26 June 2020

"Connecting through art when a pandemic keeps us apart"

by Jeffrey Brown

[American artists of all kinds are responding to the coronavirus pandemic with new creations.  As PBS NewsHour correspondent Jeffrey Brown reports, the art can serve as both a call to action and a means of healing—for maker and audience alike.  The story below, which aired on Wednesday, 17 June  2020, is part of NewsHour’s ongoing arts and culture series, Canvas.]

Judy Woodruff: Finally tonight: American artists of all kinds are responding to the pandemic with new creations.

As Jeffrey Brown reports, the art can be a call to action and a means of healing for the maker and audience alike.

The story is part of our ongoing arts and culture series, Canvas.

Jeffrey Brown: The song is called “Six Feet Apart,” a kind of anthem for the pandemic. Country music star Luke Combs co-wrote it in April, about a month into quarantine at his home in Tennessee.

Luke Combs: You know, I don’t want to come from a place that is opportunistic or something that’s corny or cheesy. You want to give people hope, I think, that this isn’t going to last forever.

Jeffrey Brown: Combs, a triple Platinum-selling artist, would normally be on the road performing for thousands.

Luke Combs: I wanted to voice a little bit, I guess, of my frustration with.

This was set up to be my biggest year of my career by a long shot. And I’m sure there are millions of people around the world who feel the same way about whatever their job is or their passion.

And anything that can give someone even three minutes’ worth of relief from that is something that I’m really proud of.

Jeffrey Brown: Around the country, artistic responses of all kinds.

Photographer Carrie Mae Weems, artist in residence at Syracuse University, launched a campaign to raise awareness, combining images of everyday life with direct messages on the need for precautions among people of color, who are disproportionately affected by the virus: “Don’t worry, we will hold hands again. Sadly, you are the most impacted by COVID-19.”

Sound artist Yuri Suzuki is collecting submissions for his now-virtual installation Sound of the Earth: Pandemic Chapter, a partnership with the Dallas Museum of Art.

To comfort critically ill patients, filmmaker Felipe Barral created a piece call Bella, streaming the natural world. Different creative ways to speak and act now.

In Queens, New York, one of the pandemic’s epicenters, a meditation on the ghostly silence of the No. 7 subway line.

Frisly Soberanis: When are we going back to normal?

Jeffrey Brown: Twenty-six-year-old local artist Frisly Soberanis shot this short video of the [elevated] tracks overhead.

Frisly Soberanis: The memories of the past come up very often, and they just sort of slam in front of what I’m seeing.

I know the people that were moving here, the businesses that were open, the energy of the space. And now I see it closed. And then I see that this structure is still continuing to sort of tower over us.

Jeffrey Brown: Soberanis’ work is part of a large instant exhibition involving many artists commissioned by the Onassis Foundation, working with the Queens Museum and others. Soberanis normally makes a living doing video and film work. That’s gone, and he and his extended family face urgent financial and other challenges.

The pandemic has hit especially hard in his largely minority and immigrant community, and heightened already profound societal inequities, playing out further now in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd. He’s made those issues a focus of his art.

[note: George Floyd, a 46-year-old African American truck driver and security guard, died in police custody in Minneapolis on 25 May when a white police officer pressed his knee to Floyd’s neck for nearly eight minutes during an arrest for allegedly passing a counterfeit $20 bill. 

[Weeks of protests, some of which turned violent, due mostly to the actions of outside activists with agendas different from the protesters, followed and have led to a movement to change policing practices and attitudes in the United States.]

Frisly Soberanis: I try to see the powers that are at play at the moment that I’m creating things, whether that’s financial powers or cultural powers. Art, at least for me, is essential to capture a moment before it’s rewritten in a different way.

Jeffrey Brown: In Duluth, Minnesota, artist Carolyn Olson is paying homage to her community with a vibrant series of portraits of what she sees as essential workers, filling drugstore orders, picking vegetables and fruits, delivering goods by bicycle, repairing a band student’s instrument.

Carolyn Olson: Just being angry and frustrated isn’t going to fix anything. So I felt like it was something I could do. I’m a — I can draw. I can paint. I could comment about the people that were doing this kind of work and maybe bring light to it.

Jeffrey Brown: We learned of Olson’s work when she wrote the “NewsHour” to say she’d found some of her subjects through stories she’d seen on our program, a bus driver, a sanitation worker, first responders.

But most of her subjects are closer to home, including a daughter who’s worked through this period at a grocery store.

Carolyn Olson: I asked my daughter one time about what was going on and said, what about the grief?

And I felt like my drawing at least could talk about some of the things that were going on.

Jeffrey Brown: Artists have always done this, of course, including around pandemics of the past.

Edvard Munch, the Norwegian artist whose Scream [The Scream, 1893] is a viral image of our time, painted this self-portrait with the Spanish Flu in 1919, speaking directly to his.

More recently, David Wojnarowicz photographed his friend [photographer] Peter Hujar as he died of AIDS-related pneumonia [26 November 1987, age 53].

[note: I have a profile of artist Wojnarowicz (1954-92) on Rick On Theater, posted on 18 March 2011.  There’s also a report on the Whitney Museum of American Art’s retrospective David Wojnarowicz: History Keeps Me Awake at Night, posted on 19 October 2018.  Munch gets a brief mention, as does his Scream, in my report on “The ‘New’ MoMA, 2019,” 1 January 2020.]

Choreographer Doug Varone:

Doug Varone: I can think of the AIDS crisis. I can think of 9/11. Artists respond to those moments. And this is no different. I think artists are really driven by the times. Things occur in our lives, they occur in the world around us, and we respond to them.

Jeffrey Brown: Varone and his company have been presenting new works for more than 30 years, but COVID-19 took its toll. In March, he furloughed his team until further notice.

Recently, he was asked to do something beyond his experience, create a socially distanced dance, with Varone working in his Upstate New York home, shown here on the small computer screen, and dancer Michael Trusnovec using his home in New Jersey as his stage.

Doug Varone: The concept behind it has been very much about the isolation that we all feel at.

And, for many people, you know, I have many friends who are in this alone. This piece in many ways is speaking about that. The role of the artist has always been to expand people’s perception of what is happening.

Jeffrey Brown: In another sign of the times, the work will receive a virtual performance later in June.

For the “PBS NewsHour,” I’m Jeffrey Brown.

[I hesitated to download and post this report.  Because correspondent Brown is essentially narrating a seven-minute video showing clips of the work of the artists he names, reading the transcript misses a great deal of the interest and impact in this story.  I recommend, therefore, that ROTters who are curious about this artistic connection to the current medical crisis take a moment to watch the NewsHour video at https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/connecting-through-art-when-a-pandemic-keeps-us-apart.]

21 June 2020

Black Wedding


From the New York Evening World of Monday, 4 November 1918, page 4 (no byline):

WEDDING IN CEMETERY.

Brave Couple Carry Out Ancient
Tradition to Beat Influenza

Now watch the “flu” follow Austria into the discards.

