, 1996).\n\nConstant, Benjamin, \"The Spirit of Conquest and Usurpation and Their Relation to European Civilization\" [1814], in _Political Writings_ , ed. Biancamaria Fontana (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 51\u2013165.\n\nConybeare, William John, \"Church Parties,\" _Edinburgh Review_ , 98 (1853), 273\u2013342.\n\nCook, Thomas, _History of Political Philosophy from Plato to Burke_ (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1936).\n\nCornewall Lewis, George, _An Essay on the Government of Dependencies_ (London: John Murray, 1841).\n\nCornish, F. W., _The History of the English Church in the Nineteenth Century_ , 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1910).\n\nCotton, Henry, \"The Political Future of India,\" _North American Review_ , 181\/584 (1905), 110\u201316.\n\nCraik, Henry, \"John Locke,\" _Quarterly Review_ , 169 (1889), 460\u201391.\n\nCramb, J. A., _Reflections on the Origins and Destiny of Imperial Britain_ (London: Macmillan, 1900).\n\nCromer, Lord, \"History and Politics,\" _Classical Review_ , 24 (1910), 114\u201316.\n\nCrossman, Richard, _Government and the Governed_ (London: Christopher, 1939).\n\nCunningham, Granville, _A Scheme for Imperial Federation_ (London: Longmans, 1895).\n\nCurtis, Lionel, _The Commonwealth of Nations_ (London: Macmillan, 1916).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Problem of Commonwealth_ (London: Macmillan, 1916).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Civitas Dei: The Commonwealth of God_ , 3 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1937).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"World Order,\" _International Affairs_ , 18 (1939), 301\u201320.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Fifties as Seen Fifty Years Hence,\" _International Affairs_ , 27 (1951), 273\u201384.\n\nCurzon, George, _Frontiers_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907).\n\nDalton, J. N., \"The Federal States of the World,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 16 (1884), 96\u2013118.\n\nDavidson, William L., _Political Thought in England from Bentham to J. S. Mill_ (London: Williams, 1915).\n\nde Labilli\u00e8re, Francis, \"Present Aspects of Imperial Federation,\" _Imperial Federation_ , 1 (1886), 5\u20136.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"British Federalism: Its Rise and Progress,\" _Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute_ , 24 (1893), 95\u2013120.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Federal Britain, or, Unity and Federation of the Empire_ (London: S. Low, 1894).\n\nDe Ruggiero, Guido, _The History of European Liberalism_ [1927], trans. R. G. Collingwood (Boston: Beacon, 1959).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Liberalism,\" in _Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences_ , ed. E. R. Seligman, vol. 11 (London: Macmillan, 1933), 276\u201382.\n\nde Vitoria, Francisco, \"On the American Indians ( _De Indis_ ),\" in _Francisco de Vitoria: Political Writings_ , ed. Anthony Pagden and Jeremy Lawrence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 231\u201392.\n\nDeutsch, Karl W., et al., _Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957).\n\nDewey, John, _Liberalism and Social Action_ (New York: Putnam, 1935).\n\nDicey, Albert Venn, _Lectures Introductory to the Study of the Law of the Constitution_ (London: Macmillan, 1885).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"A Common Citizenship for the English Race,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 71 (1897), 457\u201376.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Lectures on the Relation between Law and Public Opinion in England during the Nineteenth Century_ [1914], 2nd ed., ed. Richard VandeWetering (Indianapolis: Liberty, 2008).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution_ , 8th ed. (London: Macmillan, 1915), lxxxiv.\n\nDilke, Charles, _Greater Britain: A Record of Travel in English-Speaking Countries during 1866 and 1867_ (London: Macmillan, 1868).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Problems of Greater Britain_ (London: Macmillan, 1890).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The British Empire_ (London: Chatto and Windus, 1899).\n\nDoane, William Crosswell, \"Patriotism: Its Defects, Its Dangers and Its Duties,\" _North American Review_ , 166 (1898), 310\u201323.\n\nDor\u00e9, Gustave, and Blanchard Jerrold, _London: A Pilgrimage_ (London: Grant, 1872).\n\nDos Passos, John Randolph, _The Anglo-Saxon Century and the Unification of the English-Speaking People_ , 2nd ed. (New York: Putnam, 1903).\n\nDouglas, James, _Canadian Independence, Annexation and British Imperial Federation_ (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1894).\n\nDoyle, Arthur Conan, _The White Company_ (London: Smith, 1891).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Adventures of the Noble Bachelor,\" in _The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes_ (London: Newnes, 1892), 235\u201360.\n\nDoyle, J. A., _The English in America_ , 5 vols. (London: Longmans, 1882\u20131907).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Freeman, Froude, Seeley,\" _Quarterly Review_ , 182\/364 (1895), 281\u2013305.\n\nDrake, Durant, \"Seekers after God,\" _Harvard Theological Review_ , 12\/1 (1919), 67\u201383.\n\nDuBois, W.E.B., _The Souls of Black Folk_ (New York: Dover, 1903).\n\nDulles, John Foster, _War, Peace, and Change_ (New York: Harper, 1939).\n\nDunning, William Archibald, \"A Century of Politics,\" _North American Review_ , 179\/577 (1904), 801\u201314.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _A History of Political Theories from Luther to Montesquieu_ (London: Macmillan, 1905).\n\nEgerton, H. E., _A Short History of British Colonial Policy_ (London: Methuen, 1897).\n\nFanon, Frantz, _The Wretched of the Earth_ (London: Penguin, 2001).\n\nFenn, W. W., \"Concerning Natural Religion,\" _Harvard Theological Review_ , 4\/4 (1911), 460\u201376.\n\nFerguson-Bowen, George, \"The Federation of the British Empire,\" _Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute_ , 17 (1885\u201386), 282\u2013315.\n\nFichte, Johann Gottlieb, _Addresses to the German Nation_ [1807\u20138], ed. Isaac Nakhimovsky, B\u00e9la Kapossy, and Keith Tribe (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2013).\n\nField, G. C., \" _The Rise of European Liberalism_ by H. J. Laski,\" _Mind_ , 45 (1936), 525\u201329.\n\nFisher, H.A.L., \"Sir John Seeley,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 60 (1896), 183\u201398.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _James Bryce_ , 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1927).\n\nFiske, John, _American Political Ideas Viewed from the Standpoint of Universal History_ (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1885).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Discovery of America_ , 2 vols. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1892).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Edward Augustus Freeman,\" in _A Century of Science and Other Essays_ (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1899), 265\u201385.\n\nFleming, John, \"Are We Anglo-Saxons?,\" _North American Review_ , 153 (1891), 253\u201356.\n\nForbes, Duncan, _The Liberal Anglican Idea of History_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1952).\n\nForbes, Urquhart, \"Imperial Federation,\" _London Quarterly Review_ , 4 (1885), 320\u201335.\n\nFord, W. C., _The Letters of Henry Adams_ (New York: Constable, 1930).\n\nForster Boulton, A. C., \"Liberalism and Empire,\" _Westminster Review_ , 151 (1899), 486\u201391.\n\nForster, William Edward, _Our Colonial Empire_ (Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas, 1875).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Imperial Federation: Report of the Conference Held July 29, 1884, at the Westminster Palace Hotel_ (London: Cassell, 1884).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"A Few More Words on Imperial Federation,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 17 (1885), 552\u201356.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Imperial Federation,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 17 (1885), 201\u201318.\n\nFowler, Thomas, _Locke_ (London: Macmillan, 1880).\n\nFox-Bourne, H. R., _The Life of John Locke_ (London: King, 1876).\n\nFreeman, Edward A., \"Grote's History of Greece,\" _North British Review_ , 25 (1856), 141\u201372.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _History of Federal Government, from the Foundation of the Achaian League to the Disruption of the United States_ (London: Macmillan, 1863).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The History of the Norman Conquest of England, Its Causes and Its Results_ (London: Macmillan, 1870).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Comparative Politics: Six Lectures Read before the Royal Institution in January and February 1873_ (London: Macmillan, 1873).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"An Introduction to American Institutional History,\" _Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science_ , 1\/1 (1882), 13\u201339.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Lectures to American Audiences_ (Philadelphia: Porter, 1882).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Some Impressions of the United States_ (London: Longmans, Green, 1883).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Imperial Federation,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 51 (1885), 430\u201335.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"George Washington, the Expander of England,\" in _Greater Greece and Greater Britain_ (London: Macmillan, 1886), 62\u2013103.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Methods of Historical Study_ (London: Macmillan, 1886).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Alter Orbis,\" _Historical Essays_ , 4th series (London: Macmillan, 1892), 219\u201348.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Historical Cycles,\" in _Historical Essays_ , 4th series (London: Macmillan, 1892), 249\u201358.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Physical and Political Bases of National Unity,\" in _Britannic Confederation_ , ed. Arthur Silva White (London: Council of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, 1892), 33\u201356.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"A Review of My Opinions,\" _The Forum_ (1892), 145\u201357.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _History of Federal Government in Greece and Italy_ , ed. J. B. Bury (London: Macmillan, 1893).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Life and Letters of Edward A. Freeman_ , 2 vols., ed. W.R.W. Stephens (London: Macmillan, 1895).\n\nFriedrich, Carl, \"The Political Thought of Neo-Liberalism,\" _American Political Science Review_ , 49 (1955), 509\u201325.\n\nFroude, James Anthony, _Shadows of the Clouds_ (Farnborough: Gregg, 1847).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Nemesis of Faith_ (London: John Chapman, 1849).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"England's Forgotten Worthies,\" _Westminster Review_ , 2 (1852), 42\u201367.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Divus Caesar\" [1867], in _Short Studies on Great Subjects_ (London: Longmans, 1907), 4:252\u201391.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Colonies Once More\" [1870], in _Short Studies on Great Subjects_ (London: Longmans, 1907), 3:188\u2013223.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"England and Her Colonies,\" _Fraser's Magazine_ , 1 (1870), 1\u201316.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"On Progress\" [1870], in _Short Studies on Great Subjects_ (London: Longmans, Green, 1907), 3:149\u201387.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Reciprocal Duties of State and Subject,\" _Fraser's Magazine_ , 81 (1870), 285\u2013392.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Calvinism\" [1871], in _Short Studies on Great Subjects_ (London: Macmillan, 1907), 2:1\u201351.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"England's War,\" _Fraser's Magazine_ , 3 (1871), 135\u201350.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Leaves from a South African Journal\" [1874], in _Short Studies on Great Subjects_ (London: Longmans, 1907), 4:358\u2013415.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Party Politics\" [1874], in _Short Studies on Great Subjects_ (London: Longmans, Green, 1907), 4:322\u201357.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"On the Uses of a Landed Gentry\" [1876], in _Short Studies on Great Subjects_ , (London: Longmans, Green, 1907), 4:292\u2013321.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Caesar: A Sketch_ (London: Longmans, 1879).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Oceana, or England and Her Colonies_ (London: Longmans, 1886).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The English in the West Indies, or the Bow of Ulysses_ (London: Longmans, 1888).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Earl of Beaconsfield_ (London: S. Low, 1890).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Cheneys and the House of Russell,\" in _Short Studies on Great Subjects_ (London: Longmans, 1907), 5:346\u201390.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Education,\" in _Short Studies on Great Subjects_ (London: Longmans, Green, 1907), 3:224\u201357.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Society in Italy in the Last Days of the Roman Republic,\" in _Short Studies on Great Subjects_ (London: Longmans, Green, 1907), 4:191\u2013215.\n\nGandhi, Mahatma, _Hind Swaraj and Other Writings_ [1909], ed. Anthony Parel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).\n\nGardiner, A. G., _Life of Sir William Harcourt_ (London: Constable, 1923).\n\nGladstone, William, \"England's Mission,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 4 (1878), 560\u201384.\n\nGlynn, P., _Great Britain and Its Colonies_ (Adelaide: W. K. Thomas, 1892).\n\nGoldman, C. S., ed., _The Empire and the Century, A Series of Essays on Imperial Problems and Possibilities_ (London: John Murray, 1905).\n\nGooch, George P., _The History of English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Imperialism,\" in _The Heart of Empire_ , ed. C.F.G Masterman (London: Unwin, 1901), 309\u201363.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _History and Historians in the Nineteenth Century_ (London: Longmans, Green, 1920).\n\nGore, Charles, _Christ and Society: The Halley Stewart Lectures_ (London: Allen and Unwin, 1928).\n\nGraham, William, _English Political Philosophy from Hobbes to Maine_ (London: Arnold, 1899).\n\nGreen, John Richard, _A Short History of the English People_ [1874] (London: Harper, 1878).\n\nGreen, Thomas Hill, \"Introduction to Hume's Treatise of Human Nature\" [1874], _Collected Works_ , 1:1\u201313.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Against Disraeli's Foreign Policy\" [1878], _Collected Works_ , 5:313\u201317.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"National Loss and Gain under a Conservative Government\" [1879], _Collected Works_ , 5:347\u201355.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Lecture on Liberal Legislation and Freedom of Contract\" [1880], _Collected Works_ , 3:365\u201386.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Prolegomena to Ethics_ [1883], _Collected Works_ , 3:160\u2013314.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation_ [1886] (Bristol: Thoemmes, 1997).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation, and Other Writings_ , ed. Paul Harris and John Morrow (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Can Interference with Foreign Nations in Any Case Be Justifiable?,\" _Collected Works_ (Bristol: Thoemmes, 1997), 5:15\u201319.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Collected Works of T. H. Green_ , ed. Peter Nicholson (Bristol: Thoemmes, 1997).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Loyalty,\" _Collected Works_ (Bristol: Thoemmes, 1997), 5:12\u201314.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Mr Herbert Spencer and Mr G. H. Lewes: Their Application of the Doctrine of Evolution to Thought,\" _Collected Works_ (Bristol: Thoemmes, 1997) 1:373\u2013541.\n\nGreswell, William, \"Imperial Federation: Prize Essay,\" in London Chamber of Commerce, _England and Her Colonies_ (London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1887), 1\u201342.\n\nGrey, Earl, \"How Shall We Retain the Colonies?,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 5 (1879), 935\u201354.\n\nGrote, George, \"Institutions of Ancient Greece,\" _Westminster Review_ , 5 (1826), 269\u2013331.\n\nGuizot, Fran\u00e7ois, _General History of Civilization in Europe_ [1828], ed. G. Knight (New York: Appleton, 1896).\n\nHallowell, John, _The Decline of Liberalism as an Ideology_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1943).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Main Currents in Modern Political Thought_ (New York: Holt, 1950).\n\nHammond, J. L., \"Colonial and Foreign Policy,\" in _Liberalism and the Empire_ , by F. W. Hirst, Gilbert Murray, and J. L. Hammond, (London: R. B. Johnson, 1899), 158\u2013211.\n\nHarrington, James, _The Commonwealth of Oceana, and, A System of Politics_ [1656], ed. J.G.A. Pocock (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).\n\nHarrison, Benjamin, \"Musings upon Current Topics II,\" _North American Review_ , 172 (1901), 352\u201366.\n\nHarrison, Frederic, \"Our Venetian Constitution\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 7 (1867), 261\u201383.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Empire and Humanity,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 27\/158 (1880), 288\u2013308.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Studies in Early Victorian Literature_ (London: Edward Arnold, 1895).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Modern Machiavelli,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 42\/247 (1897), 462\u201371.\n\nHartz, Louis, _The Liberal Tradition in America_ (New York: Harcourt, 1955).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, ed., _The Founding of New Societies_ (New York: Harcourt, 1964).\n\nHaultain, Arnold, ed., _A Selection from Goldwin Smith's Correspondence_ (London: Werner Laurie, 1910).\n\nHayek, Friedrich A., \"Liberalism\" [1973], in _New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas_ (London: Routledge, 1978), 119\u201351.\n\nHazeltine, Mayo, \"The United States and Great Britain: A Reply to Mr. David A. Wells,\" _North American Review_ , 162 (1896), 594\u2013606.\n\nHenley, William Ernest, \"Epilogue\" [1897], in _Poems_ (London: Macmillan, 1926), 241.\n\nHerkless, John L., \"Introduction\" to _Sir John Robert Seeley_ [1912], by Gustav Adolf Rein, trans. Herkless (Wolfeboro, NH Longwood Academic, 1987), i-xxiv.\n\nHirst, F. W., Gilbert Murray, and J. L. Hammond, _Liberalism and the Empire_ (London: R. B. Johnson, 1900).\n\nHobhouse, Leonard T., _Mind in Evolution_ (London: Macmillan, 1901).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Democracy and Empire,\" _Speaker_ , October 18, 1902.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Growth of Imperialism,\" _Speaker_ , January 25, 1902.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Democracy and Reaction_ [1904], ed. Peter Clarke (Brighton: Harvester, 1972).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Morals in Evolution: A Study in Comparative Ethics_ , 2 vols. (London: Chapman and Hall, 1906).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Liberalism and Other Writings_ [1911], ed. James Meadowcroft (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Social Evolution and Political Theory_ (New York: Columbia University Press, 1911).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Development and Purpose: An Essay Towards a Philosophy of Evolution_ (London: Macmillan, 1913).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Metaphysical Theory of the State_ [1918] (London: Allen and Unwin, 1960).\n\nHobsbawm, Eric, _The Age of Empire, 1875\u20131914_ (London: Abacus, 1987).\n\nHobson, John A., _The Psychology of Jingoism_ (London: Richards, 1901).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The War in South Africa: Its Causes and Effects_ (London: Nisbet, 1901).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Imperialism: A Study_ (London: Allen and Unwin, 1902).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Imperialism: A Study_ [1902], ed. Philip Siegelman (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Canada To-Day_ (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1906).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Crisis of Liberalism_ (London: King, 1909).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _International Government_ (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1915).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Morals of Economic Internationalism_ (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1920).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Confessions of an Economic Heretic_ (London: Allen and Unwin, 1938).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Thoughts on Our Present Discontents,\" _Political Quarterly_ , 9 (1938), 47\u201357.\n\nHolland, Bernard, _Imperium et Libertas: A Study in History and Politics_ (London: Edward Arnold, 1901).\n\nHume, David, \"Hume's Early Memoranda, 1729\u20131740: The Complete Text,\" ed. E. C. Mossner, _Journal of the History of Ideas_ , 9 (1948), 492\u2013518.\n\nHutchins, Robert M., Mortimer J. Adler, Erich Kahler, and Robert Redfield, _Preliminary Draft of a World Constitution_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948).\n\nIreland, W. Alleyne, \"The Growth of the British Colonial Conception,\" _Atlantic Monthly_ (April 1899), 488\u201398.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Victorian Era of British Expansion,\" _North American Review_ , 172\/533 (1901), 560\u201372.\n\nJames, Henry, _The Letters of Henry James_ , ed. Percy Lubbock, 2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner's, 1920).\n\nJames, William, _The Varieties of Religious Experience_ (London: Longmans, 1902).\n\nJebb, Caroline, _The Life and Letters of Sir Richard Claverhouse Jebb_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1907).\n\nJebb, Richard, \"Imperial Organization,\" in _The Empire and the Century_ , ed. Goldman, 332\u201348.\n\nJenkins, Edward, \"An Imperial Confederation,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 17 (1871), 60\u201379.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Imperial Federalism,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 16 (1871), 165\u201388.\n\nJenkyns, Henry, _British Rule and Jurisdiction beyond the Seas_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902).\n\nJones, Henry Ford, _The Natural History of the State: An Introduction to Political Science_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1916).\n\nKant, Immanuel, \"Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose\" [1784], in _Kant, Political Writings_ , ed. Hans Reiss (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 41\u201354.\n\nKing, Lord, _The Life of John Locke_ (London: Colburn, 1830).\n\nKipling, Rudyard, \"Deep-Sea Cables\" [1896], in _Rudyard Kipling's Verse, 1885\u20131932_ (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1932), 173.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Recessional,\" _Times_ , July 17, 1897.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Something of Myself for My Friends Known and Unknown_ (London: Macmillan, 1937).\n\nLamprecht, Sterling, _The Moral and Political Philosophy of John Locke_ (New York: Columbia University Press, 1918).\n\nLaski, Harold J., _Political Thought in England from Locke to Bentham_ (London: Williams, 1920).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _A Grammar of Politics_ [1925] (London: Allen and Unwin, 1926).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Rise of European Liberalism_ (London: Allen and Unwin, 1936).\n\nLawrence, Thomas Joseph, _Essays on Some Disputed Questions in Modern International Law_ [1884], 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, 1885).\n\nLecky, William E. H., _The Empire: Its Value and Growth_ (London: Longmans, 1893).\n\nLeighton, Joseph Alexander, _Social Philosophies in Conflict_ (New York: Appleton, 1937).\n\nLenin, Vladimir Illich, _Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism_ [1917], in _Selected Works_ (Moscow: Progress, 1963), 1:667\u2013766.\n\nLeuba, J. H., \"The Psychological Nature of Religion,\" _American Journal of Theology_ , 13\/1 (1909), 77\u201385.\n\nLippmann, Walter, _US Foreign Policy: Shield of the Republic_ (Boston: Little Brown, 1943).\n\nLittle, James Stanley, _The United States of Britain_ (Guilford: Billing, 1887).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Progress of British Empire in the Century_ (London, 1903).\n\nLodge, Henry Cabot, \"England, Venezuela, and the Monroe Doctrine,\" _North American Review_ , 160 (1895), 651\u201358.\n\nLowe, Robert, \"The Value to the United Kingdom of the Foreign Dominions of the Crown,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 22 (1877), 618\u201330.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Imperialism,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 24 (1878), reprinted in _Empire and Imperialism: The Debate of the 1870s_ , ed. P. J. Cain (Bristol: Thoemmes, 1999).\n\nLucas, C. P., ed., _Lord Durham's Report on the Affairs of British North America_ [1839] (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Introduction\" to _An Essay on the Government of Dependencies_ by George Cornewall Lewis (Oxford: Clarendon, 1891), vii-lxvii.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Greater Rome and Greater Britain_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1912).\n\nMacaulay, Thomas Babington, \"Speech on the Renewal of the East India Company Charter\" [July 10, 1833], reprinted in _The Complete Works_ (London: Longmans, Green, 1898\u20131906), 111\u201342.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Minute of 2 February 1835 on Indian Education\" [1835], in _Macaulay, Prose and Poetry_ , ed. G. M. Young (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957), 721\u201324.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Sir James Mackintosh\" [1835], in _Critical and Historical Essays_ (London: Longman, 1848) 200\u2013279.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Ranke's History of the Popes\" [1840], in _Critical and Historical Essays_ , ed. A. J. Grieve (London: Everyman, 1907), 2:38\u201372.\n\nMacDonald, Ramsay, _Labour and the Empire_ (London: George Allen, 1907).\n\nMacdonell, Philip J., \"Historic Bases of Liberalism,\" in _Essays in Liberalism_ (London: Cassell, 1897), 219\u201376.\n\nMacfie, Andrew Robert, \"On the Crisis of the Empire: Imperial Federation,\" _Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute_ , 3 (1871\u201372), 2\u201312.\n\nMachiavelli, Niccolo, _Discourses on Livy_ , ed. Julia Conaway Bondanella and Peter Bondanella (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).\n\nMackinder, Halford, \"The Geographical Pivot of History,\" _Geographical Journal_ , 23 (1904), 421\u201337.\n\nMacpherson, Crawford Brough, \"The History of Political Ideas,\" _Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science_ , 7 (1941), 564\u201377.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \" _Main Currents in Modern Political Thought_ by John H. Hallowell,\" _Western Political Quarterly_ , 4 (1951), 145\u201346.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1962).\n\nMahan, Alfred T., and Charles Beresford, \"Possibilities of an Anglo-American Reunion,\" _North American Review_ , 159 (1894), 551\u201373.\n\nMaine, Henry S., _Village Communities in the East and West_ , 3rd ed. (London: Murray, 1876).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _International Law: A Series of Lectures Delivered before the University of Cambridge, 1887_ (London: John Murray, 1888).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Ancient Law_ [1861] (London: Murray, 1908).\n\nMaitland, Frederick William, _The Constitutional History of England_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1908).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _A Historical Sketch of Liberty and Equality_ [1875] (Indianapolis: Liberty, 2000).\n\nMartin, Boyd, \"Liberalism,\" _Western Political Quarterly_ , 1 (1948), 295\u201397.\n\nMartineau, John, \"New Zealand and Our Colonial Empire,\" _Quarterly Review_ , (1870), 134\u201362.\n\nMarx, Karl, _Capital_ , vol. 1, in _Collected Works_ , by Marx and Engels (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1975).\n\nMarx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels, _The Communist Manifesto_ [1848], ed. Stedman Jones (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 2002).\n\nMaurice, Frederick Denison, _The Kingdom of Christ_ (London: Darnton and Clark, 1838).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Social Morality_ (London: Macmillan, 1869).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Life of Frederick Denison Maurice_ (London: Macmillan, 1884).\n\nMayer, J. P., _Political Thought: The European Tradition_ (London: Dent, 1939).\n\nMazzini, Guiseppe, \"Principles of International Politics\" [1871], in _Cosmopolitanism and Nations: Giuseppe Mazzini's Writings on Democracy, Nation Building and International Relations_ , ed. Stefano Recchia and Nadia Urbinati (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009), 224\u201341.\n\nMcGiffert, Arthur, _The Rise of Modern Religious Ideas_ (London: Macmillan, 1915).\n\nMcLachlan, Jean, \"The Origin and Early Development of the Cambridge Historical Tripos,\" _American Historical Review_ , 9 (1947), 78\u2013105.\n\nMead, Edwin, \"The United States as a World Power,\" _The Advocate of Peace_ , 75 (1913), 57\u201362.\n\nMerivale, Herman, _Lectures on Colonisation and Colonies_ , 2 vols. (London: Longmans, 1841).\n\nMerriam, Charles, \" _Liberalism in America_ by Harold Stearns,\" _American Political Science Review_ , 14\/3 (1920), 511\u201312.\n\nMill, James, \"Review of Voyage aux Indes Orientales,\" by Le P. Paulin De S. Barth\u00e9lemy, _Edinburgh Review_ , 15 (1810), 363\u201384.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Colony\" [1818], in _Essays from the Supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Collected Works_ (London: Thoemmes, 1995), 3\u201333.\n\nMill, John Stuart, \"The Emigration Bill,\" _Examiner_ , February 27, 1831, _Collected Works_ , 22:270\u201372.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Female Emigrants,\" _Examiner_ , February 26, 1832, _Collected Works_ , 23:419\u201320.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"On the Necessity of the Uniting of the Question of Corn Laws with That of the Tithes,\" _Examiner_ , December 23, 1832, _Collected Works_ , 23:534\u201339.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"New Australian Colony,\" _Morning Chronicle_ , October 23, 1834, _Collected Works_ , 23:749\u201351.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The New Colony\" [2], _Examiner_ , July 6, 1834, _Collected Works_ , 23:735\u201336.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"De Tocqueville on Democracy in America [I]\" [1835], _Collected Works_ , 28:47\u201391.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Civilization\" [1836], _Collected Works_ , 28:117\u201349.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Carlyle's French Revolution\" (1837), _Collected Works_ , 20:131\u201367.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Sale of Colonial Land,\" _Sun_ , February 22, 1837, _Collected Works_ , 24:791\u201392.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Lord Durham and His Assailants,\" _London and Westminster Review_ (1838), _Collected Works_ , 6:437\u201344.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Penal Code for India,\" _London and Westminster Review_ (1838), _Collected Works_ , 30:17\u201330.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Radical Party and Canada: Lord Durham and the Canadians,\" _London and Westminster Review_ (1838), _Collected Works_ , 6:405\u201336.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Coleridge\" [1840], _Collected Works_ , 10:117\u201364.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Deductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation_ [1843], _Collected Works_ , 7:861\u201375.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Torrens's Letter to Sir Robert Peel,\" _Spectator_ , January 28, 1843, _Collected Works_ , 24:836\u201340.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Wakefield's 'The New British Province of South Australia,'\" _Examiner_ , July 20, 1843, _Collected Works_ , 23:738\u201342.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Claims of Labour,\" _Edinburgh Review_ [1845], _Collected Works_ , 4:363\u201390.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Condition of Ireland [25],\" _Morning Chronicle_ , December 2, 1846, _Collected Works_ , 24:972\u201375.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Principles of Political Economy_ [1848], _Collected Works_ , vol. 3.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Grote's _History of Greece_ ,\" vol. 2 [1853], _Collected Works_ , 11:271\u2013306.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"A Few Words on Non-Intervention\" [1859], _Collected Works_ , 21:111\u201324.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Grote's History of Greece [IV],\" _Spectator_ , March 10, 1859, _Collected Works_ , 25:1128\u201335.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _On Liberty_ [1859], _Collected Works_ , 18:213\u2013310.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Considerations on Representative Government_ [1861], _Collected Works_ , 18: 371\u201372.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Subjection of Women_ [1869], _Collected Works_ , 21:259\u2013340.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Autobiography_ [1873], _Collected Works_ , 1:4\u2013290.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill_ , ed. John Robson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963\u201391).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Use and Abuse of Political Terms,\" _Collected Works_ , 18:1\u201314.\n\nMiller, J.D.B., \"The Utopia of Imperial Federation,\" _Political Studies_ , 4 (1956), 195\u201397.\n\nMills, Arthur, _Systematic Colonization_ (London: John Murray, 1847).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Colonial Constitutions_ (London: John Murray, 1856).\n\nMills, Charles Wright, _The Marxists_ (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963).\n\nMills, Richard, _The Colonization of Australia (1829\u20131842)_ [1915] (London: Dawsons, 1968).\n\nMilner, Alfred, \"Credo,\" _Times_ , July 25, 1925.\n\nMinogue, Kenneth R., _The Liberal Mind_ (London: Methuen, 1962).\n\nMises, Ludwig von, _Liberalism_ (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005).\n\nMonypenny, W. F., \"The Imperial Ideal,\" in _The Empire and the Century_ , ed. Charles Sydney Goldman (London: John Murray, 1905), 5\u201328.\n\nMonypenny, W. F., and G. E. Buckle, _The Life of Benjamin Disraeli_ , 6 vols. (London: John Murray, 1910\u201320).\n\nMorley, John, _The Life of Richard Cobden_ , 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1881).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Expansion of England,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 49 (1884), 241\u201358.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _On Compromise_ [1874], 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1886).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Life of William Ewart Gladstone_ (London: Macmillan, 1903).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Democracy and Reaction\" [1904], _Critical Miscellanies_ (London: Macmillan, 1908), 4:267\u2013328.\n\nMorley, John, _Recollections_ , 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1917).\n\nMortimer-Franklyn, H., _Imperial Federation League in Canada_ (Montreal, 1885).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Unit of Imperial Federation_ (London: Swan Sonnerchein, 1887).\n\nMuirhead, J. H., \"What Imperialism Means,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 68 (1900), reprinted in _The British Idealists_ , ed. David Boucher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 237\u201352.\n\nM\u00fcller, Max, _India, What Can It Teach Us?_ (London: Longmans, 1883).\n\nMurphy, Arthur, \"Ideals and Ideologies, 1917\u20131947,\" _Philosophical Review_ , 56 (1947), 374\u201389.\n\nMurray, Gilbert, \"The Exploitation of Inferior Races in Ancient and Modern Times,\" in _Liberalism and the Empire_ , by F. W. Hirst, Gilbert Murray, and J. L. Hammond (London: R. B. Johnson, 1899), 118\u201357.\n\nMurray, Robert, _The History of Political Science from Plato to the Present_ (Cambridge: Heffer, 1926).\n\nNettleship, R. L., \"Memoir\" [1888], in _Works of Thomas Hill Green_ , vol. 3, ed. Richard Lewis Nettleship, (London, 1885\u201388), xi-clxi.\n\nNewman, John Henry, \"An Internal Argument for Christianity\" [1866], in _Discussions and Arguments on Various Subjects_ , 4th ed. (London: Pickering, 1882), 363\u201398.\n\nNiebuhr, Reinhold, \"Liberalism,\" _New Republic_ , July 4, 1955, 11\u201313.\n\nOakeshott, Michael, ed., _The Social and Political Doctrines of Contemporary Europe_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939).\n\nOliver, Frederick Scott, _Alexander Hamilton: An Essay on American Union_ (London: Constable, 1906).\n\nOman, Charles William, _England in the Nineteenth-Century_ (London: Edward Arnold, 1899).\n\nParker, Joseph, _Ecce Deus: Essays on the Life and Doctrine of Jesus Christ_ (Boston: Roberts, 1868).\n\nParkin, George, _Imperial Federation: The Problem of National Unity_ (London: Macmillan, 1892).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Rhodes Scholarship_ (London: Constable, 1912).\n\nParmlees, M., \"Liberal Democracy, Fascism, and Bolshevism,\" _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science_ , 180 (1935), 47\u201354.\n\nParrington, Vernon, _Main Currents in American Thought_ , 3 vols. (New York: Harcourt-Brace, 1927\u201330).\n\nPattison, Mark, \"Philosophy at Oxford,\" _Mind_ , 1 (1876), 82\u201397.\n\nPearson, Charles H., _National Life and Character: A Forecast_ (London: Macmillan, 1894).\n\nPeterson, W., \"The Future of Canada,\" in _The Empire and the Century_ , ed. Charles Sydney Goldman (London: John Murray, 1905), 363\u201384.\n\nPlamenatz, John, _On Alien Rule and Self-Government_ (London: Longmans, 1960).\n\nPlatt, Charles Malcolm, \"A Triad of Political Conceptions: State, Sovereign, Government,\" _Political Science Quarterly_ , 10 (1895), 292\u2013323.\n\nPolanyi, Karl, _The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time_ (Boston: Beacon, 1944).\n\nPollock, Frederick, _An Introduction to the History of the Science of Politics_ (London: Macmillan, 1890).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Locke's Theory of the State,\" _Proceedings of the British Academy_ , (1903\u20134), 80\u2013102.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Social Contract in Hobbes and Locke,\" _Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation_ (1907), reprinted in _Essays in the Law_ , by Frederick Pollock (London: Macmillan, 1922), 80\u2013109.\n\nRashdall, H., \"Professor Sidgwick on the Ethics of Religious Conformity,\" _International Journal of Ethics_ , 7\/2 (1897), 137\u201368.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Philosophy and Religion_ (London: Duckworth, 1909).\n\nRedpath Dougall, John, \"An Anglo-Saxon Alliance,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 48 (1885), 693\u2013706.\n\nRhodes, Cecil, _The Last Will and Testament of Cecil J. Rhodes_ , ed. W. T. Stead (London: Review of Reviews, 1902).\n\nRitchie, D. G., _Principles of State Interference_ (London: Swan, 1891).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Review of Henry Sidgwick, _The Elements of Politics_ ,\" _International Journal of Ethics_ , 2 (1891\u201392), 254\u201357.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Teaching of Political Science at Oxford,\" _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science_ , 2 (1891), 85\u201395.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Natural Rights: A Criticism of Some Political and Ethical Conceptions_ (London: Swan, 1895).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, review of _Political Science, International Journal of Ethics_ , 7\/1 (1896), 114\u201316.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"War and Peace,\" _International Journal of Ethics_ , 11 (1901), 137\u201358.\n\nRobertson, J. M., _An Introduction to English Politics_ (London: G. Richards, 1900).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Patriotism and Empire_ , 3rd ed. (London: Grant Richards, 1900).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Moral Problems of War,\" _International Journal of Ethics_ , 11\/3 (1901), 273\u201390.\n\nRobinson, John, \"The Future of the British Empire,\" _Westminster Review_ , 38 (1870), 47\u201374.\n\nRockow, Lewis, _Contemporary Political Thought in England_ (London: Parsons, 1925).\n\nRoebuck, John Arthur, _The Colonies of England: A Plan for the Government of Portion of Our Colonial Possessions_ [ _sic_ ] (London: Parker, 1849).\n\nRuskin, John, _The Works of John Ruskin_ , 39 vols., ed. E. T. Cook and A. Wedderburn (London: George Allen, 1903\u201312).\n\nRussell, Bertrand, _History of Western Philosophy_ (London: Unwin, 1945\/1948).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Hopes: Realized and Disappointed,\" in _Portraits from Memory and Other Essays_ (London: Simon and Schuster, 1956), 45\u201350.\n\nRussett, Bruce, _Community and Contention: Britain and America in the Twentieth Century_ (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1963).\n\nSabine, George H., _A History of Political Theory_ (London: Harrap, 1937).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Historical Position of Liberalism,\" _American Scholar_ , 10 (1940\u201341), 49\u201358.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \" _The Political Tradition of the West: A Study in the Development of Modern Liberalism_ by Frederick Watkins,\" _Political Science Quarterly_ , 64 (1949), 147\u201349.\n\nSalmon, Edward, \"The Crown and the Colonies,\" _National Review_ , 14 (1889\u201390), 200\u2013207.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Colonial Empire of 1837,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 61 (1897), 862\u201370.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Imperial Federation: The Condition of Progress,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 58 (1900), 1009\u201319.\n\nSamuel, Herbert, _Liberalism: An Attempt to State the Principles of Contemporary Liberalism in England_ (London: Grant Richards, 1902).\n\nSchumpeter, Joseph, _Imperialism: Social Classes: Two Essays_ [1919] (New York: Meridian, 1955).\n\nSeebohm, Frederic, _On International Reform_ (London: Longmans, 1871).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Imperialism and Socialism,\" _Nineteenth Century_ (1880), 726\u201336.\n\nSeeley, John Robert, _Ecce Homo: A Survey of the Life and Work of Jesus Christ_ (London: Macmillan, 1866).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"English in Schools\" [1867], _Lectures and Essays_ (London: Macmillan, 1870), 217\u201344.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Liberal Education in Universities\" [1867], _Lectures and Essays_ (London: Macmillan, 1870), 182\u2013216.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Church as a Teacher of Morality,\" in _Essays in Church Policy_ , ed. Walther Clay (London: Macmillan, 1868), 247\u201391.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _David and Samuel; With Other Poems, Original and Translated_ (London: Seeley, 1869).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Roman Imperialism\" [1869], _Lectures and Essays_ (London: Macmillan, 1870), 1\u201358.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The English Revolution of the Nineteenth Century,\" pts. 1\u20133, _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 22 (1870), 241\u201351, 347\u201358, 441\u201351.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Lectures and Essays_ (London: Macmillan, 1870).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Teaching of Politics,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 21 (1870), 433\u201344.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The United States of Europe,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 23 (1871), 436\u201348.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Political Education of the Working Classes,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 36, (1877), 143\u201345.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Life and Times of Stein, or Germany and Prussia in the Napoleonic Age_ , 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1878).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"History and Politics,\" pts. 1\u20133, _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 40 (1879), 289\u201399, 369\u201378, 449\u201358.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Political Somnambulism,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 43 (1880), 28\u201344.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The British Race\" [1872], _Education I_ , 4, (1881), 309\u201328.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Natural Religion_ (London: Macmillan, 1882).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Expansion of England; Two Courses of Lectures_ (London: Macmillan, 1883).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Our Insular Ignorance,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 18 (1885), 861\u201373.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Introduction,\" in _Her Majesty's Colonies_ (London: William Clowes and Son, 1886), viii\u2013xxvi.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Journal of the League,\" _Imperial Federation_ , 1\/1 (1886), 4\u20135.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Object to Be Gained by Imperial Federation,\" _Imperial Federation_ , 1\/6 (1886), 205\u20136.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _A Short History of Napoleon the First_ (London: Seeley, 1886).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Georgian and Victorian Expansion,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 48 (1887), 123\u201339.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"A Midlands University,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 42 (1887), 703\u201316.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Eighty-Eights,\" _Good Words_ (1888), 272\u2013360.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Impartial Study of Politics: Inaugural Address to the Cardiff Society for the Impartial Discussion of Politics and Other Questions, October 18th 1886,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 54 (1888), 52\u201365.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Ethics and Religion,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 45 (1889), 501\u201314.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Introduction to Political Science_ [1891], ed. Henry Sidgwick (London: Macmillan, 1919).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Professor Seeley at Cambridge,\" _Imperial Federation_ , 6\/6 (1891), 176.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Goethe Reviewed after Sixty Years_ (London: Seeley, 1894).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Growth of British Policy: An Historical Essay_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1895).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Sir John Seeley and National Unity,\" letter quoted by H. F. Wilson, _Cambridge Review_ , 16 (1895), 197.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Introduction to Political Science: Two Series of Lectures_ [1896], ed. Henry Sidgwick (London: Macmillan, 1923).\n\nSeeley, Robert Benton, _Essays on the Church by a Layman_ (London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1834).\n\nSenior, Nassau, _Remarks on Emigration_ (London: R. Clay, 1831).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _An Outline of a Science of Political Economy_ (London: W. Clowes, 1836).\n\nShaw, Albert, \"An American View of Home Rule and Federation,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 62 (1892), 305\u201318.\n\nSibley, N. W., \"Edmund Burke,\" _Westminster Review_ , (1897), 496\u2013509.\n\nSidgwick, Arthur, and Eleanor Mildred Sidgwick, _Henry Sidgwick, A Memoir_ (London: Macmillan, 1906).\n\nSidgwick, Henry, _Principles of Political Economy_ (London: Macmillan, 1873).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Methods of Ethics_ [1874], 7th ed. (London: Macmillan, 1907).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Philosophy at Cambridge,\" _Mind_ , 1 (1876), 235\u201346.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Mr. Spencer's Ethical System,\" _Mind_ , 5 (1880), 216\u201326.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Green's Ethics,\" _Mind_ , 9 (1884), 169\u201387.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Scope and Method of Economic Science\" [1885], in _Miscellaneous Essays and Addresses_ (London: Macmillan, 1904), 170\u201399.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Historical Method,\" _Mind_ , 11\/42 (1886), 203\u201319.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Elements of Politics_ [1891], 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1897).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Elements of Politics_ [1891], 3rd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1907).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Political Prophecy and Sociology\" [1894], in _Miscellaneous Essays_ , 216\u201334.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Editor's Preface\" to _Introduction to Political Science: Two Series of Lectures_ [1896], by J. R. Seeley, ed. Henry Sidgwick (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1923), v\u2013xi.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Public Morality\" [1897], in _Practical Ethics: A Collection of Addresses and Essays_ (London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1898), 52\u201382.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Morality of Strife,\" in _Practical Ethics A Collection of Addresses and Essays_ (London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1898), 83\u2013112.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Relation of Ethics to Sociology,\" _International Journal of Ethics_ , 10 (1899), 1\u201321.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Lectures on the Ethics of T. H. Green, Mr. Herbert Spencer and J. Martineau_ (London: Macmillan, 1902).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Development of European Polity_ , ed. Eleanor Sidgwick (London: Macmillan, 1903).\n\nSmith, Adam, _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_ [1776], ed. R. H. Campbell, Andrew S. Skinner, and W. B. Todd (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976).\n\nSmith, Arthur Lionel, \"English Political Philosophy in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,\" in _The Cambridge Modern History_ , vol. 6, ed. Adolphus W. Ward, George W. Prothero, and Stanley Leathes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 785\u2013821.\n\nSmith, Goldwin, _The Empire, A Series of Letters Published in \"The Daily News,\" 1862, 1863_ (Oxford: J. Henry and J. Parker, 1863).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Policy of Aggrandizement,\" _Fortnightly Review_ , 22 (1877), 303\u201324.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Expansion of England,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 45 (1884), 524\u201340.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Straining the Silken Thread,\" _Macmillan's Magazine_ , 58 (1888), 241\u201346.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Hatred of England,\" _North American Review_ , 150\/402 (1890), 547\u201362.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Empire,\" in _Essays on Questions of the Day_ [1893], 2nd ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1894), 141\u201395.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Manchester School,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 67 (1895), 377\u201390.\n\nSmith, William Roy, \"British Imperial Federation,\" _Political Science Quarterly_ , 36 (1921), 274\u201397.\n\nSnow, Alpheus Henry, \"Neutralization versus Imperialism,\" _American Journal of International Law_ , 2\/3 (1908), 569\u201370.\n\nSohn, Louis, and Grenville Clark, _World Peace through World Law_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1958).\n\nSomers, Robert, \"Emigration\" [1878], _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ , 9th ed. (London: A. C. and Black, 1875\u201389), 8:174\u201376.\n\nSonenscher, Michael, \"Barbarism and Civilisation\" in _A Companion to Intellectual History_ , ed. Richard Whatmore and Brian Young (Oxford: Blackwell, 2016), 288\u2013302.\n\nSorel, Georges, _Reflections on Violence_ [1908], ed. Jeremy Jennings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).\n\nSorley, William Ritchie, \"John Locke,\" in _The Cambridge History of English Literature_ , ed. Adolphus W. Ward and Alfred Rayney Waller (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912), 8:328\u201348.\n\nSpencer, Herbert, _The Proper Sphere of Government_ [1842\u201343], in _Man versus the State: With Six Essays on Government, Society and Freedom_ (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1982), 181\u2013264.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Social Statics: Or, the Conditions Essential to Human Happiness Specified, and the First of Them Developed_ (London: John Chapman, 1851).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _First Principles_ (London: Williams and Norgate, 1867).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Principles of Sociology_ , 3 vols. (London: Williams and Norgate, 1876\u201396).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Man versus the State_ [1884] (Indianapolis: Liberty, 1969).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Principles of Ethics_ [1879\u201393], 2 vols. (Indianapolis: Liberty, 1978).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Filiation of Ideas\" [1899], in _The Life and Letters of Herbert Spencer_ , ed. David Duncan (London: Methuen, 1908), 533\u201376.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Imperialism and Slavery,\" in _Facts and Comments_ (London: Williams and Norgate, 1902), 112\u201321.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Re-barbarization\" and \"Regimentation,\" in _Facts and Comments_ (London: Williams and Norgate, 1902), 172\u2013200.\n\nStead, William Thomas, \"The English beyond the Sea,\" _Pall Mall Gazette_ , October 4, 1884, 1.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"To All English-Speaking Folks,\" _Review of Reviews_ , 1\/1 (1890), 15\u201320.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Americanization of the World; Or, the Trend of the Twentieth Century_ (London: Horace Markley, 1902).\n\nStearns, Harold, _Liberalism in America: Its Origins, Its Temporary Collapse, Its Future_ (New York: Boni, 1919).\n\nStephen, James Fitzjames, \"Liberalism,\" _Cornhill Magazine_ , 5\/25 (1862), 70\u201383.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Deus Ultionum,\" _Saturday Review_ , October 15, 1867.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Locke on Government\" [1867], _Horae Sabbaticae_ , vol. 2 (London: Macmillan, 1892), 206\u20138.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Liberty, Equality, Fraternity_ (London: Smith, 1873).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Manchester on India,\" _Times_ , January 4, 1878.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Foundations of the Government of India,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 14\/80 (1883), 541\u201368.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Story of Nuncomar and the Impeachment of Sir Elijah Impey_ (London: Macmillan, 1885).\n\nStephen, Leslie, _History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century_ (London: Smith, 1876).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Locke, John (1632\u20131704),\" _The Dictionary of National Biography_ (London: Smith, 1893), 34:27\u201336.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Life of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen_ (London: Smith, Elder, 1895).\n\nStephens, H. Morse, \"Nationality and History,\" _American Historical Review_ , 21\/2 (1916), 225\u201336.\n\nStokes, Eric, _The English Utilitarians and India_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959).\n\nStrauss, Leo, _Liberalism Ancient and Modern_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968).\n\nStrauz-Hupe, Robert, James Dougherty, and William Kintner, _Building the Atlantic World_ (New York: Harper, 1963).\n\nStreit, Clarence, _Union Now: A Proposal for a Federal Union of Democracies of the North Atlantic_ (New York: Harper, 1938).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Union Now with Britain_ (New York: Harper, 1941).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Atlantic Union\u2014Freedom's Answer to Malenkov,\" _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science_ , 288 (1953), 2\u201312.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Lionel Curtis\u2014Prophet of Federal Freedom,\" _Freedom & Union_, 10 (January 1956), 10.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Freedom's Frontier: Atlantic Union Now_ (New York: Harper, 1961).\n\nStout, Robert, \"A Colonial View of Imperial Federation,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 21 (1887), 351\u201362.\n\nStuart-Linton, E. T., _The Problem of Empire Governance_ (London: Macmillan, 1912).\n\nSutherland, John Douglas, Marquis of Lorne, _Imperial Federation_ (London: Sonnenschein, 1885).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Annual Address on the Progress of Geography, 1885\u20131886,\" _Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society_ , 8 (1886), 417\u201336.\n\nTaylor, A.J.P., _The Trouble Makers: Dissent over Foreign Policy 1792\u20131939_ (London: Hamilton, 1957).\n\nTennyson, Alfred, _Poetical Works, Including the Plays_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953).\n\nThonton, A. P., _The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies_ (London: Macmillan, 1959).\n\nTocqueville, Alexis de, _Democracy in America_ [1835\u201340], trans. Henry Reeve, 2 vols. (London: Longmans, 1862).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Second Letter on Algeria\" [1837], _Writings_ , 14\u201326.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Essay on Algeria (October 1841),\" _Writings_ , 59\u2013116.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"First Report on Algeria\" [1847], _Writings_ , 129\u201373.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Writings on Empire and Slavery_ , ed. J. Pitts (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001).\n\nTodd, Alpheus, _On Parliamentary Government in England_ [1867] (London: S. Low, 1887).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Parliamentary Government in England: Its Origin, Development and Practical Operation_ (London: Longmans, 1867).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Parliamentary Government in the British Colonies_ (London: Longmans, 1880).\n\nTorrens, Robert, _Colonisation of South Australia_ (London: Longmans, 1835).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Self-Supporting Colonization_ (London: J. Ridgeway, 1847).\n\nTourg\u00e9e, Albion, \"The Twentieth Century Peacemakers,\" _Contemporary Review_ , 75 (1899), 886\u2013908.\n\nTrollope, Anthony, _The New Zealander_ , ed. N. J. Hall (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972).\n\nTrotter, L. J., \"British India under the Crown,\" _Contemporary Review_ , vol. 15 (1870), 113\u201332.\n\nTupper, Sir Charles, \"Federating the Empire, A Colonial Plan,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 30 (1891), 509\u201320.\n\nTurner, Frederick Jackson, \"The Significance of the Frontier in American History\" [1893], in _Rereading Frederick Jackson Turner_ , ed. J. M. Faragher (London: Yale University Press, 1998), 31\u201360.\n\nVaughan, Charles E., _Studies in the History of Political Philosophy_ , 2 vols. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1925).\n\nVincent, C. E. Howard, \"Inter-British Trade and Its Influence on the Unity of the Empire,\" _Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute_ , 22 (1891\u201392), 265\u201388.\n\nVoegelin, Eric, \"Liberalism and Its History,\" _Review of Politics_ , 36 (1974), 504\u201320.\n\nVogel, Julius, \"Greater or Lesser Britain,\" _Nineteenth-Century_ , 1 (1877), 809\u201331.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The British Empire: Mr. Lowe and Lord Blachford,\" _Nineteenth Century_ , 3 (1878), 617\u201336.\n\nWakefield, Edward Gibbon, _A Letter from Sydney, the Principal Town in Australasia, Together with the Outline of a System of Colonization_ , ed. Robert Gouger (London: Joseph Cross, 1830).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _England and America_ , 2 vols. (London: R. Bentley, 1833).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _A View on the Art of Colonization_ [1849], in _The Collected Works of Edward Gibbon Wakefield_ , ed. Muriel Florence Lloyd Prichard (Glasgow: Collins, 1968), 758\u20131040.\n\nWaldstein, Charles, \"The English-Speaking Brotherhood,\" _North American Review_ , 167 (1898), 223\u201338.\n\nWallace, Edwin, \"John Locke,\" _Westminster Review_ , 107 (1877), 163\u201395.\n\nWallas, Graham, _Human Nature in Politics_ , 3rd ed. (London: Constable, 1909).\n\nWatkins, Frederick M., _The Political Tradition of the West: A Study in the Development of Modern Liberalism_ (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1948).\n\nWells, H. G., _The War of the Worlds_ (London: William Heinemann, 1898).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Anticipations of the Reaction of Mechanical and Scientific Progress upon Human Life and Thought_ [1902] (Mineola, NY: Dover, 1999).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Outline of History: Being a Plain History of Life and Mankind_ (London: Cassell, 1925).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The New America: The New World_ (London: Cressett, 1935).\n\nWestgarth, William, \"The Unity of the Empire: Federation, Intercolonial and Imperial,\" _National Review_ , 4 (1884), 504\u201311.\n\nWhatley, Richard, _Letters on the Church, by an Episcopalian_ (London: Longmans, 1826).\n\nWhite, Arthur Silva, \"An Anglo-American Alliance,\" _North American Review_ , 158 (1894), 484\u201393.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, ed., _Britannic Confederation: A Series of Papers_ (London: George Philip, 1892).\n\nWhyte, Frederick, _The Life of W. T. Stead_ , 2 vols. (London: Jonathan Cape, 1925).\n\nWillkie, Wendell, _One World_ (New York: Cassell, 1943).\n\nWilloughby, W. W., review of _Introduction to Political Science, Political Science Quarterly_ , 11\/3 (1896), 548\u201351.\n\nWilson, Samuel, \"Imperial Federation,\" _National Review_ , 4 (1884), 380\u201386.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"A Scheme for Imperial Federation,\" _Nineteenth-Century_ , 17 (1885), 590\u201398.\n\nWilton, G. W., \"Solidarity without Federation,\" pts. 1 and 2, _Juridical Review_ , 4 (1892), 317\u201334; _Juridical Review_ , 5 (1893), 248\u201362.\n\nWright, Quincy, \"International Law and Ideologies,\" _American Journal of International Law_ , 48 (1954), 616\u201326.\n\nYoung, Frederick, _Imperial Federation of Great Britain and Her Colonies; in Letters Edited by Frederick Young_ (London: S. W. Silver, 1876).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _An Address on Imperial Federation, at Cambridge_ (London: E. Stanford, 1885).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _On the Political Relations of Mother Countries and Colonies_ (London: Chapman and Hall, 1885).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Exit Party: An Essay on the Rise and Fall of \"Party\" as the Ruling Factor of the Governments of Great Britain_ (London: George Allen, 1900).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _A Pioneer of Imperial Federation in Canada_ (London: G. Allen, 1902).\n\nZimmern, Alfred, _The Greek Commonwealth: Politics and Economics in Fifth Century Athens_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014ed., _Modern Political Doctrines_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1939).\n\nSecondary Sources\n\nAarsleff, Hans, \"Locke's Influence,\" in _The Cambridge Companion to Locke_ , ed. Vere Chappell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 252\u201389.\n\nAbernethy, David, _The Dynamics of Global Dominance: European Overseas Empires, 1415\u20131980_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000).\n\nAbizadeh, Arash, \"Citizenship, Immigration, and Boundaries,\" in _Ethics and World Politics_ , ed. Bell, 358\u201377.\n\nAdas, Michael, \"Contested Hegemony: The Great War and the Afro-Asian Assault on the Civilizing Mission Ideology,\" _Journal of World History_ , 15\/1 (2004), 31\u201363.\n\nAdcock, Robert, _Liberalism and the Emergence of American Political Science: A Transatlantic Tale_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).\n\nAdcock, Robert, Mark Bevir, and Shannon Stimson, eds., _Modern Political Science: Anglo-American Exchanges since 1880_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).\n\nAlessio, Dominic David, \"Domesticating 'The Heart of the Wild': Female Personifications of the Colonies, 1886\u20131940,\" _Women's History Review_ , 6 (1997), 239\u201369.\n\nAllard, James, \"Idealism in Britain and the United States,\" in _The Cambridge History of Philosophy, 1870\u20131945_ , ed. Thomas Baldwin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 43\u201359.\n\nAllardyce, Gilbert, \"The Rise and Fall of the Western Civilization Course,\" _American Historical Review_ , 87 (1982), 695\u2013725.\n\nAllen, H. C., _Great Britain and the United States: A History of Anglo-American Relations_ (New York: St. Martin's, 1954).\n\nAnderson, Amanda, and Joseph Valente, eds., _Disciplinarity at the Fin de Si\u00e8cle_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002).\n\nAnderson, Perry, \"Renewals,\" _New Left Review_ , 1 (2000), 5\u201324.\n\nAnievas, Alexander, ed., _Marxism and World Politics: Contesting Global Capitalism_ (London: Routledge, 2010).\n\nAppadurai, Arjun, _Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization_ (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Sovereignty without Territoriality: Notes for a Postnational Geography,\" in _The Geography of Identity_ , ed. Patricia Yaeger (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996), 40\u201358.\n\nArmitage, David, \"A Patriot for Whom? The Afterlives of Bolingbroke's Patriot King,\" _Journal of British Studies_ , 36 (1997), 397\u2013418.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, ed., _Theories of Empire, 1450\u20131800_ (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1998).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Ideological Origins of the British Empire_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Empire and Liberty,\" in _Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage_ , 2 vols., ed. van Gelderen and Skinner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 2:29\u201347.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Fifty Years' Rift: Intellectual History and International Relations,\" _Modern Intellectual History_ , 1 (2004), 97\u2013109.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Foundations of Modern International Thought_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).\n\nArneil, Barbara, _John Locke and America_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Citizens, Wives, Latent Citizens and Non-Citizens in the _Two Treatises_ : A Legacy of Inclusion, Exclusion and Assimilation,\" _Eighteenth-Century Thought_ , 3 (2007), 209\u201322.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Domestic Colonies: The Colonial Turn Inward_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).\n\nArnstein, Walter, \"Queen Victoria,\" _Victorian Studies_ , 36 (1993), 377\u201380.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Queen Victoria_ (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003).\n\nBain, William, _Between Anarchy and Society: Trusteeship and the Obligations of Power_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).\n\nBaji, Tomohito, \"Commonwealth: Alfred Zimmern and World Citizenship,\" PhD thesis, University of Cambridge (2016).\n\nBaldwin, Thomas, \"The Territorial State,\" in _Jurisprudence: Cambridge Essays_ , ed. Gross and Harrison (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 207\u201330.\n\nBall, Terence, \"The Formation of Character: Mill's Ethology Reconsidered,\" _Polity_ , 33 (2000), 25\u201348.\n\nBallantyne, Tony, _Orientalism and Race_ (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Remaking the Empire from Newgate,\" in _Ten Books That Shaped the British Empire_ , ed. Antoinette Burton and Isabel Hofmeyr (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014), 29\u201350.\n\nBaratta, Joseph Preston, \"The International Federalist Movement: Toward Global Governance,\" _Peace & Change_, 24 (1999), 340\u201372.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Politics of World Federation_ , 2 vols. (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004).\n\nBarkawi, Tarak, \"Empire and Order in International Relations and Security Studies,\" in _The International Studies Encyclopaedia_ , ed. Robert Denemark (Oxford: Blackwell, 2010), 3:1360\u201379.\n\nBarry, Brian, \"On Self-Government,\" in _The Nature of Political Theory_ , ed. David Miller and Larry Siedentop (London: Clarendon Press, 1983), 121\u201354.\n\nBartelson, Jens, \"The Trial of Judgement: A Note on Kant and the Paradoxes of Internationalism,\" _International Studies Quarterly_ , 39 (1995), 255\u201379.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Critique of the State_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Making Sense of Global Civil Society,\" _European Journal of International Relations_ , 12 (2006), 371\u201395.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Visions of World Community_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).\n\nBateman, Fiona, and Lionel Pilkington (eds.), _Studies in Settler Colonialism: Politics, Identity and Culture_ (New York: Palgrave, 2011).\n\nBayly, Christopher Alan, _The Birth of the Modern World: Global Connections and Comparisons 1780\u20131914_ (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"European Political Thought and the Wider World during the Nineteenth Century,\" in _The Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Political Thought_ , ed. Claeys and Stedman Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 835\u201363.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Recovering Liberties: Indian Thought in the Age of Liberalism and Empire_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Michael Mann and Modern World History,\" _Historical Journal_ , 58\/1 (2015), 331\u201341.\n\nBayly, Susan, _Caste, Society and Politics in India from the Eighteenth Century to the Modern Age_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).\n\nBeasley, Edward, _Empire as the Triumph of Theory: Imperialism, Information, and the Colonial Society of 1868_ (London: Routledge, 2005).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Mid-Victorian Imperialists: British Gentlemen and the Empire of the Mind_ (London: Routledge, 2005).\n\nBehm, Amanda, \"The Bisected Roots of Imperial History: Settler World Projects and the Making of a Field in Modern Britain, 1883\u20131912,\" _Recherches Britanniques_ , 1\/1 (2011), 54\u201377.\n\nBelich, James, _Replenishing the Earth: The Settler Revolution and the Rise of the Anglo-World, 1783\u20131939_ (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).\n\nBell, Duncan, \"Mythscapes: Memory, Mythology and National Identity,\" _British Journal of Sociology_ , 54\/1 (2003), 63\u201381.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Dissolving Distance: Technology, Space, and Empire in British Political Thought, 1770\u20131900,\" _Journal of Modern History_ , 77\/3 (2005), 523\u201363.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Unity and Difference: John Robert Seeley and the Political Theology of International Relations,\" _Review of International Studies_ , 31\/3 (2005), 559\u201379.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Empire and International Relations in Victorian Political Thought,\" _Historical Journal_ , 49 (2006), 281\u201398.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"From Ancient to Modern in Victorian Imperial Thought,\" _Historical Journal_ , 49 (2006), 1\u201325.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Idea of a Patriot Queen? The Monarchy, the Constitution, and the Iconographic Order of Greater Britain, 1860\u20131900,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 34 (2006), 3\u201322.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Victorian Idea of a Global State,\" in _Victorian Visions_ , ed. Bell, 159\u201386.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Idea of Greater Britain: Empire and the Future of World Order, 1860\u20131900_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Agonistic Democracy and the Politics of Memory,\" _Constellations_ , 15\/1 (2008), 148\u201366.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Democracy and Empire: J. A. Hobson, Leonard Hobhouse, and the Crisis of Liberalism,\" in _British International Thinkers_ , ed. Hall and Hill (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 181\u2013207.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Republican Imperialism: J. A. Froude and the Virtue of Empire,\" _History of Political Thought_ , 30 (2009), 166\u201391.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Imagined Spaces: Nation, State, and Territory in the British Colonial Empire, 1860\u20131914,\" in _The Primacy of Foreign Policy in British History_ , ed. William Mulligan and Brendan Simms (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2010), 197\u2013214.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"John Stuart Mill on Colonies,\" _Political Theory_ , 38 (2010), 34\u201364.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Empire and Imperialism,\" in _The Cambridge History of Nineteenth-Century Political Thought_ , ed. Gregory Claeys and Gareth Stedman Jones (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 864\u201392.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Dreaming the Future: Anglo-America as Utopia, 1880\u20131914,\" in _The American Experiment and the Idea of Democracy in British Culture, 1776\u20131914_ , ed. Ella Dzelzainis and Ruth Livesey (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2012), 197\u2013210.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Project for a New Anglo Century: Race, Space, and Global Order,\" in _Anglo-America and Its Discontents_ , ed. Peter Katzenstein (New York: Routledge 2012), 33\u201356.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Making and Taking Worlds,\" in _Global Intellectual History_ , ed. Samuel Moyn and Andrew Sartori (New York: Colombia University Press, 2013), 254\u201382.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"On J. A. Hobson's 'The Ethics of Internationalism,'\" _Ethics_ , 125 (2014), 220\u201322.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"To Act Otherwise: Agonistic Republicanism and Global Citizenship,\" in _On Global Citizenship: James Tully in Dialogue_ , ed. David Owen (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 181\u2013207.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Before the Democratic Peace: Racial Utopianism, Empire and the Abolition of War,\" _European Journal of International Relations_ , 20\/3 (2014), 647\u201370.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Beyond the Sovereign State: Isopolitan Citizenship, Race, and Anglo-American Union,\" _Political Studies_ , 62 (2014), 418\u201334.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Alter Orbis: E. A. Freeman on Empire and Racial Destiny,\" in _Making History_ , ed. Bremner and Conlin, 217\u201335.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Desolation Goes before Us,\" _Journal of British Studies_ , 54\/4 (2015), 987-93.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Dreamworlds of Empire_ (forthcoming).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Race, Utopia, Perpetual Peace: Andrew Carnegie's Dreamworld,\" in _Intellectual Histories of American Foreign Policy_ , ed. Jean-Francis Drolet and James Dunkerley (forthcoming).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, ed., _Victorian Visions of Global Order: Empire and International Relations in Nineteenth-Century Political Thought_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).\n\nBell, Duncan, and Joel Isaac, eds., _Uncertain Empire_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).\n\nBell, Duncan, and Casper Sylvest, \"International Society in Victorian Political Thought: T. H. Green, Herbert Spencer, and Henry Sidgwick,\" _Modern Intellectual History_ , 3 (2006), 1\u201332.\n\nBellamy, Alex, _Responsibility to Protect: A Defense_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, ed., _International Society and Its Critics_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).\n\nBellamy, Richard, _Liberalism and Modern Society: An Historical Argument_ (Cambridge: Polity, 1992).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, ed., _Victorian Liberalism: Nineteenth Century Political Thought and Practice_ (Abingdon: Routledge, 1990).\n\nBennett, Bruce, _New Zealand's Moral Foreign Policy 1935\u201339_ (Wellington: New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, 1962).\n\nBennett, George, _The Concept of Empire_ , 2nd ed. (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1962).\n\nBennett, James C., _The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the Twenty-First Century_ (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Third Anglosphere Century: The English-Speaking World in an Era of Transition_ (Washington: Heritage Foundation, 2007).\n\nBentley, Michael, _Politics without Democracy: England, 1815\u20131918_ , 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Lord Salisbury's World: Conservative Environments in Late Victorian Britain_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Review of Uday Singh Mehta, _Liberalism and Emapire,\" Victorian Studies_ , 43\/4 (2001), 620.\n\nBenton, Lauren, _A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400\u20131900_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).\n\nBerard, R. N., \"Edward Augustus Freeman and University Reform in Victorian Oxford,\" _History of Education_ , 9 (1980), 287\u2013301.\n\nBerman, Sherri, _The Primacy of Politics: Social Democracy and the Making of Europe's Twentieth Century_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).\n\nBevir, Mark, \"Republicanism, Socialism, and Democracy in Britain: The Origins of the Radical Left,\" _Journal of Social History_ , 34 (2000), 351\u201368.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Long Nineteenth Century in Intellectual History,\" _Journal of Victorian Culture_ , 6 (2001), 313\u201336.\n\nBevir, Mark, \"Political Studies as Narrative and Science, 1880\u20132000,\" _Political Studies_ , 54 (2006), 583\u2013606.\n\nBhabha, Homi, _The Location of Culture_ (London: Routledge, 1994).\n\nBiagini, Eugenio, _Liberty, Retrenchment, and Reform: Popular Liberalism in the Age of Gladstone, 1860\u20131880_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Neo-Roman Liberalism: 'Republican' Values and British Liberalism, ca. 1860\u20131875,\" _History of European Ideas_ , 29 (2003), 55\u201372.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Radicalism and Liberty,\" in _Liberty and Authority in Victorian Britain_ , ed. Peter Mandler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 101\u201325.\n\nBodelson, Carl Adolf, _Studies in Mid-Victorian Imperialism_ [1924] (London: Heinemann, 1960).\n\nBooth, Ken, and Nicholas Wheeler, _The Security Dilemma: Fear, Cooperation and Trust in World Politics_ (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2007).\n\nBosco, Andrea, \"Lothian, Curtis, Kimber and the Federal Union Movement (1938\u20131940),\" _Journal of Contemporary History_ , 23 (1988), 465\u2013502.\n\nBoucher, David, \"British Idealism, the State, and International Relations,\" _Journal of the History of Ideas_ , 55 (1994), 671\u201394.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Introduction,\" in _The British Idealists_ , ed. Boucher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), vii\u2013xxxiii.\n\nBoucher, David, and Andrew Vincent, _British Idealism and Political Theory_ (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2001).\n\nBourke, Richard, \"Pocock and the Presuppositions of the New British History,\" _Historical Journal_ , 53\/3 (2010), 747\u201370.\n\nBowden, Brett, _The Empire of Civilization: The Evolution of an Imperial Idea_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009).\n\nBradley, Mark, \"Introduction,\" in _Classics and Imperialism in the British Empire_ , ed. Bradley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 1\u201329.\n\nBrady, Ciaran, _James Anthony Froude: An Intellectual Biography of a Victorian Prophet_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).\n\nBrake, Laurel, et al., eds., _W. T. Stead: Newspaper Revolutionary_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012).\n\nBrantlinger, Patrick, _Dark Vanishings: Discourse on the Extinction of Primitive Races, 1800\u20131930_ (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003).\n\nBremner, Alex, and Jonathan Conlin, eds., _Making History: Edward Augustus Freeman and Victorian Cultural Politics_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).\n\nBrendon, Piers, _The Decline and Fall of the British Empire: 1781\u20131997_ (London: Jonathan Cape, 2007).\n\nBrett, Annabel, _Changes of State: Nature and the Limits of the City in Early Modern International Law_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011).\n\nBrewer, Anthony, _Marxist Theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey_ , 2nd ed. (London: Routledge, 1990).\n\nBrown, Gordon, \"Enlarging the Anglosphere,\" _Wall Street Journal_ , April 16, 2008.\n\nBrundage, Anthony, Richard Cosgrove, _The Great Tradition: Constitutional History and National Identity in Britain and the United States, 1870\u20131960_ (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2007).\n\nBruyneel, Kevin, _The Third Space of Sovereignty: The Postcolonial Politics of U. S.\u2013Indigenous Relations_ (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The American Liberal Colonial Tradition,\" _Settler Colonial Studies_ , 3 (2013), 311\u201321.\n\nBuchan, Bruce, _Empire of Political Thought: Indigenous Australians and the Language of Colonial Government_ (London: Pickering and Chatto, 2008).\n\nBuckner, P. A., _The Transition to Responsible Government_ (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985).\n\nBurbank, James, and Frederick Cooper, _Empires in World History: Power and the Politics of Difference_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).\n\nBurgess, Michael, _The British Tradition of Federalism_ (London: Leicester University Press, 1995).\n\nBurgin, Angus, _The Great Persuasion: Reinventing Free Markets since the Depression_ (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012).\n\nBurn, W. L., _The Age of Equipoise: A Study of the Mid-Victorian Generation_ (London: Allen and Unwin, 1964).\n\nBurroughs, Peter, _Colonial Reformers and Canada, 1830\u20131849_ (London: McClelland, 1969).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Canadian Crisis and British Colonial Policy, 1828\u20131841_ (London: Macmillan, 1972).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"John Robert Seeley and British Imperial History,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 1 (1973), 191\u2013213.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Imperial Institutions and the Government of Empire,\" in _The Oxford History of the British Empire_ , ed. Andrew Porter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 4:170\u201397.\n\nBurrow, John, _Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the English Past_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Whigs and Liberals: Continuity and Change in English Political Thought_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848\u20131914_ (London: Yale University Press, 2000).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Historicism and Social Evolution,\" in _British and German Historiography, 1750\u20131950: Traditions, Perceptions, and Transfers_ , ed. Benedikt Stuchtey and Peter Wende (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 251\u201364.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Age of Reform,\" in _Christ's: A Cambridge College over Five Centuries_ , ed. David Reynolds (London: Palgrave, 2004), 111\u201343.\n\nBurrow, John, Stefan Collini, and Donald Winch, _That Noble Science of Politics: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Intellectual History_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).\n\nBurton, Antoinette, _Empire in Question: Reading, Writing, and Teaching British Imperialism_ (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011).\n\nBurton, Antoinette, and Isabel Hofmeyr, \"The Spine of Empire? Books and the Making of an Imperial Commons,\" in _Ten Books That Shaped the British Empire: Creating an Imperial Commons_ , ed. Burton and Hofmeyr (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014), 1\u201328.\n\nButler, Sarah J., _Britain and Its Empire in the Shadow of Rome_ (London: Bloomsbury, 2012).\n\nBuzan, Barry, and George Lawson, _The Global Transformation: History, Modernity and the Making of International Relations_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).\n\nCabrera, Luis, \"World Government: Renewed Debate, Persistent Challenges,\" _European Journal of International Relations_ , 16 (2010), 511\u201330.\n\nCain, Peter, \"Capitalism, War, and Internationalism in the Thought of Richard Cobden,\" _British Journal of International Studies_ , 5\/3 (1979), 229\u201347.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Economic Philosophy of Constructive Imperialism,\" in _British Politics and the Spirit of the Age: Political Concepts in Action_ , ed. Cornelia Navari (Keele: Keele University Press, 1996), 42\u201365.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Empire and the Languages of Character and Virtue in Later Victorian and Edwardian Britain,\" _Modern Intellectual History_ , 4\/2 (2007).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Radicalism, Gladstone, and the Liberal Critique of Disraelian 'Imperialism,'\" in _Victorian Visions_ , ed. Bell, 215\u2013319.