This index was
first compiled by Ron Anastasi in physical form, early in 1965. The numbers (A##) [not
reproduced on the Web index] refer to his marking and ordering of the pages (often
two-sided) of 58 leaflets and four newsletters gathered in a three-ring binder, and
introduced by his personal note: "[Included] are nearly all the leaflets which FSM
put out last semester, save 2 or 3. They are arranged in approximately chronological
order, with the dates of those which I could specifically place written in [one]
corner." Only two-thirds were dated and ordered by him.
Ron entrusted his
binder to Marston Schultz, the devoted archivist of the FSM, who in time entrusted it to
me. In recording and extending his compilation in the chronological index, I have relied
upon Ron's dates so far, save for one which was clearly wrong. I've retained his expressed
uncertainties, as indicated by [(date)?]), when I couldn't verify them. To his dates, I
have added a few alternatives noted by other archivists, most of whose estimates were
probably less informed. Documents not dated by him, including the FSM's newsletters, have
been placed in sequence as best I can in light of internal and correlative evidences and
memory, without detailed review of the day-by-day history. My own uncertainties are
indicated by ?/??/???, according to degree. Dates estimated noted on Bancroft Library
holdings are indicated by b:#/#. Many of these estimates await slight revision, a few
major.
To the
chronological body of Ron's compilation, I have so far added 62 leaflets and pamphlets, 50
functional documents, 38 press releases, 10 items in odd media, and 29 variant printings
and texts. His compilation ended apparently in early January, 1965. Thirty-six subsequent
leaflets from the FSM are indexed here, through the time of its formal dissolution in late
April, bringing the ephemeral total to 286 items. More remain to be identified,
particularly from the first weeks of the conflict and its climactic week. In each of these
periods, special circumstances made systematic collection of ephemera more unlikely.
In supplementing
Ron's original compilation, I have drawn so far on the residual archives of the FSM,
faithfully maintained by Marston albeit depleted in unassessed degree by his donation of
core materials to the Bancroft Library long ago; on the Bancroft's holding of these
materials (CU 309 1:25,27, 2:44,51,52, 3:19,20); and on several small, unsystematic
personal collections (M. Rossman, D. Rossman, J. LaPenta, L. X, and B. Silverman.) The
archives supplied nearly all of the press releases; as these were produced in relatively
systematic circumstance from 12/4 through 12/16 we may hope that this record is relatively
complete, but their earlier coverage is doubtful. Beyond this, the archives provided
twenty leaflets filed neatly in moderate multiples; and a generous chaos of sixty-five
others in small numbers, equivalent to several personal collections like the others I drew
on, and probably donated as such. (Over half the work in Ron's compilation was
well-duplicated among these resources. Nearly half was not, and a quarter escaped their
coverage completely.)
The FSM's
archives provided also a tar-pit of fossilized text, neatly stratified in mimeograph
stencils laid in absorbent wrappers. Some 226 of the original stencils have been
preserved, bearing the texts of 121 documents -- i.e., of over 40% of the FSM's published
ephemera by count, and rather more by volume, including 80% of the work published from the
sit-in arrests through mid-January. (The details are discussed in a
footnote. Another 50 or so stencils, with 23 documents related to the FSM defendants,
remain to be examined.) In general, though a few are evocatively shabby with wear, the
stencils are in good shape and well-enough preserved to bear further use. The laconic
notes on their headers and wrappers are confined to titles and pagination, with some
dates, which I have integrated in this index without separate verification. Of these 121
documents, 24 are known to me presently only through these stencils. It seems likely that
print copies of some will not be available unless they are reprinted from these stencils.
It's noteable that most (14/20) of the documents (other than press releases) having
multiples preserved in the archive derived from 11/5 to 11/20 and did not also have
stencils preserved.
My first survey
of the Bancroft's holdings occurred after I had surveyed the FSM archives and individual
collections above; and was confined to the material donated by Marston Schultz long ago
(CU -309). This included 108 of the 259 documents indexed previously, plus 27 novel items
-- these statistics suggesting that perhaps another 40 documents remain to be identified.
It is noteable that 90% of the items in Anastasi's original binder were duplicated in
these Bancroft holdings.