In Mount Hebron Cemetery [Flushing, Queens], Miss Rose Schwartz, No. 369 East Tenth Street, stood beside Abraham Lachterman, No. 638 East Eleventh Street, yesterday afternoon, and before than them stood Rabbi Unger, who performed a marriage ceremony.

The tradition upon which the couple acted is an ancient Jewish one which declares that the only way to stop a plague is to hold a wedding ceremony in a cemetery.

When Miss Schwartz and Lachterman consented to offer themselves to stop the influenza epidemic, the neighbors were so grateful that they provided food, taxicabs, a wedding gown and even the furnishings for a flat.  Two thousand persons cheered the courageous pair as they started for the cemetery.

This short newspaper report from over a hundred years ago was the impetus for a New York Times article called “A Century Ago, a Cemetery Wedding to End a Pandemic” by Steve Bell, which ran in the “Metropolitan” section of the Sunday edition on 14 June 2020. 

The ceremony’s called a “black wedding” (in Yiddish, shvartse chasene—with variations) and it’s supposed to stop a plague.  The one recounted in the article was the 1918 Spanish Flu, but other accounts are about cholera outbreaks.  

Okay, the whole story is bizarre, but the thing that stopped me was the date of the original Evening World report.  4 November 1918 was one day before my dad was born (5 November ’18)! 

Furthermore, Dad was born at home because it was deemed too dangerous for a pregnant woman to give birth in a hospital during the very pandemic for which the black wedding was intended as a remedy

The way the macabre story popped out at me made me curious, so I googled shvartse chasene and there are lots of posts (plus one painting and an album of klezmer music) on the ritual.  Some had some synchronicity with aspects of my life which intrigued me.

In addition to the newspaper report the Times used for its article having been dated the day before my dad was born, the New York Times article attributes the black wedding tradition to Jews from “Eastern Europe”—though I never heard of the practice and my dad’s family was from Eastern Europe.  His father came from the Ukraine in the late 1890s and his mother from Latvia in the early 1900s. 

(My mom’s family was Central European, from Austro-Hungary—mostly Austria—but that was many generations earlier.)

Then, one tale of a black wedding ceremony I found was a translation of a 1929 Yiddish story by an apparently well-known Yiddish novelist named Joseph Opatoshu.  That’s not a last name I’m likely to forget easily—and it turns out that Joseph Opatoshu (1886-1954) was the father of actor David Opatoshu (1918-96). 

(By the way—David Opatoshu’s life dates are the same as my father’s!)

David Opatoshu was in Exodus (1960; he played Akiva ben Canaan, the head of the Irgun, an underground Zionist paramilitary organization, and the uncle of Ari ben Canaan, the character played by Paul Newman) and guested on many, many TV shows, including two of my favorite series, the Star Trek episode “A Taste of Armageddon” (1967) and Perry Mason’s ”The Case of the Feather Cloak” (1965).

The main reason I recognize David Opatoshu’s name, though, is that I wrote his biographical entry in the Cambridge Guide to American Theatre (1993)

Later, I gathered up some sites for research.  I found another account of a black wedding from the papers of Mayer Kirshenblatt, another name that’s hard to forget.  It turns out that Mayer Kirshenblatt (1916-2009). a Polish-born Canadian painter and author, was the father of Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (even harder)—who just happens to have been the chair of the Department of Performance Studies when I was at New York University.

BKG (as we referred to her) was something of an anomaly at DPS.  Almost everyone on that faculty was either a theater scholar or a dance scholar—sort of Thalia and Melpomene versus Terpsichore.  Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett (b. 1942) is neither; in fact, she isn’t even in a performance field.  She’s a folklorist, and the black wedding would be right in her wheelhouse.

I looked at the Google hits a little more carefully on my second search than I had when I was just browsing to see if there was any info.  I discovered that several posts about black weddings mention a town called Uman.  That’s the small city in the Ukraine were my paternal grandfather was born. 

It’s not a big city, and it doesn’t come up in the press or anything.  In fact, other than the times my dad mentioned it when he told me about his family and the couple of times I deliberately looked it up, I’ve only come across it once that I can recall.  It was a passing mention in some novel—by Leon Uris or James Michener or someone like that—as the birthplace of a character.  Now it pops up again.

I think something’s telling me I should write this post . . . .

The World article labels the black wedding an “ancient” ritual, but none of the stories and accounts go back very far.  I found one mention of black weddings at the end of the 18th century, but there were few details and I couldn’t really confirm it. 

If the practice was observed before that, say in ancient times or the Middle Ages, it’s not recorded in any source I could find on line.  (Physical library facilities aren’t available these days, so I can’t check older, printed sources.  But I have to believe that if there were reports of black weddings earlier than the 18th or 19th  century, someone would at least have mentioned it on the ’Net.)

I’ll be sticking with the English phrase ‘black wedding’ rather than any of the Yiddish names for the rite.  There are too many variations to keep up with that.  First of all, the Yiddish words have variant spellings in English: shvartze chassene and shvartse khasene, for two alternatives. 

Then some accounts call the ceremony mageyfe chasene, or ‘plague wedding’; others use cholere chasene for ‘cholera wedding’—though that has a more limited application, I’d imagine.  I presume there are other permutations as well.

As the 1918 World report suggests and the 2020 Times article states, a wedding ceremony between two of the community’s most unfortunate members performed in a cemetery was believed to be the only way to stop a plague.  Quoting another 1918 newspaper article, from Philadelphia’s Public Ledger, the Times added that “the attention of God would be called to the affliction of their fellows if the most humble man and woman among them should join in marriage in the presence of the dead.”

The bride and groom might be orphans, for example, as they were in an 1892 ritual in Poland.  The bride, in fact, was what the Jewish community labeled a “round orphan” because she had no living family.  Other than being orphaned, the couple might be poor or disabled or some combination of the three. 

Their misfortune was the hook to attract God’s sympathy and the dead surrounding the celebrants were seen as an enhancement of that attraction—sort of a sweetener, if you will.  The idea was that a marriage by the graveside would attract the attention of the dead, who would intercede with God on behalf of the living.  In addition, He would look down on the unfortunate bridal couple, two strangers marrying in a grim place, and take pity on them and halt the plague.

Sometimes the wedding pair didn’t even know each other—though in decades past, that was often just as true of ordinary betrothed couples whose marriages were arranged by parents and marriage brokers.  The townspeople would pay the expenses for the ceremony, donate the bride’s and groom’s wedding outfits, and supply the food served at the ceremony.  The people of the community pledged to support the couple after the marriage.

A local klezmer band played music after the ceremony and the attendees, pretty much the whole Jewish community—if the location was a shtetl (a town whose population was entirely or almost entirely Jewish), then the whole village—danced among the burial plots and headstones.

