Many people in the West see Jaruzelski's Poland as a particularly oppressive totalitarian regime; from this perspective the main problem of contemporary Poland is, obviously, the lack of freedom and the constant violation of human rights by the Polish Communist rulers. This is the view which the radical opposition in Poland's emigre press wants us to adopt. In fact, however, only the younger generation in Poland can express such views in good faith; the older generation which has experienced Stalinism and knows what totalitarianism is like cannot really maintain that Jaruzelski's government is worse in this respect than previous Communist governments in Poland.

Max Weber's Problemattk still retains its power: why did only Christian Europe amongst the world civilisations autonomously create an economic dynamism, broadly capitalist in character? This essay gives an answer to this question, but it is one, for the most part, not in the spirit of the great German sociologist. There is, of course, a major academic industry devoted to the interpretation of Weber's work, but it still remains safe to say that Weber's own explanation for the fortuitous rise of the West had to do with ideological options concerning rational economic behaviour which gained particular salience in the fifteenth century despite having been present in embryo for a much longer period.

This paper places in a broader perspective a recent dramatic attempt by privately organized wealth and power to dominate the most fundamental institution of modern capitalist society—the market. This perspective derives from my initial, first-hand work with familiesof old wealth in Galveston, Texas, a once thriving port on the Gulf of Mexico, and later with certain families in Houston, which eventually overshadowed Galveston as the regional metropolis. Because of the similarity in historic conditions nation-wide by which certain fortunes, accumulated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, became dynastic organizations, I came to view my Galveston subjects on a broader canvas. Over the past century, the generally uniform and rationalized ways of preserving dynastic wealth have had a basic shaping function for such family-fortune organizations, making them an appropriate subject matter for comparative study.

Who now reads Max Müller ? Almost nobody, I suspect. If the readers of this article know Müller's name at all, they likely encountered it in some review of the various (and now discredited) theories of myth and religion that were popular in the nineteenth century, and such reviews hardly encourage anyone to seek out Müller's original work. Typically, these reviews present only a very brief and very general summary of Müller's ‘solar mythology’, and then go on to disparage Müller's work, often in a fairly extreme language. Thus, Munz (1973: 75) calls Müller ‘the most flamboyant of all nineteenth century philologists’, Puhvel (cited in Larson, 1974: 4) calls Müller's theory of myth a ’Victorian gingerbread’, and Thompson (1946:371) even suggests that ‘any modern reader who examines it [Müller's theory] begins todoubt his own sanity’.