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Hobson and Imperialism: Radicalism, New Liberalism, and Finance, 1887\u20131938_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Capitalism, Aristocracy and Empire: Some Classical Theories of Imperialism Revisited,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 35\/1 (2007), 25\u201347.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Character, 'Ordered Liberty,' and the Mission to Civilise: British Moral Justification for Empire, 1870\u20131914,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 40\/4 (2012), 557\u201378.\n\nCain, Peter, and Antony G. Hopkins, _British Imperialism, 1688\u20132000_ (London: Pearson, 2002).\n\nCalhoun, Craig, Frederick Cooper, and Kevin Moore, eds., _Lessons of Empire: Imperial Histories and American Power_ (New York: New Press, 2006).\n\nCallinicos, Alex, _Imperialism and the Global Political Economy_ (Cambridge: Polity, 2009).\n\nCannadine, David, _G. M. Trevelyan: A Life in History_ (London: Harper Collins, 1992).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Context, Performance, and Meaning of Ritual: The British Monarchy and the 'Invention of Tradition' c. 1820\u20131977,\" in _The Invention of Tradition_ , ed Hobsbawm and Ranger (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 101\u201365.\n\nCanovan, Margaret, _The People_ (Cambridge: Polity, 2005).\n\nCapaldi, Nicholas, _John Stuart Mill: A Biography_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).\n\nCarlisle, Janice, _John Stuart Mill and the Writing of Character_ (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991).\n\nCashdollar, Charles, _The Transformation of Theology, 1830\u20131890: Positivism andProtestant Thought in Britain and America_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989).\n\nCeadel, Martin, _Semi-Detached Idealists: The British Peace Movement and International Relations, 1854\u20131945_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).\n\nChakrabarty, Dipesh, _Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000).\n\nChatterjee, Partha, _Nationalist Thought and the Colonial World_ (London: Zed Books, 1986).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).\n\nClaeys, Gregory, \"The Origins of the Rights of Labor: Republicanism, Commerce, and the Construction of Modern Social Theory in Britain, 1796\u20131805,\" _Journal of Modern History_ , 66 (1994), 249\u201390.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Imperial Sceptics: British Critics of Empire, 1850\u20131920_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).\n\nClarke, Ignatius Frederick, _Voices Prophesying War: Future Wars, 1763\u20133749_ , 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, ed., _The Tale of the Next Great War, 1871\u20131914: Fictions of Future Warfare and of Battles Still-to-Come_ (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1995).\n\nClarke, Peter, _Liberals and Social Democrats_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The English-Speaking Peoples before Churchill,\" _British Scholar_ , 4 (2011), 199\u2013231.\n\nCocks, Raymond, _Sir Henry Maine: A Study in Victorian Jurisprudence_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).\n\nCohn, Bernard, _Colonialism and Its Forms of Knowledge_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).\n\nColaiaco, James, _James Fitzjames Stephen and the Crisis of Victorian Thought_ (London: Macmillan, 1983).\n\nCol\u00e1s, Alejandro, _Empire_ (Cambridge: Polity, 2007).\n\nCole, Douglas, \"The Problem of 'Nationalism' and 'Imperialism' in British Settlement Colonies,\" _Journal of British Studies_ , 10 (1971), 160\u201382.\n\nColley, Linda, \"What Is Imperial History Now?,\" in _What Is History Now?_ , ed. David Cannadine (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002), 132\u201348.\n\nCollini, Stefan, _Liberalism and Sociology: L. T Hobhouse and Political Argument in England, 1880\u20131914_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Public Moralists: Political Thought and Intellectual Life in Britain, 1850\u20131930_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).\n\nConklin, Alice, _A Mission to Civilize: The Republican Idea of Empire in France and West Africa, 1895\u20131930_ (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998).\n\nConlin, Jonathan, \"The Consolations of Amero-Teutonism: E. A. Freeman's Tour of the United States, 1881\u20131882,\" in _Making History_ , ed. Bremner and Conlin, 101\u201319.\n\nConquest, Robert, _Reflections on a Ravaged Century_ (London: Norton, 2000).\n\nCooley, Alexander, _Logics of Hierarchy: The Organization of Empires, States, and Military Occupations_ (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005).\n\nCoombes, Annie, ed., _Rethinking Settler Colonialism: History and Memory in Australia,Canada, New Zealand and South Africa_ (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006).\n\nCooper, Frederick, _Colonialism in Question: Theory, Knowledge, History_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).\n\nCooper, Frederick, and Ann Laura Stoler, \"Between Metropole and Colony: Rethinking a Research Agenda,\" in _Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World_ , ed. Cooper and Stoler (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 1\u201359.\n\nCoupland, Philip, \"H. G. Wells' 'Liberal Fascism,'\" _Journal of Contemporary History_ , 35 (2000), 541\u201358.\n\nCraig, Campbell, _Glimmer of a New Leviathan: Total War in the Realism of Niebuhr, Morgenthau, and Waltz_ (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003).\n\nCraig, David M., \"The Crowned Republic? Monarchy and Anti-Monarchy in Britain, 1760\u20131901,\" _Historical Journal_ , 46 (2003), 167\u201385.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Origins of 'Liberalism' in Britain,\" _Historical Research_ , 85 (2012), 469\u201387.\n\nCrook, Paul, _Darwinism, War and History: The Debate over the Biology of War from the 'Origin of Species' to the First World War_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).\n\nCull, Nicholas J., \"Selling Peace: The Origins, Promotion and Fate of the Anglo-American New Order during the Second World War,\" _Diplomacy and Statecraft_ , 7 (1996), 1\u201328.\n\nCunliffe, Philip, ed., _Critical Perspectives on the Responsibility to Protect: Interrogating Theory and Practice_ (London: Routledge, 2011).\n\nCurthoys, Ann, \"Genocide in Tasmania: The History of an Idea,\" in _Empire, Colony, Genocide_ , ed. Moses, 229\u201353.\n\nDaalder, Ivo, and James Lindsay, \"Democracies of the World, Unite,\" _American Interest_ , 2 (2007), 5\u201315.\n\nDaly, Nicholas, _Literature, Technology, and Modernity, 1860\u20132000_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).\n\nDarwin, John, \"The Fear of Falling: British Political and Imperial Decline since 1900,\" _Transactions of the Royal Historical Society_ , 36, 5th series, (1986), 27\u201345.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _After Tamerlane: The Rise and Fall of Global Empires, 1400\u20132000_ (London: Penguin, 2007).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Empire and Ethnicity,\" _Nations and Nationalism_ , 16\/2 (2010), 383\u2013401.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Empire Project: The Rise and Fall of the British World-System, 1830\u20131970_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).\n\nDaunton, Martin, ed., _The Organisation of Knowledge in Victorian Britain_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).\n\nDaunton, Martin, and Bernhard Rieger, eds., _Meanings of Modernity: Britain in the Age of Imperialism and World Wars_ (Oxford: Berg, 2001).\n\nDavis, Mike, _Late Victorian Holocausts: El Nino Famines and the Making of the Third World_ (London: Verso, 2003).\n\nden Otter, Sandra, _British Idealism and Social Explanation: A Study in Late Victorian Thought_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1996).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Origins of a Historical Political Science in Late Victorian and Edwardian Britain,\" in _Modern Political Science_ , ed. Adcock, Bevir, and Stimson, 37\u201365.\n\nDeudney, Daniel, \"Greater Britain or Greater Synthesis? Seeley, Mackinder, and Wells on Britain in the Global Industrial Era,\" _Review of International Studies_ , 27\/2 (2001), 187\u2013208.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Bounding Power: Republican Security Theory from the Polis to the Global Village_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).\n\nDiamond, Alan, ed., _The Victorian Achievement of Sir Henry Maine_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).\n\nDillon, Brian, _Ruin Lust: Artists' Fascination with Ruins, from Turner to the Present Day_ (London: Tate, 2014).\n\nDingley, Robert, \"The Ruins of the Future: Macaulay's New Zealander and the Spirit of the Age,\" in _Histories of the Future: Studies in Fact, Fantasy and Science Fiction_ , ed. Dingley and Alan Sandison (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000), 15\u201333.\n\nDirks, Nicholas, _Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).\n\nDorsett, Shaunnagh, \"Sovereignty as Governance in the Early New Zealand Crown Colony Period,\" in _Law and Politics in British Colonial Thought: Transpositions of Empire_ , ed. Dorsett and Hunter (Basingtstoke: Palgrave, 2010), 209\u201328.\n\nDoyle, Michael, _Empires_ (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Liberalism and World Politics,\" _American Political Science Review_ , 80 (1986), 1151\u201369.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Question of Intervention: John Stuart Mill and the Responsibility to Protect_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015).\n\nDriver, Felix, _Geography Militant: Cultures of Exploration and Empire_ (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001).\n\nDunn, John, _The Political Thought of John Locke_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future_ [1979] (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).\n\nDunn, Waldo Hilary, _James Anthony Froude_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961).\n\nDunne, Tim, and Trine Flockhart, eds., _Liberal World Orders_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).\n\nDurrans, Peter J., \"The House of Commons and the British Empire, 1868\u20131880,\" _Canadian Journal of History_ , 9 (1974), 19\u201345.\n\nDworkin, Ronald, _A Matter of Principle_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985).\n\nEldridge, C. C., _Victorian Imperialism_ (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1978).\n\nElkins, Caroline, and Susan Pedersen, \"Settler Colonialism: A Concept and Its Uses,\" in _Settler Colonialism in the Twentieth Century_ , ed. Elkins and Pedersen (London: Palgrave, 2005), 1\u201320.\n\nElliott, J. H., _Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America, 1492\u20131830_ (London: Yale University Press, 2006).\n\nEllis, John S., \"'The Methods of Barbarism' and the 'Rights of Small Nations': War Propaganda and British Pluralism,\" _Albion_ , 30 (1998), 49\u201375.\n\nEvans, Julie, et al., _Unequal Rights: Indigenous People in British Settler Colonies, 1830\u20131910_ (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003).\n\nFaber, Richard, _Beaconsfield and Bolingbroke_ (London: Faber and Faber, 1961).\n\nFalk, Richard, _A Study of Future Worlds_ (New York: Free Press, 1975).\n\nFarr, James, \"The Historical Science(s) of Politics: The Principles, Association, and Fate of an American Discipline,\" in _Modern Political Science_ , ed. Adcock, Bevir, and Stimson, 66\u201396.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Locke, Natural Law, and New World Slavery,\" _Political Theory_ , 36 (2008), 495\u2013522.\n\nFerguson, Niall, _Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World_ (London: Allen Lane, 2003).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Hegemony or Empire?,\" _Foreign Affairs_ , 82\/5 (2003), 154\u201361.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Colossus: The Price of America's Empire_ (London: Penguin, 2004).\n\nFielding, Kenneth Joshua, \"Carlyle and the Americans: 'Eighteen Million Bores,'\" _Carlyle Studies Annual_ , 15 (1995), 55\u201364.\n\nFine, Sarah, \"Democracy, Citizenship, and the Bits in Between,\" _Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy_ , 14\/5 (2011), 623\u201340.\n\nFinley, Moses, \"Colonies\u2014An Attempt at a Typology,\" _Transactions of the Royal Historical Society_ , 26, 5th series (1976), 167\u201388.\n\nFinnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink, \"International Norm Dynamics and Political Change,\" _International Organization_ , 52 (1998), 887\u2013917.\n\nFitzmaurice, Andrew, _Humanism and America: An Intellectual History of English Colonization, 1500\u20131625_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Genealogy of _Terra Nullius,\" Australian Historical Studies_ , 129 (2007), 1\u201315.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Neither Neo-Roman nor Liberal Empire,\" _Renaissance Studies_ , 26\/4 (2012), 479\u201391.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Resilience of Natural Law in the Writings of Sir Travers Twiss,\" in _British International Thinkers_ , ed. Hall and Hill (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 137\u201361.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Sovereignty, Property, and Empire, 1500\u20132000_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).\n\nFitzpatrick, Matthew P., ed., _Liberal Imperialism in Europe: Expansionism and Nationalism, 1848\u20131884_ (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2012).\n\nFoley, Tadhg, \"'An Unknown and Feeble Body': How Settler Colonialism Was Theorized in the Nineteenth Century,\" in _Studies in Settler Colonialism_ , ed. Bateman and Pilkington, 10\u201328.\n\nFord, Lisa, _Settler Sovereignty_ : _Jurisdiction and Indigenous People in America and Australia, 1788\u20131836_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010).\n\nFoucault, Michel, \"Afterword: The Subject and Power,\" _Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics_ , by Hubert Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, 2nd ed. (Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1983), 216\u201326.\n\nFreeden, Michael, _The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Liberalism Divided: A Study in British Political Thought 1914\u20131939_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, ed., _Minutes of the Rainbow Circle, 1894\u20131924_ (London: RHS, 1989).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, ed., _Reappraising J. A. Hobson: Humanism and Welfare_ (London: Unwin, 1990).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Ideology, Political Theory and Political Philosophy,\" in _Handbook of Political Theory_ , ed. Gerald Gaus and Chandran Kukathas (London: Sage, 2004), 3\u201317.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Liberal Languages: Ideological Imaginations and Twentieth-Century Progressive Thought_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"What Should the 'Political' in Political Philosophy Explore?,\" _Journal of Political Philosophy_ , 13 (2005), 113\u201334.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Coming of the Welfare State,\" in _The Cambridge History of Twentieth-Century Political Thought_ , ed. Terence Ball and Richard Bellamy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 7\u201345.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Political Theory of Political Thinking_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).\n\nFreeden, Michael, and Marc Stears, \"Liberalism,\" in _The Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies_ , ed. Michael Freeden, Lyman Tower Sargent, and Marc Stears (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 329\u201348.\n\nFukuyama, Francis, _America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power and the Neoconservative Legacy_ (London: Yale University Press, 2006).\n\nGannon, Charles, _Rumors of War and Infernal Machines: Technomilitary Agenda-Setting in American and British Speculative Fiction_ (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005).\n\nGarnett, Jane, \"Protestant Histories: James Anthony Froude, Partisanship and National Identity,\" in _Politics and Culture in Victorian Britain: Essays in Memory of Colin Matthew_ , ed. Peter Ghosh and Lawrence Goldman (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), 171\u201392.\n\nGaus, Gerald, and Shane Courtland, \"Liberalism,\" _The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy_ , ed. Edward Zalta, <http:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/liberalism\/>.\n\nGerlach, Murney, _British Liberalism and the United States: Political and Social Thought in the Late Victorian Age_ (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001).\n\nGerstle, Gary, \"The Protean Character of American Liberalism,\" _American Historical Review_ , 99 (1994), 1043\u201373.\n\nGeuss, Raymond, _History and Illusion in Politics_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Private Goods, Public Goods_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Liberalism and Its Discontents,\" _Political Theory_ , 30 (2002), 320\u201338.\n\nGibson, Nigel, _Fanon: The Postcolonial Imagination_ (Cambridge: Polity, 2003).\n\nGieryn, Thomas, \"Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science,\" _American Sociological Review_ , 48 (1983), 785\u201395.\n\nGilman, Nils, _Mandarins of the Future: Modernization Theory in Cold War America_ (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004).\n\nGilroy, Paul, _The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).\n\nGlanville, Luke, _Sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014).\n\nGleason, Abbott, _Totalitarianism: The Inner History of the Cold War_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).\n\nGoldberg, Jonah, _Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, from Mussolini to the Politics of Change_ (London: Doubleday, 2007).\n\nGoldhill, Simon, _Victorian Culture and Classical Antiquity: Art, Opera, Fiction and the Proclamation of Modernity_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012).\n\nGoldie, Mark, \"Introduction,\" in _The Reception of Locke's Politics_ , ed. Goldie (London: Pickering, 1999), vol. 1, xvii\u2013lxxiii.\n\nGoldman, Lawrence, _Science, Reform, and Politics in Victorian Britain: The Social Science Association, 1857\u20131886_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).\n\nGoldstein, Alyosha, ed., _Formations of United States Colonialism_ (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2014).\n\nGoldstein, Alyosha, and Alex Lubin, eds., \"Settler Colonialism,\" _South Atlantic Quarterly_ , 107\/4 (2008).\n\nGoldstein, Lawrence, _Ruins and Empire: The Evolution of a Theme in Augustan and Romantic Literature_ (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1977).\n\nGong, Gerritt, _The Standard of \"Civilization\" in International Society_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984).\n\nGorman, Daniel, _Imperial Citizenship: Empire and the Question of Belonging_ (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2006).\n\nGould, Eliga, \"A Virtual Nation? Greater Britain and the Imperial Legacy of the American Revolution,\" _American Historical Review_ , 104 (1999), 476\u201389.\n\nGrafton, Anthony, \"The History of Ideas: Precept and Practice, 1950\u20132000 and Beyond,\" _Journal of the History of Ideas_ , 67 (2006), 1\u201332.\n\nGrant, Robert, _Representations of British Emigration, Colonisation and Settlement: Imagining Empire, 1800\u20131860_ (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2005).\n\nGreen, E.H.H., _Ideologies of Conservatism: Conservative Political Ideas in the Twentieth Century_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).\n\nGregory, Derek, _The Colonial Present: Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq_ (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004).\n\nGuilhot, Nicolas, \"Imperial Realism: Postwar IR Theory and Decolonisation,\" _International History Review_ , 36\/4 (2014), 698\u2013720.\n\nGuillory, John, _Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).\n\nGunn, Simon, and James Vernon, eds., _The Peculiarities of Liberal Modernity in Imperial Britain_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011).\n\nGunnell, John, _The Descent of Political Theory: The Genealogy of an American Vocation_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Archaeology of American Liberalism,\" _Journal of Political Ideologies_ , 6 (2001), 125\u201345.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Imagining the American Polity: Political Science and the Discourse of Democracy_ (Philadelphia: Penn State University Press, 2004), 183\u2013219.\n\nHadley, Elaine, _Living Liberalism: Practical Citizenship in Mid-Victorian Britain_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010).\n\nHadot, Pierre, _Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault_ , trans. M. Chase (Oxford: Blackwell, 1995).\n\nHagerman, Christopher, _Britain's Imperial Muse: The Classics, Imperialism, and the Indian Empire, 1784\u20131914_ (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2013).\n\nHall, Catherine, _Civilising Subjects: Metropole and Colony in the English Imagination, 1830\u20131867_ (Cambridge: Polity, 2002).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Macaulay and Son: Architects of Imperial Britain_ (London: Yale University Press, 2012).\n\nHall, Ian, \"History, Christianity, and Diplomacy: Sir Herbert Butterfield and International Relations,\" _Review of International Studies_ , 28\/4 (2002), 719\u201336.\n\nHall, Ian, and Lisa Hill, eds., _British International Thinkers from Hobbes to Namier_ (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009).\n\nHardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri, _Empire_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Multitude: War and Democracy in the Age of Empire_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004).\n\nHarper, Marjory, and Stephen Constantine, eds., _Migration and Empire_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).\n\nHarr\u00e9, Rom, \"Positivist Thought in the Nineteenth Century,\" in _The Cambridge History of Philosophy, 1870\u20131945_ , ed. Thomas Baldwin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 11\u201326.\n\nHarris, Jose, \"Political Thought and the Welfare State, 1870\u20131914: An Intellectual Framework for British Social Policy,\" _Past & Present_, 135 (1992), 116\u201341.\n\nHarrison, Ross, ed., _Henry Sidgwick_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).\n\nHartley, Livingston, _Atlantic Challenge_ (New York: Dobbs Ferry, 1965).\n\nHarvey, David, _The New Imperialism_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _A Brief History of Neoliberalism_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).\n\nHarvie, Christopher, _The Lights of Liberalism: University Liberals and the Challenge of Democracy 1860\u201386_ (London: Allen Lane, 1976).\n\nHawkins, Mike, _Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860\u20131945_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).\n\nHay, Daisy, \"Liberals, _Liberales_ and _The Liberal,\" European Romantic Review_ , 19 (2008), 307\u201320.\n\nHeater, Derek, _World Citizenship and Government: Cosmopolitan Ideas in Western Political Thought_ (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996).\n\nHechter, Michael, _Alien Rule_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).\n\nHell, Julia, \" _Katechon_ : Carl Schmitt's Imperial Theology and the Ruins of the Future,\" _Germanic Review_ , 84 (2009), 283\u2013326.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Twin Towers of Anselm Kiefer and the Trope of Imperial Decline,\" _Germanic Review_ , 84\/1 (2009), 84\u201393.\n\nHell, Julia, and Andreas Schonle, eds., _Ruins of Modernity_ (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010).\n\nHempton, David, _Evangelical Disenchantment: Nine Portraits of Faith and Doubt_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008).\n\nHerbert, Christopher, _War of No Pity: The Indian Mutiny and Victorian Trauma_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).\n\nHesketh, Ian, \"Diagnosing Froude's Disease: Boundary Work and the Discipline of History in Late-Victorian Britain,\" _History and Theory_ , 47\/3 (2008), 373\u201395.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Behold the (Anonymous) Man,\" _Victorian Review_ , 38 (2012), 93\u2013112.\n\nHewitt, Martin, ed., _An Age of Equipoise? Reassessing Mid-Victorian Britain_ (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000).\n\nHickford, M., \"'Decidedly the Most Interesting Savages on the Globe': An Approach to the History of Maori Property Rights, 1837\u20131853,\" _History of Political Thought_ , 27 (2006), 122\u201367.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Lords of the Land: Indigenous Property Rights and the Jurisprudence of Empire_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).\n\nHilton, Boyd, _The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicalism on Social and Economic Thought, 1795\u20131865_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1988).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _A Mad, Bad, and Dangerous People?_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).\n\nHind, Robert \"'We Have No Colonies': Similarities within the British Imperial Experience,\" _Comparative Studies in Society and History_ , 26 (1984), 3\u201335.\n\nHingley, Richard, _Roman Officers and English Gentlemen_ : _The Imperial Origins of Roman Archaeology_ (London: Routledge, 2000).\n\nHobson, John M., _The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760\u20132010_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).\n\nHollander, Samuel, _The Economics of John Stuart Mill_ , 2 vols. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985).\n\nHolmes, Stephen, \"The Permanent Structure of Anti-Liberal Thought,\" in _Liberalism and the Moral Life_ , ed. Nancy Rosenblum (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 227\u201353.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Passions and Constraint: On the Theory of Liberal Democracy_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Making Sense of Liberal Imperialism,\" in _J. S. Mill's Political Thought: A Bicentennial Reassessment_ , ed. Urbinati and Zakaras, 319\u201347.\n\nHomans, Margaret, and Adrienne Munich, \"Introduction,\" in _Remaking Queen Victoria_ , ed. Homans and Munich (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 1\u201313.\n\nHonohan, Iseult, _Civic Republicanism_ (London: Routledge, 2002).\n\nHont, Istvan, _Jealousy of Trade: International Competition and the Nation-State in Historical Perspective_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Luxury and Commerce,\" in _The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Political Thought_ , ed. Mark Goldie and Robert Wokler (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 379\u2013419.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Politics in Commercial Society: Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith_ , ed. B\u00e9la Kapossy and Michael Sonenscher (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015).\n\nHopkins, A. G., ed., _Globalization in World History_ (London: Pimlico, 2002).\n\nHoppen, Theodore K., _The Mid-Victorian Generation, 1846\u20131886_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).\n\nH\u00f6rnqvist, Mikael, \"The Two Myths of Civic Humanism,\" in _Renaissance Civic Humanism: Reappraisals and Reflections_ , ed. James Hankins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 105\u201343.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Machiavelli and Empire_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Machiavelli's Three Desires: Florentine Republicans on Liberty, Empire, and Justice,\" in _Empire and Modern Political Thought_ , ed. Muthu, 7\u201330.\n\nHowe, Anthony, _Free Trade and Liberal England, 1846\u20131946_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Free Trade and Global Order: The Rise and Fall of a Victorian Vision,\" in _Victorian Visions of Global Order_ , ed. Bell, 26\u201346.\n\nHowe, Anthony, and Simon Morgan, eds., _Rethinking Nineteenth-Century Liberalism: Richard Cobden Bicentenary Essays_ (London: Ashgate, 2006).\n\nHowsam, Leslie, \"Imperial Publishers and the Idea of Colonial History, 1870\u20131916,\" _History of Intellectual Culture_ , 5\/1 (2005), 1\u201315.\n\nHunter, Ian, \"The Persona of the Philosopher and the History of Early Modern Philosophy,\" _Modern Intellectual History_ , 4 (2007), 571\u2013600.\n\nHuntley, James, _Pax Democratica: A Strategy for the 21st Century_ (London: St. Martin's, 1998).\n\nHurd, Elizabeth Shakman, \"The Political Authority of Secularism in International Relations,\" _European Journal of International Relations_ , 10 (2004), 235\u201362.\n\nIgnatieff, Michael, _Empire Lite: Nation-Building in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan_ (London: Vintage, 2003).\n\nIkenberry, G. John, _After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Liberalism and Empire: Logics of Order in the American Unipolar Age,\" _Review of International Studies_ , 30 (2004), 609\u201330.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Liberal Order and Imperial Ambition: Essays on American Power_ (London: Polity, 2006).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Liberal Internationalism 3.0: America and the Dilemmas of Liberal World Order,\" _Perspectives on Politics_ , 7\/1 (2009), 71\u201387.\n\nIkenberry, G. John, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, _Forging a World of Liberty under Law: U. S. National Security in the 21st Century_ (Princeton Project on National Security, 2006), accessed July 22, 2011, <http:\/\/www.princeton.edu\/~ppns\/report\/FinalReport.pdf>.\n\nImmerman, Richard H., _Empire for Liberty: A History of American Imperialism from Benjamin Franklin to Paul Wolfowitz_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).\n\nInayatullah, Naeem, and David Blaney, _International Relations and the Problem of Difference_ (New York: Routledge, 2004).\n\nIsaac, Joel, \"Tangled Loops: Theory, History and the Human Sciences in Modern America,\" _Modern Intellectual History_ , 6 (2009), 397\u2013424.\n\nIsabella, Maurizio, _Risorgimento in Exile: Italian \u00c9migr\u00e9s and the Liberal International in the Post-Napoleonic Era_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).\n\nIvison, Duncan, _Postcolonial Liberalism_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Locke, Liberalism and Empire,\" in _The Philosophy of John Locke_ , ed. Peter R. Anstey (London: Routledge, 2003), 86\u2013105.\n\nIvison, Duncan, Paul Patton, and Will Sanders, eds., _Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2001).\n\nJackson, Ben, \"At the Origins of Neo-Liberalism: The Free Economy and the Strong State, 1930\u20131947,\" _Historical Journal_ , 53 (2010), 129\u201351.\n\nJahn, Beate, \"Barbarian Thoughts: Imperialism in the Philosophy of John Stuart Mill,\" _Review of International Studies_ , 31 (2005), 599\u2013618.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Liberal Internationalism: Theory, History, Practice_ (London: Palgrave, 2013).\n\nJames, Robert Rhodes, ed., _Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, 1897\u20131963_ (New York: Chelsea House, 1974).\n\nJann, Rosemary, _The Art and Science of Victorian History_ (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1985).\n\nJenkyns, Richard, _The Victorians and Ancient Greece_ (Oxford: Blackwell, 1980).\n\nJohnson, Chalmers, _Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic_ (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2007).\n\nJohnson, Miranda, \"Reconciliation, Indigeneity, and Postcolonial Nationhood in Settler States,\" _Postcolonial Studies_ , 14\/2 (2011), 187\u2013201.\n\nJohnston, H.J.M., _British Emigration Policy, 1815\u20131830: \"Shovelling Out Paupers_ \" (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972).\n\nJones, Emily, \"Conservatism, Edmund Burke, and the Invention of a Political Tradition, c. 1885\u20131914,\" _Historical Journal_ , 58 (2015), 1115\u201339.\n\nJones, H. S., \"The Idea of the National in Victorian Political Thought,\" _European Journal of Political Theory_ , 5 (2006), 12\u201321.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Victorian Political Thought_ (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Victorian Lexicon of Evil: Frederic Harrison, the Positivists and the Language of International Politics,\" in _Evil, Barbarism and Empire_ : _Britain and Abroad, c. 1830\u20132000_ , ed. Tom Cook, Rebecca Gill, and Bertrand Taithe (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011), 126\u201343.\n\nJones, Tod, _The Broad Church: A Biography of a Movement_ (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2003).\n\nJoseph, Terra Walston, \"Bulwer-Lytton's _The Coming Race_ and an Anglo-Saxon Greater Britain,\" _Nineteenth-Century Contexts_ , 37 (2015), 233\u201348.\n\nKatzenstein, Peter, ed., _Anglo-America and Its Discontents: Civilizational Identities beyond West and East_ (London: Routledge, 2012).\n\nKatznelson, Ira, _Desolation and Enlightenment: Political Knowledge after Total War, Totalitarianism, and the Holocaust_ (New York: Columbia University Press, 2003).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time_ (New York: Norton, 2013).\n\nKearns, Gerry, _Geopolitics and Empire: The Legacy of Halford Mackinder_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).\n\nKelley, William, \"Past History and Present Politics: E. A. Freeman and the Eastern Question,\" in _Making History_ , ed. Bremner and Conlin, 119\u201339.\n\nKelly, Duncan, \"Reforming Republicanism in Nineteenth-Century Britain: James Lorymer's _The Republican_ in Context,\" in _Republicanism in Theory and Practice_ , ed. Iseult Honohan and Jeremy Jennings (London: Routledge, 2006), 41\u201352.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Propriety of Liberty: Persons, Passions and Judgment in Modern Political Thought_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).\n\nKelly, John D., ed., _Anthropology and Global Counterinsurgency_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010).\n\nKendle, John, _The Round Table Movement and Imperial Union_ (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Federal Britain: A History_ (London: Routledge, 1997).\n\nKennedy, Dane, \"The Imperial History Wars,\" _Journal of British Studies_ , 54\/1 (2015), 1\u201322.\n\nKern, Stephen, _The Culture of Time and Space, 1880\u20131914_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983).\n\nKilgore, DeWitt Clinton, _Astrofuturism: Science, Race and Visions of Utopia in Space_ (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003).\n\nKing, Richard, and Dan Stone, eds., _Hannah Arendt and the Uses of History: Imperialism, Racism, Nationalism and Genocide_ (Oxford: Berghahn, 2007).\n\nKinzer, Bruce, _A Moralist In and Out of Parliament: John Stuart Mill at Westminster, 1865\u201368_ (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _England's Disgrace? J. S Mill and the Irish Question_ (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001).\n\nKirkby, Coel, \"The Politics and Practice of 'Native' Enfranchisement in Canada and the Cape Colony, c.1880\u20131900,\" PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2013.\n\nKlausen, Jimmy Casas, \"Room Enough: America, Natural Liberty, and Consent in Locke's _Second Treatise,\" Journal of Politics_ , 69\/3 (2007), 760\u201369.\n\nKloppenberg, James, _Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870\u20131920_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).\n\nKnights, Ben, _The Idea of the Clerisy in the Nineteenth Century_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978).\n\nKoditschek, Theodore, _Liberalism, Imperialism, and the Historical Imagination: Nineteenth Century Visions of a Greater Britain_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Past Politics and Present History: E. A. Freeman's Invention of Racial Tradition,\" in _Making History_ , ed. Bremner and Conlin, 199\u2013217.\n\nKohn, Margaret, and Keally McBride, _Political Theories of Decolonization: Postcolonialism and the Problem of Foundations_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).\n\nKohn, Margaret, and Daniel O'Neill, \"A Tale of Two Indias: Burke and Mill on Empire and Slavery in the West Indies and America,\" _Political Theory_ , 34 (2006), 198\u2013228.\n\nKoselleck, Reinhart, _Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time_ , trans. Keith Tribe (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Crisis,\" _Journal of the History of Ideas_ , 67 (2006), 357\u2013400.\n\nKoskenniemi, Martti, _The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law, 1870\u20131960_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).\n\nKostal, Rande, _A Jurisprudence of Power: Victorian Empire and the Rule of Law_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).\n\nKratochwil, F., \"Of Systems, Boundaries and Territoriality: An Inquiry into the Formation of the State System,\" _World Politics_ , 39 (1986), 27\u201352.\n\nKristol, Irving, _Reflections of a Neoconservative_ (New York: Basic Books, 1983).\n\nKuhn, William, _Democratic Royalism: The Transformation of the British Monarchy, 1861\u20131914_ (London: Macmillan, 1997).\n\nKumar, Krishan, _The Making of English National Identity_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).\n\nKymlicka, Will, _Multicultural Citizenship_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).\n\nLaborde, C\u00e9cile, \"The Concept of the State in British and French Political Thought,\" _Political Studies_ , 48 (2000), 540\u201357.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Pluralist Thought and the State in Britain and France, 1900\u20131925_ (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000).\n\nLaity, Paul, _The British Peace Movement, 1870\u20131914_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 2001).\n\nLake, Marilyn, and Henry Reynolds, _Drawing the Global Colour Line: White Men'sCountries and the International Challenge of Racial Equality_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).\n\nLarson, Victoria Tietze, \"Classics and the Acquisition and Validation of Power in Britain's 'Imperial Century' (1815\u20131914),\" _International Journal of the Classical Tradition_ , 6\/2 (1999), 185\u2013225.\n\nLavin, Deborah, _From Empire to International Commonwealth: A Biography of Lionel Curtis_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).\n\nLe May, G.H.L., _The Victorian Constitution: Conventions, Usages and Contingencies_ (London: Duckworth, 1979).\n\nLear, Jonathan, _Radical Hope: Ethics in the Face of Cultural Devastation_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006).\n\nLebovics, Herman, _Imperialism and the Corruption of Democracies_ (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006).\n\nLeonhard, J\u00f6rn, \"From European Liberalism to the Languages of Liberalisms: The Semantics of Liberalism in European Comparison,\" _Redescriptions_ , 8 (2004), 17\u201351.\n\nLester, Alan, and Fae Dussart, _Colonization and the Origins of Humanitarian Governance: Protecting Aborigines across the Nineteenth-Century British Empire_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014).\n\nLevin, Michael, _J. S. Mill on Civilization and Barbarism_ (London: Routledge, 2004).\n\nLevine, Philippa, _The Amateur and the Professional Antiquarians, Historians and Archaeologists in Victorian England 1838\u20131886_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).\n\nLieven, Dominic, _Empire: The Russian Empire and Its Rivals_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002).\n\nLinstrum, Erik, \"The Politics of Psychology in the British Empire, 1898\u20131960,\" _Past & Present_, 215 (2012), 214\u201333.\n\nLong, David, _Towards a New Liberal Internationalism: The International Theory of J. A. Hobson_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).\n\nLong, David, and Brian Schmidt, eds., _Imperialism and Internationalism in the Discipline of International Relations_ (Albany: SUNY Press, 2005).\n\nLong, David, and Peter Wilson, eds., _Thinkers of the Twenty Years' Crisis: Interwar Idealism Re-Assessed_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995).\n\nLootens, Tricia, \"Victorian Poetry and Patriotism,\" in _The Cambridge Companion to Victorian Poetry_ , ed. Joseph Bristow (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 255\u201380.\n\nLosurdo, Domenico, _Liberalism_ , trans. Gregory Elliott (London: Verso, 2011).\n\nMacDonald, Paul, \"Those Who Forget Historiography Are Doomed to Republish It,\" _Review of International Studies_ , 35\/1 (2006), 45\u201367.\n\nMackenzie, John, ed., _Imperialism and Popular Culture_ (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The British Empire,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 43\/1 (2015), 99\u2013124.\n\nMacKillop, I., _The British Ethical Societies_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).\n\nMaclntyre, Alistair, _Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopedia, Genealogy, and Tradition_ (South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1990).\n\nMacMillan, Margaret, \"Isosceles Triangle: Britain, the United States, and the Dominions, 1900\u20131926,\" in _Twentieth-Century Anglo-American Relations_ , ed. Jonathan Hollowell (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), 1\u201325.\n\nMadley, Benjamin, \"From Terror to Genocide: Britain's Tasmanian Penal Colony and Australia's History Wars,\" _Journal of British Studies_ , 47 (2008), 77\u2013106.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Tactics of Nineteenth Century Colonial Massacre: Tasmania, California and Beyond,\" in _Theatres of Violence_ , ed. Philips Dwyer and Lyndall Ryan (New York: Bergham, 2012), 110\u201325.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Reexamining the American Genocide Debate: Meaning, Historiography, and New Methods,\" _American Historical Review_ , 120\/1 (2015) 98\u2013139.\n\nMagee, Gary, and Andrew Thompson, _Empire and Globalisation: Networks of People, Goods and Capital in the British World, c. 1850\u20131914_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010).\n\nMaier, Charles, _Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006).\n\nMajeed, Javeed, _Ungoverned Imaginings: James Mill's \"The History of British India\" and Orientalism_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992).\n\nMalamud, Margaret, _Ancient Rome and Modern America: Classical Receptions_ (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008).\n\nMamdani, Mahmood, \"Settler Colonialism: Then and Now,\" _Critical Inquiry_ , 41 (2015), 1\u201319.\n\nMandelbaum, Maurice, _History, Man, & Reason: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Thought_ (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1971).\n\nMander, W. J., _British Idealism: A History_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).\n\nMandeville, Peter, \"Territory and Translocality: Discrepant Idioms of Political Identity,\" _Millennium_ , 28 (1999), 653\u201367.\n\nMandler, Peter, \"'Race' and 'Nation' in Mid-Victorian Thought,\" in _History, Religion and Culture: British Intellectual History, 1750\u20131950_ , ed. Stefan Collini, Richard Whatmore, and Brian Young (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 224\u201345.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Consciousness of Modernity? Liberalism and the English 'National Character,' 1870\u20131940,\" in _Meanings of Modernity: Britain from the Late-Victorian Era to World War II_ , ed. Bernhard Rieger and Martin Daunton (Oxford: Berg, 2001), 119\u201345.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Problem of Cultural History,\" _Social and Cultural History_ , 1 (2004), 94\u2013118.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The English National Character: The History of an Idea from Edmund Burke to Tony Blair_ (London: Yale University Press, 2006).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Looking around the World,\" in _Time Travelers_ , ed. Adelene Buckland and Sadiah Qureshi (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, forthcoming, 2016).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, ed., _Liberty and Authority in Victorian Britain_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).\n\nManent, Pierre, _An Intellectual History of Liberalism_ , trans. R. Balinski (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).\n\nMantena, Karuna, \"The Crisis of Liberal Imperialism,\" in _Victorian Visions_ , ed. Duncan Bell, 113\u201336.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Alibis of Empire: Henry Maine and the Ends of Liberal Imperialism_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Another Realism: The Politics of Gandhian Nonviolence,\" _American Political Science Review_ , 106 (2012), 455\u201370.\n\nMarkus, Julia J., _Anthony Froude: The Last Undiscovered Great Victorian_ (New York: Scribner, 2005).\n\nMartin, Ged, _The Durham Report and British Policy: A Critical Essay_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1972).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Empire, Federalism and Imperial Parliamentary Union, 1820\u201370,\" _Historical Journal_ , 16 (1973), 65\u201392.\n\nMatthew, Colin, _The Liberal Imperialists: The Ideas and Politics of a Post-Gladstonian Elite_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973).\n\nMayall, James, and Ricardo Soares de Oliveira, eds., _The New Protectorates: International Tutelage and the Making of Liberal States_ (London: Hurst, 2011).\n\nMayers, David, _Dissenting Voices in America's Rise to Power_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).\n\nMazlish, Bruce, _Civilization and Its Contents_ (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2005).\n\nMazower, Mark, _No Enchanted Palace: The End of Empire and the Ideological Origins of the United Nations_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Governing the World: The History of an Idea_ (London: Penguin, 2012).\n\nMcCain, John, \"An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom,\" _Foreign Affairs_ , 86 (2007), 19\u201334.\n\nMcHugh, P. G., _Aboriginal Societies and the Common Law: A History of Sovereignty, Status, and Self-Determination_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).\n\nMeadowcroft, James, _Conceptualizing the State: Innovation and Dispute in British Political Thought, 1880\u20131914_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1995).\n\nMehrota, S. R., \"Imperial Federation and India, 1868\u20131917,\" _Journal of Commonwealth Political Studies_ , 1 (1961), 29\u201340.\n\nMehta, Pratap Bhanu, \"Cosmopolitanism and the Circle of Reason,\" _Political Theory_ , 28\/5 (2000), 619\u201339.\n\nMehta, Uday Singh, _Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth Century British Liberal Thought_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).\n\nMetcalf, Thomas, _Ideologies of the Raj_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).\n\nMiddleton, Alexander, \"French Algeria in British Imperial Thought, 1830\u201370,\" _Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History_ , 16\/1 (2015), 1\u201315.\n\nMills, Charles, _The Racial Contract_ (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"White Right: The Idea of a Herrenvolk Ethics,\" in _Blackness Visible: Essays on Philosophy and Race_ (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998), 139\u201367.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Occupy Liberalism!,\" _Radical Philosophy Review_ , 15\/2 (2012), 305\u201323.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Decolonizing Western Political Philosophy,\" _New Political Science_ , 37\/1 (2015), 1\u201324.\n\nMitchell, Leslie, \"Britain's Reaction to the Revolutions,\" in _The Revolutions in Europe, 1848\u20131849: From Reform to Reaction_ , ed. Robert Evans and Hartmut Pogge von Strandmann (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 83\u201399.\n\nMitchell, Timothy, _Colonising Egypt_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-Politics, Modernity_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002).\n\nMoir, Martin I., Douglas Peers, and Lynn Zastoupil, eds., _J. S. Mill's Encounter with India_ (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999).\n\nMomigliano, Arnaldo, \"Two Types of Universal History: The Cases of E. A. Freeman and Max Weber,\" _Journal of Modern History_ , 58\/1 (1986), 235\u201346.\n\nMorefield, Jeanne, \"Hegelian Organicism, British New Liberalism, and the Return of the Family State,\" _History of Political Thought_ , 23 (2002), 141\u201370.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Covenants without Swords: Idealist Liberalism and the Spirit of Empire_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"'An Education To Greece': The Round Table, Political Theory, and the Uses of History,\" _History of Political Thought_ , 28 (2007), 328\u201361.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Empires without Imperialism: Anglo-American Decline and the Politics of Deflection_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).\n\nMorris, Jeremy, _F. D. Maurice and the Crisis of Christian Authority_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).\n\nMorrisroe, Vicky, \"'Eastern History with Western Eyes': E. A. Freeman, Islam, and Orientalism,\" _Journal of Victorian Culture_ , 16 (2011), 25\u201345.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"'Sanguinary Amusement': E. A. Freeman, the Comparative Method and Victorian Theories of Race,\" _Modern Intellectual History_ , 10 (2013), 27\u201356.\n\nMorrow, John, _Thomas Carlyle_ (London: Hambledon, 2006).\n\nMoses, Dirk A., ed., _Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History_ (New York: Berghahn, 2004).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, ed., _Empire, Colony, Genocide: Conquest, Occupation, and Subaltern Resistance in World History_ (New York: Berghahn, 2008).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Official Apologies, Reconciliation, and Settler Colonialism: Australian Indigenous Alterity and Political Agency,\" _Citizenship Studies_ , 15\/2 (2011), 145\u201359.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Das r\u00f6mische Gespr\u00e4ch in a New Key: Hannah Arendt, Genocide, and the Defense of Imperial Civilization,\" _Journal of Modern History_ , 85\/4 (2013), 867\u2013913.\n\nMotyl, Alexander, _Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires_ (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001).\n\nMuldoon, James, _Empire and Order: the Concept of Empire, 800\u20131800_ (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 1999).\n\nMuthu, Sankar, _Enlightenment against Empire_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, ed., _Empire and Modern Political Thought_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).\n\nNabulsi, Karma, _Traditions of War: Occupation, Resistance, and the Law_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).\n\nNagel, Thomas, \"Rawls and Liberalism,\" in _The Cambridge Companion to Rawls_ , ed. Samuel Freeman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 62\u201386.\n\nNakhimovsky, Isaac, _The Closed Commercial State: Perpetual Peace and Commercial Society from Rousseau to Fichte_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011).\n\nNandy, Ashis, \"Reconstructing Childhood: A Critique of the Ideology of Adulthood,\" in _Traditions, Tyranny, and Utopia: Essays in the Politics of Awareness_ (Delhi; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 56\u201376.\n\nNash, David, and Antony Taylor, eds., _Republicanism in Victorian Society_ (Stroud: Sutton, 2003).\n\nNelson, Eric, \"Republican Visions,\" in _The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory_ , ed. John Dryzek, Bonnie Honig, and Anne Phillips (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 193\u2013211.\n\nNexon, Daniel, _The Struggle for Power in Early Modern Europe: Religious Conflict, Dynastic Empires, and International Change_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009).\n\nNicholls, David, _The Lost Prime Minister: A Life of Sir Charles Dilke_ (London: Hambledon, 1995).\n\nNicholson, Peter, \"Philosophical Idealism and International Politics: A Reply to Dr. Savigear,\" _British Journal of International Studies_ , 2 (1976), 76\u201383.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Political Philosophy of the British Idealists: Selected Studies_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).\n\nNovik, Peter, _That Noble Dream: The \"Objectivity Question\" and the American Historical Profession_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).\n\nO'Brien, Patrick, \"Historiographical Traditions and Modern Imperatives for the Restoration of Global History,\" _Journal of Global History_ , 1 (2006), 3\u201339.\n\nO'Neill, Daniel, \"Rethinking Burke and India,\" _History of Political Thought_ , 30\/3 (2009), 492\u2013523.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Edmund Burke and the Conservative Logic of Empire_ (Berkeley, forthcoming).\n\nOsterhammel, J\u00fcrgen, _Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview_ , 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Transformation of the World: A Global History of the Nineteenth Century_ , trans. Patrick Camiller (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014).\n\nOwen, Nicholas, _The British Left and India: Metropolitan Anti-Imperialism, 1885\u20131947_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).\n\nPagden, Anthony, _Lords of All the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France, 1500\u20131850_ (London: Yale University Press, 1995).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Peoples and Empires: Europeans and the Rest of the World, from Antiquity to the Present_ (London: Phoenix, 2001).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Human Rights, Natural Rights, and Europe's Imperial Legacy,\" _Political Theory_ , 31 (2003), 171\u201399.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Empire's New Clothes: From Empire to Federation, Yesterday and Today,\" _Common Knowledge_ , 12\/1 (2006), 36\u201346.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Burdens of Empire: 1539 to the Present_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).\n\nPalen, Marc-William, \"Protection, Federation and Union: The Global Impact of the McKinley Tariff upon the British Empire, 1890\u201394,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 38 (2010), 395\u2013418.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Adam Smith as Advocate of Empire,\" _Historical Journal_ , 57\/1 (2014), 179\u201398.\n\nParekh, Bhikhu, _Gandhi's Political Philosophy: A Critical Examination_ (London: Macmillan, 1989).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Decolonizing Liberalism,\" in _The End of \"Isms?\": Reflections on the Fate of Ideological Politics after Communism's Collapse_ , ed. Alexander Shtromas (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 85\u2013105.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Liberalism and Colonialism: A Critique of Locke and Mill,\" in _The Decolonization of Imagination_ , ed. J. N. Pieterse and Parekh (London: Zed Books, 1995), 81\u201398.\n\nParel, Anthony, _Gandhi's Philosophy and the Quest for Harmony_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).\n\nParker, Christopher, \"The Failure of Liberal Racialism: The Racial Ideas of E. A. Freeman,\" _Historical Journal_ , 24\/4 (1981), 825\u201346.\n\nParmar, Inderjeet, \"Anglo-American Elites in the Interwar Years: Idealism and Power in the Intellectual Roots of Chatham House and the Council on Foreign Relations,\" _International Relations_ , 16 (2002), 53\u201375.\n\nParry, Jonathan Philip, _The Rise and Fall of Liberal Government in Victorian Britain_ (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1993).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Political of Patriotism: English Liberalism, National Identity, and Europe, 1830\u201386_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).\n\nParsons, Jotham, \"Defining the History of Ideas,\" _Journal of the History of Ideas_ , 68 (2007), 682\u201389.\n\nPateman, Carole, and Charles Mills, _Contract and Domination_ (Cambridge: Polity, 2007).\n\nPaul, Herman, \"'Habits of Thought and Judgement: E. A. Freeman on Historical Methods,\" in _Making History_ , ed. Bremner and Conlin, 273\u201393.\n\nPedersen, Susan, _The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).\n\nPeel, J.D.Y., _Herbert Spencer: The Evolution of a Sociologist_ (London: Heinemann, 1971).\n\nPemberton, Jo-Ann, _Global Metaphors: Modernity and the Quest for One World_ (London: Pluto, 2001).\n\nPettit, Philip, \"A Republican Law of Peoples,\" _European Journal of Political Theory_ , 9 (2010), 70\u201394.\n\nPick, Daniel, _Faces of Degeneration: A European Disorder, 1848\u20131918_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).\n\nPietsche, Tamsin, _Empire of Scholars: Universities, Networks and the British Academic World, 1850\u20131939_ (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2013).\n\nPitts, Jennifer, _A Turn to Empire: The Rise of Imperial Liberalism in Britain and France_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Boundaries of Victorian International Law,\" in _Victorian Visions_ , ed. Bell, 67\u201389.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Political Theory of Empire and Imperialism,\" _Annual Review of Political Science_ , 13 (2010), 211\u201335.\n\nPlunkett, John, _Queen Victoria: First Media Monarch_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).\n\nPocock, J.G.A., \"The Myth of John Locke and the Obsession with Liberalism,\" in _John Locke_ : _Papers Read at a Clark Library Seminar, 10 December 1977_ , ed. Richard Ashcraft and J.G.A. Pocock (Los Angeles: Clark Library, 1980), 1\u201324.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Between Gog and Magog: The Republican Thesis and the _Ideologia Americana,\" Journal of the History of Ideas_ , 48 (1987), 325\u201346.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition_ (Princeton, 2003).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Barbarism and Religion: Vol. 4: Barbarians, Savages and Empires_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Discovery of Islands_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).\n\nPombeni, Paolo, \"Starting in Reason, Ending in Passion: Bryce, Lowell, Ostrogorski and the Problem of Democracy,\" _Historical Journal_ , 37 (1994), 319\u201341.\n\nPorter, Bernard, _Critics of Empire: British Radical Attitudes to Colonialism in Africa, 1895\u20131914_ (London: Macmillan, 1968).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Absent-Minded Imperialists: Empire, Society, and Culture in Britain_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Empire and Superempire: Britain, America, and the World_ (London: Yale University Press, 2006).\n\nPotter, Simon, _News and the British World: The Emergence of an Imperial Press System, 1876\u20131922_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).\n\nPrager, Carol A., \"Intervention and Empire: John Stuart Mill and International Relations,\" _Political Studies_ , 53 (2005), 621\u201341.\n\nProchaska, Frank, _Royal Bounty: The Making of a Welfare Monarchy_ (London: Allen Lane, 1995).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Republic of Britain, 1760\u20132000_ (London: Yale University Press, 2000).\n\nPurdy, Jedediah, \"Liberal Empire: Assessing the Arguments,\" _Ethics & International Affairs_, 17\/2 (2003), 35\u201347.\n\nRajan, Balachandra, \"Excess of India,\" _Modern Philology_ , 95\/4 (1998).\n\nRana, Aziz, _The Two Faces of American Freedom_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010).\n\nRawls, John, _A Theory of Justice_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy_ , ed. Samuel Freeman (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007).\n\nRead, Donald, _Cobden and Bright: A Victorian Political Partnership_ (London: Edward Arnold, 1967).\n\nReeves, Richard, _John Stuart Mill: Victorian Firebrand_ (London: Overlook Press, 2007).\n\nReus-Smit, Chris, \"Struggles for Individual Rights and the Expansion of the International System,\" _International Organization_ , 65 (2011), 207\u201342.\n\nReynolds, David, _The Creation of the Anglo-American Alliance, 1937\u201341: A Study in Competitive Cooperation_ (London: Europa, 1981).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Roosevelt, Churchill, and the Wartime Anglo-American Alliance, 1939\u201345,\" in _The Special Relationship: Anglo-American Relations Since 1945_ , ed. Roger Louis and Hedley Bull (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 17\u201341.\n\nReynolds, Matthew, _The Realms of Verse, 1830\u20131870: English Poetry in a Time of Nation-Building_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).\n\nRichter, Melvin, _The Politics of Conscience: T. H. Green and His Age_ (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1964).\n\nRieger, Bernhard, _Technology and the Culture of Modernity in Britain and Germany, 1890\u20131945_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).\n\nRiley, Jonathan, \"Mill's Political Economy: Ricardian Science and Liberal Utilitarian Art,\" in _The Cambridge Companion to Mill_ , ed. John Skorupski (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 293\u2013338.\n\nRoberts, Andrew, _A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900_ (New York: Harper Collins, 1997).\n\nRoberts, Priscilla, \"The Transatlantic American Foreign Policy Elite: Its Evolution in Generational Perspective,\" _Journal of Transatlantic Studies_ , 7\/2 (2009), 163\u201383.\n\nRobertson, John, \"Gibbon's Roman Empire as a Universal Monarchy,\" in _Edward Gibbon and Empire_ , ed. Rosamond McKitterick and Roland Quinault (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 247\u201371.\n\nRobinson, Ronald, and John Gallagher, \"The Imperialism of Free Trade,\" _Economic History Review_ , 6 (1953), 1\u201315.\n\nRobinson, Ronald, and John Gallagher, with Alice Denny, _Africa and the Victorians: The Official Mind of Imperialism_ (London: Macmillan, 1961).\n\nRodgers, Daniel, _Atlantic Crossings: Social Politics in a Progressive Age_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Traditions of Liberalism,\" in _Questions of Tradition_ , ed. Mark Salber Phillips and Gordon Schochet (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004), 203\u201333.\n\nRorty, Richard, \"The Historiography of Philosophy,\" in _Philosophy in History: Essays in the Historiography of Philosophy_ , ed. Richard Rorty, Jerome Schneewind, and Quentin Skinner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 49\u201376.\n\nRosen, Frederick, \"Eric Stokes, British Utilitarianism, and India,\" in _J. S. Mill's Encounter with India_ , ed. Moir, Peers, and Zastoupil (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999) 18\u201333.\n\nRoss, Dorothy _The Origins of American Social Science_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).\n\nRothblatt, Shedon, _The Revolution of the Dons: Cambridge and Society in Victorian England_ (London: Faber and Faber, 1968).\n\nRowse, A. L., _Froude as Historian: Victorian Man of Letters_ (Gloucester: Sutton, 1987).\n\nRuggie, John Gerard, \"Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations,\" _International Organization_ , 47 (1993), 139\u201374.\n\nRunciman, David, _Pluralism and the Personality of the State_ (Cambridge, 1997).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Concept of the State: The Sovereignty of a Fiction,\" in _States and Citizens: History, Theory, Prospects_ , ed. Quentin Skinner and Bo Str\u00e5th (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 28\u201339.\n\nRussell, Lynette, ed., _Colonial Frontiers: Indigenous\u2014European Encounters in Settler Societies_ (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001).\n\nRyan, Alan, \"Liberal Imperialism\" [2004], in _The Making of Modern Liberalism_ , 107\u201323.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Bureaucracy, Democracy, Liberty: Some Unanswered Questions in Mill's Politics,\" in _J. S. Mill's Political Thought_ , ed. Urbinati and Zakaras, 147\u201366.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Making of Modern Liberalism_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012).\n\nRyan, Henry Butterfield, _The Vision of Anglo-America: The US-UK Alliance and the Emerging Cold War, 1943\u20131946_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).\n\nSahlins, Marshall, _How \"Natives\" Think: About Captain Cook, for Example_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995).\n\nSaid, Edward, _Orientalism_ (London: Routledge, 1978).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Culture and Imperialism_ (London: Chatto and Windus, 1993).\n\nSanders, C. R., _Coleridge and the Broad Church Movement_ (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1972).\n\nSargent, Lyman Tower, \"Utopianism and the Creation of New Zealand National Identity,\" _Utopian Studies_ , 12\/1 (2001), 1\u201318.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Colonial and Postcolonial Utopias,\" in _The Cambridge Companion to Utopian Literature_ , ed. Gregory Claeys (Cambridge, 2010), 200\u2013223.\n\nSartori, Andrew, \"The British Empire and Its Liberal Mission,\" _Journal of Modern History_ , 78 (2006), 623\u201342.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Liberalism in Empire: An Alternative History_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014).\n\nSaunders, Francis Stonor, _Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War_ (London: Granta, 1999).\n\nSchivelbusch, Wolfgang, _The Railway Journey: The Industrialization and Perception of Time and Space_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).\n\nSchneewind, J. B., _Sidgwick's Ethics and Victorian Moral Philosophy_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1977).\n\nSchofield, Philip, _Utility and Democracy: The Political Thought of Jeremy Bentham_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).\n\nSchultz, Bart, _Henry Sidgwick: Eye of the Universe_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).\n\nSchultz, Bart, and Georgios Varouxakis, eds., _Utilitarianism and Empire_ (Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2005).\n\nScott, David, _Conscripts of Modernity: The Tragedy of Colonial Enlightenment_ (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004).\n\nScott, James, _Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Seeing like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed_ (London: Yale University Press, 1998).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009).\n\nSearle, Geoffrey Russell, _A New England? Peace and War, 1886\u20131914_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).\n\nSemmel, Bernard, _Imperialism and Social Reform: English Social-Imperial Thought, 1895\u20131914_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Governor Eyre Controversy: Jamaican Blood and Victorian Conscience_ (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1962).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Rise of Free Trade Imperialism: Classical Political Economy the Empire of Free Trade and Imperialism 1750\u20131850_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Liberal Ideal and the Demons of Empire: Theories of Imperialism from Adam Smith to Lenin_ (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993).\n\nShannon, Richard, _Gladstone and the Bulgarian Agitation 1876_ (London: Harvester, 1963).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"John Robert Seeley and the Idea of a National Church: A Study in Churchmanship, Historiography, and Politics,\" in _Ideas and Institutions of Victorian Britain:Essays in Honour of George Kitson Clark_, ed. Robert Robson (London: Bell, 1967), 236\u201367.\n\nShaw, Timothy, _Commonwealth: Inter- and Non-State Contributions to Global Governance_ (London: Routledge, 2008).\n\nShklar, Judith N., \"The Liberalism of Fear\" [1989], in _Political Thought and Political Thinkers_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 3\u201320.\n\nSimhony, Aviral, and David Weinstein, eds., _The New Liberalism: Reconciling Liberty and Community_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).\n\nSimms, Brendan, _Three Victories and a Defeat. The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire, 1714\u20131783_ (London: Penguin, 2007).\n\nSkilton, David, \"Tourists at the Ruins of London: The Metropolis and the Struggle for Empire,\" _Cercles_ , 17 (2007), 93\u2013119.\n\nSkinner, Quentin, \"From the State of Princes to the Person of the State,\" in _Visions of Politics, Volume II: Renaissance Virtues_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 368\u2013414.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Visions of Politics, Volume I: Regarding Method_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Hobbes and Republican Liberty_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"On the Slogans of Republican Political Theory,\" _European Journal of Political Theory_ , 9 (2010), 95\u2013102.\n\nSlee, Peter, _Learning and a Liberal Education: The Study of Modern History in the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester, 1800\u20131914_ (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986).\n\nSmandych, Russell, \"Colonialism, Settler Colonialism, and Law: Settler Revolutions and the Dispossession of Indigenous Peoples through Law in the Long Nineteenth Century,\" _Settler Colonial Studies_ , 3\/1 (2013), 82\u2013101.\n\nSmith, K.J.M., _James Fitzjames Stephen: Portrait of a Victorian Rationalist_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).\n\nSmith, Rogers, _Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U. S. History_ (London: Yale University Press, 2007).\n\nSmith, Tony, _A Pact with the Devil: Washington's Bid for World Supremacy and the Betrayal of America's Promise_ (London: Routledge, 2007).\n\nSmits, Katherine, \"John Stuart Mill on the Antipodes: Settler Violence against Indigenous Peoples and the Legitimacy of Colonial Rule,\" _Australian Journal of Politics and History_ , 51 (2008), 1\u201315.\n\nSoffer, Reba N., \"History and Religion: J. R. Seeley and the Burden of the Past,\" in _Religion and Irreligion in Victorian Society: Essays in Honor of R. K. Webb_ , ed. R. W. Davis and R. J. Helmstadter (London: Routledge, 1992), 133\u201351.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Discipline and Power: The University, History, and the Making of an English Elite, 1870\u20131930_ (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994).\n\nSpivak, Gayatri, \"Can the Subaltern Speak?,\" in _Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture_ , ed. Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 271\u2013313.\n\nStanton, Tim, \"John Locke and the Fable of Liberalism,\" _Historical Journal_ (forthcoming).\n\nStapleton, Julia, \"James Fitzjames Stephen: Liberalism, Patriotism, and English Liberty,\" _Victorian Studies_ , 41\/2 (1998), 243\u201363.\n\nStears, Marc, _Progressive, Pluralists, and the Problems of the State: Ideologies of Reform in the United States and Britain, 1909\u20131926_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).\n\nStedman Jones, Gareth, \"Rethinking Chartism,\" in _Languages of Class: Studies in English Working Class History, 1832\u20131982_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 90\u2013179.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Radicalism and the Extra-European World: The Case of Marx,\" in _Victorian Visions_ , ed. Bell, 186\u2013225.\n\nSteer, Philip, \"Greater Britain and the Imperial Outpost: The Australasian Origins of _The Riddle of the Sands_ (1903),\" _Victorian Review_ , 35 (2009), 79\u201395.\n\nSteger, Manfred, _Gandhi's Dilemma: Nonviolent Principles and Nationalist Power_ (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Rise of the Global Imaginary: Political Ideologies from the French Revolution the War on Terror_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).\n\nSteger, Manfred, \"The Changing Face of Political Ideologies in the Global Age,\" _New Political Science_ , 31 (2009) 423\u201330.\n\nStoler, Ann Laura, _Race and the Education of Desire: Foucault's History of Sexuality and the Colonial Order of Things_ (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1995).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"On Degrees of Imperial Sovereignty,\" _Public Culture_ , 18\/1 (2006), 125\u201346.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense_ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010).\n\nStray, Christopher, _Classics Transformed: Schools, Universities, and Society in England, 1830\u20131960_ (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, ed., _Gilbert Murray Reassessed: Hellenism, Theatre and International Politics_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).\n\nStuddert-Kennedy, Gerald, \"Christianity, Statecraft and Chatham House: Lionel Curtis and World Order,\" _Diplomacy & Statecraft_, 6 (1995), 470\u201389.\n\nSuganami, Hidemi, _The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).\n\nSullivan, Eileen P., \"Liberalism and Imperialism: J. S. Mill's Defense of the British Empire,\" _Journal of the History of Ideas_ , 44 (1983), 599\u2013617.\n\nSummerton, N. W., \"Dissenting Attitudes to Foreign Relations, Peace and War, 1840\u20131890,\" _Journal of Ecclesiastical History_ , 28 (1977), 151\u201378.\n\nSuskind, Ron, \"Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush,\" _New York Times Magazine_ , October 17, 2004.\n\nSylvest, Casper, \"Interwar Internationalism, the British Labour Party and the Historiography of International Relations,\" _International Studies Quarterly_ , 48 (2004), 409\u201332.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Continuity and Change in British Liberal Internationalism, c. 1900\u20131930,\" _Review of International Studies_ , 31 (2005), 263\u201383.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"International Law in Nineteenth-Century Britain,\" _British Yearbook of International Law 2004_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 9\u201370.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _British Liberal Internationalism, 1880\u20131930: Making Progress?_ (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"James Bryce and the Two Faces of Nationalism,\" in _British InternationalThinkers_, ed. Ian Hall and Lisa Hill (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009), 161\u201381.\n\nSymonds, Richard, _Oxford and Empire: The Last Lost Cause?_ , rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991).\n\nTaylor, Antony, \" _Down with the Crown\": British Anti-Monarchism and Debates about Royalty since 1790_ (London: Reaktion, 1999).\n\nTaylor, Charles, _Modern Social Imaginaries_ (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004).\n\nTaylor, M. W., _Men versus the State: Herbert Spencer and Late Victorian Individualism_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992).\n\nTaylor, Miles, \"Imperium et Libertas? Rethinking the Radical Critique of Imperialism during the Nineteenth Century,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 19 (1991), 1\u201323.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The 1848 Revolutions and the British Empire,\" _Past & Present_, 166 (2000), 146\u201380.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Republics versus Empires: Charles Dilke's Republicanism Reconsidered,\" in _Republicanism in Victorian Society_ , ed. David Nash and Antony Taylor (Stroud: Sutton, 2003), 25\u201334.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Queen Victoria and India, 1837\u201361,\" _Victorian Studies_ , 46 (2004), 264\u201374.\n\nThomas, William, _The Philosophic Radicals: Nine Studies in Theory and Practice, 1817\u20131841_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979).\n\nThompson, Andrew, _Imperial Britain: The Empire in British Politics, 1880\u20131932_ (London: Longman, 2000).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Empire Strikes Back: The Impact of Imperialism on Britain since the Mid-Nineteenth Century_ (London: Longmans, 2005).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, ed., _Writing Imperial Histories_ (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2014).\n\nThompson, Dorothy, _Queen Victoria: Gender and Power_ (London: Virago, 1990).\n\nThompson, J. Lee, _A Wider Patriotism: Alfred Milner and the British Empire_ (London: Pickering and Chatto, 2007).\n\nThompson, James, _British Political Culture and the Idea of \"Public Opinion,\" 1867\u20131914_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).\n\nThompson, Walter, _James Anthony Froude on Nation and Empire: A Study in Victorian Racialism_ (London: Garland, 1998).\n\nTodorov, Tzvetan, _The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other_ , trans. Richard Howard (New York: Harper Perennial, 1992).\n\nTomes, Jason, _Balfour and Foreign Policy: The International Thought of a Conservative Statesman_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).\n\nTownshend, Jules, _J. A. Hobson_ (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1990).\n\nToye, Richard, _Churchill's Empire: The World That Made Him and the World He Made_ (London: Macmillan, 2010).\n\nTrentmann, Frank, \"The Strange Death of Free Trade: The Erosion of the 'Liberal Consensus' in Great Britain, c. 1903\u20131932,\" in _Citizenship and Community: Liberals, Radicals and Collective Identities in the British Isles, 1865\u20131931_ , ed. Euginio Biagini (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 219\u201351.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Free Trade Nation: Commerce, Consumption and Civil Society in Modern Britain_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).\n\nTuck, Richard, _The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and International Order from Grotius to Kant_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Free Riding_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008).\n\nTully, James, _An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity_ (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 1995).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"The Kantian Idea of Europe: Critical and Cosmopolitan Perspectives,\" in _The Idea of Europe_ , ed. Anthony Pagden (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 331\u201358.\n\nTully, James, _Public Philosophy in a New Key_ , 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Lineages of Contemporary Imperialism,\" in _Lineages of Empire: The Historical Roots of British Imperial Thought_ , ed. Duncan Kelly (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 3\u201330.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"'Two Concepts of Liberty' in Context,\" in _Isaiah Berlin and the Politics of Freedom: \"Two Concepts of Liberty\" 50 Years Later_ , ed. Bruce Baum and Robert Nichols (Abingdon: Routledge, 2013), 23\u201352.\n\nTunick, Mark, \"Tolerant Imperialism: John Stuart Mill's Defense of British Rule in India,\" _The Review of Politics_ , 68 (2006), 586\u2013611.\n\nTurner, Frank M., _Between Science and Religion: The Reaction to Scientific Naturalism in Late Victorian England_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Greek Heritage in Victorian Britain_ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Contesting Cultural Authority: Essays in Victorian Intellectual Life_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).\n\nTurner, Jack, \"John Locke, Christian Mission, and Colonial America,\" _Modern Intellectual History_ , 8 (2011), 267\u201397.\n\nTurner, John, ed., _The Larger Idea: Lord Lothian and the Problem of National Sovereignty_ (London: Lothian Foundation, 1988).\n\nTurner, Michael, \"Radical Agitation and the Canada Question in British Politics, 1837\u20131841,\" _Historical Research_ , 79 (2006), 90\u2013114.\n\nTyler, Colin, \"T. H. Green,\" _Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy_ , <http:\/\/plato.stanford.edu>.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"T. H. Green, Advanced Liberalism and the Reform Question 1865\u20131876,\" _History of European Ideas_ , 29 (2003), 437\u201358.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Idealist Political Philosophy: Pluralism and Conflict in the Absolute Idealist Tradition_ (London: Continuum, 2006).\n\nUrbinati, Nadia, _Mill on Democracy: From the Athenian Polis to Representative Government_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002).\n\nUrbinati, Nadia, and Alex Zakaras, eds., _J. S. Mill's Political Thought: A Bicentennial Reassessment_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).\n\nvan Gelderen, Martin, and Quentin Skinner, eds., _Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage_ , 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).\n\nVance, Norman, _The Victorians and Ancient Rome_ (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Anxieties of Empire and the Moral Tradition: Rome and Britain,\" _International Journal of the Classical Tradition_ , 18\/2 (2011), 246\u201361.\n\nVarouxakis, Georgios, _Mill on Nationality_ (London: Routledge, 2002).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Empire, Race, Euro-Centrism: John Stuart Mill and His Critics,\" in _Utilitarianism and Empire_ , ed. Bart Schultz and Georgios Varouxakis (Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2005), 137\u201354.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"'Patriotism,' 'Cosmopolitanism' and 'Humanity' in Victorian Political Thought,\" _European Journal of Political Theory_ , 5 (2006), 100\u2013118.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"'Great' versus 'Small' Nations: Size and National Greatness in Victorian Political Thought,\" in _Victorian Visions of Global Order_ , ed. Bell, 136\u201359.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Liberty Abroad: J. S. Mill on International Relations_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).\n\nVasunia, Phiroze, \"Greater Rome and Greater Britain,\" in _Classics and Colonialism_ , ed. Barbara Goff (London: Duckworth, 2005), 34\u201368.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Greek, Latin, and the Indian Civil Service,\" _Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society_ , 51 (2005), 35\u201371.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Classics and Colonial India_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).\n\nVeracini, Lorenzo, _Settler Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview_ (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2010).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Introducing Settler Colonial Studies,\" _Settler Colonial Studies_ , 1\/1 (2011), 1\u201312.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Settler Colonialism: Career of a Concept,\" _Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History_ , 41\/2 (2013), 313\u201333.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Settler Colonial Present_ (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2015).\n\nVernon, James, ed., _Re-Reading the Constitution: New Narratives in the Political History of England's Long Nineteenth Century_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).\n\nVincent, John, _The Formation of the Liberal Party, 1857\u20131868_ (London: Constable, 1966).\n\nVitalis, Robert, \"The Noble American Science of Imperial Relations and Its Laws of Race Development,\" _Comparative Studies in Society and History_ , 52 (2010), 909\u201338.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _White World Order, Black Power Politics: The Birth of American International Relations_ (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2015).\n\nvon Arx, Jeffrey, _Progress and Pessimism: Religion, Politics and History in Late Nineteenth Century Britain_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1985).\n\nVucetic, Srdjan, \"Anglobal Governance?,\" _Cambridge Review of International Affairs_ , 23 (2011), 455\u201374.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _The Anglosphere: A Genealogy of a Racialized Identity in International Relations_ (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011).\n\nWaldron, Jeremy, \"Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism,\" _Philosophical Quarterly_ , 37 (1987), 127\u201350.\n\nWalker, Robert B. J., _Inside\/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).\n\nWalzer, Michael, _Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations_ (London: Allen Lane, 1978).\n\nWatson, Nicola J., \"Gloriana Victoriana: Victoria and the Cultural Memory and Elizabeth I,\" in _Remaking Queen Victoria_ , ed. Homans and Munich, 79\u2013105.\n\nWeinstein, David, _Equal Freedom and Utility: Herbert Spencer's Liberal Utilitarianism_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Deductive Hedonism and the Anxiety of Influence,\" _Utilitas_ , 12 (2000), 329\u201346.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Imagining Darwinism,\" in _Utilitarianism and Empire_ , ed. Schultz and Varouxakis, 189\u2013209.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Utilitarianism and the New Liberalism_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Consequentialist Cosmopolitanism,\" in _Victorian Visions_ , ed. Bell, 267\u201391.\n\nWeisberg, Jacob, \"George Bush's Favourite Historian: The Strange Views of Andrew Roberts,\" _Slate_ , March 28, 2007, accessed July 26, 2011, <http:\/\/www.slate.com\/id\/2162837\/>.\n\nWeiss, Thomas, \"What Happened to the Idea of World Government?,\" _International Studies Quarterly_ , 53 (2009), 253\u201371.\n\nWelch, Cheryl, \"Colonial Violence and the Rhetoric of Evasion: Tocqueville on Algeria,\" _Political Theory_ , 31 (2003), 235\u201364.\n\nWendt, Alexander, \"Why a World State Is Inevitable,\" _European Journal of International Relations_ , 9 (2003), 491\u2013542.\n\nWhelan, Frederick, _Edmund Burke and India_ (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1996).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Enlightenment Political Thought and Non-Western Societies_ (London: Routledge, 2009).\n\nWilliams, Bernard, \"The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and the Ambitions of Ethics\" [1982], in _Making Sense of Humanity, and Other Philosophical Papers, 1982\u20131993_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 153\u201371.\n\nWilliams, Michael, _The Realist Tradition and the Limits of International Relations_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).\n\nWilliams, Paul, \"A Commonwealth of Knowledge: Empire, Intellectuals and the Chatham House Project, 1919\u20131939,\" _International Relations_ , 17 (2003), 35\u201358.\n\nWilliams, Richard, _The Contentious Crown: Public Discussion of the British Monarchy in the Reign of Queen Victoria_ (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997).\n\nWilson, Jon, \"Taking Europe for Granted,\" _History Workshop Journal_ , 52 (2001), 287\u201395.\n\nWiltshire, David, _The Social and Political Thought of Herbert Spencer_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978).\n\nWinch, Donald, _Classical Political Economy and Colonies_ (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965).\n\nWinkler, Henry, _British Labour Seeks a Foreign Policy, 1900\u20131940_ (London: Transaction Publishers, 2005).\n\nWinter, _Dreams of Peace and Freedom: Utopian Moments in the Twentieth Century_ (London: Yale University Press, 2006).\n\nWolf, Eric, _Europe and the People without History_ (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982).