In some cases, apparently, the townsfolk even got the newlyweds a place to live and give them gifts of money at the wedding (also not uncommon at Jewish weddings of bygone days—or perhaps even now!).  At a black wedding in Philadelphia in 1918, the guests reportedly made gifts totaling $1000—the 2020 equivalent of almost $17,000.

It’s uncertain what the ceremony looked like.  It was certainly based on traditional Jewish marriage ceremonies as they were performed in the region.  There was a chuppah, the canopy that’s raised over the bride and groom on the synagogue’s bimah, or “stage.”  It symbolizes the home that the couple will build together.  It was set among the graves, sometimes right between two gravestones.

As least one or two accounts say that the bride’s wedding dress is black—the groom’s in black anyway—and the chuppah, which is traditionally made of white cloth, is also black.  The section about black weddings in Luboml: The Memorial Book of a Vanished Shtetl (composed c.1968) is entitled “The Black Chupa (The Black Wedding Canopy).”  A photo of a black wedding in Israel last March shows a black chuppah, though another shot shows the bride wearing a white gown. 

(The “memorial book” cited above is a phenomenon, which we’ll encounter again in this post, of the post-World War II era.  Yizkor is Hebrew for ‘remembrance: and the sefer yizkor, or memorial book, commemorates a Jewish community destroyed during the Holocaust.  The books are published by former residents as remembrances of homes, people, and ways of life lost during World War II.)

Mayer Kirshenblatt, The Black Wedding in the Cemetery, ca. 1892 (April 1996); '
acrylic on canvas, 36" x 48"

A contemporary painting of an 1892 wedding shows a bride in white and a blue chuppah (though it may be supposed to represent purple) in the background—but the artwork, The Black Wedding in the Cemetery, ca. 1892 (April 1996) by Mayer Kirshenblatt, is an artist’s imaginary rendering of the event.
Zoya Cherkassky, Black Chuppah (2020);
Ink and markers on paper, 12¼" x 9¼"
An article entitled “Zoya Cherkassky: Lost Time: Black Chuppah” by Alison M. Gingeras (b. 1973) shows a drawing by artist Cherkassky (b. 1976) of a wedding couple under a black canopy (as the title Black Chuppah, 2020, suggests) and the bride dressed all in black.  Of course, this is again a modern artist’s depiction of an imagined scene.

There’s obviously a strong element of magical thinking (positing a causal link between a thought and an action or event which seemingly cannot be justified by reason or observation) and superstitious appeasement (the belief in the influencing of a deity by sacrifice or other ritual) to the black wedding.  Furthermore, the black wedding doesn’t have one sole meaning.

Some rabbis, for example, feel it works because helping a needy couple or the marginal of the community who were unlikely to marry is a mitzvah, an act of kindness or a good deed,  That would please God who’d reward the townspeople for their kindness and solicitude by halting the plague. 

Others, however, were afraid that the ritual would only make things worse.  On 25 October 1918, for instance, The Jewish Exponent, a weekly community newspaper published in Philadelphia since 1887, called a black wedding in that city, “the most deplorable exhibition of benighted superstition” and lamented that “the publicity given to the occurrence will convey to many people the impression that this is a custom sanctioned and encouraged by the Jewish religion.”

The disagreement sounds to me like a somewhat lurid instance of the question Jews ask whenever something controversial or newsworthy involving a member of their faith arises: Is it good or bad for the Jews. 

The origins of the black wedding are entirely unknown, except that the ritual had been imported from Eastern Europe two to two-and-a-half centuries ago.  That’s hardly “ancient” as the Evening World report determined, and it wasn’t really a “tradition,” in the sense that it grew up over generations.  It was invented, probably by a rabbi, to meet the specific needs of a particular time and place, namely a cholera, typhus, or influenza outbreak in an East European town.

According to Aliyah Guttmann on the website Ketubah, the practice of black weddings may have arisen from a mash-up of Hasidic thought, Orthodox Christian celebrations, pagan rituals, and the many superstitions which were common all over Eastern Europe.

The earliest report of a black wedding that I found on the ’Net goes back to 1785.  The writer, Jeremy Brown, an emergency physician and Director of the Office of Emergency Care Research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) who writes on science in the Talmud at Talmudology.com, cites some sources for his accounts, but I didn’t see any other reports except ones obviously derived from Brown’s.

In fact, all the reports of this ceremony I read are almost identical, not just with respect to the information revealed, but also the phraseology in which the reports are written.  That’s not really confirmation; it’s just repeating the same hearsay multiple times. 

In an article on The Lehrhaus website, Brown reports the 1785 black wedding was performed to address an outbreak of cholera, but I couldn’t determine in what town or region it occurred or who was involved.   The rite was attended by two of the most eminent masters of Hasidism: Rabbi Elimelech of Lizhensk (1717-87) and Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchak HaLevi Horowitz (1745-1815; better known as the Seer of Lublin).  That’s essentially all we know; no other modern report tells any more, including what the ceremony looked like.

(Hasidism is a Jewish religious practice that arose in what is now Western Ukraine—then part of Poland—during the 18th century and spread across Eastern Europe.  Hasidism in general—there are many sects, usually named for the birthplace of the founder—is ultra-Orthodox, distinguished from other Haredi Jews by their distinctive garb, different for each sect, and its belief in Kabbalism, Jewish mysticism.  Most Hasidim today live in either Israel or the U.S.

(Rabbi Elimelech Weisblum was one of the founding Rebbes of the Hasidic movement; Lizhensk was his hometown in Poland.  Rabbi Horowitz, also from Poland, was a leading figure in the early Hasidic movement, he became known as a “seer” or “visionary” due to the belief by his followers that he was able to see supernaturally across great distances.)

Brown also reports that black weddings were celebrated for orphaned teenagers in Jerusalem and Tzfat  (also called Safed, the center of Kabbalism in Palestine) in 1865 to combat an infestation of locusts that destroyed the crops across Palestine (then part of the Ottoman Empire), causing hundreds of death.

Brown cites an “eyewitness account” reporting that in Tzfat

the leaders of that holy city took boys and girls who were orphans and married them off to each other. The huppot [alternative spelling for the wedding canopies] were in a cemetery between the graves of our teacher the Ari z”l [Rabbi Isaac Luria Ashkenazi (1534-72)] and the Beit Yosef [Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575)].  For this was a tradition that they had, and thanks to God who removed this deathly outbreak from among them.” 

(The abbreviation z"l that follows Rabbi Luria’s common name is an honorific for the dead that stands for “of blessed memory” [Hebrew transliteration: zikhrono livrakha].  It’s used here for a rabbi, but it is equally applied to non-rabbinical figures.

(Luria, a leading rabbi and Jewish mystic in the community of Tzfat, was considered the father of contemporary Kabbalah.  Karo was the author of the last great codification of Jewish law, the Shulchan Aruch, which is still authoritative for all Jews.)

The Jerusalem ceremony was performed on the Mount of Olives, also called Mount Olivet, and “was attended by many, and was a very joyous occasion.”  In addition to its biblical significance, both Old and New Testaments, the Mount of Olives has been a Jewish cemetery for over 3,000 years.

