Timeline of World History TIMELINE OF WORLD HISTORY
 
 

TIMELINE OF WORLD HISTORY
 

Loading
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
     
     
 
1800 - 1899
 
 
1800-09 1810-19 1820-29 1830-39 1840-49 1850-59 1860-69 1870-79 1880-89 1890-99
1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890
1801 1811 1821 1831 1841 1851 1861 1871 1881 1891
1802 1812 1822 1832 1842 1852 1862 1872 1882 1892
1803 1813 1823 1833 1843 1853 1863 1873 1883 1893
1804 1814 1824 1834 1844 1854 1864 1874 1884 1894
1805 1815 1825 1835 1845 1855 1865 1875 1885 1895
1806 1816 1826 1836 1846 1856 1866 1876 1886 1896
1807 1817 1827 1837 1847 1857 1867 1877 1887 1897
1808 1818 1828 1838 1848 1858 1868 1878 1888 1898
1809 1819 1829 1839 1849 1859 1869 1879 1889 1899
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS
  BACK-1803 Part I NEXT-1804 Part I    
 
 
     
FitzGerald Edward
1800 - 1809
YEAR BY YEAR:
1800-1809
History at a Glance
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1800 Part I
Battle of Heliopolis
Battle of Marengo
Siege of Malta
Battle of the Malta Convoy
United States presidential election
Plot of the Rue Saint-Nicaise
Moltke Helmuth
Pius VII
Heeren Arnold Hermann Ludwig
Macaulay Thomas Babington
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1800 Part II
Edgeworth Maria
Jean Paul: "Titan"
Schiller: "Maria Stuart"
David: "Mme. Recamier"
Boieldieu: "Le Calife de Bagdad"
Gall Franz Joseph
Phrenology
Trevithick Richard
Voltaic pile
Richmond Bill
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1801 Part I
Act of Union
Treaty of Luneville
Alexander I
Battle of Copenhagen
Gauss: "Disquisitiones arithmeticae"
Newman John Henry
Chateaubriand: "Atala"
Grabbe Christian Dietrich
Nestroy Johann
Schiller: "Die Jungfrau von Orleans"
Robert Southey: "Thalaba the Destroyer"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1801 Part II
David: "Napoleon Crossing the Alps"
Paxton Joseph
Beethoven: "Die Geschopfe des Prometheus"
Beethoven: Piano Sonata 14 "Moonlight Sonata"
Bellini Vincenzo
Vincenzo Bellini - Norma : Sinfonia dell'Opera
Vincenzo Bellini
Haydn: "The Seasons"
Lanner Joseph
Joseph Lanner - Hofball-Tanze
Joseph Lanner
Lortzing Albert
Lortzing "Overture" Der Waffenschmied
Albert Lortzing
Bichat Marie François Xavier
Fulton Robert
Fulton's "Nautilus"
Lalande Jerome
Flinders Matthew
The British in Australia
Union Jack
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1802 Part I
Napoleon president of Italian Republic
Legion of Honour
Napoleon as First Consul for life
Treaty of Amiens
Battle of San Domingo
Kossuth Lajos
Grotefend Georg Friedrich
Dumas Alexandre, pere
Alexandre Dumas
"The Three Musketeers"
Hauff Wilhelm
Hugo Victor
Victor Hugo
"The Hunchback of Notre Dame" 
Lenau Nikolaus
De Stael Germaine
Mme de Stael
"Corinne, Or Italy"
Chateaubriand: "Rene"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1802 Part II
Canova: "Napoleon as Mars the Peacemaker";
Beethoven: Symphony No. 2 in D major, Op.36
Forkel Johann Nikolaus
Treviranus Gottfried Reinhold
Health and Morals of Apprentices Act in Britain
Chimborazo
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1803 Part I
Act of Mediation
Ohio
Louisiana Purchase
Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815)
Emmet Robert
Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803–1805)
Battle of Assaye
Korais Adamantios
Emerson Ralph Waldo
Lancaster Joseph
Bulwer-Lytton Edward George
Merimee Prosper
Porter Jane
Schiller: "Die Braut von Messina"
Tyutchev Fyodor Ivanovich
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1803 Part II
Decamps Alexandre-Gabriel
Alexandre-Gabriel Decamps
Henry Raeburn: "The Macnab"
Semper Gottfried
Turner J.M.W.
J.M.W. Turner
Adam Adolphe
Adolphe Adam   - Giselle
Adolphe Adam
Beethoven: "Kreutzer Sonata"
Berlioz Hector
Berlioz - Harold In Italy
Hector Berlioz
Sussmayr Franz Xaver
Carnot Lazare
Shrapnel Henry
Shrapnel shells
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1804 Part I
Duc d'Enghien
Yashwantrao Holkar
Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Action of 5 October 1804
Disraeli Benjamin
British and Foreign Bible Society
Code Napoleon
Brown Thomas
Feuerbach Ludwig
Sainte-Beuve Charles-Augustin
Hawthorne Nathaniel
Morike Eduard
Sand George
Schiller: "Wilhelm Tell"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1804 Part II
Morland George
George Morland
Schwind Moritz
Moritz von Schwind
Royal Watercolour Society
Beethoven: Symphony No. 3 ("Eroica")
Glinka Mikhail
Glinka "Waltz-Fantasia"
Mikhail Glinka
Strauss Johann, the Elder
Johann Strauss Vater - Lorelei Rhein Klänge Op. 154
Johann Strauss I
Thomas Bewick "History of British Birds"
Wollaston William Hyde
Lewis and Clark Expedition
Lewis Meriwether
Clark William
 Surveying the West
Serturner Friedrich Wilhelm Adam
Dahlia
Hobart
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1805 Part I
Treaty of St. Petersburg
War of the Third Coalition 1805
Mazzini Giuseppe
Battle of Austerlitz
Peace of Pressburg
Muhammad Ali of Egypt
Battle of Trafalgar
NELSON AND THE WAR AT SEA, 1797-1805
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1805 Part II
Ballou Hosea
Andersen Hans Christian
Hans Christian Andersen
"The Fairy Tales"
Walter Scott: "The Lay of the Last Minstrel"
Robert Southey: "Madoc"
Stifter Adalbert
Tocqueville Alexis
Goya: "Dona Isabel Cobos de Procal"
Turner: "Shipwreck"
Gerard: "Madame Recamier"
Beethoven: "Fidelio"
Congreve William
Hamilton William Roman
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1806 Part I
Battle of Blaauwberg
Fox Charles James
Bonaparte Joseph
Bonaparte Louis
War of the Fourth Coalition 1806–1807
Battle of Jena-Auerstadt
Continental System
Greater Poland Uprising of 1806
Confederation of Rhine
The End of the Holy Roman Empire
Treaty of Poznan
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1806 Part II
Adelung Johann Christoph
Mill John Stuart
Jewish consistory
Browning Elizabeth Barrett
Elizabeth Barrett Browning 
"Sonnets from the Portuguese"
Kleist: "Der zerbrochene Krug"
Laube Heinrich
Thorvaldsen: "Hebe"
David Wilkie: "Village Politicians"
Beethoven: Symphony No. 4
Beethoven: Violin Concerto, Op. 61
Arriaga Juan
Juan Crisóstomo de Arriaga - "Agar dans le désert"
Juan Arriaga
Latreille Pierre Andre
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1807 Part I
Battle of Eylau
Battle of Friedland
Treaty of Tilsit
Bonaparte Jerome
Tribunat
Mustafa IV
Chesapeake–Leopard Affair
Embargo Act
Garibaldi Giuseppe
Stein Karl
Gunboat War (1807-1814)
Invasion of Portugal
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1807 Part II
Albright Jacob
Hegel: "Phanomenologie des Geistes"
Hufeland Gottlieb
Charles and Mary Lamb: "Tales from Shakespeare"
Longfellow Henry Wadsworth
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
"The Song of Hiawatha"
Vischer Friedrich Theodor
Wordsworth: "Ode on Intimations of Immortality"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1807 Part III
David: "Coronation of Napoleon"
Zeshin Shibata
Beethoven: Coriolan Overture
Beethoven: "Leonora Overture" No. 3
Beethoven: "Appassionata"
Etienne Nicolas Mehul: "Joseph"
Spontini Gaspare
Spontini - La vestale
Gaspare Spontini
Bell Charles
Bonpland Aime Jacques Alexandre
Thompson David
Ascot Gold Cup
Slave Trade Act 1807
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1808 Part I
Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves
Peninsular War (1807–1814)
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1808 Part II
Erfurt Congress
Napoleon III
Fries Jakob Friedrich
Goethe: "Faust"
Kleist: "Das Katchen von Heilbronn"
Walter Scott: "Marmion"
Arnim and Brentano: "Des Knaben Wunderhorn"
Achim Ludwig
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1808 Part III
Daumier Honore
Honore Daumier
Caspar Friedrich: "The Cross on the Mountains"
Goya: "Execution of the Citizens of Madrid"
Ingres: "Oedipus and the Sphinx"
Spitzweg Carl
Carl Spitzweg
Philipp Otto Runge: "The Morning"
Beethoven: Symphonies No. 5
Beethoven: Symphonies No. 6 "Pastoral"
Gay-Lussac Joseph-Louis
Goethe and Napoleon meet at Erfurt
Robinson Henry Crabb
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1809 Part I
Treaty of Dardanelles
Invasion of Martinique
War of the Fifth Coalition
Battle of Wagram
Peace of Schonbrunn
Gladstone William Ewart
Charles XIII
Treaty of Amritsar
Napoleon annexes Papal States
Lincoln Abraham
Abraham Lincoln
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1809 Part II
Darwin Charles
Charles Darwin
On the Origin of Species by Natural selection
Ricardo David
Campbell Thomas
Thomas Campbell: "Gertrude of Wyoming"
FitzGerald Edward
Goethe: "The Elective Affinities"
Gogol Nikolai
Krylov Ivan
Рое Edgar Allan
Edgar Allan Poe
"Ligeia"
"The Raven"
"The Fall of the House of Usher"
Tennyson Alfred
Alfred Tennyson
"Idylls of the King"
"Lady of Shalott", "Sir Galahad"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1809 Part III
Caspar Friedrich: "Monk by the Sea"
Flandrin Jean-Hippolyte
Hippolyte Flandrin
Beethoven: Piano Concerto No. 5
Mendelssohn Felix
Mendelssohn - String Symphony No. 10 in B minor
Felix Mendelssohn
Spontini: "Fernand Cortez"
Maclure William
Sommerring Samuel Thomas
Braille Louis
Braille
Seton Elizabeth
 