\n\nWolfe, Patrick, \"History and Imperialism: A Century of Theory, from Marx to Postcolonialism,\" _American Historical Review_ , 102 (1997), 388\u2013420.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, _Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology_ (London: Cassell, 1999).\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Settler Colonialism and the Elimination of the Native,\" _Journal of Genocide Research_ , 8\/4 (2006), 387\u2013409.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, \"Recuperating Binarism: A Heretical Introduction,\" _Settler Colonial Studies_ , 3\/4 (2013), 257\u201379.\n\nWolin, Sheldon, _Politics and Vision_ : _Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought_ , rev. ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004).\n\nWood, J. C., _British Economists and the Empire_ (London: Croom Helm, 1983).\n\nWooley, Wesley T., _Alternatives to Anarchy: American Supranationalism since World War II_ (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988).\n\nWormell, Deborah, _Sir John Seeley and the Uses of History_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).\n\nWorsley, David, \"Sir John Robert Seeley and His Intellectual Legacy: Religion, Imperialism, and Nationalism in Victorian and Post-Victorian Britain,\" unpublished PhD thesis, University of Manchester, 2001.\n\nWright, T. R., _The Religion of Humanity: The Impact of Comtean Positivism on Victorian Britain_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).\n\nZastoupil, Lynn, _John Stuart Mill and India_ (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994).\n\nZastoupil, Lynn, and Martin I. Moir, eds., _The Great Indian Education Debate: Documents Relating to the Orientalist-Anglicist Controversy, 1781\u20131843_ (London: Curzon, 1999).\n\nZiegler, Philip, _Legacy: Cecil Rhodes, the Rhodes Trust and Rhodes Scholarships_ (London: Yale University Press, 2008).\nINDEX\n\nAbbott, Lyman, \u2013\n\nActon, John, , , , 257n80,\n\nAfghanistan, , ,\n\nAlgeria, 30n37, , , ,\n\nAmerica. _See_ United States\n\nAmery, Leo,\n\nAmos, Sheldon,\n\nAnderson, Perry,\n\nAngell, Norman, , , ; \"Norman Angellism,\"\n\nAnglosphere, term, , \u2013. _See also_ Angloworld; Greater Britain; English-speaking peoples\n\nAngloworld, term, \u2013, . _See also_ Anglosphere; Greater Britain; English-speaking peoples\n\nAnti-Corn Law League,\n\nanti-Semitism, , \u201357n56\n\nAppadurai, Arjun, \u2013,\n\nArendt, Hannah, 3n8, , , ; _The Origins of Totalitarianism_ ,\n\nAristotle, , ,\n\nArnold, Edwin,\n\nArnold, Matthew, ,\n\nArnold, Thomas, , 130n56, , , , 273n40, , ; _Postscript to the Principles of Church Reform_ ,\n\nAstrofuturism, discourse of, 202n82\n\nAtlantic Charter (1941),\n\nAustin, John, , 158n35\n\nAustralia. _See_ Adelaide; New South Wales; Queensland; South Australia; Sydney; Victoria\n\nBagehot, Walter, , , , , ; _The English Constitution_ ,\n\nBalfour, A. J., ,\n\nBalliol College, Oxford, ,\n\nBaring, Evelyn, 1st Earl of Cromer, , \u2013; _Ancient and Modern Imperialism_ ,\n\nBarker, Ernest,\n\nBaron, Hans,\n\nBayly, C. A., ,\n\nBaxter Adams, Herbert,\n\nBeard, Charles, 355n47\n\nBeaumont, Gustave,\n\nBeesly, E. S., , 268n19, 270n26\n\nBelich, James, 109n67,\n\nBengal,\n\nBenn, A. W., 83n83,\n\nBennett, James,\n\nBentham, Jeremy, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,\n\nBentley, Michael, 29n30,\n\nBeresford, Charles, , \u2013\n\nBesant, Walter,\n\nBevir, Mark, 120n7\n\nBhabha, Homi,\n\nbiocultural assemblage, account of race, , 175n39. _See also_ race\n\nBismarck, Otto von,\n\nBlackstone, William,\n\nBlair, Anthony, 26n23\n\nBluntschli, Johann Casper, , , ; _Theory of the State_ ,\n\nBrett, Annabel, 364n3\n\nBuller, Charles, \u2013, 216n21, 227n75\n\nBoer War. _See_ South African War\n\nBolingbroke, Viscount, Henry St. John, \u2013, 308n40, 317n77; _The Idea of a Patriot King_ , , 317n77\n\nBosanquet, Bernard.\n\nBowring, John, 216n21\n\nBradley, A. C, 274n47\n\nBradley, F. H., 274n47\n\nBradley, Mark, 145n106\n\nBridges, Horace,\n\nBright, John, , , , ,\n\nBritish Empire League,\n\nBroad Church, \u2013. _See also_ Seeley, J. R.\n\nBrowning, Robert, ,\n\nBryce, James, , , , , , , , , , , , , ; \"The Ancient Roman Empire and the British Empire in India,\"\n\nBukarin, Nikolai,\n\nBurke, Edmund, , , , \u2013, , 76n47, , , , , , , , ,\n\nBurrow, John,\n\nBurrows, Montagu,\n\nBury, J. B., , \u2013\n\nBush, George W., ,\n\nByron, George Gordon Noel, 6th Baron Byron,\n\nCabot Lodge, Henry, ,\n\nCain, Peter,\n\nCairnes, J. E., \u2013, , 44n98, 223n59, 365n5\n\nCaldecott, Alfred, 36n64, , , \u2013, \u2013\n\n_Cambridge Modern History_ ,\n\nCampbell-Bannerman, Henry,\n\nCanada, , , , 44n101, , \u2013, , , \u2013, , , , , \u2013, , , , , , , \u2013, , \u2013, , , , , , , , , , , \u2013, , ; \"Americanization\" of, \u2013; rebellion, in (1837\u201338), \u2013,\n\nCape Colony, , , , , 309n43. _See also_ South Africa\n\nCaribbean, the, , , , , , 308n39, . _See also_ Jamaica; West Indies\n\nCarlyle, Thomas, , , , , , \u2013, ; _Chartism_ , ; _Past and Present_ ,\n\nCarnarvon, 4th Earl of, Henry Herbert, 314n63,\n\nCarnegie, Andrew, , , , , ,\n\nCassirer, Ernst,\n\nCecil, Robert Arthur, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, ,\n\nCentral Intelligence Agency (USA),\n\nChakrabarty, Dipesh, ,\n\nChamberlain, Joseph, , \u2013, , , , , , , , \u2013,\n\ncharacter, idea of, , , , , , , , \u2013, , , , , \u2013, , , , ,\n\nchildhood, language of, , , , , , , , ,\n\nChina, , ,\n\ncitizenship, , , , , , , \u2013, , , 198n61, , \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, , , ; common, conception of, , 145n111, \u2013, , , 198n61, ,\n\ncivilization, idea of, , , , , \u2013, , \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, , , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, , , \u2013, , , \u2013, , , \u2013, , , , , , , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, , \u2013\n\ncivilizing mission, idea of, , \u2013, , , , \u2013, , , , , , , , , , , \u2013, , , , \u2013. _See also_ civilization; empire; liberalism\n\nChartism, ,\n\nChurchill, Winston, , , ; \"Iron Curtain\" speech,\n\nCicero, Marcus Tullius, , 135n73\n\ncities, fear of, , , 305n25, \u2013,\n\ncivic humanism. _See_ republicanism\n\ncivic imperialism, , . _See also_ republicanism\n\ncivilization, idea of, , \u2013, , \u2013, , , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, , , \u2013, , , \u2013, , , \u2013, , , , , \u2013, , , , , , \u2013, 309n43, \u2013, , ,\n\nClaeys, Gregory, 357n57\n\nClarke, Peter, 191n32\n\nClassical Association,\n\nCobden, Richard, , , , , , , \u2013, , , , , ,\n\nCochrane, Baillie,\n\nCoit, Stanton,\n\nCold War, , 20n5, \u2013,\n\nCole, G.D.H., ,\n\nCole, Robert, 131n61; _The Struggle for Empire: A Story of the Year 2236_ , 131n61\n\nColeridge, Samuel Taylor, , , , , , 285n114; _On the Idea of the Constitution of the Church and State_ , 280n87\n\nCollingwood, R. G., , 140n92\n\nCollini, Stefan, , , \u2013\n\ncollective action problem, \u2013\n\nColomb, J.C.R.,\n\nColonial Office,\n\ncolonial reform movement, \u2013, , , , , . _See also_ Wakefield, E. G.\n\nCommittee to Form a World Government,\n\ncommunications technologies, imperial role of, , , , , , , , \u2013, , , , \u2013, , , ,\n\ncomparison, habit of, \u2013. _See also_ comparative gaze\n\ncomparative gaze, imperial, ,\n\ncomparative politics, academic discipline, \u2013, ,\n\ncomparative method, , , \u2013\n\nComte, Auguste, , , , \u2013, \u2013, ,\n\nConan Doyle, Arthur, , ; _The White Company_ ,\n\nCongress on Cultural Freedom, . _See also_ Central Intelligence Agency\n\nCongreve, Richard,\n\nConquest, Robert, 181n59, \u2013\n\nConrad, Joseph, , ; _Heart of Darkness_ ,\n\nConstant, Benjamin, , 30n37, , \u2013, , ; \"The Spirit of Conquest,\" ,\n\nCooper, Frederick, \u2013\n\nCorn Laws, , , ,\n\nCornewall Lewis, George, \u2013, 78n56, 129n52, ; _Essay on the Government of Dependencies_ , 129n52\n\ncosmopolitanism, , , , , , , , \u2013, , , ,\n\ncosmopolitan nationalism, , 248n40, , \u2013\n\nCouncil on Foreign Relations, \u2013\n\nCraik, Henry,\n\nCrimean War (1853\u201356),\n\ncrisis, language of, , , \u2013, , , \u2013\n\nCromer, Earl. _See_ Baring, Evelyn\n\nCurtis, Lionel, , \u2013, \u2013, ; _Civitas Dei_ ,\n\nCurzon, George (Lord Curzon), 131n60,\n\n_Daily Chronicle_ , the,\n\nDalhousie, Earl, James Broun-Ramsay,\n\nDalton, J. N.,\n\nDarwinism, social, , , , , , 343n10\n\nDarwin, John, 6n19\n\nDavis, Mike,\n\nDe Ruggiero, Guido, , , ; _History of European Liberalism_ ,\n\ndecline and fall, trope of, , , , \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, , , \u2013,\n\nDejobert, A., 30n37\n\ndemocracy, , , , , , \u2013, \u2013, , , , , , , , , , , \u2013, \u2013; anxiety over, , , ; and empire, , , , \u2013, \u2013; league of, , , ,\n\ndemocratization, , . _See also_ civilizing mission; democracy\n\ndependency theory, of exploitation, . _See also_ Marxism\n\nDerby,\n\nDeudney, Daniel, , , 203n92, 303n20\n\nDeutsch, Karl,\n\ndevelopment, ideology of, , , , \u2013, , ,\n\nDewey, John, , ,\n\nDiamond Jubilee (1897),\n\nDicey, Albert Venn, \u2013, , , , , , , , 331n57,\n\nDiderot, Denis, , ,\n\nDilke, Charles, 46n108, , , , , , , , , 292n148; criticisms of imperial federation, ; _Greater Britain_ , , ,\n\nDisraeli, Benjamin, , , , , , , , , \u2013,\n\nDore, Gustave,\n\nDos Passos, John Randolph, ,\n\nDouglas, James,\n\nDoyle, J. A., ,\n\nDoyle, Michael, 25n22, ,\n\nDrake, Durant, \u2013\n\nDuBois, W.E.B.,\n\nDulles, John Foster,\n\nDurham, Lord, John George Lambton, \u2013,\n\nDurham Report, \u2013,\n\nDworkin, Ronald, ,\n\nEast India Company, British, , \u2013,\n\n_Economist_ , the,\n\nEducation, relationship to empire, 59n168, \u2013, , \u2013, ,\n\nEgerton, H. E., , , , , ; _Short History of Colonial Policy_ ,\n\nEgypt, , , , , , ,\n\nEinstein, Albert,\n\nemigration, \u2013, , , , , , \u2013, , , , , , \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013; systematic account of, , , \u2013, , \u2013,\n\nEnglish-speaking peoples, idea of, , , \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, . _See also_ Angloworld; Angloshpere; Greater Britain\n\nempire, theories of, \u2013, \u2013118; free trade, variant of, \u2013; Hardt and Negri, account of, \u2013; iconographic order of empire, concept, , \u2013; imaginary, \u2013; informal, conception of, \u2013, \u2013, ; involution, idea of, ; resistance to, , \u2013; settler colonialism, \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, , , \u2013, , \u2013, , \u2013, , , , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, , , \u2013, , , , , \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013; second settler empire, concept, , , , . _See also_ Greater Britain; Imperial Federation; India, British empire in\n\n_Encyclopaedia Britannica_ ,\n\nEthical Societies, movement, ,\n\nevolutionary theory. _See_ Darwinism, social\n\nEyre, controversy, \u2013, , , 307n36\n\nFabianism, ,\n\nFalk, Richard,\n\nFanon, Frantz, , \u2013; _The Wretched of the Earth_ ,\n\nfederalism, as mode of political organization, , , , , \u2013, 161n44, \u2013, , \u2013, , , \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013; Imperial, , , , \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, , , \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, , , , \u2013, \u2013, , , \u2013, \u2013; world, , , , , \u2013, , ,\n\n_Federalist Papers_ , the, 528\n\nFenn, W. W.,\n\nFerguson, Niall, , , \u2013\n\nFichte, Johan Gottlieb, \u2013; _Addresses to the German Nation_ ,\n\nFiggis, J. N.,\n\nFirst World War (1914\u201318), , , , , , , \u2013, , , ,\n\nFisher, H.A.L., 172n23, ,\n\nFiske, John, ; _American Political Ideas Viewed from the Standpoint of Universal History_ , ; _The Discovery of America_ ,\n\nFitzjames Stephens, James, \u2013, , ; _Liberty, Equality, Fraternity_ ,\n\nFitzmaurice, Andrew, 51n133\n\nFoley, Tadhg, 7n23\n\nFoucault, Michel, 106n56,\n\nFord, Gerald,\n\nFord, Lisa,\n\nForsyth, Murray, 328n35\n\nFoster, William, , , , \u2013,\n\nFox, Charles James, 77n47\n\nFrance, 30n37, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . _See also_ French Revolution\n\nFranco-Prussian War (1870\u201371),\n\nFranklin, Benjamin,\n\nFreeman, Edward A., \u2013, , 44n101, , , \u2013, \u2013; _Comparative Politics_ , ; on federalism, \u2013; on history, , 131n56, \u2013, \u2013; _History of Federal Government_ , ; opposition to imperial federation, , ; on race, , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013; on the United States, 44n101, , \u2013, \u2013\n\nfree trade, \u2013, , , , , , , 238n5, \u2013, , , ; \"free trade imperialism\" ( _see_ empire)\n\nFreeden, Michael, \u2013, , , 355n49\n\nFriedrich, Carl, 86n99\n\nFrench Canadians, \u2013\n\nFrench Revolution, , , \u2013, ,\n\nFroude, James Anthony, , \u2013, , , \u2013, , , , , \u2013, , , ; as civic imperialist, , , , \u2013, 308n40, ; conception of Oceana, \u2013; on history, , \u2013, , \u2013; _History of England from the Fall of Wolsey to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada_ , ; on liberalism, \u2013, 308n41, \u2013; _Nemesis of Faith_ , ; _Oceana_ , , , , 309n42; on race, \u2013,\n\nfuture war, narratives of, 341n2\n\nGallagher, John, , . _See also_ empire\n\nGandhi, Mahatma, \u2013, ; _Hind Swaraj_ , \u2013\n\ngender, , , , , , 307n37,\n\ngenocide, colonial, \u2013, , , . _See also_ Tasmania\n\nGermany, , , , , , , , , , , , , \u2013, 202n82, , , , , , \u2013, , , , , \u2013,\n\nGerstle, Gary, ,\n\nGeuss, Raymond,\n\nGibbon, Edward, , , , , , , ; _History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ , , 138n36\n\nGierke, Otto von,\n\nGilbert, Felix,\n\nGladstone, William Ewart, , , , , 238n5, , , 270n27, ,\n\nGoethe, Johann Wolfgang von, ,\n\nGooch, G. P., , ,\n\nGore, Charles,\n\nGreat Exhibition (1851),\n\nGreater Britain, idea of, 7n21, \u2013, , , , , , , , , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, , , \u2013, \u2013, , , \u2013, \u2013, . _See also_ Angloworld; Anglosphere; Imperial Federation\n\nGreece, model of empire, , , , , , \u2013, , , , , , , , \u2013, , , \u2013,\n\nGreen, J. R.,\n\nGreen, Thomas Hill, , , \u2013, \u2013; _Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation_ , \u2013, ; _The Prolegomena to Ethics_ , ; \"The Right of the State over the Individual in War,\"\n\nGreswell, William,\n\nGrote, George, , 130n54,\n\nGuizot, Francois, ; _General History of Civilization in Europe_ ,\n\nGunnell, John, \u2013\n\nHammond, J. L., , 26n25, ,\n\nHarcourt, William,\n\nHardie, Kier, ,\n\nHardt, Michael, \u2013\n\nHarrington, James, ; _The Commonwealth of Oceana_ , , 309n42\n\nHarrison, Benjamin, \u2013\n\nHarrison, Frederic, \u2013, ,\n\nHartz, Louis, 3n8, ,\n\nHarvard Divinity School,\n\nHastings, Warren, 56n152,\n\nHayek, Friedrich,\n\nHechter, Michael, 21n7\n\nHegel, Georg W. F., ,\n\nHell, Julia, \u2013\n\nHenley, W. E.,\n\nHerder, Johann Gottfried von, , ,\n\nHerz, John,\n\n_Herrenvolk_ ethics, concept. _See_ race\n\nHilferding, Rudolf,\n\nHilton, Boyd, 173n28\n\n\"historical-mindedness,\" concept, \u2013, , \u2013,\n\nHitler, Adolf, , ,\n\nHobbes, Thomas, , , ,\n\nHobsbawm, Eric, \u2013\n\nHobhouse, Leonard Trelawny, , , \u2013, , , , , \u2013, , , , \u2013, \u2013, ; on colonialism, , , \u2013; _Democracy and Reaction_ , , , ; on liberalism, \u2013, , \u2013, , , , \u2013, ; _Liberalism_ , , , ; _The Metaphysical Theory of the State_ ,\n\nHobson, John A., , , , , , , , , \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, , , , , \u2013, ; _The Crisis of Liberalism_ , \u2013, ; on imperial federation, , \u2013; _Imperialism_ , , , ,\n\nHolborn, Hajo,\n\nHolland, Bernard, , , , ; _Imperium et Libertas_ ,\n\nHollander, Samuel, 217n26\n\nHolmes, Stephen, 67n16,\n\nHolmes, Sherlock, of Baker Street, . _See also_ Conan Doyle, Arthur\n\nHort, F.J.A.,\n\nHouse Concurrent Resolution  (1949), \u2013\n\nhuman terrain, mapping of,\n\nHume, David, , 67n16, , , \u2013\n\nHutchins, Robert M.,\n\nHuxley, Aldous,\n\nHyndman, H. M., ,\n\nidealism, philosophical, \u2013, , \u2013\n\nideology, account of, 6n20, , \u201318\n\nIgnatieff, Michael, ,\n\nIkenberry, John, ,\n\nImperial Federation, \u2013, , , , , \u2013, \u2013, 167n3, \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, , , , \u2013, , \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013,\n\nImperial Federation League (IFL), 37n68, , , , ,\n\nimperial involution, concept,\n\nImperial War Cabinet (1916\u201319),\n\nIndia, British Empire in, , , , , \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, , \u2013, , , , \u2013, , , , \u2013, , \u2013, , , , , \u2013, , 299n5, \u2013, , , , , , ,\n\nIndian Civil Service, , 261n93\n\nIndian Mutiny (1857). _See_ Sepoy Rebellion\n\nIndian National Congress, ,\n\nInternational Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House),\n\nInternational Relations (IR), academic discipline, 3n10, \u2013, 147n36, ,\n\nIraq, , 31n42, , ,\n\nIreland, , , , , , \u2013, \u2013, , , , \u2013, ; Home Rule, in, , , ,\n\nIslam, , , ,\n\nisopolitan citizenship, 15n41, 145n14, , . _See also_ citizenship, common\n\nisopolity, . _See also_ isopolitan citizenship\n\nItaly, , , ,\n\nJackson, Henry,\n\nJamaica, \u2013. _See also_ Caribbean, the; Eyre, controversy; West Indies\n\nJames, Henry,\n\nJames, William, , . _The Varieties of Religious Experience_ ,\n\nJapan, , , ,\n\nJebb, Richard, \u2013\n\nJefferson, Thomas, ,\n\nJenkins, John Edward,\n\nJohnson, Chalmers,\n\nJones, Emily, 76n47\n\nJones, Henry Ford, 287n123\n\nJowett, Benjamin, ,\n\n_Johns Hopkins Studies in Historical and Political Science_ ,\n\n_Journal of the History of Ideas_ ,\n\nKant, Immanuel, , , , , , , ,\n\nKautsky, Karl,\n\nKennedy, John Fitzgerald,\n\nKerr, Philip, 11th Marquess of Lothian,\n\nKeynes, John Maynard, \u2013\n\nKingsley, Charles,\n\nKipling, Rudyard, , , , ; \"Recessional,\"\n\nKlibansky, Raymond,\n\nKnox, John, 316n75\n\nKoselleck, Reinhart,\n\nKosovo, 26n23\n\nKristeller, Paul,\n\nKristol, Irving,\n\nKymlicka, Will, 227n76\n\nLabilli\u00e8re, Francis P. de, , \u2013, , , \u2013\n\nLabour Party (British), 167n3, 239n5\n\nLaski, Harold, 75n41, , \u2013\n\nLawrence, T. J., \u2013\n\nLecky, W.E.H., , ,\n\nLeague of Nations,\n\nLenin, V. I., , ,\n\n_Liberales_ , Spanish,\n\nLiberal Party (British), , ,\n\nliberalism, variations on, \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, , , , , , , , \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, , , , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013; canonical approaches to, , , , , , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, , ; conscripts of, \u2013, ; contextualist approaches to, , \u2013; neoliberalism, variant, , , , , \u2013, ; summative conception of, \u2013; settler colonialism, prioritization of, \u2013, , , \u2013, \u2013, 292n148, \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013; stipulative conception of, \u2013,\n\n\"libertas et imperium,\" phrase, , , , , , ,\n\nLightfoot, J. B.,\n\nLippmann, Walter,\n\n\"Little Englander,\" idea of, ,\n\nLocke, John, , , , , \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, , , ,\n\nLosurdo, Domenico, \u2013\n\nLowe, Robert,\n\nLucas, C. P., , \u2013, ; _Greater Rome and Greater Britain_ ,\n\nLuxemberg, Rosa,\n\nMacaulay, Thomas Babbington, , , , , , \u2013, , , , ; \"Minute on Indian Education,\" ; \"The New Zealander,\" image of, \u2013,\n\nMacDonald, Ramsay, \u2013\n\nMackinder, Halford, 322n4\n\nMachiavelli, Niccol\u00f2, , , , , , ; _Discourses on Livy_ ,\n\nMacmillan, Alexander, 283n97\n\nMacpherson, C. B., , 85n92, ,\n\nMaitland, F. W., ,\n\nMaine, Henry, \u2013, , , \u2013, \u2013, , , , , , \u2013,\n\nMalaya,\n\nMalthus, Thomas,\n\nMamdani, Mahmood,\n\n_Manchester Guardian_ , the,\n\nManchester School, political economy, , . _See also_ free trade\n\nMandler, Peter,\n\nMansfield, Mike,\n\nMantena, Karuna, , \u2013, , \u2013, , ,\n\nmartialism, idea of, \u2013. _See also_ Nabulsi, Karma\n\nMartineau, John,\n\nMarx, Karl, , \u2013, 167n3, \u2013, , , , . _Capital_ ,\n\nMarxism, , , \u2013, \u2013, , . _See also_ Marx, Karl; Lenin, V. I.\n\nMaurice, Frederick Denison, \u2013\n\nMazzini, Giuseppe,\n\nMcCain, John,\n\nMcGiffert, Arthur,\n\nMcGill University,\n\nMcKinley Tariff (1890),\n\nMehta, Uday Singh, , \u2013, \u2013, , , , \u2013, \u2013, , , \u2013; _Liberalism and Empire_ , \u2013,\n\nmethodological communitarianism, problem with, . _See also_ Taylor, Charles\n\nmelancholic colonialism, concept, , , \u2013\n\nMerivale, Charles,\n\nMerivale, Herman, , ,\n\nMill, James, , \u2013, \u2013, , ,\n\nMill, John Stuart, , , , \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, , , \u2013, , , , \u2013, , \u2013, , , \u2013, , , , , , \u2013, 304n22, , , 356n49, ; on colonization, , , \u2013, \u2013, , , , \u2013, , , , , \u2013, ; _Considerations on Representative Government_ , \u2013, , , , , , , , , ; on India, \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, ; on Ireland, \u2013; and liberalism, \u2013, , \u2013, , \u2013, , , \u2013, , , , 356n49; _On Liberty_ , , , ; _Principles of Political Economy_ , \u2013; _System of Logic_ , ,\n\nMiller, J.D.B.,\n\nMills, Arthur, ,\n\nMills, Charles, ,\n\nMills, C. Wright, 83n82\n\nMilner, Alfred, ,\n\nMilton, John, ,\n\nMinogue, Kenneth,\n\nMises, Ludvig von,\n\nMolesworth, William,\n\nMoltke, Helmut von,\n\nMommsen, Theodor,\n\nMontesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de, , ; _Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline_ ,\n\nMonypenny, W. F., ,\n\nMorgenthau, Hans,\n\nMorley, John, , 83n86, , , , , 282n96\n\nMuirhead, J. H.,\n\nM\u00fcller, Max, ,\n\nMurray, Gilbert, \u2013, , 52n137\n\nMuthu, Sankar, \u2013, , , ,\n\nNabulsi, Karma, 52n134, \u2013, 136n75\n\nNagel, Thomas,\n\nNapoleon Bonaparte, , , ,\n\nNegri, Antonio, \u2013\n\nNewman, J. H.,\n\nNew South Wales, 3n.3,\n\nNew York,\n\n_New York Times_ ,\n\nNew Zealand, , , , , , \u2013, , , , , , 170n15, 175n32, , , , , 216n24, 222n52, , , , 299n5, , , 310n43, , , , ; \"New Zealander,\" idea of, \u2013\n\nNiebuhr, Barthold Georg, ; _R\u00f6mische Geschichte_ ,\n\nNiebuhr, Reinhold,\n\n_Nonconformist_ , the,\n\nNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), ,\n\nObama, Barack,\n\nOliver, F. S., ; _Alexander Hamilton_ ,\n\nOrientalism, Saidian, traditional conception of, \u2013, ,\n\nOsterhammel, J\u00fcrgen,\n\nOttoman Empire, ,\n\nPagden, Anthony, , ,\n\nPaine, Thomas,\n\nPaley, William, ; _Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy_ ,\n\nPalmerston, Viscount, Henry Temple, 245n27\n\nPan-African Congress,\n\nPanofsky, Erwin,\n\nParker, Joseph, 272n34\n\nParkin, George, \u2013,\n\nParliamentary Group for World Government,\n\nParrington, Vernon, ; _Main Currents of American Thought_ ,\n\nPatriot Kingship, idea of, \u2013\n\nPearson, Charles, ; _National Life and Character_ ,\n\npeople, idea of, \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, , 308n41\n\nPeterson, William, \u2013\n\nPettit, Philip,\n\nPhilippines, US imperialism in, , ,\n\nPitts, Jennifer, , , , \u2013, , \u2013, , , , , , , ,\n\nPlamenetz, John, 3n8,\n\nPlunkett, John,\n\npluralism, political, ,\n\nPocock, J.G.A., 39n78, ,\n\nPolanyi, Karl,\n\nPollock, Frederick,\n\nPolybius, , , , ,\n\nPopper, Karl, ; _The Open Society and its Enemies_ ,\n\npostcolonialism, theory, , , \u2013, , ,\n\nPrivy Council, , , \u2013\n\nPrinceton Project on National Security,\n\nProthero, G. W., ,\n\nPrussia, . _See also_ Germany; Franco-Prussian War\n\npublic moralists, , , , , , , , , , ,\n\npublic opinion, significance of, ,\n\npublic sphere, idea of, , , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, ,\n\n_Quarterly Review_ ,\n\nQueen Victoria. _See_ Victoria\n\nrace, ideas about, , \u2013, , , , , \u2013, , , , , \u2013, , , , , \u2013, , , \u2013, , 155n24, \u2013, , \u2013210, \u2013, , \u2013, , , \u2013, , , \u2013, , \u2013, , \u2013; Aryan theory of, , , \u2013, \u2013, ; as biocultural assemblage, , 175n39; contract, racial, ; _Herrenvolk_ ethics, , ; patriotism of, \u2013, ; Teutonic theory of, , \u2013, , . _See also_ Angloworld; Anglosphere; Civilization; Greater Britain\n\nRanke, Leopold von, , , ; _The Ecclesiastical and Political History of the Popes of Rome_ ,\n\nRawls, John, \u2013,\n\nrealism, international relations theory, , , \u2013, , . _See also_ International Relations (IR), discipline of\n\nReform Act (1867),\n\nReform Act (1884),\n\nRegius Professorship of Modern History (Cambridge), , 270n27,\n\nRegius Professorship of History (Oxford), , , 134n69,\n\nrepublican imperialism, , 30n37, \u2013, , , , , , , \u2013, \u2013. _See also_ civic imperialism\n\nrepublicanism, political theory, , , , 30n37, \u2013, , , , , , , \u2013, , , , , \u2013, , 153n15, , \u2013, 203n92, , \u2013,\n\n\"responsible government,\" colonial, , , , , 232n91, \u2013\n\nResponsibility to Protect (R2P), doctrine, 27n23\n\n_Review of Reviews_ ,\n\nRhodes, Cecil, , , , \u2013, \u2013, 281n93, ; \"Rhodes Must Fall,\" movement, 139n89; Rhodes Scholarship, \u2013\n\nRicardo, David, , 36n64, , , 217n26,\n\nRichter, Melvin,\n\nRitchie, D. G., 79n60, , , , 287n123,\n\nRobertson, F. W.,\n\nRobertson, J. M., \u2013\n\nRobertson, John, 123n17\n\nRobinson, Ronald, , . _See also_ empire\n\nRoebuck, J. A., 216n21,\n\nRome, legacy of, \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, , , \u2013,\n\nRoosevelt, Franklin Delano,\n\nRoosevelt, Theodore,\n\nRorty, Richard,\n\nRosebery, Archibald Philip, 5th Earl of Rosebery, , 47n117, , ,\n\nRound Table movement, 334n71, 47n117, , , , \u2013,\n\nRoyal Colonial Institute, 156n30, , ,\n\nRoyal Geographical Society,\n\nRoyal Institute of International Affairs, \u2013\n\nRuskin, John, , ,\n\nRussell, Bertrand, , ,\n\nRussia, , \u2013, , , , 202n82, , , \u2013, , 309n43,\n\nRyan, Alan, \u2013, 63n4\n\nSabine, George,\n\nSaid, Edward, . _See also_ Orientalism\n\nSalisbury, Lord, ,\n\nSallust (Gaius Sallustius Crispus), ,\n\nSalmon, Edward, ,\n\nSamuel, Herbert, , ,\n\nSay, Jean-Baptiste, 217n26\n\nSchumpeter, Joseph, \u2013, ,\n\nShaw, Albert,\n\nScott, David, \u2013\n\nScott, James,\n\nSecond World War (1939\u201345), , , , , \u2013, ,\n\nsecurity community, concept, ,\n\nsecurity dilemma, concept,\n\nSeebohm, Frederic,\n\nSenior, Nassau, ,\n\nSeeley, John Robert, , , \u2013, , 50n128, 51n134, , , , , , , \u2013, , , , , , , , , , , , \u2013, \u2013, 225n71, \u2013, ,  306n11, , , ; as a cosmopolitan nationalist, \u2013; conception of ethics, \u2013; _Ecce Homo_ , , , \u2013, ; _The Expansion of England_ , , , , , , , , \u2013, , , , , , , , , , ; on federalism, \u2013; \"Georgian and Victorian Expansion,\" ; on history, , \u2013, , , \u2013, , \u2013, , , \u2013, ; on imperial federation, , \u2013, , , \u2013, , , , , \u2013, \u2013, ; on India, , \u2013, ; _Introduction to Political Science_ , , , ; on Ireland, \u2013; _Life and Timesof Stein_, ; _Natural Religion_ , , \u2013, ; political development, theory of, \u2013; on religion, , \u2013\n\nSepoy rebellion (1857), , \u2013, , ,\n\n_Settler Colonial Studies_ , 370n21\n\nsettler colonialism. _See_ empire\n\nSettler Revolution, idea of, , . _See also_ Belich, James\n\nShaftesbury, 7th Earl, Anthony Ashley-Cooper,\n\nShklar, Judith, \u2013,\n\nSidgwick, Henry, , , , , , 77n52, , , 119n3, , \u2013, , , ; _Development of European Polity_ , , ; on empire, , , \u2013; on federalism, \u2013, ; on liberalism, \u2013, , , \u2013; _The Methods of Ethics_ ,\n\nSeeley, Robert B., 268n15\n\nSilva White, Arthur,\n\nSkinner, Quentin, \u2013, 6n20, \u2013, ,\n\nSlaughter, Anne-Marie,\n\nSmith, Adam, , \u2013, , , , , , , ; _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations_ , ,\n\nSmith, Goldwin, , , , , , , , , , , ,\n\nSmith, Tony,\n\nSmith, W. H.,\n\nSocial Darwinism. _See_ Darwinism, social\n\nsocialism, , \u2013, , \u2013, , 77n53, , , , , , \u2013, \u2013, , , , , , , , , , , \u2013, \u2013, 355n47, 357n56. _See also_ Marxism\n\nSocial Democratic Federation, 167n3\n\nSocial Question, the, \u2013, \u2013, ,\n\nSorel, Georges, \u2013\n\nSorley, W. L.,\n\nSouth Africa, , , , , 109n67, , , , , , , , 174n32, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ; War in (1899\u20131902), , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . See _also_ Cape Colony\n\nSouth Australia, ,\n\nSouth Australian Association,\n\nSpain, , , , , ,\n\nSpanish-American War,\n\n_Speaker_ , the,\n\nSpecial Relationship, Anglo-American,\n\nSpencer, Herbert, , , , , , , \u2013, , , , , , , , \u2013, , , ; as critic of imperialism, \u2013, , \u2013, ; evolutionary theory of, \u2013; _First Principles_ , ; liberalism of, , , , , , , , \u2013, ; _The Principles of Ethics_ , ; _The Principles of Sociology_ , ; _The Proper Sphere of Government_ , ; settler colonialism, support for, , , 263n103, ; _Social Statics_ , ,\n\nSpinoza, Baruch, 67n16, ,\n\nSpivak, Gayatri,\n\nStanley, A. P.,\n\nstationariness, trope of, , ,\n\nStead, W. T., , \u2013, 141n28, , , , , , 360n68, ; _The Americanization of the World_ ,\n\nSteger, Manfred, 94n11,\n\nStephen, Leslie, , 304n23; _History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century_ ,\n\nStimson, Henry L.,\n\nStokes, Eric, \u2013; _The English Utilitarians and India_ ,\n\nStout, Robert,\n\nStrachan-Davidson, J. L., 138n84\n\nStrauss, Leo, , , , ,\n\nStreit, Clarence, , , ; _Freedom's Frontier_ , ; _Union Now_ , \u2013; _Union Now with Britain_ ,\n\nSuez Canal, ,\n\nSutherland, John George Edward Henry Douglas, Marquess of Lorne and 9th Duke of Argyll, \u2013, ; _Imperial Federation_ ,\n\nSylvest, Casper, 300n7, 348n27\n\nTacitus (Publius Cornelius Tacitus), 135n73\n\nTariff Reform campaign, ,\n\nTasmania, 40n84, , , . _See also_ genocide\n\nTaylor, Charles, 67n16, \u2013\n\nTaylor, Miles,\n\nTea Party, American,\n\nTennyson, Alfred, , ,\n\nTeutonism, racial theory, , , \u2013, ,\n\n_Times_ , the (London), , ,\n\ntime and space, imperial significance of, , , , \u2013, , \u2013, , , \u2013, , \u2013, , ,\n\nTocqueville, Alexis de, \u2013, , , , , , , , , ;\n\n_Democracy in America_ ,\n\nTorrens, Robert, ,\n\ntotalitarianism, concept, , , , , , ,\n\nTurkey. _See_ Ottoman Empire\n\nTreitschke, Heinrich von,\n\nTrevelyan, G. M., 282n87\n\nTrollope, Anthony,\n\nUnited Nations (UN), ,\n\nUnited States of America, , , , , \u2013, , , \u2013, , , , \u2013, , \u2013, , \u2013, , , , , , \u2013, , , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, , , , , , \u2013, , , \u2013, , \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, 350n33, , , , , , \u2013, ; Civil War, , , ; first peoples, , , , \u2013; imperialism of, , , , , , \u2013, , , 120n8, , , , \u2013, \u2013, , , 309n43, , , \u2013; Revolution, , , , , , , , , , ; union with Britain, , , , , , \u2013, \u2013, , \u2013, . _See also_ Angloworld; Anglosphere\n\nUnited World Federalists,\n\nUsborne, Henry,\n\nutilitarianism, , , , , , , , \u2013, , , , , \u2013, \u2013, , , , \u2013, , , ,\n\nutopianism, , , \u2013, , , , \u2013, , , , ,\n\nVan Diemen's Land. _See_ Tasmania; genocide\n\nVenezuela boundary dispute (1895),\n\nVeracini, Lorenzo, 40n79, 370n21\n\nVereeniging, Peace of (1902), 353n41\n\nVictoria, Colony, 170n15\n\nVictoria, Queen, , , \u2013, . _See also_ Diamond Jubilee\n\nviolence, colonial, , \u2013, , , 51n134, \u2013, \u2013, \u2013, , , , , \u2013, , \u2013, . _See also_ Eyre controversy; genocide; martialism\n\nVitoria, Francisco de,\n\nVoegelin, Eric, ,\n\nVogel, Julius, ,\n\nWakefield, Edmund Gibbon, \u2013, , 129n53, , , , , \u2013, , , , , ; _England and America_ , ; _Letter from Sydney_ , ; _A View on the Art of Colonization_ ,\n\nWaldron, Jeremy, , \u2013\n\nWaldstein, Charles, ,\n\nWallas, Graham,\n\nWalzer, Michael, ,\n\nWarre Cornish, Francis,\n\nWashington, George,\n\nWatkins, Frederick,\n\nWeinstein, David,\n\nWeiss, Thomas,\n\nWelch, Cheryl, ,\n\nWells, H. G., , , , \u2013, , , ; _Anticipations_ , ; _War of the Worlds_ ,\n\nWendt, Alexander,\n\nWestcott, B. F.,\n\nWest Indies, the, , , , 309n43. _See also_ Caribbean, the; Jamaica\n\nWhelan, Frederick,\n\nWhewell, William, ,\n\nWilliams, Roger,\n\nWilloughby, W. W., 295n164\n\nWillkie, Wendell, ; _One World_ ,\n\nWilson, Jon,\n\nWolfe, Patrick,\n\nWolin, Sheldon, , ,\n\nWorld Order Model Project,\n\nWormell, Deborah, 295n165\n\nWright, Quincy,\n\nYoung, Frederick, \u2013, ,\n\nYoung England, movement,\n\nZimmern, Alfred, \n","meta":{"redpajama_set_name":"RedPajamaBook"}}
+{"text":" \nTable of Contents\n\nTitle Page\n\nCopyright Page\n\nDedication\n\nAcknowledgements\n\nWHAT'S IN A NAME?\n\nTHE HARMONICA MAN\n\nCLUB OF CHAMPIONS\n\nSTOP, START, THEN STOP AGAIN\n\nCITY ACCESS\n\nAMERICAN SUCCESS\n\nDEBBIE MCCORMICK\n\nCURLING IN PRINT\n\nMOTOR CITY, CANADA\n\nSTONE STANDARD\n\nTHE 12 RULES OF CURLING\n\nSAY WHAT?\n\nBURNS ON CURLING\n\nTWO TIMES EIGHT\n\nPAUL SAVAGE\n\nAMERICAN ORIGINS\n\nMOVING INDOORS IN THE U.S.A.\n\nPASSPORT, PLEASE\n\nA BOY AMONG MEN\n\nTHE MEASUREMENT OF A CURLING STONE\n\nTHE FIRST CURLING STAR?\n\nCARVED IN GRANITE\n\nU.S. COLLEGIATE CURLING\n\nSIX-SHOOTER\n\nOUT OF THE COLD\n\nCROWDED HOUSE\n\nKEN WATSON, MR. CURLING\n\nSWEEP, THEN PUSH\n\nWARMING UP IS RUBBISH\n\nKNOW YOUR WIDTHS\n\nALL ABOARD\n\nWHAT A HACK\n\nTHE JUBILEE STONE\n\nPAPER GRANITE\n\nCURLING FIGHTS\n\nCURLING CLUB CHAIN GANG\n\nCURLING IN THE MOVIES\n\nHelp!\n\nMen with Brooms\n\nNAME THAT CORN\n\nTHE KING OF SWING\n\nWHAT IF MY ROCK...\n\nENFANT TERRIBLE\n\nDEAD HEAT\n\nTHE ICE KING\n\nAMERICA'S MAN, BUD SOMERVILLE\n\nTHE WRENCH SAID\n\nBETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE\n\nCURLING COUPLES\n\nROCKS FOR ROCKERS\n\nBRIER BROADCASTER\n\nA FAMILY AFFAIR\n\nHIGH SCORE\n\nTRAVELLIN' MAN\n\nAGE-OLD INVENTION\n\nGREAT COMEBACKS\n\nPIZZA AND MEDALS\n\nOLE MEXICO\n\nLONG-GONE EQUIPMENT\n\nCentre skittle\n\nTassels\n\nCrampits\n\nThe Duster\n\nCLOSET CURLING FANS\n\nSPRINGFIELD GRANITE\n\nTHE CURSE OF LABONTE\n\nBRITISH GOLD\n\nIRON CURLING\n\nBROTHERS\u2014AND SISTERS\u2014IN BROOMS\n\nTANKARD TOTAL\n\nCHAMPIONSHIPS FOR EVERYONE\n\nCanadian Postal Employees Curling Championship\n\nRoyal Canadian Legion\n\nCanadian Firefighters Curling Association\n\nCanadian Blind Curlers Championship\n\nCanadian Clergy Championship\n\nCanadian Police Curling Championship\n\nThe Trans-Canada Telephone Employees' Championship\n\nThe Atlantic Oilworkers Championship\n\nFANTASTIC FERBEY\n\nROARING ALONG\n\nPLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES\n\nHOLEY SLIDER\n\nQUITE AN ORDER\n\nTHE WRENCH VS. THE WENCH\n\nSTICKING TO CURLING\n\nThe History of the Stick\n\nNO RESPECT\n\nSLIPS OF THE TONGUE\n\nRECORD MAN\n\nWHY HURRY?\n\nCURLING NICKNAMES\n\nPERFECT RECORD\n\nBABY BROTHER\n\nPLAY THE GAME\n\nHEAD(SET) GAMES\n\nGOING LOW\n\nTHE MAGICAL 8\n\nBIG ROCKS\n\nSTONE CUTTER\n\nOLYMPIC DOUBLE\n\nROCK HARD SUCCESS\n\nHAMMER TIME\n\nGOING LONG\n\nTHE REAL WORLD\n\nWORLD SERIES CURLER\n\nMARKKU THE MAGNIFICENT\n\nSLIDING ALONG\n\nALL-IMPORTANT CLUB\n\nWHAT'S IN A NAME?\n\nCHARACTER GUY\n\nPRESERVED IN GRANITE\n\nSUBSTITUTE CHAMPIONS\n\nVISIBLE MINORITY\n\nCLOSE TO PERFECTION\n\nA HEART OF PURPLE\n\nTANKARD TIME\n\nSPONSORS\n\nBATTLE OF THE SEXES\n\nSCIENCE OF CURLING\n\nREGAL CURLING\n\nWOMEN'S DATES\n\nJUNIOR-SENIOR\n\nBAD ICE\n\n1970 Brier\n\n1992 Olympics\n\n1981 World Curling Championships\n\n2001 Brier\n\n2005 Women's World Championship\n\nORIGINAL OLSON\n\nHISTORY ON DISPLAY\n\nCURLING IN THE BIBLE?\n\nLATE NIGHT CURLING\n\nCURLING ART\n\nTV PAY DAY\n\nCURLER STATS\n\nCURLING IN TELEVISION COMMERCIALS\n\nAdvertiser: Cialis (a drug for erectile dysfunction)\n\nAdvertiser: Labatt Beer\n\nAdvertiser: Scotties tissues\n\nAdvertiser: Office Depot\n\nROCK BOTTOM\n\nDEADLY BUSINESS\n\nPURPLE RAGE\n\nAMERICAN SUCCESS\n\nTHE MANITOBA BONSPIEL\n\nA SPIKED TROPHY\n\nNORTHERN AFFAIR\n\nSTONES OF A DIFFERENT MATERIAL\n\nTIME TO CURL\n\nON THE TUBE\n\nCURLING ROYALTY\n\nTHE LONG AND THE SHORT(ER) OF IT\n\nTIMELINE OF THE FREE-GUARD ZONE\n\nELECTRONIC EYE\n\nTAKEN FOR GRANITE\n\nGIVING UP\n\nA BLIND EYE\n\nRECORD-SETTING CURLING\n\nAGE-OLD ROCKERS\n\nDOUBLING UP\n\nPIN MOGUL\n\nTHE CURLING TERMINATOR\n\nTHE RICHARDSONS\n\nA WOMAN'S PLACE\n\nMULTI-TALENTED\n\nTHE SHOT\n\nWORLD CHAIR\n\nSTATS\n\nLONG-DISTANCE CURLING\n\nRYAN'S EXPRESS\n\nWHAT A CROWD\n\nVERA NICE\n\nMONCTON 100\n\nCRAZY FOR CURLING\n\nSPIEL OF A DIFFERENT KIND\n\nTHE LONG BRIER ROAD\n\nROCK-SOLID POLITICS\n\nROCKIN' RICK\n\nCUT SHORT\n\nTHE ICEMAN CURLETH\n\nMARILYN BODOGH\n\nHOG WILD\n\nSINGULARLY REWARDING\n\nPHOTO CREDITS\n\nINDEX\n\n**Copyright \u00a9 2008 by Bob Weeks**\n\nAll rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means\u2014graphic, electronic or mechanical without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any request for photocopying, recording, taping or information storage and retrieval systems of any part of this book shall be directed in writing to The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright). For an Access Copyright license, visit www.access-copyright.ca or call toll free 1-800-893-5777.\n\nCare has been taken to trace ownership of copyright material contained in this book. The publisher will gladly receive any information that will enable them to rectify any reference or credit line in subsequent editions.\n\n**Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Data**\n\nWeeks, Bob\n\nCurling, etcetera : a whole bunch of stuff about the roaring game \/ Bob Weeks.\n\nIncludes index.\n\neISBN : 978-0-470-73889-4\n\n1. Curling. I. Title.\n\nGV845.W.964 C2008-902118-5\n\n**Production Credits**   \nCover design: Jason Vandenberg   \nInterior design and typesetting: Mike Chan   \nCover photo: Hulton Archive\/Getty Images   \nPrinter: Tri-graphic Printing\n\nJohn Wiley & Sons Canada, Ltd.   \n6045 Freemont Blvd.   \nMississauga, Ontario   \nL5R 4J3\n\nTR\n\nThis book is printed with biodegradable vegetable-based inks. Text pages are printed on 60lb. 100% PCW recycled paper.\n_To Peter, Alfie and Ken\u2014the guys who opened the door for me_\n**ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS**\n\nThis book exists because I have a strange capacity for remembering all sorts of useless bits of information. Well, useless may be too strong a word, but certainly unusual and offbeat. Over the many years that I've written about curling and covered curling events, I've always managed to store in my mind not only the winners and losers but small associated items that wouldn't make the main column. I never had a place to put all these items . . . until now.\n\nThis book is a collection of years of these tidbits, the sum of which I hope will intrigue you. However, as sharp as I believed my memory was, I was still a bit foggy on certain facts and needed verification from a number of sources. Chief among these was Warren Hansen, the Canadian Curling Association's director of competitions. He knows as much about curling as anyone and\u2014once again\u2014graciously passed on a correction or clarification of certain events. If there's someone who has done more for curling in this world, I've yet to meet them.\n\nMany others pitched in as well: Jeff Timson, Keith Wendorf, John Kawaja, Danny Lamoureux, George Karrys, and the late Doug Maxwell were the primary aids.\n\nI also couldn't have managed this project without the assistance of my co-publishers of the _Ontario Curling Report_ : Peter Birchard, Alfie Phillips Jr., and Ken Thompson. They are three wonderful guys who have as much passion for the game as they do for red wine.\n\nThere is a shrinking but still strong fraternity of curling media who also pitched in (whether they knew it or not): Alan Cameron, Paul Wiecek, Jim Bender, Bob Garvin, Jim \"Hollywood\" Henderson, Brian McAndrew, Bill Graveland, Terry Jones, Vicki Hall, Mike Burns Jr., and the web-heads Dallas Bittle and Gerry Guerts.\n\nMany of the game's best players also answered questions for me either in person, on the phone, or via e-mail. Thanks to Russ Howard, Glenn Howard, Richard Hart, Dave Nedohin, Mike Harris, Ed Werenich, Kevin Martin, Joan McCusker, Hans Frauenlob, and Randy Ferbey. A special acknowledgment to Paul Savage, who may have enjoyed the game more than anyone I know.\n\nThe gang over at Wiley continue to amaze me with their talent and enthusiasm. Karen Milner had the faith to give this project the go-ahead and led a team that has shown a lot of faith in the roaring game.\n\nFinally, to my family. My parents, Bill and Deane, are my biggest fans and the feeling is mutual. My sister, Carol, is simply the most remarkable person I've ever met. Her husband, Dennis, is a close second. And my son, Chris, I am so proud to be your father. You are the centre of my universe.\n\nBob Weeks  \nMay 2008\n**WHAT'S IN A NAME?**\n\nCurling did not get its name because the rocks arc as they travel down the ice. That's known because the sport was called curling long before there was any intentional turn applied to the stone. The name \"curling\" is believed to come from an old Scottish word, \"curr,\" which refers to the roaring sound the stones made as they slid over the frozen lochs.\n\nIn-turns and out-turns came much later. In the book _The History of Curling_ by Reverend John Kerr, published in 1890, the author details what was called the Twist:\n\n\"...to be able by a turn of the wrist to give the stone a rotary motion which shall make it run against the bias of the ice, or to transform an object of offence into one of defence by making the stone curve round the right or left side of a guard by an elbow-out or an elbow-in delivery, is one of the highest accomplishments in the art of curling and greatly increases the interest and skill of the player.\"\n\nKerr also referred to this type of shot as the Fenwick Twist because it was a group of curlers from a village of the same name who were the first to purposely utilize this type of shot.\n**THE HARMONICA MAN**\n\nPiping the players onto the ice before draws of major championships is standard practice these days, but it wasn't always so. At the first few Briers, held inside Toronto's Granite Club, the curlers were actually paraded onto the ice surface by a man playing a harmonica. Art Condie, who was one of the early directors of the Brier, would play his harmonica at both the opening and closing ceremonies of the competition, usually leading the curlers to the ice. In 1940, when the Brier moved into an arena in Winnipeg, Condie's harmonica was simply too quiet to be heard by the fans. Still, he was allowed to perform at the closing ceremonies and was listed in the program as the Official Brier Musician.\n**CLUB OF CHAMPIONS**\n\nThe Strathcona Curling Club in Winnipeg, Manitoba, holds the distinction of being the home club for the most Brier-winning teams. It has seven Canadian championships to its credit.\n**STOP, START, THEN STOP AGAIN**\n\nIt's not often someone retires, then un-retires only to retire all without playing a game. United States skip Bruce Roberts, however, did just that in 1984. Roberts was a three-time U.S. men's champion, winning in 1967, '76 and '77, also taking the 1976 World Championship. '76 and '77, also taking the 1976 World Championship. But after that run, the resident of Duluth, Minnesota, retired from competitive curling, in part due to injuries.\n\nBut the 1984 World Championship was hosted in Duluth, and Roberts decided he wanted to make one more try at the Silver Broom in front of his hometown fans. And so, with his brother Joe throwing last rocks, he made a comeback and played exceptionally well, losing just four competitive games all year en route to representing the U.S.A. at the world final.\n\nDespite the success, Roberts stated prior to the start of his comeback year that he would be retiring when the season was over. So, effectively, he announced his un-retirement and re-retirement all at the same time.\n\nRoberts and his American rink lost a final round-robin game to Germany to finish with a 5-4 mark, one game short of the playoffs. True to his word, the U.S. Curling Hall of Famer hung up his broom\u2014again\u2014at the end of the '84 World Championship.\n**CITY ACCESS**\n\nFor five years, two cities were given entry into the Brier. Teams representing Montreal and Toronto fielded rinks in the Canadian men's national championship from 1927 to 1931 before being dropped in favour of provincial entries only. In 43 games, the Montreal team won just 10 matches. Toronto's team played 46 games\u2014including three playoff contests\u2014and came out on top in 28 of those.\n**AMERICAN SUCCESS**\n\nThe Bemidji Curling Club in Bemidji, Minnesota, is easily one of the most suc-is cessful in the United States, if not the world. The club can lay claim to having 18 U.S. national championship teams and 50 state championship rinks, a record that most clubs can only envy.\n**DEBBIE MCCORMICK**\n\nOne of the most successful curlers in U.S. history, Debbie McCormick played in five World Junior Championships, six World Curling Championships, and two Olympics. A few notes on the American curler:\n\n\u2022 She is the only American woman to skip a team to the World Championship title.\n\n\u2022 Her World Championship title in 2003 was the first time she skipped in international play.\n\n\u2022 She was born in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, but moved to Madison, Wisconsin, when very young, when her father was transferred there for business.\n\n\u2022 She posed nude for a calendar created to promote women's curling.\n\n\u2022 She won the U.S. national title four times.\n\n\u2022 Her father, Wally, played in two World Championships, finishing third both times.\n\n\u2022 Her good-luck charm is a ticket from the gold-medal women's curling game at the 1998 Olympics, autographed by the members of the winning Sandra Schmirler team.\n**CURLING IN PRINT**\n\nOne of the earliest mentions of curling in print is found in Thomas Pennant's book _Tour Through Scotland_ , published in 1772. He describes the game as follows:\n\n\"Of all the sports in those parts, that of curling is the favorite. It is an amusement of the winter, and played upon the ice, by sliding from one mark to another, great stones of 40 to 70 lbs weight, of a hemispherical form, with a wooden or iron handle on top. The object of the player is to lay his stone as near the mark as possible, to guard that of his partner which has been well laid before, or to strike off that of his antagonist.\"\n**MOTOR CITY, CANADA**\n\nCross-border curling: The Detroit Curling Club is a member of the Ontario Curling Association.\n**STONE STANDARD**\n\nFor many years, curling stones came in all sorts of shapes and sizes. While there was an attempt made to somewhat standardize the stones over time, in the early 1800s the Grand Caledonian Curling Club came up with a scale for the ratio of diameter to thickness, shown below. Prior to this scale, rocks were often twice as wide as they were thick.\n\n**The Scale**\n\nWhen the weight of the stone is under the maximum height not to be more than\n\n35 lbs| 4.25 inches  \n---|---  \n38 lbs| 4.5 inches  \n41 lbs.| 4.75 inches  \n44 lbs.| 5 inches  \n47 lbs.| 5.25 inches  \n50 lbs.| 5.5 inches\n\n\"Whatever the diameter or weight, the height ought never to exceed 6 1\/8 inches, nor be less than 4\u00bc inches. None [ought] to be allowed in a set game of greater diameter than 12 inches, nor of a greater weight than 50 lbs. Imperial.\"\n**THE 12 RULES OF CURLING**\n\nWhen the Toronto Curling Club began play in Canada's largest centre, it did so on the frozen shoreline of Lake Ontario. The club was originally made up mostly of transplanted Scots who came from a variety of villages in the homeland and, as a result, had a variety of rules owing to the changes from village to village. So one of the first tasks of the new group was to craft an original set of Rules of the Game, which they did in about 1840. There were just 12 \"laws\" set out for play, some of which are still in use today:\n\n1. The rink to be forty-two yards from tee to tee, unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties.When a game is begun the rink cannot be changed or altered unless by the consent of a majority of players, and it can be shortened only when it is apparent that a majority cannot play the length.\n\n2. The hog score must be distant from the tee one-sixth part of the length of the rink. Every stone to be deemed a hog, the sole of which, when at rest, does not completely clear the length.\n\n3. Every player to foot so that in delivering his stone, it shall pass over the tee.\n\n4. The order of playing adopted at the beginning must not be changed during a game.\n\n5. Curling stones must be of a circular shape. No stone to be changed during a game unless it happens to be broken; and the largest fragment of such stone to count, without any necessity of playing it more. If a stone roll or be upset, it must be placed on its sole where it stops. Should the handle quit a stone in delivery, the player must keep hold of it, otherwise he will not be entitled to replay the shot.\n\n6. The player may sweep his own stone the whole length of the rink; his party not to sweep until it has passed the first hog score, and his adversaries not to sweep until it has passed the tee\u2014the sweeping to be always to a side.\n\n7. None of the players, on any account, to cross or go upon the middle of the rink.\n\n8. If, in sweeping or otherwise, a running stone is marred by any of the party to which it belongs, it must be put off the rink; if by any of the adverse party, it must be placed agreeably to the direction which was given to the player; and if it be marred by any other means, the player may take his shot again. Should a stone at rest be accidentally displaced, it must be put as near as possible in its former situation.\n\n9. Every player must be ready when his turn comes and must take only a reasonable time to play his shot. Should he, by mistake, play a wrong stone, it must be replaced wherever it stops, by the one which he ought to have played.\n\n10. A doubtful shot must be measured by a neutral person, whose determination shall be final.\n\n11. The skip alone shall direct the game. The players of the respective skips may offer them their advice, but cannot control their directions; nor is any person except the skip to address him who is about to play. Each skip may appoint one of his party to take the charge for him, when he is about to play. Every player to follow the direction given to him.\n\n12. Should any question arise, the determination of which may not be provided for by the words and spirit of the preceding Rules, each party to choose one of their number in order to determine it. If the two so chosen differ in their opinion, they are to name an umpire whose decision shall be final.\n\n**Curling Quote**\n\n\"We can't bring him in, he spilled red wine all over his uniform.\"\n\n\u2014Richard Hart to skip Mike Harris during the 1997 Canadian curling trials. The team's second, Colin Mitchell, was hurt, and Harris wanted to bring in the team's fifth player\/coach and noted bon vivant, Paul Savage, to fill in. The clip was heard across the TSN broadcast of the event.\n**SAY WHAT?**\n\nMany of the terms used in the early days of curling have disappeared from the game's lexicon. Here are a few that used to be quite common in the late 1700s and early 1800s.\n\n**Term** | **Meaning**  \n---|---  \nBreak an egg on| To strike one stone very gently with another  \nBrough| The House  \nChuckle to| To rub off the inside of two or more guards en route to another stone.  \nDirector| The Skip  \nHindhand| The player who throws the last rock on his team, usually the skip  \nLie in the bosom of| To freeze to another rock  \nRedd the ice| to clear guards from the front of the rings\n**BURNS ON CURLING**\n\nThe great poet Robert Burns may not have been a champion curler, but he did mention the grand old game in his poem \"Tam Samson's Elegy.\" The fourth verse of the piece reads as follows:\n\n_When Winter muffles up his cloak,_   \n_And binds the mire like a rock;_   \n_When to the loughs the curlers flock,_   \n_Wi' gleesome speed,_   \n_Wha will they station at the cock? -_   \n_'Tam Samson's dead!'_\n\nThe standard English translation of that work was provided by the Robert Burns World Foundation:\n\n _When Winter muffles up his cloak,_   \n_And binds the mire like a rock;_   \n_When to the ponds the curlers flock,_   \n_With gleeful speed,_   \n_Who will they station at the cock (mark)? -_   \n_'Tam Samson is dead!'_\n**TWO TIMES EIGHT**\n\nScoring an eight-ender\u2014a perfect end\u2014is an achievement ranked as one of the most difficult in sport. Many players compete their entire career without even witnessing one. But in 1993 the team of Kim Gellard, Corie Beveridge, Lisa Savage, and Sandy Graham accomplished something that had never been done before or since. Playing in a school league, the team recorded consecutive eight-enders\u2014two perfect ends. \"It's amazing,\" commented Gellard, the skip. No curler alive would disagree.\n\nCurling Quote\n\n\"Blood is thicker than Screech.\"\n\n\u2014Russ Howard on why he was cheering for his brother, Glenn, over his former Newfoundland teammates, led by Brad Gushue in the 2007 Brier final\n**PAUL SAVAGE**\n\nPaul Savage has been around the game of curling since he was a teenager, growing up in Don Mills, Ontario, and following in the footsteps of another Ontario icon, Alf Phillips Junior. He won titles all over Canada and competed around the world, and is known as a talented and fun-loving player. A few notes about Paul Savage:\n\n\u2022 His first provincial title was the 1965 Ontario Schoolboy, which he won while representing Don Mills Collegiate Institute.\n\n\u2022 He appeared in the movie _Men With Brooms_ , playing a minor role as a curling broadcaster, calling the action of the film's ultimate match.\n\n\u2022 He was the fifth man on Mike Harris's Canadian Olympic team, which played in the 1998 Games in Nagano, Japan. To qualify for a medal, he was required to play at least one end. He actually played two, in a game against Germany in which Canada had already posted a healthy lead. That allowed him to earn a silver medal. At 50, he was the oldest medalist in the '98 Games.\n\n\u2022 Prior to leaving for the Olympics, he had the Olympic rings tattooed onto his rear end. A picture of the tattoo appeared on the front page of a Toronto newspaper.\n\n\u2022 He played in seven Briers, winning once as third for Ed Werenich in 1983, and finishing second on three other occasions.\n\n\u2022 After his playing career, Savage became an entrepreneur in the game, starting an Ontario-based skins game, which grew to become a nationally televised event pitting the top teams in Eastern Canada vs. those in Western Canada.\n\n\u2022 He was on the losing end of one of the greatest comebacks in Brier history. In the 1974 Brier, he was leading Hec Gervais by seven points after six ends but lost in an extra end\u2014the 11th.\n\n\u2022 He was given the nickname \"the Round Mound of Come Around\" by the Ontario Curling Report owing to his girth as well as his talent for playing the draw shot. It was a play on the nickname of NBA player Charles Barkley, who was known as the \"Round Mound of Rebound.\"\n\n\u2022 Paul's daughter, Lisa, was the 1994 World Junior champion.\n**AMERICAN ORIGINS**\n\nThe first curling club in the United States was formed in Orchard Lake, Michigan, in 1831, six years before the state officially joined the union that would become the United States of America.\n**MOVING INDOORS IN THE U.S.A.**\n\nAlthough curling was a popular sport in the United States at the turn of the century, it was rarely played indoors. An exhibition match in 1897 in Brooklyn, New indoors. An exhibition match in 1897 in Brooklyn, New York, is believed to be the first time curling was played in a covered rink in America, but it wasn't until 1910 that it was first played on an indoor rink. That event took place in Boston at the Boston Arena when three sheets were put into a skating rink in order to host a bonspiel.\n\nThe first United States Men's Curling Championship, however, took that to another level with a rather impressive start. The championship was held in Chicago in 1957 at the Chicago Stadium, an 18,000-seat arena that served as home to the NHL's Chicago Black Hawks and the NBA's Chicago Bulls. It was also broadcast on regional television. The winner of that inaugural contest was a rink from Hibbing, Minnesota, skipped by Harold Lauber.\n**PASSPORT, PLEASE**\n\nCanadian ex-pats have taken their game to many countries over the years and represented those countries at a high level.\n\nHere is a selection of Canadian-born skips who have represented countries other than their native land in the world championships:\n\nHugh Milliken\n\n**Canadian** | **Country Represented** | **Year First Represented**  \n---|---|---  \nBob Woods| Sweden| 1967  \nKeith Wendorf| Germany| 1978  \nRoger Schmidt| Germany| 1987  \nMaymar Gemmell| USA| 1991  \nHugh Milliken| Australia| 1992  \nPatti Lank| U.S.A.| 1997  \nDan Mustapic| New Zealand| 2001\n**A BOY AMONG MEN**\n\nThe youngest player to compete at the world championships was 15-year-old Sjur Loen, who skipped Norway's entry in 1974. At that time, there were no age restrictions, and Loen's team of Hans Bekkelund (16), Morten Sogaard (17), and Hans Okelsrud (18) managed a record of 2-7. The next year, the first World Junior Curling Championship was held in Toronto, and although Loen didn't compete in that event, he represented Norway from 1976 to 1979, with his best finish coming in 1976, when he ended third. Loen managed to make it into the men's world championship nine more times, winning it twice.\n**THE MEASUREMENT OF A CURLING STONE**\n\nCurlers throw rocks up and down the sheet hundreds, perhaps thousands of times in a season, but do they ever stop to consider just how wide or heavy the curling stone really is? While stones are generally consistent from club to club and rink to rink, there is some provision in the rule book for a bit of variety. Here's what the rule book dictates:\n\nCurling stones, including handle and bolt, shall weigh a maximum of 44 pounds (19.96 kilograms) and a minimum of 38.5 pounds (17.46 kilograms), shall have a maximum circumference of 36 inches (91.44 centimetres), and shall be a maximum of 5.5 inches (13.97 centimetres) in height, measured between the bottom and top of the stone.\n\nThe rules indicate maximums for circumference and height, and a maximum and minimum for weight, so there is room to create a shorter, narrower, and lighter rock. So far, however, most manufacturers use the maximums as the standard measurements.\n**THE FIRST CURLING STAR?**\n\nHoward Wood of Winnipeg was one of the first curlers to achieve notoriety across a wide swath of Canada. A three-time Brier champion, he was a vivacious, gregarious man who quickly became popular with opponents and fans. A few notes about Wood:\n\n\u2022 He began curling in 1903 on a backyard rink built by his father.\n\n\u2022 In 1908, he played in his first Manitoba Bonspiel, the first of what would be a remarkable 70 consecutive appearances in the grand championship. That mark put him into the _Guinness Book of World Records_. He managed to win the overall title on eight occasions.\n\n\u2022 In 1925, Wood and his team won an all-expenses-paid trip to tour Ontario and Quebec, and curl teams in that part of the country. The rink played 19 games and won 18 of them, several by more than 20 points.\n\n\u2022 Wood won his first Brier in 1930 playing skip. Two years later, he won again, but this time playing third for Johnny Congalton.While many players have won a Brier at lead, second, or third and then later won as a skip, dropping down in position as Wood did is a feat that wasn't matched again until Pat Ryan, who skipped the Canadian champions in 1988 and '89, won as third for Rick Folk in 1994.\n\n\u2022 Wood's son, Howard Jr., became an accomplished curler, and played third for his father when they won the Brier in 1940.To distinguish between the two, the senior Wood became known affectionately as Pappy.\n\n\u2022 The 1940 Brier was the first to be played in an arena, the Winnipeg Amphitheatre. The final round was played before 5,000 fans, and they were not disappointed. Wood and his Manitoba team beat Cliff Manahan's Alberta foursome 17-11 to clinch the title.\n\n\u2022 In 1947, Wood won the first Carspiel, a competitive event that awarded four cars as first prize.Wood had to play a delicate-weight double with his final shot to win the title. It appeared to be a shot that was next to impossible to make. But Wood threw the rock and without waiting for it to finish, calmly walked over to one of the cars that had been conveniently brought onto the ice as a marketing tool, opened the door, and sat down in the driver's seat, just in time to watch the rock make the perfect split and come to rest for a single point and the title. He and his team drove home from Nipawin, Saskatchewan, in four new Hudsons.\n\n**Curling Fact**\n\nAccording to the Canada Curling Stone Company, the average lifespan of a curling stone is 50 years, and it can travel up to two hundred kilometres a year, up and down a sheet of ice.\n**CARVED IN GRANITE**\n\nThe first Canadian men's curling championship was held in 1927 at Toronto's Granite Curling Club. The event was held there continuously until 1939 and one final time in 1941. Some facts about the original home of the Brier:\n\n\u2022 The club was started in 1875 by five prominent Toronto businessmen who were members of the Toronto Curling Club. They were unhappy at the direction of that club and its decision to build a new facility on Adelaide Street.\n\n\u2022 The first honorary patron of the new club was Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada's first prime minister.\n\n\u2022 The club's first site was on a parcel of land just east of Queen's Park, the provincial legislature. The land was leased and the club built for $700. In future years, the club moved to locations on Church Street, north of Wellesley, and then, in 1926, to St. Clair Avenue, just west of Yonge. Its current location is on Bayview Avenue.\n\n\u2022 One of the main reasons to build the facility on St. Clair was to install artificial ice. In 1924 and '25, because of mild conditions, there had been almost no curling at the Church Street club, which had natural ice. When completed, the new rink was called \"the largest single covered expanse of artificial ice on the American continent.\"\n\n\u2022 Curling was only one of many sports available to members of the Granite Curling Club. Tennis, golf, swimming, bowling, badminton, and skating were all part of the lineup although curling remained the primary focus for many years.\n\n\u2022 A hockey team from the Granite Curling Club won the gold medal at the 1924 Olympics.\n**U.S. COLLEGIATE CURLING**\n\nWhile it's not quite on the same level as the Rose Bowl, there is a U.S. collegiate curling championship held annually. College curling began with the Illinois State Curling Foundation, which was established to administer a trust left by Darwin Curtis, an enthusiastic curler from Wilmette, Illinois. It started with a program to introduce college-aged curlers to the game in the mid-1980s and has grown into a true national bonspiel. In 2007, 30 teams were in the event, now held annually in Madison, Wisconsin. Among the schools that field teams are Harvard, MIT, Rutgers, and the University of Minnesota.\n**SIX-SHOOTER**\n\nOnly once has a Brier held in an arena had more than five sheets of ice. In Hamilton in 1991, because the ice surface was built to handle international hockey (which has a wider rink than North American hockey), six sheets of ice were built on the floor of Copps Coliseum. That allowed organizers to run an event with no morning draws, the only time that's happened. In total, only 14 draws were held, and attendance reached 88,894.\n\n**Curling Quote**\n\n\"I'm sure it was boring to watch. We could hear some people yelling down at us on the ice. It was frustrating for us too.\"\n\n\u2014British Columbia skip Rick Folk commenting on his 3-2 loss to Pat Ryan in the final of the 1989 Brier, regarded as one of the most uninteresting, boring Canadian finals ever\n**OUT OF THE COLD**\n\nThe first indoor curling rink with artificial ice opened in 1907 in Crossmyloof, Scotland.\n**CROWDED HOUSE**\n\nBrier attendance records have been kept since 1946, although in the early days, they were little more than estimates. The highest attendance came in 2005 in Edmonton when 281,985 people watched the competition. The lowest was in 1971 in Quebec City when just 8,501 fans showed up. That's the only time since '46 that fewer than 10,000 people watched the Canadian championship, although it should be noted that a major snowstorm limited travel for much of the week.\n**KEN WATSON, MR. CURLING**\n\nIn the 1930s and '40s, Ken Watson was known across Canada as Mr. Curling, and a look at his record shows the name was justified. Watson won three Briers as well as a host of other notable events, and was instrumental in starting the Scotch Cup, which was the forerunner of the world championships. Here are some facts about Watson:\n\n\u2022 He was born in 1904 in Minnedosa, Manitoba, the son of a reverend.\n\n\u2022 He started curling at 15, and his first curling prize was a butter knife.\n\n\u2022 He skipped the Brier-winning rink in 1939, '42, and '49.\n\n\u2022 Many felt he would have won more Briers, but the championship was put on hold from 1943 to 1945 because of the Second World War, right at the peak of Watson's career.\n\n\u2022 He was one of the first people to slide while delivering the rock. He accomplished this by taking off his rubber, which all curlers wore on their shoes at the time, and sliding on the sole of his shoe. In later years, he affixed solder to the bottom of his shoe so he could slide even farther. He was roundly criticized by many traditionalists for this shocking delivery.\n\n\u2022 He wrote a best-selling book, _Ken Watson on Curling_ , which listed the Seven C's for Success: Compatibility, Concentration, Co-operation, Courage, Confidence, Competitiveness, and Consistency.\n\n\u2022 In 1959, against the wishes of the Canadian (then Dominion) Curling Association, Watson set up matches between the Canadian champions, the Richardsons, and Willie Young and his Scottish champs. That tournament led eventually to the start of the World Curling Championship.\n\n\u2022 For 20 years, Watson made his living as a high school teacher, but because of his notoriety, he went into the insurance business and was extremely successful.\n\n\u2022 Watson won the overall title in the Manitoba Bonspiel, the largest event in the world, a remarkable six consecutive times, from 1942-47.\n\nCharles Reid, Lyle Dyker, Grant Watson, and Ken Watson with their Brier trophy in 1949.\n\n**SWEEP, THEN PUSH**\n\nFor many years, push brooms were used almost exclusively in Europe, while North American curlers played with corn brooms. But in the 1970s, the tide turned, and much of the impetus to switch was the result of play at one curling club. The Calgary Winter Club was one of the first facilities in Canada to offer up push brooms for club use, putting them into play in the late 1960s. Curlers at that popular rink found that the push brooms were more effective because they never left the ice surface, less taxing on the body, and far less messy. Not surprisingly, the brooms took off.\n\nThe peak of success may have been 1975, when three teams from the club won national championships\u2014all sweeping with push brooms. The rinks won the Canadian mixed, Canadian junior boys, and the Canada Winter Games.\n\n\"They are made right in Calgary and I think they are comparable to the corn brooms in effectiveness. There are places where you can keep working with the push broom when you couldn't with a corn broom. You don't wear yourself out as much in a long playdown, and you don't get arm weary,\" said Les Rowland, who skipped his team to the 1975 national mixed\u2014the first Canadian championship team to use push brooms.\n**WARMING UP IS RUBBISH**\n\nIn most sports these days, warming up is par for the course. Players in baseball have batting practice, basketball players have a shoot-around, and hockey players skate circles prior to the puck drop. But in curling, warming up was not allowed until 1976. In major competitions such as national or world championships, even walking down the ice to the far end\u2014as skips were required to do\u2014had to be done at the side of the sheet. Walking down the middle of the ice before the first rock was thrown was tantamount to cheating. Sliding or sweeping on the sheet was also a breach of etiquette.\n\nBut in 1975 Warren Hansen, who was a member of the 1974 Canadian championship team, and Laurie Newton, a postgraduate student at the University of Alberta, prepared a report for the International Curling Federation (ICF, forerunner of the World Curling Federation) that showed sweeping to be \"one of the most vigorous movements in sports.\" As well, players could \"reduce strains, sprains, muscle pulls and cramps\" if they were permitted to slide before the contest.\n\nHansen made the presentation to the ICF, and while it was generally accepted, Robin Welsh, longtime secretary of the Royal Caledonian Curling Club, wasn't in that camp. He stated: \"I believe it is all a pile of rubbish, curling is a manly game.\"\n\nHowever, the majority was on Hansen's side, and on the basis of the document, a warm-up period was permitted at the 1976 Silver Broom, the first of its kind. The warm-up did not, however, include throwing any rocks. That didn't happen until 1978, when a 10-minute warm-up was allowed; however, the players were not permitted to practise on the sheet on which they were playing. Finally in 1980, each team was permitted 10 minutes to throw stones on their own sheet.\n**KNOW YOUR WIDTHS**\n\nDid you know that the hog line is actually thicker than the tee line or the back line? It's true\u2014the hog line is four inches wide, while the tee and back lines are a mere half inch. These measurements are set under the rules of the game.\n**ALL ABOARD**\n\nIn the 1940s and '50s, before air travel, a dedicated train travelled across the country, picking up Brier competitors en route to the host site. It was known as the Brier Special and allowed the competitors to get to know each other prior to the competition. The event sponsor, Macdonald Tobacco, added a bar car that became the focal point of the ride. However, the atmosphere often took its toll on the players.\n\n\"By the time I got off the train in Moncton,\" said Edmonton's Matt Baldwin of his trip to the 1956 championship, \"I was shaking. We'd been drinking for five straight days.\"\n\n**WHAT A HACK**\n\n**A** hack may be something many curlers take for granted, but in 1989, it underwent a revolution thanks to a Quebec curler. Marco Ferraro was a competitive curler who always had difficulty with hacks wherever he played. He felt they were inconsistent, didn't provide a good hold for the foot, and often got in the way of the delivery. \"It just became a case of put up or shut up,\" he said. The old-style hacks were sunk into the ice and were not ergonomically designed with the foot in mind.\n\nThe Marco Hack\n\nFerraro's first stop was Montreal's Olympic Stadium, where he spent time examining the runners' starting blocks.\n\n\"I figured that an athlete going for a gold medal isn't going to leave anything to chance. He's only going to put his foot in something that's perfect,\" Ferraro noted.\n\nHe took that information to a mathematician who provided information on the exact angles of the foot during the delivery and then produced some prototypes. Those were tested by several top-ranked curlers, who made suggestions, and the final product was brought to market. These days, just about anywhere in the world there's a curling rink, you'll find one of these hacks, which are emblazoned with the name MARCO across the top.\n**THE JUBILEE STONE**\n\nBefore standardization of stones, curling was played with implements of varying shapes, sizes, and weights. In fact, in some parts of Scotland, bigger stones were a sign of strength of the thrower. Players brought their own rocks to games, and the rocks were often plucked from rivers, which had worn them smooth. One of the most famous is known as the Jubilee Stone, which weighed in at a massive 53 kilograms (117 pounds). It was given its name when it was presented to the Royal Caledonian Curling Club at the governing body's Jubilee Meeting in 1888. It is on display at the club's headquarters in Edinburgh, Scotland.\n**PAPER GRANITE**\n\nGeorge Plimpton made a career out of trying various sports at the top level and then writing about it from the viewpoint of an amateur. His most famous book in this genre was probably _Paper Lion_ , in which he recounted his experiences playing quarterback for the Detroit Lions at the team's training camp. While his most notable works have been about sports such as football, baseball (he pitched to the American League team at the All-Star Game), and boxing (he sparred with Archie Moore), he once tried his hand at curling. Plimpton attended the 1976 Super Draw Curling Bonspiel. This event was a lottery that allowed winners to travel, all expenses paid, to Vernon, British Columbia, where they competed in a bonspiel playing for high-profile skips. Prior to the event, he admitted that the only brooms he had seen were in closets. However, he went out and skipped a team in three games, including his first with the members of Hec Gervais' 1974 Canadian championship team, while Gervais skipped three members of the media. Plimpton lost, and after he missed a takeout attempt during the contest he commented: \"[The stone] must have lost interest.\"\n**CURLING FIGHTS**\n\nCurling is thought to be a game played by gentlemen and women, and in most cases, it is. However, there has been the occasion where the decorum has slipped and, just as in Canada's other great winter ice sport, fights have broken out. Here are a few incidents of fisticuffs on the curling sheets:\n\n\u2022 During a club championship game in Winnipeg in the 1980s, two players decided that bodychecking should be a part of the game. Player A was sweeping his skip's stone into the house when it reached the tee line. At that point, Player B from the opposing team decided he wanted to sweep it as well, hoping to drag the rock farther back in the house. But his efforts to do so were stymied by Player A, who blocked him off, declaring, \"It's _my_ house.\" The two players battled for position, with Player B using his body to push Player A away from the stone. The result was plenty of pushing and shoving and tangled brooms.With the rock now stopped, the two players continued jostling, and then punches were finally thrown, with both players falling to the ice. The club president happened to be on the ice at the time and he raced over from Sheet 6 to break up the melee. Order was restored, and the game continued without any more punches being thrown.\n\n\u2022 In 1976 in Sarnia, Ontario, two curlers in a local bonspiel began arguing when one accused the other of not releasing the stone before crossing the hog line. The argument became so intense, the player who allegedly committed the foul left the ice with his team, forfeiting the game. However, the squabble continued in the club after that and resulted in the accuser throwing a knockout punch to the head of the rock thrower. Charges were laid, and the accuser ended up in court. \"Surely we aren't going to get into violence in curling,\" said Sarnia Judge Alan Fowler, before fining the man $250 or 25 days in jail.\n\n\u2022 In 1982 the president of the Ottawa Curling Club sent a letter of reprimand to a member for a certain indiscretion. The member was quite upset about receiving the letter and disagreed with its accusations. During one evening's curling, the president and the member in question were playing, when the member dropped his broom, went across three sheets of ice, and clocked the president, who fell to the ice.The member received another letter, this one telling him he was banned from the club for one year. That prevented him from attending the closing men's banquet, so the member sat on a lawn chair in the parking lot of an adjoining property and threw stones at the window of the lounge where his team was eating. His teammates brought him a beer so he could at least experience a small part of the evening.\n\n\u2022 One night at the Bobcaygeon Curling Club, Player A was celebrating his birthday prior to taking to the ice for his game. He had been knocking back the drinks, and by the time the game started, he was feeling no pain. During the game, his behaviour bothered his opposing skip, Player B, who finally confronted him, pushing his finger into his chest. The two players began pushing each other, and Player A started throwing punches, landing a few, but also slipping to the ice. Another curler ran over, grabbed the birthday boy, and put him in a headlock, keeping him that way until he tossed him out the front door of the club. The incident appeared over, but about an hour later, Player A re-appeared through the front door and challenged Player B to a fight in the parking lot. The police were called, and the Player A was removed from the property.\n**CURLING CLUB CHAIN GANG**\n\nWhen the curlers at one New York curling club throw rocks, they may not realize that their club was partially built by convicts from the state penitentiary. In 1996, the Utica Curling Club installed a new floor on which the ice for the curling club would rest. The construction crew was made up of cons who were paid 15 cents an hour for their efforts. The work program was put in place as a way to help rehabilitate the inmates. While they may not have realized it, they were supervised by one of the game's top icemakers, Dave Merklinger.\n**CURLING IN THE MOVIES**\n\n#  _**Help!**_\n\nIn the movie _Help!_ , the Beatles showed they knew a little bit about the roaring game. During a winter scene, George, Paul, John, and Ringo all take part in an outdoor bonspiel\u2014or that's what it appears is happening. George throws a rock while John and Ringo try to catch up to it and sweep. Paul is sweeping, but nowhere near the rock\n\nThe movie's villain, Algernon, then plants a bomb in a rock and slides it down the ice toward the four musicians. Ringo sweeps the stone, which is smoking at this point. The other three realize what is in the stone, grab Ringo, and run away. Algernon, who expected the rock to explode before the boys exited, goes to check on his bomb and arrives just as it explodes.\n\n#  _**Men with Brooms**_\n\nThe only feature film ever made that used curling as an underlying theme was _Men with Brooms_ , starring Paul Gross of _Due South_ fame. A few facts about the movie:\n\n\u2022 The title came from a meeting between Gross and Alliance Atlantis head Robert Lantos. When Gross told him he wanted to make a truly Canadian movie and use curling as the central theme, Lantos said: \"You mean that sport that has men with brooms?\"\n\n\u2022 The movie about curling drew some unusual reactions. In November 1999, Gross told the _Toronto Sun_ : \"When I was in Los Angeles recently, I told people I was doing this thing about curling. It was as though I had farted. They didn't know where to look.\"\n\n\u2022 A number of top curlers were given cameos in the movie, including two-time Canadian champion Jeff Stoughton as well as 1983 world champion Paul Savage, who played the role of the television announcer.\n\n\u2022 Paul Gross didn't know how to curl prior to his on-screen debut and said he used the book _Curling For Dummies_ as his bible during the filming.\n\n\u2022 Members of the rock group The Tragically Hip appeared as a curling team, representing Kingston, Ontario, their hometown.\n\n\u2022 James Alodi, who played Neil Bucyk, one of the members of the team at the centre of the movie, fell and injured both elbows during the movie's filming. His injury, bone chips, hurt so much he wasn't able to rest his elbows on a table for weeks.\n\n\u2022 The film opened on March 8, 2002, and set a Canadian record for opening weekend sales, with more than $1.1 million brought in at the box office. The movie opened on 213 screens. In the United States, however, it opened in September 2002 on a grand total of just 27 screens and brought in $14,765.\n\n\u2022 A number of curling errors show up in the movie. For one, the scoreboard rarely reflects the scoring as shown on the ice.\n\n\u2022 The budget for the movie was estimated at $7.5 million, quite small for a feature film.\n**NAME THAT CORN**\n\nAlthough they're not even made any more, corn brooms once ruled the ice, at least in North America. It wasn't until the 1970s that push brooms took over as the dominant choice for curlers of all levels. Over the years, many brooms came and went. Here are the names of a few of the more popular corn brooms of years gone by:\n\nRockmaster x-11   \nZebra   \nLittle Beaver   \nLittle Otter   \nLittle Mink   \nMississauga Rattler   \nPro Polka Dot   \nWildcat   \nThunder   \n8-Ender   \nWhipper Snapper\n\n**THE KING OF SWING**\n\nShorty Jenkins is well-known as the first truly great icemaker in curling. Over the years he has established many techniques for making the playing surface better, and in the process he has become a well-recognized figure at major curling events. Here are some facts about the man:\n\n\u2022 His first name is really Clarence.\n\n\u2022 He was raised in an orphanage in Victoria, British Columbia.\n\n\u2022 He served in the Canadian Air Force.\n\n\u2022 He competed in the 1974 Ontario men's curling championships and experienced such bad playing conditions, he decided he would do something about it and started a career as an icemaker.\n\n\u2022 He was the first person to time how long it took rocks to travel down the ice. He used his method to judge the condition of his surface, but it has become a much-used way of determining the changing speed of the ice by competitive teams.\n\n\u2022 He used an infrared gun to determine the temperature of the ice and learned that different colour rock handles can absorb different amounts of heat, which can affect their speed.\n\n\u2022 He starred in his own Tim Hortons television commercial, which was later spoofed by the Canadian comedy show _This Hour Has 22 Minutes_.\n\n\u2022 He is often seen at curling events wearing his trademark pink cowboy hat.\n**WHAT IF MY ROCK...**\n\nWhen it comes to stones, the rule book makes provision for unusual happenings in a game\n\nFor instance, although it's rare these days for stones to break\u2014even with the tremendous force with which they are thrown by some of the top players\u2014Rule 4 (2) covers just that situation. It reads as follows:\n\n\"If a stone is broken in play, a replacement stone shall be placed where the largest fragment comes to rest. The inside edge of the replacement stone shall be placed in the same position as the inside edge of the largest fragment with the assistance of a measuring stick.\"\n\nIf the stone doesn't break but merely flips over or comes to rest on its side, the rule book takes care of that situation in 4 (6): \"A stone that rolls over in its course or comes to rest on its side or top shall be removed immediately from play.\"\n\nSo it seems it's better to have your rock break than flip over.\n_**ENFANT TERRIBLE**_\n\nIn the 1970s and early '80s, Paul Gowsell gained a reputation for being curling's _enfant terrible_ , shocking curling audiences big and small with his outlandish appearance as well as his exceptional talent. Although most of his success came as a junior and he never reached the heights some had predicted for him, tales of his antics are still told frequently in curling circles. A few stories about Paul Gowsell:\n\n\u2022 On his way home from being honoured as Athlete of the Year in Calgary in 1977, Gowsell was stopped by police and charged with possession of marijuana.\n\n\u2022 Gowsell was extremely nervous between games. He would often eat at the opening banquet or Calcutta (a form of betting where the teams are auctioned off, usually held at a party) on the first night and then not again until the event was over.\n\n\u2022 Gowsell's team was the first high-profile Canadian rink to use push brooms, and it is generally credited with starting the nationwide move away from corn brooms.\n\n\u2022 At the 1976 World Junior Championships, Gowsell was turned away from a banquet because he wasn't wearing a jacket or tie. He went back to his hotel room, put on the appropriate clothes, but returned without shoes or socks.\n\n\u2022 At the closing banquet for the 1978 World Junior Championship, which Gowsell won, he was refused entry by a security guard who told him, \"This is a banquet for curlers, not hippies.\"\n\n\u2022 Gowsell was cut from his high school team in Grade 10 and 11. The following year he made the team and promptly won the Canadian junior title.\n\n\u2022 At a major bonspiel in Winnipeg, Gowsell arranged for a pizza to be delivered to him in the middle of a game. As 1,000 fans looked on, the delivery guy walked down the sheet, handed the box to Gowsell, and took his payment. Gowsell opened the box and asked his opposing number, Larry McGrath, if he wanted a slice.\n\n**DEAD HEAT**\n\nWant to win a mug of your favourite beverage from your curling friend? Here's a trivia question that might just do the trick: Can you name two occasions when, at the conclusion of an end, there are rocks in the house but no team scores?\n\nThe answer can be found in _The Rules of Curling,_ which is published by the Canadian Curling Association. The first occurs when two stones finish exactly the same distance from the centre. Under Rule 13 (8), if, after using a measuring stick, it can't be determined which of the stones is closer to the centre, then the end shall be declared blank. That is, of course, if there are no other rocks closer to the centre than the ones being measured.\n\nThe second situation happens when two rocks are so close to the centre that the measure can't be used, and it can't be determined visually which is closer. That would happen if two stones finished almost on top of the exact centre of the house.\n\n**Curling Quote**\n\n\"There's nobody out here that concerns me.\"\n\n\u2014Randy Ferbey, when asked his opinion on the field at the 2005 world championship\n**THE ICE KING**\n\nAt curling clubs around the world, a strange-looking machine is often seen preparing the surface for play, either by knee-sliding novices or world champions. The Ice King is a device that scrapes a fine layer off the top of the ice, levelling the surface and allowing a new layer of pebble to be applied. Before the invention of this motor-pebble to be applied. Before the invention of this motorized device, ice had to be scraped by hand, a laborious task, to be sure. A brief history of the Ice King:\n\n\u2022 The machine was invented by Harry Mather of London, Ontario, in the mid-1960s. Mather used it at his own club. It was essentially a long blade, about half the width of a curling sheet, anchored on a plow-like device that was powered electrically.The blade could be raised or lowered depending on how much ice needed to be shaved off.\n\n\u2022 By 1968, he'd convinced a few area clubs to buy machines that would help improve the conditions. Word spread quickly throughout Ontario, and Ice King became a viable company, selling machines.\n\n\u2022 By the mid-1970s, Ice King was selling machines across Canada and had made some improvements to the machine, mostly cosmetic.\n\n\u2022 In 1986, Larry Mayo and Fred Veale purchased the company from Mather and looked to improve the popular machine.\n\n\u2022 In 1993, Bill Wood made a simple improvement by changing the power source to a battery. No longer was it necessary to drag a long cord along the ice while scraping.\n\n\u2022 In 2006, Wood bought the Ice King business from Mayo and Veale. He currently sells four different models\u2014the Prince, the Super Scraper, the Super 06, and the Super 07.\n\n\u2022 Ice Kings have been used at virtually every major event from the Canadian men's and women's championships to the Olympics.\n\n\u2022 Ice Kings are used around the world, and models some 30 years old are still used on a regular basis.