Cholera was frequently breaking out all over Europe in the 19th century.  It’s a particularly terrifying disease, especially in an era when little was known of modern medicine, hygiene, and sanitation.  It’s transmitted through contaminated food and water; the principal contaminant being fecal matter infected with the cholera bacterium.

The disease is highly contagious, though it’s not usually passed from person to person.  An exposed person can go from infection to the onset of symptoms in as little as two hours.  I won’t go into the full range of symptoms—it’s a pretty disgusting illness—but the principal manifestation is watery diarrhea that can leave the victim fatally dehydrated.

It’s not hard to see why people who are ignorant of any scientific or technological means of preventing or modifying a potentially fatal disease with revolting symptoms, mysterious origin, and no real treatments would be afraid of such an epidemic.  And people in fear cope in many different ways,

Some turn to science and research to look for an effective cure or treatment, but others try to find answers in superstition and ritual.  In one town at the turn of the 20th century, where the outbreak was blamed on adultery and sexual transgressions, a self-appointed corps of health-guardians went on a killing spree aimed at the known adulterers in the community.  (And Hester Prynne only had to wear a scarlet A.)

In another cholera crisis, in 1866, rabbis in the town of Uman, the Ukraine, a city of 10,100 in 1860, of whom about 6,100 were Jews (ca. 61%), decided that the cause of the epidemic was Jewish women wearing crinolines and earrings.  (I suppose it was considered immodest, ostentatious, and sexually alluring, and thus displeasing to God.)

So the protectors of public health (and, I presume, morals) went on a rampage and attacked the crinoline-and-earring-wearing women, tearing off their undergarments and beating them.

(And this is the town in which my dad’s father was born some 24 years later.  No wonder his family left for the U.S. around 1896!  Of course, the pogroms had a lot to do with that decision, but aside from that . . . .)

Rokhl Kafrissen, a writer for Tablet, a daily online magazine of Jewish news, ideas, and culture, reported that the first evidence she found of a black wedding was one that took place during the Russian cholera outbreak of 1831.  Subsequently, there was reference to another one in 1849 in Crakow, Poland (now known in English as Krakow).

Other such ceremonies took place in Berdichev (about 140 miles northwest of Uman), then part of the Russian Empre (now in northern Ukraine and called Berdychiv) in 1866 and at Opatow, Poland (known as Apt in Yiddish), in 1892.

The 1892 black wedding in Apt is the one depicted in Mayer Kirshenblatt’s naïve painting The Black Wedding in the Cemetery, ca. 1892.  Kirshenblatt, who was untaught and only picked up a brush when he was 73, based his art on memories of his Polish homeland—he emigrated to Canada in 1934—before World War II. 

The scene of the wedding in Apt, where Kirshenblatt was born, was obviously painted not from a childhood memory—the artist wasn’t even born when the marriage took place—but from stories told by his elders, part of what Alison M. Gingeras called the “oral history” of Apt.  The artist recounted the story in They Called Me Mayer July: Painted Memories of a Jewish Childhood before the Holocaust (2007), a book he and his daughter, Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, published together.

The memorial book [sefer yizkor] for Apt recounts how a holy rabbi helped the town during a cholera epidemic in 1892.  Every few days someone died.  In a community of about six thousand, that was a calamity.  Prominent citizens went to the holy rabbi, imploring him to say a few prayers to the Almighty.  Maybe the epidemic would subside.  The rabbi thoughtfully replied, “Let’s try a wedding on the Jewish cemetery.  Perhaps the dearly departed will intervene with the Holy One to help.”  It is considered a great mitsve, or good deed, to help the poor to marry.  All that was needed was a bride and groom.

The matchmakers got busy.  In town there was a young bachelor who was supported by the community.  His job was to clean the communal bath.  Each week he drained the water and replaced it with a fresh supply.  He also kept the fire going in the mikve, the ritual bath, so that the water would always be hot.  He lived in the hegdesh, a room where the burial society kept the implements for cleaning the dead for burial.  Itinerant beggars also slept there.  On being approached, the young man gladly accepted.

Now a bride was needed.  There was in town a young lady, an orphan.  In Yiddish, it is enough to have lost one parent to be an orphan.  This woman had lost both parents.  She was what is called a kaylakhdike yesoyme, a round orphan, because she had absolutely no relatives.  In exchange for a place to sleep on top of the oven, her daily bread, and a few cast-off clothes, she did the housework for a well-to-do family.  She received no wages.  On being approached she also gladly agreed.

A proclamation was issued in the synagogue, the houses of study, and the Jewish schools that a black wedding, a shvartse khasene, would be held on the cemetery at a designated time.  Everyone was to attend.  On the appointed day, the whole town, including people from the surrounding villages, streamed into the cemetery.  They gathered near the oyl, the little building housing the graves of holy rabbis.  The sexton brought a wedding canopy.  The bride wore a donated wedding dress.  The rabbi conducted the ceremony.  Many people shed a tear on this solemn occasion.

The community donated gifts and food.  A table was set up with a small barrel of vodka, glasses, and large joints of roasted mutton.  Everyone wished each other a long life.  When the assembly was already a little tipsy, Yankl Krokowski, the badkhn  or master of ceremonies, stood on a stool and announced that the time had come to call out the wedding gifts.  Seeing as this poor couple had no home, the appeal went out for cash donations.  Everyone reached into their pockets and in a short time the iron pot was full of money.  When it became too heavy to hold, Yankl set the pot down on the table.  He regaled the company with jokes and songs.  The band struck up a lively tune, and everyone, men, women, and children, danced.  Reb Zvi Hirsh, who officiated at the wedding, stepped into the large circle of dancers.  Small in stature, head held high, his eyes looking toward the sky, his beard and sidelocks [payess] flying, Reb Zvi Hirsh began to dance.  He invited the newlyweds to join him in the obligatory mitsve tants.  The merriment continued late into the night.  Sure enough the epidemic subsided in a few days.

(The honorific ‘Reb’ is used to designate someone in an Orthodox or Hasidic community who is revered and honored for his wisdom and learning.  In the case of Reb Hirsh above, he was also a rabbi, the spiritual leader of a community or congregation.  The word’s short tor Rebbe, which is the title used to designate the leader of a Hasidic sect.
.
(The mitsve tants, or ‘mitsve [mitzvah] dance,’ is a custom at Hasidic weddings.  It literally means ‘commandment dance,’ referring to the commandments demanded of a Jew in Jewish law, but since the dance isn’t actually commanded by the law, it’s closer to ‘customary dance.’  Indeed, in Orthodox and Hasidic communities, in which men and women are kept separate in public, dancing involving men and women together is a violation of religious custom.

(In the mitsve tants, usually done at the wedding when the guests have all departed and only the close families of the bride and groom are left, the barriers dividing the genders are all removed, or the bride is brought into the men’s section.  The men, including the groom, the bride’s father, the groom’s father, and the Rebbe, each dance individually in front of the bride—who doesn’t actually dance; in fact, she doesn’t even move.  It’s an energetic and joyous dance, intended to express great happiness and joyousness.)