 
 

Turner. "Calais Pier". 1803
 
 
 
 
 HISTORY, RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, ART, LITERATURE, MUSIC, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, DAILY LIFE
 
 
 
 
YEAR BY YEAR:  1800 - 1899
 
 
 
1803 Part II
 
 
 
1803
 
 
Decamps Alexandre-Gabriel
 

Alexandre-Gabriel Decamps (March 3, 1803 – August 22, 1860) was a French painter.

 

Alexandre-Gabriel Decamps. Self-Portrait
  He was born in Paris. In his youth he travelled in the East, and reproduced Oriental life and scenery with a bold fidelity to nature that puzzled conventional critics. His powers, however, soon came to be recognized, and he was ranked along with Delacroix and Ingres as one of the leaders of the French school. At the Paris Exhibition of 1855 he received the grand or council medal. Most of his life was passed in the neighborhood of Paris. He was fond of animals, especially dogs, and indulged in all kinds of field sports. He died in 1860 in consequence of being thrown from a horse while hunting at Fontainebleau.

Decamps' style was characteristically and intensely French. It was marked by vivid dramatic conception, bold and even rough brushstrokes, and startling contrasts of color and of light and shade. His subjects embraced an unusually wide range. He availed himself of his travels in the East in dealing with scenes from Scripture history, which he was probably the first of European painters to represent with their true and natural local background. Of this class were his Joseph sold by his Brethren, Moses taken from the Nile, and his scenes from the life of Samson, nine vigorous sketches in charcoal and white.

Perhaps the most impressive of his historical pictures is Defeat of the Cimbri, representing the conflict between a horde of barbarians and a disciplined army. Decamps produced a number of genre pictures, chiefly scenes from French and Turkish domestic life, the most marked feature of which is humour.

 
 
The same characteristic attaches to many of his numerous animal paintings; Decamps was especially fond of painting monkeys. His well-known painting The Monkey Connoisseurs satirizes the jury of the French Academy of Painting, which had rejected several of his earlier works on account of their divergence from any known standard.

The pictures and sketches of Decamps were first made familiar to the English public through the lithographs of Eugene Ie Rouit.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 

Turkish Children Playing with a Tortoise
 
 
 
     
 
Alexandre-Gabriel Decamps
     
 
 
     
  Neoclassicism and Romanticism
Realism, Impressionism and
Post-Impressionism
Symbolism
     
 
 
 
1803
 
 
Henry Raeburn: "The Macnab"
 
 

Raeburn Henry. "The Macnab"
 
 
 
     
 
Henry Raeburn
     
 
 
     
  Neoclassicism and Romanticism
Realism, Impressionism and
Post-Impressionism
Symbolism
     
 
 
 
1803
 
 
Semper Gottfried
 

Gottfried Semper, (born Nov. 29, 1803, Hamburg—died May 15, 1879, Rome), architect and writer on art who was among the principal practitioners of the Neo-Renaissance style in Germany and Austria.

 

Gottfried Semper
  Semper studied in Munich and Paris and from 1826 to 1830 travelled in Italy and Greece, studying classical architecture. He practiced architecture in Dresden from 1834 until 1849, when, because of revolutionary activities, he was forced into exile to Paris and London.

He headed the architecture department of Zürich Polytechnikum und Yorstand der Bauschule (1855–71) and between 1871 and 1876 participated in the rebuilding of Vienna. His work marks the transition away from the Neoclassicism of his friend Karl Friedrich Schinkel.

As an eclectic, Semper achieved powerful design solutions. Among his main works are the Opera House (Dresden; 1837–41, rebuilt 1878); the Zürich Polytechnikum (1858–64); and, with Karl von Hasenauer, the Burgtheater (1874–88) and the two imperial museums (1872–81), all in Vienna. In his influential writings, principally Der Stil in den technischen und tektonischen Künsten (1860–63; “Style in the Technical and Tectonic Arts”) he stressed a rational interpretation of techniques as a source of style, and recommended the use of colour in decorative arts and architecture.

Encyclopædia Britannica
 
 

Dresden, Interior of the first Hoftheater (Semper Oper)
 
 

Polytechnikum in 1865
 
 

The Semper Synagogue c. 1860
 
 
     
  Neoclassicism and Romanticism
Realism, Impressionism and
Post-Impressionism
Symbolism
     
 
 
 
1803
 
 
Turner J.M.W.
 

J.M.W. Turner, in full Joseph Mallord William Turner (born April 23, 1775, London, Eng.—died Dec. 19, 1851, London), English Romantic landscape painter whose expressionistic studies of light, colour, and atmosphere were unmatched in their range and sublimity.