\n**AMERICA'S MAN,** **BUD SOMERVILLE**\n\nBud Somerville was the first American curler to skip a team to the world championship title, and in so doing he became the unofficial father of U.S. curling. A few facts about the legendary curler:\n\n\u2022 He was a gifted athlete but a heart ailment kept him from playing most sports. As a result, he turned to curling.\n\n\u2022 He first reached the U.S. finals in 1962, skipping a rink that included his father, Ray, at second, and his brother-in-law Bill Strum at lead. The team finished third.\n\n\u2022 In the middle of the 1965 national final against a team from Illinois, Somerville's pants split up the front, and he was forced to patch them together with tape and a safety pin. Undaunted, he finished out the game, winning his first national title.\n\n\u2022 The team became the first American rink\u2014and first non-Canadian\u2014to win the world championship when it captured the Scotch Cup in 1965. After the victory, the team received a telegram of congratulations from President Lyndon B. Johnson.\n\n\u2022 He won a second world championship in 1974.\n\n\u2022 Somerville's youngest son, John, died of cystic fibrosis at age 17, and Somerville has raised thousands and thousands of dollars for the research into the disease **.**\n\n\u2022 In 1992, Somerville, at the age of 55, represented the United States at curling's demonstration at the Olympic Games, becoming that country's oldest Olympian. He skipped the rink to a bronze medal. He also skipped the team at the 1988 Games.\n\n\u2022 When the U.S. Curling Hall of Fame was started in 1984, Somerville was the first inductee.\n\n\u2022 His son Tim won three U.S. Championships and represented the United States in the 2002 Olympics.\n\n**Curling Quote**\n\n\"Today I saw a bunch of Scotsmen who were throwing big iron balls like bombs on the ice, after which they cried, 'soop, soop,' and then laughed like mad.\n\nI think they are mad.\"\n\n\u2014A French-Canadian farmer, circa 1790, relaying his first impressions of curling, as quoted in _The Curling Companion_ by W.H. Murray\n**THE WRENCH SAID**\n\nHe is one of the most beloved curlers of all time, and part of the reason for Ed Werenich's popularity was his penchant for speaking his mind, often saying something politically incorrect but that many were secretly thinking. Here is a selection of some of Werenich's most memorable quotes:\n\n\"They look like they're going jogging. Or maybe going to a pyjama party.\"\n\n\u2014Werenich commenting on the new-style athletic gear being worn by several European teams at the 1990 World Curling Championships\n\n\"I don't want him as my coach. I've worked 32 years for this moment. I don't want someone like him jumping in.\"\n\n\u2014Werenich, after winning the 1990 Brier, when he would not accept Canadian Curling Association official and longtime rival Warren Hansen as his team coach for the World Championships\n\n\"I went to Sweden, drank beer in my room, and came home with a bouquet of flowers and a $5 silver tray.\"\n\n\u2014Werenich summing up his experience at the 1990 World Championships in Vasteras, Sweden\n\n\"They not only want me to look pretty, they want me to be able to dance, too. I just hope they don't ask me to use Grecian Formula and get my teeth fixed.\"\n\n\u2014Werenich, when told he would have to lose 22 pounds and do aerobic exercise if he hoped to qualify for the 1987 Olympic trials\n\n\"How do you think this would look on my ass, Leon?\"\n\n\u2014Werenich, while mooning Ontario Curling Association official Leon Sykes after Sykes had presented him with his Purple Heart for winning the 1981 Ontario championship. Werenich had battled officials all week over a problem with the playoff format.\n\n\"We went into this thing thinking we needed to be 8-3 to get into the playoffs. We've got the easy three over with. Now we have to go over the hard eight ones.\"\n\n\u2014Werenich at the 1984 Brier in Victoria after the defending champions started out 0-3\n\n\"They're four real jerks. I know where they can put their brooms.\"\n\n\u2014Werenich referring to the Swedish team in the 1983 World Championship, skipped by Mikael Hasselborg. The Swedes used messy corn brooms to sweep, a tactic Werenich believed was akin to cheating. For years after that incident, the Hasselborg team carried pictures of Werenich and teammate John Kawaja with them, saying they used them to get up for important games.\n\n\"When I'm on the curling ice, that's my office. I'll challenge anybody in the world on certain things, like calling strategy. I know curling, okay? But I really don't know anything else, just curling and firefighting.\"\n\n\u2014Werenich to author Jean Sonmor in the book _Burned By The Rock_\n**BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE**\n\nIn some places where curling isn't always a mainstream sport, curlers have had to make do with whatever they can to play their game. Here are a few unusual locations in which curling has been held:\n\n\u2022 In 1992, the Imperial Grand Ballroom of the Aladdin Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada, was transformed into a curling rink to host the Desert Spiel, a curling pro-am in which players competed on teams skipped by Canadian, U.S., and world champions. Curlers from across North America descended on Vegas to play in the event on ice made by world-renowned ice technician Shorty Jenkins.\n\n\u2022 Vegas isn't the only place where curling has been held in a casino. In 2007, a made-for-television skins game was held in the Entertainment Centre at Casino Rama, near Orillia, Ontario. The location is usually reserved for singers and comedians, but the high-stakes shootout brought together Glenn Howard, Kevin Martin, Wayne Middaugh, and Brad Gushue.\n\n\u2022 On more than one occasion, the skating rink in front of Rockefeller Center in New York City has been changed into a curling rink for an exhibition of the roaring game. In 2007, television personalities were given a lesson in curling by American Olympians Cassie Johnson and Pete Fenson in the heart of Manhattan.\n\n\u2022 Curlers have been known to have the odd drink and so it might not be that big a surprise that a bonspiel was held in a location where some of this liquid is manufactured. No, not Scotland and Scotch, but California and wine. In 2007, a bonspiel was held in Vacaville, California, in the heart of Napa Valley. A local hockey rink was transformed into curling sheets, and the competitors threw rocks and sipped Merlot.\n\n\u2022 According to the _International Guide to Curling_ by Robin Welsh, in 1973, a bonspiel was held in C\u00f4te d'Ivoire in Africa. The event was held on an indoor rink in the Ivoire Hotel and included local teams as well as rinks from France. A second event was held and teams from Switzerland and the U.S.A. played.\n\n\u2022 According to _The Curling News_ , at a posh mall in Rabat, Morocco, the only skating rink in the country is regularly transformed into a curling rink and lessons provided to locals. Although most had never seen a skating rink before\u2014let alone a game of curling\u2014they weren't afraid to test it out, and thousands have given the game a go. Instead of scratching circles into the ice for rings, a system of lights is used to create the houses at either end of the sheet.\n\n\u2022 In the 1880s, Scottish residents of New York held an annual bonspiel on a frozen pond in Central Park. The match pitted former residents of northern Scotland versus those from the south. The contest involved numerous teams, and scores were a total of all the games. In 1883, for example, the final score was North 182, South 150.\n\nCurling in Vegas\n\n**CURLING COUPLES**\n\nCurling, as many who play will attest, is a social sport. For that reason, it's no big surprise that many curlers end up as couples, husbands and wives who share a love of rock tossing. Here are a few of the more successful curling couples.\n\n**Rick and Lorraine Lang** : Lorraine Lang was a Canadian champion in 1988 and '89, and took the world title in 1989. Husband Rick is a three-time Brier winner\u20141972, '82, and '85\u2014winning the world title in '82 and '85. Together, they captured the Canadian Mixed in 1981.\n\n**Dave and Heather Nedohin** : Dave throws last rock for the powerful Randy Ferbey team that won four Canadian and three world championships, while Heather has a world junior and world women's title on her resum\u00e9.\n\n**Ian Tetley and Erica Brown** : A cross-border couple. Ian Tetley is a three-time Canadian and world champion, while Erica has four U.S. women's titles to her credit, as well as two Olympic appearances.\n\n**Pat Perroud and Jane Hooper Perroud** : Pat won Canadian and world championships playing lead for both Al Hackner (1985) and Ed Werenich (1990), while wife Jane was a member of Marilyn Bodogh's squad, which captured the Canadian and world championship in 1996.\n\n**Wayne and Sherry Middaugh** : Wayne is a two-time Canadian and world champion while better half Sherry has won the Ontario title three times, reaching the semi-finals of the Canadian championship on all three occasions. Both curlers have competed in the Canadian Olympic curling trials.\n\n**Curling Quote**\n\n\"They told us to watch out for odd people when he got here. The first guy I saw was wearing a gopher on his head. Where do you start?\"\n\n\u2014A member of the security detail of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who visited the 2007 Tim Hortons Brier in Hamilton, as told to the _Edmonton Sun_\n**ROCKS FOR ROCKERS**\n\nMembers of the Canadian rock band The Tragically Hip are curling fans. That became obvious during a concert tour in 2006. The band was playing in London, Ontario, and singer\/guitarist Ed Robertson told the assembled fans his tale of looking for curling stones so he could play on an outdoor rink he made each winter at his Ontario cottage. He had searched high and low, and finally found one company that made them\u2014Canada Curling Stone, located in London, but when he called he only received an answering machine message, which he turned into a little song:\n\n _Canada Curling Stone_   \n_Canada Curling Stone_   \n_Please don't try to phone_   \n_We're Canada Curling Stone_   \n_No one is at home_   \n_At Canada Curling Stone_   \n_All of our rocks are home_   \n_At Canada Curling Stone_   \n_We implore you to leave us alone_   \n_We're Canada Curling Stone_\n\nThe next morning, Robertson called the company again, and this time, Kim Tuck answered the phone, and when Robertson introduced himself, she told him she'd already received scores of calls and e-mails from those who were at the concert the night before, relaying his request. In the end, that request was fulfilled, and Robertson bought a full sheet of 16 stones and reportedly has regular outdoor curling events at his cottage.\n**BRIER BROADCASTER**\n\nBob Cole has made a career of calling hockey games. He's been the main play-by-play man for the CBC since 1980 and has been calling games for the network since 1973. He regularly calls the action for the Toronto Maple Leafs, and perhaps his most famous call came in 1976 during an exhibition game between the Philadelphia Flyers and the Russian club team CSKA Moscow. In the first period, the Russians became unhappy with the officiating and left the ice. From the press box, Cole said, \"They're going home. They're going home.\"\n\nWhile he became famous for that and more hockey broadcasting, Cole is also a curler of some note, having represented Newfoundland & Labrador in the Brier twice. In 1971 he finished up with a 4-6 mark, and in 1975 he went 1-10. Cole also skipped his province in the 1973 Canadian Mixed.\n**A FAMILY AFFAIR**\n\nCurling has always been considered a good family game, but at a 1998 bonspiel in Keene, Ontario, the Davises took that to a new level. The squad comprised Alan, Chris, Gord, and Jamie Davis\u2014great-grandfather, grandfather, father, and son\u2014four generations of the family all on one team.\n**HIGH SCORE**\n\nIt is a badge of honour for every curler to play in the Brier and another to set records. While New Brunswick's Ken Everett might like to remember the former, he might not be too excited about the latter. Everett represented his province in the 1957 Brier in Kingston, which was won by Garnett Campbell's team from Saskatchewan. Along the way, Everett managed to put his team into the record books. Unfortunately it was for all the wrong reasons. The New Brunswick team came out on the wrong side of the most lopsided contest in Brier history\u2014a 30-3 loss.\n\nAs well, in today's era of conceding games once the score seems insurmountable, it's unlikely that score will ever be topped.\n**TRAVELLIN' MAN**\n\nEarle Morris is a talented curler, but as a member of the Canadian military, he moved around the country a great deal. But that never hurt his success on the ice. Morris curled in the Brier three times, but represented three different provinces, the only player with such a distinction. In 1980, he represented Manitoba, in 1982 Quebec, and in '85 he wore Ontario's colours.\n\n**AGE-OLD INVENTION**\n\nJack Grossart of Toronto proved that curling isn't necessarily the domain of the young man. He started curling at the age of 65 and fell in love with the sport. A self-confessed problem-solver, at age 89, he decided to try to invent a better curling broom and came up with the Grossart Super Brush. The innovative design was one of the first to feature a hinged head, which allowed it to be moved to any angle, and removable \"friction pads\" that could be switched depending on the ice conditions.\n\nWhen asked why he started designing brooms at his age, he replied: \"It's just stupid-ness. I wish I'd never got started in this thing.\"\n\nGrossart eventually sold off his broom business but kept curling until the age of 99.\n**GREAT COMEBACKS**\n\nUsually, teams that are ahead by healthy margins or with few ends to play don't surrender the lead. Most world-ranked rinks can finish off a game in which they lead by a few points. But on occasion, they slip up, allowing for a memorable comeback. Here are a few notable ones:\n\n\u2022 In 1970, the ice at the Brier in Winnipeg was horrendous, and it contributed to a tremendous comeback by Hec Gervais. The ice was extremely heavy, and after four ends, Ontario's Paul Savage was leading 8-1. Starting in the fifth end, Gervais began calling for his team to draw to the outside rings, but they kept coming up light\u2014or so thought Savage. Gervais intentionally placed the rocks in front of the rings, fooling the youthful Savage as the Alberta team rallied to a 12-9 win. \"I was thinking, 'These guys can't make a draw,'\" recalled Savage. \"Big mistake. I found out a few years after these were corner guards and did they ever work.\"\n\n\u2022 Heading into the final three ends of the 2004 Brier, Nova Scotia's Mark Dacey trailed Randy Ferbey by four points and appeared to be headed for a silver medal. Certainly he was an underdog. Ferbey was gunning for his fourth consecutive Brier crown and seemed in control of this final. Undaunted, Dacey rallied for three in the eighth before surrendering a single in the ninth to trail by two heading home. But a combination of tremendous shots by the Nova Scotia rink and some stunning misses from the Ferbey team allowed Dacey to draw the four-foot for three points and a 10-9 victory.\n\n\u2022 In the 2001 Canadian Olympic trials Russ Howard, trailing by three points with one end left, contemplated conceding a game against John Morris. The wily veteran, however, decided to play out the final frame, and what followed was a case of experience winning out over youth. Howard used a corner guard to hide several stones, and rather than removing the guard, Morris tried to pick out the Howard stones, but missed each time. Eventually, Howard took four points, winning the game and sending Morris storming off the sheet, ripping his shirt into shreds in the process.\n\n\u2022 Playing the tenth end of the final of the 1985 Brier in Moncton, New Brunswick, Pat Ryan was leading 5-3 and appeared in complete control of the final frame. In fact, after his last shot, he came down the ice with his broom in the air, already starting to celebrate what he thought was a Brier victory. However, that proved premature. Northern Ontario's Al Hackner played what is regarded as one of the greatest shots in Brier history when he made a thin double takeout to score two points. He then led his team to a steal of one in the extra end for the win and the Canadian championship.\n\n\u2022 Ontario's Jenn Hanna was set to celebrate a victory in the 2005 Scott Tournament of Hearts in St. John's, Newfoundland. With just one rock left to be thrown, Hanna led by three points and had shot stone buried on the button. Manitoba's Jennifer Jones sat second, third, and fourth shot but had only one hope of getting to Hanna's stone\u2014that was to redirect her shooter off a stone sitting almost off the sheet. She called the shot, played it, and watched as it hit and then went on a perfect angle to remove the Ontario stone and give her team four points and the national title.\n\n**Curling Quote**\n\n\"I worked with French CBC during the Torino Olympics. I did a TV show with a French-Canadian speed skater, and during that show, he tried some curling. At the end he looked at me and said, 'Geez guys...how do you do that? You guys are real athletes.'\n\nComing from a 29-year-old, two-time gold medalist in prime athletic condition, that's a very good compliment.\"\n\n\u2014Guy Hemmings in the _Penticton Western News_\n**PIZZA AND MEDALS**\n\nPete Fenson was the skip of the first American team to win an Olympic medal in regulation play (American teams had earned medals in Olympic demonstrations). His rink, from Bemidji, Minnesota, took the bronze medal at the 2006 Games in Torino, Italy. As such, he became one of the best-known curlers in the United States. Here is a bit about this popular American curler:\n\n\u2022 Fenson's father, Bob, won the United States Men's Championship in 1979. He taught Pete how to curl and has continued to serve as coach for the team.\n\n\u2022 Fenson won his first national title in 1993, playing third for Scott Baird. He won again in 1994. He was a semi-finalist at the '93 world championship and finished fifth in '94.\n\n\u2022 In 1998, Baird took a year off, and Fenson moved up to skip, learning under the watchful eye of veteran third Mark Haluptzok. In 2003, Fenson skipped his team to the U.S. title and then finished eighth at the world final.\n\n\u2022 Fenson won the 2004 and '05 U.S. championships and then skipped the Red, White, and Blue to a bronze medal in the 2006 Games, earning that honour with an 8-6 victory over David Murdoch of the United Kingdom.\n\n\u2022 The team was named the U.S. Olympic Committee's team of the year for 2006.\n\n\u2022 Fenson owns two pizzerias, operating under the name Dave's Pizza.\n\n\u2022 On the U.S. Olympic Committee website, Fenson was asked which cartoon character he best resembled. His answer was the Road Runner.\n\n\u2022 In the summer of 2006, Fenson's Olympic team broke up as John Shuster, who played lead, left the squad to form his own rink.\n**OLE MEXICO**\n\nCurling isn't one of the more popular sports in Mexico, to be sure, but there are a few participants in the tropical country. In fact Josele Garza, a car racer who has participated in the Indy 500, is one of the country's original rock throwers.\n\nAfter seeing the sport in the 1998 Olympics, he organized a group intent on setting up the sport in Mexico. The group travelled to Winnipeg for some instruction and a crash course on strategy. With only five arenas in Mexico City, it's difficult to get ice, but thanks to Garza and his group, there is an official curling club, and Mexico is a member country of the World Curling Federation.\n**LONG-GONE EQUIPMENT**\n\nIt's been a long time since a straw broom appeared in any major competition around the world. In fact, straw brooms were last made in 2003, having succumbed to the success of the push broom. While only recently extinct, the straw broom is far from the only piece of equipment that has disappeared from the game over the years. Here are a few more items that were once common on curling rinks around the world.\n\n#  **Centre skittle**\n\nYears ago, before rings were permanently painted into the ice, a small wooden skittle was positioned at the exact centre of the ice. This allowed players at the throwing end of the sheet to have a visual idea of the location of the button.\n\n#  **Tassels**\n\nHard as it may be to believe, many years ago, rocks weren't identified by coloured tops. That's primarily because each player was required to provide his or her own pair of stones, and there was no idea of what team he or she would be on for that game. Instead a small piece of coloured wool was tied to the handle\u2014eight handles, actually\u2014to determine which rocks belonged to which team.\n\n#  **Crampits**\n\nThe name is perhaps more closely associated with mountain climbing, but a crampit (also called a crampon) was an attachment that was tied on to the bottom of a shoe or boot and had prongs on the underside that provided a hold on the ice. For a short time, players kept the crampit on their foot the entire game, while throwing and sweeping, which caused some horrendous conditions as they ran up and down the sheet. In later years, crampits were affixed to the ice and remained in position for the entire game, usually by putting the metal fixture into hot water and then melting it into the ice.\n\n#  **The Duster**\n\nThe name came from the fact this was usually a cloth, much like something used for dusting. It was placed on the ice to show where the rock was to come to rest. If it was placed on top of a rock, the shot was a takeout.\n\nThese French curlers are using a duster (just above the rock on the left) to show the centre of the house on this outdoor rink.\n\n**CLOSET CURLING FANS**\n\nAlthough they are better known for other endeavours, the three people listed below have a soft spot for the roaring game. It's just that nobody knew!\n\n**Wayne Gretzky** \u2014hockey's all-time scoring leader is a devoted curling fan who said he regularly follows the Brier and other events. And he admitted to another secret in a column he wrote in the _National Post_. \"You'd be surprised how many National Hockey League players can be found sitting in their hotel rooms in the middle of winter watching [curling] somewhere.\"\n\n**Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper** \u2014Harper became the first prime minister to sit through an entire draw at the Brier, attending an afternoon at the 2007 event in Hamilton. Before the match, he met and had his photo taken with Kevin Martin's Alberta team. Harper, who said he's not a curler, still loves to watch the Canadian championship on a regular basis. \"I've been following it for years and back about a decade ago when I was travelling a lot I happened to be in Winnipeg when they were having the Brier,\" he said, \"and I made a point of going. Then I decided every year to schedule a business trip to be wherever the Brier was.\"\n\n**Toby Keith** \u2014the award-winning country singer said he fell in love with curling while following it at the 2006 Olympics. During a concert stop in Nashville, Tennessee, Keith decided he would take that passion one step further. He learned there was a curling facility in town and booked some ice for him and his band to play. \"They're calling themselves the redneck curlers,\" commented Nashville Curling Club president Sean Gerster, who also admitted that Keith was a fast learner and showed promise. \"He said he was going to try and qualify for the 2010 Olympics.\"\n\n**Bruce Springsteen** \u2014the Boss reportedly rents out curling clubs when on the road. He is known as a keen watcher of curling when it's on television, and is an improving rock tosser.\n\n**Curling Fact**\n\nThe first European team to win the world championship was Kjell Oscarius of Sweden, who won in 1973.\n**SPRINGFIELD GRANITE**\n\nCurling went animated in 2002 when the sport was featured in an episode of _The Simpsons_. On February 17, episode 280-1311, \"The Bart Wants What it Wants,\" aired on FOX and saw America's favourite animated family travel to Canada, where at one point Bart and his friend Millhouse start a fight in a movie\/television studio. They brawl and eventually go through a door where a sign reads: _Curling for Loonies_ , a reference to the American television staple, _Bowling for Dollars_. This Canadian show is being taped in the adjoining studio in which Bart and Millhouse now find themselves. As the two brawl, the announcers are heard:\n\n**Announcer 1:** Well, we've seen some wild sweeping here today.\n\n**Announcer 2:** Yes, the broom handling has been truly dazzling. [At this point, Bart and Milhouse are seen fighting their way onto the ice.] What's this? Two young Yankee Doodles have turned this match into a Dandy.\n\n**Announcer 1:** [laughs] Both our viewers must be thrilled. A very special episode of _Curling for Loonies_.\n**THE CURSE OF LABONTE**\n\nOne of the more unusual finishes to a major curling competition took place in 1972 at the world championships in Garmish-Partenkirchen, Germany. The final was between Canada's Orest Meleschuk and Bob Labonte of the United States. Up to that point, Canada was undefeated and hoping to run the table in the final. Heading to the tenth end, the Americans led by two points, but Meleschuk had the hammer.\n\nIn order to score two points, Meleschuk needed to hit and stay inside the eight-foot. He played the shot, but the shooter apparently rolled too far, giving the game to the Americans. Frank Assand, the U.S. third, who had been sweeping the Canadian shooter as it rolled, judged where that rock had stopped and where his team's shooter sat and immediately threw his hands in the air. His skip, Labonte, also believing they had won, jumped into the air in celebration, but slipped and kicked the Canadian stone, moving it back toward the centre of the rings. Now it appeared Canada had scored the tying deuce. After consulting with the head official, Doug Maxwell, a measurement took place, and Canada scored two then went on to win the game in the extra end.\n\nA few more notes about the infamous burned rock:\n\n\u2022 At the time, there were no rules in place to deal with the situation that occurred. Maxwell was left with little option but to leave the rocks where they were and measure the burned stone and the American rock.\n\n\u2022 To show how the times have changed, Labonte managed to complete his jump and tumble all with a cigarette in his mouth.\n\n\u2022 In his book _Canada Curls_ , Maxwell revealed that the CBC, which was covering the event, had just introduced instant replay and was supposed to have it available at the world championship, but a labour dispute cancelled its availability.\n\n\u2022 A reporter came up with the Labonte Curse, supposedly dropped on Canadian curlers. The idea was the country would never win another world championship, the revenge for winning the 1972 event under such strange circumstances. For the next seven years, Canada didn't win the global title, its longest dry spell.\n\n\u2022 For many years, Labonte showed up at world championships, introduced himself to the Canadian team, and playfully put the hex on them again.\n\n\u2022 After the incident, Labonte was given the nickname \"Boots.\"\n**BRITISH GOLD**\n\nWhen Rhona Martin took top spot in the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, the win set off a wild celebration back in Scotland (her country of residence) and across Great Britain. Some remarkable facts about Martin and that victory:\n\n\u2022 Prior to being selected to represent Britain at the Olympics, Martin had made it to 10 national championships and finished second a remarkable nine times. She did represent Scotland at the European championships but lost in the semi-finals five of six times and subsequently lost all five bronze medal games.\n\n\u2022 More than 7 million viewers in Britain tuned into the broadcast of the gold medal game even though it started at midnight local time. That set a record for the BBC.\n\n\u2022 It was the first gold medal for Britain in 19 Olympiads.\n\n\u2022 Martin and her team of Janice Ranin, Fiona Macdonald, and Debbie Knox became household celebrities across Britain, even receiving MBEs. However, their fame was fleeting. Five years later, Martin was living in part off social security after her husband left her. She later gained a job as a curling instructor.\n**IRON CURLING**\n\nWhile granite stones are the traditional implements of use in curling games around the world, it hasn't always been that way.\n\nFrom 1807 until the early 1920s in Quebec and the Ottawa Valley, curling \"irons\" were the choice\u2014markers made of metal that weighed up to 80 pounds. According to the book _Sports and Games in Canadian Life, 1700 to the Present_ , Maxwell L. Howell and Nancy Howell suggest that the first of these irons were derived from the metal-rimmed hubcaps of gun carriages. Handles were inserted into these to turn them into curling \"stones.\"\n\nIt was only in this area that irons were used, and one of the reasons they disappeared was a financial gesture of the Macdonald Tobacco Company. It wanted to start a national curling championship and needed Quebec curlers to participate. To entice them, the tobacco company spent thousands of dollars to buy granite stones for many curling clubs in Quebec, easing the transition to the rock era.\n**BROTHERS\u2014AND SISTERS\u2014IN BROOMS**\n\nCurling siblings have been common sights atop the podiums of major events, showing that perhaps the ability to draw the button is genetic. Here are some of the more successful curling siblings:\n\n**Russ and Glenn Howard:** The duo won two world championships together, and separately they've also been successful. Russ was a part of Brad Gushue's gold medal-winning squad at the 2006 Olympics, while Glenn won a third world crown skipping his own team in 2007.\n\n**Julie and Jodi Sutton:** The two won the Canadian championship in 1991, five years after combining to capture the national junior crown. Julie also has a bronze medal from the 2002 Olympics.\n\n**Jim and Tom Wilson:** The Wilson brothers were a feared front end in the late 1970s and early '80s, sweeping for Rick Folk's Saskatchewan rink. They helped the team win a Canadian and world championship in 1980.\n\n**Ernie and Sam Richardson:** Two members of the famed Richardson rink from Saskatchewan, which won four Briers in five years. Ernie was the skip while Sam (whose real name was Garnet) played second. Two other cousins, Arnold and Wes, were also members of the rink.\n\n**Ken and Grant Watson:** These brothers paired up to win three Brier crowns between 1936 and 1949, a record for siblings.\n\n**Connie, Corinne, and Janet Laliberte:** With Connie at skip, these three sisters swept their way to the Canadian championship in 1984. Connie and Janet combined for two more titles as well.\n\n**The Campbells:** Don, Garnett, Lloyd, and Sam won the 1954 Brier playing out of Saskatchewan. It's the only time four brothers have combined on a team to win a national championship.\n\nThe Campbells\n\n**Cassie Potter and Jamie Haskell:** The sisters from Bemidji, Minnesota, have been U.S. champions and represented their nation at the Olympics.\n**TANKARD TOTAL**\n\nWhen Labatt took over sponsorship of the Brier in 1980, it needed a trophy of some sort to present and decided that a budget of $5,000 would deliver it a suitable award. Labatt's Grant Waterman was put in charge of the job and he commissioned what would become a piece of Canadian sporting history, the Labatt Tankard, a large gold stein with the company's logo on the front. He managed to keep the trophy hidden from press and even his co-workers until an unveiling at a press conference in Calgary, site of the 1980 Brier, where the Tankard would be presented for the first time. When it was revealed to the press, the reaction was positive, and as photographers snapped away, Labatt vice-president Sid Oland sidled over to Waterman and congratulated him on the trophy.\n\n\"How much did it cost?\" he asked.\n\n\"$35,000,\" said Waterman.\n\nShocked, Oland asked what happened to the $5,000 budget.\n\n\"The case cost $10,000,\" Waterman exclaimed.\n\nWhile there were a lot of upset people in the Labatt financial department, the move paid off a few years later when the Tankard was valued at $350,000.\n**CHAMPIONSHIPS FOR EVERYONE**\n\nThe Tim Hortons Brier and Scotties Tournament of Hearts are well known as the men's and women's Canadian championships, respectively. But there are plenty more national titles up for grabs each year.\n\n#  **Canadian Postal Employees Curling Championship**\n\nStarted in 1967 in Winnipeg, this event was originally known as the Canadian Postal Curling Championship. It's been held annually and has teams from every province and a combined territories entry.\n\n#  **Royal Canadian Legion**\n\nFirst held in 1957, the Legion's spiel is known as the Dominion Championship and is open to members of the Royal Candian Legion.\n\n#  **Canadian Firefighters Curling Association**\n\nThis group not only has a championship but a full-blown association. It was started by Aubrey Neff, who started a curling league among members of the Vancouver Fire Department. He contacted firefighters in other provinces, and in 1960, a championship was held between five provinces. Today, all ten provinces, Northern Ontario, and the territories compete. Past winners include Ed Werenich and Neil Harrison.\n\n#  **Canadian Blind Curlers Championship**\n\nTen teams play down for this championship. Some represent cities and others provinces, while the defending champion enters as Team Canada.\n\n#  **Canadian Clergy Championship**\n\nThis competition\u2014known as the Friar's Brier\u2014had its start in 1978 and is for members of the Canadian clergy and their associates. It is held annually in the same city as the real Brier.\n\n#  **Canadian Police Curling Championship**\n\nBack in 1955, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police formed the Canadian Police Curling Association. In 1956, a \"national bonspiel\" was held at the Winnipeg Granite Club, and in 1972, it was transformed into a true national championship.\n\n#  **The Trans-Canada Telephone Employees' Championship**\n\nRegina played host to the first national championship in 1964. Seven provinces currently compete for the title.\n\n#  **The Atlantic Oilworkers Championship**\n\nAnyone who gets a paycheque from the Atlantic petroleum industry is eligible for this championship, which celebrated its 44th anniversary in 2008.\n**FANTASTIC FERBEY**\n\nRandy Ferbey has won more Briers than any other curler, a total of six. He won twice while playing for Pat Ryan (1988 and '89) and has earned four more titles as skip of his own team in the 2000s. Although he calls the game, third player David Nedohin throws last rock. A few notes on Randy Ferbey:\n\n\u2022 He appeared on a television commercial for sponsor Strauss Herbs looking somewhat like a raccoon. The day before the taping, he had been at his son's baseball tournament, spending the day outside wearing wrap-around sunglasses. He forgot to apply sunscreen, and his face went red, except for where he was protected by his glasses. He gained notoriety for his appearance...and ribbing from just about every opponent, not to mention his teammates.\n\n\u2022 Ferbey's team holds the record for scoring the most points in a single end at the world championship\u2014five, a mark he achieved twice during the 2005 world final.\n\n\u2022 His team of Nedohin, Scott Pfeifer, and Marcel Rocque became the first to win four Briers with the same lineup. The famed Richardsons of Saskatchewan also won four, but on one occasion had a different lead.\n\n\u2022 His team was the first to have a book written about it. _The Ferbey Four_ was written by Edmonton sportswriter Terry Jones.\n\n\u2022 He was one of the few high-profile curlers not to join a 2001 movement of teams that elected to play in the Grand Slam of Curling instead of the Brier. That set him apart from many of his peers, but he said at the time: \"Maybe to some of the players [the Grand Slam is] right up there but let's be honest. To the paying public the Brier is the event of the year. I don't care what anybody else says.\"\n\n\u2022 He appeared, along with lead Marcel Rocque, on the television program _Celebrity Chefs_ , where he showed off his prowess in the kitchen by preparing shrimp canap\u00e9s with homemade mayo and dill, smoked goose breast canap\u00e9s, pork loin chops (brined) with a port\/maple\/nut reduction, lightly steamed vegetables in garlic \/olive oil sauce. Rocque did most of the cooking.\n\n\u2022 Along with teammate Dave Nedohin, he made a cameo appearance on the television program _Corner Gas_ , playing himself.\n**ROARING ALONG**\n\nCurling is known at \"the roaring game.\" This moniker was given to the sport for the sound the stones made as they travelled down the ice. While rocks don't particularly roar these days on artificial playing surfaces in clubs, there was a definite hum when the sport was played outdoors on the frozen lochs of Scotland, and that's where the name originated.\n**PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES**\n\nCurlers are certainly a determined bunch, but Rob Whalen and his rink from Sioux Lookout, Ontario, took that to extremes en route to the 1996 northwestern Ontario playdowns.\n\nThey had originally booked seats on a flight from their hometown to Thunder Bay, hoping to arrive the morning of the start of the competition. However, that morning, a massive snowstorm hit the area, closing the airport. Undaunted, the team piled into a four-by-four and started off on the 250-kilometre trek. At Ignace, Ontario, about halfway to their destination, police had closed the road, forcing the team to find yet another way.\n\nWhalen, who worked on the railway, headed to the rail yards and managed to convince the crew of a freight train headed to Thunder Bay to let them board. But that didn't work either, as the blizzard forced the train to stop and back up to Ignace to wait out the weather.\n\nBack into the four-by-four the team members went, and this time, Whalen drove an hour southwest to Fort Frances and then finally on to Thunder Bay, arriving at 4:30 a.m., having missed his first two games in the triple-knockout competition. To add to the disaster, after winning their first two games, the team lost in its third contest, one victory short of qualifying for the provincial final.\n**HOLEY SLIDER**\n\nIt may have been inexperience, it could have been just a case of being naive, but Lino Di Iorio changed the way people slide just two years after taking up the sport.\n\nDi Iorio is the creator of the BalancePlus Slider, an invention that stopped an age-old problem with Teflon sliders.\n\nAfter taking up the sport at 45, Di Iorio noticed that the slider on his curling shoe had curled up so the edges weren't on the ice surface. Looking at other players' shoes, he noticed it was a common problem. \"To me, it showed that although the foot is about four inches wide, people were only sliding on about two inches of that.\"\n\nCombining his background in physics with an affinity for solving problems, he created the new slider, which has a shallow hole in the centre of it.\n\n\"Most people just slide on the ball of their foot,\" Di Iorio said. \"By adding the hole, that part of the slider doesn't come into contact with the ice. In essence, the person's weight is spread out over a greater area.\"\n\nThe BalancePlus Slider was first used by players such as Kevin Martin and Ed Werenich, who raved about it. That led to a surge in demand for the slider with the hole in it, and Di Iorio's invention has become the best-selling slider in the game.\n**QUITE AN ORDER**\n\nThree Canadian curlers have been honoured with the Order of Canada, the highest civilian honour in the country. They are:\n\nKen Watson (invested 1975)   \nRon Northcott (invested 1976)   \nErnie Richardson (invested 1978)\n**THE WRENCH VS. THE WENCH**\n\nIt was billed as the Battle of the Sexes, and while there have been many male-versus-female curling games, none were as high profile as one that took place in 1986 between Marilyn Darte, at that time the reigning women's world champion, and Ed Werenich, the 1983 world champ and one of the top curlers of the day. Darte (now Bodogh) appeared on a sports talk show and, feeling(now confident, issued the challenge to Werenich, which he accepted.\n\nThe match was held during the world championships, which were being contested in Toronto. In the lead-up to the game, the two\u2014who never met a reporter they didn't like\u2014playfully tossed barbs back and forth. They appeared on national television and on the front page of national newspapers. A few notes about the infamous match:\n\n\u2022 The game drew the largest crowd of the week at the world championships with a sold-out audience in excess of 7,000.\n\n\u2022 Both teams came onto the ice by bursting through huge paper hearts\u2014purple for the men, red for the women. Boxer Shawn O'Sullivan, then at the height of his career\u2014led the way for the Werenich rink, while Bodogh's team came out turning cartwheels.\n\n\u2022 Werenich's teammates came out wearing firefighters' helmets with flashing lights and blaring sirens, while Werenich came through wearing a crown and cape. The cape was being carried by an extremely busty woman in a short skirt.\n\n\u2022 Werenich's usual third, Paul Savage, was replaced by Northern Ontario's Rick Lang for the game. During the fifth-end break, Savage led a parade of women, dressed in aprons and cooks' hats and banging pots and pans, around the ice surface.\n\n\u2022 At one point, a CCA official appeared and jokingly called Darte third Kathy McEdwards for a hog line violation. Instead of removing the rock, however, he picked up McEdwards and carried her off the sheet.\n\n\u2022 The contest was broadcast live on TSN and received a rating higher than any games from that week's world championship.\n\n\u2022 The men won the game 11-3, with the women only scoring in the last end.\n\n\u2022 A rematch was held in 1996, during the world championships, but it never grabbed the attention of the initial contest.\n**STICKING TO CURLING**\n\nCurling has a great record of being accessible to all, with regular championships for blind, wheelchair, and deaf players. But one of the greatest inventions for keeping people in the game has been known simply as the Stick.\n\nThe Stick is a pole with an attachment at the end that fits over the handle of the rock. It allows a player to deliver a stone without having to bend down in the hack to do so, allowing plenty of players with back problems to continue at the game.\n\n#  **The History of the Stick**\n\nSeveral people claim to be the original inventor of the Stick, but most lean towards Preston Featherstone of Hamilton, Ontario, as the originator. Featherstone started curling in 1960 and for many years played alongside his friend Wilber House. The two often played as many as 25 bonspiels each winter, developing a long-lasting friendship.\n\nIn 1992, at the age of 82, House developed arthritis in his back, which left him unable to curl, a situation that led him\u2014according to Featherstone\u2014to become irritable and depressed.\n\nIn desperation, Featherstone decided he needed to find a way to get his friend back curling, and he got his idea from one of House's other passions. When he wasn't curling, House was a noted shuffleboard player in Tampa, Florida, routinely reaching the finals of tournaments where five hundred experienced players entered. Borrowing on that idea and from a welding-rod holder he had invented for business many years prior, Featherstone developed a stick with an attachment at the end that fit over the rock handle with a hinge. House took to the stick, named the Featherstone CurlMaster, model Mark 1, and was soon back curling.\n\nRefinements have been made over the years, and other manufacturers have jumped into the game with their own models. The Stick even made an appearance at the Brier. In 2000, Northern Ontario alternate Paul Sauve played two shots in a game using his Stick. Shortly after that appearance, the device was banned in events leading to a national championship by the Canadian Curling Association. However, many jurisdictions around the world have separate Stick championships. More important, the invention by Featherstone has allowed many curlers with back and knee problems to continue playing.\n**NO RESPECT**\n\nCurlers have always had a hard time being treated seriously by mainstream media. Two examples:\n\n\u2022 It's not very often that the U.S. mainstream press covers curling, but a 1994 report in _USA Today_ on the Buffalo Bills did so\u2014in a backhanded manner. The story centred on how the Bills have become synonymous with losing in sport. It provided quotes from other areas of sports and business where the Bills\u2014who lost four consecutive Super Bowls\u2014were used as an analogy for losing. One was provided by Russ Howard when he won the 2001 Brier after losses in the previous two. \"I don't want to be compared to the Buffalo Bills,\" said Howard. The story then followed with this line: \"So it has come to this... The Bills are getting goofed on by curlers.\"\n\n\u2022 A newspaper ad in the _Toronto Sun_ for a pay-per-call sports handicapping service carried the following headline: \"You could earn big money in sports, with no noticeable athletic ability (just like pro curlers).\" The service later offered an apology and stopped the ad.\n**SLIPS OF THE TONGUE**\n\nPutting microphones on players during televised curling games goes back to the 1960s when it was done for the CBC Curling Classic. While it provides first-hand insight into the strategy of players, it also has all the inherent dangers of live audio. Here are a few of the more memorable microphone moments from curling:\n\nWinnipeg curler Orest Meleschuk was known for his foul language, and during coverage of a major cash bonspiel in Sudbury, Ontario, local viewers got a first-hand taste. At one point during the game, the big skip found himself in a tight situation with no apparent way out. He turned to his third, John Usackis\u2014and in the process, the television audience\u2014and said: \"What the fuck are we going to do here John, eh? What the fuck are we going to do? What the fuck are we going to do?\"\n\nIn the 1983 Brier, also in Sudbury, Ed Werenich and Paul Savage were discussing Werenich's final shot. Werenich said to Savage, in a comment that was picked up by the CBC microphones: \"I'll throw it narrow and let the boys sweep the piss out of it.\"\n\nA year later, in the final of the 1984 Brier, Werenich's Ontario team was facing Mike Riley of Manitoba. Savage was suffering some stomach problems, and during the fifth end, he raced to the washroom, forgetting completely that he was still wearing his microphone. Luckily the CBC was in a commercial break, but the staff in the production truck heard all the strange noises of Savage's visit to the washroom.\n**RECORD MAN**\n\nAs one of the most successful curlers in history, Russ Howard's name is understandably all over the Brier record book. Here are a few of his and his team's entries:\n\nMost wins*| 107  \n---|---  \nMost losses*| 56  \nMost games played*| 163  \nMost games as skip*| 163  \nMost blank ends in a game (1993)| 8  \nLowest combined score (1993)| 2-1  \nShortest game (1986)| 4 ends (Howard won 11-0)  \n _*individual records_\n**WHY HURRY?**\n\nCanadian, world, and Olympic champion Russ Howard is probably the best-known caller of sweeping instructions in the game. His famous call of \"Hurry hard,\" usually heard at a high decibel level, is as famous as any in the game. Here's how it came about:\n\nWhen Howard started skipping in the late 1970s, one of the most popular brooms was called the Rink Rat, a foam-synthetic model that caused a huge amount of noise, making it hard to hear when there were multiple games going on at the same time.\n\nOut of necessity, Howard came up with a phrase that would distinguish him from other skips who yelled \"Sweep,\" so his teammates could hear him above the din. He decided on \"Hurry hard,\" which stuck.\n\nNot everyone enjoyed hearing Howard yell\u2014which he did almost incessantly during major events\u2014and people told him in e-mails and face-to-face meetings. But most of them only had to listen for a few games. Longtime Howard second, Wayne Middaugh, got so used to listening to it during the five years he played for him, he had personalized licence plates made that read: \"HURREE.\"\n**CURLING NICKNAMES**\n\nCurlers have some of the most colourful nicknames in sport, a few of which can even be written in a family book. Here are the real names and nicknames of a number of Brier champions:\n\nTerry Braunstein\n\n**Curler** | **Nickname**  \n---|---  \nEd Werenich ('83, '90)| The Wrench  \nOrest Meleschuk ('72)| The Big O  \nPaul Savage ('83)| The Round Mound of Come Around  \nAl Hackner ('82, '85)| The Ice Man  \nKevin Martin ('91, '97)| K-Mart  \nEd Lukowich ('78, '86)| Cool Hand Luke  \nBarry Fry ('79)| The Snake  \nRod Hunter ('70, '71)| The Arrow  \nRon Manning ('67)| Moon  \nTerry Braunstein ('65)| Bronco  \nRay Turnbull ('65)| Moosey\n**PERFECT RECORD**\n\nGetting through the Brier with a perfect record is a nearly impossible feat. In fact, in almost 80 years only 13 rinks have managed perfect records.\n\nRandy Ferbey| 13-0| 2003  \n---|---|---  \nPat Ryan| 12-0| 1988  \nRon Northcott| 10-0| 1969  \nMatt Baldwin| 10-0| 1957  \nGarnet Campbell| 10-0| 1955  \nBilly Walsh| 10-0| 1952  \nDon Oyler| 10-0| 1951  \nKen Watson| 9-0| 1949  \nJimmy Welsh| 9-0| 1947  \nHoward Wood| 9-0| 1940  \nAb Gowanlock| 9-0| 1938  \nLeo Johnson| 7-0| 1934  \nGordon Hudson| 9-0| 1929\n**BABY BROTHER**\n\nWhile he might not have as much notoriety as his older brother Russ, Glenn Howard has enjoyed a great deal of success on the ice as well. A look at the career of Glenn Howard:\n\n\u2022 Glenn is six years younger than Russ.\n\n\u2022 Glenn has won three Canadian and world championships, one more than Russ.\n\n\u2022 While playing for his brother during the 1980s and early '90s, Glenn had a tremendous rivalry with Ed Werenich, with no love lost between the two. However, he later spent one year curling for Werenich after Russ moved to New Brunswick.\n\n\u2022 Howard made a guest appearance on the CBC comedy series _Little Mosque on the Prairie_. He played himself and was overlooked when the characters on the program were choosing sides for a big curling match. At first, the producers wanted to cast Kevin Martin in the spot, but the first assistant director, a former Canadian junior champion named Dave Manion, convinced them that Howard would be better.\n\n\u2022 His full-time job is running the Beer Store in Midland, Ontario.\n\n\u2022 In 2006-07, his team wore pink shirts and swept with pink-handled brooms as part of an awareness and fundraising effort for breast cancer.\n\n\u2022 Along with teammates Richard Hart, Brent Laing, and Craig Savill, he started a fantasy curling camp to allow curlers of all abilities to mix with and learn from the world champions.\n**PLAY THE GAME**\n\nRuss Howard has played the most Brier games in the history of the Canadian championship with 163. And second on the list? His younger brother, Glenn.\n\nHere is a ranking of the curlers who have played the most games up to 2007.\n\n**Curler** | **Briers** | **Games Played**  \n---|---|---  \nRuss Howard| 13| 163  \nGlenn Howard| 9 9| 115 115  \nPat Ryan| 9| 109  \nAl Hackner| 9| 106  \nRandy Ferbey| 8| 100  \nKevin Martin| 8| 100  \nRick Lang| 9| 99  \nDon Walchuk| 8| 97  \nPeter Gallant| 8| 89  \nEd Werenich| 7| 89  \nRobert Campbell| 9| 88  \nWayne Middaugh| 7| 88  \nDon Bartlett| 8| 85  \nPierre Charette| 9| 85  \nGrant Odishaw| 7| 81  \nMark O'Rourke| 9| 79  \nNeil Harrison| 7| 77  \nJeff Stoughton| 6| 74  \nBruce Lohnes| 6| 73  \nMark Butler| 7| 70  \nDon Westphal| 6| 68  \nMark Dacey| 5| 65  \nJohn Kawaja| 6| 65  \nScott Pfeifer| 5| 65\n**HEAD(SET) GAMES**\n\nThe 1989 Brier in Saskatoon saw one of the most unusual and infamous incidents in the history of the Canadian championship. Russ Howard, the Ontario skip and a notorious yeller when it came to shouting out sweeping instructions, began to lose his voice. Between the noise on the other sheets and the crowd, his sweepers were having trouble hearing his squeaky voice. To alleviate the problem, Howard elected to use voice-activated walkie-talkie headsets hoping he could communicate with front-end players Tim Belcourt and Kent Carstairs. Belcourt wore the second unit, and Carstairs picked up the sweeping instructions from him. The system worked and the Ontario team won its contest, but after the game, Howard was told by Canadian curling officials he wasn't allowed to use them. He asked what rule it violated, and when told there wasn't an infraction, he brought the headsets out for the next game.\n\nHere are a few more facts about the incident.\n\n\u2022 In the first end of the first game with the headsets, Glenn Howard was narrow with a shot, and Russ yelled quickly and with force, and for some reason, his full voice kicked in. Over the microphone, the call nearly blew off Tim Belcourt's ear.\n\n\u2022 Prior to the second game, Pat Ryan of Alberta came over to see what all the commotion was and asked Howard how the units worked. With Belcourt at the other end of the ice, Howard said softly into the headset,\"Hey Tim, how big is your thing?\" Belcourt immediately raised his hands over his head, holding them apart about three feet. Ryan laughed.\n\n\u2022 One argument the CCA officials gave to Howard as to why he shouldn't be allowed to use the walkie-talkies was that someone in the crowd could be relaying information to him.When that was relayed to the press, one asked smartly, \"And just what is someone in the stands going to tell Russ Howard?\"\n\n\u2022 After the next game, an RCMP officer faxed Howard and told him he'd lend him a wireless unit that wouldn't be seen by any CCA official.\n\n\u2022 Before every draw, Howard was handed several homemade remedies for his laryngitis by fans, and he was given throat lozenges by the basket full.\n\n\u2022 Howard ended up using the headsets for two games, after which his voice returned.\n\n **Curling Quote**\n\n\"[It's] one of the very few sports that combine the excitement of a heavy piece of granite sliding slowly across the ice with the excitement of chunky broom-wielding people in bowling attire sweeping furiously in the stone's path, like janitors on speed.\"\n\n\u2014 _Miami Herald_ columnist Dave Barry on curling after viewing it at the 2002 Olympics\n**GOING LOW**\n\nPrince Edward Island is Canada's smallest province, and when it comes to the Brier, it's also the smallest on the scoreboard. The record for the combined low score in a Brier game is three\u2014games that ended 2-1.\n\nThat's happened on three occasions, and all three times, it has involved teams from Prince Edward Island, all of whom came out on the wrong end of the score.\n\nIn 2000, Andrew Robinson lost to Manitoba's Jeff Stoughton, in 1993 Ontario's Russ Howard defeated Robert Campbell, and in 1990, Ted MacFadyen came up short against Jim Sullivan of New Brunswick. In the latter two games, the teams combined for eight blank ends, also a Brier record.\n**THE MAGICAL 8**\n\nThe eight-ender is the mark of perfection in curling\u2014every rock in the rings and counting. It's often compared to the hole-in-one in golf, but it's exceedingly more difficult because, in golf, your opponent doesn't try to keep you from scoring an ace. For an eight-ender, not only does one team have to make eight perfect shots, but the opposition has to miss as well.\n\nFor that reason, it's rare to see an eight-ender in competitive play. But it has happened. At the 2006 Players Championship, the finale of the World Curling Tour, Kelly Scott of Kelowna, British Columbia, led her team to a perfect eight over Edmonton's Cathy King. Here's how the last four rocks played out:\n\n1. Scott has six rocks in the rings, five counting. Four are in or touching the four-foot and another is on the eight-foot.The sixth rock is at the top of the rings, half in the twelve-foot. King has fifth shot fully in the twelve-foot at the ten o'clock position. With her first shot, King attempts to lightly tap back the shot rock at the top of the button but comes heavy, misses everything, and sails through the house.\n\n2. Scott plays a guard that stops at the top of the rings, half in the twelve-foot.\n\n3. King's only option is to try and redirect her shooter, playing a hit on her own stone. She hits her own rock too thick, spills across the rings, touching two Scott stones but then exiting the house, leaving Scott an open draw for eight.\n\n4. Scott's shot is slightly heavy but stops in the back of the house for eight points.\n**BIG ROCKS**\n\nThe town of Arborg, Manitoba, lays claim to having the world's largest curling rock. Located 100 kilometres north of Winnipeg, the town of 1,021 erected the stone in 2006 in hopes of using it as a drawing card for passersby. The stone weighs in at a tonne and a half, measures 4.2 metres across and 2.1 metres tall and is made of steel, foam, and fibreglass.\n\nThis oversized rock is just a little bigger than the previous record holder located in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Known as the Lakehead Rock, that stone, which measures in at six and a half feet high and almost six feet in diameter and is made of concrete, was built to celebrate the 1960 Brier held in Thunder Bay. It held the record for more than 40 years, and many residents weren't impressed with being overtaken by the Arborg stone. When asked about the new record holder, Alf Childs, the Thunder Bay stone's caretaker, told the Thunder Bay _Chronicle Journal_ : \"That's an affront to granite right there.\"\n**STONE CUTTER**\n\nThere are only two places in the world still making curling stones. One is Canada Curling Stone Company, located in London, Ontario. Over the years, it has refined the art of making stones and produces wonderful rocks that are used all over the world.\n\nHere is a brief, step-by-step plan of how a stone is made:\n\n1. Huge blocks of granite are located from a quarry in Wales. This quarry produces granite that has a very fine grain and has little or no quartz in it, the desired type for curling rocks. This granite has greater impact resistance than regular granite.\n\n2. The block is cut down into smaller slabs from which large plugs, just larger than a curling stone, are cut. These plugs are shipped to Canada Curling Stone.\n\n3. The first step for the plugs once they reach Canada is to have the centre hole cut through them. The hole is roughly half an inch in width.\n\n4. The sides of the plug are then rounded off so it more closely resembles the shape of the stone.\n\n5. Once the sides have been rounded, a small pocket on the bottom of the stone is cut out to allow for an insert to be put in place. The inserts often come from older rocks whose running surface has worn out. By cutting up these older stones of fine Scottish granite, inserts can be created. These inserts provide a better running surface for the stone and extend its life.\n\n6. Once the insert has been affixed, a cup is created in both the top and bottom of the stone to allow the small running edge to be the only part of the stone that touches the ice.\n\n7. The stone is then polished with diamond abrasive pads. The bottom is also run over sandpaper to give it more grit to allow it to grab the ice better.\n\n8. The striking band is put on next by blasting the stone under high pressure with glass beads.\n\n9. Finally a handle is attached to the stone, and it's ready for play.\n**OLYMPIC DOUBLE**\n\nIn 1924, curling made its debut at the Winter Olympics held in Chamonix, France. A few notes about that competition:\n\n\u2022 Four teams played in the competition: France, Great Britain, and two rinks from Sweden.\n\n\u2022 The games were 18 ends in length and played outdoors.\n\n\u2022 Britain, which was represented by a group of Scots, won its two games, defeating Sweden I 38-7 and knocking off France 46-4.\n\n\u2022 The two Swedish teams did not play each other and so there was a playoff for the silver medal between France and Sweden II, which the Swedes won. Remarkably, both Swedish teams were awarded silver medals while the French took the bronze.\n\n\u2022 In the playoff, Major D.G. Astley of Great Britain played for Sweden II. He was awarded a silver medal for leading that team to a win and also took home a gold medal as part of the British team, making him the only person in Olympic history ever to win two medals in the same event.<\n\n\u2022 For many years, the competition was viewed as merely a demonstration and not an official event. However, an investigation by _The Herald_ , a Glasgow newspaper, showed the 1924 curling competition was, at the time, seen as official. In 2006, the International< Olympic Committee upgraded the status of that curling playdown from demonstration to official.\n\n\u2022 Curling was held at the Olympics several times since the 1924 Games, but never as an official event. It was reinstated in 1998 in Nagano, Japan.\n**ROCK HARD SUCCESS**\n\nNewfoundland and Labrador has won just a single Brier title since joining the competition in 1951. That win came in 1976 when a team led by skip Jack MacDuff beat remarkable odds to capture the Canadian championship. For many years, the rinks from Newfoundland and Labrador were viewed as hapless pushovers, having compiled a win-loss record of 45-206 prior to '76. Here are some of the highlights of that historic victory.\n\n\u2022 The team's driver for the week was none other than Sam Richardson, of the famed Richardson family team that won four Briers. He not only drove the team but guided them through the ups and downs of the week, serving more as a coach than chauffeur.\n\n\u2022 Curling fans in Newfoundland and Labrador became almost rabid as the team kept winning games. The MacDuff team received so many telegrams that the bellboys were carrying them to their room by the armload, and the telegrams managed to cover every square inch of wall space in one of the team's hotel rooms.\n\n\u2022 Newfoundland Premier Frank Moores called the team midweek and said down the line, \"A lot of people here don't know a thing about curling, but they're going crazy anyway.\"\n\n\u2022 The last game of the round robin was against Ontario, and a win would give Newfoundland the Brier. In the 10th end of a 12-end game, Ontario gave up a steal of 3 to give MacDuff a 9-3 lead. Ontario skip Joe Gurowka went to concede the game and the title to the Newfoundlanders, but Doug Maxwell of the CBC came out and said, \"You have to keep playing, this game is on television and we've got another hour to go.\"\n\n\u2022 Prior to skipping his own team, MacDuff played three years for Bob Cole, best known as the longtime hockey broadcaster for CBC.\n\n\u2022 Following the win, MacDuff had his curling shoes bronzed and put on display at the St. John's Curling Club.\n\n\u2022 The team didn't fare so well at that year's world championship, compiling a record of 2-9, the worst by a Canadian rink.\n\n\u2022 So well known was Jack MacDuff 's win, he received a congratulatory card from Western Canada addressed simply to \"Jack MacDuff, Newfoundland.\"\n\n\u2022 The team's third, Toby McDonald, served as coach for Brad Gushue's team, which won the gold medal at the 2006 Olympics.\n**HAMMER TIME**\n\nLast rock is supposed to be a significant advantage to top teams, but that's not always the case. In 1986, Alberta's Ed Lukowich recorded an 11-0 win over Newfoundland's Fred Durant, and Lukowich stole all 11 points.\n**GOING LONG**\n\nIf a curling game goes long, expect Northern Ontario to come out on top. The record for the longest game in Brier history is 15 ends, which has happened twice. In 1927, the Brier's first year, all games were 14 ends. Twice, Northern Ontario had to go to an extra end to determine a winner. The first came against Toronto while the second was in a match against Quebec. Northern Ontario won both times by a score of 11-10.\n**THE REAL WORLD**\n\nUnlike most other top athletes, top curlers usually hold down full-time jobs and try to combine curling and work. Some players have rather unusual vocations. Here's a look at some notable curlers and their full-time occupations:\n\nColleen Jones| weather\/sports presenter, CBC  \n---|---  \nEd Werenich| firefighter  \nWayne Middaugh| golf professional  \nMarkku Uusipaavalniemi| Member of Parliament, Finland  \nGlenn Howard| beer store manager  \nPeter Corner Vic Peters| police officer golf course superintendent  \nPete Fenson| pizza parlour owner  \nHammy Macmillan| hotel manager\n**WORLD SERIES CURLER**\n\nNew Zealand curler Hans Frauenlob is the only player to compete in the World Curling Championships and have two Major League Baseball World Series rings.\n\nHuh, you say?\n\nFrauenlob, a competitive curler originally a Torontonian, worked for the Toronto Blue Jays in their IT department during the club's 1992 and 1993 World Series victories. As was every other Blue Jay employee, he was presented with a World Series ring after each of the club's wins.\n\nHe later moved to New Zealand where he continued his curling career, eventually making it all the way to the world championship.\n**MARKKU THE MAGNIFICENT**\n\nMarkku Uusipaavalniemi is best known for winning a silver medal for Finland at the 2006 Olympics. But he has been around the game for a long time and worked harder than most to reach world-class status. Some things you might not know about Uusipaavalniemi:\n\n\u2022 In 2007 he was elected to Finland's Parliament.\n\n\u2022 U.S. curler Pete Fenson nicknamed him M-15 because he was unable to pronounce his last name. He has also been called Uusialphabet.\n\n\u2022 As a student, he once had the highest mathematics score in a nationwide test and has reportedly solved a Rubik's Cube in 25 seconds.\n\n\u2022 Following his silver medal at the Olympics, more than 1,000 people turned up for weekly clinics, encouraged by his team's performance. He was fielding 150 e-mails a day and appeared on television weekly.\n\n\u2022 Uusipaavalniemi played in the 2002 Olympics, finishing fifth. He won the European championships in 2000 and has finished third at the world championships on two different occasions.\n\n\u2022 The gold medal game in 2006 between Finland and Canada drew a television audience of 5 million in Finland, where curling is not much more than a fringe sport.\n\n\u2022 Uusipaavalniemi built his own curling club in his hometown of Hyvinkaa.\n**SLIDING ALONG**\n\nMany curlers may not realize the impact Arnold Asham has had on their games, but the Winnipeg entrepreneur is one of the largest suppliers of curling equipment in the game. Whether it be a slider, a broom, or some clothing, Asham Curling Supplies has touched curlers around the world. A few notes on the man behind the company:\n\n\u2022 Asham is a M\u00e9tis who grew up in Kinosota, Manitoba, and started curling at age 13.\n\n\u2022 He started working for the Manitoba Department of Mines and Resources while curling competitively and stumbled upon a material that made for a great slider. He started selling his now famous red-brick sliders out of his basement but when demand took off, he left his government job and went into the curling shoe business full time.\n\n\u2022 Asham didn't come up with the original idea for the red-brick slider. A fellow club curler, who worked in the printing business and used this hard plastic material in his work, was the first to put the material on his curling shoe. Asham was attracted by the noise it made and he revolutionized the manner in which it was put on the shoe.\n\n\u2022 He sold more than $1 million worth of red-brick sliders.\n\n\u2022 He was one of the founders of the World Curling Tour. His company serves as title sponsor of the circuit.\n\n\u2022 He founded a square-dance group called the Asham Stompers, which competed in festivals wearing, of course, Asham curling shoes (without the slider).\n\n\u2022 In addition to five kinds of curling shoes, Asham also sells curling brooms, bags, slip-on grippers, gloves, slip-on sliders, and curling apparel.\n**ALL-IMPORTANT CLUB**\n\nThe Duddingston Curling Society lays claim to being \"the most important curling club in the world.\" Formed in 1795, the club was the haunt of choice for curlers in Edinburgh, who used the Duddingston loch as their venue. The most distinguished curlers from all over Scotland joined the Duddingston with the fee being three guineas. There were also medals struck, which members wore to \"distinguish the members from other gentlemen.\" There were also rules for the new group, which included a fine for talking politics.\n\nPerhaps the society's main contribution to the game was the establishment of curling's first set of rules. The document, which still exists, is dated January 6, 1804. Many of the rules in that code still exist in some part today, such as No. 10: \"A doubtful shot is to be measured by some neutral person whose determination shall be final.\"\n**WHAT'S IN A NAME?**\n\nEver wonder how the hog line got its name? According to Scottish curling history, it's a farming term. A hog, in livestock circles, was a name given to a weak member of a litter, a runt, so to speak, specifically with sheep. This hog was more than likely to die before the end of its first year, either at the jaws of a predator or from the farmer who would cull his flock. Similarly, a hogged rock is one that falls short of the line, not making it into play.\n**CHARACTER GUY**\n\nUp until the mid-1950s, curling had been a staid and reserved sport, even at the Canadian championship level. It wasn't considered proper for players to show a lot of emotion or to showboat in any way. But that changed with the arrival of Edmonton's Matt Baldwin. Not only was he a breath of fresh air for fans, he was also a remarkably talented player. Some facts about the three-time Brier winner:\n\n\u2022 The first indication that Baldwin was going to buck tradition came in the fi fth round of the 1954 Brier in Edmonton. After making his last shot to beat Northern Ontario 6-5 in a close match, Baldwin's third, Glenn Gray, jumped into the air and let out a scream. Baldwin raised a clenched fist and shook it as he came down the ice to celebrate with his team. That night at a banquet, one of the Brier trustees (the organizers of the event) told Baldwin his actions that day weren't acceptable and asked the Alberta skip to keep his emotions in check for the rest of the event.\n\n\u2022 Baldwin was one of the first curlers able to slide the entire length of the ice. In the '54 Brier, every time he stepped into the hack, the crowd would yell, \"Slide, slide.\"\n\n\u2022 At a major event at Maple Leaf Gardens in Toronto, Baldwin delighted the fans by sliding the length of the ice with the rock in front of him. Halfway down the sheet, he removed his hand from the stone, nonchalantly rubbed his nose and then replaced his hand on the rock, which was sliding along in front of him, still in position. He stopped the rock perfectly on the button.\n\nMatt Baldwin and Garnet Campbell\n\n\u2022 Baldwin became known as a man who never missed a party. After winning the '54 Brier, he went to a party at the host hotel and stayed late. \"I just got plastered,\" he stated of the evening.\n\n\u2022 Gunning for his third Brier win in 1957 in Victoria, Baldwin told the media about the host hotel, the Empress, \"All those ladies having tea are making so much noise we can't get our rest.\"\n\n\u2022 On the final day of the '57 Brier, Baldwin was suffering so badly from the flu, he brought a chair out onto the backboards and sat in it when his team wasn't shooting\n\n\u2022 At the 1971 Brier in Quebec City, a massive blizzard caused a power failure at the arena in the middle of a draw, sending the event into 15 minutes of darkness. When the power came back on the Baldwin team was nowhere to be seen, but on their sheet, all eight rocks were sitting in the four-foot. Baldwin and his team emerged from the bar to where they'd retreated to gales of laughter from the fans.The incident became known as the Baldwin Blackout.\n\n\u2022 Baldwin was known as one of the single best shooters in the game. For a number of years, an Edmonton television station conducted a singles competition between some of the top players in the game, Ernie Richardson and Garnett Campbell among them. Baldwin won it six consecutive years, and the station finally had to remove him from the event.\n**PRESERVED IN GRANITE**\n\nThe final game of the 1956 Brier is one of the most memorable in the event's history. It required a playoff game (prior to there being regular playoffs) because Ontario and Manitoba tied with identical 8-2 marks. In an extra end of the extra game, Ontario's Alf Phillips appeared to have the match won with a stone 90 percent buried on the button. Billy Walsh of Winnipeg, however, played a perfect come-around tap to score one and win the Brier. So remarkable was the final shot that a fan jumped over the boards, grabbed the winning stone, and disappeared into the crowd. A few weeks later, he presented Walsh with the winning stone mounted on a special plaque to commemorate the fantastic finish.\n**SUBSTITUTE CHAMPIONS**\n\nWhen the first Brier was held in Toronto in 1927, it was organized late in the curling year, and there was a scramble to assemble the representative teams.\n\nTwo members of Ontario's team, winners of the Silver Tankard, had to be called back from Florida, where they'd escaped to pass the winter. The team's second, Mel Hunt (father of the late Toronto sportswriter Jim Hunt), and Harry Watson (grandfather of hockey broadcaster Harry Neale) returned with just a few days to spare.\n\nThe Nova Scotia entry had its own difficulties.When locals received the invitation to come to Toronto for the first championship, they originally decided to send Murray Macniell's provincial championship rink. But the only one able to make the trip was the skip, so he selected three other skips to join him.The first time the team played together as a team was the opening draw of the Brier. It obviously worked, as the Halifax four became the first Canadian champions.\n**VISIBLE MINORITY**\n\nOnly one non-white has won the Canadian men's curling championship. Rudy Ramcharan, who played second for Kevin Martin's winning squad in 1997, is of Guyanese background. He disappeared from curling circles a few years later after trying to run a cash event, officially the World Open but known to many as the Rudy Spiel, with a purse of $500,000. However he was never able to secure the sponsorship, and a number of teams competed and were never fully compensated. Ramcharan became persona non grata among many of the top curlers.\n\n**Curling Quote**\n\n\"There's not too many guys who can really be entrusted with (the ice). Besides, you'd have to be nuts to do it anyway. The hours, the work, the stress, the pressure of it all and I don't even get to curl on it. I'm the only one held responsible. It doesn't matter if the rocks are no good, or if the weather is bad, in the end, it all reflects on me. So come on curling gods, keep taking care of me.\"\n\n\u2014Icemaker Dave Merklinger, who made the ice for the 2007 Tim Hortons Brier in Hamilton, as told to the _Hamilton Spectator_\n**CLOSE TO PERFECTION**\n\nThere has never been an eight-ender in Brier history, but there have been two occasions when it seemed almost certain the perfect end would be recorded.\n\n\u2022 In 1947 Jimmy Welsh of Manitoba played Prince Edward Island's Frank Acorn. In the eighth end, Acorn was looking at seven Manitoba counters, and his final rock was light, stopping just into the twelve-foot. Welsh needed to be better than that Prince Edward Island rock to score the magical eight, but he was heavy and ended up scoring seven.\n\n\u2022 In the 1936 Brier, Ken Watson's team was rolling to win after win, and in its seventh match it faced a winless Prince Edward Island squad. Prior to the game, Watson gave lead Charlie Kerr a cigar, which Kerr smoked as the game progressed. In the first end, with Watson sitting five, third Grant Watson threw a draw that appeared to be perfect but just a little light. Kerr and second Marvin McIntyre put the brooms to it and just as it approached the rings, an ash from the cigar dropped in front of the stone, and it ground to an immediate halt, inches from the target. When the next two Manitoba stones found the house, the team had a seven-ender that could have been eight were it not for the cigar ash.\n**A HEART OF PURPLE**\n\nThe Purple Heart is a highly sought-after crest for male curlers in Canada. It signifies participation in the Brier and a provincial champion. Curlers who have one can thank a team from Ontario for that honour.\n\nFor the first six years of the Canadian championship, Purple Heart crests were not awarded. Each curler did receive a small pin.\n\nAt the seventh championship, Gordon Campbell and his rink from the Hamilton Thistle Curling Club arrived at the championship with lavish crests presented to them by the Ontario Curling Association proclaiming them to be Ontario champions. Senator Jack Haig of Winnipeg, who was one of the Brier trustees (essentially the organizers) noticed the crests and asked Campbell about them. \"I think we should do something like that,\" he said.\n\nThe next year, every participant received the famous heart-shaped crest. However the original ones were not purple, but red. The colour changed in 1940 and has remained purple ever since.\n**TANKARD TIME**\n\nThe trophy presented to the winner of the Brier is known as the Macdonald Brier Tankard and has a long history, somewhat longer than the championship itself. It was not even created for the Brier but for the Manitoba Bonspiel where it was first awarded to the winner in 1925. Presented by Macdonald Tobacco, the cup itself was hand-tooled in Great Britain.\n\nIn 1927, however, Macdonald Tobacco, the sponsor of the Brier, elected to use the trophy for the new national championship. It remained the official trophy until 1979, when the tobacco company ended its sponsorship.\n\nFor the first 27 years of the Brier, the names of the four winners were engraved into a heart-shaped crest and affixed to a base. However, after that period, there was no room left, and the players' names were put onto a single plaque on the back of the trophy.\n\nWhen Labatt took over sponsorship in 1980, it brought in its own trophy, which was presented until 2000. At that time, Nokia assumed title sponsorship, and in consultation with the Canadian Curling Association, had the original Macdonald Tankard reinstated. It was upgraded to the tune of $10,000 and, with the addition of a series of new base levels, every winning team from 1927 onward had their names engraved onto a heart-shaped crest.\n\n**Curling Quote**\n\n\"A match for money even though the sum be devoted to charity, would drag down curling to the level of baseball.\"\n\n\u2014A director of the Grand National Curling Club (forerunner of the United States Curling Association) in response to an 1870 challenge from Scottish curler Sir William Elliot, who said he'd play any North American team for \u00a3500 sterling\n**SPONSORS**\n\nCurling has had a number of interesting sponsors over the years, and in comparison to many other sports, the sponsors have stayed for extended periods of time. Here's a list of some of the leading sponsors of major events, and the length of their support:\n\n**Canadian Men's**  \n---  \nMacdonald Tobacco| 50 years  \nLabatt| 20 years  \nNokia| 4 years  \nTim Hortons| 4 years*  \n **World Championship**  \nScotch Whiskey Company| 9 years  \nAir Canada| 18 years  \nSafeway| 2 years  \nFord| 14 years*  \nNo sponsor| 5 years  \n **Canadian Women's**  \nDominion Grocery| 7 years  \nMacdonald Tobacco| 8 years  \nScott Paper (later Kruger)| 27 years*  \nNo sponsor| 6 years  \n*on going| \n**BATTLE OF THE SEXES**\n\nAs long as male and female curlers have been throwing rocks, a war has been waged as to which sex is the better at curling. Over the years, there have been a number of highly publicized battles of the sexes. Here are a few notables:\n\n\u2022 In November 1972,Vera Pezer and her team of Canadian champions challenged reigning men's Canadian and world champion Orest Meleschuk to a game, one that eventually found its way onto the CBC. Pezer ended up winning the game 4-3 when Meleschuk missed his last shot of the game. The announcers, Don Chevrier and Don Duguid, summed up Meleschuk's sentiments:\n\n _Chevrier_ : \"I'm not sure Meleschuck can really believe it.\"\n\n_Duguid_ : \"He'll believe it tomorrow morning, Don.\"\n\n\u2022 In October 2005, multiple-Brier winner Randy Ferbey and his team took on Jennifer Jones, the reigning Canadian women's champion, in a skins-format gender battle. The game was broadcast across Canada on Sportsnet, and what viewers saw was a Ferbey domination. He won seven of the eight available skins.\n**SCIENCE OF CURLING**\n\nWhy a curling rock actually curls has been a mystery to many curlers, but the CBC radio program _Quirks and Quarks_ tried to de-mystify it during a 1980 broadcast. Here, according to Dr. Mark Shegelski, are the reasons a 40-pound piece of granite curls.\n\nWhen a rock is turning as it travels down the ice, one side is turning toward the direction the rock is travelling and the other away from it.\n\nThe speed of the two edges relative to the ice is different due to friction. When a rock is first thrown, the amount of friction is about the same. But as the rock slows, the edge that is turning back toward the curler (the right side on an in-turn) is turning more slowly because it is turning in the opposite direction to which the rock is travelling.\n\nBecause this side is turning slower, friction has a greater effect upon it. That causes the stone to deflect to one side (in the case of the in-turn, to the right).\n\nThe sharpest move a rock makes is often right at the end as it stops, because one side of the rock stops first while the other side continues to rotate.\n\nAnd now you know!\n**REGAL CURLING**\n\nFrederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, first Earl of Dufferin, first Marquess of Dufferin and Ava\u2014the name may not mean much to curlers, but this gentleman served as Governor General of Canada from 1872 to 1878 and had a profound effect upon the sport of curling.\n\nA devoted enthusiast of the roaring game, in 1873, at his own expense, he added a curling rink to Rideau Hall, the Governor General's official residence. It exists to this day, along with the Governor General's Club, an exclusive and honorary club whose membership is made up of those who have given a great deal to the sport of curling.\n\nAnd he presented a trophy for annual competition, which came to be known simply as \"the Governor General's.\" It was awarded to the winners of the Ontario double-rink competition, and for many years was emblematic of the provincial championship. The competition ceased being held in 1996.\n**WOMEN'S DATES**\n\nA few notable dates in women's curling:\n\n\u2022 The first women's curling club in Canada was established in 1894 in Montreal. Prior to that, women were discouraged from coming to curling competitions due to liquor being present.\n\n\u2022 The Ladies Curling Association of the Canadian Branch of the Royal Caledonian Curling Club, which became the governing body for women's curling, was established in 1904. It looked after the rules> and competitions for the women's game in the Quebec and Ontario regions, although there were few formal events held.\n\n\u2022 The Canadian Ladies Curling Association was formed in 1960 (taking over authority from the above-mentioned body), and a year later, the first Canadian women's curling championship was held. Prior to the event, Dominion Stores, a nationwide chain of grocery stores, approached the fledgling association and asked if it could be the title sponsor, one of the few times a sponsor has come to the event and solicited involvement and not the other way around.\n\n\u2022 The United States Women's Curling Association has a longer history, having formed in 1947. The first national women's championship was held in 1949, although it wasn't until 1977 that it was formally recognized as the national championship. Prior to that, it was run as a bonspiel.\n\n\u2022 The first women's world championship was held in 1979 in Perth, Scotland, sponsored by the Royal Bank of Scotland.\n**JUNIOR-SENIOR**\n\nOnly eight male curlers have won both the Canadian Junior and the Canadian Men's championship. Here is the list, noting the first time they won each event:\n\n**Name** | **Junior** | **Men's**  \n---|---|---  \nEd Lukowich| 1962| 1978  \nNeil Houston| 1975| 1986  \nKevin Martin| 1985| 1991  \nDan Petryk| 1985| 1991  \nJon Mead| 1986| 1999  \nScott Pfeifer| 1994| 2001  \nCraig Savill| 1988| 2007  \nBrent Laing| 1988| 2007\n\n**BAD ICE**\n\nIcemaking has become a combination of art and science, and it's not often these days that curlers at major championships have to suffer with poor conditions. That hasn't always been the case, however. Following are some recent examples of horrible ice at significant events.\n\n#  **1970 Brier**\n\nThe ice at this championship was so heavy it removed almost all shotmaking abilities. Instead, players just heaved the rocks down the ice as hard as they could and hoped they'd make the rings. In one memorable game, British Columbia's Lyle Dagg came short of the rings with his last rock to lose to Ontario's Paul Savage. Dagg was playing a hit.\n\n#  **1992 Olympics**\n\nCurling was a demonstration sport at the '92 Games. The competition was held in the ice rink of Pralognan-la-Vanoise, a venue about 50 kilometres from the host city, Albertville. Right from the start, the refrigeration unit didn't work properly, and only one of the four sheets in the facility froze properly. The two middle sheets were unplayable and were covered with carpet, so the entire competition was reduced to two sheets. One was extremely frosty and the other always had a small film of water on it. The icemakers called in Canadian skip Kevin Martin, who had icemaking experience, to try to help, but when the opposing teams learned he was involved, they protested, and Martin was forbidden from helping. At the end of the week, Martin had the highest percentage of any curler at a ridiculously low 63, the lowest winning mark of any international championship on record.\n\n#  **1981 World Curling Championships**\n\nIn the final game between the United States and Switzerland, the ice plant at Thompson arena failed in the late ends, and the ice began to melt slowly. By the time the teams played the final end, a small layer of water covered the surface, making it almost impossible to get rocks in play. The U.S. team hogged its first four shots, and Switzerland went on to win the title by a score of 2-1.\n\n#  **2001 Brier**\n\nWhen players complained that the ice conditions were too straight, preventing any aggressive play, the Canadian Curling Association asked renowned icemaker Shorty Jenkins to come in and work his magic. Despite his reputation for making superb ice, he had never worked on the Brier ice before. However, with limited time and resources, Jenkins overdid it, and put too much curl onto the sheets, making it nearly impossible to play. Following two draws, the CCA returned to its existing icemaker and flooded the surface to start over.