In 1918, just weeks before the Mount Hebron ceremony in Queens, New York, Harry Rosenberg and Fanny Jacobs got married in a graveyard near Cobb’s Creek in Philadelphia on 20 October.  The pair, both poor, were strangers but they wanted to help save their community from the Spanish influenza pandemic.  The ceremony was celebrated before an audience of 1,200 immigrant Russian Jews. 

Unhappily, according to Kaushik Patowary on the website Amusing Planet, “genealogical research suggested that neither Harry nor Fanny survived the Spanish flu, perishing along with 50 million others.”

Three weeks later, on 11 November, a similar ritual was performed in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in Canada.  The Winnipeg Evening Tribune, the local newspaper, reported that the sumptuous ceremony had been planned for over a month.  

The Tribune reported: “At one end of the cemetery a quorum [minyan] of ten Jews conducted a funeral.  At the other, 1,000 Gentiles and Jews witnessed the wedding. . . [.]  Harry Fleckman and Dora Wisman were contracting parties at the wedding. Rabbis Khanovitch and Gorodsy officiated.”

Even in our modern times, the start of the third decade of the 21st century, the trend continues.  On 18 March, in the face of a latter-day plague, the COVID-19 pandemic, an orphan couple wed in a cemetery in the Israeli city of Bnei Brak, in the center of the country’s Mediterranean coast, just east of Tel Aviv..  Bnei Brak, a city of nearly 200,000, is one of Israel’s poorest and most densely populated.  It became a hotspot for coronavirus infection.

It’s also a center of Haredi Judaism (ultra-Orthodoxy). 

The website Kikar reported that the chuppah, which photos show was black, was set up inside the cemetery.  The ceremony was recorded and the video posted online (https://youtu.be/okAHpZkrHc0) and showed Haredi men surrounding the chuppah, chanting and standing amidst the graves among which the couple was posed.

This is the canopy of the Roth and Berber families, where the bridegroom is an orphan from a father, and the canopy was held near the tombs of the rabbis buried there. The canopy was held in the cemetery, as a purple against epidemics.

(In Judaism, a person can become an orphan with the loss of one parent.)

Almost nothing is known about the outcomes of these marriages.  No one recorded if they were successful and happy or disastrous.  Apparently some ended in suicide, such as a 1905 ceremony in Jerusalem a week after which the groom was reported to have killed himself.  There’s no telling, however, if the causes were the essentially forced marriages. 

At the end of Joseph Opatoshu’s short story, “A Wedding in the Cemetery,” he describes the moment just before the vows are taken.  The groom is “the hunchback Shloyme—a freeloader” and the bride is “the schoolteacher’s daughter Brokhe, a young woman who was disabled.”

The wedding canopy had been set up at the tomb.  The tall, gangly groom, wearing a high fur hat, covered his eyes with his hand.  Under his black silk caftan he wore a white ceremonial robe with wide sleeves.  The rabbi, the Hasidic leader, and the members of the rabbinical court stood around, impatiently asking again and again, “Where is the bride?”

The bride, dressed in white and covered with a veil, approached from a distance.  The limping beggarwoman danced in front of her, carrying a loaf of challah in both hands.  Every once in a while she stopped and blurted out, through thick, fleshy lips, “From me, to you!”

Accompanied by a soft melody, the bride was led with dancing steps under the canopy.  She looked about and grew terrified.  She raised her withered hand and looked as if she were about to flee, then stopped, and exclaimed in a thin voice, “Our neighbor won’t be able to stand it!  She’s so jealous, she was always teasing me that I’ll never get married.”

The people who had led her to the canopy tried to calm her: “Hush, hush, Brokhe, a bride mustn’t speak now.”

Brokhe tore the groom’s hand away from his face and stared at him, the way a child stares at a new doll, and then she turned away.  “But that’s Shloyme—that good-for-nothing Shloyme is my groom?  No, no, no!” Her voice became a thin, sharp cry, rising over the thousands of bowed heads, reaching up to the blazing sky.

[I’d have loved to post the whole of Opatoshu’s story in this article—it’s certainly perfect content—but even as short as it is, it’d make the post much too long for the blog.  You can read it, however, at, among other sites, Jewish Currents (https://jewishcurrents.org/a-wedding-in-the-cemetery/).

[In addition to the short story and Kirshenblatt’s painting (on the Museum of Family History website at http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/ce/kirshenblatt/kirshenblatt-black-wedding.htm), readers can find Zoya Cherkassky’s Black Chuppah on Fort Gansevoort (http://www.fortgansevoort.com/zoya-cherkassky-black-chuppah).

[There are several other peculiarities I came across while doing my reading and research.  There’s a record album of klezmer music C Minor: Di Shvartse Khasene by the Khevrisa klezmer ensemble on Smithsonian Folkways (https://folkways.si.edu/khevrisa/c-minor-di-shvartse-khasene/american-folk-judaica/music/track/smithsonian) which is also available for listening on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5DAJ2Ybe-g).

[For those who aren’t familiar with it, klezmer music is a folk tradition of the Jews of Eastern Europe.  It flourished largely in the late 19th century and the early 20th—though it’s actual origins are uncertain. The genre originally consisted largely of dance tunes and instrumental display pieces for weddings and other celebrations.  Typical instruments are violin, cimbalom, clarinet, accordion, trombone, trumpet, piano, double bass, cello, and flute.

[There are several Russian films that have scenes of black weddings, but rather than list them all, I refer interested readers to “Polish Shtetl Through The Soviet Eyes: Mikhail Dubson’ Border (Old Dudino)” by Anatoliy Klots, a PDF on the ’Net that discusses these movies (https://jsis.washington.edu/ellisoncenter/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2017/05/Klots_Anatoliy_Polish-Shtetl-Through-The-Soviet-Eyes.pdf).

[Finally, what strikes me as the oddest of black wedding material, a children’s book called The Wedding That Saved a Town (Kar-Ben Publishing, 2008; 32 pages) by Yale Strom and illustrated by Jenya Prosmitsky.  I can’t really imagine using the black wedding ceremony as the basis for a child’s story book, but there it is. 

[If you’re curious, a website with a review and other information, including online purchasing, is Jewish Book Council (https://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/the-wedding-that-saved-a-town).  It’s also available for purchase through Amazon and Barnes & Noble, where it’s also sold as an e-book.]

16 June 2020

The Anarchist Prince, Part 2


[Below is Part 2 of my profile of Pyotr Kropotkin, one of the most famous anarchist thinkers and writers of the movement.  Since this installment starts where Part 1 left off, I strongly recommend that readers who are just encountering “The Anarchist Prince” go back to the first section (posted on 13 June) before venturing into the conclusion.