 

J.M.W. Turner. Self-Portrait. 1799
  Early life and works
Turner was the son of a barber. At age 10 he was sent to live with an uncle at Brentford, Middlesex, where he attended school. Several drawings dated as early as 1787 are sufficiently professional to corroborate the tradition that his father sold the boy’s work to his customers. Turner entered the Royal Academy schools in 1789 and soon began exhibiting his watercolours there. From 1792 he spent his summers touring the country in search of subjects, filling his sketchbooks with drawings to be worked up later into finished watercolours. His early work is topographical (concerned with the accurate depiction of places) in character and traditional in technique, imitating the best English masters of the day. In 1794 Turner began working for engravers, supplying designs for the Copper Plate Magazine and the Pocket Magazine. He was also employed to make copies or elaborations of unfinished drawings by the recently deceased landscape painter John Robert Cozens. The influence of Cozens and of the Welsh landscape painter Richard Wilson helped broaden Turner’s outlook and revealed to him a more poetic and imaginative approach to landscape, which he would pursue to the end of his career with ever-increasing brilliance. From 1796 Turner exhibited oil paintings as well as watercolours at the Royal Academy. The first, Fishermen at Sea (1796), is a moonlight scene and was acclaimed by a contemporary critic as the work “of an original mind.” In 1799, at the youngest permitted age (24), Turner was elected an associate of the Royal Academy, and in 1802 he became a full academician, a dignity he marked by a series of large pictures in which he emulated the achievements of the Old Masters, especially the 17th-century painters Nicolas Poussin, Claude Lorrain, Aelbert Cuyp, and Willem van de Velde the Younger. In 1807 he was appointed professor of perspective.
 
 
Turner’s private life, such as it was, was secretive, unsociable, and somewhat eccentric. In 1798 he entered into an affair, which was to last about 10 years, with Sarah Danby, a widow who probably bore him two children. In 1800 Turner’s mother became hopelessly ill and was committed to a mental hospital. His father went to live with him and devoted the rest of his life to serving as his son’s studio assistant and general agent. Also about 1800 Turner took a studio at 64 Harley Street, London, and in 1804 he opened a private gallery, where he continued to show his latest work for many seasons. He was by this time overwhelmed with commissions, and the success of his career was assured.
 
 
Turner continued to travel in search of inspiration. He visited Wales in 1792, 1795, and 1798, Yorkshire and the Lake District in 1797, the Midlands in 1794, Scotland in 1801, and the European continent for the first time in 1802. The crossing to Calais was rough, and in his picture Calais Pier (1802–03) he left a vivid record of his experience upon arrival. He made more than 400 drawings during this tour of France and Switzerland and continued for many years to paint pictures of scenes that had impressed him on the trip. He also studied the Old Masters at the Louvre.

Turner’s many marine subjects, in which he dramatically builds upon the foundation of the Dutch 17th-century tradition, reveal his methodical attempt to master every landscape style he admired and the ease with which he accomplished this. The rivalry he felt with painters who had influenced his style is suggested by his bequest to the National Gallery of his Dido Building Carthage, or the Rise of the Carthaginian Empire (1815) and Sun Rising Through Vapour: Fishermen Cleaning and Selling Fish (1807) on condition that they be hung beside his two favourite Claudes. However, the treatment of landscape in the Thames oil sketches of about 1805 and in The Shipwreck (1805) suggests that at this time Turner was developing his original approach to landscape—emphasizing luminosity, atmosphere, and Romantic, dramatic subjects.

In 1807 Turner began his great enterprise of publishing a series of 100 plates known as the Liber Studiorum, inspired, in part, by Claude’s own studio record, Liber veritatis (begun in 1635 and continued until his death in 1682). Turner’s aim was to document the great variety and range of landscape; some of the subjects were taken from his own existing paintings and watercolours. He employed several engravers, although he supervised the work at every stage, etched some of the plates himself, and made innumerable preparatory drawings. The publication was issued in parts consisting of five plates each and covering all the styles of landscape composition, including historical, architectural, mountainous, pastoral, and marine. The first part appeared in June 1807 and the last in 1819, when Turner evidently lost interest in the project and abandoned it after the publication of 71 plates.

  Middle years
During the second decade of the 1800s, Turner’s painting became increasingly luminous and atmospheric in quality. Even in paintings of actual places, such as St. Mawes at the Pilchard Season (1812), the hard facts of topography are diffused behind pearly films of colour; other pictures, such as Frosty Morning (1813), are based entirely on effects of light.

In works such as Snowstorm: Hannibal Crossing the Alps (1812), Turner used the power of natural forces to lend drama to historical events. Turner was much in demand as a painter of castles and countryseats for their owners, while he also continued to excel in marine painting. Turner’s masterpiece of this period is the Dort, or Dortrecht: The Dort Packet Boat from Rotterdam Becalmed (1817–18), a tribute to Cuyp.

With Dido and Aeneas, Leaving Carthage on the Morning of the Chase (1814), Turner began a series of Carthaginian subjects. The last exhibitions of his life, at the academy in 1850, included four works on the same theme. By appending long poetic quotations from James Thomson’s Seasons (1726), from works by Lord Byron, John Milton, William Shakespeare, and Alexander Pope, or attributed to his own poetic composition Fallacies of Hope (never completed), Turner showed that he regarded the literary-historical interpretation of his works as being of paramount importance.

The coming of peace in 1815 allowed Turner to travel abroad. After a trip to the field of Waterloo and the Rhine in 1817, Turner set out in the summer of 1819 on his first visit to Italy. He spent three months in Rome—also visiting Naples, Florence, and Venice—and returned home in midwinter. During his journey he made about 1,500 drawings, and in the next few years he painted a series of pictures inspired by what he had seen. They show a great advance in his style, particularly in the matter of colour, which became purer and more prismatic, with a general heightening of key.

A comparison of The Bay of Baiae, with Apollo and the Sibyl (1823) with any of the earlier pictures reveals a far more iridescent treatment resembling the transparency of a watercolour. The shadows are as colourful as the lights, and he achieves contrasts by setting off cold and warm colours instead of dark and light tones.

 
 
During the 1820s Turner alternated tours of the continent with visits to various parts of England and Scotland. In 1827 he painted brilliant sketches of the regatta at Cowes, and in 1828 he went to Italy again. From 1828, and particularly after his father’s death in 1829, Turner often visited the earl of Egremont at Petworth, Sussex, producing splendid sketches of the earl’s house and its gardens.
 
 
Later life and works
In the later years of his life, Turner was more famous, rich, and secretive than ever. After several years of inactivity as professor of perspective at the Royal Academy, he resigned in 1838. By 1846 he owned a house by the river at Chelsea, where he lived with a widow, Sophia Caroline Booth, assuming her surname. Turner continued to travel. In the last 15 years of his life, he visited Italy, Switzerland, Germany, and France. Observers have recorded the untiring energy with which he sketched while abroad, and the drawings, numbering about 19,000 in the Turner Bequest, bear witness to this labour.

While Turner’s earlier paintings and drawings show the most accurate observation of architectural and natural detail, in his later work this precision is sacrificed to general effects of colour and light with the barest indication of mass. His composition tends to become more fluid, suggesting movement and space; some of his paintings are mere colour notations, barely tinted on a white ground, such as Norham Castle, Sunrise and Sunrise, with a Boat Between Headlands (both from c. 1840–50). This approach may account for the large number of slightly brushed-in canvases found in Turner’s studio at the time of his death. These colourful abstractions are often more appreciated at the turn of the 21st century than the historical and mythological subjects he exhibited.

Apart from fanciful reconstructions of ancient Rome and the scintillating Venetian cityscapes, which found ready purchasers in his day, the outstanding examples of his late work are The ‘Fighting Téméraire’ Tugged to

  Her Last Berth to Be Broken Up, 1838 (1839), a tribute to the passing age of sailing ships as they were about to be replaced by steam-powered vessels, and Rain, Steam, and Speed—the Great Western Railway (1844), which expresses Turner’s intense interest in the changes brought by the Industrial Revolution. The first of his pictures to be hung in Britain’s National Gallery was the opalescent The Dogana, San Giorgio Citella, from the Steps of the Europa (1842), presented in 1847, while Turner was still alive. Turner’s preoccupation with the dramatic elements of fire and water appears in the two versions of Burning of the Houses of Lords and Commons (1835), in the large sketch A Fire at Sea (c. 1835), and in Rockets and Blue Lights (1840).