\n\n#  **2005 Women's World Championship**\n\nThe event was held at the Lagoon Leisure Centre in Paisley, Scotland, and icemakers had their work cut out for them at this global tilt thanks to a number of factors. First, the ice rink was located next to a swimming pool, and humidity\u2014curling ice's worst enemy\u2014was a constant factor. Also, because organizers refused to pay for a deionizer for the water that was used to pebble the ice, the first few draws had horrid conditions. Finally, the arena floor was concave, so the outside sheets were thicker ice than the inside ones, meaning significant differences in conditions between each sheet. Conditions were so bad, the fourth draw was actually cancelled. The event was also marred by officials who walked out after they learned they weren't going to be paid, and by low attendance\u2014often times there were more people on the ice than in the stands.\n**ORIGINAL OLSON**\n\n**A** lot of curlers have stepped on the name Olson over the years, and that's just fine with the family. Olson, you see, is synonymous with hacks, and for many years, the company that bears the name of the inventor made a majority of the toeholds in use across the world.\n\nElias Bjarni \"Ole\" Olson was the inventor of the rubber hack. Patented in 1939, it was the standard for almost 50 years. (Some are still in use today, although a newer model\u2014the Marco hack\u2014has taken over.)\n\nOlson came up with his idea while playing in a bonspiel in Saskatoon. During a crucial time in the game, Olson went to play a shot, and his foot slipped, causing him to miss. At that time, hacks were merely holes chipped out of the ice. On his way home from that bonspiel, he stopped at a tire company and purchased some raw rubber with which he began to experiment, moulding it into different shapes before arriving at the final product. So successful was his invention that he was swamped by orders from curling clubs around the world.\n\nOlson was also the first person to use paint on curling ice to distinguish the house, that coming in 1926, and he also invented a curling rink ice shaver as an inexpensive alternative to the Zamboni. Among his other inventions are a pebbling can and a rock measure.\n\nOlson passed away in 1964 and was posthumously inducted into the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame in 2000.\n**HISTORY ON DISPLAY**\n\nDon and Elva Turner enjoyed collecting all things curling. In fact, they liked it so much they turned their basement into a museum to house all their wares. The artifacts the couple assembled are thought to be the largest collection of curling memorabilia in the world.\n\nThe collection began in 1974 when Elva curled in the Canadian Seniors in Halifax and returned home to Weyburn, Saskatchewan, with a small collection of pins and some curling photos. From there, the collecting became voracious and soon the couple's basement was turned into a museum. School groups and avid curlers used to come by to see the displays.\n\nThat was great for a while, but eventually the collection outgrew their home. That's when their home city of Weyburn stepped up and allowed them to create the Turner Curling Museum in a 2,600-square-foot building attached to the city's recreation centre. The operation is the world's first curling museum.\n\nInside, visitors see rarities such as a set of circular curling irons with iron handles, used in the late 1800s in the Ottawa Valley. There is also an early rock sharpener used by the Queen City Curling Stone Co. of Regina in the 1930s. A prized possession is a pair of rocks awarded as a prize in the 1927 Brier, the first Canadian championship.\n\nBut undoubtedly the most impressive display is the massive collection of pins, collected through years and years of attending major curling events, especially the world championship. It's estimated there are 18,000 curling pins, and no one is quite sure if that is the largest collection in the world, but it is certainly impressive.\n\nDon Turner passed away in 2006, and Elva maintains the museum.\n**CURLING IN THE BIBLE?**\n\nAt the opening banquet for the 1966 Brier in Halifax, the speaker, Dr. J.B. Hardie, a professor at Pine Hill Divinity College, light-heartedly suggested that curling must have been around for a lot longer than originally thought. To back up this point, he gave a number of examples of curling being mentioned in the Bible. First he said that the purest of curlers must be the leads: \"He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone\" (John 8:7).\n\nThen he said there were a great many talented curlers back in the Holy Land: \"Among all this people, there were seven hundred chosen men left-handed; every one could sling stones at an hair breadth, and not miss\" (Judges 20:16).\n\nFinally, he argued, there's nothing like the Canadian men's championship: \"He that is best among them, is as a brier\" (Micah 7:4).\n**LATE NIGHT CURLING**\n\nCurling made it to late-night television in 2002 during its play at the Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah. That's when the titans of American talks shows\u2014Jay Leno and David Letterman\u2014made light of the cult hit. Leno had a joke about it during his opening monologue on February 19, 2002, saying: \"Did you see the curling today? Pretty exciting. The gold medal ended up going to a Brazilian cleaning team.\"\n\nLetterman used curling as a theme for one of his famous Top 10 lists. It was titled: \"10 Ways to Make Curling More Exciting.\"\n\n10. How about calling it anything but curling?\n\n9. Instead of weird lookin' Norwegian dudes in sweaters\u2014babes in lingerie.\n\n8. Only allow French judges.\n\n7. Sweep the stone toward the hog line and then...okay, I don't know crap about curling.\n\n6. Is it too much to ask for one curler to bite another curler?\n\n5. Throw in one of them miniature-golf windmills.\n\n4. Instead of a granite stone, use the frozen head of Walt Disney.\n\n3. 40% of final score comes from the swimsuit competition.\n\n2. You don't think curling is exciting? What are you, insane?\n\n1. First place gets gold medal, the rest are sent to Camp X-Ray.\n**CURLING ART**\n\nThere are a number of remarkable curling paintings around the world, but few that match the impressiveness of Charles Lees' work of the Grand Match that took place January 25, 1848. Titled \"The Grand Match at Linlithgow Loch,\" it shows what appears to be a wild game of curling with men in top hats and full dress. According to historian Bob Cowan, the curling was between 35 teams from the north and 35 from the south. Reportedly, 6,000 people were present. The painting of this event showed only a small number of these folks, and many notables of Scottish curling are represented. In fact, Cowan stated, there is evidence to suggest that Lees travelled to the homes of curlers to sketch them. The painting was completed in 1849, and the Royal Caledonian Curling Club purchased it in 1898. For many years, it hung in the curling club at Perth. In 2006, Sotheby's appraised the work at \u00a3500,000. The work now hangs in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery in Edinburgh.\n**TV PAY DAY**\n\nEd Werenic and Russ Howard\n\nThe TSN Skins Game is an innovative, made-for-television event that was developed at a time when curling was suffering from plenty of low-scoring, defensive play that left audiences snoring. It not only became one of the most popular curling events for viewers, but also one of the most lucrative for curlers. A few notes about the skins:\n\n\u2022 The idea for the format was developed by Jim Thompson, then vice-president of TSN, and entrepreneur Doug Maxwell. They decided to break all the rules in building a new event that would sell to television audiences.\n\n\u2022 The event has been held in all ten provinces as well as the Yukon.\n\n\u2022 McCain Foods sponsored the tournament from 1989 to 2004, then it went dormant until 2007, when it was revived and held at Ontario's Casino Rama.\n\n\u2022 The highest payout for a single skins game came in 2004 when Kevin Martin earned $100,500.\n\n\u2022 Wayne Middaugh has been a member of seven winning teams and has earned a total of $365,750 in his skins game appearances.\n\n\u2022 A women's version of the skins game was held for eight years but dropped in 2003.\n**CURLER STATS**\n\nWho are curlers? If they live in Canada, there's a pretty good idea of their profile, demographically speaking, thanks to the Print Measurement Bureau, a research organization aimed at the print media.\n\nHere's who the Canadian Curler is as of 2006:\n\n\u2022 one of 754,000 Canadians\n\n\u2022 55 per cent are male\n\n\u2022 between the ages of 35 and 49\n\n\u2022 lives in a community between 500,000 and one million residents\n\n\u2022 lives in a rural prairie location\n\n\u2022 20 per cent have a university degree\n\n\u2022 had an annual household income between $75,000 and $99,000\n\n\u2022 49 per cent engage in volunteer activities\n\n\u2022 a majority also golfed or fished\n**CURLING IN TELEVISION COMMERCIALS**\n\nCurling has appeared numerous times in commercials, being used to sell everything from beer to cellphones. Here are some of the more memorable commercials.\n\n#  **Advertiser: Cialis (a drug for erectile dysfunction)**\n\nA man is shown delivering a stone, and in doing so falls and appears to be injured. His wife comes to comfort him, and he announces that he'd better quit because of the injury. The next scene shows the couple leaving the club for their car, and the woman confronts her husband about his \"injury,\" which appears to have suddenly healed. A large Cialis logo then appears.\n\n#  **Advertiser: Labatt Beer**\n\nA snowy street scene is the opening shot of this commercial, with a hot dog cart as the central feature. The operator of the cart is putting it into place for the day and drops a bag of buns. When he bends down to pick them up, he lets go of the cart, which starts to slide down the street, turning like a curling rock. Suddenly, people appear from everywhere, from their porches, from shovelling their driveways, from taxis, all with brooms, and begin sweeping the hot dog cart as if it's the shot to win the Brier. The vendor is barking out orders like a skip, and after encouraging the group to sweep, suddenly bellows at them to stop. The cart slowly stops sliding just before hitting a postal truck, and a close-up shows the mustard container rubbing part of the truck, wobbling, but not falling over. As the cart comes to a stop, there is a spontaneous cheer from the group.\n\n#  **Advertiser: Scotties tissues**\n\nA woman is shopping and places a box of Scotties tissues in her cart. As she walks forward with her cart, two women appear, one with a corn broom, the other with a push broom. They sweep the cart toward the cash register, stopping once, then restarting and concluding when the cart reaches its destination. They look at each other and nod in satisfaction. A voiceover states: \"Scotties, proud sponsor of women's curling for over 25 years.\"\n\n#  **Advertiser: Office Depot**\n\nAn advertisement that aired in the United States prior to the 2002 Olympics showed a man in what appears to be a lounge, watching television. A close-up of a rock being swept appears on the screen, and the obviously confused man says: \"What is that?\" The screen then shows the words \"But, if life was like Office Depot...\" The same scene is repeated, only this time, U.S. curler Don Barcome responds to the man's question by placing a curling rock on the table in front of him and saying: \"Curling, an ancient Scottish ice sport played with a 42-pound stone.\" The scene then cuts to an Office Depot store, where an announcer says: \"If you want expert answers whenever you need them, come to Office Depot.\" At the end of the commercial, a tag points out that the retailer is a sponsor of the U.S. Olympic team.\n**ROCK BOTTOM**\n\nThere are curling rocks in unusual places but perhaps none stranger than the several crates of stones that rest at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, somewhere off the coast of Newfoundland. How did they end up there? According to Doug Maxwell in _Canada Curls_ , in the early 1800s there was a challenge issued by a group of Scottish soldiers stationed at Long-Sault to a group of Scottish ex-pats living in Lachute, Quebec. The difficulty was that there were not enough curling rocks to hold such a match and so an order was put in to the homeland to ship 16 to Quebec. Unfortunately, the ship carrying the rocks sank off the Grand Banks, dropping the bits of Ailsa Craig granite to the bottom of the ocean.\n**DEADLY BUSINESS**\n\nCurling has played a small role in two tragic and notable events. The first was on April 30, 1912, 20 days after the sinking of the Titanic. On April 17, the Mackay-Bennett set sail from Halifax with the grim job of recovering bodies from the sinking of the ocean liner. Over the course of the next few days, men on the ship pulled in 306 bodies and after sailing home, delivered them to the Mayflower Curling Club, which served as the morgue. While the ship was at sea, coffins had been piled high at the club awaiting the grim arrival.\n\nThe second event was on December 21, 1988, when Pan Am Flight 103 was destroyed by a bomb over Lockerbie, Scotland. Many parts of the plane fell on the town, and the first medical officer on the scene was Dr. Graeme Adam. Just a few weeks earlier, Adam had won the Scottish men's curling championship and was soon to leave for the world championships in Milwaukee,Wisconsin. But his practice time was cut short for two reasons. First, he was busy dealing with the accident, and second, as in Halifax, the local curling club was transformed into a morgue to house the bodies of those killed in the crash. The curling ice was understandably not available for curling.\n\nAdam went on to finish with a 5-4 record at the world final.\n**PURPLE RAGE**\n\nCurling has a great deal of tradition, and as one organization found out, curlers don't want to lose that.\n\nIn 1980, when Labatt took over sponsorship of the Brier from Macdonald Tobacco, it decided to create a new crest to present to all participants. This was a replacement for the famed Purple Heart.\n\n\"We weren't really keen on keeping the Purple Heart,\" admitted Dick Bradbeer, head of marketing for Labatt at the time. \"We wanted something more Labatt-oriented.\"\n\nIn place of the heart was an oval-shaped crest that had images of the Purple Heart and the Macdonald Brier Tankard, the trophy that was presented to the winning team up until Labatt replaced it with its own tankard. Among the curlers, it became known as the Doily.\n\nBut curlers from coast to coast\u2014those who had played in the Brier and those who had merely watched it\u2014were enraged. How could this new sponsor replace the historic crest? There were petitions and plenty of media attention on the issue of a crest. A front-page editorial in the _Ontario Curling Report_ admonishing Labatt for the change. It read:\n\nThe Heart is symbolic of the Brier; it represents curling supremacy. After the Brier, all that remains are the fine memories and the Heart.\n\nEvery competitive male curler dreams of playing in the Brier. The Brier is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The Brier is the Stanley Cup, the Super Bowl, the end all, be all.\n\nNow the new sponsors of the Brier have created a new symbol that they are incorporating into a crest. The new crest does not resemble the Heart, although they have tried to keep the coveted Heart by placing its design in the centre of this new symbol. This new creation destroys the image that has been established from 50 years of annual competition. Every curler in Canada identifies with the Purple Heart; it is the symbol of excellence.\n\nLabatt's sponsorship is a welcome addition to the game. However, curling has established legends built around the Heart. You can do anything with the design of the Heart but don't mess with the winner, the Heart of the game.\n\nThe paper was the final straw. \"When we saw that newspaper, we realized just how important the Purple Heart was,\" said Bradbeer. \"It wasn't that we were being stubborn, it was another case of not realizing the importance the curlers put on it.\"\n\nLabatt reissued the crest in the famous shape and colour to the delight of all. All the players from the1980 Brier\u2014the first sponsored by Labatt\u2014ended up with two crests: the Purple Heart and the Doily, now a rare collector's item.\n\n**Curling Quote**\n\n\"His sister said the car looked like it had hit a moose. So I guess John is built like a moose.\"\n\n\u2014Kevin Martin on his third, John Morris, who was hit by a car just days before the start of the 2007 Tim Hortons Brier\n**AMERICAN SUCCESS**\n\nBob Nichols and Bill Strum have won more World Curling Championships than any other Americans, with three wins to their credit. That's quite an achievement considering the U.S.A. has won the world title just four times.\n**THE MANITOBA BONSPIEL**\n\nThe Manitoba Bonspiel, also known as the MCA after the Manitoba Curling Association, which runs the event, dates back to 1884 when the first bonspiel in Winnipeg was held. There were 65 teams from all over the province at that first event, which led to the formal start to the Manitoba Bonspiel, which began five years later and continues to this day. Notes about the famed event:\n\n\u2022 In the early days, the event became so popular that for several years, the sitting of the Manitoba Legislature was cancelled due to the inability to get a quorum; so many members were on the ice.\n\n\u2022 In 1988, to celebrate the bonspiel's centennial, an all-out effort to attract teams produced the largest field ever for a curling event\u20141,280 teams.\n\n\u2022 The event is open to all teams of male curlers, and there are regular entrants from across Canada, the United States, Europe, and Asia.\n\n\u2022 Entries into the provincial championship are awarded to the top finishers in the bonspiel.\n\n\u2022 In recent years, the number of teams in the bonspiel has dropped and there was discussion about allowing women to enter but that was never passed by organizers.\n\n\u2022 Even with the drop in teams, the Manitoba Bonspiel remains the largest curling bonspiel in the world.\n**A SPIKED TROPHY**\n\nIn 1902-03, the first visit by a group of Scottish curlers to Canada took place, with the Scots playing a lengthy string of games that took them from Halifax to Winnipeg, with stops at most major cities in between. Such a success was the tour that in 1909, a group of Canadian curlers went the other way.\n\nWith the event becoming a friendly rivalry of significance, it began to catch the attention of a great many curling enthusiasts, including Donald Smith, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. Smith spent his early years in Canada, working with the Hudson's Bay Company, eventually becoming the president of the firm. He also was a Member of Parliament and was a founding member of the Canadian Pacific Railway, becoming such an important figure in that operation that when the transcontinental railroad was being completed, Smith was selected to drive the last spike.\n\nSmith returned to Great Britain in his later years to take his spot in the House of Lords. He so loved both continents and the game of curling that he decided to present a trophy for regular competition between the two sides of touring curlers. Thus, in 1909, the Canadian team was the first to win the Strathcona Cup.\n\nToday the Scots travel to Canada in years that end in a three, while the Canadians go the other way in years that end in an eight. The trophy used to make the transatlantic trip with the defending champions, but now is considered so valuable that it resides permanently in Scotland.\n**NORTHERN AFFAIR**\n\nEvery team in the Brier represents a single province or territory, with the exception of Northern Ontario. The reason it has a spot in the field is history and respect. While the definitive answer to its inclusion is unknown (some say the size of the province and the overall population necessitated two entries), when the first Brier was held in 1927, it is believed a rink from Northern Ontario was invited by Brier organizers to make the field an even number. Although two other teams\u2014Montreal and Toronto\u2014were removed from the invitation list in 1931, Northern Ontario remains.\n\nWhen asked why Northern Ontario stayed in the field, David M. Stewart, head of the Macdonald Tobacco Company, said, \"When you invite someone into your living room, you don't invite them to leave just because the numbers aren't right.\"\n**STONES OF A DIFFERENT MATERIAL**\n\nIt's rare today to see a curling stone made of something other than granite, but in the early days of the sport, when rocks were difficult to come by, ardent players used almost anything they could get their hands on to play their favourite sport. Here are a few examples:\n\n\u2022 **Cannonballs:** this story has never been conclusively proven, but as the story goes, in the late 1700s, British soldiers melted down cannonballs and used them to curl on the Plains of Abraham.\n\n\u2022 **Jam cans:** in western Canada, schoolchildren who were too small to play with the 42-pound granite stones used jam can \"rocks\"\u2014cans that were filled with rocks or cement with a piece of wire or other material stuck into them for a handle.\n\n\u2022 **Thunder mugs:** in some spots on the Prairies, thunder mugs (yes, those bedpans from days gone by) were, like jam cans, filled with granite and used for playing pieces.\n\n\u2022 **Irons:** perhaps a derivative of the cannonballs, iron \"stones\" were, as the name suggests, made of iron and about a third the size of a traditional curling rock. Their weight made it next to impossible to play takeouts. Irons were used prominently in Quebec and eastern Ontario.\n\n\u2022 **Wooden stones:** plugs of wood\u2014sometimes off the end of telephone poles\u2014were used to provide lightweight stones for young people. They were also utilized in areas where curlers were unable to afford regular rocks.\n\n\u2022 **Little rocks** : Developed in the 1990s, smaller versions of regular rocks made of plastic appeared in curling rinks across Canada. These allowed children as young as five to start playing, and resulted in a huge boom of pint-sized players.\n\nThis pint-sized curler is lining up a shot with a Little Rock, a scaled-down version of traditional granite stones.\n\n**TIME TO CURL**\n\nMost sports have time clocks, which tick off the amount of time for the game to be contested. In curling, however, for the longest time (excuse the pun) there was no such thing. Games lasted as long as they lasted. Some contests at major championships stretched to four hours. In one memorable Ontario provincial championship in the 1980s, an evening draw had to be delayed because a game from the afternoon draw was nearing its fifth hour.\n\nIn 1983, curling entrepreneur Doug Maxwell came up with the idea of a time limit for curling, but to make it fair, he decided each team should be timed independently. To test out his theory, he purchased a chess time clock and sat behind the ice at competitive games in the Toronto area. Each team was timed for how long it took them to play.\n\nTime clocks were introduced to competitive play at the 1986 TSN Skins Game, and the result was dramatic\u2014teams played to their limits, not wasting any time, especially in the early parts of an end when strategy decisions were less involved.\n\nA few years later, organizers of the 1989 World Curling Championships in Milwaukee were dealing with a time problem. The International Curling Federation integrated the men's and women's championships into one event, meaning four draws a day. In order to make this work and avoid curling around the clock, they elected to implement Maxwell's time clocks, giving each team a specified amount of time to complete their game. The results were a success and most other jurisdictions soon followed, adding time clocks to their championships.\n\nToday, time clocks are a regular part of every major curling event.\n**ON THE TUBE**\n\nThe first televised coverage of the Brier was in 1962, when, thanks to a last-minute okay from network executives, the CBC drove its cameras and trucks to Kitchener, Ontario, to cover the playoff game between Saskatchewan's Ernie Richardson and Hec Gervais of Alberta.\n\nRegularly scheduled coverage of the final draw started in 1973, and it didn't have a great beginning. In the era before playoffs, Harvey Mazinke's team from Saskatchewan played so well that the final draw of the round robin\u2014the one the CBC came to cover\u2014was meaningless; Mazinke won the title the previous evening.\n**CURLING ROYALTY**\n\nTwo curlers of some note have gone from the ice to the viceregal's chair. Errik Willis was part of a curling team that competed for Canada at the 1932 Olympic Games in Lake Placid, New York, where curling was a demonstration sport. On January 15, 1960, he was appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba, holding the office for a term of five years.\n\nIn 1986 Sylvia Fedoruk became Saskatchewan's Lieutenant-Governor, a role she kept until 1989. On the ice, Fedoruk was also a member of the team skipped by Joyce Potter that captured the first Canadian women's championship in 1961.\n**THE LONG AND THE SHORT(ER) OF IT**\n\nAt the semi-annual meeting of the Ontario Curling Association in 1906, officials passed a regulation changing the length of competitive games from 22 ends to 18.\n**TIMELINE OF THE FREE-GUARD ZONE**\n\nThe free-guard zone is regarded by many as a rule that saved championship curling. The rule allows for plenty of offence and lots of rocks in play, meaning scoring. That makes the game appealing for fans both at venues and watching on television. Prior to its introduction, curling was a defence game with low scores. Here is a timeline of how the rule came to be:\n\n**1986:** Russ and Glenn Howard develop a method of practice that is essentially a one-on-one game that doesn't allow takeouts on rocks unless they are in the rings.\n\n**1991:** Organizers of the Moncton 100, a lucrative bonspiel held to celebrate the centennial of the New Brunswick city, utilize what is known as the Howard Rule\u2014the first four rocks of any end cannot be removed regardless of where they come to rest.\n\n**1992:** A modified version of the Howard Rule, dubbed the free-guard zone, is used at the Olympics. It states that any of the first four rocks of an end that come to rest in front of the tee line and outside of the rings may not be removed. The World Curling Federation adopts the same rule for play in all international championships including the world final. Every member country of the WCF adopts the rule for national play, with the exception of Canada. The Canadian Curling Association elects to remain with the traditional rules and study the free-guard zone for two years.\n\n**1993:** Ontario becomes the first jurisdiction in Canada to change its rules, adopting a modified version of the free-guard zone, limiting it to the first three rocks of any end for its provincial finals. Russ Howard wins the Ontario, Canadian, and world championships using three different rules: three-rock free-guard zone at the Ontario final; no free-guard zone at the Canadian; four-rock free-guard zone at the world championship.\n\n**1994:** The Canadian Curling Association adopts a trial of the three-rock free-guard zone rule beginning with its 1994 national championships. It continues with the rule for almost a decade.\n\n**2003:** The CCA finally falls into line with the rest of the curling world and changes to the four-rock free-guard zone beginning with the 2004 championships. The Canadian Mixed becomes the first event in that country to use the four-rock rule.\n**ELECTRONIC EYE**\n\nIn 1986, the Canadian Curling Association instituted curling's equivalent of line judges, placing officials on the hog line to call infractions at the men's and women's national championships. The umpires were situated at either side of the hog line, and if both confirmed that a player failed to clearly release the stone before the hog line, the rock was removed from play.\n\nThe decision was not popular with all curlers, and over the course of the next 17 years there were many charges of incorrect calls, some which cost teams championships.\n\nThat all came to an end in 2003 when something known as Eye on the Hog was put in place. This system was a series of sensors, one in the ice and one in the rock.\n\nIf a player failed to release the rock before it reached the hog line, a red light on the handle flashed. If the player released the rock before the hog line, a green light went on.\n\nThe technological advancement not only ended all arguments about human error, but removed the cost of having numerous extra officials at the event.\n**TAKEN FOR GRANITE**\n\nCurlers might not think in too much detail about the material in the rocks they throw up and down the ice, but the granite used in curling rocks is very important. Over the years, there have been many different types of granite tried in curling stones, including Canadian granite as well as some from India.\n\nBut the best continues to be from Scotland and Wales. For many years, the best granite came from the Scottish island of Ailsa Craig, but quarrying there is no longer allowed. Almost all of the granite used to produce today's curling rocks comes from Garn For Quarry in northwest Wales.\n\nAccording to the Canada Curling Stone Company, here is a list of the various types of granite used in curling rocks currently in play around the world:\n\n\u2022 **blue hone:** light grey in colour with random white specks. Often has half-moon shaped chips in the strike band.\n\n\u2022 **red\/brown trefor:** light to dark reddish brown marked by larger grains with white and black flecks.\n\n\u2022 **blue trefor:** bluish-grey in colour with white and black flecks. It's prone to premature pitting.\n\n\u2022 **grey trefor:** greyish brown in colour, also with white and black flecks throughout.\n\n\u2022 **keanie:** pinkish in colour with large white spots and black flecks throughout.\n\n\u2022 **common green Ailsa Craig:** greenish in colour with large black flecks that usually have white deposits around them.\n**GIVING UP**\n\nConceding a game at the Canadian championship is an accepted practice these days. When one team feels it no longer has a chance to win, it can elect to quit. But that wasn't always the case. Prior to the 1973 Brier, teams were required to complete all 12 ends, no matter the score.\n**A BLIND EYE**\n\nIt's not unusual for individuals to take up curling when they retire, and that's just what Ray Kotanen of Thunder Bay, Ontario, did in 1991 when he turned 65.\n\nKotanen joined the Ezyduzit Curling League for retired men and proved to be not only enthusiastic but also a quick learner. However, he did have one limitation\u2014he couldn't see the other end of the ice, his skip, or his skip's broom. Diabetes robbed him of vision in his right eye and left him with limited sight in his left. Kotanen relied on verbal instructions relayed to him by the sweepers and managed to become quite proficient. Still, he disliked being dependant on others.\n\nAll that changed when friend Ray Paju decided to help out. Paju developed a high-intensity strobe light that fastened onto the handle of Kotanen's skips' broom. The light blinked a strong signal from the skip's end of the ice and was visible for Kotanen sitting in the hack. He no longer needed the verbal instructions\u2014he could see just fine. Another example of ingenuity allowing a curler to play the game he loves.\n**RECORD-SETTING CURLING**\n\nCamille Villeneuve of Chicoutimi, Quebec, is a guy who has trouble playing on a regular team. For that matter, he has trouble finding a steady club. But that's something he planned. Since 2005, Villeneuve has ventured across Canada and the United States playing in as many different curling clubs with as many different teammates as possible. He travels by camper, setting up games ahead of time often playing two or three a night. To date, he's competed at more than 611 clubs and played with more than 1,800 different teammates. Both marks are recognized in the _Guinness Book of World Records_. All of his adventures came late in life for Villeneuve. At the age of 79 years old, he's still going, hoping to reach 700 clubs by his 80th birthday.\n\n**Curling Quote**\n\n\"I'm actually looking forward to playing in a country where five feet (tall) might actually be the average.\"\n\n\u2014The diminutive Kelly Scott on playing the world championship in Japan in 2007\n**AGE-OLD ROCKERS**\n\nCurling is known as a game for all ages, and certainly that's proven to be the case over the long history of the sport. Here are a few examples of \"elderly\" competitors, elderly being a relative term:\n\n\u2022 At age 50 Russ Howard became the oldest person to win a gold medal at the 2006 Olympic Games, capturing the medal for Canada.\n\n\u2022 At age 55, Bud Somerville played for the U.S. team at the 1992 Olympics.\n\n\u2022 At 94, Einer Egilssen plays three times a week in Woodstock, Ontario. He's played the game for 60 years.\n\n\u2022 At 99, Jack Grossart played twice a week in Weston, Ontario.\n\n\u2022 Jack Watkins, at 93, has a certificate from the Guinness Book of World Records, stating he is the oldest living curler. He plays twice a week in Sudbury, Ontario.\n\n\u2022 In Regina, Phil Ward competed regularly at the Tartan Curling Club at the age of 102.\n**DOUBLING UP**\n\nDoubles, in sporting terms, usually conjures up images of tennis, where teams of two players take on similar teams.\n\nBut doubles is also now a part of curling\u2014mixed doubles, to be more precise, with teams comprised of one man and one woman, just as in tennis. The format had its genesis in another event, the Continental Cup, where teams representing North America and Europe compete in various formats, one of which is mixed doubles.\n\nEach end of mixed doubles begins with a rock sitting behind the button guarded by a stone in front of the rings. Each team delivers five shots, and the teams can decide which team member throws first, allowing any order on any given end. The player that throws the first stone of the end also throws the last one, with the other player delivering the middle three rocks.\n\nHoping to get at least one more discipline added to the curling program at the Olympics, the World Curling Federation promoted mixed doubles as a stand-alone event. It even created a separate world championship, with the first one held in Vierumaki, Finland, in March 2008.\n**PIN MOGUL**\n\nCurling pins have a long association with the sport, with clubs, events and even people producing their own unique ones. Because there are thousands and thousands of different pins, collecting them has become a passionate pastime for many, much like collecting baseball cards would be for a fan of that game.\n\nGo to any big curling event and you're sure to see pin collectors, both those who do the job seriously and put out massive displays, and others who are just trying to pick up a few while at the bonspiel or championship.\n\nNo matter what the level of interest, all these folks can thank one Saskatchewan resident for most of their fun. Laurie Artiss has become one of the world's largest makers of pins, and it all started thanks to his love of curling.\n\nArtiss started his association with curling in 1962, covering the Brier for the _Brandon Sun_. He moved to Regina in the late 1960s to take a job as a sports writer with the _Regina Leader-Post_ , and in 1970 he started a curling supply business. Around that time, he grew frustrated by the lack of decent lapel pins available for events and clubs. So, taking matters into his own hands, he began The Pin People, a company that has grown into one of the largest pin-making companies in the world. Since that time, he has made the pins for thousands of curling clubs, championships\u2014including most national and international events\u2014and in 1988, the Olympics. There are not many curling pins today that don't come from Artiss's company. And it's expanded into pin-making for just about every type of event or occasion\u2014sporting or otherwise\u2014imaginable. Each year, it produces hundreds of thousands of pins. For many years, the company was the official pin-maker for the Olympic Games.\n\nIn addition to his pin-making business, Artiss served as chairman of the 1973 World Championship as well as the 1976 Brier. For his efforts, Artiss was inducted into the Canadian Curling Hall of Fame in 2006.\n**THE CURLING TERMINATOR**\n\nEisschiessen is a popular game in Austria and is still played to this day. It is very similar to curling except that it uses \"eisstocks,\" which resemble bowling pins stuck on a Frisbee instead of stones. In many places around the world, Eisschiessen is played on curling rinks.\n\nWhile it doesn't take a great deal of muscle to get the eisstocks down the ice, one of Austria's past national champions of the sport is Arnold Schwarzenegger's father.\n**THE RICHARDSONS**\n\nJust as Gordie Howe is to hockey and Babe Ruth is to baseball, the Richardsons are to curling. A Saskatchewan family of two brothers\u2014Ernie and Garnet (known as Sam)\u2014and two cousins, Arnold and Wes, they were the first team to win four Brier titles. They accomplished this remarkable feat in just five appearances. A few notes about the famed family:\n\n\u2022 The four are the sons of three brothers and, just to confuse matters, two of them married sisters. Sam and Ernie are brothers, while Arnold and Wes are cousins.\n\n\u2022 Sam and Ernie attended the 1955 Brier in Regina and decided then and there that they wanted to play in that event. \"I don't think you'll make it. I think you should have started earlier if you wanted to get into that,\" their mother told the two boys in their early 20s.\n\n\u2022 The Richardsons are the only curling team to appear on the cover of _Maclean's_ magazine.\n\n\u2022 By 1960, the Richardsons were so popular, Ernie gave his name to a line of curling accessories\u2014sweaters, brooms, boots... even socks. The team ended up making about $100,000 from the sale of these items.\n\n\u2022 The team lost just seven games in five Brier appearances.\n\n\u2022 A lobster supper may have prevented the team from winning a fifth Brier. In 1964 in Charlottetown, the night before the final draw, the team attended a lobster dinner at the home of a friend, and the seafood didn't sit well in the stomachs of the Prairie boys. None slept well that night and they came out flat, losing their last game and any chance of a fifth title.\n\n\u2022 Although there were rumours of dissension on the team,Wes Richardson didn't play with the team when it won its record fourth Brier in 1963 because of a bad back. His replacement that year was Mel Perry.\n\n\u2022 After winning the Canadian title in 1959 and '60, the Richardsons lost out in 1962, never making it past the Regina city playdowns.\n\n\u2022 In 1960, before there were playoffs, the Richardsons secured the title with one draw left to play, a draw in which they had a bye. When the award ceremonies started, the four players walked down the ice holding hands in what fans thought was a show of team solidarity. In truth, they celebrated heartily during their bye and were trying to keep each other from falling down.\n\n\u2022 The team won the first World Curling Championship by defeating a team of Scots in the Scotch Cup. They followed up with three more world championship wins.\n\n\u2022 In 1960, the City of Regina planned a massive civic reception for the team but was unsure when they were to arrive home from Scotland and a second Scotch Cup victory. When they finally received word of the date, it was too early, and so despite having been away for three weeks, the Richardsons were told to spend three extra days in Toronto while the reception was organized.\n\n\u2022 The Richardsons were just the second team from Saskatchewan to win the Brier, after Garnet Campbell in 1955.\n\n\u2022 Despite several tries, the team was never able to make it back to the Brier, and they disbanded in 1968.\n**A WOMAN'S PLACE**\n\nShannon Kleibrink may be best known as the skip of Canada's team at the 2006 Olympics, but she holds another distinction of note: she is the only woman to skip a team to the Canadian Mixed championship.\n**MULTI-TALENTED**\n\nPierre Charette of Quebec is the only player to compete in a Brier at all four positions. In 1989 and '93, he skipped Quebec's entry. In 1996 he played lead; a year later, second; and a year after that he was third.\n**THE SHOT**\n\nIt's been called the greatest shot in the history of the Brier. It is certainly one of the most dramatic\u2014it's a tenth-end, last-rock double takeout made by Northerna Ontario's Al Hackner at the 1985 Brier to score two points and tie up the game against Pat Ryan of Alberta. Hackner went on to win in one of the most stunning comebacks in the event's history. Some background on what has come to be known as The Shot:\n\n\u2022 Ryan finished the round robin at 11-0, while Hackner was 7-4.\n\n\u2022 Ryan's team hadn't had an end stolen on them all week and gave up just one two-ender.\n\n\u2022 When Ryan played his last shot, he thought he'd made it impossible for Hackner to score two, and therefore won the Brier. He came down the ice with his broom over his head in a premature celebration. Others thought he'd won too as photographers jumped all over the ice even though Hackner's last rock was still to come. It took almost 10 minutes to restore order to allow Hackner to play his shot.\n\n\u2022 Neither Hackner nor his third, Rick Lang, saw Ryan's mini-celebration as they were busy lining up the final shot.\n\n\u2022 When Ryan got down to the other end, he saw he'd left Hackner a shot. \"From my perspective [at the other end], it looked as thought I had made the shot,\" Ryan said later. \"But actually I hadn't\u2014I'd lined it up.\"\n\n\u2022 Hackner's team had played three shots down the same path as his final rock that end, so he knew the ice.\n\n\u2022 After he made the shot, the fans in the arena went crazy. But Hackner slid stone-faced down the ice, and as he passed Ryan said one word: \"Sorry.\"\n\n\u2022 When Hackner arrived beside Lang at the other end, Lang congratulated his skip, but also pointed out another problem: \"Nice shot, skipper,\" he said. \"Now how the hell are we going to steal one.\" The shot only tied the game, sending it to an extra end.\n\n\u2022 In the extra end,Alberta second GordTrenchie missed both shots, and when Ryan came to throw his last rock, he needed to draw to a piece of the four-foot. His rock came into the rings, and Hackner swept it back enough that it gave them a single point\u2014and the Brier crown to Northern Ontario.\n\n\u2022 Lang normally swept the opposition rocks when they came into the house, but for some reason, on this occasion, as Ryan's stone neared the tee line, he didn't move, and Hackner jumped in at the last second to sweep it back.\n\n\u2022 Hackner believes that if Ryan played more aggressively early in that final game, he would have won the game easily.\n\n\u2022 Although happy at winning, Lang felt remorseful at defeating Ryan, who was the best team that week. \"There was almost a feeling of guilt,\" Lang admitted. \"We know how Ryan's team felt because it happened to us [in 1981]. It really took something away from winning.\"\n**WORLD CHAIR**\n\nIn 2002, the World Curling Federation sanctioned the first World Wheelchair Curling Championship. Although there were not a lot of competitors at first, the discipline has grown over the years, and made its first appearance at the Paralympics in 2006.\n\n**World Wheelchair Curling Champions**  \n---  \n2002| Switzerland  \n2003| No competition  \n2004| Scotland  \n2005| Scotland  \n2006| no event due to Paralympics (Canada)  \n2007| Norway  \n2008| Norway\n\n **Curling Fact**\n\nThe oldest sporting club in North America is the Royal Montreal Curling Club, founded in 1807.\n**STATS**\n\nThe best teams don't always win the championship. At least not when it comes to statistics. The Canadian Curling Association has kept individual and team shooting percentages at its national championships since 1982, and often times, the team with the best average isn't the champion.\n\nHere's a look at the all-time top team shooting percentages and the teams' final positions:\n\n **Women**\n\n**%** | **Team** | **Year** | **Finish**  \n---|---|---|---  \n85| Canada (Jones)| 2002| First  \n83| Saskatchewan (Betker)| 2007| Second  \n83| Saskatchewan (Lawton)| 2005| Fourth  \n83| Ontario (Hanna)| 2005| Second  \n83| Alberta (King)| 2002| Tied fifth  \n83| Ontario (Middaugh)| 2002| Third  \n83| Saskatchewan (Schmirler)| 1997| First  \n83| Canada (Peterson)| 1995| Third  \n83| Canada (Peterson)| 1994| First\n\n **Men**\n\n**%** | **Team** | **Year** | **Finish**  \n---|---|---|---  \n89| Ontario (Middaugh)| 2001| Third  \n88| Alberta (Ferbey)| 2004| Second  \n88| Ontario (Werenich)| 1990| First  \n87| Alberta (Martin)| 2007| Fourth  \n87| Alberta (Ferbey)| 2003| First  \n87| N.B. (Howard)| 2003| Fourth  \n87| Manitoba (Stoughton)| 2000| Second  \n87| Ontario (Howard)| 1993| First  \n86| Ontario (Howard)| 2006| Second  \n86| Alberta (Ferbey)| 2005| First  \n86| New Brunswick (Howard)| 2004| Fifth  \n86| Ontario (Corner)| 2000| Fifth  \n86| Quebec (Roberge)| 2000| Third  \n86| Ontario (Middaugh)| 1998| First\n**LONG-DISTANCE CURLING**\n\nSome teams will do anything for a shot at the Brier, but Bob Chilton and his rink, from the End of the Rail Curling Club, might take top prize if there was one for perseverance. The team played out of a club in Moose Factory, Ontario, a native reserve on an island across from Moosonee on the southern tip of James Bay. To reach their club to practise, the team travelled three miles across the Moose River by snowmobile\u2014which meant they had to wait until mid-December for the freeze-up.\n\nIn 1987-88, to reach their zone playdowns, the rink had to fly to Timmins (about 250 miles as the crow flies), but because of a snowstorm, the plane almost didn't take off. Timmins was only the first stop. After arriving there, the team had to drive three and a half hours through the blizzard to Kapuskasing, arriving just minutes before their first game. They won their zone that year, advanced through the association level, and made it as far as the provincial championship before losing.\n**RYAN'S EXPRESS**\n\nOne of the most dominant curlers of his era, Pat Ryan had a lengthy and distinguished career on the ice. A three-time Canadian champion, he continues to compete to this day. Some notes about Ryan:\n\n\u2022 He is one of just two curlers to play in Briers in four different decades ('70s, '80s, '90s, and '00s). The other is Peter Hollett of Newfoundland and Labrador.\n\n\u2022 In 1985, thinking he had won the Brier after his last shot, Ryan came down the ice with his broom in the air in celebration. However, Northern Ontario's Al Hackner played what is often regarded as the most dramatic last shot in Brier history to tie the game and then beat Ryan in an extra end.\n\n\u2022 He won back-to-back Briers in 1988 and '89 on the strength of an extremely defensive style of play, playing a vast majority of takeouts and winning low-scoring games.\n\n\u2022 He moved to British Columbia in 1991 and, in 1993, won another Brier playing third for Rick Folk. He became just the second player to win a Brier as skip and then at another position.\n\n\u2022 He created and marketed a series of curler trading cards that sold extremely well.\n\n\u2022 He has two other national titles to his credit. He won the 2007 Canadian senior and the 1986 Canadian Mixed.\n\n\u2022 Ryan's daughter, Lynsay, appeared nude in a calendar to raise awareness and funds for women's curling.\n**WHAT A CROWD**\n\nBrier attendance figures have steadily increased over the years. Here is a look at some notable milestones when it comes to the turnstiles:\n\nFirst Brier to reach 50,000 Regina, 1955 (51,725)  \nFirst Brier to reach 100,000 Brandon, 1982 (106,394)  \nFirst Brier to reach 150,000 Saskatoon, 1989 (151,538)  \nFirst Brier to reach 200,000 Calgary, 1997 (223,322)  \nFirst Brier to reach 225,000 Edmonton, 1999 (242,887)  \nFirst Brier to reach 275,000 Edmonton, 2005 (281,985)\n\nBrier opening ceremonies\n\n**VERA NICE**\n\nSaskatchewan curler Vera Pezer is one of the first stars of women's curling, with four Canadian championships in five years. Pezer has many other accomplishments in curling and her business life that make her one of the most remarkable people to play the roaring game. A few notes on the career of Vera Pezer:\n\n\u2022 She learned the game in her hometown of Meskanaw, Saskatchewan, on a two-sheet natural ice club her father maintained.\n\n\u2022 She won her first Canadian title in 1969, playing third for Joyce McKee. For the next three titles, she played skip while McKee moved to second.\n\n\u2022 After winning three consecutive titles, the team disbanded.\n\n\u2022 She holds a Ph.D. in sports psychology and served as sports psychologist for two Canadian Olympic teams.\n\n\u2022 She did some work with another Saskatchewan legend, Sandra Schmirler.\n\n\u2022 She is currently the chancellor of the University of Saskatchewan.\n\n\u2022 She wrote two books on curling: _Smart Curling: PerfectYour Game Through Mental Training_ and _The Stone Age: A Social History of Curling in the Prairies_.\n\n\u2022 She won two national fastball titles in 1969 and '70 as part of the Saskatoon Imperials, and played in two Canadian Senior Women's Golf Championships.\n**MONCTON 100**\n\nThe richest bonspiel in curling history took place in 1990 in Moncton, New Brunswick. The event was created to help celebrate the city's centennial and it pitted 16 top teams playing for $250,000. It is still the most lucrative bonspiel ever held and also one of the most significant in that it was the first to utilize rules that are now standard. Some notes about this legendary bonspiel:\n\n\u2022 The field included two women's teams, skipped by Heather Houston and Linda Moore, four European teams, and two from Atlantic Canada. The rest were hand-picked by the organizers from across the country.\n\n\u2022 This was the first major event to use a variation of the free-guard zone. The rule stated that leads could not play takeouts on rocks anywhere between the hog line and the tee line. It was a huge hit with the curlers.\n\n\u2022 The event was the first to include a separate singles' skills competition for an extra purse. The players in the main event also participated in the challenge, being scored on their ability to play a number of difficult shots. A similar challenge was later added to both the men's and women's Canadian championships.\n\n\u2022 It was the first event to use a draw to the button to determine last rock. All four players threw one stone, and the team with the lesser cumulative distance had last rock in the first end.\n\n\u2022 The teams were charged an entry fee of $1,000 but received free airfare to Moncton, complimentary hotel rooms and, if they lost all their games, $1,500 in prize money.\n\n\u2022 With the new free-guard zone rule in place, most games were high-scoring, close affairs... except for the final. Ed Lukowich defeated Russ Howard 13-2 to win the Moncton 100. Lukowich earned $100,000 for the victory.\n**CRAZY FOR CURLING**\n\nPeople called Ken Murphy crazy, and he didn't mind one bit. An enthusiastic curler from Wallaceburg, Ontario, Murphy was known as Crazy Legs for the manner in which he danced\u2014and for what he did on the curling ice. At his annual curling bonspiel at the Sydenham Curling Club, he would slide down a sheet of curling ice perched atop a stone, often waving flags or playing a trombone. At the extreme level, Murphy placed the legs of a ladder on four stones and then scrambled to the top rung, where he sat as the rocks travelled over the ice. He became so famous for his act that he appeared on television and at big curling events. He also ran a famous bonspiel that, at its peak in the late 1980s, had a five-year waiting list.\n**SPIEL OF A DIFFERENT KIND**\n\nEvery weekend during the curling season, there are bonspiels of all shapes and sizes held all over the world. Most fall into a couple of broad categories: men's, women's, or mixed; competitive or social; one-day or longer. However, a few almost defy description. Here is a sampling of some rather unusual bonspiels held over the years:\n\n**Heavyweight Spiel:** organized by legendary promoter Doug Maxwell on behalf of a Toronto delicatessen chain, the total weight of the team members could be no less than 1,000 pounds, and individually, no competitor could weigh less than 225.\n\n**Left-Handers Spiel:** Every spring at the Oakville Curling Club outside of Toronto, the World Lefthanders Championship is held where southpaws battle it out to become global port-sider champion.\n\n**Grits vs. Tories:** Back in the 1850s, this annual affair pitted the two sides of the government of the day with the losers required to buy a meal of oysters for the winners.\n\n**Summer Spud:** Capitalizing on being one of Canada's great summertime playgrounds, folks at the Crapaud Curling Club in Prince Edward Island hold an annual spiel... in August! It includes a lobster feast and 18 holes of golf.\n\n**Watson Lake Outdoor Bonspiel:** Curling outside in the middle of February in the Yukon Territory might not seem that appealing, but obviously some folks like it. Played on the lake from which the bonspiel takes its name, this is the longest-running outdoor bonspiel in Canada.\n**THE LONG BRIER ROAD**\n\nIn Canada, approximately 7,000 curlers enter the playdowns every year that lead to the Brier, the Canadian championship. Of course, at the end of it, only four stand atop the highest step on the podium.\n**ROCK-SOLID POLITICS**\n\nPaul Delorey proved that politics and curling do mix. Delorey represented the Yukon\/Northwest Territories at the 1987 Canadian Mixed. He is also the Speaker of the Northwest Territories Legislature.\n**ROCKIN' RICK**\n\nThunder Bay, Ontario, has produced many great curling champions, but the best may be Rick Lang, the three-time Canadian men's champion who some believe is the best third to have played the game.\n\nSome interesting facts about Lang:\n\n\u2022 Ed Werenich calls him the best curler ever to play the game.\n\n\u2022 Lang won his first Brier in 1975 playing for Bill Tetley. In 1985, he won his third with Bill's son, Ian, playing second.\n\n\u2022 Lang joined forces with skip Al Hackner in 1980 and lost the Canadian final. The very next year, Kerry Burtnyk scored three in the 10th end of the final to beat them 5-4.They finally won the title in 1982 and again in 1985.\n\n\u2022 At many events, Lang would bet anyone willing to put up $20 that he could throw a rock down a sheet and drink a beer before the rock arrived at the other end. With the money on the table, Lang would throw a slow draw with a mighty spin cranked on the handle so the stone turned like a 78 rpm record, thereby taking a long time to reach its destination. Lang could also drink a beer quickly.\n\n\u2022 On the way home from winning the 1985 World Curling Championships in Germany, a flight attendant, noticing there was a lot of attention being paid to Lang, said to him, \"Are you who we think you are?\" Lang, thinking they knew him as the curler, replied, \"Yes I am.\" The flight attendant squealed, \"Mr. Jagger, may I have your autograph.\" Lang bears a striking resemblance to Rolling Stones' lead man Mick Jagger.\n\n\u2022 Lang holds the dubious distinction of being the only Canadian curler to lose games at the world championship to both France and Italy.\n\n\u2022 Lang's wife, Lorraine, won two Canadian women's championships. Together, they won the Canadian Mixed.\n\n\u2022 In 2006, Lang and Hackner joined forces again to win the Canadian Senior Championship.\n\n**Curling Quote**\n\n\"Curling is not a sport. I called my grandmother and told her she could win a gold medal because they have dusting in the Olympics now.\"\n\n\u2014Former NBA star and now outspoken television commentator Charles Barkley\n**CUT SHORT**\n\nCurling is an extremely popular sport on television, so much so that networks and curling associations should know better than to mess with those watching. Two examples prove that out:\n\n\u2022 In 1987, the CBC showed the semi-final of the Brier between Mark Noseworthy of Newfoundland and British Columbia's Bernie Sparkes. The game went longer than expected, and the network elected to cut away from the curling in favour of the evening news. With five rocks left to play, the coverage left the curling to show the warm-up of a game between the Montreal Canadiens and the Philadelphia Flyers.The CBC switchboard was flooded with phone calls from irate curlers, and a new policy was put in place to allow any curling game to finish, regardless of the time.\n\n\u2022 In 2005, the Canadian Curling Association signed a new broadcast agreement with CBC that moved round-robin games away from fan favourite TSN to a subscription channel owned by the CBC called Country Canada. When the first game of the Canadian Women's Championship aired and curling fans were unable to find it on TSN, the Canadian Curling Association's head office received such an onslaught of phone calls, it shut down its phone line. A year later, under much pressure, the round-robin games returned to TSN.\n**THE ICEMAN CURLETH**\n\nAl Hackner was known in curling circles as \"The Iceman\" for the cool, emotionless demeanour he exhibited on the ice, even in tense situations. The curler from Thunder Bay, Ontario, won two Canadian and world championships and a great many cashspiels over his career. He is also credited with throwing the most dramatic shot in Brier history\u2014a nearly impossible 10th-end double takeout that led to his second Canadian championship. And he never let a party stand in the way of a good bonspiel. Here are some notes about Al Hackner:\n\n\u2022 He named his dog Tankard, after the trophy awarded to the Canadian champions.\n\n\u2022 He played second in the 1976 Canadian mixed championship for Alberta, while living in Edmonton.\n\n\u2022 He realized near the end of his career that he may have enjoyed himself a little too much during his heyday. \"I'll be the first to admit I probably wasn't disciplined enough,\" he said in _Curling: The History, The Players, The Game_ by Warren Hansen. \"When I played seriously, we'd always have beer and the stereo going.\"\n\n\u2022 After winning his first world championship, Hackner was voted the second most recognizable person in his home town of Thunder Bay. The mayor was first.\n\n\u2022 At the 1980 Brier, Hackner and his team decided they wanted to see if Paul Gowsell, who represented Alberta and was the game's leading money winner, was as wild a party animal as the stories made him out to be. For the first few days, Hackner and his front end of Bruce Kennedy and Bob Nicol went to Gowsell's room every night to drink beer. On the fourth night, they arrived to find the door locked, and claimed victory in the party wars.\n\n\u2022 Hackner started curling on natural ice in Nipigon, Ontario.\n\n\u2022 He worked for more than 30 years for CN, serving as a switcher, trainman, and conductor.\n\n**MARILYN BODOGH**\n\nOne of the most colourful figures in women's curling is Marilyn Bodogh, a two-time World Curling champion from St. Catharines, Ontario. Bodogh won titles in 1986 and '96, and was an active player on the competitive circuit for close to 20 years. A few notes about this lively lady:\n\n\u2022 She made her first appearance at the Canadian championship playing third for her sister, Christine Bodogh. When she won her first world championship, Christine (Jurgenson) played second.\n\n\u2022 She spent several years as a commentator on broadcasts of World Curling Tour events on Rogers Sportsnet.\n\n\u2022 In 2006, she ran for the position of mayor of St. Catharines, finishing third out of eight candidates.\n\n\u2022 Through marriage (when she was known as Marilyn Darte), she helped operate a family-owned funeral home, leading the _Globe and Mail_ to start a story on her with the following line: \"The only things certain in Marilyn Darte's life are death and curling.\"\n\n\u2022 In 1987, as defending champion, Bodogh was in Lethbridge, Alberta, to promote that year's national championship. She attended a press conference at a Lethbridge curling club, and when a photographer suggested going onto the ice to take some pictures, Bodogh walked out, interrupted a game being played by some seniors, put a rock on the button, and then, despite wearing a skirt, did a cartwheel behind the rock. The photographer got his shot.\n\n\u2022 Bodogh almost always wore a kilt when playing. As well, she wore green bloomers underneath.\n\n\u2022 In 2008, she played in the Ontario senior championships for the first time, finishing second.\n\n\u2022 Bodogh works as a motivational speaker.\n\n**HOG WILD**\n\nPrior to the introduction of the electronic hog line sensor, officials called violations on curlers who slid over the line without releasing the stone. The curlers who were called for the violations almost always disagreed,who and some did so vehemently. And the more significant the event, the more they disagreed. Here are two of the most controversial hog line decisions:\n\n\u2022 At the 2001 World Curling Championships in Lausanne, Switzerland, Canadian skip Randy Ferbey was playing the semi-final against Switzerland's Andreas Schwaller. Ferbey was called three times for hog line violations, with the penalty being the removal of his rock. The official was Swiss, and for some unusual reason, that week, most of the violations came against the opponents of the Swiss team. Canada lost the game 6-5 to Switzerland, and Ferbey made his mark by chewing out the official after the third pull. Television replays show Ferbey clearly releasing the stone before the hog line. \"It's unfortunate that something like that got to dictate the way of the game going,\" Ferbey said. \"All week long I had one hog line call and all of a sudden I have three. I definitely question how they came to determine how I was over the hog line.\"\n\n\u2022 In the semi-final of the 1987 Ontario championships, Paul Savage played Russ Howard. In the eighth end of a close game, Savage played a takeout for two points, but before the stones were kicked off, an official came out and called Savage for a hog line violation. Instead of Savage scoring two, Howard took one and went on to win the game. Savage was livid for a number of reasons. First, sliding over the hog line on a takeout was nearly impossible, and Savage didn't slide very long at the best of times. Second, instead of the necessary two hog line officials\u2014one on either side of the sheet\u2014there was only one. Third, in his many years of curling, Savage had never been called for a hog line violation. Even Howard said after the game he was surprised the rock was pulled.\n\n**Curling Fact**\n\nAt the first Brier, there was only one team from Western Canada, Ossie Barkwell's rink from Yellowgras , Saskatchewan . The foursome earned the invitation by winning the Manitoba bonspiel that year, and a week after that victory they left for Toronto, taking their own rocks along with them.\n**SINGULARLY REWARDING**\n\nAlthough curling is a team game, each year, many of the major championships hand out individual awards for various achievements. Here is a look at the awards and the criteria for winning:\n\n**PHOTO CREDITS**\n\nPage 6: _Ontario Curling Report_\n\nPage 17: Denis Drever \/ _Ontario Curling Report_\n\nPage 27: Powell Photo \/ Estate of Doug Maxwell\n\nPage 31: H.C. Fortier Limited \/ Estate of Doug Maxwell\n\nPage 32: Courtesy Marco Ferraro\n\nPage 40: _Ontario Curling Report_\n\nPage 41: _Ontario Curling Report_\n\nPage 45: Estate of Doug Maxwell\n\nPage 52: Courtesy John Kawaja\n\nPage 56: Estate of Doug Maxwell\n\nPage 62: Michael Burns Photography Ltd. \/ _Ontario Curling Report_\n\nPage 70: Office du Tourisme Meg\u00e8ve \/ Estate of Doug Maxwell\n\nPage 79: L.H. Shaw, _The Leader-Post_ \/ Estate of Doug Maxwell\n\nPage 87: _Ontario Curling Report_\n\nPage 97: Estate of Doug Maxwell\n\nPage 106: Chiang \/ _Ontario Curling Report_\n\nPage 112: Courtesy Hans Frauenlob\n\nPage 118: Estate of Doug Maxwell\n\nPage 120: Turofsky, Alexandra Studio \/ Estate of Doug Maxwell\n\nPage 124: Estate of Doug Maxwell\n\nPage 140: Courtesy TSN\n\nPage 153: _Ontario Curling Report_\n\nPage 162: _Ontario Curling Report_\n\nPage 169: _Kitchener-Waterloo Record_ \/ Estate of Doug Maxwell\n\nPage 178: _Ontario Curling Report_\n\nPage 188: Courtesy TSN\n\nPage 190: _Ontario Curling Report_\n**INDEX**\n\n##\n\nAcorn, Frank\n\nAdam, Dr. Graeme\n\nadvertising\n\nAilsa Craig (Scotland)\n\nAilsa Craig granite\n\nAir Canada\n\nair travel\n\nAladdin Hotel & Casino (Las Vegas)\n\nAlberta\n\nAlbertville (France)\n\nAlliance Atlantis\n\nAll-Star Game (baseball)\n\nAlodi, James\n\nAmerican League (baseball)\n\nAnn Brown Award\n\nArborg (MB)\n\narenas\n\nartificial ice\n\nArtiss, Laurie\n\nAsham, Arnold\n\nAsham Curling Supplies\n\nAsham Stompers\n\nAssand, Frank\n\nAstley, D.G.\n\nAtlantic Oilworks Championship\n\nattendance\n\nAustria\n\nawards\n\n##\n\nback line, width of\n\nback problems\n\nbad ice\n\nbagpipes\n\nBaird, Scott\n\nBalancePlus Slider\n\nBaldwin Blackout\n\nBaldwin, Matt\n\nBarcome, Don\n\nBarkley, Charles\n\nBarkwell, Ossie\n\nBarry, David\n\nBartlett, Don\n\nbaseball\n\nbasketball\n\nbattle of the sexes\n\nBeatles, The\n\nbedpans (playing piece)\n\nBekkeluns, Hans\n\nBelcourt, Tim\n\nBemidji Curling Club\n\nBeveridge, Corie\n\nBible\n\nblue hone granite\n\nblue trefor granite\n\nBobcaygeon Curling Club\n\nBodogh [Jurgenon], Christine\n\nBodogh, Marilyn ( _See also_ Darte, Marilyn)\n\nBoston Arena\n\nboxing\n\nBradbeen, Dick\n\n_Brandon Sun_\n\nBraunstein, Terry\n\nBrier: ; (1927) ; (1929) ; (1930) ; (1931); (1932); (1934); (1936); (1938) ; (1940); (1949) (1946); (1947), ; (1949); (1951) ; (1952); (1954) ; (1955), ; (1956), ; (1957); (1959); (1960), ; (1962), ; (1963); (1964) ; (1965); (1966) ; (1967); (1969) ; (1970); (1970) ; (1971); (1972; (1973) ; (1974); (1975) ; (1976); (1978); (1979); (1980); (1981); (1982); (1983) ; (1984); (1985); (1986); (1987); (1988); (1989) ; (1990); (1990); (1991); (1993); (1996); (1997); (1999); (2000) ; (2001); (2003); (2004); (2005); (2007) 21( _See also_ Labatt Tankard; Macdonald Brier Tankard; Tim Hortons Brier)\n\nBrier Special (train)\n\nBrier Tankard. _See_ Macdonald Brier Tankard\n\nBritish Columbia\n\nbrooms\n\nBrown, Erica\n\nBuffalo Bills\n\n_Burned by The Rock_ (Sonmor)\n\nburned stone\n\nBurns, Robert\n\nBurtnyk, Kerry\n\nButler, Mark\n\n##\n\nCalcutta (betting)\n\nCalgary Winter Club\n\nCalifornia\n\nCampbell, Don\n\nCampbell, Garnett\n\nCampbell, Gordon\n\nCampbell, Lloyd\n\nCampbell, Robert\n\nCampbell, Sam\n\nCanada Curling Stone Company\n\n_Canada Curls_ (Maxwell)\n\nCanada Winter Games\n\nCanadian Association of Chiefs of Police\n\nCanadian Blind Curler Championship\n\nCanadian Clergy Championship\n\nCanadian Curling Association\n\nCanadian Curling Championship: (1984); (1991)\n\nCanadian Curling Hall of Fame\n\nCanadian Firefighters Curling Association\n\nCanadian Junior Championship\n\nCanadian Ladies Curling Association\n\nCanadian Men's Championship\n\nCanadian Mixed\n\nCanadian Pacific Railway\n\nCanadian Police Curling Championship\n\nCanadian Postal Curling Championship\n\nCanadian Postal Employees Curling Championship\n\nCanadian Seniors Championship\n\nCanadian Senior Women's Golf Championship\n\nCanadian Women's Championship\n\ncannonballs (stones)\n\nCarstairs, Kent\n\nCasino Rama\n\nCBC\n\nCBC Curling Classic\n\nCBC radio\n\n_Celebrity Chefs_ (TV show)\n\nCentral Park (NYC)\n\ncentre skittle\n\nChamonix (France)\n\nchampionships ( _See also_ individual championships)\n\nCharette, Pierre\n\nChevrier, Don\n\nChicago Black Hawks\n\nChicago Bulls\n\nChicago Stadium\n\nChilds, Alf\n\nChilton, Bob\n\n_Chronicle Journal_ (Thunder Bay)\n\nCialis (drug)\n\nclergy, curlers\n\nclosing banquet (Brier)\n\nclosing ceremony (Brier)\n\nclothing\n\nCole, Bob\n\ncollectors\/collections\n\ncollegiate curling\n\nColin Campbell Award\n\ncomebacks\n\ncommercials\n\ncommon green Ailsa Craig (granite)\n\nCondie, Art\n\nCongalton, Johnny\n\nContinental Cup\n\nconvicts\n\nCopps Coliseum (Hamilton)\n\ncorn brooms\n\n_Corner Gas_ (TV show)\n\nCorner, Peter\n\nC\u00f4te d'Ivoire (Africa)\n\nCountry Canada (TV channel)\n\nCowan, Bob\n\ncrampits\n\nCrapaud Curling Club\n\ncrests\n\nCrossmyloof (Scotland)\n\nCSKA Moscow\n\ncurling\n\nconceding game\n\ndebut at Olympics\n\nduration of game\n\nlongest game\n\nmedia coverage of\n\norigin of name\n\nand politics\n\nrecord-setting\n\nroaring game\n\nrules of. _See_ Rules of the Game\n\nscience of\n\nsuccess, elements of\n\n_Curling Companion, The_ (Murray)\n\ncurling couples\n\n_Curling for Dummies_\n\n_Curling News, The_\n\ncurling pins\n\ncurling siblings\n\n_Curling: The History, The Players, The Game_ (Hansen)\n\ncurling shoes\n\nCurtis, Darwin\n\n##\n\nDacey, Mark\n\nDagg, Lyle\n\nDarte, Marilyn( _See also_ Bodogh, Marilyn)\n\nDave's Pizza\n\nDavis, Alan\n\nDavis, Chris\n\nDavis, Gord\n\nDavis, Jamie\n\ndeaf players\n\ndeionizers\n\nDelorey, Paul\n\nDesert Spiel\n\nDetroit Curling Club\n\nDetroit Lions\n\nDi Lorio, Lino\n\nDoily, the\n\nDominion Curling Association( _See also_ Canadian Curling Association)\n\nDominion Grocery\n\ndoubles. _See_ mixed doubles\n\nDuddington Curling Society\n\nDufferin, Earl of\n\nDuguid, Don\n\nDurant, Fred\n\nduster\n\n##\n\nEdmonton\n\nEgilssen, Einer\n\neight-ender\n\nEisschiessen (game)\n\n\"eisstocks,\"\n\nelectronic hog line sensor\n\nElliot, Sir William\n\nElmer Freytag Award\n\nEmpress Hotel (Victoria)\n\nEnd of the Rail Curling Club\n\nequipment\n\nantiquated\n\nsuppliers\n\nEverett, Ken\n\nEye on the Hog\n\nEzyduzit Curling League\n\n##\n\nfans, famous\n\nfantasy curling camp\n\nFeatherstone CurlMaster\n\nFeatherstone, Preston\n\nFedoruk, Sylvia\n\nFenson, Bob\n\nFenson, Pete\n\nFenwick Twist\n\n_Ferbey Four, The_ (Jones)\n\nFerby, Randy\n\nFerraro, Marco\n\nfights\n\nFinland\n\nFlorida\n\nFolk, Rick\n\nfootball\n\nFord (sponsor)\n\nfour rock free-guard zone\n\nFowler, Alan\n\nFrance\n\nFrances Brodie Award\n\nFrauenlob, Hans\n\nfree-guard zone\n\nFriar's Brier\n\nFry, Barry\n\n##\n\nGallant, Peter\n\nGarmish-Partenkirchen (Germany)\n\nGarn For Quarry (Wales)\n\nGarza, Josele\n\nGellard, Kim\n\nGemmell, Maymar\n\ngender battles. _See_ battle of the sexes\n\nGermany\n\nGerster, Stan\n\nGervais, Hec\n\n_Globe and Mail_\n\ngolf\n\nGovernor-General's Club\n\nGovernor-General's trophy\n\nGowanlock, Ab\n\nGowsell, Paul\n\nGraham, Sandy\n\nGrand Banks (NF)\n\nGrand Caledonian Curling Club\n\nGrand Match (1848)\n\n\"Grand Match at Linlithgow Loch\" (painting)\n\nGrand National Curling Club\n\nGrand Slam of Curling\n\nGranite Club (Toronto)\n\nGranite Curling Club\n\ngranite, types of\n\nGray, Glenn\n\nGreat Britain\n\nGretzky, Wayne\n\ngrey trefor (granite)\n\nGrits vs. Tories spiel\n\nGross, Paul\n\nGrossart, Jack\n\nGrossart Super Brush\n\n_Guinness Book of World Records_\n\nGushue, Brad\n\n##\n\nHackner, Al (\"The Iceman\")\n\nhacks\n\nHaig, Senator Jack\n\nHalifax\n\nhalls of fame. _See_ Canadian Curling Hall of Fame; U.S. Curling Hall of Fame\n\nHaluptzok, Mark\n\nHamilton (ON)\n\n_Hamilton Spectator_\n\nHamilton-Temple-Blackwood, Frederick. _See_ Dufferin, Earl of\n\nHamilton Thistle Curling Club\n\nHanna, Jean\n\nHansen, Warren\n\nharmonica\n\nHardie, Dr. J.B.\n\nHarper, Stephen\n\nHarris, Mike\n\nHarrison, Neil\n\nHart, Richard\n\nHarvard University\n\nHaskell, Jamie\n\nHasselborg, Mikael\n\nheadsets\n\nheavyweight spiel\n\nHec Gervais Award\n\n_Help!_ (film)\n\nHemmings, Guy\n\n_Herald, The_ (Glasgow)\n\n_History of Curling,The_ (Kerr)\n\nhockey\n\nhog line\n\ndecisions, controversial\n\norigin of name\n\numpires\n\nwidth of\n\nhog score\n\nHollett, Peter\n\nHouse, Wilber\n\nHouston, Heather\n\nHouston, Neil\n\nHoward Rule\n\nHoward, Glenn\n\nHoward, Russ\n\nHowell, Nancy\n\nHowell, Maxwell L.\n\nhubcaps (\"stones\")\n\nHudson, Gordon\n\nHudson's Bay Company\n\nhumidity\n\nhumour\n\nHunt, Jim\n\nHunt, Mel\n\nHunter, Rod\n\n##\n\nice, changing speed of\n\nIce King\n\nIllinois State Curling Foundation\n\nIndy 500,\n\ninstant replay\n\nInternational Curling Federation (ICF)\n\n_International Guide to Curling_ (Welsh)\n\nInternational Olympic Committee\n\nin-turns\n\nirons\n\nItaly\n\nIvoire Hotel (Africa)\n\n##\n\nJagger, Mick\n\njam can \"rocks,\"\n\nJames Bay\n\nJapan\n\nJenkins, Clarence \"Shorty,\"\n\nJohnson, Cassie\n\nJohnson, Leo\n\nJohnson, Lyndon B.\n\nJones, Colleen\n\nJones, Jennifer\n\nJones, Terry\n\nJubilee Meeting, Royal Caledonian Curling Club (1888)\n\nJubilee Stone\n\nJunior-Senior championship winners\n\n##\n\nKapuskasing (ON)\n\nKawaja, John\n\nkeanie (granite)\n\nKeene (ON)\n\nKeith, Toby\n\n_Ken Watson on Curling_ (Watson)\n\nKennedy, Bruce\n\nKerr, Charlie\n\nKerr, Rev. John\n\nKing, Cathy\n\nKingston (ON)\n\nKleibrink, Shannon\n\nknee problems\n\nKnox, Debbie\n\nKotanen, Ray\n\nKruger Products\n\n##\n\nLabatt\n\nLabatt Beer\n\nLabatt Tankard ( _See also_ Macdonald Brier Tankard)\n\nLabonte, Bob\n\nLabonte Curse\n\nLadies Curling Association, Canadian Branch, Royal Caledonian Curling Club\n\nLagoon Leisure Centre (Scotland)\n\nLaing, Brent\n\nLake Placid (NY)\n\nLakehead Rock\n\nLaliberte, Connie\n\nLaliberte, Corinne\n\nLaliberte, Janet\n\nLang, Lorraine\n\nLang, Rick\n\nLank, Patti\n\nLantos, Robert\n\nlapel pins. _See_ curling pins\n\nLas Vegas\n\nLauber, Harold\n\nLausanne (Switzerland)\n\nLees, Charles\n\nleft-handers spiel\n\nLeno, Jay\n\nLetterman, David\n\nlexicon, curling terms\n\nlieutenant-governors\n\n_Little Mosque on the Prairie_ (TV show)\n\nlittle rocks\n\nlocations, unusual\n\nLockerbie (Scotland)\n\nLoen, Sjur\n\nLohnes, Bruce\n\nLukowich, Ed\n\n##\n\nMcCain Foods\n\nMcCormick, Wally\n\nMacdonald Brier Tankard ( _See also_ Labatt Tankard)\n\nMacdonald, Fiona\n\nMacdonald, John A.\n\nMacdonald Tobacco Company\n\nMcDonald, Toby\n\nMacDuff, Jack\n\nMcEdwards, Kathy\n\nMacFadyen, Ted\n\nMcGrath, Larry\n\nMcIntyre, Marvin\n\n_Mackay-Bennett_ (ship)\n\nMcKee, Joyce\n\n_Maclean's_ magazine\n\nMacmillan, Hammy\n\nMacneill, Murray\n\nMajor League Baseball\n\nMartin, Kevin\n\nmade-for-TV games\n\nmale-versus-female games. _See_ battle of the sexes\n\nManahan, Cliff\n\nManion, Dave\n\nManitoba\n\nManitoba Bonspiel\n\nManitoba Curling Association\n\nManning, Ron\n\nMaple Leaf Gardens (Toronto)\n\nMarco hack\n\nMarg Mitchell Award\n\nMartin, Kevin\n\nMartin, Rhona\n\nMassachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)\n\nMather, Harry\n\nMaxwell, Doug\n\nMayflower Curling Club\n\nMayo, Larry\n\nMazinke, Harvey\n\nMCA. _See_ Manitoba Bonspiel\n\nMead, Jon\n\nMeleschuk, Orest\n\n_Men with Brooms_ (film)\n\nmen's team statistics\n\nMerklinger, Dave\n\nMexico\n\n_Miami Herald_\n\nmicrophones\n\nMiddaugh, Sherry\n\nMiddaugh, Wayne\n\nMilliken, Hugh\n\nMilwaukee\n\nMitchell, Colin\n\nmixed doubles\n\nMoncton (NB)\n\nMoncton 100,\n\nMontreal\n\nMontreal Canadiens\n\nMoore, Archie\n\nMoore, Linda\n\nMoores, Frank\n\nMoose Factory (ON)\n\nMoosonee (ON)\n\nMorocco\n\nMorris, Earle\n\nMorris, John\n\nmovies\n\nMurdock, David\n\nMurphy, Ken (\"Crazy Legs\")\n\nMurphy, W.H.\n\nmuseum\n\nMustapac, Dan\n\n##\n\nNagano (Japan)\n\nNapa Valley (CA)\n\nNational Basketball Association (NBA)\n\nNational Basketball League\n\nNational Hockey League (NHL)\n\n_National Post_\n\nNashville Curling Club\n\nNeale, Harry\n\nNedohin, Dave\n\nNedohin, Heather\n\nNeff, Aubrey\n\nNew Brunswick\n\nNew York\n\nNew York City\n\nNewfoundland\/Labrador\n\nNewton, Laurie\n\nnicknames\n\nNichols, Bob\n\nNicol, Bob\n\nNokia (sponsor)\n\nNorthcott, Ron\n\nNorthern Ontario\n\nNorthwest Territories\n\nNorway\n\nNoseworthy, Mark\n\n##\n\noccupations\n\nOdishaw, Grant\n\nOffice Depot\n\nOkelsrud, Hans\n\nOland, Sid\n\nolder players\n\nOlson, Elias Bjarni (\"Ole\")\n\nOlympic Stadium (Montreal)\n\nOlympics : (1924); (1932) ; (1975); (1987); (1988); (1992), ; (1998); (2001); (2002) ; (2006) ; (2010)\n\nOntario\n\nOntario Curling Association\n\n_Ontario Curling Report_\n\nOntario double-rink competition\n\nOntario Senior Championship\n\nopening banquet (Brier)\n\nopening ceremony (Brier)\n\nO'Rourke, Mark\n\nOrchard Lake (NY)\n\nOrder of Canada\n\norder of playing rule\n\nOrillia (ON)\n\nO'Sullivan, Shawn\n\nOscarius, Kjell\n\nOttawa\n\nOttawa Curling Club\n\nOttawa Valley\n\noutdoor bonspiel\n\nout-turns\n\nOyler, Don\n\n##\n\npaintings\n\nPaju, Ray\n\n_Paper Lion_ (Plimpton)\n\npebbling can\n\nPennant, Thomas\n\n_Penticton Western News_\n\nPerroud, Jane Hooper\n\nPerroud, Pat\n\nPerry, Mel\n\nPeters\n\nPetryk, Dan\n\nPezer, Vera\n\nPfeifer, Scott\n\nPhiladelphia Flyers\n\nPhillips, Alf\n\nPhillips Jr., Alf\n\npin collectors\n\nPin People, The (company)\n\nPine Hill Divinity College\n\nplayers\n\nclergy\n\ncouples\n\nfull-time occupations\n\nheavy\n\nleft-handed\n\nmost Brier games\n\nnicknames\n\nolder\n\npolice\n\nin politics\n\nprofile of\n\nsiblings\n\nspecial needs\n\nvisible minority\n\nyoung\n\nPlayers Championships (2006)\n\nPlimpton, George\n\npolice curlers\n\nPotter, Cassie\n\nPotter, Joyce\n\nPralogna-la-Vanoise (Albertville)\n\nPrince Edward Island\n\nPrint Measurement Bureau\n\nPurple Heart\n\npush brooms\n\n##\n\nQuebec\n\nQuebec City\n\nQueen City Curling Stone Co.\n\n_Quirks and Quarks_ (radio show)\n\n##\n\nRabat (Morocco)\n\nRamcharan, Rudy\n\nRanin, Janice\n\nrecords\n\nred-brick sliders\n\nred\/brown trefor (granite)\n\nRegina\n\n_Regina Leader-Post_\n\nReid, Charles\n\nretirement\n\nRichardson, Arnold\n\nRichardson, Ernie\n\nRichardson, Garnet (\"Sam\")\n\nRichardson, Wes\n\nRideau Hall (Ottawa)\n\nRiley, Mike\n\nrink ice shaver\n\nRink Rat (broom)\n\nrinks\n\nRobert Burns World Foundation\n\nRoberts, Bruce\n\nRoberts, Joe\n\nRobertson, Ed\n\nRobinson, Andrew\n\nrock sharpener\n\nRockefeller Center (NYC)\n\nrocks\n\ngranite used in\n\nidentifying by colour\n\nlifespan of\n\nmaking of\n\nmeasure\n\nrules\n\nscale of\n\nscaled down\n\nstandardization of\n\nsunken\n\ntypes of\n\nworld's largest\n\nRocque, Marcel\n\nRogers Sportsnet\n\nRoss Harstone Award\n\nRowland, Les\n\nRoyal Bank of Scotland\n\nRoyal Caledonian Curling Club\n\nRoyal Canadian Legion\n\nRoyal Montreal Curling Club\n\nrubber hack\n\nRudy Spiel\n\nRules of the Game\n\nRutgers University\n\nRyan, Linsay\n\nRyan, Pat\n\n##\n\nSafeway\n\nSt. John's (NF)\n\nSt. John's Curling Club\n\nSalt Lake City (UT)\n\nSandra Schmirler Award\n\nSarnia (ON)\n\nSaskatchewan\n\nSaskatoon Imperials\n\nSauve, Paul\n\nSavage, Lisa\n\nSavage, Paul\n\nSavill, Craig\n\nShegelski, Mark,\n\nSchmirler, Sandra\n\nSchwaller, Andreas\n\nSchwarzenegger, Arnold\n\nScotch Cup (1965)\n\nScotch Whiskey Company\n\nScotland\n\nScotland-Canada competition\n\nScott, Kelly\n\nScott Paper\n\nScottie tissues\n\nScotties Tournament of Hearts\n\nScottish National Portrait Gallery\n\nseven-ender\n\nShegelski, Mark\n\nShot, The\n\nshuffleboard\n\nShuster, John\n\nsibling curlers\n\nSilver Broom\n\nSilver Tankard\n\n_Simpsons, The_ (TV show)\n\nSioux Lookout (ON)\n\nskins games\n\nskip(s)\n\nCdn. representing foreign countries\n\nrules\n\nsliders\n\nsliding, before contest\n\n_Smart Curling_ (Pezer)\n\nSmith, Donald. _See_ Strathcona, Lord\n\nSogaard, Marten\n\nSomerville, Bud\n\nSomerville, John\n\nSomerville, Ray\n\nSomerville, Tom\n\nsongs\n\nSonmor, Jean\n\nSotheby's\n\nSparkes, Bernie\n\nspiels\n\nsponsors\n\n_Sports and Games in Canadian Life_ (Howell)\n\nSportsnet. _See_ Rogers Sportsnet\n\nSpringsteen, Bruce\n\nStewart, David\n\nStick, the\n\n_Stone Age, The_ (Pezer)\n\nstones. _See_ rocks\n\nStoughton, Jeff\n\nStrathcona Cup\n\nStrathcona Curling Club\n\nStrathcona, Lord\n\nStrauss Herbs (sponsor)\n\nstraw brooms\n\nStrum, Bill\n\nSudbury (ON)\n\nSullivan, Jim\n\nSummer Spud (spiel)\n\nsunken rocks\n\nSuper Bowl\n\nSuper Brush\n\nSuper Draw Curling Bonspiel\n\nSutton, Jodi\n\nSutton, Julie\n\nSweden\n\nsweeping\n\nbefore contest\n\ninstructions, calling\n\nSwitzerland\n\nSydenham Curling Club\n\nSykes, Leon\n\n##\n\ntalk shows\n\n\"Tam Samson's Elegy\" (Burns)\n\nTartan Curling Club\n\ntassels\n\nTeam Canada\n\nteam statistics\n\ntee line, width of\n\nTeflon sliders\n\ntelephone employees championship\n\ntelevision ( _See also_ CBC; Rogers Sportsnet; TSN)\n\nterminology\n\nTetley, Bill\n\nTetley, Ian\n\n_This Hour Has 22 Minutes_\n\nThompson, Jim\n\nthree-rock free-guard zone\n\nThunder Bay (ON)\n\nthunder mugs\n\nTim Hortons (commercial)\n\nTim Hortons (sponsor)\n\nTim Hortons Brier\n\ntime clocks\n\nTimmins (ON)\n\n_Titanic_\n\nTorino (Italy)\n\nToronto\n\nToronto Blue Jays\n\nToronto Curling Club\n\nToronto Maple Leafs\n\n_Toronto Sun_\n\n_Tour Through Scotland_ (Pennant)\n\ntrading cards\n\nTragically Hip, The\n\ntransatlantic competition\n\nTrans-Canada Telephone Employees' Championship\n\ntrain travel\n\nTrenchie, Gord\n\nTSN\n\nTSN Skins Game\n\nTuck, Kim\n\nTurnbull, Ray\n\nTurner Curling Museum\n\nTurner, Don\n\nTurner, Elva\n\nTwist\n\n##\n\nUnited States Men's Championship\n\nUnited States Curling Association\n\nUnited States Curling Championship\n\nUnited States Women's Curling Association\n\nUniversity of Minnesota\n\nUniversity of Saskatchewan\n\nU.S. Curling Hall of Fame\n\nU.S. National Championship\n\nU.S. Olympic Committee\n\nU.S. Olympic team\n\n_USA Today_\n\nUsackis, John\n\nUtica Curling Club\n\nUusipaavalniemi, Maskku\n\n##\n\nVacaville (CA)\n\nVancouver Fire Department\n\nVeale, Fred\n\nVictoria (BC)\n\nVierumaki (Finland)\n\nVilleneuve, Camille\n\nvisible minority players\n\nvision-impaired players\n\n##\n\nWalchuk, Don\n\nWales\n\nwalkie-talkies\n\nWalsh, Billy\n\nWard, Phil\n\nwarming up\n\nWatkins, Jack\n\nWatson, Grant\n\nWatson, Ken\n\nWatson, Harry\n\nWatson, Ken (\"Mr. Curling\")\n\nWatson Lake Outdoor Bonspiel\n\nWaterman, Grant\n\nWelsh, Jimmy\n\nWelsh, Robin\n\nWendorf, Keith\n\nWerenich, Ed,\n\nWestphal, Don\n\nWhalen, Rob\n\nwheelchair players\n\nWillis, Errik\n\nWilson, Jim\n\nWilson, Tom\n\nWinnipeg\n\nWinnipeg Amphitheatre\n\nWinnipeg Granite Club\n\nwomen's curling: highlights; sponsors ; statistics\n\nWomen's World Championship: (1961); (2005)\n\nWood, Bill\n\nWood, Howard\n\nWood Jr., Howard\n\nwooden stones\n\nWoods, Bob\n\nWorld Curling Championship : (1972); (1973); (1974); (1976); (1980); (1981) ; (1983); (1984); (1985); (1989) ; (1990); (1996); (2001); (2003); (2005); (2007)\n\nWorld Curling Federation (WCF)\n\nWorld Curling Tour\n\nWorld Junior Curling Championship: (1975) ; (1976); (1994)\n\nWorld Lefthanders Championship\n\nWorld Open\n\nWorld Series\n\nWorld Wheelchair Curling Championship\n\n##\n\nYoung, Willie\n\nYellowgras (SK)\n\nyoung players\n\nYukon\n\n##\n\nZamboni\n","meta":{"redpajama_set_name":"RedPajamaBook"}}