[After finishing Kropotkin’s biography, I move on to a brief examination of his political philosophy and then I discuss, also briefly, two of his books.]

On 6 September 1901, four months after Pyotr Kropotkin’s departure from the United States, President William McKinley (1843-1901; 25th President of the United States: 1897-1901) was shot in Buffalo, New York, by a self‑proclaimed anarchist named Leon Czolgosz (1873-1901); McKinley died on 14 September, succeeded by Vice President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919; 26th President of the United States: 1901-09).  

Rumors spread of an anarchist plot hatched by Kropotkin and U.S. anarchist Emma Goldman.  Chicago’s Hull House was alleged to have been the scene of their conspiracy during Kropotkin’s visit earlier that year (see Part 1).  It was pure fabrication, of course, but Kropotkin was disturbed because of the repressions suffered by his Chicago comrades, including Hippolyte Havel.

In his final years, Kropotkin concentrated on writing.  His works during this period included an autobiography, Memoirs of a Revolutionist (1899); Fields, Factories and Workshops (1901), which discusses the decentralization of industries, the possibilities for agriculture, and the uses of small industries; Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (1902; first English edition published in New York the same year), which proposed that collaboration is the natural order of the world for both humans and beasts; and The Great French Revolution (1893; English translation: 1909), Kropotkin’s alternative view of the French Revolution of 1789.  
                                                                                                           
These and his other writings, such as Words of a Rebel (1885), which was written while he was in Clairvaux Prison (see Part 1) and outlines the basic premises of anarcho-communism and the shortcomings of capitalism and representative democracy, and The Conquest of Bread (1892), which first appeared as a series of articles in Le Révolté in which Kropotkin surveys economic methods for the fulfillment of human needs, turned him into a world-renowned political figure.  

Emma Goldman declared: “We saw in him the father of modern anarchism, its revolutionary spokesman and brilliant exponent of its relation to science, philosophy and progressive thought.”  Goldman dubbed Kropotkin the “godfather of anarchism.”  (I’ll discuss some of these writings along with Kropotkin’s political philosophy briefly following his biography.)

In 1912, the anarchists of Europe, the U.S., and Australia celebrated Kropotkin’s 70th birthday and in 1914, at the beginning of the World War I, the veteran anarchist expressed a firm pro-Triple Entente position in the pages of a Russian political newspaper.  (The Triple Entente was the agreement before the war among France, Great Britain, and Russia against the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austro-Hungary, and Italy.)

Two years later, Kropotkin and Jean Grave (1854-1939), an eminent French anarcho-communist, drafted a document called the “Manifesto of the Sixteen,” which advocated an Allied victory over Germany and the Central Powers (Germany, Austro-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire—Italy having declared neutrality in 1915) in World War I.  It was first published on 14 March 1916 and subsequently widely disseminated.  Because of the “Manifesto,” Kropotkin found himself isolated by the mainstream of the anarchist movement, which had staked out an anti-war position.

In Russia, the February Revolution, which occurred between 8 and 16 March 1917 (in the new calendar; in the old style, still in use in Russia, it was in February, hence the name), brought a provisional republican government to power in Petrograd and forced the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918; reigned: 1894-1917) and the end of Romanov rule.  (The tsar and his family were secretly executed by firing squad in Yekaterinburg in the early hours of 17 July 1918.)

The 74-year-old Kropotkin returned to Russia on 30 May 1917 after 40 years of exile.  He was greeted at the train station in Petrograd by Aleksandr Kerensky (1881-1970; Minister-Chairman of the Russian Provisional Government: 21 July-7 November 1917), at the time, the Minster of War of the new Russian Republic, and Nikolai Tchaikovsky, now a deputy of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies.

The former émigré was offered the Ministry of Education in Kerensky’s Provisional Government, which he promptly refused.  Kropotkin felt that working with the bourgeois, capitalist administration would be a violation of his anarchist principles.

On 6-7 November 1917 (25-26 October old style), the Bolsheviks launched the October Revolution, forcing out the Kerensky government in Petrograd (the new name for Saint Petersburg until 1924, when it was renamed again as Leningrad).  The republican government ceded authority to the Bolshevik communists led by Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924; Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars: 1917-24). 

In a little less than a year, Russia went from the Russian Empire to the Russian Republic to the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic.  (The Soviet Union, formally the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR, was established in 1922.)

Kropotkin was at first enthusiastic about the changes in his homeland after the Bolsheviks took control, but he soon grew fearful of the methods of the Bolshevik dictatorship, especially the Red Terror, the tactic of punitive measures taken by the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War (1917-1923) against perceived class enemies and people accused of counter-revolutionary activities.  Kropotkin persisted in expressing these feelings in writing, though he never again participated actively in politics. 

Kropotkin saw the Bolsheviks consolidating power in the center, precisely what the old anarchist opposed.  He knew a party with this power wouldn’t share it with anyone, most importantly, not the people.  In Kropotkin’s eyes, the revolution must become a nationwide effort, enveloping all classes.

In March 1920, Kropotkin wrote a letter to Lenin admonishing the Bolshevik leader that Russia was a Soviet Republic in name only, that it wasn’t people’s soviets that governed the country but party committees.  (The word soviet is Russian for ‘council.’  The word predates the communist era and is formed from the prefix со-, meaning ‘with’ [the equivalent of the Latin com-] and the old Slavic verb веть, ‘to talk’ or ‘to inform.’)

The Soviet government tried to keep the old revolutionary within the pale as he was considered a hero of the cause.  Kropotkin’s name was still revered by many communists and members of the government and the party didn’t want to see him actively oppose them so that they’d have to take action to neutralize his influence.

Toward this end, the Soviet government reached out to offer Kropotkin an apartment in the Kremlin and rations.  The People’s Commissar of Education even wrote to Sofya Grigoryevna to ask her to influence Pyotr Alekseyevich not to reject help from the government—probably in order to put the Bolshevik imprimatur on him as a sort of ward of the government.  Kropotkin, though, firmly refused government help.

The Kropotkins moved out of Moscow in July 1918 to Dmitrov, a small city some miles north.  With the civil war between the Reds (communists) and the Whites (republicans) still raging, not to mention the Red Terror under the direction of Feliks Dzerzhinsky (1877-1926), head of the Soviet secret police, Kropotkin was issued a “security certificate” signed by Lenin himself in order to protect him from harassment or arrest—or worse.

Nonetheless, during the last years of his life in Dmitrov, despite Lenin’s order not to interfere with him, Kropotkin lived under the vigilant surveillance of agents of Dzerzhinsky’s Cheka—the precursor to all the Soviet secret police agencies of USSR history, including the NKVD, the MVD, and, finally, the KGB..

All the Soviet government’s efforts didn’t stop Kropotkin from criticizing the Bolshevik revolution.  He continued his active social activities and worked on a new book, Ethics: Origin and Development, one of the foundational texts of the anarchist movement.  Continuing the argument of Mutual Aid, Ethics traces the development of moral teachings from ancient Greece, Christianity, and the Middle Ages through 19th-century philosophers.  The book remained unfinished at his death but the first volume was published posthumously in 1922.