Turner died in Chelsea in 1851 and was buried in St. Paul’s Cathedral. By his will he intended to leave most of his fortune of £140,000 to found a charity for “decayed artists,” and he bequeathed his finished paintings to the National Gallery, on condition that a separate gallery be built to exhibit them. As a result of protracted litigation with his rather distant relatives, most of the money reverted to them, while both finished and unfinished paintings and drawings became national property as the Turner Bequest. It was not until 1908 that a special gallery was built by Sir Joseph Duveen to house some of the oil paintings at the Tate Gallery. All the drawings and watercolours were transferred to the British Museum for safety after the River Thames flood of 1928, when the storerooms at the Tate Gallery were inundated, but they were returned to the Tate Gallery on the opening of the Clore Gallery, an addition designed by James Stirling expressly for that purpose, in 1987. A few of the oil paintings remain at the National Gallery.

 
 
Assessment
Turner was perhaps the greatest landscapist of the 19th century. Although brought up in the academic traditions of the 18th century, he became a pioneer in the study of light, colour, and atmosphere. He anticipated the French Impressionists in breaking down conventional formulas of representation; but, unlike them, he believed that his works should always express significant historical, mythological, literary, or other narrative themes. A line of development can be traced from his early historical landscapes that form settings for important human subjects to his later concentration on the dramatic aspects of sea and sky. Even without figures, these late works are expressions of important subjects: the relationship of man to his environment, the power of nature as manifested in the terror of the storm or the beneficence of the sun. Unmatched in his time in the range of his development, Turner was also unrivaled in the breadth of his subject matter and the searching innovation of his stylistic treatment.

Early in the 19th century, Turner was strongly criticized by conservative critics for his dynamic compositions and high-keyed colour. By the end of his life, although his Venetian subjects and more finished watercolours still appealed to some purchasers, his concern with atmospheric effects had developed along lines that departed from the trend in contemporary taste for realism and high finish, typified by the popularity of complex narrative painting. Turner’s growing reputation in the second half of the 19th century was in fact largely due to the championship of the influential English art critic John Ruskin, who published the first part of Modern Painters in 1843 to prove Turner’s superiority to all previous landscape painters and to extol his accurate rendering of natural appearance. In the 20th century a new appreciation of the abstract qualities of Turner’s late colour compositions strengthened his status as one of the most innovative and technically gifted painters of his century.

Martin R.F. Butlin
Mary Chamot

Encyclopædia Britannica
 
 
Turner: "Calais Pier," 1803
 
 

Turner. "Calais Pier". 1803
 
 

Turner. "Calais Pier". (detail)
 
 
 
     
 
J.M.W. Turner
     
 
 
     
  Neoclassicism and Romanticism
Realism, Impressionism and
Post-Impressionism
Symbolism
     
 
 
 
1803
 
 
Adam Adolphe
 
Adolphe Charles Adam (24 July 1803 – 3 May 1856) was a French composer and music critic. A prolific composer of operas and ballets, he is best known today for his ballets Giselle (1841) and Le corsaire (1856, his last work), his operas Le postillon de Lonjumeau (1836), Le toréador (1849) and Si j'étais roi (1852) and his Christmas carol Minuit, chrétiens! (1844), later set to different English lyrics and widely sung as "O Holy Night" (1847). Adam was a noted teacher, who taught Delibes and other influential composers.
 

Adolphe Charles Adam
  Life and career
Adolphe Adam was born in Paris to Jean-Louis Adam (1758–1848), who was a prominent Alsatian composer, as well a professor at the Paris Conservatoire. His mother was the daughter of a physician. As a child, Adolphe Adam preferred to improvise music on his own rather than study music seriously and occasionally truanted with writer Eugène Sue who was also something of a dunce in early years. Jean-Louis Adam was a pianist and teacher but was firmly set against the idea of his son following in his footsteps. Adam was determined, however, and studied and composed secretly under the tutelage of his older friend Ferdinand Hérold, a popular composer of the day. When Adam was 17, his father relented, and he was permitted to study at the Paris Conservatoire—but only after he promised that he would learn music only as an amusement, not as a career. He entered the Paris Conservatoire in 1821, where he studied organ and harmonium under the celebrated opera composer François-Adrien Boieldieu. Adam also played the tympani in the orchestra of the Conservatoire; however, he did not win the Prix de Rome and his father did not encourage him to pursue a music career, as he won second prize.

By age 20, he was writing songs for Paris vaudeville houses and playing in the orchestra at the Gymnasie Dramatique, where he later became chorus master.

 
 

Like many other French composers, he made a living largely by playing the organ. In 1825, he helped Boieldieu prepare parts for his opera La dame blanche and made a piano reduction of the score. Adam was able to travel through Europe with the money he made, and he met Eugène Scribe, with whom he later collaborated, in Geneva. By 1830, he had completed twenty-eight works for the theatre.

Adam is probably best remembered for the ballet Giselle (1841). He wrote several other ballets and 39 operas, including Le postillon de Lonjumeau (1836) and Si j'étais roi (1852).

After quarreling with the director of the Opéra, Adam invested his money and borrowed heavily to open a fourth opera house in Paris: the Théâtre National (Opéra-National). It opened in 1847, but closed because of the Revolution of 1848, leaving Adam with massive debts (Théâtre National later was resurrected under the name of Théâtre Lyrique at the Boulevard du Temple). His efforts to extricate himself from these debts include a brief turn to journalism. From 1849 to his death in Paris, he taught composition at the Paris Conservatoire.

His Christmas carol "Cantique de Noël", translated to English as "O Holy Night", is an international favorite, and is said to have been the first music broadcast on radio.

Adam is buried in Montmartre Cemetery in Paris.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
 
Adolphe Adam - Giselle
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
Adolphe Adam
     
 
 
     
  Classical Music Timeline

Instruments Through the Ages

Classical Music History - Composers and Masterworks
     
 
 
 
1803
 
 
Beethoven: "Kreutzer Sonata"
 

The Violin Sonata No. 9 of Beethoven Ludwig, commonly known as the Kreutzer Sonata, was published as Beethoven's Opus 47. It is known for its demanding violin part, unusual length (a typical performance lasts slightly less than 40 minutes), and emotional scope — while the first movement is predominantly furious, the second is meditative and the third joyous and exuberant.

 
Composition
The sonata was originally dedicated to the violinist George Bridgetower (1778–1860), who performed it with Beethoven at the premiere on 24 May 1803 at the Augarten Theatre at a concert that started at the unusually early hour of 8:00 am. Bridgetower sight-read the sonata; he had never seen the work before, and there had been no time for any rehearsal. However, research indicates that after the performance, while the two were drinking, Bridgetower insulted the morals of a woman whom Beethoven cherished. Enraged, Beethoven removed the dedication of the piece, dedicating it instead to Rodolphe Kreutzer, who was considered the finest violinist of the day.
However, Kreutzer never performed it, considering it "outrageously unintelligible". He did not particularly care for any of Beethoven's music, and they only ever met once, briefly.
 
Front page of an original edition of the Kreutzer Sonata
 
 
Sources suggest the work was originally titled "Sonata mulattica composta per il mulatto Brischdauer [Bridgetower], gran pazzo e compositore mulattico" (Mulatto Sonata composed for the mulatto Brischdauer, big wild mulatto composer), and in the composer's 1803 sketchbook, as a "Sonata per il Pianoforte ed uno violino obligato in uno stile molto concertante come d’un concerto".
 
 
Key
Beethoven gave no key designation. Although the work is usually titled as being in A-major, the Austrian composer and music theoretician Gerhard Präsent has published articles indicating that the main key is in fact A-minor. Präsent has revealed interesting connections to the 6th violin sonata op.30/1, for which the third movement was originally composed, and he believes that the unusual opening bars for solo violin form a kind of transition from the earlier sonata (or from its structural material), supporting the belief that the acquisition of the finale of op.30/1 for the "Kreutzer" was a compositional intention — and not a result of lack of time, as long suspected.
 