+{"text":"\n## \"Oh, I understand you very well,\" said Louisa, her voice a little high with suppressed feelings.\n\n\"What a very disagreeable man you are, Mr. Savage, with your orders and arrogance. I should very much dislike having you as a patient.\"\n\nHis dark eyes snapped at her. \"You surprise me, Louisa. I should have thought it would have been the very thing, because I would be entirely at your mercy and you could wreak revenge to your heart's content.\" His silky voice had a nasty edge to it. He opened the door. \"Perhaps we'd better keep out of each other's way?\" he said.\n\nShe agreed stiffly and when she was alone again, wondered why the prospect left her with the feeling that life would be rather dull.\nRomance readers around the world were sad to note the passing of Betty Neels in June 2001. Her career spanned thirty years, and she continued to write into her ninetieth year. To her millions of fans, Betty epitomized the romance writer, and yet she began writing almost by accident. She had retired from nursing, but her inquiring mind still sought stimulation. Her new career was born when she heard a lady in her local library bemoaning the lack of good romance novels. Betty's first book, Sister Peters in Amsterdam, was published in 1969, and she eventually completed 134 books. Her novels offer a reassuring warmth that was very much a part of her own personality. She was a wonderful writer, and she will be greatly missed. Her spirit and genuine talent will live on in all her stories.\n\n## THE BEST OF BETTY NEELS\n\n## HEAVEN AROUND THE CORNER\n\n## CONTENTS\n\nCHAPTER ONE\n\nCHAPTER TWO\n\nCHAPTER THREE\n\nCHAPTER FOUR\n\nCHAPTER FIVE\n\nCHAPTER SIX\n\nCHAPTER SEVEN\n\nCHAPTER EIGHT\n\nCHAPTER NINE\n\n## CHAPTER ONE\n\nTHE SEPTEMBER SUN, shining from an early morning sky, cast its impartial light on the narrow crowded streets, the smoke-grimed houses, several quite beautiful churches and the ugly bulk of the Royal Southern Hospital, giving a glow to its red bricks and a sparkle to its many narrow windows. It was a splendid example of mid-Victorian architecture, crowned with cupolas and a highly ornamental balustrade and rendered even more hideous by reason of the iron fire escapes protruding from each wing. And inside it was even uglier, for here the sun was unable to reach all its staircases and passages, so that the dark brown paintwork and distempered walls tended to cast a damper on anyone passing through them.\n\nBut the girl going down the stairs two at a time noticed none of these things. Her neat head with its crown of light brown hair was full of excited thoughts. She had passed her State finals; she was a fully trained nurse at last\u2014the world was her oyster. She was determined on that, despite the Principal Nursing Officer's gracious speech as she was handed the fateful envelope. There was a place for her at the Royal Southern, that lady told her; Night Staff Nurse on the surgical wing and the prospect of a Sister's post very shortly, and there was no need for Nurse Evans to decide at once...\n\nBut Louisa Evans had already decided instantly; she was going to leave, not only the hospital, but if possible, England too, although she prudently forbore from saying so at the time. At the end of the day, when she went off duty, she was going to write her resignation and hand it in and then she would go home for her two days off and tell her stepmother. She checked her headlong flight for a second, dreading that, but it was something which had to be done, and she had made up her mind to that weeks ago when she sat her exams.\n\nShe went along a narrow corridor, up another flight of stairs, across a wide landing and through the swing doors leading to Women's Surgical. Just for the moment the future wasn't important, only the delicious prospect of telling Sister and the nurses on the ward that she was an SRN.\n\nAnd she had no need to tell anyone. Sister, coming out of her office, took one look at Louisa's happy face and said: 'You've passed\u2014congratulations, but of course I knew that you would.' And after that the news spread like wildfire, with the patients, only too glad to have something to talk about, telling each other, nodding their heads and saying, with hindsight, that of course Nurse Evans had been bound to pass, she was such a good nurse. And as for Louisa, she floated up and down the ward, doing her work with her usual efficiency while a tiny bit of her mind pondered the problems of what she should do and where she should go.\n\nA problem solved sooner than she had expected: She had been to her midday dinner\u2014a noisy meal she shared with friends who had reached her exalted position too\u2014and she was back on the ward, changing Mrs Griffin's dressing, when that lady asked her what she intended doing.\n\nLouisa, aware of how news, false as well as true, travelled with the speed of light round the hospital, said cautiously that she hadn't quite made up her mind, and rolling the lady carefully back into a sitting position, rearranged her pillows, smoothed the counterpane and prepared to depart with her dressing tray.\n\n'Well, don't go for a minute, Nurse,' begged Mrs Griffin. 'Listen to this: \"Trained nurse urgently required for lady patient travelling to Norway in a month's time for an indefinite stay. Good salary and expenses paid.\" What do you think of that?' She folded the Telegraph and handed it to Louisa, who read it carefully, and having an excellent memory, noted the telephone number. 'It sounds fun,' she observed cheerfully. 'Someone'll be lucky.' She drew back the curtains and with a parting nod raced off down the ward to clear the tray and get on with the next dressing. But before she did that, she jotted down the telephone number on to the hem of her apron.\n\nShe went off duty at five o'clock, composed her letter of resignation and handed it in for delivery to the office and then went to telephone from the box in the entrance hall. There was no one about; she could see the porter on duty, sitting with his feet up, sipping tea during his brief break. All her friends were already in the Nurses' Home, getting dressed for the party they were all going to later on that evening. She dialled the number.\n\nThe voice at the other end asked her to wait a moment and after a few seconds another voice spoke. Louisa had had all the afternoon to rehearse what she was going to say and she was listened to without interruption. When she had finished, the voice, a woman's, high and somehow breathless, said: 'I have interviewed several nurses already, but none of them suit me. Come and see me tomorrow morning about eleven o'clock.'\n\n'I'm on duty until the early afternoon...'\n\n'Oh, well, the afternoon then, about three o'clock. I'm at the Connaught Hotel, and ask for Miss Savage.'\n\nLouisa put the receiver down slowly. Miss Savage had sounded petulant; she wondered what complaint the lady suffered from, but the only way was to go and see her and find out. Even if she were offered the job, she need not accept it.\n\nShe started to stroll along the passage to the small door which opened into the Nurses' Home. On the other hand, if she were offered the job it would be like the answer to a prayer\u2014she had been longing to leave the hospital for some months now, not because she was unhappy there\u2014on the contrary, she had enjoyed every minute of the three years she had spent within its walls\u2014but because her stepmother, living not too far away, had been able to keep tabs on her for that time, knowing that she had set her heart on training as a nurse and wasn't likely to leave the Royal Southern and was therefore unlikely to escape. But now she could do just that... She quickened her steps, intent on not being late for the party.\n\nThey had all decided to dress rather grandly for the occasion. Louisa, burrowing around in her cupboard, wasted a good deal of time deciding whether the pale blue crepe would look better than the sage green silk jersey. On second thoughts she didn't like either of them, she had had them too long although she hadn't worn them all that much. She chose the green and rushed off to find an empty bathroom.\n\nHalf an hour later she was dressed and ready\u2014a rather small girl and a little too thin, with a face which wasn't quite pretty although her eyes, large and hazel and fringed with long curling lashes, redeemed it from plainness. Her hair, long and fine and silky, she had fastened back with a silver clasp because there hadn't been time to do anything more elaborate. Presently her friends trooped in and they all went into the hospital to the residents' room where the housemen and some of the students had laid on a buffet supper. The room was packed already, with everyone talking at once and quite a few dancing to a barely heard tape recorder. Louisa, popular with everyone because she was ready to lend an ear to anyone who wanted it, was quickly absorbed into a group of young housemen, all of whom looked upon her as a sisterly type to whom they could confide their troubled but fleeting love affairs, for she never told them how silly they were but listened to their outpourings, giving sympathy but never advice. For a girl of twenty-two she had a wise head on her shoulders, albeit a rather shy one. Her stepmother had taken care that she had had very little chance of making friends while she was at school and when she left, until she had succeeded at last in her ambition to train as a nurse; she had been kept too busy to do more than meet the people Mrs Evans approved of, most of them elderly or at least middle-aged, so that she still retained the feeling of not quite belonging among the young people at the hospital, certainly she had shied away from any of the young men of her acquaintance who had hinted at anything more serious than a kiss, and they, once they had laughed about her among themselves, but kindly, had taken to treating her like a sister.\n\nShe joined the dancers presently and except for short pauses for food and drink, didn't lack for partners for the rest of the evening. The party broke up around midnight and they all went their several ways, yawning their heads off and grumbling at the prospect of getting up at half past six the next morning. All the same, they made a pot of tea and crowded into Louisa's room to drink it and discuss the party, so that it was an hour later before she went finally to bed, too tired to give a thought about the next day.\n\nShe dressed carefully for the interview in a thin wool suit with a slim skirt and a short loose jacket, it was a pretty grey and she wore a silk shirt in navy to go with it; a suitable outfit, she considered, making her look older than her years, which she considered might be a good thing.\n\nThe hotel looked grand and she went inside feeling a great deal less calm than she looked, but the reception clerk was pleasant and friendly and she was led to the lift and taken several floors up and along a thickly carpeted corridor until the porter tapped on a door and opened it for her.\n\nLouisa had expected to be interviewed in one of the reception rooms of the hotel; presumably her patient was confined to her room. And a very handsome room it was too, splendidly furnished with wide french windows and a balcony beyond\u2014and quite empty. She walked into the centre of the room and waited, and presently a door opened and a chambermaid beckoned her. It was an equally luxurious room, this time a bedroom, and sitting up in the wide bed was, she presumed, Miss Savage.\n\nMiss Savage wasn't at all what Louisa had expected her to be. She had entertained the vague idea that the lady would be elderly and frail: the woman in the bed was still young\u2014in her thirties and pretty with it. She had golden hair cut in a fringe and hanging in a gentle curve on either side of her face, her make-up was exquisite and she was wrapped in soft pink, all frills and lace.\n\nShe stared at Louisa for what seemed a long time and then said surprisingly: 'Well, at least you're young.' She nodded to a chair. 'Sit down\u2014you realise that we may be in Norway for some time if you come?'\n\nLouisa said, 'Yes,' and added: 'Will you tell me something of your illness? I couldn't possibly decide until I know more about that\u2014and you must want to know a good deal more about me.'\n\nMiss Savage smiled slowly. 'Actually I think you'll do very well. You're young, aren't you, and haven't been trained long.'\n\n'I'm twenty-two and I became a State Registered Nurse yesterday. I've not travelled at all...'\n\n'Nor met many people? From the country, are you?'\n\n'My home is in Kent.'\n\n'You won't mind leaving it?'\n\n'No, Miss Savage.'\n\nThe woman picked up a mirror and idly examined her face. 'I've got a liver complaint,' she observed. 'My doctor tells me that I have a blocked duct, whatever that is, I'm not bedridden but I get off days and he insists that if I go to Norway I should have a nurse with me.' She shot a glance at Louisa. 'My brother works there\u2014he builds bridges\u2014somewhere in the north, but I've arranged to take a flat in Bergen for a month or so.'\n\n'You have treatment, Miss Savage?'\n\n'Doctor Miles looks after me, he'll recommend a doctor to treat me.'\n\n'Yes, of course. But if you can get about, will you require a full-time nurse?'\n\nMiss Savage frowned. 'Certainly I shall!' She sounded petulant. 'I often have bad nights\u2014I suffer from insomnia; you'll have more than enough to do.' She put the mirror down and began to buff her nails. 'I intend to go in a little over three weeks\u2014you'll be free then?' She glanced up for a moment. 'You'll be paid whatever is the correct rate.'\n\nLouisa sat quietly. It seemed a strange kind of interview, no talk of references or duties. She had the impression that Miss Savage wasn't in the least interested in her as a person. The job was just what she had hoped for, but there was something about this girl that she didn't like. That she was spoilt and liked her own way didn't worry Louisa overmuch, but there was something else that she couldn't quite put her finger on. On the other hand, if she didn't take what seemed like a heaven-sent chance, she might have to stay in England.\n\n'I accept the job, Miss Savage,' she said at length. 'You will want references, of course, and I should like a letter from you confirming it. Perhaps you'll let me know details of the journey and my duties later on? Will you be travelling alone or will your brother be with you?'\n\nMiss Savage gave an angry laugh. 'He's far too busy, wrapped up in his bridges...'\n\nWhy did she want to go? thought Louisa silently. Surely Norway, unless one went there for winter sports, would be rather an unsuitable place in which to convalesce? And she had the impression that the brother wasn't all that popular with his sister, but that was no concern of hers.\n\nAll the way back to the Royal Southern she wondered if she had done the right thing, and knew that when she got back there she had, for there was a letter from her stepmother, telling her that she was expected home on her next days off and threatening to telephone the Principal Nursing Officer if Louisa didn't go. There were guests coming, said the letter, and they expected to meet her, and why hadn't Louisa telephoned for a week? She was an ungrateful girl...\n\nLouisa skimmed through the rest of the letter; it was merely a repetition of all the other letters from her stepmother. She would go home because if she didn't there would be a lot of unpleasantness, but she wasn't going to say a word about the new job. Perhaps once she was out of the country and out of reach of her stepmother, she would be left to lead her own life. She wrote a brief reply, scrambled into her uniform and went back on duty.\n\nShe told Sister before she went off duty that evening, and later on, after supper, those of her friends who had crowded into her room for a final pot of tea before bed, and her news was received with some astonishment. Louisa had always been considered a rather quiet girl, well liked and ready to join in any fun but unlikely to do anything out of the ordinary. There was a spate of excited talk and any amount of unsolicited advice before they finally went to their own beds.\n\nThere were two days to go before her days off. She used them to good advantage, arranging to get a passport and recklessly drawing out quite a big slice of her savings to buy new clothes. Common sense made her pause though before doing that. Supposing Miss Savage changed her mind, she might need the money...\n\nBut Miss Savage didn't disappoint her; there was a letter confirming the job and a promise to advise her as to travel arrangements in due course. Louisa counted her money and promised herself one or two shopping excursions. But first she had to go home.\n\nShe caught an early morning train to Sevenoaks; she could have gone the evening before, but that would have meant another night to be spent at home, but now she would be there well before noon and if there were people coming to lunch, her stepmother wouldn't have much time to talk to her. She got into the Ightham bus and settled down for the four-mile journey, looking with pleasure at the country they were going through. The trees were beginning to turn already and little spirals of blue smoke rose in the cottage gardens where the bonfires had been started. And the village looked lovely, too, with its square ringed by old houses. Linda paused to pass the time of day with some of the people who knew her and then walked up the narrow lane leading to her home.\n\nThe house was old and timbered and stood sideways on to the lane, surrounded by trees and large gardens. Louisa opened the little gate set in a corner of the hedge, well away from the drive, then walked across the grass and in through a side door leading to a low-ceilinged room furnished with rather old-fashioned chairs and small tables. There were bookshelves on either side of the open hearth and a rather shabby Turkey carpet on the floor. She was halfway across it when the door opened and Mrs Evans came in.\n\n'There you are!' Her voice was sharp and held no welcome. 'You should have come last night\u2014Frank was here. And why on earth did you come in this way? You know this room isn't used.' She looked around her with a dissatisfied air. 'So shabby and old-fashioned.'\n\nLouisa put down her overnight bag. 'It was Mother's sitting room,' she said flatly, 'and Father loved it.'\n\nMrs Evans shrugged thin, elegant shoulders. 'Did you pass your exams?' and when Louisa nodded: 'Thank heaven for that, now perhaps you'll see some sense and settle down. I must say Frank's been patient.'\n\n'I've no intention of marrying Frank, and I'm rather tired of saying so.'\n\n'Then you're a fool. He's got everything\u2014money, that splendid house in the village, that gorgeous car and a villa in Spain. What more could a girl want? Especially when she's not pretty. You're not likely to get another chance like that.' She gave Louisa a quick look. 'You've not fallen in love with one of those young doctors, I hope?'\n\n'No. Why are you so anxious for me to marry Frank Little?'\n\nHer stepmother's answer was a little too careless. 'He's devoted to you and he'll be generous.'\n\nLouisa studied her stepmother; still quite young, pretty and very elegant; extravagant, too. She had been left everything in the will, but Louisa suspected that she had spent most of it during the last three years and had deliberately cultivated Frank Little, hoping for an amenable son-in-law who would pay her bills\u2014and an equally amenable stepdaughter who would marry him.\n\nWell, I won't, thought Louisa. If only her stepmother had been fifteen or ten years younger she could have married him herself. The fact of her father's marriage to a woman so much younger than himself still hurt Louisa. It wouldn't have been so bad if she had loved him. She still wondered at his marrying her; this scheming, clever woman who had twisted him round her little finger and had never forgiven Louisa for not allowing herself to be twisted too. She could think of nothing to say and picked up her bag.\n\n'There are several people coming to lunch,' said Mrs Evans. 'You'd better go and tidy yourself.' She turned and went out of the room ahead of Louisa and crossed the hall to the drawing room, and Louisa went upstairs to her room. While she did her face and tidied her hair she thought about leaving England; she would miss her home, but that was all. She would have to come once more before she went because her stepmother would demand it and if she refused she might wonder why. The temptation to tell her was very great, but Mrs Evans was clever enough to prevent her going. She knew so many people, influential people who could perhaps put a spoke in Louisa's wheel. A car coming up the drive and rather noisy voices greeting each other interrupted her thoughts. She gave her unremarkable person a final inspection in the pier glass, and went downstairs.\n\nThe drawing room seemed to have a lot of people in it, but only because they were all talking at once a shade too loudly. Louisa shook hands all round, took the sherry she was offered and made small talk. She knew the five people who had arrived, but only slightly; they were friends of her stepmother's who had never come to the house while her father was alive, but now they were regular visitors. There was one more to come, of course\u2014Frank Little.\n\nHe came in presently, a man in his late thirties, rather short and plump, with an air of self-importance which sat ill on his round face with its weak chin. He stood in the doorway for a moment, giving everyone there a chance to greet him, and then went straight to Louisa.\n\n'Your dear mother assured me that you would be here,' he stated without a greeting. 'I know how difficult it is for you to get away.' He took her hand and pressed it. 'I can only hope it's because you knew that I would be here that you came.'\n\nLouisa took her hand away. It was a pity he was so pompous; otherwise she might have felt sorry for him. 'I didn't have to make any special effort to come home,' she told him politely, 'and I didn't know you'd be here.'\n\nWhich wasn't quite true; he was always there when she went home. She moved a little way from him. 'What will you drink?'\n\nHe sat next to her at lunch, monopolising the conversation in his over-hearty voice, making no secret of the fact that he considered her to be his property.\n\nAnd he was at dinner too, ill-tempered now because she had escaped that afternoon and gone for a walk\u2014her favourite walk, to Ivy Hatch where the manor house of Ightham Moat stood. She had got back too late for tea and her stepmother had been coldly angry.\n\nAnd the next day was as bad, worse in fact, for Frank had waylaid her on her way back from the village and rather blusteringly asked her to marry him, and that for the fourth time in a year.\n\nShe refused gently because although she didn't like him she didn't want to hurt his feelings. Only when he added angrily: 'Your mother considers me to be the perfect husband for you,' did she turn on her heel and start walking away from him. As she went she said over her shoulder: 'She is not my mother, Frank, and I intend to choose my own husband when I want to and not before.'\n\nHe caught up with her. 'I'm coming up to see you this evening\u2014I'm invited for dinner and there'll be no one else there.'\n\nSo after tea she went to her room, packed her bag, told her stepmother that she was leaving on the next bus and went out of the house. Mrs Evans had been too surprised to do or say anything. Louisa, leaping into the bus as it was about to leave, waved cheerfully to Frank, about to cross the village square.\n\nShe arrived back at the Royal Southern quite unrepentant, prudently asked one of her friends to say that she wasn't in the home if the telephone went and it was her stepmother, and retired to soak in a hot bath until bedtime.\n\nThe ward was busy and she spent almost all her free time shopping, so that she was too tired by the end of the day to have second thoughts about her new job. And at the end of the week she received a letter from Miss Savage confirming it, asking her to call once more so that final details might be sorted out and giving her the day and time of their flight.\n\nAnd this time when Louisa got to the hotel, it was to find her future patient reclining on a chaiselongue and rather more chatty than previously. 'Uniform,' she observed, after a brief greeting. 'You don't need to travel in one, of course, but you'd better have some with you. Dark blue, I think, and a cap, of course. Go to Harrods and charge it to my account.'\n\n'Will you want me to wear them all the time?'\n\n'Heavens, no\u2014you'll get your free time like anyone else. Besides, I shall be going out quite a bit and I shan't want you around.'\n\nLouisa blinked. 'I think I should like to see your doctor before we go.'\n\nMiss Savage shrugged. 'If you must. He's a busy man\u2014you'd better telephone him. I'll give you his number.' She yawned. 'Take a taxi and come here for me\u2014a friend will drive us to Heathrow. Be here by ten o'clock.' She frowned. 'I can't think of anything else. I shall call you by your christian name\u2014what is it? You did tell me, but I've forgotten.'\n\n'Louisa, Miss Savage.'\n\n'Old-fashioned, but so are you. OK, that's settled, then. I'll see you here in ten days' time.'\n\nLouisa got to her feet. She had been going to ask about clothes; after all, Norway would be colder than London, or so she supposed, but somehow Miss Savage didn't seem to be the right person to ask. Louisa said goodbye in her composed manner and went back on duty. After her patients on the ward, with their diagnoses clearly written down and an exact treatment besides, she found Miss Savage baffling. Her doctor would remedy that, however.\n\nBut here she was disappointed. Miss Savage's treatment was to be negligible\u2014rest, fresh air, early nights, good food. 'Miss Savage is on Vitamin B, of course, and I shall supply her with nicotinic acid as well. I've already referred her case to a Norwegian colleague who will give you any information you may wish to know. You, of course, realise that she suffers from dyspepsia and a variety of symptoms which will be treated as they arise.'\n\nLouisa listened to the impersonal voice and when it had finished, asked: 'Exercise, sir?'\n\n'Let our patient decide that, Nurse. I'm sure you understand that she'll have days when she's full of energy\u2014just make sure that she doesn't tax her strength.'\n\n'And notes of the case?' persisted Louisa.\n\n'They'll be sent to her doctor in Bergen.'\n\nShe put down the receiver. Miss Savage was a private patient, which might account for the rather guarded statements she had just listened to. Certainly, from her somewhat limited experience of similar cases on the wards, the treatment was very much the same, and unlike the patients in hospital, the patient would probably have more say in the matter of exercise and food. As far as Louisa could see, she was going along to keep an eye on Miss Savage, and not much else. But at least it would get her away from Frank.\n\nThe thought was so delightful that she embarked on a shopping spree which left her considerably poorer but possessed of several outfits which, while not absolutely in the forefront of fashion, did a great deal for her ego. She went home once more and because it was the last time for a long while, endured her stepmother's ill-humour and Frank's overbearing manner. There was less than a week to go now and she was getting excited. It was a good thing that the ward was busy so that she had little time to think about anything much except her work, and her off duty was spent in careful packing and a great number of parties given as farewell gestures by her friends.\n\nShe wrote to her stepmother the evening before she left and posted it just before she got into the taxi, with such of her friends as could be missed from their wards crowding round wishing her luck. Once the hospital was out of sight she sat back, momentarily utterly appalled at what she was doing, but only for a brief minute or so. She was already savouring the heady taste of freedom.\n\nShe was punctual to the minute, but Miss Savage wasn't. Louisa, gathering together the bottles and lotions and stowing them tidily in an elegant beauty box, hoped they wouldn't miss the plane. But a telephone call from reception galvanised her patient into sudden energy and within minutes there was a knock on the door and three people came in\u2014a young woman, as elegant as Miss Savage, and two men. They rushed to embrace Miss Savage, talking loudly and laughing a great deal, ignoring Louisa and then sweeping the entire party, complete with bellboys, luggage and an enormous bouquet of flowers, downstairs. Louisa felt that she had lost touch, at least for the moment. Once they were on the plane she would get Miss Savage to rest\u2014a light meal perhaps and a nap...\n\nNo one spoke to her and they all piled into an enormous Cadillac and roared off towards Heathrow. She sat in the back of the car, with the young woman beside her and one of the men. Miss Savage sat beside the driver, and for someone with a liver complaint who was supposed to take life easy, behaved in a wild and excitable manner, but Louisa realised that it would be useless to remonstrate with her. She was bubbling over with energy, and the man who was driving was encouraging her.\n\nAt Heathrow they got out, and to Louisa's horror, they all booked in for the flight. One of the men must have noticed the look on her face, because he patted her on the shoulder. 'Not to worry, Nurse\u2014we're only taking Claudia to Bergen. Once she's there, she's all yours.'\n\nAnd a good thing too, thought Louisa, watching the gin and tonics Miss Savage was downing once they were in flight. They were travelling first class and the plane was barely half full, which was perhaps a good thing considering the noise she and her friends were making. They had gone quietly enough through Customs. They had arrived with only a few minutes to spare and there had been no time for chat, but once on board they had relaxed. They might have been in their own homes, so little did they notice their surroundings. To Louisa, tired and apprehensive, the flight seemed endless. She heaved a sigh of relief when the plane began its descent and through a gap in the clouds she saw the wooded islands and the sea below, and then a glimpse of distant snow-capped mountains. Just for a moment she forgot her patient and her problems, and thrilled with excitement. Here was a new world, and only time would reveal all its possibilities.\n\n## CHAPTER TWO\n\nBERGEN AIRPORT was small compared with Heathrow. It took only minutes for them to clear Customs, summon two taxis and start the drive to Bergen. Louisa, sitting in the second car with the elder of the two men, hardly noticed him, there was such a lot to see. The country was wooded and very beautiful and the road wound between trees already glowing with autumn colour. She had been surprised to see on a signpost that Bergen was twelve miles away to the north; somehow she had expected to plunge straight into the town's suburbs. Presently they came to a village and then another, and then after twenty minutes or so, the outskirts of Bergen. Louisa was a little disappointed, for the busy road they were now on seemed very like any other busy road anywhere in England, but only for a moment. Suddenly they were in the centre of the town, skirting a small square park surrounded by busy streets. Her companion waved a vague hand at the window. 'Nice little tea room there,' he volunteered, 'very handy for the shops\u2014Claudia's got a flat near the theatre.'\n\nWhich, while interesting, meant nothing to Louisa.\n\nThey turned off a shopping street presently and came upon another small park set in the centre of a square of tall houses, and at its head, the theatre. The taxis stopped half way along one side and they all got out. Miss Savage's flat was on the first floor of a solid house in the middle of a terrace of similar houses, a handsome apartment, well furnished in the modern Scandinavian style, with its own front door in the lobby on the ground floor. A pleasant-looking young woman had opened the door to them and shown them up the short flight of stairs and disappeared down a passage, to reappear presently with a tea tray. Louisa, bidden to pour tea for everyone, did so, and then at Miss Savage's casual: 'Have a cup yourself, Louisa, then perhaps you'd unpack? There's a maid somewhere, see if you can find her,' went to do as she was bid.\n\nThe flat was larger than she had supposed. She had opened doors on to three bedrooms, a bathroom and a cupboard before she came to the kitchen. There was another girl here, young and pretty and, thank heaven, speaking English.\n\n'Eva,' she said as they shook hands. 'I come each day from eight o'clock until seven o'clock in the evening. In the afternoon I go for two hours to my home.' She smiled widely. 'You would like coffee?'\n\nLouisa hadn't enjoyed the tea very much. 'I'd love a cup, but I was going to unpack.'\n\n'Then first I show you your rooms and then the coffee. You are the nurse, I think?'\n\n'That's right.' Louisa followed her back down the passage; first her own room, light and airy, well furnished too, with a shower room leading from it, and then her patient's, much larger, with a bathroom attached and a balcony looking out over the square. Louisa, fortified by the coffee and five minutes' chat with Eva, went back there presently and started to unpack. It took quite a time, for Miss Savage had brought a large wardrobe with her; for an invalid she appeared to expect a good deal of social life. Louisa arranged the last scent bottle on the dressing table, arranged the quilted dressing gown invitingly on the bed, and went in search of her patient.\n\nThe tea party was still in full swing, only now a tray of drinks had taken the place of the tea and Miss Savage's pale face was flushed. Before Louisa could say anything, one of the men called out: 'All right, nurse, we're just off\u2014got a plane to catch. Look after our Claudia, won't you?' He winked broadly: 'Keep her on the straight and narrow!'\n\nTheir goodbyes took another five minutes and when they had gone the room was quiet again. Quiet until Miss Savage burst into tears, storming up and down the room, muttering to herself, even waving her arms around. All the same, she managed to look as pretty as ever, like a little girl who couldn't get her own way. Louisa's kind heart melted at the sight of her; with a little difficulty she urged her patient to sit down and then sat beside her. 'You're tired,' she said in her quiet, sensible voice. 'It's been a long day, and it's not over yet. Suppose you have a nap for an hour and Eva and I will get a meal ready for you. You haven't eaten much, have you?'\n\n'I want to go home,' mumbled Miss Savage, and buried her head against Louisa's shoulder.\n\n'Then why don't you? We can pack up in no time at all and after you've had a good night's rest we can get a flight back...'\n\n'Fool!' declared Miss Savage. 'Do you really suppose I wanted to come? To leave my friends and all the fun...'\n\nLouisa, who hadn't taken offence at being called a fool, quite understanding that her companion was suffering strong feelings about something or other, had asked merely: 'Then why did you come, Miss Savage?'\n\n'He made me, of course. I have to live, don't I, and if he stops my allowance what am I to do?'\n\n'Who's he?' enquired Louisa gently. 'You don't have to tell me, only it might make it easier if you did\u2014perhaps we can think of something.'\n\n'My beastly brother. I detest him\u2014he's mean and high-handed and he made me come here so that he can make sure that I don't spend too much money\u2014and don't have my friends.'\n\n'Very unreasonable,' commented Louisa. 'And what about me? I cost money, don't I?'\n\n'Oh, he pays for you\u2014it was one of the conditions...' Miss Savage paused and rearranged her words. 'The doctor said I had to have someone to look after me...'\n\n'I should think so indeed!' declared Louisa indignantly. She still didn't like Miss Savage overmuch, but probably her way of life was the result of having a despot of a brother who bullied her. 'Does your brother know you came here today?'\n\nMiss Savage nodded. 'Yes\u2014but you needn't worry, he won't come here. He's miles away\u2014the last I heard of him he was north of Tromso, that's on the way to the North Pole\u2014well, it's a long way beyond the Arctic Circle.'\n\nLouisa produced a handkerchief and wiped Miss Savage's face for her. 'I can't quite see why you had to come to Norway. If your brother wanted you to lead a quieter life, couldn't you have gone to live for a time in the country in England? It would have been much cheaper.'\n\nShe couldn't see her patient's face so she didn't see the cunning look upon it. Miss Savage sounded quite convincing when she said: 'But my friends would still come and see me!'\n\n'You'll make friends here,' declared Louisa. 'I thought the town looked delightful, didn't you? In a few days, when you've rested, we'll explore. There are bound to be English people living here.'\n\nMiss Savage sat up. She said: 'You're much nicer than I thought you were. I daresay we'll have quite a good time here. You will help me, won't you? I mean, if I make friends and go out sometimes?'\n\nLouisa answered her cautiously: 'Yes, of course, but you have to rest, you know, but I don't see why we shouldn't work out some sort of a routine so that you can enjoy yourself. No late nights, at least until the doctor says so, and take your pills without fail and eat properly and rest\u2014that's important.'\n\n'It all sounds utterly dreary,' Miss Savage smiled charmingly at her, 'but I'll be good, really I will.'\n\nSuiting the action to the word, she went to her room, took off her dress and allowed Louisa to tuck her up under the duvet.\n\nLouisa unpacked, consulted with Eva about their evening meal and then, for lack of anything else to do for the moment, went to sit by the sitting room window. There were people in the street below, hurrying home from work, she supposed, taking a short cut across the little park and disappearing round the corner of the theatre at the far end. The sky was clear, but there was a brisk little wind blowing the leaves around and she wondered what it would be like when autumn gave way to winter. From what she had seen of the town she was sure she was going to like it. She hoped she had brought enough warm clothing with her: Miss Savage's luggage had contained thick woollies and a couple of anoraks and fur-lined boots, and there was a mink coat which one of the men had carried for her... Her thoughts were interrupted by the telephone and she went to answer it quickly before it disturbed her patient. A man's voice, slow and deep, asking something or other.\n\n'I'm sorry, I don't understand you...'\n\n'You are the nurse?'\n\n'I'm Miss Savage's nurse, yes.'\n\n'I should like to speak to her. Her brother.'\n\n'She's resting\u2014we only arrived an hour or so ago. Perhaps you'll ring tomorrow.' Louisa's voice was cool, but not nearly as cold as the man on the other end of the line.\n\n'I shall ring when it is convenient to me,' he said, and hung up on her, leaving her annoyed and quite sure that he was just about the nastiest type she had ever encountered. Why, even Frank seemed better!\n\nShe told Miss Savage later, when that lady, remarkably revived by her nap, joined her in the sitting room.\n\n'And that's the last I'll hear from him\u2014obviously he's no intention of coming to see me.' She sounded delighted. 'If he rings again, Louisa, you're to say that I'm shopping or asleep or something. I'm hungry, have you arranged something or shall I go out?'\n\n'Eva has cooked a meal for us; it's all ready being kept hot. Eva goes in a few minutes.'\n\n'What a bore! Oh, well, you'll have to do the chores.'\n\nIt hardly seemed the time to point out that she was a nurse, not a maid; Louisa prudently held her tongue and went to tell Eva that she could dish up.\n\nMiss Savage's vivacity lasted for the whole of the meal, although her appetite, after a few mouthfuls of the excellently cooked cod, disappeared entirely\u2014indeed, presently she got up from the table, leaving Louisa, who was famished, to hurry through her meal, which seemed a shame, for the pudding was good, too, and the coffee following it excellent. At least Miss Savage accepted coffee, lying back on the big sofa facing the window, looking suddenly as though she'd been on her feet for days and hadn't slept a wink.\n\n'Bed,' said Louisa firmly, 'a warm bath first\u2014do you take sleeping pills? The doctor didn't mention them...'\n\n'There are some in my bag, but I don't think I'll need them tonight.' Miss Savage yawned widely, showing beautiful teeth. 'I'll have breakfast in bed\u2014coffee and toast, and don't disturb me until ten o'clock.'\n\nLater, with her patient in bed and presumably sleeping, Louisa cleared away their supper things, tidied the kitchen ready for Eva in the morning and went back to the window. It was very dark outside, but the streets were well lighted and there were plenty of people about and a good deal of traffic. The pleasant thought struck her that if Miss Savage wasn't to be disturbed until ten o'clock each morning, she would have time to take a quick look round after her own breakfast. She could be up and dressed by eight o'clock and Eva would be in the flat then, so that if Miss Savage wanted anything there would be someone there. She didn't know much about private nursing, but it seemed to her that this case wasn't quite as usual; only the vaguest references had been made to off duty, for instance, and what about her free days? She should have made quite sure of those, but she had been so eager to get the job, and although it might not turn out to be exactly what she had expected at least she was out of England, beyond her stepmother's reach, and moreover, in a country which, at first sight, looked delightful.\n\nShe went to bed and slept dreamlessly all night.\n\nShe was up and ready for Eva when she arrived, and since Miss Savage hadn't said anything more about uniform, she had put on a pleated skirt and a thin sweater.\n\nEva was surprised to see her already dressed, but she wasted no time in making coffee and unwrapping the still warm rolls she had brought with her. She shared Louisa's coffee too, sitting at the kitchen table while she told Louisa where the shops were and how to go to them. It wasn't nine o'clock when Louisa, a quilted jacket over the sweater and a woolly cap and gloves, left the flat; there would be time to explore and perhaps she could persuade Miss Savage to go for a short walk once she was up. She crossed the little park as Eva had instructed her and turned into Ole Bull Pass and then into the main shopping street, Torgalmenning, where the shops were already open, although there weren't many people about.\n\nLouisa walked briskly down its length, intent on reaching the harbour Eva said she simply had to see, promising herself that the next time she would stop and look in all the shop windows. It didn't take her long; there was the harbour, bustling with life, ferries chugging to and fro, freighters tied up in the distance. It was overlooked on two sides by rows of ancient houses, many of them wooden and all of them beautifully cared for and most of them converted into shops. She walked a little way beside the water, looking across to the mountains in the distance and then nearer to the neat colourful houses clinging to the skirts of the mountains behind the town. There was a fish market too, but she didn't dare to stop to inspect it for more than a minute or two; quite a different matter from the fish shops at home, and she had never seen such a variety. She paused for another minute to stare across the water at a castle\u2014she would have to find out about that, too... She had no more time; she retraced her steps, aware that there must be another way back to the flat, probably shorter\u2014tomorrow she would discover it.\n\nShe had time to change into her uniform when she got back; there was more chance of Miss Savage doing as she was asked if she was reminded that Louisa was a nurse.\n\nAt exactly ten o'clock, Louisa tapped on the door and went in, put the tea tray down by the bed and drew the curtains. Miss Savage wakened slowly, looking very pretty but just as listless as the previous evening. She sat up slowly without answering Louisa's cheerful good morning, merely: 'What a hideous uniform\u2014it doesn't do anything for you at all, but I suppose you'd better wear it\u2014that doctor's coming this morning.'\n\n'Then you'd better stay in bed when you've had your breakfast,' said Louisa cheerfully, ignoring the bit about the uniform. 'He'll want to examine you, I expect.'\n\nMiss Savage yawned. 'I don't want any breakfast.'\n\n'Coffee? Rolls and butter and black cherry jam?' invited Louisa. 'I'll bring it anyway.'\n\n'Not for ten minutes.'\n\nIt was amazing what those ten minutes did for her patient. Miss Savage was leaning back against her pillows, looking quite different, positively sparkling. What was more, she drank her coffee, ate a bit of roll and then went to have her bath without any fuss at all. Louisa made the bed and tidied the room and had Miss Savage back in it seconds before the door bell rang.\n\nDoctor Hopland was elderly, portly and instantly likeable. His English was almost accentless and he appeared to be in no hurry. He listened to Louisa's rather scant information about her patient, nodded his head in a thoughtful way and observed that beyond keeping an eye on Miss Savage he thought there was little he could do. 'I have had notes of the case,' he told Louisa. 'Unhappily there are many such these days and you will understand that there is not a great deal to be done. Miss Savage is co-operative?'\n\nIt was hard to give an answer to that. Louisa said slowly: 'On the whole, yes, but she does like her own way...'\n\n'I understand. Well, nurse, all you can do is to persuade her to eat good wholesome food and rest whenever she is tired, and as well as that get her into the fresh air. She is in bed, I take it?'\n\n'I thought you might like to examine her, doctor.'\n\n'Certainly. Shall we do that now?'\n\nMiss Savage submitted very nicely to Doctor Hopland's services, in fact she was so meek that Louisa was astonished, but not nearly as astonished as she was an hour later, when Miss Savage, whom she had left reading a book in bed, came into the sitting room and declared that she was going out to see something of Bergen.\n\nSo they spent an hour or two looking at the shops and Miss Savage bought several expensive trifles and an armful of books which Louisa was given to carry. 'And how about a bottle of sherry in case anyone calls?' asked Miss Savage gaily. 'And don't frown like that, Louisa, I know I mustn't drink it. I wonder where we buy it?'\n\nThey couldn't see a drink shop and, on reflection, Louisa couldn't remember having passed one, so she went into the bookshop they had just left and asked one of the assistants.\n\n'The nearest one is on the other side of Torget, quite a walk away, and there are quite a lot of restrictions\u2014you can only buy drinks at certain hours.' She glanced at her watch. 'They're closed now and don't open until this evening.'\n\nMiss Savage's voice was high and peevish. 'I never heard such nonsense\u2014you must get it then, I suppose.'\n\n'Is it so urgent?' asked Louisa. 'I mean, do you know anyone here who's likely to come to see you?'\n\nThey were walking back to the flat. 'That's beside the point and no business of yours,' said Miss Savage nastily. The charming mood of the morning had quite gone, as Louisa expected, and she had a difficult afternoon and an even worse evening, with her patient lolling on the sofa, refusing meals and playing the tape recorder far too loudly. It was a relief when she was told to go and buy the sherry.\n\nShe didn't hurry. It was good to get away from the flat; besides, she was hungry, for she hadn't been given the time to eat her own meal at midday and when tea came, Miss Savage had demanded this and that so that by the time it had been poured out, it was tepid. So now Louisa whipped into a snack bar, had a coffee and a large satisfying bun, and feeling much better, walked on down to the harbour, along Torget, with its mediaeval houses lining the pavement, and then turned up the side street whose name she had carefully written down, and found the off-licence.\n\nIt seemed a great fuss for one bottle of sherry, she decided as she walked briskly back again. It was cold now, but the shops, although closed, were still lighted and there was still a lot of traffic. She went indoors reluctantly; Eva would be gone by now and if Miss Savage was still so peevish she saw little hope of enjoying a pleasant supper.\n\nMiss Savage was sitting at the window, watching TV and so amiable that Louisa almost dropped the bottle in surprise. What was more, her patient made no difficulties about supper. She sat down to the table and even though she ate almost nothing of it, pushed the beautifully cooked cod round the plate, chatting with the utmost good nature while Louisa thankfully ate. She went to bed presently, leaving Louisa to clear the table and then sit writing letters until she went to bed herself.\n\nOn the whole, not a bad day, thought Louisa as she laid her head on the pillow and in no time at all, slept dreamlessly.\n\nAnd that first day seemed to set the pattern of all their days for the next week. Miss Savage was unpredictable, of course, but Louisa had got used to that by now; she could cope with the near-hysterical condition her patient would work herself into within minutes. She even got her to eat at least a little of each meal and, for a time each day, go for a walk. It was a pity that Miss Savage had no interest in museums and no desire to take the funicular to the top of the mountain behind the town and walk around and admire the view which Eva assured them was spectacular. Louisa promised herself that when she had some free time to herself, she would do just that. There was a restaurant there too, so that she might even possibly have her lunch there. And though the tourist trips had ceased, there were regular small steamers going to Stavanger and Haugesund and several of the fjords not too far distant. Presumably they ran all through the winter. Coming back one evening from posting letters, Louisa decided that with her first pay packet she would invest in a thicker quilted jacket; a sheepskin one would have been nice, but she didn't think she would have enough money for that. She was certainly going to buy a couple of thick knitted sweaters with their matching caps and gloves; she had already bought wool and needles and embarked on a long scarf, and judging by the cold crisp air, she would be glad of it soon enough.\n\nIt surprised her rather that Doctor Hopland hadn't called to see his patient again. True, he had told her to telephone if she was worried at all, and she supposed that there was little that he could do. She carefully checked her patient's temperature and pulse each day, saw that she took her pills and did her best to see that she led a quiet pleasant life, but she felt uneasily that she wasn't earning her salary. On the other hand, if Miss Savage should take a turn for the worse, at least she would be there to nip it in the bud and get the doctor at once.\n\nShe found such a possibility absurd when she got back to the flat. Miss Savage was sitting in the big chair by the window, playing Patience with such an air of contentment that it was hard to imagine she had anything wrong with her at all. She was charming for the rest of the evening too and astonished Louisa by saying that she should have most of the next day to herself. 'Go out about eleven o'clock, once I'm up,' she suggested, 'and don't come back until it begins to get dark\u2014about four o'clock. I shall be fine\u2014I feel so much better, and Eva can get my lunch before she goes, and you know I like to take a nap in the afternoon.'\n\nLouisa looked doubtful. 'Suppose someone calls or telephones during the afternoon\u2014there'll be no one there except you.'\n\nMiss Savage shrugged her shoulders. 'I shan't bother to answer\u2014they can call again, can't they?'\n\nLouisa went to bed quite prepared to find that in the morning her patient would have changed her mind. But she hadn't. Indeed, she got up earlier than usual after her breakfast and urged Louisa to go out as soon as they had had their coffee. 'And mind you don't come back until four o'clock,' she called gaily.\n\nLouisa, walking smartly through the town towards the cable railway, reviewed the various instructions she had given Eva, worried for a few minutes about Miss Savage being by herself and then forgot it all in the sheer joy of being out and free to go where she liked for hours on end.\n\nThe funicular first, she had decided, and a walk once she reached the mountain top, then lunch and an afternoon browsing among the shops. There was a large department store she longed to inspect, but Miss Savage hadn't considered it worth a visit. And she would have tea at Reimers Tea Rooms, which Eva had told her was the fashionable place for afternoon tea or morning coffee. There was a great deal more to see, of course, she would have to leave Bergenhus Castle until the next time, as well as the Aquarium and Grieg's house by the Nordasvann lake, not to mention the museums. She hurried up the short hill which took her to the foot of the funicular, bought her ticket and settled herself in the car with a sigh of pure pleasure.\n\nIt was wonderful. She had never experienced anything like it\u2014she had a good head for heights and craned her neck in all directions as the car crawled up the face of the mountain, and at the top she was rewarded by a view of the fjords and mountains to take her breath and when she had got it back again she walked. There were paths everywhere, and everywhere mountains and lakes and scenery to make her eyes widen with delight, and when at last she was tired, she lunched in the restaurant\u2014soup and an omelette and coffee\u2014and then went back down the mountain in the cable car.\n\nIt was early afternoon by now, but the flat wasn't more than ten minutes' walk away from Torgalmenning. Louisa walked slowly, looking in shop windows at the silver jewellery, porcelain and beautifully carved wood, took another longer look at the winter clothes set out so attractively in the boutiques and came finally to Sundt, the department store, where she spent half an hour browsing from counter to counter, working out prices rather laboriously, deciding what she would buy later. It was almost time to go back to the flat; she would have time for a cup of tea first, though. She found the tea room without trouble and sat down at one of the little tables. It was already crowded with smartly dressed women, and Louisa, once she had overcome the few small difficulties in ordering a tray of tea and one of the enormous cream cakes on display, settled down to enjoy herself. She even had an English newspaper, although as she read it England seemed very far away.\n\nShe got up to go reluctantly, but content with her day; even the thought that Miss Savage might be in one of her bad moods didn't spoil her feeling of well-being. In fact she was quite looking forward to telling her about her outing. This happy state of mind lasted until she opened the door of the flat and started up the stairs. There were voices, loud angry voices, and then Miss Savage's all too familiar sobbing. Louisa took the rest of the stairs two at a time, opened the inner door quietly and made for the half open sitting room door. Miss Savage was lying on the sofa, making a great deal of noise. She had been crying for some time if her puffy pink eyelids were anything to go by and from time to time she let out a small gasping shriek. She saw Louisa at once and cried in a voice thick with tears: 'Louisa\u2014thank God you've come!'\n\nLouisa took stock of the man standing by the sofa. He was tall and spare, with dark hair and an aquiline cast of feature. Moreover, he looked furiously angry, in a towering rage in fact, so that she took a deep breath before she spoke.\n\n'I don't know who you are, but you will be good enough to go at once. Miss Savage has been ill and whoever you are, you haven't any right to upset her in this way.' She held the door open and lifted her chin at him and met dark eyes glittering with rage.\n\n'The nurse?' His voice was crisp. 'I'm Miss Savage's brother, and since this is strictly a family argument, I will ask you to mind your own business.'\n\n'Well, I won't,' said Louisa stoutly. 'You may think you can bully her, but you can't bully me.' She opened the door a little wider. 'Will you go?'\n\nFor answer he took the door away from her and shut it. 'Tell me, what is my sister suffering from, Nurse? Did the doctor tell you? Did she explain when you were engaged? And the doctor here? Has he said anything to you?'\n\nLouisa opened her mouth to speak, but Miss Savage forestalled her by uttering a series of piercing cries and then dissolving into fresh sobs. Louisa brushed past the man, wiped Miss Savage's face for her, sat her up against the cushions and only then turned her attention to him.\n\n'Your sister has a blocked bile duct, she also has dyspepsia. That's a kind of severe indigestion,' she added in case he didn't know, 'I believe you wanted her to come to Norway, presumably to convalesce. We had made some progress during the last week, but I doubt if your visit has helped matters at all. Quite the contrary.'\n\nIt was annoying to see him brush her words aside as though they didn't mean a thing. 'You're young. Recently trained, perhaps?'\n\nShe supposed she would have to answer him\u2014after all, it was probably he who was paying her fees. 'About six weeks ago.'\n\nHis laugh wasn't nice and she flushed angrily. 'Probably you're a good nurse,' he observed in a voice which gave the lie to the statement, 'but you're inexperienced\u2014just what Claudia was looking for.'\n\n'I don't know what you mean.'\n\n'No? I suggest that you put Claudia to bed\u2014she must be exhausted after such a display of emotion. Tell Eva to give her some tea and then come back here. I want to talk to you.'\n\n'I don't think there's much point in that.'\n\nHis voice was soft. 'Probably not, but I must point out that I employ you, even if it was my sister who engaged you.' He went to the door and opened it and stood waiting. He had his temper under control by now, and he looked dangerous. Louisa helped Miss Savage on to her feet and walked her out of the room. She said in a voice which shook only very slightly: 'You're despicable, Mr Savage.'\n\nHe gave a short laugh. 'Shall we say half an hour, Nurse?'\n\nShe didn't answer.\n\n## CHAPTER THREE\n\nHALF AN HOUR wasn't nearly long enough in which to regain her cool, thought Louisa, and walked, outwardly composed and inwardly quaking, into the sitting room. Mr Savage was standing at the window, looking out and jingling the loose change in his pockets, and she brightened a little. Perhaps he had recovered from his nasty temper\u2014but when he turned round she saw with regret that she was mistaken; his mood was as black as ever although at the moment he had it under control. She didn't much care for the iciness of his voice when he spoke, though.\n\n'Ah, Nurse, I was beginning to wonder if your courage had deserted you.'\n\nLouisa was, for the most part, a mild-tempered girl, prepared to give rather more than she took, but only up to a point. 'I can't quite see,' she observed in a reasonable voice, 'what I have to be courageous about. True, I dislike being bullied, but a loud voice and a nasty temper don't count for much, when all's said and done.'\n\nShe crossed the room and sat down on a small hard chair because it was easier to be dignified like that. Her companion's eyes narrowed. 'Clever, are you?' he wanted to know. 'I've a few questions to ask, and I want truthful answers.'\n\nShe stared back at him. 'I can lie with the best of them,' she assured him, 'but never about patients.'\n\nHe laughed unpleasantly. 'I'll have to take your word for that. Tell me, why did my sister engage you?'\n\nHer eyes widened. 'Well, she wanted a nurse to accompany her here.'\n\n'There were other applicants?'\n\n'Oh, yes\u2014she told me, but they were all older and she wanted someone younger.'\n\n'Ah, and inexperienced.'\n\nShe let that pass. 'Why?'\n\n'I'm asking the questions, Nurse. What's your name?'\n\n'Evans\u2014Louisa Evans.'\n\n'Well, Nurse Evans, presumably you saw my sister's doctor?'\n\n'Naturally, and he gave me my instructions and informed me as to the nature of Miss Savage's illness.'\n\nHe gave her a sharp look, eyebrows lifted in faint surprise. 'So you know all there is to know about her?'\n\nShe surveyed him coolly. So he thought her incapable of doing her job just because she was young and not greatly experienced, did he? She drew a breath and recited the details of her patient's condition, adding kindly, 'If you don't understand the medical terms I'll explain...'\n\nHe turned a fulminating look upon her. 'It would be unwise of you to be frivolous, Nurse Evans. I shouldn't try if I were you.'\n\n'I'm not. You're not a doctor, are you?'\n\n'I'm a civil engineer, I build bridges. The reason I asked you that question may not be apparent to you at the moment.'\n\n'It's not.' She got to her feet. 'At least, I daresay you think I'm not old or wise enough to look after your sister. I hope you feel better about it now. She's making a little progress, or was... I don't know why you had to upset her, Mr Savage, and I don't want to be impertinent, but your visit hasn't helped much, has it?' Her tongue tripped on, speaking the thoughts she had no intention of uttering. 'I can't for the life of me think why she had to come to Norway. She must have a home somewhere in England; I don't believe she lives in a London hotel; she told me that she came because you made her...but there's no reason for that, surely? You work miles away, don't you?'\n\nHe had come to stand close to her, his face expressionless, but all the same Louisa had an urge to retreat behind the nearest chair, sternly suppressed. She had the extraordinary feeling that he was on the point of telling her something and at the last minute changed his mind. When he did speak it was to say: 'I wanted her to be nearer to me so that I could visit her easily. I should perhaps explain that we're not the best of friends, Nurse Evans. Claudia is my stepsister, she's only a little younger than I, and we met for the first time when my father married her mother, who had been a widow for some years. We are, in fact, not related\u2014all the same, as we bear the same name I feel some responsibility towards her.' He looked down at her and actually smiled\u2014a thin smile. 'She's been seen by a doctor since you arrived here? I did arrange...'\n\nLouisa said impatiently: 'Yes, the doctor came. I have his phone number and he'll call again in a week's time.'\n\n'He gave you no further instructions?' Mr Savage's deep voice sounded curt.\n\n'No, none at all. He told me to carry on as before and to call him if I was worried about anything.'\n\nHe moved away from her at last and went to stand at the window again, half turned away from her. 'There seems little point in staying,' he said at length, and turned to look at her, frowning. 'I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing...'\n\n'Well, you are,' said Louisa firmly. 'You upset Miss Savage and I can't think why you came if you don't get on together\u2014you could have telephoned.'\n\n'My dear good girl, we're talking at cross purposes.' He started for the door. 'I shall telephone from time to time and I shall expect a report from you.' He paused, took a notebook from his pocket, scribbled a number in it and tore out the page. 'You can reach me at this number if you should need to.' He saw her face and gave a crack of laughter. 'Something you don't intend to do; you think I'm a tyrant and a bully...'\n\n'As a matter of fact, I do,' said Louisa in a matter-of-fact voice. All the same, the room seemed empty and rather lonely when he had gone.\n\nA small sound made her turn her head; Miss Savage was standing in the doorway. 'He's gone?' She gave a sly smile. 'I'm not really like that, you know, Louisa\u2014making such a fuss\u2014I wanted him to go away, you see.' She twisted her hands together and added in a wheedling voice: 'You're not cross, are you? Was he very rude to you?'\n\nFor some reason Louisa found herself saying no when she should really have said yes. She said mildly: 'I think your brother only came to see if you were settled in\u2014I'm sure he has your interest at heart; he wanted to know just how you were...'\n\nMiss Savage gave a giggle. 'I bet he did! Did he ask about my friends? The ones who came over with us?'\n\n'No.' Louisa wasn't sure if she liked Miss Savage in this mood.\n\n'Oh, good. I didn't tell him and I didn't have time to ask you not to mention them. He doesn't like them.'\n\nUnderstandably so, thought Louisa; she didn't like them herself.\n\n'Well, he won't be coming again for ages,' said Miss Savage in a satisfied voice. 'They've just started another bridge somewhere at the back of beyond and once the snow comes travelling around isn't all that easy.'\n\nLouisa thought otherwise. There were domestic flights all over the country; she had collected handfuls of leaflets from a travel agency because she had an inquisitive mind that liked to know about such things. Besides, the friendly woman at the newspaper kiosk had told her that there was a daily steamer that sailed the entire length of the country, right to the Russian border, and back again, calling at dozens of isolated villages. Louisa didn't think that the snow made much difference to the Norwegians\u2014after all, they'd lived there for hundreds of years and by now would know how to deal with their weather. It did put her in mind of something else, though. 'Will we be staying here all winter?'\n\n'Fed up already?' demanded Miss Savage apprehensively. 'I'll make him pay you more... Don't go, Louisa.'\n\nLouisa smiled at her patient. 'I don't intend to, and I'm not in the least fed up. I think it's marvellous here. The reason I asked was because I'll have to buy some thicker clothes; it's almost November and I thought I'd get one of those quilted coats and some lined boots.'\n\n'Oh, is that all?' Miss Savage had picked up a copy of Harpers and was turning the pages. 'Why don't you get a fur coat? You'll get your wages in just a couple of weeks\u2014Simon said something about it, but I wasn't listening. I expect you know when it's due to be paid? You have to go to the Bergen Bank and ask for Mr... He wrote the name down somewhere.' She turned the magazine over: 'Here it is, written on the back\u2014Helgesen.' She added mockingly. 'Simon seemed to think you needed someone to keep an eye on your money, I suppose. The tight-fisted so-and-so!' Her voice became full of self-pity. 'He's got more money than is good for him and he gives me barely enough to live on.'\n\nProbably he was mean, thought Louisa; he certainly was unpleasant enough to add meanness to his faults, but after all, Miss Savage lived in great comfort and if a mink coat and hand-made Italian shoes were anything to go by, not to mention the luxurious flat in which they lived at present, then her ideas of meanness and Miss Savage's weren't on the same plane.\n\n'My room's in rather a mess.' Miss Savage looked up briefly from her magazine. 'Be a good girl and tidy it for me, will you? I'm exhausted.'\n\nLouisa went. Miss Savage was bone idle, but she had been ill. Louisa knew from experience that getting over an illness was as bad in some ways as actually being in the throes of one. The room looked as though it had endured an earthquake. Miss Savage had wreaked her rage on the soft furnishings to an alarming degree; the bed had its pillows flung in all directions as well as the duvet; there wasn't a cushion in its rightful place and not only had a bottle of perfume been smashed to bits but a jar of one of the expensive creams Miss Savage used had been flung on to the carpet, making a very nasty mess.\n\nLouisa set the room to rights and spent a long time clearing up bits of glass and lumps of face cream. By the time she got back to the sitting room, Miss Savage was asleep, the magazine fallen to the ground. Louisa stood looking at her and thought how very pretty she was, even with her mouth open. She frowned a little, because the prettiness seemed somehow blurred round the edges and was beginning to sag a little, but that was probably because Miss Savage had cried so long and so hard. She would let her sleep for another hour while she went to see what Eva had got for their supper, and presently when she wakened her patient, she was relieved to find that she seemed to have recovered completely from the afternoon's upset. Indeed, Miss Savage spent most of the meal planning their next few days. Rather to Louisa's surprise she suggested that they might visit the Museum of Arts and Crafts\u2014already several of the museums had closed for the winter\u2014and if they enjoyed it, they could visit the rest during the weeks ahead. 'Because there's nothing much else,' she declared. 'Piano recitals, if you like such things, and the cinema\u2014I'll need some new clothes too.' She yawned. 'It's going to be deadly here,' and at Louisa's enquiring look: 'Oh, I can't go back to London, Simon will stop my allowance if I do.' Her voice became plaintive. 'I depend on it utterly.'\n\n'Well, once you're quite well again,' began Louisa, feeling her way, 'could you get a job? You know all about clothes and some of those boutiques must be super to work in.'\n\nShe was rewarded with a look of horror which was quite genuine. 'Me? Work? My dear Louisa, you must be out of your tiny mind! I couldn't possibly\u2014I mean, it's all right for someone like yourself, presumably you expected to have to earn your living; even after you get married your sort usually do a job, don't you? I should die!' And just in case Louisa didn't see her point, she added pettishly: 'I'm still far from well.'\n\nThere was no point in arguing. Louisa went away to warm the soup Eva had left and inspect the contents of the casserole in the oven. She still didn't like Miss Savage, but she was sorry for her too; she was missing such a lot of fun. Who would want London anyway? As far as Louisa was concerned anyone could have it, just so long as they left her Bergen to explore. And there was plenty to do: the theatre, cinemas, some wonderful shops and caf\u00e9s, and, she hoped, the chance to ski; she had asked about that and been told that there were ski slopes not far away where she could be taught...once she could get Miss Savage to agree to her having a free day at least once a week. She set supper on the table and made soothing conversation with her patient and presently helped her to bed, since she had become lachrymose again.\n\nBut by the morning she was once more her normal self, eating little, it was true, and disinclined to get up, but once she was dressed, Louisa persuaded her to put on her mink coat and its matching cap and go into the town with her. It was a bright day but cold, and they went first to Riemers for their coffee before spending an hour wandering about the shops. The visit to the museum had been forgotten, of course, but Louisa was glad that Miss Savage was at least out of doors, taking an interest in things, and just for once not grumbling; indeed, over lunch she insisted that Louisa should have the afternoon off. 'Because it's getting cold and you'd better get that coat you were talking about. I hope you have enough money, because I've got none,' she finished carelessly.\n\nSo after settling her on the sofa with a pile of paperbacks and a light rug, Louisa went off on her own. She knew what she was going to buy. She had seen just what she wanted in Sundt's department store and she went straight there; a quilted jacket with a fleecy lining and a hood. She chose a green one with a brown lining and teamed it up with thick brown slacks and leather boots, then added a thick wool sweater to wear with it and matching mitts and cap. They all added up to a quite formidable sum, but she hadn't spent more than a handful of kroner since they had arrived and pay day wasn't far off. Feeling pleased with herself, she walked the short distance to Riemers and had tea, then started for the flat. It was almost dark by now and the sky had darkened; there had been snow for some weeks in the north of the country, a friendly waitress had told her, and any day now it would snow in Bergen. Louisa sped through the brightly lighted streets, dreaming of skiing and wishing she could get away for long enough to visit some of the nearby islands by the local steamers.\n\nAs she neared the flat she saw that its windows blazed with lights and a slight unease jellied into horrible certainty as she opened the door. Miss Savage had visitors; Louisa could hear their loud voices and louder laughter as she went up the stairs. She didn't need to open the door to know who they were.\n\nThe three of them turned to look at her as she went in across a room hazy with cigarette smoke. They all held glasses in their hands too, although Miss Savage, sitting on the arm of a chair, had nothing in hers.\n\nLouisa was greeted with shouts of welcome and when they died down Miss Savage called: 'Aren't I good, Louisa? No drinks, but you see how useful that bottle of sherry is being.' She giggled and they all laughed with her except Louisa, who, aware that she was being stuffy, nonetheless was unable to laugh. It was curious that the first thought that entered her head had been concerning Mr Savage; he would be furious if he knew that these rather wild friends of his stepsister's had arrived; without even asking she knew that he would never approve of them. When the hubbub had died down a little she said hullo in a pleasant cool little voice, refused a glass of sherry and waited to see what would happen next.\n\nIt was the woman who spoke\u2014Connie someone or other. She had a strident voice in which she was doing her best to make conciliatory talk. 'How marvellous our Claudia looks, nurse\u2014you're to be congratulated. We just had to see how she was getting on\u2014we're staying a couple of nights at the Norge. You'll let her come out to dinner this evening, won't you? We'll take great care of her.'\n\nIt was obvious to Louisa that it wouldn't matter what she said. Miss Savage would go if she had a mind to. She said briskly: 'Of course I don't mind, only don't be too late back, please.' She saw them exchange glances and knew exactly what they were thinking: that she was a bossy young woman who liked ordering people about. If she had said that on a hospital ward they would have accepted it without a murmur. 'And don't wait up,' said Miss Savage. 'Be an angel and run a bath for me, will you? I simply must change.'\n\nEva brought everyone coffee while they were waiting and presently Louisa excused herself on the plea of consulting with Eva about the next day's meals, and from the kitchen she was called to help Miss Savage fasten her dress, a curiously quiet Miss Savage, hardly speaking and then in a hesitant fashion.\n\n'Do you feel all right?' asked Louisa in a casual voice. 'If you'd rather not go, I'm sure Eva and I can get a meal for you all here.'\n\nMiss Savage was busy pinning a brooch in place. 'Of course I'm all right\u2014don't fuss, for God's sake.' She caught up the mink coat. 'I get little enough fun.'\n\nThe flat was gloriously peaceful when they had gone, and presently, when Eva had left for the day, Louisa went along to the kitchen and got her supper, then carried it through to the sitting room and ate it in front of the TV, not really watching it, but it was company. Not that she was lonely; she had plenty to occupy her thoughts, and at the back of her mind a nasty nagging worry that there was something wrong about Miss Savage. Looking back over the days, Louisa realised that her behaviour wasn't consistent; as bright as a button for an hour or so and then listless; bursting into tears for no reason at all and at other times so irritable. She worried round the puzzle like a dog with a bone and came no nearer the answer.\n\nIt was almost ten o'clock when the phone rang and she hurried to answer it. Miss Savage in the throes of dyspepsia, or suffering a violent headache. She lifted the receiver and the very last voice she wanted to hear spoke.\n\n'Nurse Evans? I should like to speak to my sister.'\n\nLouisa readjusted her thoughts. 'Good evening, Mr Savage. I'm afraid Miss Savage isn't here\u2014she's out with friends.'\n\nHis voice was sharp. 'You know these friends, Nurse?'\n\nShe said thankfully: 'Oh, yes\u2014they're from England,' and then wished she hadn't spoken. Miss Savage hadn't wanted him to know about their trip over with her, probably she wouldn't want him to know that they had come again, but it was too late now. The voice, no longer sharp but definitely unpleasant, went on: 'When did they arrive?'\n\n'While I was out this afternoon.' She could have cut through the heavy silence with her scissors.\n\n'You say you know these friends?' It was like being cross-examined.\n\n'I met them in London at Miss Savage's hotel.'\n\nHis voice had become silky. 'Ah, yes, just so. Connie, Willy and Steve\u2014I'm right?'\n\nLouisa gave a great sigh of relief. 'Oh, good, you know them, so that's all right.'\n\n'I know them, Nurse Evans, and it is not all right. These friends are one of the reasons why I wanted Claudia to come to Norway\u2014you must have seen how unsuitable they are for someone in her...' he hesitated, 'state of convalescence, and why did you not go with her?' He was coldly condemning.\n\n'Because I wasn't asked,' snapped Louisa. 'I'm not your sister's keeper, you know.'\n\nHe said, 'I beg your pardon,' with cool insincerity. 'You don't know how long they're staying in Bergen?'\n\n'They mentioned two nights at the Norge\u2014that's a hotel...'\n\n'I'm well aware of that, Nurse. You will endeavour to stay with her as much as possible until they leave. I'm unable to get away from here at the moment, so I must rely on you.' His tone implied that he was expecting the impossible.\n\nShe said stiffly: 'I'll do what I can, Mr Savage,' and was rewarded by a disbelieving grunt and the click of the receiver.\n\nLouisa marvelled at his rudeness. 'Almost as bad as Frank in quite a different way,' she observed out loud, and sat down to wait for Miss Savage to come home.\n\nIt was almost midnight when she did and even then her friends seemed to think that they should come in for a last drink, but Louisa, standing at the door, wished them a firm goodnight and shut it equally firmly. Miss Savage had had a splendid evening, she told Louisa, the food had been delicious and she had drunk only one glass of white wine. 'You see how good I am,' she observed as Louisa helped her to bed. 'I'm going to have lunch there tomorrow and drive out to Troldhaugen to see Grieg's house. You won't want to come, of course?'\n\n'I should like to come very much,' said Louisa quickly, aware as she said it that it was the last thing Miss Savage wanted. 'It's kind of you to ask me.'\n\nOut of the corner of her eye she could see Miss Savage's face screwed up with temper.\n\nThere was, Louisa decided at the end of the next day, nothing worse than being an unwanted guest. The expressions on the faces of Miss Savage's friends when they called for her in the morning were bad enough, but Miss Savage's ill temper was even worse. Louisa, mindful of Mr Savage's orders, resolutely ignored the cold shoulders, the snide remarks and the sidelong glances\u2014indeed, being a sensible girl, she ate her lunch with pleasure: lobster soup, cod cooked in a delicious sauce with crisp little potatoes and a sea of vegetables, followed by ice cream heaped with honey, fudge and lashings of whipped cream were things to be enjoyed in any circumstances. And afterwards she sat in the back of the hired car, squashed into a window and totally ignored, until they reached Grieg's cottage home on the shore. The house was shut now that it was winter, but it was quite beautiful by the fjord. Miss Savage, her arm in Connie's, wandered off with the two men behind them, calling to Louisa over her shoulder: 'There's a grave somewhere, if you're interested, Louisa, and a stave church in those woods\u2014it's only a few minutes' walk, so I'm told,' she added mockingly. 'Don't worry, we won't go without you.'\n\nSo Louisa went off on her own, walking fast because even in the new quilted jacket it was cold. She found the composer's grave, and his wife's beside it, and then followed the path to the church. Its strange pointed roof reminded her of an Eastern temple without the trimmings and she would have liked to see the inside too, but there again the season was over; it would stay quiet and solitary until May when the tourists would come again. She was glad she had seen it in winter, though. If she had the chance, she would come again, preferably when the snow had fallen. And that wouldn't be long now, judging by the thick grey sky, already darkening into an early evening.\n\nLouisa was surprised when Miss Savage refused to spend the evening with her friends. She was, she declared, tired and intended to go to bed early\u2014and indeed, when they had gone she asked, quite nicely too, if Louisa would bring her some tea, and settled on the sofa where she presently fell asleep, leaving Louisa to drink her tea sitting by the window, watching the first of the snow falling. And when she woke up an hour later, she was still pleasant. 'I think I'll go to bed before supper,' she declared, and yawned prettily. 'It's been quite a day\u2014but fun. They're going back tomorrow. Louisa, I want you to go to that wine shop and get another bottle of sherry\u2014I know we don't get many visitors, but there's none in the place now and probably the doctor will have a glass next time he comes.' She got up and stretched her arms above her head. 'I'll have a bath now.' She strolled to the door. 'Was my brother angry when he phoned yesterday?' Her voice was very casual.\n\nLouisa considered. Mr Savage always sounded angry, in her opinion. 'Surprised,' she essayed, 'anxious that you wouldn't get tired or spoil your good progress\u2014no, I don't think he was particularly angry. I'm sorry I mentioned your friends. He asked me where you were, you see, and I had to answer.'\n\nMiss Savage darted a sidelong glance at her. 'Of course,' she smiled. 'You don't have to worry about it\u2014you did tell him they were leaving tomorrow, didn't you?'\n\n'Yes.' Louisa had got to her feet too. 'I'll get your bath going, shall I? Is there anything special you'd like Eva to cook for your supper?'\n\n'I'm not hungry\u2014we had an enormous lunch, lots of coffee and an omelette.'\n\nButter wouldn't have melted in Miss Savage's mouth for the rest of that evening, and it was the same next morning, which she spent lying in bed reading. It was after an early lunch which she took in her bed that she urged Louisa to go and get the sherry. 'It'll be dark soon,' she pointed out, 'and it's going to snow again\u2014you'd better go while you can.'\n\nSo Louisa buttoned herself into her thick jacket, pulled her woolly cap well down over her ears and set out happily enough. It was nice to be out in the clear icy air after the centrally heated flat, and the snow, crisp and white, made the whole town sparkle under leaden skies. There would be more snow and Louisa looked forward to it. The shop was on the other side of the harbour and she walked briskly through the main streets, their shops already lighted, pausing here and there to take a look in the windows. Miss Savage had told her not to hurry back, had even urged her to go and have a cup of coffee on her way back, and there was time enough before tea. Louisa was glad that Miss Savage had elected to stay in bed after the excitement of her friends' visit. They hadn't stayed long enough to do any harm, but on the other hand they hadn't been all that good for her\u2014besides, Mr Savage didn't approve of them. Probably he didn't approve of anything much, only bridges.\n\nThe shop was only open for a short time each day. She bought the sherry and started back again, stopping on the way to buy an English newspaper and post some letters. It was still only mid-afternoon and already almost dark, but the streets were alive with people and there was plenty of traffic. She turned down past the Hotel Norge and crossed the little garden in the centre of the square and went into Riemers. It was full and cheerful. Louisa ordered a tray of tea instead of the coffee she usually had, and chose a large cream cake to go with it, eating it slowly while she scanned the headlines of the paper. It was quite dark by the time she went into the streets again and she hurried her steps for the short walk to the flat. Miss Savage's light was on, she saw with relief as she opened the door; probably she was still having her afternoon nap. She went in quietly and peered round the half open door.\n\nMiss Savage was fast asleep, breathing rather thickly, her face flushed. Louisa went close to the bed and bent down to look at her closely and was greeted by a heavy waft of some cloying perfume she didn't like. Disconcertingly, Miss Savage opened her eyes.\n\n'Snooping?' she asked sharply. 'Did my dear stepbrother put you on to that?'\n\nLouisa straightened up. 'Certainly not! He suggested no such thing. You were sleeping so heavily and you looked flushed, I thought you might have a feverish cold.'\n\nMiss Savage replaced the scowl on her face by a sugary smile. 'You really do look after me well, Louisa. I'm just tired and I suppose I've lain in bed too long. I'll get up.'\n\nShe was amiability itself for the rest of the evening, praising their meal although she ate almost none of it, and full of more plans for the days ahead, and afterwards as they sat, Louisa with her knitting and she leafing through a magazine, she said something suddenly. 'I forgot something today\u2014you'll have to go to the bank tomorrow morning and get some money for me. You won't need a cheque\u2014they've got instructions to pay the miserable pittance Simon allows me.' She nodded carelessly. 'And isn't it time you had some wages?'\n\n'Next week,' said Louisa, frowning over a difficult bit of pattern.\n\nPresently Miss Savage tossed her magazine down. 'How fast you knit.'\n\n'It's not difficult and very soothing. Would you like to try\u2014or do some of that gorgeous embroidery everyone seems to do here?'\n\n'Lord no\u2014I'd be bored in minutes.' Miss Savage yawned. 'I'm going to bed. You know, the thought of a whole winter here sends me round the bend. I could kill Simon!' She floated away, saying over her shoulder: 'Don't come near me until ten o'clock tomorrow, that's time enough for my coffee.' She didn't say good-night, but then she wasn't one for the small courtesies of life.\n\nShe was bright-eyed and in a splendid mood when Louisa took her coffee in the morning. 'I feel marvellous,' she declared. 'Go and put on your things and go to the bank, will you? I must pay Eva and there are a lot of food bills...'\n\nIt had been snowing again and it wasn't really light yet, but Louisa found it exciting crunching through the snow in her new boots and despite the winter weather the town looked bright and bustling. The Bergen Bank was an imposing building even from the outside. She climbed the wide steps to its enormous doors and went in, to find it even more so on the inside. It was vast with a lofty ceiling, a great many bright lights, and heavy furnishings. She approached the friendliest-looking clerk at the counter and handed him Miss Savage's note, and was rewarded by an instant smile.\n\n'You need to see Mr Helgesen,' he told her, and pinged a bell beside him, and she was led away down a wide corridor to another lofty room, much smaller this time and furnished with a large desk with a youngish man sitting behind it. He got up as she was ushered in and shook hands, which gave her a chance to study him. A nice face, rugged and good-natured, with blue eyes and close cropped hair. He was stoutly built and a little above middle height, and she took to him at once, and even more so at his friendly voice.\n\n'Miss Evans? Simon Savage told me of you.' He glanced at the note the porter had given him. 'You need money for Miss Savage?'\n\n'Please, she wants to pay her household bills.'\n\nThere was a little pause before he said: 'Of course. I'll arrange for you to collect the money she requires. Now sit down for a minute and tell me what you think of Bergen.'\n\nHe was the easiest man to talk to. Louisa hadn't realised how much she had missed being able to talk to someone\u2014one couldn't count Miss Savage, who never wanted to talk about anything but clothes and her own discontent... She had been talking for several minutes before she stopped herself with an apologetic: 'I'm sorry, I'm wasting your time and Miss Savage will wonder where I've got to.'\n\nThey walked to the door together and shook hands, and she felt a small thrill of pleasure when he observed: 'I've enjoyed meeting you, Miss Evans. I hope we shall meet again soon. If you need help of any sort please don't hesitate to call upon me.'\n\nShe beamed back at him. 'You're very kind. I'll remember that.'\n\nThe money safely in her purse, she went out into the cold again, not noticing it because she was wrapped in a warm glow of pleasure. To stay in Bergen for the entire winter was suddenly inviting.\n\nShe was crossing the street in front of Sundt's store, the pavement crowded with shoppers, when she thought she glimpsed the young woman Connie ahead of her, but the traffic lights changed and by the time she was on the opposite side of the pavement there was no sign of her. It couldn't possibly be her, anyway; she and the two men with her had gone back to England several days ago. Louisa, walking happily through the snow back to the flat, didn't think any more about her.\n\n## CHAPTER FOUR\n\nLOUISA REMEMBERED her mistaken view of Connie later that day. Miss Savage had been remarkably quiet, even drowsy all the afternoon, and over their cups of tea Louisa tried to rouse her interest with undemanding conversation. She was completely taken aback by Miss Savage's reaction to her casual remark that she had imagined that she had seen her friend that morning. Miss Savage's eyes had glittered with rage and she had put her tea cup down so suddenly that most of the tea spilled into the saucer. 'What utter rubbish!' she exclaimed. 'How could you have possibly seen Connie? They're all back home\u2014why can't you mind your own business instead of imagining things which aren't any of your business anyway? Just because you don't like my friends...'\n\nLouisa, soothing her companion as best she could, found her remarks quite uncalled-for and wondered why she had made them; perhaps she was homesick for London and its life and mentioning Connie had triggered it off. Presently Miss Savage had begun to talk, rather feverishly and about nothing in particular, and Louisa had followed her lead.\n\nThe next day or two were passed in a peace and quiet Louisa found surprising and unexpected. Miss Savage was amenable to any conversation made to her and even, when urged, made an effort to eat her meals. The only thing she steadfastly refused to do was to go out. She argued that the snow upset her, that it was far too cold, and that she had no reason to go out anyway. But she insisted that Louisa should go out each day, usually directly after she had taken in her patient's breakfast, 'Because,' as Miss Savage observed, 'it's the one time of day when I don't need anyone\u2014I never get up before eleven o'clock and I like to lie and doze or read.' So Louisa formed the habit of spending the mornings in the town, getting back to the flat round about noon when Miss Savage was usually up and on the point of exchanging her bed for the sofa in the sitting room.\n\nWinter or no, there was a great deal to do, and Louisa happily explored the town in all directions, delighted to find another, not quite as fashionable shopping centre on the farther side of the harbour.\n\nIt was a pity that most of the museums were only open in the early afternoons during the winter, but the Bryggens Museum was open for a few hours each day; she went twice to examine the remains of some of the oldest buildings in Bergen. She went to the Historical Museum at Sydneshaugen too, which meant a bus ride to the other side of the town, but she was beginning to feel so at home now that she planned several longer excursions if the weather allowed and Miss Savage would agree to her having a day off. She had broached the subject once or twice and met with evasive answers, and since she had little to do except act as a companion and see that her patient took her pills, ate a sufficient amount and led a quiet life, she felt that she could hardly complain.