In January 1921, Kropotkin fell ill with pneumonia. Lenin sent a group of the country’s best doctors, led by the People’s Commissar of Health, to Dmitrov.  The government offered Kropotkin enhanced nutrition and special rations, but he wouldn’t accept any special privileges and declined the offers.

Pyotr Alekseyevich Kropotkin died quietly in the early hours of 8 February 1921 at the age of 78.  The next day, the newspapers announced his death and printed the funeral arrangements on their front pages. 

The anarchist prince’s body was transported by train from Dmitrov to Moscow where his casket lay in state in the Hall of Columns.  Mourners, including hundreds of delegations from Moscow plants, factories, and institutions, as well as thousands of ordinary people came to bid farewell to the revolutionary hero for two days.  Near the coffin stood anarchists as a guard of honor.

Kropotkin was buried with great pomp on 13 February at Moscow’s Novodevichy Cemetery, the burial place during the Soviet era second in prestige only to the Kremlin Wall Necropolis.  Emma Goldman, then living in Russia to which she’d been deported in 1919, came to deliver a eulogy.  Even at his funeral, however, Chekists kept a surreptitious eye on the proceedings.

In Dmitrov, a street was named in Kropotkin’s honor and the house where the geographer and writer had lived was turned into a museum.  All over Russia, especially in places where he’d lived or worked, monuments were raised to Kropotkin and places were renamed in his honor.  In 2004, a monument was erected to Kropotkin in Dmitrov; it stands, appropriately enough, on Kropotkinskaya Street.

Anarchism, which comes from the combination of the Greek prefix an- (αν; ‘without’) and the word arkhos (αρχοϛ; ‘leader’ or ‘ruler’), is defined by Kropotkin as:

a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government—harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.

He wrote further:

A society to which pre-established forms, crystallized by law, are repugnant; which looks for harmony in an ever-changing and fugitive equilibrium between a multitude of varied forces and influences of every kind, following their own course, – these forces themselves promoting the energies which are favorable to their march towards progress, towards the liberty of developing in broad daylight and counterbalancing one another.

The central theme of Kropotkin’s numerous political writings is the abolition of all forms of government in favor of a society operating solely on the principle of mutual aid and cooperation, rather than through governmental institutions.  Anarchism’s historical association with chaos and violence is outside Kropotkin’s definition of the philosophy. 

This conception, though, comes mostly from opponents of anarchism because the movement poses a threat to established authority.  You see that Kropotkin stressed harmony in his anarchistic society, which would ideally be more and better organized than a capitalistic and democratic one. 

The same is true of violence.  Despite his backing of the Allies in World War I and his initial support of the February Revolution, Kropotkin’s beliefs were steadfastly non-violent—he didn’t support the Bolsheviks, who used violence to suppress opposition—and he held that cooperation, not competitiveness, was the way to advance the human condition. 

Mutual Aid attacked the Social Darwinists for their conception of nature and human society as essentially competitive.  He insisted that cooperation and collaboration were the norms in both the natural and social worlds. 

This is a pretty fair basic definition of anarchism, at least as seen by Pyotr Kropotkin.  The philosophy is far more complex than this, however, but this isn’t the place for a full examination of the movement.  (Fortunately, there are plenty of books, articles, and websites to which the curious reader can turn for additional discussion.) 

In addition, as I pointed out earlier, anarchism isn’t monolithic; there are factions and branches.  While opposition to the state is central to anarchist thought, much of the rest of the movement varies from group to group.  For this reason, the Encyclopædia Britannica calls anarchism a “cluster of doctrines and attitudes.” 

Just as anarchism prime is too big a topic to cover here, the varieties of the philosophy are too numerous for me even to list, much less describe.  So I’m going to try to distinguish, however simplistically, among the few factions I named earlier—which are only the ones espoused by comrades of Kropotkin I included in his biography above.

The history of modern anarchism goes back to the 18th century around the period of the French Revolution (1789)—which is why one of Kropotkin’s earliest political books, The Great French Revolution, was on that historical event.  The first person to call himself an anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1840 in Qu’est ce que la propriété? [What Is Property?]), a major influence on Kropotkin’s thinking.  He labeled himself a “mutualist.” 

Mutualism is an anarchist doctrine and economic system that promotes a socialist society based on free markets and the rights of the occupation and use of property (usufructs).  Mutualism is founded on the Marxist economic theory which states that when workers sell the products of their labor, they should be paid in money, goods, or services equal to the amount of labor required to produce the products (labor theory of value, or LTV).

Mikhail Bakunin, among the most influential figures of anarchism and one of the most famous ideologues in Europe, was a collectivist anarchist.  The principal rival of Karl Marx (1818-83), who, with his collaborator Friedrich Engels (1820-95), was essentially the inventor of modern communism, Bakunin engineered the split with the First International in 1872 that led to the formation of the Jura Federation, which Kropotkin joined.  Bakunin became a sort of mentor to the younger anarchist and helped him form many of his theories.

Collectivist anarchism is a revolutionary socialist concept founded on abolishing both the state and private ownership of the means of production.  Collectivist anarchists envision in its place the collective ownership of the means of production, controlled and self-managed by the producers and workers themselves (that is, a collective). 

Once collectivization has been accomplished, money would be abolished and payment for goods and services would be made with labor notes.  Workers’  pay would be determined based on job difficulty and the amount of time they contributed to production.

Henry Seymour, the Englishman who brought Kropotkin to Britain in 1886, was an individualist anarchist, the branch of anarchism that emphasizes the individual and her or his will over external factors such as groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems.

To make the matter of differentiating among the various anarchism sects all the more blurry, individualist anarchism and a form called social anarchism (not to be confused with anarchist socialism, which I’ll get to) are mutually influential—though they are also often contrasted. 

Mutualists are sometimes considered a subset of individualist anarchism, sometimes of social anarchism.  Anarcho-communists, the form to which Kropotkin subscribed, have sometimes described themselves as radical individualist anarchists. 

And I have deliberately not added to this rat’s nest of political thought all the alternative labels each anarchistic faction has.

You can already see how confusing the taxonomy of anarchism can get—and there are a minimum of a dozen or so groups and subgroups (and I’m sure there are also sub-subgroups as well).  If it all begins to sound like the Little-Endians and the Big-Endians from Jonathan Swift’s 1726 novel Gulliver’s Travels (in the story about Lilliput), you’re not wrong.

Charlotte Wilson, Seymour’s erstwhile colleague at The Anarchist newspaper until she and Kropotkin split with him to start their own paper, Freedom, was an anarchist socialist (as I said, not to be confused with a social anarchist).  Wilson was also a member of the Fabian Society, a socialist organization to which George Bernard Shaw belonged as well, and he reportedly labeled her the lone Fabian anarchist (see Part 1). 