 
Structure
The piece is in three movements, and takes approximately 43 minutes to perform:

Adagio sostenuto - Presto - Adagio (about 15 minutes in length)
Andante con variazioni (about 18 minutes)
Presto (about 10 minutes)
The sonata opens with a slow 18-bar introduction, of which only the first four bars of the solo violin are in the A-Major-key. The piano enters, and the harmony begins to turn darker towards the minor key, until the main body of the movement — an angry A-minor Presto— begins. Here, the piano part matches the violin's in terms of difficulty. Near the end, Beethoven brings back part of the opening Adagio, before closing the movement in an anguished coda. There could hardly be a greater contrast with the second movement, a placid tune in F major followed by five distinctive variations. The first variation transliterates the theme into a lively triple meter while embellishing it with trills, while in the second the violin steals the melody and enlivens it even further. The third variation, in the minor, returns to a darker and more meditative state. The fourth recalls the first and second variations with its light, ornamental, and airy feel. The fifth and final variation, the longest, caps the movement with a slower and more dramatic feel, nevertheless returning to the carefree F major.

 
Kreutzer Sonata, painting by René François Xavier Prinet (1901), based on Tolstoy's novella, The Kreutzer Sonata
 
 

The calm is broken by a crashing A major chord in the piano, ushering in the virtuosic and exuberant third movement, a 6/8 tarantella in rondo form. After moving through a series of slightly contrasting episodes, the theme returns for the last time, and the work ends jubilantly in a rush of A major.

This finale was originally composed for another, earlier, sonata for violin and piano by Beethoven, the Op. 30, no. 1, in A major.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
 
Beethoven - Violin Sonata No.9 - "Kreutzer"
 
Oistrakh/Oborin - Beethoven Violin Sonata No.9, Op.47 'Kreutzer'
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
Ludwig van Beethoven
     
 
 
     
  Classical Music Timeline

Instruments Through the Ages

Classical Music History - Composers and Masterworks
     
 
 
 
1803
 
 
Berlioz Hector
 

Hector Berlioz, in full Louis-Hector Berlioz (born December 11, 1803, La Côte-Saint-André, France—died March 8, 1869, Paris), French composer, critic, and conductor of the Romantic period, known largely for his Symphonie fantastique (1830), the choral symphony Roméo et Juliette (1839), and the dramatic piece La Damnation de Faust (1846). His last years were marked by fame abroad and hostility at home.

 

Hector Berlioz
  Early career
The birthplace of Berlioz was a village about 35 miles (56 km) northwest of Grenoble in the French Alps. France was at war; the schools were disrupted; and Berlioz received his education from his father, an enlightened and cultured physician, who gave him his first lessons in music as well as in Latin. But, like many composers, Berlioz received in his early years little formal training in music. He worked out for himself the elements of harmony and by his 12th year was composing for local chamber-music groups. With help from performers, he learned to play the flute and the guitar, becoming a virtuoso on the latter.

In 1821 his father sent him to Paris to study medicine, and for a year he followed his courses faithfully enough to obtain his first degree in science. He took every opportunity to go to the Paris-Opéra, however, where he studied, score in hand, the whole repertory, in which the works of Gluck had for him the most appeal and authority. His musical vocation had become so clear in his mind that he contrived to be accepted as a pupil of Jean-François Lesueur, professor of composition at the Paris Conservatoire. This led to disagreements between Berlioz and his parents that embittered nearly eight years of his life.

He persevered, took the obligatory courses at the Conservatoire, and in 1830 won the Prix de Rome, having received second prize in an earlier competition.

 
 
These successes pacified his family but were, in a sense, incidental to his career, for in the same year he had finished and obtained a performance of his first great score, which is also a seminal work in 19th-century music, the Symphonie fantastique.

It was in some respects unfortunate that, instead of being able to follow up this success, Berlioz was required, under the terms of his prize, to spend three years abroad, two of them in Italy. During his long Paris apprenticeship, he had experienced the “revelation” of two modern musicians, Beethoven and Weber, and of two great poets, Shakespeare and Goethe. He had meanwhile fallen in love, at a distance, with Harriet Smithson, a Shakespearean actress who had taken Paris by storm; and, on the rebound from this rather one-sided attachment, he had become engaged to a brilliant and beautiful pianist, Camille Moke (later Mme Pleyel). In leaving Paris, Berlioz was not only leaving a flirtatious fiancée and the artistic environment that had stimulated his powers; he was also leaving the opportunity to demonstrate what his genius saw that modern French music should be. The public was content with the “Paris school,” dating back to the 1780s, and there is evidence that all Europe (including the Vienna of Beethoven and Schubert) accepted the productions of André Grétry, Étienne Méhul, Luigi Cherubini, and their followers as leading the musical world.
 
 

Painting of a young Berlioz by Émile Signol, 1832.
  Berlioz wanted to bring forward the work of Weber and Beethoven (including the last quartets) and add contributions of his own. He also preached, for the sake of dramatic expression in music, a return to the master of the stage, Gluck, whose works he knew by heart. These three musicians were all in some sense dramatists, and to Berlioz music must first and foremost be dramatically expressive. This doctrine he had begun to expound in his first musical reviews, as early as 1823, and, with the sharpness and strength of an early vision, it remained the artistic creed of his mature years. When one understands its intellectual and intuitive basis, one understands also the reasons for his dynamic career. What may look like self-seeking—the unceasing effort to have his music played—was, in fact, the dedication of his tremendous energies to a cause, often at the expense of his own creative work. The result of his many journeys to Germany, Belgium, England, Russia, and Austria-Hungary was that he taught the leading orchestras of Europe a new style and, through them, taught a new idiom to the young composers and critics who flocked wherever he went. Before these “campaigns” began, however, Berlioz had his time of reflection in Italy. He wrote in his Mémoires (1870) how unproductive he was after the rich output of the Paris years, which had brought forth an oratorio, numerous cantatas, two dozen songs, a mass, part of an opera, two overtures, a fantasia on Shakespeare’s Tempest, and eight scenes from Goethe’s Faust, as well as the Symphonie fantastique.
 
 
Even in Italy, however, Berlioz filled notebooks, met the Russian composer Mikhail Glinka, made a lifelong friend of Mendelssohn, and tramped the hills with his guitar over his shoulder, playing for the peasants and banditti whose meals he shared. The impressions gathered in Italy remained a source of both musical and dramatic inspiration down to the last of his works, Les Troyens and Béatrice et Bénédict (first performed 1862). Meanwhile, his love affair stagnating and his impatience with life at the Villa Medici in Rome becoming acute, he returned to France after 18 months and forfeited part of his prize.
 
 

Crop of a carte de visite photo of Hector Berlioz by Franck, Paris, c. 1855
  Mature career
Back in Paris, he set about conquering it anew. He put together a collection of earlier pieces in a form then fashionable, the monodrama, or recitation by one actor interspersed with musical scenes. Since the Symphonie fantastique had ended with the death and demonic torments of the protagonist, Berlioz called his new work Le Retour à la vie (later Lélio, after the hero’s name). First performed in 1832, this concoction, which contains three or four delightful pieces, enjoyed great success, and Berlioz had reason to think himself launched again.

A series of accidents brought him in touch with the actress Harriet Smithson, whom he married on October 3, 1833. The marriage did not last, though for some years the couple led a peaceful existence at Montmartre in the house that Maurice Utrillo later never tired of painting. Among the visitors there were the young poets and musicians of the Romantic movement, including Alfred de Vigny and Chopin. It was there that Berlioz’s only child, Louis, was born and also where he composed his great Requiem, the Grande Messe des morts (1837), the symphonies Harold en Italie (1834) and Roméo et Juliette (1839), and the opera Benvenuto Cellini (Paris, 1838).