\n\nThe snow had stopped on the morning she went to the Bergen Bank to collect her salary. Rather to her surprise Miss Savage had asked her to get some more money at the same time. It had seemed a great deal when Louisa had handed it over such a short time ago; apparently housekeeping was an expensive business in Norway. She went to the same clerk again and was ushered into Mr Helgesen's office.\n\nAnd this time he wasn't alone. Mr Savage was there, sitting in one of the leather chairs. Both men got up as she went in, but only Mr Helgesen crossed the floor to shake hands; Mr Savage contented himself with a curt nod, his severe expression not altering one jot. And two can play at that game, thought Louisa as she turned a shoulder to him and addressed Mr Helgesen. 'I think perhaps the clerk made a mistake. I've only come to collect my salary.'\n\n'No mistake, Miss Evans.' Mr Helgesen looked delighted to see her again. 'Mr Savage wished to see you; he has come specially for that purpose.' He added gallantly: 'Of course I wished to see you, too.'\n\nShe smiled at him rather shyly. 'Thank you. Oh\u2014 I'm sorry, I almost forgot, I have another note from Miss Savage. She asked me to get her allowance while I was here.'\n\nThe two men exchanged glances. 'Did you not collect it when you were last here?'\n\n'Yes.' Louisa frowned a little. 'She said there wouldn't be any difficulty, that I was just to ask...'\n\n'Yes, yes, of course,' said Mr Helgesen soothingly. 'It shall be attended to\u2014if I might have her note?' He went to the door. 'I'll arrange matters with the clerk.'\n\nLouisa didn't much fancy being alone with Mr Savage. 'Couldn't I get it when I get my money?' she enquired, and made for the door, too.\n\n'Miss Evans,' said Mr Savage. His voice was quiet but not to be ignored. 'I wish to speak to you.'\n\nShe faced him reluctantly and saw his smile. It wasn't a friendly smile; she sat down without a word and waited.\n\n'How is my sister?'\n\nIt was a difficult question to answer truthfully, and she hesitated. 'I think she's making slow progress, but she's unpredictable. I mean, her moods vary all the time. But she sleeps well\u2014too much, perhaps\u2014and for the most part she seems content, although she doesn't like living here. She hardly ever goes out, but one can hardly blame her in this weather...'\n\n'You go out?'\n\n'But I like it, I think it's lovely, all the snow and the streets lighted...'\n\n'Spare me your raptures, Miss Evans. Claudia's friends haven't returned?'\n\nShe stared at him in surprise. 'But they went back to England\u2014Miss Savage was very upset.'\n\n'You are sure of that?'\n\nShe hesitated. 'Yes\u2014I should have seen them otherwise. I did think I saw Connie\u2014I don't know her last name\u2014a few days ago, but the pavement was crowded and I lost sight of her. It must have been a mistake.'\n\n'You didn't enquire at the Norge if she was there?'\n\nLouisa said patiently: 'I've just told you\u2014I don't know her name.'\n\nHe stared at her with hard eyes and picked up the phone on the desk\u2014a piece of impertinence, she decided, in someone else's office, too. Who did he think he was?\n\nOf course she didn't understand a word he said, but when he put the receiver down his face was as black as thunder. 'The three of them left yesterday evening.'\n\nShe said, 'Oh, dear,' and his lip curled. 'I shall accompany you back to the flat,' he told her. 'Does my sister expect you back immediately?'\n\n'As a matter of fact she told me to have two hours off because she intended to stay in bed until lunchtime.'\n\n'Just so,' said Mr Savage; she wouldn't have been surprised to have seen him grind his teeth and sighed quite audibly with relief as Mr Helgesen came back into the room. He glanced first at Mr Savage and then smiled at her. 'I have told the clerk to let you have Miss Savage's allowance. Mr Savage has opened an account for you here; he thought it wiser, since you were in a foreign country and might not realise...it is, I think, rather more expensive here than in England. You can draw any amount you wish, of course,' he laughed a little, 'provided there is still some money there.'\n\n'That's very kind of you, Mr Helgesen.' Louisa turned round to face Mr Savage getting himself into a sheepskin jacket. 'And I expect you meant to be kind, too, Mr Savage, but I am capable of managing my own affairs, thank you. I promise you that I shan't run up bills all over the town.'\n\n'And I'm too far away to keep you to that promise. Nurse, shall we go?'\n\nHe said something to Mr Helgesen and moved to the door, leaving them together. 'Remember that I will do anything to help you, Miss Evans.' Mr Helgesen engulfed her hand in his. 'Are you ever free in the evening? There is to be a recital of Grieg music at the end of the week, I should very much like to take you.'\n\n'And I'd love to come. But I'd have to ask Miss Savage first\u2014you see, I'd have to leave her alone...'\n\n'Perhaps we can think of something. I'll telephone you\u2014if I may?'\n\n'Oh, yes, please.' He really was a dear; what a pity that he and Mr Savage couldn't be in each other's shoes. She shook hands again and walked beside the silent Mr Savage to the desk, where she very defiantly drew out much more money than she needed, and received a bundle of notes for Miss Savage. She quite expected that her companion would make some snide remark, but he remained silent as they went out into the street, and, just as silent, strode beside her on the way back to the flat. Once or twice she was on the verge of some harmless comment, but then she remembered that he had begged her to spare him her raptures...\n\nThe flat was quiet as she opened the door; usually Eva was bustling round cleaning. Perhaps she was already in the kitchen... Louisa went along the passage and pushed open the half open door. Eva wasn't there, but Miss Savage was, sitting at the kitchen table, her bright head on her arms, snoring her head off. On the table was a glass, not quite empty, and beside it a half full vodka bottle. Louisa stood and stared, not quite taking it all in. It wasn't until Mr Savage spoke very quietly over her shoulder that she turned her head to take a look at him.\n\n'You may be a splendid nurse, Miss Evans, highly qualified and skilled and taught everything there is to know about your profession, but one thing no one taught you, and that was to recognise an alcoholic when you saw one.'\n\n'No,' said Louisa, and then: 'Why wasn't I told? The doctors\u2014you...'\n\n'I believed that either one or other of the doctors would have briefed you; I had no reason to think otherwise. Indeed, I suggested to Claudia when I arranged for her to come here that she should engage an older woman and that she should be told what exactly was wrong with her patient. Instead, I find a chit of a girl who hasn't a clue. There seemed no point in telling you at first, but when I heard that her three boon companions had been here again, I came down to see you and explain. As you see, I have no need to do so. The matter speaks for itself.'\n\nLouisa gave him a thoughtful look. 'You have no pity, have you?' she observed quietly. 'I think you're the most disagreeable man I've ever met. And now will you carry her through to the bedroom and I'll get her into bed. And then I think you owe me an explanation.'\n\nHe didn't answer her, only stooped to lift the still snoring Miss Savage into his arms and carry her down the passage. Louisa, ahead of him, straightened the bedclothes and then tucked her patient up. 'If you'll wait in the sitting room,' she suggested, 'there are one or two things I have to do. If you want coffee there'll be some in the kitchen.'\n\nShe didn't wait to see if he would do as she asked but got busy with Miss Savage, bathing her face gently, soothing her, smoothing her hair, wrapping her snugly, and then tidying the room which as usual looked as though it had been ransacked. Presently, when everything was tidy again and she was sure that her patient was still deeply sleeping, she went along to the sitting room. It surprised her that Mr Savage had carried through a tray from the kitchen with the coffee pot and two mugs on it. He poured for them both, gestured her to a chair and asked brusquely: 'Well, what do you want to know?'\n\nLouisa took a sip of coffee. 'All the things that I should have been told in the first place, Mr Savage.'\n\nHe sat back in his chair, drinking his coffee with the air of a man who had nothing on his mind. He said carelessly: 'Claudia has been an alcoholic for the last eight years. Everything has been tried\u2014and I mean everything. Once or twice it seemed that she had been cured, but she lapsed... These so-called friends of hers\u2014she asks them to get her whisky or vodka or anything else she fancies, and they do. It seems certain that that's why they came to see her again. Surely you would have noticed something?'\n\n'If I'd been warned beforehand, yes. As it was, I believed the doctor's diagnosis.' She added honestly: 'Of course, the diagnosis was correct and I daresay the doctor thought I knew about Miss Savage\u2014it's quite possible, you see, to have all her symptoms for other liver complaints. But now that I know\u2014yes, there were a number of signs I should have been suspicious about.'\n\n'I brought her to Norway because I hoped that away from her friends and the life she led, she stood a better chance of fighting her addiction. It seems I was wrong.'\n\nLouisa put down her cup and met the dark eyes staring at her so coldly. 'Then wouldn't it be a good idea to let her go back to England? She's not happy here; she didn't want to come\u2014she told me that...' She paused, seeking a nice way of putting it.\n\n'She had to, otherwise I should have stopped her allowance. Quite correct.' He got to his feet. 'No, I don't intend to let her go back to England. On the contrary, as soon as she is fit enough, she shall travel up to Tromso, and you will accompany her.'\n\nLouisa choked back an instant denial. 'Isn't that a town in the north?'\n\n'Yes. My work is some fifteen miles away from there\u2014a ribbon bridge is being built between two islands. There's a small community there with a few hundred people.' He passed his cup for more coffee. 'You ski?'\n\n'Of course I don't!' She spoke sharply. 'You don't intend that Miss Savage should live there?'\n\n'Indeed I do\u2014she will be under my eye, and so for that matter will you.'\n\nLouisa said with great dignity: 'I believe I can manage my own life without your help.' She added boldly: 'Perhaps your sister would have had a better chance without your interference.'\n\n'You believe in plain speaking, Nurse, but I'm afraid your opinion holds no weight with me, so let's keep strictly to the matter in hand.'\n\n'I'll take a look at Miss Savage first,' said Louisa. But that lady was still deep in a snoring slumber.\n\n'You have sufficient warm clothing?' enquired Simon Savage as she sat down again. She told him briefly what she possessed and he said at once: 'You'll need more than that\u2014get a pencil and paper, will you?' And when she had, 'I imagine Claudia has almost nothing suitable; you'll outfit her as well.'\n\nLouisa wrote obediently and then lifted her head to look at him. 'You're not really going to send her all that way? She'll be so lonely, and she doesn't like snow or mountains...'\n\n'What a persistent young woman you are! Can you not see that she's almost at her last chance? Perhaps such a drastic step as this will provide that chance. And now be good enough not to argue with me; my mind is made up.'\n\n'Oh, pooh to that,' declared Louisa, and trembled at his icy stare. 'Just supposing she's ill\u2014is there a doctor there?'\n\n'She could be taken to Tromso by motor launch in a very short time. There is a road, of course, but it will be closed until late April\u2014even May.' He smiled thinly at Louisa's look of horror. 'You don't care for the idea?' His voice was silky. 'Perhaps you wish to give up the case, especially as you've been so misled.'\n\nHe wanted to be rid of her; any doubts she had been harbouring were instantly squashed. 'Certainly not, Mr Savage! I came to look after your sister, and that's what I intend to do. As you said, such a drastic change in her life might be her salvation, and if there's anything I can do to help her, I shall do it.'\n\nHis laugh was quite genuine and she went red with embarrassment and rage. 'I daresay you'll want to be getting back,' she told him stonily, 'and there are several things I want to do before Miss Savage wakes up.'\n\n'Plenty of time for that, she won't stir until this evening or even tomorrow morning.' He walked to the door, picking up his jacket as he went. 'And I'm staying in Bergen until Sunday. I shall be round tomorrow to see Claudia, and by the way, if you want to go out with Helgesen on Saturday evening, I shall be here\u2014my stepsister and I have a good deal to discuss, and I daresay we shall do that better without your well-meaning interference.'\n\nWhich remark left her speechless. Eva came back with the shopping presently and Louisa, always a girl to get things settled in her mind, went along to the kitchen, and while lunch was being prepared, got Eva to tell her all she knew about Tromso.\n\nEva had looked at her in a puzzled fashion. 'But that is a very long way away from here,' she pointed out. 'Why do you wish to know?'\n\nLouisa explained, very carefully, letting it appear that Miss Savage's brother was taking her with him for the benefit of her health.\n\nEva nodded. 'That is a good idea. It will be beautiful\u2014cold, you understand, but most healthy, and they will have each other, that will be nice.'\n\n'I'm not sure if I was supposed to tell you,' said Louisa doubtfully. 'What happens to your job here?'\n\n'Not to worry, Miss Evans, this flat is rented for six months by Mr Savage and I am to be paid for that time, whether I am needed or not. That was the arrangement.'\n\n'Oh, good.' Louisa got up. 'I'm going to see if Miss Savage is quite comfortable\u2014she doesn't want any lunch, so I'll have mine here with you if I may and you can tell me some more about Tromso.'\n\nMr Savage returned the following day in the morning. He had been quite right; his stepsister hadn't roused until very late in the evening and then she had been difficult to manage. She had a headache for a start, she felt terrible and she had no wish to do any of the things Louisa suggested. But towards midnight she had quietened down and Louisa had been able to wash her face and hands, change her nightie and re-make her bed. She had gone to sleep almost immediately, which was a good thing, for with one thing and another Louisa was tired out. Disliking someone, she decided as she put her thankful head on her pillow, was more tiring than anything else she knew of. And it wasn't her patient she was thinking of.\n\nIt was Eva who answered the door, took his coat and assured him that she would bring coffee in only a moment. She seemed to like him and Louisa, coming out of Miss Savage's bedroom, couldn't think why. His 'good morning' to her was accompanied by a mocking smile and the polite hope that his stepsister was feeling more herself.\n\n'Well, she is,' said Louisa, who had just had a slipper thrown at her by that lady, 'much\u2014but she's also very irritable. Please don't upset her.'\n\n'Oh, I won't. I know what a hangover's like, Nurse. And don't look like that; I also know when to stop.' He sat down by the window. 'The weather's changing. We shall have more snow.'\n\n'Indeed?' queried Louisa coldly. 'You can't see Miss Savage yet, you know.'\n\n'Don't be bossy, Miss Evans. When I've had my coffee I shall see my stepsister\u2014I have a great deal to say to her.'\n\n'She has the most appalling headache...'\n\n'Of course she has.' He got up and took the tray from Eva as she came in and smiled so nicely at her that Louisa blinked; she had no idea that he could look like that\u2014quite human. 'Three spoonfuls,' he told her. 'I have a sweet tooth.'\n\nLouisa was glad of her coffee. She had been up early, ministering to Miss Savage, persuading her to drink black coffee, dealing with her headache, ignoring the screams and abuse and ill-temper. Never having been more than slightly tipsy herself, she could only guess how ghastly her patient must be feeling and do her best to get her rational again. She had succeeded to an extent, though. Miss Savage had stopped crying and carrying on and had drunk more coffee and now she was dozing fitfully. 'I won't have her upset,' said Louisa out loud.\n\n'So you have already said,' remarked her companion dryly. 'I suggest that you drink your coffee and go out for a brisk walk, there's nothing like fresh air for clearing the head.' And when Louisa would have protested: 'Have you sufficient money?'\n\n'Plenty, thank you.'\n\n'Very good. We'll discuss clothes and travelling and so on when you return.'\n\nShe was dismissed and it would be undignified to protest again. She peeped in at Miss Savage, lying back in her bed with pads on her eyes and the blinds drawn, and then went to her own room and got ready to go out. She was at the door when the telephone rang and when she went to answer it Mr Savage was lying back in his chair, his eyes closed. He looked formidable even like that. Louisa picked up the receiver and found herself smiling because it was Mr Helgesen, wanting to know if she were free on Saturday evening. 'Because if you are, we could have a meal first and then go on to the concert. Could I call for you just after six o'clock?'\n\n'Oh, I'd love that,' said Louisa happily, 'only I quite forgot to ask...' She hesitated and glanced at the figure in the chair. 'Miss Savage isn't feeling very well and I hardly like to...'\n\n'Women never listen,' observed Simon Savage nastily. 'I remember very clearly telling you that I would be here on Saturday evening. I daresay you're due quite a lot of off duty.'\n\n'Thank you very much,' said Louisa into the phone, ignoring Mr Savage, 'I'll be ready just after six o'clock.' They wished each other goodbye and she rang off. She said rather snappily to the somnolent Simon Savage: 'Of course I listened, but how was I to know you meant it?'\n\n'I always mean what I say\u2014you'll know that in future.'\n\nShe flounced out of the room and by a great effort of will, didn't bang the door.\n\nShe had a list of shopping to do for Eva and she went first to the fish market, not only to buy fish but to admire the flowers. It amazed her that they were still to be bought in such bitter weather, although at a price she was unable to afford, but just looking at them, spaced out in such an unlikely fashion among the stalls of fish, was a pleasure. She chose her cod with a careful eye, bought a bag of cranberries, went to the little kiosk by the market and bought a Telegraph, then started walking away from the harbour towards the shops, stopping on the way to spend ten minutes in one of the many bookshops. There were as many English paperbacks as there were Norwegian\u2014but then she had come to the conclusion that everyone in Norway must speak English as well as their native tongue. She did a little window-shopping after that; obviously she would have to buy quite a few more clothes and it would be as well to price them first. She wondered how long it would be before Miss Savage would feel like shopping, and when they would be going and how. By air, she supposed; there was an excellent domestic service in the country and surely at this time of year it was the easiest way to travel.\n\nIt might be the easiest way, but it wasn't going to be their way. She discovered that when she got back to the flat, to find Miss Savage, looking like something just put through the mangle, sitting back against her pillows listening to her stepbrother, who was sitting on the side of the bed, talking to her in a quiet no-nonsense voice. Without turning his head, he said: 'There you are\u2014just in time to hear the arrangements which have been made. Take off your things and come in here.'\n\nNo please or thank you, grumbled Louisa to herself, and took her time about tidying her hair and putting more powder on her nose. She was rewarded by an impatient frown as she went into the bedroom and sat down meekly on the dressing table stool. 'Before we start, Miss Savage, is there anything you'd like?' she asked.\n\nHer patient shook her head and then winced at the pain. 'Who cares what I like?' she moaned, 'Simon least of all.'\n\nMr Savage didn't appear to hear this; he said at once: 'The sooner you come the better, and since you refuse to fly, I'll arrange for you to travel on the coastal steamer. It will probably be rather rough at this time of year, but the journey only takes five days to Tromso and you'll see some remarkable scenery. In\u2014let me see, today is Wednesday...a week's time you'll be met at Tromso, and as it will be afternoon when you get there, you'd better spend the night there and you can finish the trip by launch.'\n\n'No ice?' asked Louisa a little faintly.\n\n'The Gulf Stream,' said Simon Savage impatiently. 'Inland there's plenty of snow, of course.'\n\n'And are you inland?'\n\nHe shook his head. 'An arm of Tromso Sound; a little rural perhaps. We're building a bridge between two islands where it joins the sea, they each have a town and a good scattering of houses but only one road on the larger island.'\n\nIt sounded bleak, thought Louisa, and peeped at Miss Savage's face. It looked bleak too. 'It does sound a very interesting journey,' she said bracingly. 'Is there anything to do on board?'\n\nSimon Savage's firm mouth remained unsmiling. 'Nothing at all,' he said blandly.\n\nMiss Savage burst into tears and he got to his feet. 'Perhaps tomorrow we should shop for your clothes,' he observed. 'As you're making this unexpected journey, Miss Evans, and you are employed by me, anything you may need will be charged to my account.'\n\nMiss Savage stopped crying long enough to ask: 'And what about me?'\n\nHe turned to look at her from the door. 'When have I ever failed to pay your bills, Claudia?' he asked and, not waiting for an answer, shut the door.\n\nThe doctor came shortly after that, pronounced Miss Savage fit to get up if she felt like it, made out a prescription for the headache and before leaving, followed Louisa into the sitting room and closed the door.\n\n'Miss Savage should be all right,' he told her. 'We must try again, but with discretion. Allow her a drink with her lunch and dinner, Nurse. One glass of whatever she wishes, that is necessary, otherwise the withdrawal symptoms will be too severe. Later, perhaps, we can cut it down to one glass a day, and eventually to none. It is a pity that she has no incentive\u2014if she were married...' He shook his head and sighed, because there was really nothing much that he could do.\n\n'It needs a miracle,' said Louisa again.\n\nShe coaxed Miss Savage to eat a little of the light lunch Eva had cooked for her presently and gave her the whisky she asked for, and then to distract her attention from her craving, made a great business of making a list of the clothes they were to buy. Miss Savage even got out of bed towards evening, and though she shivered and shook alarmingly, she spent an hour discussing her wardrobe. No expense was to be spared, Louisa noted, but if Simon Savage was prepared to foot the bills, it was no concern of hers. She tucked her patient up presently, gave her supper and another ration of whisky and then, after her own supper, sat up until midnight until she was quite sure that Miss Savage was soundly asleep.\n\nIt was after lunch before Simon Savage came, which was a good thing, because his stepsister had wakened in a bad humour, declaring that she couldn't live unless she had a drink at that very minute and throwing her breakfast tray at Louisa. But somehow, now that she knew what was wrong, Louisa didn't mind too much. True, there was an awful lot of mopping up to be done, but she was beginning to feel sorry for Miss Savage now and even to like her a little. After a good deal of coaxing, Miss Savage consented to get dressed and by the time Mr Savage rang the bell, she was at least approachable.\n\nMr Savage had taken the precaution of hiring a taxi for the afternoon. It took them from shop to shop and the driver waited patiently outside each one. It certainly made shopping easy, and since Louisa didn't have to worry too much about prices, she began to enjoy herself in a modest way. True, she didn't insist on a fur-lined jacket, a fur cap and suede slacks, but she was quite content with her woollen slacks and the waterproof poplin outfit which, Simon Savage assured her, she would find very useful even if she didn't ski. He ordered her to buy several woollen sweaters, too and a dark green woollen skirt with a quilted jacket to go with it. 'And you'd better have a blouse as well,' he suggested carelessly. 'Probably we shall go to Tromso and you'll need them for the hotel.'\n\nWhich remark sent his stepsister off into another small orgy of buying.\n\nOn the whole, the afternoon went off smoothly, and since by the time they got back to the flat Miss Savage was tired out, Louisa saw her into bed, took her tea and then tucked her up for a nap. All this took a little time, of course, but Simon was still there, in the sitting room, doing nothing. She felt bound to offer him tea too, which he accepted with the air of one who had hoped for something better but would make do with what he could get. And when she thanked him stiffly for the things she had bought, he told her peremptorily to say no more about it in such a bored voice that she drank her tea in silence and was quite relieved when he went.\n\nPossibly building bridges was conducive to ill humour and an inability to tolerate the shortcomings of those one met outside of this tricky profession. 'I wonder how they can make an arch without the middle falling into the water,' Louisa asked the empty room. 'One day when he's in a good mood, I'll ask him. Only he never is in a good mood.'\n\n## CHAPTER FIVE\n\nMISS SAVAGE was at her most difficult for the rest of that day, alternately begging for a drink and abusing Louisa when she didn't get one, and in between that poking sly fun at her. 'You never guessed, did you?' she crowed. 'You thought I was being so considerate, sending you out each morning\u2014and there we were sitting cosily here\u2014they brought the drinks with them, of course. You gave me a fright when you thought you'd seen Connie\u2014I thought it was all up then, only you never suspected, did you? I'm clever, you know. I told the doctor in London that you knew all about me so there was no need to say anything to you, and I told the one here just the same.' She went off into a peal of laughter. 'I wish I'd seen your face when you and Simon found me! I had a drop too much\u2014I didn't mean to fall asleep. But now you know...what are you going to do about it?' She added pathetically with a complete change of manner: 'You won't leave me, will you, Louisa?'\n\n'No,' said Louisa, 'I won't, and I don't know what to do about it anyway\u2014only do as the doctor tells me. And now if you'd put on that dress that's too long, I'll pin it up and get it sewn.' She went on carelessly: 'Do you think it might be a good idea to go to that nice bookshop we found and get half a dozen paperbacks\u2014just to keep us going until we've discovered our way around Tromso?'\n\n'Tromso's miles away from Simon's work,' said Miss Savage sulkily.\n\n'Not so far, and there's this launch... I don't see why we shouldn't go there from time to time, do you?'\n\n'You don't know Simon\u2014he hates anyone to be happy.'\n\nAnd presently, stitching up the hem of the dress, Louisa began to wonder why Simon Savage should take such a bleak view of life, or was it perhaps that his stepsister made it appear so? But upon reflection, she couldn't recall his smiling, only just that once to Eva. She bit off the thread with small white teeth, but on the whole, she decided, he was better than Frank.\n\nHe came the next morning with the tickets for their journey and to tell Louisa that he had arranged for them to be taken by taxi down to the ship. 'She sails at seven o'clock and there'll be dinner on board,' he told her, 'no dressing up or anything like that. If Claudia is feeling off colour I'm afraid you'll have to look after her yourself\u2014there are stewardesses to clean the cabins and so on, but I doubt if their English is very good. How is she?'\n\n'Getting dressed.'\n\nHe nodded. 'May I stay for coffee?'\n\nLouisa blinked her long lashes. 'Why, of course\u2014it's your flat, isn't it? I'll ask Eva to hurry up a little.'\n\nHe didn't stay long, his visit had been one of duty; he made casual conversation with them both and went with an air of relief. He did pause as he went to remind Louisa that she was going out with Lars Helgesen on the following evening, and would she be good enough to tell Eva that he would be there for dinner with his stepsister.\n\nLars Helgesen and Simon Savage arrived together, and Louisa, in one of the new dresses, a fine wool jersey in several shades of blue, got up from her chair to greet them. Miss Savage, sulking again because she had to spend a few hours with her stepbrother, was lying on the sofa, wearing a soft woollen rose-coloured housecoat and looking really very pretty despite the deep shadows under her eyes and the downward curve of her mouth.\n\n'Lars Helgesen,' said Mr Savage, 'my sister Claudia.'\n\nMr Helgesen advanced to the sofa and shook hands, looking bemused, and Louisa, watching him, had to admit that Miss Savage did look glamorous even if she was addicted to the bottle, and certainly was worth a second look. If only she could cure her... She frowned in thought and changed it to a smile as Mr Helgesen suggested that they should go.\n\nMr Savage hadn't said a word to her, nor did he as they went out of the room. She had been going to tell him that Eva had promised to stay on for a little longer that evening and serve supper, but if he couldn't be civil enough to wish her good evening, he could find out for himself.\n\n'Call me Lars,' said Mr Helgesen. 'I thought we'd walk, it's not far.' He took her arm and took her down a side street which led to the market, where they crossed Torget into Bryggen and stopped outside one of the old houses there. 'Here we are,' he declared. 'It is a well known restaurant in the town, and you shall eat some of their delicious fish.'\n\nIt was warm inside, old-fashioned, and the tables were well filled. Louisa took off her coat and sat down at the table they were led to. She felt happy; Lars was a pleasant companion, even on their brief walk she had discovered that. She looked forward to a delightful evening in his company.\n\nThey had sampled the hors d'oeuvres and were well into the fish when Lars abandoned his light chat and asked in a carefully casual voice: 'Miss Savage\u2014Claudia\u2014is she very delicate?' And before Louisa could answer: 'She is so very pretty and so charming, I\u2014I was much struck...'\n\n'She's recovering from a complaint which left her rather low,' said Louisa carefully. 'She has her ups and downs though.'\n\nLars offered her the sauce. 'Yes? She is still so young.'\n\nJust as carefully Louisa agreed.\n\n'Of course Simon has told me something about her\u2014that was necessary so that I might check her account from time to time\u2014it is understandable that so very pretty a lady should wish to spend money.' Louisa murmured something or other and he went on: 'Simon tells me that you are to go to the village where he works. He thinks it will be better for her. I shall miss you\u2014both of you.'\n\nLouisa smiled at his earnest face. 'It does sound a long way off, but I'm sure we shall be all right once we're there,' she assured him. 'Have you been there?'\n\nThey talked about a great many things after that, finishing their dinner and walking back to the concert hall, and then sat in companionable silence listening to the pianist playing Grieg's music, and when it was over, walking the short distance back to the flat.\n\n'You'll come in for coffee?' asked Louisa, and felt a little thrill of pleasure at his eager 'Yes, please!' It was such a pity that they would have no chance to see each other again, at least until Simon Savage decided to send them back to Bergen, and he might not do that, they might go straight back to England. It depended on his stepsister, didn't it?\n\nThey went up the stairs into the quiet flat and found Simon Savage standing by the window looking out into the dark night. His long lean back had the look of a man impatient to be gone. Miss Savage was still lying on the sofa, which surprised Louisa; she had thought that her patient would have had more than enough of her stepbrother's company by now. She turned her head as they went into the room and smiled, her gaze resting for a bare moment upon Louisa before lingering upon Mr Helgesen's face. He crossed the room to her at once. 'I was afraid you would be in bed,' he told her, and took her hand, smiling down at her. Louisa, watching them, allowed the faint, vague idea that Lars had been getting a little interested in herself to slide into oblivion. Well, it had been silly of her to imagine any such thing in the first place. She looked away and found Simon Savage's dark eyes bent upon her, and it was only too obvious from the look on his face that he had read her thoughts. She flushed angrily. 'I'll get the coffee,' she muttered, and escaped to the kitchen.\n\nHe followed her. 'A pleasant evening, Nurse?' he enquired blandly.\n\n'Yes, thank you.' She went on putting cups and saucers on a tray, not looking at him.\n\n'A nice chap, Helgesen.' He watched her through half closed lids. 'Do you have a boyfriend at home, Louisa?'\n\nIf she had been expecting that question she would have been ready with a bright answer; as it was all she could think of to say was 'No.'\n\n'I don't say I'm surprised.' He didn't qualify this remark and she didn't answer it, recognising it as bait to make her lose her temper.\n\n'Will you stay for coffee?' she asked sweetly.\n\nHe took the tray from her. 'But of course.'\n\nBefore the two men went it had been arranged that Lars should take them in his car to the ship\u2014moreover, Louisa heard him arranging to take Miss Savage out to lunch on the following day. She was sure that Mr Savage had heard it as well, but he didn't say anything, not until he was actually on the point of leaving. He said softly: 'You can safely leave it to me, Nurse.'\n\nIt surprised her very much when she returned to the sitting room to hear Miss Savage asking her quite humbly if she would mind her going to lunch with Lars Helgesen. 'And I know what you're thinking, but I promise you I'll not drink anything, only tonic water.' She went on dreamily: 'He's sweet, isn't he?'\n\nLouisa, clearing away the coffee cups, wondered if this was the miracle she had hoped for. If it was, she was going to help it along with all her might. 'He's very nice,' she agreed, 'and now what about bed? You want to look your best in the morning.'\n\nThere were only three days before they left, and it seemed to Louisa that Lars Helgesen was either at the flat or taking Claudia Savage out to one meal or another. Louisa had awaited her return from their first date in some trepidation, but she need not have worried. Her patient seemed a changed young woman. True, she still needed a drink twice a day, but her temper was no longer something to be reckoned with and she had stopped throwing things about. Moreover, she had asked Louisa to call her Claudia, which was a great step forward and made for friendlier relations all round.\n\nOf Simon Savage there had been neither sight nor sound. He had returned to his work, she knew, but he had made no attempt to telephone or write, nor had he come to say goodbye. She wondered several times what he had said to Lars about his stepsister; whatever it was had made no difference to his feelings towards that lady. Louisa packed, did last-minute shopping and laid in a small stock of books against Claudia's boredom during their journey. She foresaw difficult days ahead, for Claudia wasn't going to take lightly to not seeing Lars. It seemed a pity that they couldn't have stayed in Bergen now that there was an incentive for her to give up drinking, and it was even more of a pity that there was no way of getting hold of Mr Savage to tell him so. She could of course telephone him, but she had the feeling that if she did he would listen to her in silence and refuse to change his plans. Perhaps he was bent on punishing his stepsister, perhaps he really did believe that a stay in the north would be the means of curing her. Louisa didn't feel inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.\n\nTheir last day came and with it Lars Helgesen to take them both out to lunch\u2014the Norge Hotel this time, and although he was equally attentive to both of them, Louisa found herself wishing that she wasn't there. The other two had so much to say to each other, although he was careful to keep their talk light and amusing, and Claudia replied in kind, sipping her one glass of white wine as though she had little interest in it. Over coffee Louisa had the bright idea of remembering that she still needed some wool to finish her knitting, and left them together with a promise to meet later at the flat where they would have tea before driving to the dock.\n\nThey weren't back when she got in, so she got the tea tray ready and sat down to wait. And when they did arrive, what with saying goodbye to Eva, last-minute packing and messages, there was barely time for them to drink their rather late tea before they had to leave.\n\nOn board, Lars went with them down the curved stairs to their cabin, a quite roomy one with a table and chairs as well as two narrow beds. There was a tiny shower room too and a good sized cupboard. Its large window looked out on to the deck alongside and Louisa found it quite perfect, although from the mutinous look on Claudia's face she guessed that her views were not shared. Certainly there was a tremendous difference between the cabin and the comfort of the flat, but there was all they could need. She murmured something about finding out mealtimes, said goodbye to Lars and left them together. She encountered nobody as she made her way back to the main hall. There was the ticket office there and here people were queuing to get their tickets to whichever of the stops they wanted. The ship would call at a number of places, some quite large towns, some fishing villages, some a mere cluster of houses. Louisa could imagine how welcome the sight of it must be, especially during the long winter, bringing supplies and mail and discharging passengers and taking others on.\n\nShe edged past a family group, complete with pram, small baby and a large dog, and went up another winding stair. The dining room was quite large with small tables and an air of cosiness, and a door from it led to the stern of the ship where, she discovered, the passengers who were travelling only part of the way could sit. There was a cafeteria there and a small bar where she was delighted to see that no spirits were sold, only wines, sherry and port. There were already a few people sitting about, and she went back the way she had come, out of the door again and into a lounge, running across the fore part of the ship, from side to side, with large windows on all sides. There was no one there either, so she went up another small flight of stairs and found another lounge, exactly like the one below but used, she guessed, for observing the scenery. She stood for a few minutes, watching the ship preparing to sail, craning her neck to see Bergen alongside and behind her, lights shining from the houses perched high on the skirts of the mountains behind the town. And in front of her the fjord leading to the open sea. It was a dark evening and she could see very little; probably it would be both cold and rough. She went below presently, studied the meals timetable, made her way through the increasing number of passengers back to the cabin and tapped on the door. Someone had just shouted something over the tannoy which she guessed was an order for people to go ashore, for she could feel the engines somewhere under her feet. They would be sailing at any moment now, and surely Lars would be gone.\n\nHe had, and Claudia was sitting slumped in one of the chairs, crying. The moment she caught sight of Louisa she shouted: 'I won't go, I won't! I want to stay with Lars\u2014it's cruel of Simon to make me just when I'm h-happy...'\n\nLouisa privately agreed with her. It was cruel of Mr Savage, but then from what she had seen of him he possessed very little of the milk of human kindness. She went and sat down on the edge of one of the beds close to Claudia and took one of her hands in hers. 'Look, it's not as bad as you think. Listen to me\u2014you're much better. You've been trying hard, haven't you, and each day will be easier. This place, wherever we're going, is quiet and very peaceful. You'll sleep well without pills and start eating properly and you'll feel so well that you won't be bored or tired of doing nothing. And the quicker you do that, the quicker you'll come back to Bergen. Don't you see, if you improve as much as that, your brother can't refuse to let you return? And Lars will be here, won't he, waiting for you?'\n\nClaudia pulled her hand away pettishly. 'Oh, what do you know about it? You've never been in love, you've no idea what it's like. When you meet someone and you know at once...'\n\n'It must be wonderful. I've never been in love, as you say, and perhaps I never shall be, but it's happened to you, hasn't it? And you've got to hang on to it. You're one of the lucky ones.'\n\nClaudia turned round slowly to look at her. 'We haven't much in common,' she said, and laughed a little, 'but for a nurse you're not a bad sort.'\n\nHer face crumpled again. 'Do you really think we'll come back soon? And that Lars likes me as much as he says he does?'\n\n'Yes to both questions.'\n\nClaudia was looking at her face in the little jewelled mirror she carried in her handbag. She said defiantly: 'I told him\u2014I told him I was an alcoholic and he just smiled and said that I didn't need to be any more because he was there. Do you suppose I could be cured, Louisa?'\n\nLouisa paused in her unpacking of an overnight bag. 'Yes, I'm quite sure you can. You see, you've got a good reason now, haven't you, and before you never had that, did you?'\n\nClaudia flung the mirror down on the bed. 'All the same, I shall go mad in this beastly little place we're going to, and if I do it'll be Simon's fault.'\n\n'Do you suppose Lars will come and see you?' asked Louisa, and was rewarded by a return of good humour.\n\n'He promised, but he doesn't know when.' Claudia got up and peered out into the dark outside. 'Have we started?'\n\n'Yes, a few minutes ago. Dinner is at eight o'clock. Would you like a glass of wine before then?'\n\n'Whisky.'\n\n'No, wine. You can't buy spirits on board ship, anyway, it's against the law.'\n\n'Oh, well, wine, I suppose.' Claudia looked round her disdainfully. 'I've never been in such a poky little place in my life before, and I've got to share it with you. I can't bear the idea...'\n\nLouisa choked back what she would like to have said. 'It's only for four days\u2014and we shall only sleep here, after all.' She felt the ship dipping its nose into the beginnings of the North Sea, heaving alarmingly. 'And if it's rough you may be glad to have someone here.'\n\nThere were barely a dozen passengers in the dining room and the steward led them to a window table where two people were already sitting, and when Louisa said, 'Good evening,' because Claudia was looking annoyed at having to share, she was answered to her relief, in the same language\u2014they were an elderly pair and now that she had time to look at them, American.\n\nThey leaned over the table to shake hands. 'Mr and Mrs Foster Kuntz,' they said, beaming, 'and I do believe we're the only English speaking passengers.'\n\nLouisa shook hands and Claudia did the same, ungraciously, and since she had nothing to say, Louisa said: 'Miss Savage is visiting her brother near Tromso. She hasn't been well, and I'm travelling with her.'\n\n'Tromso?' queried Mrs Kuntz. 'That's right in the north. We're going to Trondheim to see our daughter\u2014she's married.'\n\n'To a Norwegian?' asked Louisa hastily, because Claudia was ignoring everyone.\n\nMrs Kuntz laughed in a jolly way. 'No, he's from the USA, same as us. Got a good job too. We're from Texas\u2014San Antonio, cattle and petroleum; Foster here has done very well from them. We thought we'd have a nice long vacation in Europe and visit Cissie before we go home.'\n\nLouisa said, 'What fun for you both,' and picked up her spoon to start on the soup the steward had set before her. 'Have you enjoyed your trip?'\n\nMrs Kuntz's answer kept the conversation going in a rather one-sided fashion through the cod steaks and the pudding, so that it wasn't too noticeable that Claudia didn't speak at all. They left the dining room together and Mrs Kuntz whispered: 'Your poor friend\u2014I reckon she must have been good and sick\u2014she hasn't said a word.'\n\nLouisa seized her chance. 'Yes, she has been ill and she's still convalescing. You mustn't mind if she doesn't enter into conversation, she finds it exhausting, and I hope you won't mind if we have our coffee quietly in a corner, because I think she's pretty well exhausted. We'll have an early night; there's nothing much to see anyway, is there?'\n\nMrs Kuntz laid a kind hand on her arm. 'Sure, my dear, we understand. We'll see you at breakfast.'\n\nClaudia had gone to sit at the opposite end of the saloon, as far away from everyone else as she could manage. As Louisa sat down beside her, she muttered: 'I won't go\u2014it's ghastly, those dreadful people\u2014I'm going to get off at the first stop.' And then: 'I'll kill Simon!'\n\n'Rather pointless,' Louisa said calmly. 'We'd be stuck high and dry miles from anywhere and not nearly enough money to get home.'\n\n'I'll telephone Lars.'\n\nLouisa poured their coffee. 'I think Lars loves you very much, and I thought you loved him\u2014I thought you were doing this for him.'\n\n'You mind your own business!' snapped Claudia.\n\n'Well, I do usually,' agreed Louisa matter-of-factly, 'but it seems a shame that you should give in so easily. And Lars wouldn't believe it of you.'\n\n'You know a lot about him, don't you?' Claudia turned a furious suspicious face towards her.\n\n'No, but I think he's a very honest and kind man who wouldn't give his friendship or his affection lightly.'\n\n'My God, you sound pompous!' declared Claudia.\n\n'Yes, I know, but you did ask me, didn't you? And I do want to help you to get...well again.'\n\nClaudia gave a small sneering laugh. 'Then you'll be out of a job.'\n\nLouisa said soberly, 'Yes, so I shall.' She hadn't thought about that: somehow the hospital, her stepmother and Frank had all faded gently into the past and she couldn't imagine going back to it.\n\nDespite a disturbed night because Claudia was unable to sleep, Louisa was up early. It was still dark when she wakened Claudia and then put on her thick jacket and went outside on deck. It was cold, but the sky was clear and she could see lights ahead\u2014Maloy, a fishing centre, its harbour crowded with boats, its modern wooden houses already dimly seen under the bright lights of the dock. As they drew nearer she could see too that their bright red roofs were powdered with snow, as were the fishing boats. The ship docked and she watched, oblivious of the cold, while the mail was slung in its great net on to the dock, and was loaded with more mail. They were taking passengers aboard too, quite a number, bound for farther up the coast. She would have stayed watching the busy scene until they sailed, but the breakfast gong sent her back to the cabin to see how Claudia was faring.\n\nShe was dressed and almost ready, and in a foul temper. She barely spoke to Louisa, nodded to the Kuntzes at the table and sat crumbling toast and drinking coffee while Louisa had her porridge, egg, cranberry jam and toast, carrying on a friendly conversation with their companions at the same time.\n\n'I absolutely refuse to go on deck,' declared Claudia when they were back in their cabin. 'I'm worn out and bored, and what am I supposed to do all day on this ghastly ship?'\n\nLouisa produced a couple of paperbacks, a pack of cards and the latest copy of Vogue which she had hidden away in the luggage. 'We'll go to the saloon on the top deck,' she declared, 'and of course you don't have to go out if you don't want to\u2014there'll be plenty to look at through the windows.'\n\n'Mountains and sea. I hope to God there's a comfortable chair...'\n\nClaudia refused to face a window; Louisa settled her in a large, well upholstered easy chair in a corner, laid the books on a table beside her and went to take a look from the long window overlooking the bows.\n\nMaloy was already behind them, but she caught sight of a narrow ribbon bridge behind the village. 'Did Mr Savage build any of the bridges along this coast?' she asked.\n\nClaudia shrugged, already deep in Vogue. 'Oh, he had something to do with several of them, I believe. I've never been interested.'\n\nThe ship was sailing between the coast and protecting skerries, but presently it was the open sea\u2014the Norwegian Sea\u2014and the ship, incredibly sturdy despite its smallness, pitched and rolled its way round the headland of Stad, past the Runde bird-rock, just visible to the west, and presently into the calm of Alesund.\n\n'We're stopping here for a couple of hours,' observed Louisa cunningly. 'Shall we go ashore and get some coffee and take a quick look at the shops? Lunch isn't till one o'clock\u2014there's more than an hour...'\n\nClaudia was looking pale, although she hadn't complained at the rough trip. She said now: 'Louisa, I must have a drink.'\n\n'OK. You won't be able to get whisky, but there'll be sherry or wine. I'll get our coats.'\n\nThe few passengers were already crossing the quayside and making for the town, a stone's throw away. It had been snowing and the wind was icy, but both girls were warmly clad, and once in the narrow busy streets, it was warmer. Louisa found an hotel within minutes and sat Claudia down at a window table in the bar, sipping her coffee while her companion drank her sherry, and then ordering more coffee for them both. Claudia was better after that and Louisa walked her briskly up the main street, looking in its shops, buying an English newspaper and one or two more books before going back to the ship. And there once more she was delighted to see that Claudia looked decidedly better and even made an effort to eat some lunch. What was more, she answered, briefly, it was true, when the Kuntzes spoke to her. The ship sailed while they were drinking their coffee and Louisa watched the little town slide away into the distance. There was a mountain behind the houses; one could drive up to its top by taxi and get a splendid view\u2014something she would have loved to do...\n\nIt was dark when they reached Kristinasund, and even darker when they docked briefly at Molde, although the sight of the twinkling lights which seemed to cover the mountains behind the town was worth a few cold minutes on deck.\n\nClaudia slept better that night, although it was still rough, and she got up with fairly good grace in plenty of time for breakfast. They were sailing up the fjord to Trondheim where there was going to be a three-hour stop, and this time they were among the first to go ashore. There were taxis on the quayside. Louisa ushered Claudia into one of them, said hopefully: 'The shops, please,' and got in too.\n\nIt was a short drive, but Claudia hated walking, although she was happy enough to linger from one shop to the next, while Louisa, longing to visit the Nidaros Cathedral, which Eva had told her on no account to miss, wandered along beside her. Clothes could be bought anywhere in the world, she thought irritably, so why couldn't Claudia be interested in anything else? They had coffee presently, spent some time in a bookshop and then found another taxi to take them back. A successful morning, decided Louisa, and only two more days to go.\n\nShe tucked Claudia up in her bed after lunch and waited until she was asleep before putting on her jacket and going on deck again. The weather was still clear, but there was a grey film on the horizon which she guessed was bad weather of some sort. And it was getting dark again, although there was still a little daylight left as they entered the Stokksund Channel. The captain had told her at lunch to look out for that\u2014a twisting narrow stretch of water where the ships had to sound their sirens before each turn. Only the thought of a cup of tea sent her back to the cabin to rouse Claudia and go up to the dining room for the simple generous meal.\n\nThere were fewer passengers now. The Kuntzes had gone and several others had disembarked at Trondheim and those who had got on in their place were Norwegians. They were in the open sea again and it was rough. Claudia lay down on one of the settees in the saloon and promptly went to sleep, and Louisa got out her knitting. She was enjoying it and she felt reasonably happy about Claudia; with luck she would be able to hand her over to her brother in a much better state of health. Beyond that she didn't intend to worry about anything.\n\nThe weather worsened as they worked their way steadily up the coast. By morning there was only the dim outlines of mountains and rugged coast to be seen. It had been too dark on the previous evening to catch a glimpse of the land around, and too dark in the early morning to see the iron globe on top of the rock marking the Arctic Circle, although the ship had sounded her siren as she passed, but the clouds lifted briefly after breakfast, just long enough for her to see the Svartisen Glacier, far away in the distance, remote and terrifyingly high.\n\nThey stopped at Bodo during the morning and this time Louisa persuaded Claudia to go with her to see the Cathedral, modern and not very large, but beautiful in its way, and then as a sop to Claudia's impatient company, took her to a hotel where she could have her glass of sherry and then coffee. There were some interesting shops too; Claudia bought herself some silver jewellery\u2014dangling earrings and a thick bracelet, and went back, reasonably good-tempered, to the ship.\n\nThere was more open sea in the afternoon and just before the light faded completely Louisa, on deck once more, was rewarded with the sight of the Lofoten Wall on the horizon. It looked a mass of barren rock where no one could possibly live, and yet, two hours later, they had docked by a small quay, and tucked into the formidable mountains towering above them was an equally small village, ablaze with lights, boasting a hotel and several shops. Louisa was enchanted and longed to talk to someone about it. It was incredible to her that people could live out their lives amidst such bleakness and, moreover, make such homelike surroundings for themselves.\n\nShe managed to convey something of her feelings to the captain when he came into the dining room and he nodded his great bearded head.\n\n'We do not mind the loneliness,' he told her, 'and we are happy to live simply. We have electricity, warm homes, plenty of books and all the sport you could wish for.' He twinkled at her. 'It is a long way from London, Miss Evans.'\n\n'Thank heaven for that,' said Louisa decidedly. 'I could live here, I think\u2014it's possible.'\n\nThey reached Tromso the next day, stopping at Harstad and Finnsnes during the morning. They could have gone ashore at Harstad, but Claudia was morose and disinclined to do anything, so that Louisa packed for them both, contenting herself with a quick peep at both places as they docked. As they steamed through the narrow waters leading to the city, she noticed that the country had changed. There were mountains crowding in on all sides, but the country had got friendly and there were farms here and there, surrounded by birch trees, and everything powdered with snow. There was nothing to be seen of Tromso yet, there were too many bends in the waterway, but there were houses scattered along the shores of the islands on either side of them. Holiday homes, she guessed, and wondered how one got to them\u2014by boat, presumably, although presently she could see a road close to the fjord's edge running between the houses, but on the other side, although there were houses, some built high into the sides of the mountains, there was no road at all. And presently Tromso came in sight, built on an island in the middle of the fjord. Louisa could see the bridge now, linking it with the mainland, larger and longer than the slender pillar bridge linking Finnsnes and its neighbouring island, but just as impressive. It was a pity that she disliked Simon Savage so heartily, otherwise she could have found out a great deal more about them.\n\nShe went below reluctantly. Claudia was sleeping again; she woke her gently, listened calmly to her mounting grumbles, coaxed her into her outdoor clothes and observed: 'You'll be able to telephone Lars this evening.'\n\nIt acted like magic. Claudia's scowl turned to self-satisfied smiles and Louisa was able to go and find a steward to deal with their luggage and then go back for Claudia. Mr Savage had said that they would be met at Tromso, but that was all. Louisa debated the choice of staying in one of the saloons until they were found, or going ashore and waiting on the quay\u2014there was bound to be a waiting room there. On the whole, she thought it best for them to go to the saloon and wait. The reception area by the office was full of passengers waiting to disembark. Most of them had boarded the ship at Bodo and Harstad. The quay was thronged with people, presumably waiting for friends or relations or travelling still farther north, and there was a steady hum of voices and a good deal of toing and froing. It was difficult to imagine that they were surrounded by bare mountains and glaciers, snowbound roads and vast forests. Louisa felt excited and happy, and wished that Claudia could feel the same. She took her arm and pushed her gently into a corner and said: 'Once most of these people have gone, we'll go up to the saloon, it'll be quiet there.'\n\nBut there was no need. Someone tapped her on the shoulder and she turned round to find Simon Savage, looking somehow much younger and cheerful. An illusion, of course, for all he did was to nod at her in a casual fashion before asking his stepsister if she was ready to leave the ship. If he uttered one word of welcome, Louisa didn't hear it. She said clearly, 'Our luggage is by the office. We had a very good journey, thank you, but your sister is tired.' She glanced at Claudia, who hadn't uttered a word. 'She should rest as soon as possible.'\n\nJust for a moment he looked at her with narrowed eyes and then surprisingly he laughed. 'Bring Claudia, I'll get the luggage,' he said, and turned away.\n\nHorrible man! thought Louisa, watching him shoulder his way through the crowd. He was wearing a sheepskin coat and knitted cap in bright colours. Probably it was that which made him look different, or perhaps she had hoped he would be... She put an arm round Claudia's shoulders.\n\n'Come on,' she said cheerfully, 'let's find some tea.'\n\n## CHAPTER SIX\n\nTHERE WAS hard-packed snow on the quayside, and Louisa felt Claudia flinch as they stepped off the gangway behind Simon Savage and a short, dark, burly man carrying two of their suitcases, but they didn't have far to go. There was a Range Rover parked close to the ship and they were bidden to get in while their luggage was piled in beside them. Louisa barely had time to look around her and take a last look at the ship before they had left the quay behind, driving down a road which curved under a bridge and turned sharply through warehouses, to turn again and enter the town over a wide bridge. The long evening had started, although it was not yet four o'clock, and the shops were brilliantly lighted in what was obviously one of the main streets, its broad pavements lined with bare trees. It ended in an open square surrounded by shops and along one of its sides, a large, solid-looking hotel. Mr Savage parked the car, said over his shoulder: 'This is where you will spend the night,' and got out.\n\nIt was more than she had expected, thought Louisa as she joined him on the pavement and waited while he held a hand out to his stepsister, in fact it looked delightful. The thought of a comfortable bedroom, a hot bath and a good dinner brought a sparkle to her eye. Even Simon's growling, 'And you'd better make the most of it,' couldn't spoil her pleasure.\n\nIt was just as splendid inside: warm, the foyer close-carpeted and furnished with comfortable chairs and little tables and a pleasant, smiling clerk who welcomed them with friendly warmth. He seemed to know Mr Savage already, for they were whisked away to their rooms with no delay at all; cosy rooms next to each other and with a communicating door and each with its own bathroom. Claudia, who had barely spoken since they had been met, looked around her with a critical eye. 'You wouldn't think they'd be able to manage anything like this in such a godforsaken place,' she observed bitterly. 'You don't suppose people actually stay here, do you? I mean for holidays...'\n\n'I believe it's popular in the summer, loads of Norwegians come up here from the south\u2014there's a road all the way, you know.'\n\n'No, I didn't know, and I don't want to.'\n\n'I'll unpack your overnight bag. Mr Savage said something about tea. You'd like some, wouldn't you? Or shall I ask for it to be sent up?'\n\nClaudia had regained some of her old languid manner. 'My dear Louisa, after weeks of nothing but you and my own company, I wouldn't miss a chance to have a look at whatever bright lights there are.'\n\nShe turned away to the dressing table and Louisa went back to her own room, where she tidied up her hair, did her face and unpacked her own bag. She got out the green wool skirt and the quilted jacket too and shook out a cream silk blouse to go with them. Presumably they would dine later with or without Simon Savage. She wasn't sure if she wanted him to be there or not.\n\nThey went down presently and found him sitting at one of the small tables, the tea tray before him. He got up as they reached him, hoped that they had found their rooms comfortable in a colourless voice and begged someone to pour tea.\n\n'Oh, you do it, Louisa,' said Claudia, 'I'm too exhausted. That fearful voyage! I absolutely refuse to go back by ship.'\n\nHer stepbrother looked up briefly from the Times he was reading. 'There are plenty of flights\u2014or the road\u2014when the time comes.'\n\nClaudia drew a hissing breath, but before she could speak, Louisa prudently handed her a cup of tea. She did the same for Simon, then poured her own and sat sipping it until he put his paper down and passed the plate of cakes. He caught her eye as he did so and gave a short laugh.\n\n'You remind me forcibly of my old nanny,' he observed, 'urging me to remember my manners.'\n\n'I haven't said a word, Mr Savage.'\n\n'No, but your eyes did. I can recommend the little round ones with the chocolate icing.'\n\n'And now we're here, perhaps you'll tell us what happens next.' Claudia's voice was sharp.\n\n'We leave tomorrow morning. You can have an hour if you need to do any shopping.'\n\n'I should like to stay here, in this hotel.'\n\nHe didn't answer this but observed, 'You're looking better, Claudia, better than you've looked for several weeks. The sea journey did you good\u2014you're half way there, you know. Why not finish it properly this time?'\n\n'I hate you!'\n\nHe remained unperturbed. 'Yes, I know, but that's got nothing to do with it.' He glanced at his watch. 'Lars will still be in his office if you want to telephone him.' He waved a hand towards the telephone booth by the reception desk. 'Have you the number?'\n\nShe got up without answering and hurried across the foyer, and he handed his cup to Louisa for more tea. 'I must admit you have achieved a good deal in this last week or so, Nurse. Is Claudia drinking at all?'\n\n'Wine or sherry, mid-morning, and a glass with her dinner in the evening.'\n\nHe nodded. 'She's in love with Lars Helgesen, isn't she?'\n\n'Yes.'\n\nSimon passed her the cakes and then helped himself. 'Splendid, we must keep that alive at all costs, it might prove the incentive she has never had.'\n\nLouisa eyed him uncertainly. 'Yes, but supposing he doesn't...would he marry her?'\n\nHis look mocked her. 'My dear Louisa, if a man loves a woman\u2014really loves her\u2014he'll marry her. Even a termagant like my dear stepsister.'\n\nHe really was beastly; perhaps he was a misogynist.\n\nClaudia came back then, looking considerably happier, but presently she said to no one in particular: 'I don't want to come down to dinner\u2014I'll have something in my room.' She gave her stepbrother a quick look, defying him to argue with her, but all he said was: 'A good idea\u2014I'll get a menu sent up presently.' He looked across at Louisa. 'You will dine with me, Louisa? Shall we say half past seven?'\n\nClaudia had got up and she got up too. 'Thank you, Mr Savage.' She gave him a cool nod and followed Claudia to the stairs.\n\nAn hour later she was dressing. Claudia, tucked up in bed, with magazines, books and the most recent papers strewn around her, had chosen her meal and was painting her nails, a long and meticulous business. Louisa, bathed and with her hair newly washed, put on the long skirt, the blouse and the little quilted jacket. They made a nice change after days of wearing slacks and woollies and probably she wouldn't have the chance to wear them again for weeks. She did her face carefully, wishing she was strikingly beautiful, witty and self-assured enough to take the shine out of Mr Savage. If she had had more time she might have given herself an elaborate hairdo, but she doubted very much if he would notice anyway, and what did it matter? They both disliked each other so heartily; she had been surprised that he had suggested dinner together. She went to take a last look at Claudia and found a waiter arranging a prawn cocktail, lamb cutlets and a variety of vegetables, and a delicious-looking pudding on the bedtable. There was a glass of wine there too. Louisa, going downstairs, reminded herself to warn Simon Savage...\n\nHe was waiting for her in the foyer, very elegant in a dark suit, looking longer and leaner than usual. He also looked ill-tempered, and she sighed. She was hungry for her dinner, but it would be spoilt if he was going to sit in stony silence.\n\nIt seemed that he was on his best behaviour, for he offered a drink in a quite friendly voice, and when she ventured to mention the possibility of Claudia ordering something to drink without their knowledge, actually thanked her for saying so. 'Though you have no need to worry,' he assured her carelessly, 'I've taken the necessary precautions.'\n\nAnd she had to be content with that. She sipped her sherry and looked around her. There were quite a number of people now, all well dressed, which somehow seemed strange when she remembered the miles of barren snowy mountains and the cold, stormy sea they had travelled through. She said: 'I didn't expect this\u2014I mean, all this luxury so far away...'\n\n'There's an excellent air service, the coastal express calls every day except Christmas Day, and there's a first class highway running from Oslo to Nord Kapp.'\n\n'No trains?'\n\nHe raised amused eyebrows. 'Through or over the mountains, Louisa?' and when he saw her flush, he added more kindly: 'The nearest railway is from Narvik into Sweden, the main line comes as far north as Bodo.'\n\nAt least they had found something to talk about. 'I saw any number of bridges\u2014pillar bridges, as we came.'\n\n'Beautiful, aren't they? Quite a number of islands are no longer isolated, although there are still ferries running in all directions and several local airlines.' He actually smiled at her. 'If you've finished your drink shall we have dinner?'\n\nThey had a table by the long window, overlooking the street and the square beyond. There was plenty of traffic still and any number of people. And because the street lights were so bright and numerous, the snow-covered pavements had a charming Christmassy look. Which reminded Louisa to ask: 'Shall we be here for Christmas?'\n\nSimon glanced up from the menu he was studying. 'It depends on several things. Be sure I'll give you plenty of warning. Are you anxious to be in England for Christmas?'\n\nShe said: 'Oh, no!' in such a tone of alarm that he asked: 'You like Norway? Have you no family?'\n\n'I like Norway very much,' she told him, and added: 'I'd like soup, please, and then the cod.'\n\n'Trailing a red herring, Louisa, or should I say cod?' and when she didn't answer: 'You have a family?'\n\nHe gave their order to the waiter and sat back waiting for her to answer, his dark face faintly bored.\n\n'A stepmother, no one else. Well, aunts and uncles, but they live a good way away...'\n\n'Where?'\n\n'Wiltshire and Cumbria.'\n\nTheir soup came and she picked up her spoon, glad of something to do. She didn't think she liked this urbane manner any more than his usual curt behaviour, and she wasn't going to answer any more questions.\n\n'You don't care for your stepmother?'\n\nShe looked at him across the elegant little table with its lighted candles. 'No.' She supped the last of her soup. 'I'm not going to answer any more questions.'\n\nHe raised quizzical eyebrows. 'My dear girl, I'm making polite conversation.'\n\n'You're cross-examining me. Is your bridge almost finished?'\n\n'Yes, the main work was done before the winter set in; there's not much left to do now, and that mostly under cover.'\n\n'May we see it?' asked Louisa.\n\n'By all means, but I doubt if Claudia will want to do that.' He spoke sourly and gave her such a disagreeable look that she rushed on to the next question.\n\n'Are you going to build any more?'\n\n'Now who's being cross-examined? Yes, I have a contract for three more bridges, one farther north, the other two in the Lofotens.'\n\n'We stopped there at a very small village\u2014it began with an S...'\n\n'Stamsund. You liked it?'\n\n'It was dark, but I would like to have gone ashore... Lots of bright lights and\u2014and cosy, if you know what I mean.'\n\nThe waiter came with their cod and when he had gone again: 'You surprise me, Louisa, or are you putting on an act for my benefit?'\n\nShe paused, fork half way to her mouth. 'An act? Why ever should I bother to do that with you?'\n\nHis bellow of laughter sent heads turning in their direction. 'Aren't I worth it?'\n\n'No,' said Louisa roundly, and applied herself to her dinner. She was a little surprised to find that although she disliked him still she wasn't...scared wasn't the word\u2014intimidated any more.\n\nThe cod was beautifully cooked with a delicious sauce and lots of vegetables. She ate it all up with a healthy appetite and followed it by a souffl\u00e9, light as air, while Simon ate biscuits and cheese. They had drunk a white wine with their meal, which was perhaps why she found herself telling her companion about Frank. She hadn't meant to, but somehow his questions had led back to her life in England again\u2014the hospitals where she worked, the villages where she lived and quite naturally from there, Frank. It was only when she glanced at him and caught his dark eyes fixed on her so intently that she pulled herself up short.\n\n'I'd better go and see if Claudia is all right,' she said.\n\n'We'll have coffee first.'\n\nShe went back to the lounge with him and drank her coffee and talked about the weather, disliking him very much because she suspected that he was laughing at her. She escaped as soon as she could, thanked him for her dinner and asked what time they were to be ready in the morning.\n\n'Eleven o'clock\u2014and I mean eleven o'clock. Unless Claudia particularly wants to do any shopping, I suggest that she has breakfast in bed. We'll breakfast at half past eight precisely.' He looked down his nose at her. 'You're not one of those silly women who don't eat breakfast, I hope?'\n\nLouisa said pertly: 'Perhaps I should have it in my room, then you won't have the bother of talking to me, Mr Savage.'\n\n'I seldom talk at breakfast, Louisa. It will give me the opportunity of giving you any last-minute instructions should it be necessary.'\n\nShe gave him a steely glance, wishing she could think of something dignified and really squashing, but she couldn't\u2014though her 'good-night' was icy.\n\nClaudia was lying against her pillows, a box of chocolates open beside her, books scattered in all directions. She looked up as Louisa went in and said: 'Oh, hullo\u2014there you are. Has Simon let you off the hook? I've had a lovely evening,' and she stretched her arms. 'Such lovely comfort, and the nicest chambermaid\u2014I got her to fetch me some more books and some sweets. I suppose you're going to tell me to go to sleep now.'\n\nLouisa smiled. 'No, I won't. We're leaving at eleven o'clock in the morning. Would you like breakfast in bed so that you'll have plenty of time to dress? And do you want to go to the shops?'\n\n'No, but you can go for me\u2014I want some more of that hand cream and I'm almost out of nail varnish. I suppose Simon will allow us to come here to shop as often as we want to?'\n\n'I expect so,' said Louisa, thinking it most unlikely. 'I'll be up fairly early, I'll get anything you want and be back in time to do your packing.'\n\nClaudia nodded dismissal. 'OK. See you in the morning.'\n\nLouisa, back in slacks, boots and thick sweater after a night's sleep, and wishful to keep Simon Savage's mood as sweet as possible, presented herself in the dining room exactly on time. Claudia was still asleep and she took the precaution of asking the reception girl to get a menu sent up to her room within the next ten minutes. Claudia couldn't be hurried and Simon had said eleven o'clock and meant it.\n\nHe was there now waiting for her, dressed for the cold, she noticed, and she wondered just how remote and bleak their future home was to be. He wished her a perfunctory good morning and waved her to the table along one wall, set out with a vast assortment of food: bread, toast, butter, jam, dishes of fish in various sauces and a great bowl of porridge.\n\nShe wandered slowly round and presently joined him at their table, a bowl of porridge in one hand and a plate laden with toast, egg, jam and cheese in the other. He got up and took them from her and asked: 'Tea or coffee?'\n\n'Coffee, please.' And after that she didn't speak, but applied herself to her meal, quite undaunted by the open newspaper Simon Savage held in front of his cross face. It was a pity, she thought, that he always had to look so very disagreeable; life couldn't be all that bad. Perhaps he had been crossed in love? She giggled at the very idea\u2014no woman would dare\u2014and choked on it as the paper was lowered.\n\n'You were saying?' Simon Savage enquired coldly.\n\n'Nothing.' She gave him a sweet smile. 'I don't talk at breakfast either.'\n\nHe folded his paper deliberately and very neatly. 'Take care, Louisa, I'm not the mildest of men.'\n\nShe poured herself another cup of coffee. 'We don't agree about much, Mr Savage\u2014about that, though, we do! Will I be able to get all I want from that big shop across the square?'\n\n'Sundt? I imagine so, provided it's nothing out of the way.' He glanced at his watch. 'Don't let me keep you.'\n\nClaudia was having breakfast when she went back upstairs. Louisa warned her to get up as soon as she had finished, got into her jacket and woolly cap, and went out of the hotel. The shops were open, although it was still not light, and inside Sundt was warm and brightly lighted. Louisa bought everything on her list and spent ten minutes going from counter to counter. She would have to send her stepmother a Christmas present, she supposed, and cards to her friends at the hospital, as well as the aunts and uncles she so seldom saw. She had written once to her home, and told her stepmother that she was in Norway with a patient, but she had given no address and her friends to whom she had written were sworn to secrecy. She had never felt so free, nor, strangely, so happy.\n\nShe would have liked to have lingered in the shop, but a glance at her watch told her that there was little more than an hour before they were to leave. And it was as well that she went back when she did, for Claudia was still lying in bed, doing absolutely nothing. Louisa, by now well versed in the right tactics, persuaded her out of her bed, under the shower and dressed with half an hour to spare, and that would be barely enough time for the elaborate make-up without which Claudia refused to face the outside world. Louisa packed neatly and with speed, rang for their cases to be taken down and left in the foyer, so that Simon Savage's impatience would be tempered, and applied herself to getting Claudia downstairs on time. As it was they were only five minutes late, a fact which Simon silently registered by a speaking glance at the clock.\n\nIt was going to be a lovely day, the blue sky turning the snow even whiter than it already was, and as the Land Rover left the city's centre, the mountains came into view once more, their grey bulk almost covered with snow, making a magnificent background to the tree-covered slopes that skirted them. Simon Savage turned off at the bridge at the end of the main street and took a road running alongside the fjord, and presently stopped.\n\nThere were fishing boats and motor launches moored here, and Louisa saw the same man who had met the boat with him on the previous day coming to meet them. She half expected Claudia to make a fuss as they got out, but beyond a furious look at the two men she did nothing at all, and they were ushered on board a motor launch without further ado. It was a roomy enough vessel with a fair sized cabin, comfortably warm and well fitted out. Claudia, huddled in her thick clothes, curled up at once on one of the cushioned benches and demanded coffee, and Simon without turning his head told Louisa to pour coffee for them all. 'There's a galley,' he told her curtly. 'You'll find everything there.'\n\nIt was a small place, more like a cupboard, but it did hold an astonishing number of things, and the coffee was already bubbling in the percolator on top of the spirit stove. She found mugs, set them on a tray, found milk and sugar too, and went back into the cabin. They were all there; the man introduced as Sven smiled at her as he took his mug, but Simon gave her austere thanks without looking at her, and as for Claudia, she turned her head away.\n\nBut when the men had gone, she sat up, accepted the coffee for a second time and looked around her. 'What a dump!' she declared, looking about.\n\nLouisa, who knew next to nothing about boats, thought it to be the height of comfort, but she knew better than to argue with Claudia; there was a mood coming on, unless she could forestall it...\n\nShe fetched rugs from a shelf, persuaded Claudia to take off her fur coat and her cap and gloves, and tucked her up cosily. 'You're tired,' she observed. 'Close your eyes and have a nap. I daresay we'll be there by the time you wake up.'\n\nJust for once Claudia forgot to be arrogant. 'It's going to be sheer hell,' she whispered. 'It'll kill me!'\n\n'It'll cure you\u2014think how happy that will make Lars.'\n\nClaudia closed her eyes. 'Do you think it's very silly of me to make plans? Wedding plans, I mean. Do you think he'll risk marrying me? I'm an alcoholic...'\n\n'Not any more,' declared Louisa stoutly. 'Now close your eyes and make plans.'\n\nWhich Claudia did, and presently slept.\n\nThe launch was doing a good turn of speed, although the water was choppy. Louisa peered out of the windows and discovered that she couldn't see much for spray, so she put on her jacket again, pulled her woolly cap down over her ears and went outside. Simon Savage was at the wheel, well wrapped against the cold, but when he saw her he said something to Sven, who took it from him and crossed the few feet to the cabin door. He didn't say anything, only pulled her hood up and over her cap and tied the strings under her chin, then kissed her gently.\n\n'You look like a nice rosy apple,' he told her by way of explanation.\n\nShe was too surprised to say anything, which was perhaps just as well, for he went on in a matter-of-fact voice: 'If you look behind you'll see Tromsdaltinden. The snow came early this year, so it will be a long winter. Any number of people go there on a Sunday to ski. There's Finmark to the east, and in a few minutes you'll be able to get a glimpse of the Lyngen mountains\u2014these are islands on the port side, look ahead of you and you'll see the fjord divides\u2014we take the left arm, it runs between two islands, and it's there that we're building a bridge.'\n\nLouisa, oblivious of the icy wind, took the glasses he handed her and then looked her fill. 'People live along here\u2014I can see houses.'\n\n'Settlements\u2014fishing folk mostly\u2014they're not far from Tromso, and there are Hansnes and Karlsoy to the north; small villages, but there's a road to Tromso from Hansnes. Once the bridge is open it will shorten the journey to Tromso.' He gave her a long considering look. 'You like it here, don't you?'\n\n'Yes. It must be lovely in the summer.'\n\n'It is. That's when we do most of our work.'\n\n'Do you ever go home between bridges?' The moment she had spoken she was sorry. He turned away from her and said shortly: 'You'd better go inside and see if Claudia is awake; we shall be landing very shortly.'\n\nLouisa went at once. Just for a few minutes she had thought that they were beginning to lose their dislike of each other, and she had to admit that for her part she was on the verge of liking him, ill-temper and all, but it was obvious that he didn't share her feelings. Oh, well, once they were ashore, he'd be working, she supposed, and they wouldn't have to see much of him. It struck her then that life might be a little difficult for the next few weeks, with Claudia to keep amused. She would have to think of something to occupy them during the short days. She remembered vaguely that Claudia had told her that she had learned to ski as a child and there would surely be a suitable slope not too far away.\n\nShe looked out of the window; there were plenty of mountains, but they all looked quite precipitous. Craning her neck, she could just see the bridge ahead of them; some way off still, graceful and narrow, standing tall on its pillars. She would have liked to have gone back outside and taken a good look, but she suspected that Simon had got fed up with her company and sent her inside unnecessarily soon. A pity, because there was a lot to see now\u2014houses, their painted wood bright against the snow, scattered along the fjord's edge, the mountains at their back doors, and as far as she could see, no road. Racks of cod, minute coves sheltering a fishing boat or two, a solitary church, its short pointed spire covered by snow...\n\nShe put the coffee pot on the stove to warm up and wakened Claudia. She managed to keep the excitement out of her voice as she said: 'We're almost there,' because she knew that Claudia didn't share that feeling; indeed she groaned and declared that nothing would make her set foot on such a solitary snowbound spot.\n\n'Well, if you don't go ashore here, Lars won't know where to find you,' observed Louisa matter-of-factly, 'and I'm sure it's not nearly as bad as you think. I've some coffee for you, drink it up and get wrapped up again.'\n\n'You're nothing but a bully,' complained Claudia, 'every bit as bad as Simon. I'm hungry.'\n\n'We'll get lunch as soon as we land,' declared Louisa, and hoped that they would: it wouldn't take much to send Claudia off into one of her moods. They were very close to the land now; through the windows she could see a cluster of houses beyond a small quay, more cod drying on wooden racks and a larger building with 'Hotel' in large letters on its bright yellow painted wall. The houses were brightly painted too, blue and red and pink; they made cheerful spots of colour against the snow and the grey granite mountains all around them.\n\nThe cabin door opened and Simon poked his head inside. 'We're here', he told them. 'Come along\u2014 Sven will bring the luggage along.'\n\nThere was no one on the quay, just a few wooden sheds and a stack of boxes. The road ran left and right and they turned to the left between two rows of small houses. There was a shop and then the hotel, but they went on past it to the last half dozen houses or so. Simon turned off the road here and clumped through the snow to one of these; square, like all the rest, and like its neighbours, standing on its own, facing the fjord, the mountains nudging its small plot of ground. He opened the door and went in shouting something as he did so and turned to hold it wide for them to go in too. The hall was very small with a door on either side, and from one of these an elderly woman came hurrying out.\n\nSimon performed introductions in a perfunctory fashion and added: 'Elsa speaks a fair amount of English; she comes each day and cleans the house and cooks for me.' He opened the other door and ushered them into a small square room, warm from the wood-burning stove against one wall and furnished with simple comfort. 'Get your things off,' he suggested, 'Elsa is bringing coffee, then you can see your rooms before lunch. I'll be out this afternoon, but you'll have enough to do, unpacking and finding your way around.'\n\nThe coffee came, hot and delicious, and Sven came in with the bags and sat down to drink his, too; and presently Elsa led them upstairs to two small rooms, simply furnished and warm, with bright rugs and curtains. There was a bathroom too, and Louisa, who had expected a lack of modern amenities, was impressed. Claudia wasn't\u2014she went and sat on the edge of her bed, making up her face. 'What a dump!' she declared. 'It's ghastly\u2014we can't all use that poky little bathroom.'\n\n'Don't see why not,' said Louisa cheerfully. 'We don't all want it at the same time, I don't suppose. Let's get tidy and go down to lunch.'\n\nSomething Claudia refused to do. 'I'm tired to death,' she moaned, 'I'll have something on a tray and go to bed with a book.'\n\nAnd nothing Louisa said would change her mind. She left her sitting there and went downstairs and found the table laid and Simon at one end of it, bent over a large map and a bundle of papers. He looked up briefly as she went in. 'Where's Claudia?' And when she explained: 'She can come down for her meals or starve, I don't care which. Tell her that.'\n\nLouisa eyed him with disfavour. 'No, you tell her,' she said quietly, and then: 'You're too hard on her, you know.'\n\nSimon gave her a baleful stare. 'Don't preach to me, Nurse.' But he went past her and up the stairs and presently came down again, looking grim, with a seething Claudia behind him. Louisa made an uneasy third at table, sitting between the two of them, eating her cod and potatoes in a heavy silence.\n\nWith a muttered excuse Simon went away the moment he had finished eating, and Claudia burst into tears. Louisa gave her another cup of coffee, allowed her to cry her fill and then suggested that they should go upstairs.