The Fabians’ mission was to promote the precepts of democratic socialism in democratic nations and was one of the founding organizations of the British Labour Party; it was hardly a radical body.  Wilson’s branch of anarchism, also known as libertarian socialism among other designations, is a set of socialist political philosophies such as anti-authoritarianism, anti-statism, and libertarianism that eschews the notion of socialism as a movement that espouses centralized state control of the economy.

Like all anarchists, anarchist socialists reject the state itself and they promote decentralized structures of political organizations.   Like the collectivist anarchists, anarchist socialists support the self-management of the workplace by the workers themselves and an overall decentralization through direct democracy of all governing or regulating bodies. 

Emma Goldman, arguably the most famous anarchist in the U.S. in her day (she was popularly known as “Red Emma”) was aligned with many causes and -isms, including feminism, atheism, anti-militarism, anti-capitalism, and advocated for many issues like prison reform, free love (before the hippies), and homosexual rights (long before there was a gay liberation movement). 

Goldman doesn’t seem to have become strongly associated with any specific branch of anarchism, however—though she appears to have leaned toward anarcho-communism.  Like Pyotr Kropotkin, another anarcho-communist, she withdrew support of the Bolsheviks over their statist power structure and their use of violence and terror.

Nikolai Tchaikovsky, known in Russia in his day as the “grandfather of the Russian revolution,” was not an anarchist; he was a revolutionary socialist.  The Tchaikovsky Circle, named for him and which Pyotr Kropotkin joined in 1873, was an element in the Narodnik movement, Russian populism (narod is Russian for ‘people’ or ‘folk’) whose adherents advocated an agrarian socialist reformation. 

Revolutionary socialists believe that social revolution is required to effect changes in the structure of society, to transition it from capitalism to socialism.  In their epistemology, revolution doesn’t necessarily mean a violent insurrection, but a seizure of political power by the working class so that the state is abolished or directly controlled by the working class rather than the capitalist class.  It’s not hard to see why anarchists like Kropotkin would gravitate to factions like the Tchaikovsky Circle.

Finally, I come to anarcho-communism, the branch to which Pyotr Kropotkin himself subscribed.  I deliberately left it till last in order to spotlight it.  With a slew of alternative names, anarcho-communism stands for abolishing the state, capitalism, wage labor, and private property.  Anarcho-communists carve out an exemption for personal and collectively-owned property. 

They believe in the common ownership by the society as a whole (not a collective of workers) of the means of production and direct democracy, along with a network of workers’ councils to organize society.  Production and consumption of goods would be based on the guiding principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” (as Karl Marx put it in his 1875 “Critique of the Gotha Program”). 

Kropotkin felt that the collectivist anarchists’ labor notes, which would be exchanged for goods in the communal market, would soon become a new currency and give rise to a state again—a kind of revanchist capitalism. 

Under anarcho-communism, wages would be abolished and workers would simply draw on a storehouse of goods in accordance with the Marxist principle.

As for the common—as opposed to collective—ownership and the abolishment of private property: it may go back to a statement of Proudhon’s, Kropotkin’s first anarchist influence.  In What Is Property?, the French mutualist insisted, in a slogan that has become almost iconic: “Property is theft!” (“La propriété, c’est le vol!”).

Though Kropotkin didn’t invent anarcho-communism, he became its principle theoretician and explicator and it’s largely associated with him (and vice versa). 

Now, let’s take a quick look at a couple of Kropotkin’s books, namely what are arguably his two most important, in the sense that they are his best known and his most often read—by people outside the anarchism world.  I’m talking about Memoirs of a Revolutionist from 1899 and 1902’s Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.

Parts of what became Memoirs of a Revolutionist were first published in The Atlantic Monthly between September 1898 and  September 1899 under the title “The Autobiography of a Revolutionist.”  In 1899, the book version was released by Houghton Mifflin with an introduction by Georg Brandes (1842-1927), a Danish critic and scholar who’d help launch the Danish Social Liberal Party (Danish: Radikale Venstre, literally “Radical Left”) in 1906.  

In this autobiography, focusing largely on the first 45 years of his life, Kropotkin recounts his youth in the imperial court and his military service in Siberia.  He describes his imprisonment in Saint Petersburg, his escape, and his exile in Western Europe.  

He provides depictions of life in 19th-century Russia, covering examples of the gulf between the aristocracy and the serfs and scenes of plots hatched in the dead of night outside the tsar’s palace.  As an eminent geographer and cartographer, Kropotkin writes fascinatingly about his explorations of Siberia and the Russian Far East.  

The writer draws a picture of tsarist Russia under the rule of Tsar Alexander II and discusses the movements agitating for social and political change and the evolution of the socialist and anarchist activities and ideology in Switzerland, France, and England in which he participated in the aftermath of the suppression of the 1871 Paris Commune.

The essays of Mutual Aid were initially published in the British periodical The Nineteenth Century between 1890 and 1896.  They explore the role of mutually-beneficial cooperation and reciprocity (that is, “mutual aid”) in both the animal kingdom and human societies of the past and the author’s own time.  The first book edition was published in New York by McClure, Phillips & Co in 1902.

Considered a fundamental text of anarcho-communism, the book is a refutation of the theories of society of social Darwinism  that emphasize competition and survival of the fittest, and the romantic depictions by thinkers such as Swiss philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78), who thought that cooperation was motivated by universal love.  Kropotkin argues instead that mutual aid has pragmatic advantages for the survival of human and animal communities. 

Kropotkin presents a scientific argument for communism as an alternative to the historical materialism of the Marxists, which argues that history is the result of material conditions rather than ideals.  The author based his conclusions on his observations of natural phenomena and history.

The anarchist writer considers mutual aid important for prosperity and survival in the animal kingdom, in indigenous and early European societies, in Medieval cities, and in the late-19th-century village, labor movement, and poor communities.  

Kropotkin castigates the state for destroying historically important mutual aid institutions such as medieval craft guilds, unions, so-called friendly societies, and fraternal organizations, particularly by means of the imposition of private property.

Kropotkin drew from his first-hand observations in Siberia, the Russian Far East, and Mongolia, where he studied indigenous animal populations, noting that the most effective communities were essentially cooperative, rather than competitive.  As a consequence, biologists also consider Mutual Aid an important source in the scientific study of cooperation.

[A word or two about my spellings of Russian words and names.  It’s my practice to transliterate the Cyrillic spellings as closely as I can using the Latin alphabet.  Hence I write Aleksandr because it’s closer to the Cyrillic spelling than Alexander.  I make an exception for words or names that have become commonly rendered in a familiar way, such as the names of the Russian tsars like Nicholas or Alexander.

[Readers will find that many Russian words and (especially) names have multiple spellings in English, such as Pyotr Kropotkin, whose first name is also rendered as Piotr and even Peter.  (I won’t even go onto the additional variations that occur when transliterating Russian into other languages such as German or French!)  I try to be consistent, but the variations make looking the figures up difficult and confusing.]