It was after the premiere of Harold en Italie that Berlioz had the astonishing experience of seeing the famous violin virtuoso Paganini fall at his feet and declare that he was a genius destined to carry on the new musical tradition initiated by Beethoven.
The next day Berlioz received 20,000 francs with a letter from Paganini repeating this judgment. Using the money to free himself from journalistic drudgery, Berlioz composed the choral symphony Roméo et Juliette, dedicated to Paganini.

 
 
In Paris it was always expected that a composer, regardless of his bent, should be tested at the Opéra. Berlioz’s friends intrigued to procure the assignment of a libretto. An adaptation of Benvenuto Cellini’s autobiography was secured, and Berlioz finished his score in a short time. The intrigue now passed to the other side, which saw to it that the production of Benvenuto Cellini at the Opéra failed. From this blow the work itself and the composer’s reputation in France never recovered during his lifetime. The score is a masterpiece, and the attribution of the failure to the libretto shows ignorance of the qualities of both the libretto and the music.
 
 


Pencil drawing of Berlioz,
by Alphonse Legros, c.1860

  The Requiem of 1837 had been a government commission for a ceremonial occasion designed to encourage the Rome laureate. The request to compose another work for a public ceremony—the Symphonie funèbre et triomphale (Funeral Symphony) for military band, chorus, and strings, commissioned for the 10th anniversary of the July Revolution (1840)—was intended as a partial solace for the defeat of Benvenuto Cellini.

A few years before, Berlioz’s literary gifts had won him the post of music critic for the leading Paris newspaper, the Journal des Débats, and his employers wielded political influence. Once again, there were intrigues, but the score of the Funeral Symphony was ready for the inauguration of the Bastille column.

Unfortunately, the music was drowned out by the drum corps, a disaster that Berlioz repaired by giving the work the following month at a concert hall. This was the score that Wagner, then seeking fame in Paris, admired so wholeheartedly.

Berlioz was able to put Wagner in the way of some musical journalism and thus began a fitful connection of 30 years between the two men whose influence on modern music still resembles a battle of ideals: Berlioz aiming at the creation of drama in and through music alone; Wagner at marriage of symphony with opera. Although Berlioz and Wagner met again in London in 1855 and found each other congenial, their philosophical differences generally kept them apart.

 
 
After 1840 Berlioz’s life consisted of a series of tours across Europe. The last of these was an exhausting series of concerts in St. Petersburg and Moscow in 1867, when he was desperately ill. But it had the effect of introducing the Russian Five, notably Mussorgsky, to his style through his manuscript scores and his conducting. For Berlioz was the first of the virtuoso conductors, having made himself such in order to supply the deficiencies of men who were unable to direct the new music according to the new canon: play what is written. Moreover, the rhythmical difficulties of his scores and the unfamiliar curve of his melodies disconcerted many. The orchestras themselves had to be taught a new precision, vigour, and ensemble, and this was Berlioz’s handiwork. Wagner’s memoirs bear testimony to this “revelation of a new world,” which he experienced at Berlioz’s hands in 1839.
 
 

Berlioz by Pierre Petit
  On orchestration itself (and, even more important, on instrumentation) Berlioz produced the leading treatise, Traité d’instrumentation et d’orchestration modernes (1844). Much more than a technical handbook, it served later generations as an introduction to the aesthetics of expressiveness in music.
As Albert Schweitzer has shown, its principle is as applicable to Bach as to Berlioz, and it is in no way governed by considerations of so-called program music. To this last-named genre of dubious repute, Berlioz did not contribute more than the printed “story” of his first symphony, which is intelligible as music, without any program.

Among Berlioz’s dramatic works, two became internationally known: La Damnation de Faust (1846) and L’Enfance du Christ (1854). Two others began to emerge from neglect after World War I: the massive two-part drama Les Troyens (1855–58), based on Virgil’s story of Dido and Aeneas, and the short, witty comedy Béatrice et Bénédict, written between 1860 and 1862 and based on Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing.

For all these Berlioz wrote his own librettos. He also wrote a Te Deum (1849; perfomed 1855), which is a fitting counterpart to the Requiem, and between 1843 and 1856 he orchestrated his songs, including the song cycle Les Nuits d’été (Summer Nights). Among his best known overtures are Le Roi Lear (1831), Le Carnaval romain (1844), based on material from Benvenuto Cellini, and Le Corsaire (1831–52).

 
 
In Berlioz’s final years he was incapacitated by illness and saddened by many deaths. His first wife, from whom he was separated but to whom he still felt a deep attachment, died in 1854; his second wife, Maria Recio, who had been his companion for many years and whom he had married when he became a widower, died suddenly in 1862. Finally, his son, Louis, who was a sea captain and on whom he concentrated the affection of his declining years, died of yellow fever in Havana at the age of 33.
 
 


Last photograph of Berlioz, 1868

  Assessment
The outstanding characteristics of Berlioz’s music—its dramatic expressiveness and variety—account for the feeling of attraction or repulsion that it produces in the listener. Its variety also means that devotees of one work may dislike others, as one finds lovers of Shakespeare who detest Othello. But Berlioz also presents a particular difficulty of musicianship in being closer to the true sources of music than to its German, Italian, or French conventions; his melody is abundant and extended and is often disconcerting to the lover of four-bar phrases; his harmony may be obvious or subtle, but it is always functional and frequently depends on elements of timbre; his modulations can be harsh and may even seem harsher than they would in another composer, because he uses his effects sparingly and achieves much by small means and adroit contrasts. This is also true of his orchestration, generally light and transparent, never pasty. As George Bernard Shaw said: “Call no conductor sensitive in the highest degree to musical impressions until you have heard him in Berlioz and Mozart.”

The Belgian composer César Franck once said that Berlioz’s whole output is made up of masterpieces.
 
He meant by this that each of the composer’s dozen great works was the realization of a conception distinct from all the others, rather than successive efforts to attain perfection in the last or best of a series. Franck’s judgment is borne out by the fact that, unlike many composers, Berlioz almost never repeats himself. Rather, he created a fresh style for each of his subjects, with the result that familiarity with one is no guarantee of ready access to another. Nothing could be less alike than the Symphonie funèbre et triomphale and Roméo et Juliette or than the Requiem and L’Enfance du Christ. To be sure, Berlioz’s harmonic system seems the same throughout, partly because it deviates so noticeably from common expectation and partly because its nuances are only now being appreciated for what they are, instead of being looked upon as clumsy attempts to do something else. Again, his melody and free counterpoint everywhere carry his mark—the sinewy originality and dynamic equilibrium of the former, the ingeniously careless independence of the latter. Yet, out of these characteristic elements Berlioz makes a radically different atmosphere for each of his dramas and within them for each of his dramatis personae. Only a repeated hearing of any given work discloses all the power and art (including what would now be called psychology) that it contains. This does not mean that these works are without flaw; it does mean that they embody unique conceptions, to be taken for what they have to give and which no other composer provides.

In the creation of drama and atmosphere, Berlioz excels in scenes of melancholy, introspection, love—gentle or passionate—the contemplation of nature, and the tumult of crowds. His intention throughout is to combine truth with musical sensations, be they powerful or (to quote Shaw again) “wonderful in their tenuity and delicacy, unearthly, unexpected, unaccountable.”
 