\n\n'I'll unpack,' she said with a cheerfulness she didn't feel, 'and you can have a nap or read, and we can have tea here, by the stove.' She urged a reluctant Claudia upstairs, bathed her face for her, settled her under the duvet, found a pile of books and started to put away clothes. By the time she had finished, Claudia was asleep and she was able to go to her own little room and do her own unpacking. That done, she went to look out of the window. It was almost dark, but there were lights in all the houses, making the snow sparkle. Tomorrow she would persuade Claudia to explore a bit\u2014a shop, even a small general store, would be somewhere to go, and perhaps they could get coffee at the hotel. And she was longing to get a closer look at the bridge. She sighed and pulled the curtains, then went downstairs to look for Elsa and ask about tea.\n\nClaudia had calmed down by tea time and when Louisa, who had been prowling round the little house, mentioned casually that there was a telephone in the hall tucked away in a dark corner under the stairs, she declared that she would ring up Lars at once, but before she could get there, there was a call from him. Louisa, roasting herself by the stove and watching the television programme she couldn't understand, heard Claudia's excited voice and heaved a sigh of relief. The call lasted ten minutes or more, during which time Simon came back, said hullo, in a perfunctory manner, and declared his intention of going across the hall to the small room he used as his office. At the door he paused. 'Any idea how you're going to fill in the time here?' he asked.\n\n'I've brought embroidery and knitting and books for both of us. We'll go out each day\u2014Claudia told me she could ski, but I can't.'\n\n'You can learn\u2014there's an easy slope close by. We'll make up a party on Saturday. The shop has books and the papers come with the postman by launch every third day.'\n\n'And perhaps we could go to Tromso once in a while,' asked Louisa, encouraged by these suggestions.\n\n'Perhaps.' He was non-committal about it. 'Claudia will probably give you the hell of a time.'\n\n'Yes, I expect that, but I expect her to get better too.' She spoke defiantly and he laughed.\n\n'I hope you're right.' His eyes narrowed. 'And understand this; any hint of backsliding and I want to know at once. Is that understood?'\n\n'Oh, I understand you very well,' said Louisa, her voice a little high with suppressed feelings. 'What a very disagreeable man you are, Mr Savage, with your orders and arrogance. I should very much dislike having you as a patient.'\n\nHis dark eyes snapped at her. 'You surprise me, Louisa. I should have thought it would have been the very thing, because I would be entirely at your mercy and you could wreak revenge to your heart's content.' His silky voice had a nasty edge to it. He opened the door. 'Perhaps we'd better keep out of each other's way?' he wanted to know.\n\nShe agreed stiffly and when she was alone again, wondered why the prospect left her with the feeling that life would be rather dull.\n\n## CHAPTER SEVEN\n\nCLAUDIA WAS STILL asleep when Louisa went down to breakfast the next morning, to find Simon already at the table, spooning up porridge as though he had a train to catch. He got up as she went in, however, wished her good morning and asked her if she preferred coffee to tea. 'And where's Claudia?' he asked indifferently.\n\n'In bed, asleep. I shall take her breakfast up later.'\n\nShe met his cold eyes. 'I see no reason why she should be pampered. I brought her here in the hope that the simple life led here would effect a cure.' He sounded impatient.\n\n'Probably you did,' she said equably, 'but there's no reason to rush things, is there? Why put her back up when there's no need? I shall take her breakfast up.' She began on her porridge and dropped the spoon at his sudden roar.\n\n'Are you defying me, Nurse Evans?'\n\nShe sugared her porridge. 'Well, yes, I believe I am,' she told him placidly. 'I don't interfere with your bridges, Mr Savage, I don't think that you should interfere with my nursing.'\n\n'Claudia doesn't need a nurse any more.'\n\nShe raised her eyes to his. 'You'd like me to go, Mr Savage? You have only to say so. After all, it's you who pays my wages.'\n\nShe watched him getting control of his temper while he helped himself to cranberry jam and took some toast. He said evenly: 'Nurse Evans, you may have carte blanche with my stepsister, but I advise you to be very careful. I'm not a man to be crossed lightly.'\n\n'Oh, I can see that,' said Louisa airily, 'but if you'll give me a free hand with Claudia, then I promise I won't interfere with your bridges.'\n\nAn unwilling laugh escaped him. 'I've never met anyone quite like you, Louisa.' He started gathering up the papers by his plate. 'And you seemed so quiet, almost timid... I shan't be in to lunch.'\n\nShe finished her breakfast in deep thought. Obviously he didn't intend to organise any activities for them, that was something she would have to do for herself. She cleared the table and went into the kitchen and under Elsa's kindly eye, prepared a tray for Claudia.\n\nIt was still dark outside; she prudently left the curtains drawn, switched on the bedside light and only then wakened Claudia, whose temper, never very sunny in the morning, improved a little at the sight of her breakfast tray.\n\n'However did you manage it?' she asked, and yawned hugely. 'I'm sure Simon said something about eight o'clock...'\n\n'Yes, he did, but we agreed that you should have breakfast in bed.'\n\n'Every day?'\n\nLouisa nodded. 'Why not? I've little enough to do, you know. I thought we might go out presently and take a look at that shop and perhaps have coffee at the hotel...'\n\n'And then what?' demanded Claudia pettishly.\n\n'I'm going to find out about skiing, I'm dying to learn\u2014do you suppose you could teach me?'\n\nClaudia was buttering toast. 'I suppose I could. God knows where I'll get the energy from\u2014it sounds a fearful bore.'\n\n'Perhaps we could try once or twice, and if I'm quite hopeless I'll give it up.'\n\nClaudia had picked up a magazine and was leafing through the pages. 'OK,' she said without much interest, 'I suppose it'll be something to do.'\n\nLouisa was at the door. 'I suppose Lars Helgesen skis beautifully.' She closed the door gently behind her.\n\nThere weren't many people about as they crunched through the snow towards the shop, but there was a fair amount of activity on the quay: a fork lifter stacking large cardboard boxes, parcels and bundles of all shapes and sizes being sorted; there were lights everywhere, of course, for it was still not light, although the sky was clear. Several men went past them on snow scooters, going out of sight where the last of the houses clustered on a bend of the fjord. The bridge lay in that direction; Louisa dearly wanted to see it, but she doubted whether Claudia would walk so far. They turned into the shop and were agreeably surprised to find that it housed almost anything they might need. What was more, the post had arrived and among the letters was one from Lars. Claudia tucked it into a pocket, her pale face pink so that she looked lovelier than ever, and Louisa vowed that nothing was going to stop her from making every effort to cure her of her addiction\u2014'nothing', of course, was Simon Savage being tiresome. They spent quite a time in the shop, delighted to find that there was a small stock of English paperbacks as well as a two-day-old copy of The Times. They bought chocolate, too and Louisa, finding that they could speak English, asked the young woman behind the counter about skiing. Her questions were met with instant offers of skis, boots, a guide to show them the way and someone to instruct her. Louisa explained about Claudia teaching her, but accepted the rest of the offer for the next morning and when she offered to pay met with such a vigorous refusal to take a single krone that she didn't say another word. 'You are family of Mr Savage,' she was told. 'He is our friend and we treat you also as friends\u2014friends do not pay.'\n\nThey went to the hotel next and were surprised again. It was a small wooden building, not much bigger than the houses round it, but inside it had a small cosy bar, an even smaller dining room and a much larger room where there was a billiard table, dartboard and a number of small tables and chairs. Louisa guessed that it was used for a great many things during the winter, for there was a small screen hung against one wall and a projector beside it, and in one corner there was a piano.\n\nThere was no one else there. They ordered coffee and the proprietor brought it himself and then sat down with them, proving to be a fount of information, imparted in English, which while not fluent, was easily understandable. The post came twice a week, they were told, books and magazines could be ordered at the shop and came at the same time. It was possible to go to Tromso whenever they wished provided the weather wasn't bad. There was a film show every Saturday evening in that very room and dancing afterwards. And when Louisa observed that there weren't all that number of people to come to it, he laughed cheerfully and told her that the people who lived along the shores of the fjord came in for the evening.\n\n'We are very happy here,' he told her. 'We have the mountains and the fjord and in the summer visitors come and camp along the shore and we are very busy. Besides, there is the bridge. The men who work on it sleep and eat here and go home at the weekends. My hotel is full.'\n\n'Won't it be rather quiet when they go?' asked Louisa.\n\nHe looked surprised. 'Oh, no\u2014it will be Christmas.'\n\nThey parted, the best of friends, presently, and walked back to the house to find that Elsa had their lunch waiting\u2014soup and bread and a number of little dishes filled with varieties of fish and cheese and pickles. Claudia declared that she was tired, although she had soup and coffee before making herself comfortable on the outsize couch before the stove. Louisa waited for her to ask for a drink, but she didn't, and by the time Louisa had cleared the table she was asleep.\n\nElsa would be in the house until the evening and was perfectly willing to keep an eye on Claudia. Louisa put on her outdoor things again and went back through the snow, past the last of the houses to where the rough road ended, but there was some sort of path once she had reached the curve of the fjord and she followed it carefully in the twilight which she realised was all there was in place of the daylight. The water looked cold and dark, whipped up into waves by a cutting wind, and she faltered for a moment. Suppose night descended and she couldn't see the path to go back by? And then she told herself that she was silly; the snow scooters had gone that way; it was well used and surely they would be returning soon? She pressed on to the next curve and was rewarded by a sight of the bridge, brilliantly lighted at each end, and she could see and hear men working. She was in two minds whether to go on, but a few flakes of snow sent her sharply back the way she had come, very aware of the looming mountains and the gathering darkness. She had reached the first house when a snow scooter skidded to a halt beside her and Simon Savage got off. He greeted her coldly; 'I shouldn't advise you to go off on your own until you're sure of the way. Only a fool would do that at this time of the year. It's easy enough to get lost.'\n\n'I wanted to see the bridge, and I wasn't being reckless, Mr Savage. I saw some men go this way before lunchtime, and I guessed there would be a path.'\n\nHe grunted. 'And Claudia?' It was snowing quite fast now; he looked enormously tall and bulky.\n\n'We had a very pleasant morning. There was a letter from Lars Helgesen. We went to the shop and then to the hotel for coffee.' She added defiantly: 'And I asked about skiing.'\n\n'Admirable Louisa! I'm sure you'll deal with skis as competently as you do with everything and everyone else. You have someone to teach you?'\n\n'Claudia.'\n\nHe gave a great shout of laughter. 'Of course!'\n\n'And there's no need to laugh like that, it will be something to occupy her. Besides, that nice girl in the shop says her brother will go with us. She arranged it all so quickly...'\n\nSimon stood still and looked down at her. 'Of course she did,' he said blandly. 'I'd already told her that you might enquire. Her brother is wholly to be trusted, he may even give you a few tips when Claudia gets bored with teaching you.'\n\nThey had reached the house and he parked the scooter in the lean-to and opened the door for her. Louisa took off her things and hung them in the hall, got out of her boots and went upstairs in her stockinged feet, not sure if she was pleased or vexed that he should have bothered to arrange everything for them.\n\nSurprisingly tea was a pleasant little meal, and afterwards Louisa got out a pack of cards and taught Claudia how to play Racing Demon while her stepbrother crossed the hall and shut the door firmly behind him. They met again at supper\u2014lamb chops this time followed by cranberry tart and a great pot of coffee\u2014and Simon was so obviously making an effort to entertain them with light conversation that Louisa took pity on him and helped him out as much as she could. Claudia did no such thing, however, either ignoring him or uttering gibes. Louisa could see him holding back his temper with a restraint which did him credit and prayed earnestly that he might not explode with rage before the meal was over. He didn't: as soon as he could decently do so, he wished them goodnight and went back to his work.\n\nWhen she went down to breakfast the next morning he wished her good morning with his usual austerity, but added at once: 'You were quite right; breakfast with Claudia at the table would be disaster. It's a pity that we dislike each other so heartily. Perhaps you were right and I shouldn't have brought her here.' He gave her a grim little smile. 'Aren't you going to say I told you so?'\n\nLouisa sat down composedly, helped herself to porridge and sprinkled sugar with a lavish hand. 'No, I'm not, because I'm sure you were right to do so. It's kill or cure, isn't it?' She frowned. 'I wish I knew more about it\u2014alcoholism, I mean, but she is trying, you know. Is Lars coming to visit her?'\n\n'Yes, but I don't know when. Probably next weekend\u2014he'll fly up to Tromso. I haven't told her.'\n\nShe nodded. 'That's three days away. Perhaps we could go skiing today?'\n\n'Why not? It's clear weather. I'll tell them to have everything ready for you at the shop, and arrange for Arne to go with you both.' He got up. 'You'll excuse me?' He was gone.\n\nThe morning was a huge success. Claudia, once her skis were strapped on, became quite animated, and she and Arne got Louisa between them bullying and encouraging her in turn, while she tripped up, fell over, crossed her skis and did everything wrong, but at the end of an hour or more she found herself actually in some sort of control of the things and began to enjoy herself. They went back to lunch, glowing with exercise. Claudia very pleased with herself because Arne had complimented her on her grace and speed, and Louisa even more pleased because she had almost got the hang of balancing, and best of all, Claudia had actually enjoyed herself; not once had she complained of boredom or evinced a desire to lie down with a book. She ate her meal with a better appetite and although she declared after it that nothing would make her stir out of doors again that day, she did so in a goodnatured fashion, merely requesting Louisa to make her comfortable on the couch, fetch her a book and a rug, and then go away and leave her in peace.\n\nFortunately for her own comfort, Louisa had no wish to stay indoors. She wrapped herself up once more and started to walk towards the other end of the road. Not very far, because there were only a handful of houses beyond the one they lived in, but once past these, she found herself walking along the edge of the fjord, going rather gingerly towards the spot where the shore thrust a thin finger into the fjord's water. There was a hut there and she went to peer inside it. Bare now but probably used in the summer, she supposed, and decided to retrace her footsteps to the quay which was after all the heart and soul of the little place. She was standing at its far end, peering down into one of the fishing boats when Simon Savage came to stand beside her. 'You enjoyed your skiing?' he asked, not bothering to greet her.\n\nIt surprised her very much that she was glad to see him. 'Very much indeed, and so did Claudia. We thought we'd go again tomorrow.'\n\n'Why not?' He wasn't looking at her, was not indeed the least bit interested. She said rather tartly: 'It's getting cold, I'm going back to the house.'\n\nShe hadn't expected him to go with her; they left the quay, went past the shop and when they reached the hotel, a few yards farther on, he stopped. 'Coffee,' he said, and took her arm. 'I know it's tea time, but a cup won't hurt you.'\n\nThere were several men in the hotel, sitting at tables, drinking coffee and reading their papers, and Louisa suffered a pang of chagrin as he pulled out a chair at one of these, nodded to her to sit down, said something to the two men already sitting there, and then sat down himself. 'Herre Amundsen, Herre Knudsen,' he introduced them, and then in English: 'Miss Louisa Evans, my stepsister's nurse.'\n\nThey were youngish men and probably glad to see a new face, because they talked eagerly about their work at the bridge, their homes in Tromso and their wives and families. They would be moving on soon, they told her, another week or so and the bridge would be opened. And how did she like Norway? they wanted to know. Louisa told them, delighted to find such friendliness. She drank her coffee, and when Simon ordered her another cup she drank that too, hardly noticing, listening to tales of winter storms, avalanches, the midnight sun, reindeer, the Laplanders...all the things she had wanted to know about. If Simon Savage had been more forthcoming she would have asked him days ago; but he had never encouraged her to ask questions, let alone talk... He sat back now, content to listen, it seemed, replying only briefly when addressed. Presently he said: 'We'd better go. Wait here while I book a table for Saturday evening.'\n\n'Does it really get so crowded?' asked Louisa, watching him talking to the landlord.\n\n'Very busy\u2014many people come to eat and watch the film and afterwards they dance. A splendid evening.'\n\nLouisa thought that it might not be all that splendid. Lars and Claudia would want to talk to each other, she and her stepbrother would probably not be on speaking terms, and she would be forced to drop inane remarks over the high wall of Simon Savage's indifference\u2014but there would be a film afterwards and she hoped devoutly that the men would outnumber the girls so that she would get a chance to dance. Simon was a write-off as far as dancing was concerned.\n\nShe thanked him for the coffee as they walked the short distance back and he muttered something to her in reply, and beyond a few necessary words during tea and later at their supper, he had nothing further to say to her.\n\nThe next few days passed surprisingly smoothly. They skied every morning, and now that she had got over her first fright, Louisa was loving it. Claudia was more or less docile, even grudgingly admitting that she wasn't as bored as she had expected to be; certainly she was looking better and years younger and since there wasn't a great deal of daylight, she had less time to spend in front of the mirror in the mornings and after lunch she was too healthily tired to do more than read by the stove. True, there had been one sticky moment when she had demanded to go to Tromso that weekend, and since Simon hadn't told her that Lars was coming, merely telling her curtly that it wasn't possible, he provoked a burst of temper and tears which took Louisa an hour or more to calm. Indeed, she had intervened and told him severely to go away. He had stared at her for a long moment before he turned on his heel, and she had the quite ridiculous feeling that he was silently laughing.\n\nLars arrived on Saturday morning while Louisa was cautiously skiing down a gentle slope at the foot of the mountains. Claudia had remained at the top with Arne and it was she who saw Lars first, coming down the slope in fine style to meet him. Louisa, not wishing to be an unwelcome third party, began her patient sideways plodding up the slope again and was halfway there when Simon Savage, coming apparently from nowhere, joined her.\n\n'Keep your skis together and then move your right foot up,' he advised her. She paused to look at him. He did look rather handsome, she had to admit, and not as forbidding as usual. 'Where did you come from?' she wanted to know.\n\n'I fetched Lars from the airport. While he was changing I came across the mountains...' He waved a vague arm at the forbidding heights all around them, and she said: 'But there's nowhere to go.'\n\n'Yes, there is, if you know the way. I'll show you one day.'\n\nThey had reached the top and Simon said something to Arne, who grinned and sped away back to the shop far below.\n\n'Now,' said Simon, 'let me see what you can do.'\n\nAn opportunity to show her prowess; the slope was white and inviting and not quite so frightening any more. Claudia and Lars had disappeared: she would show her companion just how good she was. She launched herself with what she hoped was effortless grace.\n\nHer skis crossed almost at once and she ended up upside down in the snow, quite unable to get up. Simon pulled her to her feet, dusted her down and turned her the right way. 'Now, start again, and forget about impressing me.'\n\nShe shot him a very peevish glance and then, surprising herself, burst out laughing. 'Serves me right, doesn't it?' she asked, and launched herself cautiously. And this time she managed very well and even managed to stop at the bottom without falling over again to turn round in time to see Simon Savage sailing down after all with a careless expertise which swamped her with envy.\n\nShe had no chance to tell him how good he was. 'Do it again,' he commanded, 'and this time keep your feet together and don't be so stiff\u2014you can bend in the middle, I hope?'\n\nLouisa had a great desire to burst into tears; she had done quite well and he hadn't even bothered to tell her so, only snapped at her about her feet. She muttered crossly: 'Oh, we're not all as perfect as you are.'\n\n'No,' he sounded quite matter-of-fact, 'but there's no reason why you shouldn't be in time, provided you work at it. Now, are you going to try again?'\n\nShe was cross-eyed with weariness by the time he had finished with her, but she had to admit that she had learnt to control her feet and had lost her poker-like stance. They skied down the slope for the last time and she stood quietly while Simon undid her skis for her and then tossed them over his shoulder with his own. They found Claudia and Lars at the house, very pleased with themselves, and when Claudia said rather pointedly that they were going to spend the afternoon round the stove, Louisa declared that she had letters to write in her room and to her surprise, Simon observed that since they were going out that evening he had some work to do after lunch.\n\nLouisa didn't write letters. The room was warm and comfortable enough but she was lonely. She got on to the bed presently, wrapped in the duvet and slept until Elsa came tapping on the door to tell her that tea was on the table.\n\nBut she was sorry that she had gone down, for Simon Savage had a cup in his workroom and the other two, although pleasant enough, quite obviously didn't want her company. She was trying to think of some good reason for taking her cup upstairs with her when the door opened and Simon came in intent on a second cup. On his way back to the door he suggested that she should join him, adding, presumably for the benefit of the others, 'You're interested in bridges\u2014I've just got the plans for the next one to be built. Bring your tea with you.'\n\nIt seemed the lesser of two evils. She followed him out of the room and when he stood aside went into the room on the other side of the hall. She hadn't been in it before; it was smaller than the sitting room, with a small wood stove, a square table, loaded with rolls of paper, notebooks and, she presumed, the paraphernalia of bridge building, and two or three chairs. He waved her to one of them, and sat down again at the table, where he became totally immersed in a plan he unrolled, she sat sipping her tea, studying the back of his neck; she rather liked the way his dark hair grew. After a couple of minutes' complete silence she suggested: 'Since I'm interested in bridges shouldn't I see the plans?'\n\nSimon lifted his head to look at her and she thought it such a pity that he looked so remote. 'My dear girl, I said that to get you out of the room. I'd not the least intention of showing you anything.'\n\nShe felt so hurt that it was like a physical pain inside her. She put down her cup and saucer on the table and got to her feet. 'That was kind of you,' she told him quietly. 'I won't trespass on your\u2014hospitality any longer.'\n\nShe had whisked out of the room, giving him no chance to reply. Not that she had expected him to.\n\nShe had a nice cry after that, although she wasn't sure why she was crying, and then had a shower and dressed slowly, ready for the evening. Claudia had told her that she was going to wear a long dress, a lovely woollen affair with a matching stole, so Louisa felt quite justified in putting on the long skirt and the quilted waistcoat. She put on more make-up than usual too and did her hair in a complicated style which she prayed would stay up for the rest of the evening.\n\nLars, who was staying at the hotel, had already gone there. It only remained for Simon Savage, very stylish in pin-stripes and a silk shirt under his sheepskin jacket, to escort them the very short distance to the hotel.\n\nThe dining room was almost full and they went straight to their table, and Louisa, who had been worrying about the drinks, was relieved to find that the men made no effort to go to the bar and drank the tonic and lemon Simon had ordered for them all without a muscle of their faces moving.\n\nThe dinner was delicious\u2014thick home-made soup, fish beautifully cooked, and fruit salad, followed by a great pot of coffee. They lingered over it, while Lars, bearing the lion's share of the talk, kept them all laughing, until the film was due to start.\n\nThe room was crowded and their entry caused a small stir among the audience, calling friendly greetings, offering them seats. In the end they settled in the middle of a row of chairs half way back from the screen, Claudia and Louisa in the middle, the men on either side of them. The film was The Sound of Music, which Louisa had seen more times than she could remember, not that that made any difference to her enjoyment. She sat, misty-eyed, her gentle mouth very slightly open, oblivious of Claudia and Lars holding hands beside her and Simon Savage, sitting well back and watching her face, with no expression on his own features at all. Anyone looking at him might have concluded that he had seen the film too and had gone into a trance until it was over.\n\nWhen the film was finished the dancing began. The men had surged to the bar, but at the first sound of Abba on the tape, they were back, swinging their partners on to the floor. Louisa, who had watched Lars and Claudia join the cheerful dancing throng, felt a wave of relief when a young giant of a man she had seen several times on the quay advanced upon her with a friendly: 'Yes?' and danced her off too. Only then did she admit to her fear of being left high and dry and Simon Savage coming to find her without a partner. He would have danced with her, of course, with the frigid politeness of someone doing his duty...\n\nThe tape came to an end and she was still exchanging small talk with her partner when the music started again, and this time it was Simon Savage who danced her off. A neat dancer, she conceded, and self-assured. After a few minutes she relaxed and began to enjoy herself.\n\n'You are enjoying yourself?' enquired Simon, way up above her head.\n\n'Very much, thank you.'\n\n'It compares not unfavourably with the more sophisticated night spots of London?'\n\nShe glanced up briefly. 'I wouldn't know\u2014I've never been to one.'\n\nHe didn't answer and she spent several fruitless moments trying to think of something light and amusing to say, but she couldn't\u2014and anyway, Simon was hardly eager for conversation. They danced in silence, and presently, when the tape was changed, they went on dancing, and except for a short spell with Lars and ten minutes of disco dancing with another young man who owned a fishing boat and who had passed the time of day with her on occasion, Simon continued to dance with her for the rest of the evening. He was, she felt, exceeding his duty by doing so, especially as there were several pretty girls there, but it seemed that his duty didn't include talking. Probably he was working out a new bridge.\n\nThe evening came to an end. Everyone put on layers of warm clothing and went out into the cold, calling good-nights as they went. Louisa was glad that the distance was short to the house. The idea of facing a trip on the fjord before one got home was rather more than one would wish for at that time of night. She went indoors thankfully and went at once to her room, leaving the others downstairs. It was to be hoped that Simon would have the sense to go to his room too and give the other two a chance to say goodnight before Lars went back to the hotel. She was undressed and in bed, almost asleep, when there was a gentle knock on her door and it was opened.\n\n'You're awake?' It was more a statement than a question, uttered in Simon's voice, surprisingly quiet. He came in, shutting the door behind him, and Louisa sat up in bed and switched on the bedside light.\n\n'Claudia\u2014I heard her come up to bed...'\n\n'Where she is now. There's been an accident\u2014a gust of wind overturned one of the launches\u2014three men on board, all saved but in poor shape. They are bringing them in now. Will you come down to the hotel as soon as you can?'\n\n'Give me five minutes.' She barely waited for him to be gone before she was out of bed, tearing off her sensible long-sleeved nightie, bundling into woollies, a sweater, slacks, her jacket, her woolly cap crammed down on to her flowing hair. She crept downstairs in her wool socks and wondered briefly if it was all right to leave Claudia on her own, but there was nothing much she could do about that. She closed the outer door quietly and felt the shock of the bitter wind and cold night as she hurried to the hotel.\n\nThe door was shut, but there were lights on downstairs. She opened it and went inside and found that the first of the men was already there, lying on one of the larger tables, covered with a blanket. Two men were bending over him, but they straightened up as she went to look and stood back a little. The man was young and suffering, she judged, from his immersion in the fjord, but his colour wasn't too bad and his pulse was fairly strong. She got the men to help her turn him on to his side, made sure that he had a free air passage, and began to strip off his outer clothes. Someone, she was glad to see, had already taken off his boots and there were plenty of dry blankets piled near. She set the men to rub his arms and legs once his clothes were off, took his pulse again and turned round as the second man was brought in\u2014an older man this time, and not a good colour. The four men carrying him laid him on another blanket-covered table and while she took a quick look at him, began to take off his clothes and boots too. Louisa removed false teeth, took a faint pulse and requested towels, and when they came set to to rub the man's legs and arms, presently handing over to her helpers while she went back to look at the first man. He was decidedly better and would be better still for a warm bed and a good sleep once he was conscious. She judged him to be safe enough to leave and went back to the other man.\n\nNo one had said very much, doing as she asked them without query, and now the landlord appeared, his wife behind him, carrying a tray loaded with mugs and coffee pots and the potent spirit Aqua Vitae, and hard on their heels came the third patient, carried carefully by another four men, Simon Savage being one of them. He looked across the room as they laid the man, little more than a boy, on a table and said briefly: 'I think he has a broken leg.'\n\nAs indeed he had, a nasty compound fracture of the tibia and probably more than that. Louisa set about covering the ugly jagged wound, thankful that he was unconscious still, and then with Simon Savage's help gently straightened the leg and splinted it. There might not be a doctor in the small community, but at least they had an excellent first aid equipment. The boy had had a blow on the head as well, there was a discoloration over one eye, but his pulse was good and his pupils were reacting. She finished her work with calm unhurry and said: 'They'll need to go into hospital. The first one is not too bad, but he'll have to have a check-up.'\n\n'Lars and some of the men are getting a launch ready now,' Simon told her. 'We'll take them up to Tromso. You'll come with us.'\n\nOrders, orders! thought Louisa. He could have said please, it would have made a trying situation a little less trying. She said, 'Very well,' and then, 'Claudia is alone.'\n\n'Lars is going up there for the rest of the night. Are we ready to go?'\n\n'Who are \"we\"?' She was taking pulses again, doing a careful last-minute check.\n\n'You, me, Arne and Knut, the boy you were dancing with.'\n\nLouisa took the coffee the landlord was offering her and took a heartening sip. She wasn't sure, but she thought that he had put Aqua Vitae into it, a good idea if they were to face the cold again. Simon Savage was gulping his down too and then Arne and Knut came in, swallowed their drinks, listened to Simon's instructions, and went away again. One by one the three men were carried down to the quay, into the launch and made comfortable. Louisa was barely aboard when Simon shouted for a man to cast off, and took the wheel. There was a hard wind blowing within a very few minutes, and Louisa quite understood how the boat the three men had been in had overturned; she only hoped the launch was made of sterner stuff. They lurched and slithered, and if she had had the time she would have indulged in seasickness, but what with keeping the three men on the benches, taking pulses, and when the first man regained consciousness, reassuring him, she had not a moment to spare.\n\nThe journey seemed unending and she wondered how the men on deck were faring. Now and then she heard them shouting to each other above the wind, but their voices were cheerful. The boy with the broken leg came to for a moment and she had a job to quieten him before he drowsed off again. His cries brought Simon Savage into the cabin, together with a blast of icy air. 'All right?' he wanted to know. 'We're coming in now. There should be an ambulance waiting\u2014I phoned ahead.'\n\nIt took a little while to manoeuvre the three men off the launch and on to the quay, where two ambulances were parked. Louisa, told by Simon to get into the second one, did so, looking round anxiously to see what everyone else was doing\u2014surely they weren't going to leave her here?\n\n'Don't worry,' said Simon laconically. 'Arne and Knut will wait here in the launch for us.' He shut the doors on her and a moment later they moved off.\n\nShe was very tired by now and cold to her bones. The hospital, when they reached it, was a blur of bright lights and briskly moving figures. Modern, she thought, escorting the boy into the casualty department, and well equipped. If she hadn't been so worn out she would have been glad to have looked around her. As it was she was told kindly to sit down and waved to one of the benches and someone brought her a cup of coffee. Everyone had disappeared by now. She closed her eyes and dozed, to be roused presently by Simon Savage. 'We're going back,' he told her. 'One of the ambulances will give us a lift to the launch.'\n\nShe nodded. 'The men\u2014will they be all right?'\n\n'Yes. You did a good job, Louisa\u2014thanks.'\n\nHe bundled her into the ambulance, beside the driver, and got in beside her, then hauled her out again and helped her on to the launch. 'Inside,' he said, and she sat down thankfully on one of the benches and would have gone to sleep again if Knut hadn't come in with more coffee, laced with Aqua Vitae, and stood over her while she drank it. She went to sleep within minutes, which was a good thing, as they were heading into a gale force wind which sent the launch heaving and shuddering and would have terrified her if she had been awake. As it was she had to be shaken when they finally got back.\n\n'Are we there already?' she asked querulously, and tried to go to sleep again, and when she got another shake, 'I must have gone to sleep.'\n\n'You're swimming in spirits,' said Simon. 'We came back in a gale and it seemed best to knock you out.' He hoisted her to her feet. 'Can you manage to walk?'\n\nThe cold air revived her and she managed very well, with his arm around her, and at the door she asked: 'What's the time? I seem to have lost track...'\n\nHe opened the door and pushed her gently inside. 'It's almost five o'clock. Are you hungry?'\n\nShe discovered that she was and nodded.\n\n'Go upstairs and get ready for bed and then come down to the kitchen.'\n\nLouisa nodded again and stumbled upstairs and into her room. The sight of her bed almost sent her into it, still dressed as she was, but she had no doubt at all that if she didn't present herself downstairs within a reasonable time, Simon would be wanting to know why not. She undressed and went back to the kitchen, wrapped in the thick dressing gown she had bought for warmth rather than glamour. Certainly there wasn't a vestige of glamour about her. White-faced, her hair in rats' tails, her eyes heavy with sleep, she wandered into the warm little room and found the table laid with plates and mugs and knives and forks. Simon, that most unlikely of cooks, had fried eggs in a pan, made a pot of tea, and cut slices off a brown loaf.\n\nThey sat opposite each other hardly speaking, and when they had finished they cleared the table, left everything tidy and went out into the little hall. 'Where will you sleep?' asked Louisa, suddenly remembering that Lars was there.\n\n'It won't be the first time I've slept in a chair.' Indeed, now that she looked closely at him, he looked tired to death.\n\nShe said in a motherly voice: 'Oh, poor you! I'll get some blankets and a pillow...'\n\nSimon shook his head. 'Go to bed.' He smiled down at her, a wide, tender smile that made her blink, and then bent his head to kiss her\u2014quick and hard and not at all like the other kiss he had given her. If she hadn't been three parts asleep she would have been filled with astonishment. As it was, she fell into bed aware of a complete contentment, although about what, she had no idea.\n\n## CHAPTER EIGHT\n\nIT WAS Elsa who wakened Louisa later in the morning with a cup of tea and the news that Mr Savage had gone to Tromso to see how the three men were faring, and Miss Savage and Herre Helgesen had gone skiing.\n\nLouisa showered and dressed and went downstairs, had a cup of coffee and a slice of toast in the kitchen and set about laying the table for lunch. Everyone would be back soon; it was almost one o'clock. But one o'clock came and passed and she went into the kitchen to confer with Elsa, who shook her head and said that she really didn't know. Miss Savage had taken a packet of sandwiches with her, but she had said nothing about not coming back at the usual time, and as for Mr Savage, he had said nothing at all, merely walked out of the house\u2014it was Herre Helgesen who had told her where he had gone. Luckily it was a meal which would come to no harm. She looked enquiringly at Louisa because she always went home after she had seen to the midday meal and it was already over her normal time.\n\nLouisa assured her that she could cope quite easily with the dishing up when the others came home and begged her to take extra time off as she had been so inconvenienced, so Elsa got into her outdoor things, wished her a pleasant Sunday afternoon, and hurried off, leaving Louisa to potter in the kitchen for a while and then go back to sit by the stove, but by now it was almost two o'clock and she was famished, so she went into the kitchen again, helped herself to a plate of Elsa's delicious casserole and ate it at the kitchen table and then, because she was still hungry, she cut a hunk of cheese and ate that before washing her plate and setting the tea tray. Somebody must come back soon, the light was already fading fast into black night. She set the kettle to boil on the wood stove in the sitting room and sat down again to read, but presently she let the book fall and allowed her thoughts to roam.\n\nIt seemed likely that she would be going back to England soon. Claudia didn't really need her now; Lars had been the miracle that was needed, if Claudia loved him enough she wouldn't drink again as long as she lived\u2014they would marry and live happily ever after in Bergen. And Simon? Presumably he would go on building bridges wherever they were needed in the world. He was entirely self-sufficient and content with his lot. Presumably he had a home somewhere in England. He might even marry one day; he would make a terrible husband, she considered, although just once or twice she had glimpsed a quite different man behind that dark austere face. He had been kind to her, too. She remembered his smile and smiled herself, thinking about it. Undoubtedly there was another Simon Savage tucked away somewhere...\n\nIt was warm in the room and she dozed off, thinking about him still, and awakened to hear Claudia's voice and Lars' deeper tones.\n\nThey stopped in surprise when they saw her. 'Have you been here all day?' asked Claudia, and started flinging her jacket and cap and scarf on to chairs and kicking off her boots. 'We thought you'd go with Simon.'\n\nLouisa tried to remember if he'd said anything about taking her out and couldn't\u2014how awful if he had, and she'd gone on sleeping when she should have been up and dressed and ready. 'I didn't wake up,' she said uncertainly.\n\nClaudia shrugged. 'Oh, well, probably he didn't want you, anyway\u2014only he said he was going to the hospital at Tromso, and that's your meat and drink, isn't it?'\n\nLouisa didn't answer but picked up the dropped clothes and asked if they'd like tea. 'There's dinner in the oven,' she explained, 'but it'll keep until you want it.'\n\nThey decided to have tea and Lars went into the kitchen to get the tray while Louisa whipped upstairs with Claudia's things. Claudia looked fantastically happy, but she looked tired too.\n\n'Where did you go?' Louisa asked when she got downstairs again.\n\n'Oh, miles and miles\u2014it was heaven,' Claudia answered her carelessly. 'Lars, must you really go back to Bergen?' She smiled at him beguilingly. 'One more day?'\n\nHe shook his head. 'No, my dear, I have to go, but I'll come again, as often as I can.'\n\n'Why can't I come with you?' Claudia's voice was dangerously high.\n\n'Because another week or two here is what you need; I want a healthy beautiful girl for a wife and I'm prepared to wait for her.'\n\nLouisa poured tea, feeling de trop, and after her first cup she escaped to the kitchen with a muttered excuse which no one listened to, made herself another pot of tea and sat at the table drinking it. She felt incredibly lonely.\n\nWhen she went back to the sitting room an hour later, the two of them were so absorbed in their talk that she had to ask twice when they wanted their supper.\n\n'We're going over to the hotel,' said Claudia. 'I daresay Simon will be back, and you can eat together.'\n\n'He'll be able to tell you about the men in hospital,' suggested Lars kindly. 'They're all talking about you, you know, saying how splendid you were.'\n\n'Oh, are they? I didn't do anything.' She smiled at them both and went back to the kitchen and stayed there until they left, calling cheerfully that they wouldn't be late back.\n\n'I've got a key,' said Claudia from the door. 'Go to bed if you want to.'\n\nLouisa went back to the sitting room, cleared away the tea things, plumped up the cushions, made up the stove and sat down. If Simon didn't turn up by seven o'clock she was going to have her supper; the casserole was more than ready and she was hungry.\n\nAll the same, it was half an hour after that time when she finally had her supper. She ate it on her lap, wondering if the launch had turned turtle on the way back from Tromso. It was more than likely that Simon had gone to a hotel there and had a slap-up meal\u2014probably with some lovely Norwegian lady, she thought gloomily, and then told herself sharply that it didn't matter to her in the least with whom he went out.\n\nBy ten o'clock she had had enough. She washed the dishes, tidied the kitchen and went up to bed. It wasn't long after that that she heard Claudia and Lars come in and after a murmur of voices, Claudia came upstairs. What seemed like hours later, she heard Simon Savage's deliberate footsteps coming into the house. She listened to him making up the stove, going into the kitchen, retracing his steps to his workroom and finally the clink of a glass\u2014whisky; perhaps he was chilled to the marrow, hungry, soaking wet... By a great effort she stayed in bed, although every instinct was willing her to go down and warm up the rest of the casserole. It was an hour or more before he came upstairs and it wasn't until then that she allowed herself to go to sleep.\n\nThe next day was a bad one. Claudia, without Lars to keep her happy, was at her very worst. She refused to get out of bed, she threw her breakfast tray at Louisa, declared her intention of leaving for Bergen that very morning, swore that she would kill anyone who tried to stop her, and then dissolved into a flood of hysterical tears. Louisa, picking up broken china, was just in time to meet Simon Savage, coming up the stairs like the wrath of God, and order him down again.\n\n'Don't you dare!' she admonished him. 'She's only upset because Lars isn't here\u2014it'll be all right presently...' She shooed him step by step until they were back to the hall. 'Go on,' she told him firmly, 'go and build your bridge! You don't understand women, even if you do know how to make a bridge stay up.'\n\nHis face, black with temper, suddenly broke into a smile. 'I think you may be right there, Louisa. How fierce you are!' He kissed the end of her nose and turned her round. 'Up you go!'\n\nHe was wise enough not to come back until well after tea time, and by then Claudia was at least trying for self-control. A phone call from Lars had helped, of course, and Louisa's patient, uncomplaining company. Halfway through a good wallow in self-pity Claudia paused long enough to observe: 'I don't know how you can put up with me\u2014I'd be gone like a bat out of hell if I'd been you.' But before Louisa could answer that she was in floods of tears again.\n\nSimon behaved beautifully when he did come back home. Bearing an armful of magazines and the newest papers, he put them down beside his stepsister, wished the room at large a good evening, and went into his workroom, where he stayed until Louisa summoned him to supper. And during that meal he talked with unusual placidity about Bergen, Lars' house, his work, his interest in sport, and from there he passed to the various churches in the city, remarking that Lars always went to St Jorgen Church. 'It might be a good place in which to marry,' he suggested mildly, 'because they hold English church services there as well.'\n\nClaudia looked up from the food she was pushing round her plate.\n\n'You don't mind if I marry Lars? You've always disagreed with everything I've wanted to do\u2014hated my friends...'\n\nLouisa watched his saturnine features, ready for an outburst. None came. He said mildly: 'Won't you in all fairness agree that I had good reason to dislike them? Do you really want them as friends?' He shrugged. 'Not that it's any business of mine any more, but I'm not sure if Lars will care for them.'\n\n'Oh, I know that\u2014you don't have to preach at me, but I won't want friends now, will I, I've got him.' She got up from the table. 'I'm not hungry. 'I'm going to bed. Louisa, you can bring me up some coffee and a sandwich later.'\n\n'If it were not for the fact that you would scold me severely, I would have made Claudia apologise for talking to you like that,' remarked Simon evenly.\n\n'She doesn't mean it\u2014she's unhappy...' Louisa gave him the briefest of glances, wishing to appear matter-of-fact after their meeting that morning.\n\n'And you? Are you happy?'\n\n'Yes. You see, Claudia is almost cured, isn't she? Oh, I know she's had relapses before, but this time there's Lars. I think he loves her so much that he's prepared to put up with a good deal.'\n\n'And would you like to be loved like that, Louisa?'\n\n'Yes, of course I should, but it doesn't happen to everyone, does it?'\n\nHe didn't reply, but presently said: 'I had planned to take you both to Tromso for a day's shopping, but the weather forecast is bad and it's too risky.'\n\n'Perhaps in a few days\u2014it would do Claudia a lot of good. How are the three men?'\n\n'In good shape; two of them will be coming back in a few days, the boy will have to stay for a bit, but he's got relatives in Tromso, so it won't be too bad for him.' He was staring at her steadily. 'Everyone here is proud of you, do you know that?'\n\nShe looked down at her empty plate and could think of nothing to say. Presently she broke a silence which had gone on for too long. 'Mr Savage...'\n\n'And that's another thing\u2014why am I always Mr Savage? We have Lars and Arne and Knut and Mr Savage, as though I were some mid-Victorian ogre. My name is Simon.'\n\nShe poured herself more coffee which she didn't want, but it gave her something to do. She said very quietly: 'But you were an ogre,' and heard his sigh, and the next moment he had got to his feet.\n\n'Well, I've some work to do,' he was icily bland. 'Goodnight.'\n\nShe didn't see him again until the following evening and by then she was tired and a little cross. Claudia had been very trying, although there were signs that she was pulling herself together again. After all, Lars had promised to come up for the following weekend. Louisa reminded her of this at frequent intervals and talked herself hoarse about the new clothes Claudia insisted she must have. 'I shall want a great deal of money, heaps of it,' she declared. 'Simon will just have to foot the bills. I'm not getting married without a rag to my back!' An inaccurate statement Louisa ignored, only too happy to get Claudia in a more cheerful frame of mind. She wasn't quite as happy when Claudia brought the matter up at the supper table. The conversation between the three of them had been a little forced and Simon looked tired and bad-tempered too. But to her surprise he agreed placidly that Claudia should have enough money to buy what she needed. He even suggested that she might like to fly to Oslo and shop there.\n\n'Does that mean that we can get away from here soon?' Claudia demanded.\n\n'Very soon now\u2014it's up to you, Claudia.'\n\n'I'm on the waggon,' she promised him. 'I swore to Lars that I'll not drink another drop, and I won't\u2014you see, I don't need to. What about Louisa?'\n\nHis glance flickered over her before he answered his stepsister.\n\n'I think we might dispose with Louisa's services very shortly,' he said casually. Just as though I'm not sitting here, thought Louisa indignantly, and quelled the temptation to ask when she was to go. Let him tell her, she couldn't care less. She just stopped herself in time from tossing her head.\n\nShe didn't have long to wait. 'How about the end of the week?' he asked smoothly. 'Lars is coming up for the weekend, isn't he? I shall be finished here in four or five days. I don't see why you and Lars shouldn't go back together, and we can put Louisa on a flight the day before that.'\n\n'To London?' asked Claudia without much interest.\n\n'Where else?' Again that quick glance.\n\nShe conjured up a smile and said brightly: 'Oh, how lovely, home for Christmas!'\n\nThe very thought appalled her. She would have to find another job before that\u2014go to an agency and take anything, preferably something that kept her so busy she wouldn't have a moment to remember Norway and Claudia or, for that matter, Simon Savage.\n\nNow that plans were made and Claudia felt secure in a happy future, she shed her bad habits like some old outworn skin. For the next two days she got up for breakfast, insisted on taking Louisa on to the slope to teach her more about skiing, made her own bed and spent barely an hour on her face and hair. Louisa could hardly believe that this was the same woman who had engaged her in London, the change was so great. Of course, Claudia still took little interest in anyone else but herself and Lars. Beyond supposing that Louisa would get herself another job quickly she didn't mention her going and even remarked that it would be delightful to be on her own\u2014at least until she married, she added quickly. 'You're not a bad kid,' she told Louisa, 'but it's like having a ball and chain attached to me, but I suppose you have to put up with that if you're a nurse\u2014a necessary evil, aren't you?' She had laughed and Louisa had laughed with her. No one had ever called her that before, it gave her a nasty cold feeling in her insides, but she would have died rather than let Claudia see how shattered she felt.\n\nAnd Simon made it much worse that evening, talking at great length and with remarkable fluency for him about the delights of the Norwegian Christmas. 'Everything shuts down at midday on Christmas Eve,' he informed her, 'and there's a traditional dish of dried lamb served in the evening and afterwards everyone gathers round the Christmas tree and sings carols before the presents. Christmas Day is much the same and on the next day\u2014our Boxing Day\u2014they give enormous parties with skiing and sleigh rides and masses of food.' He fixed Louisa with his dark eyes. 'You would have enjoyed it, Louisa.'\n\nShe gave him a cross look. Of course she would have enjoyed it, the idea of going back to England didn't appeal to her at all, but what else could she do? They had made it plain enough that she was no longer needed\u2014they would probably be relieved to see her go. She toyed with the idea of staying in Bergen. Christmas wasn't so far off and if she was careful, she would have enough money. There had been little or no chance to spend much, but if she did Claudia might think that she was staying deliberately in order to spy on her. Besides, she had made it plain that she would be glad to see her go. She said woodenly: 'I'm sure I should, it sounds delightful.' And as she said it she was struck by the sudden knowledge that that was what she wanted more than anything in the world\u2014to stay in Norway for Christmas, for ever, if necessary, just as long as she could be with Simon Savage. Falling in love with him had been the last thing she had expected to do. He was ill-tempered, brusque, impatient and intolerant. He was also, she now perceived, the only man she wanted to marry.\n\n'How utterly silly!' she muttered, and earned a surprised look from him. She said the first thing which entered her head: 'Do I fly direct to England or must I change planes?'\n\n'Tromso to Bergen and Bergen to Heathrow.'\n\n'How nice,' she observed idiotically, and waffled on about the journey, the delights of Christmas at home, seeing her friends again, so intent on painting a carefree picture of her future that she quite missed Simon's puzzled look which presently turned to speculation.\n\nAnd if she had hoped, during her wakeful night, for some small sign that he might want to meet her again at some time, she was disappointed. He was more austere than usual over the breakfast table, telling Claudia in a forthright manner that on no account were they to go skiing that day. 'There's bad weather coming,' he assured her, 'probably there'll be no flights to Tromso...'\n\n'Then Lars won't be able to come?'\n\n'Probably not.'\n\nShe shot him a furious look. 'Then I shall go to him.'\n\n'No, if you get to Tromso and the planes are grounded there, you might not be able to get back here. I suggest that you ring him during the morning.' He had gone before she could answer and Louisa was forced to listen to recriminations for the next ten minutes or so; not that she listened very hard, for her head was full of her own problems.\n\nLars telephoned during the morning. There were violent snowstorms in the south of the country and all flights had been cancelled and he would come just as soon as he could\u2014a statement which met with an outburst of tears on Claudia's part and an hysterical request to be taken to Bergen at once. Even Lars' promise that if the weather delayed him for too long he would travel by the coastal steamer did little to cheer her up. He rang off finally and Claudia went up to her room and locked the door.\n\nIt was getting on for midday when she came downstairs again, and daylight, which would last a mere two hours or so, had come. The sky was blue and there wasn't a cloud to be seen from the window and she pointed this out to Louisa. 'They've slipped up,' she said hopefully. 'There's not a sign of snow.'\n\nLouisa glanced out at the sky. 'We can't see a great deal from here,' she pointed out. 'Would you like me to start your packing?'\n\nClaudia sprawled in a chair and picked up a book. 'After lunch\u2014would you go to the shop for me? There are several things I simply must have\u2014I'll make a list while you get your jacket.'\n\nIt was quite a long list and Louisa read it with surprise. 'But you can get most of these in Bergen. I mean, none of them are urgent...'\n\nClaudia barely glanced up from her reading. 'Don't argue. I want them now\u2014unless you're too lazy to go and get them?'\n\nLouisa bit back an angry retort and went out of the house without a word. What did it matter, she asked herself tiredly; what did anything matter?\n\nIt took her fifteen minutes to do the shopping by the time she had waited her turn, waited while the various odds and ends were found and then had a short chat with Arne's sister. As she started back again, she could see that the fjord's waters were dark and heaving sluggishly and that the blue sky had become less vivid. Perhaps there was bad weather coming after all. She went into the house and straight into the sitting room. Claudia wasn't there, so she picked up her basket and went along to the kitchen. Elsa was standing by the table, getting the lunch and looking put out.\n\n'I am glad you are here,' she began. 'Miss Savage has gone out and there is bad weather coming fast. She would not listen to me. She has taken her skis too. I think that Mr Savage should be told, for she will be lost once the snow comes.'\n\nLouisa dumped her basket on the table. 'Did she say where she was going?' and when Elsa shook her head: 'How long ago?'\n\n'Ten minutes, perhaps.'\n\n'Then I'll try and catch her up and get her to come back. Make me some coffee, Elsa, and put it in a thermos, and I want a torch, and then telephone Mr Savage.' Louisa was searching around for the rucksack which hung in the kitchen and when she had it, rammed in some slices of bread Elsa had just cut and a slab of chocolate and a ball of string she saw on the dresser. She hadn't a very good idea of what one took on such a trip and probably there would be no need to use any of them, all the same she added the coffee and the torch. It had all taken a few precious minutes and Claudia might be miles away by now. She put on the rucksack, urged Elsa to telephone without delay, collected her skis from the back door and hurried through the snow, past the last of the houses, where she put on her skis and started cautiously up the slope where they usually went. Claudia had gone that way; she could see the ski marks very plainly. Once she got to the top she would be able to see in all directions.\n\nIt was an interminable time before she got there and in her haste she fell down twice and getting on to her feet again took all her patience and strength, but once there, she stood, fetching her breath, scanning the scene before her. The mountains stretched for miles, snow-covered, terrifying in their grandeur, but far more terrifying was the great bank of cloud, yellow at the edges, devouring the blue sky, and the first hint of the bitter wind hurrying it along at a furious pace. But it wouldn't help to study the sky. She lifted her goggles and surveyed the slopes ahead of her. It took her a minute to spot Claudia, who had skied down the reverse side of the slope and was just beginning to work her way up on the farther side. She was following the route she and Lars had taken together, Louisa guessed. There was a narrow valley which would take her back towards the fjord. Louisa trembled at the thought of the journey ahead of her; she had never ventured farther than the spot she was on at that moment and she was frankly scared. But the longer she stood there, the more terrified she would be. She let out a ringing shout in the hope that Claudia would hear her and for a moment the distant figure paused, but then went on again. Louisa put her goggles back on, took one despairing look at the clouds racing towards her, and set off.\n\nSurprisingly it wasn't as bad as she had expected. The slope was longer than the one she had practised on but no steeper. She reached the bottom, still scared to death but rather pleased with herself, too, and started the laborious climb up the other side. Claudia had disappeared over the ridge and heaven knew what nightmares waited on the other side. A few paper-dry snowflakes began to fall and Louisa, by a great effort, kept her pace deliberate. Hurrying would mean another spill and she hadn't the time to waste. By the time she reached the top the snow was falling in earnest and it was getting ominously dark. She stood at the top, gasping for breath, and looked around her. There wasn't much to see now, for there was a thick curtain of snow and the wind had gathered a ferocious strength. She gazed around helplessly. Claudia's ski tracks had already been covered by the snow, and there was no way of knowing which way she had gone. She wiped her goggles, turned her back to the wind and shouted with all her might.\n\nThere was an answering shout, very faint; impossible to tell from where it came. She couldn't see the lower slopes ahead of her. Suppose she skied to the bottom, passed Claudia and had to come back? She would lose her way and make matters worse. She said out loud: 'Oh, God, please give a hand,' and just for a few seconds the wind dropped and the snow thinned, and away to her left, half way down, she saw a small dark object.\n\n'Oh, thanks very much,' said Louisa fervently, and plunged downwards at an angle, going very carefully. She hadn't learned to turn on skis yet and she hoped she had got the direction right.\n\nShe had, she was on top of Claudia before she could stop herself, and they both fell in a m\u00eal\u00e9e of arms and legs and skis. Claudia was up first and pulled Louisa to her feet. She said bitterly: 'I've been all kinds of a fool\u2014I'm sorry, Louisa,' which was the first time she had ever apologised to her. And probably the last, thought Louisa, busy brushing snow off herself.\n\n'We'll have to make some sort of shelter,' she shouted above the wind. 'I asked Elsa to ring Simon, they'll be out looking for us by now, but we'll freeze if we stay here.'\n\nClaudia clutched at her arm. 'There's a hut somewhere close\u2014we passed it when we came this way, Lars and I. It's somewhere to the left, on an outcrop of rock, it's got a turf roof.'\n\nLouisa remembered the string in her rucksack. 'Let's find it,' she shouted back, 'but we'd better tie ourselves together.' She turned her back. 'In the rucksack.'\n\nIt was a botched-up job, what with thick mitts they dared not take off and granny knots which didn't stay done up, but in the end they achieved a double line of string fastening them together. It would certainly snap if one of them fell, but it was better than noth ing at all. The snow was falling so thickly now that they couldn't see more than a few feet in front of them; but through the gloom it was still possible to make out the outline of the mountains whenever the wind dropped and the snow stopped swirling around them. Claudia remembered that the hut was on the lower slope of a mountain with a peak which towered above the rest. They had to wait a little while before she could locate it and even when they did they weren't sure that they weren't skiing in circles. When they at last saw the hut in front of their noses after several false starts they were ready to cry with fright and relief and tiredness\u2014indeed, Claudia did burst into tears, and Louisa, on the verge of snivelling herself, told her sharply to stop at once. 'Unless you want to die of cold,' she said. 'Get inside, do\u2014 I've got coffee with me and some bread and chocolate and we'll do exercises to keep warm.'\n\n'No one will ever find us,' wailed Claudia.\n\n'Simon will,' declared Louisa stoutly. 'I'm going to shine my torch presently.' She had pushed Claudia into the tiny place and turned to look round at their surroundings. It was a very small hut but stoutly built, with no windows and an open small door, but at least it was shelter. She took off her rucksack, opened the coffee and gave some to Claudia, had some herself and then shared the food, and when they had devoured the last crumb she made Claudia jump up and down and wave her arms. It was difficult, the two of them in the tiny place, floundering about, bumping into each other, but she kept Claudia at it until they were both exhausted even though they were less frozen. Claudia sat down on the rucksack and declared that she had to rest even if she froze solid, and Louisa let her, for the time being at least.\n\n'Why did you do it?' she asked.\n\n'Oh, I don't know\u2014I suppose I was disappointed and upset, and I don't take kindly to not getting my own way, and I've always made a point of doing the opposite of whatever Simon has told me to do.' Claudia gave a choked laugh. 'If we ever get out of this I'll be a reformed character!' She glanced at Louisa. 'Why did you come after me?'\n\n'I'm still in Simon's employ.' The thought of him made her want to cry. She said matter-of-factly: 'I'm going to have a try with the torch. What's the time?'\n\n'Just after two o'clock.'\n\nIt seemed a lot longer than the two hours since she had started out from the house. Surely a search party would be out looking for them by now? She put her head cautiously round the edge of the door and saw that for the moment the snow had lessened, although the wind was still blowing hard. The thought of the journey back, if ever they were lucky enough to make it, made her feel sick.\n\nIt was a pity that she never could remember SOS in Morse, but surely any kind of light in such a desolate spot would attract attention\u2014if only it could be seen. And she had lost her sense of direction, too, which meant sending a beam to all points of the compass. Nothing happened; she repeated her flashes several times and then went to crouch inside again. Claudia had gone to sleep and Louisa wasn't sure if this was a good thing or not. She decided not to wake her for half an hour and got down beside her on the iron hard floor, holding her close so that they might share each other's warmth.\n\nThe half hour went slowly. At the end of it she got up again, wakened an unwilling Claudia and after five minutes waving their arms and stamping their feet, she poked her head out once more. It seemed to her that the appalling weather wasn't quite so appalling as it had been. She had no idea how long such storms lasted and as the daylight hours had already passed, it was too dark to see any possible landmarks, but she was sure that the snow was lessening. She flashed her torch and peered hopefully for a reply, and when there wasn't one, flashed it again. Nothing happened. She would wait ten minutes and then try again. She took one last look and turned round to scan the gloom behind her\u2014and saw a light.\n\nThe torch was still in her hand; excitement made her drop it. She searched for it frantically, quite forgetting to shout. She had to have the torch; whoever it was might miss them and they would die of cold and hunger. She was still grovelling round, sniffing and sobbing under her breath, when someone swished to a halt within inches of her, plucked her off the ground and wrapped her so close that she had no breath.\n\n'So there you are,' said Simon, and kissed her cold face hard and still with one arm round her, turned the torch slung round his neck so that it shone behind him. 'The others will be here in a minute. Where's Claudia?'\n\n'Inside.'\n\nHe pushed her back into the hut and followed. He spoke gently to Claudia, who was in floods of tears, and only grunted when she paused long enough to say: 'You took long enough\u2014I could have died, and I won't go back until the snow stops.'\n\nSimon had coffee with him. He shared it between them and they had barely finished it when men began crowding into the small place, cheerful men who declared that the weather was improving, offering more coffee, handing out sandwiches, making much of them. Arne, who had crouched beside Louisa, said kindly: 'You see that now you are a good skier\u2014you will no longer be afraid.'\n\nShe smiled back at him. 'Oh, but I shall! I'm a complete coward, and I'm so sorry that we\u2014we got lost; that you all had to come and look for us, and in this appalling weather.'\n\nShe didn't know that Simon was behind her. She spilt her coffee when he said quietly: 'You have no need to apologise, Louisa, it was very brave of you to follow Claudia, who should have known better. My God, what a trouble that woman has been to me, and how glad I am that Lars is fool enough to take her on for the rest of his life.'\n\n'They'll be very happy,' Louisa mumbled.\n\nThey had two sledges with them. Claudia was wrapped up and strapped into one of them, but Louisa absolutely refused to travel on the other. 'I'll manage very well,' she declared firmly. 'It's the last chance I'll have of skiing before I leave and I don't want to miss it.'\n\nThey travelled in two files and Simon stayed with her the whole way, and when she fell over, which she did several times, he picked her up, dusted her down, and urged her on again, almost without speaking. She had never been so happy in her life before. The snow and wind were suddenly wonderful, the mountains not terrifying at all; she could ski and Mr Savage had turned into Simon at last. She closed her eyes, remembering his kiss, and fell over once more. They were almost home by then. Heaven, she felt sure, was just round the corner.\n\n## CHAPTER NINE\n\nBUT HEAVEN WAS rather further away than Louisa had thought. There was a good deal of bustle and confusion once they were back at home. Claudia demanded a great deal of attention, declaring that she felt faint, that she must have a hot bath at once, that she needed food, that she must telephone Lars immediately. She had thanked the men perfunctorily before she had gone upstairs, and it was left to Louisa and Elsa to hand round coffee and pastries and thank them more warmly. And Simon, when she looked for him, had disappeared. She shook hands with their rescuers and when the last of them had gone, went slowly upstairs to Claudia, who was calling for her.\n\n'Where have you been?' she asked impatiently. 'I want you to rub in that cream for me\u2014my skin will be ruined. Lord, I'm tired!'\n\n'And so am I,' observed Louisa shortly, making quick work of the creaming and bustling Claudia into bed without giving her a chance to think of anything else she wanted done. 'Elsa's staying late, she'll bring you up your supper presently. I'm going to have a bath.'\n\nShe was still in it daydreaming about Simon when he came back into the house. He didn't stay long; Elsa told him that his stepsister was in bed and she thought Louisa was going to bed too. He thanked her quietly and went to the hotel and had a meal there\u2014which was a pity, because presently Louisa went downstairs, looking a little wan, but nicely made up and wearing one of her Norwegian sweaters and a thick skirt, all ready to have her supper with Simon. But the table, she saw at once, was laid for one and when she asked, Elsa told her that Mr Savage had only called in for a moment to see if they were all right before going to the hotel.\n\nAnd although she was tired and remarkably sleepy by now, Louisa waited patiently until Elsa had gone home and the clock struck the hour of ten. But Simon didn't come. If he had wanted to he would have been back by now\u2014and what a good thing, she told herself, for she would have made a fool of herself if he had. It was time she learnt that kisses could mean nothing. She had no doubt that when they met in the morning he would be Mr Savage once more.\n\nShe was right. She went down to breakfast alone, because Claudia was certain that she was going to have a cold, and found him already at table eating the heavenly porridge Elsa made so beautifully. He wished her good morning, barely glancing at her and enquiring after Claudia.\n\n'She thinks she's caught a cold,' said Louisa.\n\n'Impossible. The one thing you can't get in these parts is the common cold.' He spoke coldly, very sure of himself, and she gave his bowed head a loving look, suddenly conscious of the fact that tomorrow she would be having breakfast with him for the last time. She put down her spoon, quite unable to eat, and he said at once: 'What's the matter? Aren't you well?'\n\nHe sounded so impatient that she picked up her spoon again and made herself finish the bowlful. 'I've never felt better,' she told him. 'I'm getting excited about going home.'\n\nHe put down the paper he was studying. 'I find that hard to believe,' he observed evenly. 'You don't like your home\u2014besides, you kissed me very thoroughly yesterday.'\n\nShe went very red but met his eyes frankly. 'I was very glad to see you\u2014I thought we were going to die. I\u2014I got carried away.'\n\n'Ah, you kissed me in fact under great provocation.'\n\n'I\u2014well, yes, that's about it. I'm sorry, I expect people do silly things when they're a bit upset.'\n\nSimon lowered his eyes to the paper. 'And not only when they're upset,' he observed.\n\nAnd that was the sum total of their conversation. Louisa did have a try just once. She began: 'I do want to thank you...'\n\nHis laconic 'Don't' stopped her more effectively than anything else could have done.\n\nThe storm had blown itself out. There was a great deal more snow, and the waters of the fjord carried small chunks of ice on its steely grey surface, but the sky was clear. There would be more storms, of course, but planes and helicopters were flying again, Lars would be coming to fetch his Claudia back to Bergen and Louisa would leave as had been arranged. No one had given her a ticket yet, although Simon had mentioned casually that he had it. She took Claudia's breakfast upstairs, finished the last of her packing, and put on her outdoor things. There was nothing more for her to do until she left in the morning and her room, shorn of her small possessions, looked uninviting. The sky was clear and the brief day wasn't far off. The little huddle of houses, painted in their cheerful blues and pinks and greens, gleamed in the street lamps' bright beams and the snow reflected them, so that one hardly noticed the darkness. The shop was full and she went inside to say goodbye and then on to the quay to speak to Arne and several of the other men who had become her friends.\n\nShe stayed talking for a few minutes and then struggled through the snow to the curve of the fjord to get a last look at the bridge. It was finished, they had told her, and was to be opened very shortly. Men were busy there now, packing up the scaffolding and piling it tidily at either end. When spring came, it would be taken away and the little wooden huts where they had worked during the winter months would go too. It was a beautiful bridge, curving gracefully across the grey water. Louisa turned away wanting to cry, then made her way back to the hotel, where she had coffee and a long talk with the owner.\n\nThe afternoon dragged. There was no sign of Simon and Claudia had elected to stay in bed, exclaiming crossly that of course she had a cold and what did Simon know about it anyway. Louisa sat by the stove and tried to make up her mind what she would do. She had plenty of friends, but she had no intention of wishing herself upon them at no notice at all. And she couldn't face her stepmother\u2014she didn't give Frank a thought. Somehow he had slid away into a past which wasn't important any more.\n\nShe had a solitary tea and went on sitting there, sad and forlorn and quite unable to be anything else. Elsa went presently and she took Claudia up the supper she had asked for and then laid the table for two.\n\nSimon didn't come. Louisa ate her meal with a book propped up before her, staring at the same page without reading it, and presently went to bed. She hadn't expected to sleep, but she did, to wake heavy-eyed when her alarm went at seven o'clock. She was almost glad that she would be going within an hour or so; to get it over quickly was all she wanted. She showered and dressed and packed her overnight bag, then went downstairs.\n\nSimon was at the kitchen table eating his breakfast and she sat down opposite him and began on the porridge Elsa put before her. He had said nothing beyond 'Good morning', but there was an envelope beside her plate. She looked at it and then at him and he said shortly: 'Your salary, Louisa,' and added after a tiny pause: 'Thank you for all the care and attention you've given Claudia. It must have been tiresome for you. I hope you'll find something\u2014someone more congenial for your next patient.'\n\nShe glanced at him, her eyes very large and soft. She would have liked to have said something suitable in reply, but her throat had closed over. To her horror she felt tears pricking her eyelids and she pushed back her chair and got up. 'Simon,' she whispered without realising that she had said it. 'Simon...' She swallowed the lump in her throat and said in a breathy little voice: 'I'm not hungry. I must finish my packing.'\n\nShe went to her room and sat on her bed, and presently Elsa appeared without a word and put a tray of coffee down on the dressing table and went away again. Louisa drank all the coffee, tidied up her face, put on her outdoor things and went to say goodbye to Claudia.\n\n'Going?' Claudia was only half awake and not best pleased at being disturbed. 'Oh, well, goodbye\u2014we're not likely to see each other again, are we?' She added grudgingly: 'Of course if you should ever come to Bergen you must come and see us.' She rolled over and closed her eyes, and Louisa went and fetched her bag and went downstairs. The launch was leaving at eight o'clock and there was only five minutes left.\n\nElsa was in her outdoor clothes too and when Louisa started to say goodbye she said: 'I'm coming to see you off, Louisa,' and they walked down to the quay together with never a sight of Simon. Louisa gave Elsa a hug, shook hands once again with the little crowd who had come to see her off, and was helped into the launch\u2014and there was Simon, longer and leaner than ever, standing on the deck talking to Arne. He nodded when he saw her and the people on the quay shouted and waved as the launch slowly crept away from them, out into the fjord. She stood waving until they were distant spots under the bright lights of the little quay and then went into the cabin. She hadn't expected Simon to be there\u2014indeed, she hadn't been thinking rationally at all, for she still had no ticket. She hadn't opened the envelope either. Presently she would do so, and ask about her ticket too, but just for a moment she wanted to sit still and pull herself together. It would never do to let him see that her heart was breaking. He came into the cabin presently, taking up most of the space, and she asked him in a composed voice if she might have her ticket.\n\n'All in good time,' he told her. 'Are you warm enough?'\n\n'Yes, thank you.' Then she asked, 'Are you going to Tromso, too?' and blushed at the silliness of the question, but she was answered without a flicker of amusement:\n\n'Well, yes, I am.' And then: 'Don't come on deck, it's very cold.' He went again as silently as he had come.\n\nThe journey seemed so short, but only because she wanted it to last for ever. She could see the lights of Tromso as they sped round the last bend; in another five minutes they would be there. She had no idea where the airport was and she didn't much care. She supposed there would be a taxi for her. She wouldn't want to wait around, saying goodbye would be bad enough however quick it was.\n\nSimon came back into the cabin, bringing a gust of icy air with him. 'Ready?' he asked, and picked up her bag.\n\nThey had berthed when she went outside and there was a Land Rover parked on the quay. She shook hands with Arne and the boy with him and stepped on to the hard-packed snow, to be joined almost at once by Simon.\n\n'We're going in the Land Rover,' he told her, and when she stared up at him questioningly: 'I'm flying to Bergen\u2014in fact I'm flying to Heathrow with you.' He put her bag down and pulled her close. 'I didn't dare tell you,' and at her look of astonishment: 'You see, when we met I thought, \"There's a brown mouse of a girl with a sharp tongue,\" and then before I knew what was happening I was in love with you. Oh, I did my best to ignore it, and I thought that if I ignored you too I'd be safely back in my bachelor state in no time\u2014only it didn't work out like that. You were under my skin, in my bones, my very heartbeat. And I'd gone out of my way to make you dislike me so that it would be easier for me to get over you. Only I haven't done that, my darling.' He stared down at her, unsmiling, even a little grim. 'I've discovered that I can't face life without you, indeed I doubt if I could build another bridge. You had a wretched life with Claudia\u2014if only you could bear to take me on instead...'A snowflake fell on to her nose and he paused and brushed it off very gently. 'My dearest little Louisa, if only you'd marry me!'\n\nIt was bitingly cold and a few snowflakes followed the first one, but Louisa hadn't noticed. She wasn't aware of the men on the launch watching them, or the driver of the Land Rover, for that matter. She had never felt so happy or so warm in her life before.\n\n'Oh, dear Simon, of course I will! I love you, too; I never want to leave you.'\n\nHe kissed her then, long and hard and with so much warmth that she wondered in a dreamlike way how she could ever have considered him austere and cold. He was most satisfyingly not either of those things. She kissed him back and then leaned back a little in his arms. 'It's a funny place to have a proposal,' she added shakily.\n\nHe smiled at her. 'I suppose it is.' He looked round and caught Arne's interested eye and shouted something to him which sent him and the boy as well as the driver hurrying over to them to pump their arms and utter congratulations before they finally got into the Land Rover.\n\nLouisa sat with her hand in Simon's and at the airport she went through reception and Customs and boarded the plane without taking any note at all of her surroundings. She tucked her hand in his again as they were airborne, drank the coffee that was brought round, ate the sandwich she was given like an obedient child, and then went to sleep, her head on his shoulder. And at Bergen there was only a brief wait before they were on the flight to Heathrow. She ate lunch this time, far too excited and happy to have much appetite. They didn't talk much, only as they started the descent to the airport she asked: 'Where are we going?'\n\n'Home,' said Simon, 'to Wiltshire. Shall we be married there and go back to Norway for our honeymoon?'\n\n'Oh, yes, please!' She was still too excited to bother about the details\u2014besides, Simon was there to see to everything. She heaved a sigh of pure happiness and went to sleep again.\n\nThere was a car waiting for them when they let Heathrow\u2014a Daimler Sovereign. As Louisa settled into the seat beside Simon she asked: 'How did it get here\u2014this car? Is it yours?'\n\nHe nodded. 'When I go abroad I garage it close by and they bring it here for me\u2014it's convenient.' He dropped a kiss on her cheek. 'Not long now, love. About two hours' drive.'\n\nThey drove down the M3, through a rain-sodden landscape, strangely green after the snow and the mountains, and then took the road to Warminster, but before they reached it Simon turned off the road, down a country lane which wandered up and down the gentle hills until it reached a very small village. It had a church in its centre and a cluster of houses and cottages round it and standing well back, taking up all of one side of the square, a splendid Queen Anne house with large square windows and a beautiful front door with a fanlight over it and a white-painted porch. Simon drove through the open gate at the side of the narrow front garden and stopped the car.\n\n'Home,' he said, undid her safety belt and leaned across to open the door for her and then got out himself. By the time they had reached the door it was open with a plump smiling woman on the porch, beaming a welcome at them.\n\n'Mrs Turner, my housekeeper.' He corrected himself: 'Our housekeeper. Mrs Turner, this is my future wife, Miss Louisa Evans.' He waited while they shook hands and then swept Louisa across the hall and into a small room, lined with bookshelves, its great desk covered with maps and papers. He took Louisa in his arms and pulled the cap off her head.\n\n'This is where I start my bridges,' he said very quietly, 'and this is where our heaven starts, my darling.'\n\nLouisa put up her face to be kissed. 'I thought it would be just round the corner, and it was,' she told him. She would have explained further, but there seemed no point. To be kissed was far more satisfactory.\nISBN: 978-1-4592-3930-2\n\nHEAVEN AROUND THE CORNER\n\nCopyright \u00a9 1981 by Betty Neels.\n\nAll rights reserved. Except for use in any review, the reproduction or utilization of this work in whole or in part in any form by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including xerography, photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, is forbidden without the written permission of the publisher, Harlequin Enterprises Limited, 225 Duncan Mill Road, Don Mills, Ontario, Canada M3B 3K9.\n\nAll characters in this book have no existence outside the imagination of the author and have no relation whatsoever to anyone bearing the same name or names. They are not even distantly inspired by any individual known or unknown to the author, and all incidents are pure invention.\n\nThis edition published by arrangement with Harlequin Books S.A.\n\n\u00ae and TM are trademarks of the publisher. Trademarks indicated with \u00ae are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Canadian Trade Marks Office and in other countries.\n\nwww.eHarlequin.com\n","meta":{"redpajama_set_name":"RedPajamaBook"}}