This index covers
only the printed ephemera -- leaflets, pamphlets, newsletters, press-releases, etc. --
issued by the FSM itself, as distinguished from its component agencies and supporters.
This category is necessarily somewhat amorphous for so participatory a movement. I have
taken it here to include only work published or authorized by the FSM's central agency --
i.e., by the Steering Committee from 10/7/64 through January 1965, by its predecessor
group from late September on, by its Graduate Coordinating Committee (GCC) replacement
during the sit-in and strike, and by its functional remnant through the spring term until
the FSM's dissolution. Though this distinction is relatively precise, excluding virtually
all ephemera concerned with particular student interest-groups before mid-December, it has
a porous face. For the FSM reproduced many statements from sympathetic agencies, and some
from the not-so-sympathetic, for general consumption, and distributed even more. As its
publishing and distribution capacities developed, it came to serve as co-publisher for
individuals and faculty groups. In retrospect, it's hard to determine whether certain
documents were published, reprinted, or merely distributed by the FSM. I have based my
assignments partly on the residues remaining in the FSM's archives, but even this tangible
evidence is uncertain. I indicate cases of noteable doubt by [FSM??]
Other, parallel
bodies of ephemera -- from the GCC and T.A. unionizing, departmental organizing among
students and faculty, dormitory and Greek-system organizing, and individual and
organizational sympathizers and interpreters -- are included in the broader body of the
FSM's printed discourse, but await systematic inventory. So do the ephemera related to the
FSM defendants and their adventure in the judicial system, which are not indexed here,
save for several public calls in late January and one in August. All together, these are
likely to have been more numerous than the ephemera of the FSM indexed here.
The titles linked
and in boldface indicate leaflets posted on the FSM-A Web-site as digitized text-files.
Italicized titles are are retyped or trivially-variant forms, without content differences.
Save as noted, pages are standard letter-size, mimeographed, and printed on one side only.
(Almost all documents longer than one page are printed on both sides.) At present, 264
distinct texts published by the FSM are indexed here, amounting to 480 pages -- half
sparse, half dense. Their titles sketch the story, in a breathless poetry. In the
chronological index, I have taken advantage of uncertainties in dating to group the titles
in suggestive stanzas.
[Notes on the Stencil
Stash]
A close look at
the stencil archive suggest some grounds of chronology. Its systematic coverage begins on
12/4, with the flurry of press releases counteracting biased reporting of the crisis.
(This methodical activity seems to have inspired the archiving of stencils, and perhaps
required a concentration of publishing capacity that facilitated this.) From this date
through early January, the stencil archive is relatively complete, including 94 of the 117
documents so far identified as mimeographed by the FSM during this period (59 of the 82
gathered from other sources.) On this statistical basis, another dozen may remain to be
identified.
Stencil archiving
on 12/4 was largely confined to press relations, preserving only two documents of the
day's actions; another dozen probably remain to be found. From the thirty-two days
preceding this, only one stencil can be definitely identified as originating (on 12/1.)
Four others that appear so are better identified as later reprints of leaflets for
inclusion in the large document-collections; and several that appear so quite tentatively
are better assigned to the later end of my estimates on the basis of this consistency. As
for the even earlier period, stencils of two documents (10/10? and 11/2) seem to have been
randomly preserved; those of two others seem better identified as later reprints; and
those of three documents concerned with the "repression report" may well have
arrived together from its archivist. At most, the stencil archive includes 7% of the
documents produced before 12/4, and offers no guide to what may be missing from print
collections.
As for
mid-January through April, 1965, the stencil archive preserves a clutch of Civil Rights
documents and three of general campus interest, but only two related to the obscenity
crisis and none concerning the external affairs of the FSM defendants or the transition to
the FSU. If losses do not explain this patchy coverage, it appears that the locus of
leaflet production shifted away from the archiver(s) in mid-January, when systematic
archiving stopped. The nine later Civil Rights leaflets may well have arrived later in a
batch, as their close, unbuffered grouping suggests; and I have tentatively classed them
as not published by the FSM. Besides these, there remain only stencils from three of the
many FSM-related documents in March, which may also have been random additions to the
archive.
Go to
Alphabetical Index of Documents described here