 
Much might be added or quoted that would show the extent to which Berlioz’s music still needs careful and dispassionate study. In 1935 the respected British musicologist Sir Donald Tovey, who had not before heard Les Troyens, declared that it is “one of the most gigantic and convincing masterpieces of music drama.” And, he went on, “You never know where you are with Berlioz.” What is certain is that books that date from the 19th century or echo its views, with or without a bias toward Wagner or Debussy, will mislead the student and possibly close the ears of the listener. It is easy to represent Berlioz as merely a craftsman in tone colour who helped develop the resources of the orchestra. But with the repeated performance of the major works all over the Western world, the more comprehensive judgment has come to prevail that Berlioz is a dramatic musician of the first rank. Before 1945 the Berlioz repertoire was limited to the Symphonie fantastique and a few brief extracts. The great works, done once and usually with insufficient preparation, produced little effect and confirmed the wisdom of letting them lie. The advent of long-playing records radically altered the situation. Audiences can now judge the interpretations that they are being given, and thus they hear Berlioz performances with a knowledge and critical attention comparable to those with which they hear other composers.

Jacques Barzun

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
Hector Berlioz Conducting
 
 
 
 
Berlioz - Harold In Italy
 
John Eliot Gardiner , Orchestre Revolutionnaire et Romantique, Gerard Causse Soloist
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
Hector Berlioz
     
 
 
     
  Classical Music Timeline

Instruments Through the Ages

Classical Music History - Composers and Masterworks
     
 
 
 
1803
 
 
Franz Xaver Sussmayer, Aust. composer, who completed Mozart's "Requiem," d. (b. 1766)
 
 
Sussmayr Franz Xaver
 

Franz Xaver Sussmayr, Süssmayr also spelled Süssmayer (born 1766, Schwanenstadt, Oberösterreich [now in Austria]—died Sept. 17, 1803, Vienna), Austrian composer best known in the 20th century for having completed Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s (Mozart Wolfgang Amadeus ) Requiem (K 626).

 

Sussmayr at Mozart’s death-bed
  Süssmayr was educated at Kremsmünster, a monastery school. In 1788 he settled in Vienna and became a music teacher. He became acquainted with Mozart in 1790/91 and sometimes collaborated with him. From 1792 to 1794 Süssmayr was harpsichordist and acting Kapellmeister (musical director) of Vienna’s National Theatre; he was Kapellmeister from 1794 until his death. His most notable compositions were Der Spiegel von Arkadien (1794) and music for the ballet Il noce de Benevento (1802).

Süssmayr’s handwriting in the manuscript of Mozart’s Requiem makes clear that he completed a number of passages after Mozart’s death, but the degree to which Süssmayr followed detailed sketches and drafts by Mozart remains a point of dispute.

Encyclopædia Britannica
 
 
 
     
 
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
     
 
 
     
  Classical Music Timeline

Instruments Through the Ages

Classical Music History - Composers and Masterworks
     
 
 
 
1802
 
 
Berthollet Claude Louis: "Essai de statique chimique"
 
 

Claude Berthollet: "Essai de statique chimique"
 
 
 
1802
 
 
Berzelius Jons Jakob discovers cerium
 
 
Cerium is a chemical element with symbol Ce and atomic number 58. It is a soft, silvery, ductile metal which easily oxidizes in air. Cerium was named after the dwarf planet Ceres (itself named for the Roman goddess of agriculture). Cerium is the most abundant of the rare earth elements, making up about 0.0046% of the Earth's crust by weight. It is found in a number of minerals, the most important being monazite and bastnäsite. Commercial applications of cerium are numerous. They include catalysts, additives to fuel to reduce emissions and to glass and enamels to change their color. Cerium oxide is an important component of glass polishing powders and phosphors used in screens and fluorescent lamps. It is also used in the "flint" (actually ferrocerium) of lighters.
 
 
 
1802
 
 
Lazare Carnot: "Principes fondamentaux de l'equilibre et du mouvement"
 
 
Carnot Lazare
 

Lazare Carnot, in full Lazare-Nicolas-Marguerite Carnot, byname Organizer of Victory or The Great Carnot, French Organisateur de la Victoire or Le Grand Carnot (born May 13, 1753, Nolay, Burgundy, France—died August 2, 1823, Magdeburg, Prussian Saxony [Germany]), French statesman, general, military engineer, and administrator in successive governments of the French Revolution. As a leading member of the Committee for General Defense and of the Committee of Public Safety (1793–94) and of the Directory (1793–97), he helped mobilize the Revolutionary armed forces and matériel.

 

Lazare Carnot
  Education and training
The son of a lawyer, Carnot studied at the Collège d’Autun and subsequently at the small seminary in the same town. After attending the artillery and engineering preparatory school in Paris from 1769 to 1771, he was graduated from the Mézières school of engineering, in January 1773, with the rank of lieutenant. In 1780 he was admitted to a literary society and in 1784 became known for a eulogy of Sébastian Le Prestre de Vauban, the French military engineer, which received an award from the Dijon Academy. In 1787 he was elected a member of the Arras Academy, the director of which at that time was Maximilien Robespierre, who was to be a leading figure in the Revolution.
When the Revolution broke out in 1789, Carnot was still a captain, a rank he had received in 1784. In 1791 he was elected deputy from Pas-de-Calais to the Legislative Assembly. As a member of the diplomatic and public education committees, Carnot did not distinguish himself; but on August 11, 1792, the day after the attack on the royal palace of the Tuileries in Paris, he was sent to the Army of the Rhine to report what had occurred.
In September 1792 Carnot was elected representative from Pas-de-Calais to the National Convention—the assembly elected under the influence of the fall of the monarchy—and at the end of the month was sent, with two other representatives, on a mission to Bayonne to organize the defense against a possible attack from Spain.
 
 
Since he was absent from Paris until the beginning of January 1793, Carnot did not take part in debates accompanying Louis XVI’s trial. He did, however, take part in the decisive votes, in which he voted against an appeal to the people and in favour of the king’s death. He thus indicated that he had been won over to the position of the Jacobins—the radicals—even though by temperament and inclination he was a man of the independents of the centre.

As a member of the Committee of War, Carnot was assigned to the Committee for General Defense, a predecessor of the Committee of Public Safety, which was to act as the executive branch throughout the republic. In this capacity Carnot presented various reports to the Convention, particularly one on March 9, 1793, which resulted in the dispatch of 82 representatives into the provincial départements to expedite the conscription of 300,000 men. Carnot himself was sent into the départements of the Nord and of Pas-de-Calais and at the end of March to the Army of the North. He remained with the Army of the North until August 1793, establishing his mastery in military operations as well as in the command of men. He reorganized the army, reestablished discipline, and took part, musket in hand, in the attack and capture of Furnes.

 
 
Political rise and fall
On August 14, 1793, the Convention appointed Carnot a member of the Committee of Public Safety. Shortly after, he set out again for the Army of the North, while the enemy besieged Maubeuge. This mission ended in the victory of Wattignies on October 16, 1793, and in the raising of the siege of Maubeuge. Once again Carnot, at the side of the generals, led the attack and entered the recaptured town alongside them. At the end of the month, he resumed his seat on the Committee of Public Safety.

From then on, Carnot devoted himself to the work of the Committee, concentrating on the conduct of military operations, although he did not entirely divorce himself from general policy. From the very start Carnot demanded that the ancient tactic of line combat be abandoned, advocating instead attack by masses concentrated at decisive points; eventually his views were adopted by the entire Committee. Carnot took a dominant part in the development of campaign plans, which were discussed by the entire Committee.

Beginning in May 1794, dissensions arose within the Committee of Public Safety between Carnot and Robespierre and Louis de Saint-Just, all of whom were of equally authoritarian and unyielding temperament. Carnot, basically a conservative, did not approve of the egalitarian aims of the social policy of Robespierre and his followers. If he did not play a decisive role during the coup of 9 Thermidor, year II (July 27, 1794), which overthrew Robespierre and marked the end of the Reign of Terror, Carnot must at least have approved of the fall of Robespierre.

  Subsequently, however, Carnot’s role began to diminish. He continued to occupy himself with directing military operations for another few months, but he soon had to defend himself against attacks by the executors of the Thermidorian coup, aimed without distinction against all former members of the Committee of Public Safety.

Thus, in March 1795, in an attempt to dissociate himself from his former colleagues, he claimed that each of them was responsible only for the duty with which he was charged and that the signatures to decrees regarded as reprehensible were only a formality. Yet Carnot did not succeed in silencing the charges. In May 1795, when an obscure deputy demanded the arrest of all the members of the former committees and named Carnot, he was saved by another deputy who shouted, “He organized the victory.”

Carnot was elected to the Directory, the French government from 1795 to 1799, the executive branch of which consisted of five directors; and he became even more conservative than before.
When the elections of the spring of 1797 brought in a royalist majority, Carnot bowed to the results, so that during the coup d’état of 18 Fructidor, year V (September 4, 1797), which quashed the elections, he had to flee in order to escape arrest. He crossed into Germany and settled in Nürnberg.

After the coup d’état of 18 Brumaire, year VII (November 9, 1799), which brought Napoleon Bonaparte to power as first consul of France, Carnot returned. He was minister of war for a few months in 1800 but resigned.

 
 
Appointed in 1802 a member of the Tribunat, a body chosen by the Senate to debate legislation, he fought the authoritarian development of the consular regime, opposed the institution of the Legion of Honour, voted against bestowing on Napoleon the consulate for life, and courageously opposed the establishment of the empire under Napoleon. He continued, however, to hold a seat on the Tribunat until that assembly was suppressed in 1807, when he withdrew from public life.

The allied invasion of 1814 forced him out of retirement. Napoleon appointed him governor of the town of Antwerp, where he remained until after the fall of the empire. Carnot sided with the Restoration under Louis XVIII, but in July 1814 he published his Mémoire au roi en juillet 1814, in which he denounced the excesses of the reaction under the Bourbon king. During the Hundred Days, when Napoleon attempted to reestablish his power, Carnot served as minister of the interior, and, after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo, Carnot encouraged him to resist, but in vain. The Second Restoration marked the end of Carnot’s political career.
 
 

Lazare Carnot
  In July 1815 Carnot was exiled from France. He left Paris in October and settled at Warsaw in January 1816. In August 1816 Carnot left Warsaw for Magdeburg, where he died seven years later.

The Third Republic, eager to acquire ancestors, exalted Carnot’s memory, consecrating him as “the Organizer of Victory.” When his grandson, Sadi Carnot, nephew of the scientist Sadi Carnot, was president of the republic, the ashes of Lazare Carnot were placed in the Panthéon in Paris. Carnot was indeed “the Organizer of Victory” but only in collaboration with the other members of the Committee of Public Safety, with whom he shared responsibility for the Terror as well.

For although the Committee of Public Safety was able to raise, equip, arm, and feed 14 armies and lead them to victory, it succeeded only by means of a mass levy, mass requisitions, and nationalization of military production—measures that were based on the revolutionary government’s use of force, that is, an authority relying on the Terror.

The characterization of Lazare Carnot as “the Organizer of Victory” is a legend created by the victors of the Thermidor coup, who, holding those vanquished in the coup responsible for the Terror, surrounded the survivors with all the brilliance of the victory.

Albert M. Soboul

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
1802
 
 
Lamarck Jean-Baptiste: "Recherches sur l'organisation des corps vivants"
 
 

Lamarck: "Recherches sur l'organisation des corps vivants"
 
 
 
1802
 
 
Henry Shrapnel, Eng. inventor, invents "shrapnel shell"
 
 
Shrapnel Henry
 
Major General Henry Shrapnel (3 June 1761 – 13 March 1842) was a British Army officer whose name has entered the English language as the inventor of the "shrapnel shell".
 

Henry Shrapnel
  Henry Shrapnel, (born June 3, 1761, Bradford-on-Avon, Wiltshire, Eng.—died March 13, 1842, Southampton, Hampshire), artillery officer and inventor of a form of artillery case shot.

Commissioned in the Royal Artillery in 1779, he served in Newfoundland, Gibraltar, and the West Indies and was wounded in Flanders in the Duke of York’s unsuccessful campaign against the French in 1793. In 1804 he became an inspector of artillery and spent several years at Woolwich arsenal.

Shrapnel’s invention, perfected by long, private research, consisted of a spherical projectile filled with bullets and fitted with a small charge fired by a time fuse; as the projectile neared the enemy lines, the charge burst the container, and the bullets continued onward in a widening swath.

Later versions altered the spherical projectile to a cylindrical shape and increased the bursting charge. The introduction of high-explosive ammunition led to the abandonment of case shot, the violently exploded shell casing itself serving the purpose far better. The term shrapnel continued to be used to designate such shell splinters.

Encyclopædia Britannica
 
 
 
Shrapnel shells
 

Shrapnel shells were anti-personnel artillery munitions which carried a large number of individual bullets close to the target and then ejected them to allow them to continue along the shell's trajectory and strike the target individually. They relied almost entirely on the shell's velocity for their lethality. The munition has been obsolete since the end of World War I for anti-personnel use, when it was superseded by high-explosive shells for that role. The functioning and principles behind Shrapnel shells are fundamentally different from high-explosive shell fragmentation. Shrapnel is named after Major-General Henry Shrapnel (1761–1842), an English artillery officer, whose experiments, initially conducted in his own time and at his own expense, culminated in the design and development of a new type of artillery shell.

 

Original Shrapnel design (left), and Boxer design of May 1852 which avoided premature explosions (right)
 
 
Development of shrapnel shell
In 1784, Lieutenant Shrapnel of the Royal Artillery began developing an anti-personnel weapon. At the time artillery could use "canister shot" to defend themselves from infantry or cavalry attack, which involved loading a tin or canvas container filled with small iron or lead balls instead of the usual cannonball.

When fired, the container burst open during passage through the bore or at the muzzle, giving the effect of an over-sized shotgun shell. At ranges of up to 300 m canister shot was still highly lethal, though at this range the shots’ density was much lower, making a hit on a human target less likely. At longer ranges, solid shot or the common shell — a hollow cast iron sphere filled with black powder — was used, although with more of a concussive than a fragmentation effect, as the pieces of the shell were very large and sparse in number.

Shrapnel's innovation was to combine the multi-projectile shotgun effect of canister shot, with a time fuze to open the canister and disperse the bullets it contained at some distance along the canister's trajectory from the gun. His shell was a hollow cast-iron sphere filled with a mixture of balls and powder, with a crude time fuse. If the fuse was set correctly then the shell would break open, either in front or above the intended target, releasing its contents (of musket balls).

  The shrapnel balls would carry on with the "remaining velocity" of the shell. In addition to a denser pattern of musket balls, the retained velocity could be higher as well, since the shrapnel shell as a whole would likely have a higher ballistic coefficient than the individual musket balls.

The explosive charge in the shell was to be just enough to break the casing rather than scatter the shot in all directions. As such his invention increased the effective range of canister shot from 300 to about 1100 m.

He called his device 'spherical case shot', but in time it came to be called after him; a nomenclature formalised in 1852 by the British Government.

Initial designs suffered from the potentially catastrophic problem that friction between the shot and black powder during the high acceleration down the gun bore could sometimes cause premature ignition of the powder. Various solutions were tried, with limited if any success. However, in 1852 Colonel Boxer proposed using a diaphragm to separate the bullets from the bursting charge, this proved successful and was adopted the following year. As a buffer to prevent lead shot deforming, a resin was used as a packing material between the shot. A useful side effect of using the resin was that the combustion also gave a visual reference upon the shell bursting, as the resin shattered into a cloud of dust.

 
 
British artillery adoption
It took until 1803 for the British artillery to adopt the shrapnel shell (as "spherical case"), albeit with great enthusiasm when it did. Henry Shrapnel was promoted to Major in the same year. The first recorded use of shrapnel by the British was in 1804 against the Dutch at Fort Amsterdam in Surinam. The Duke of Wellington's armies used it from 1808 in the Peninsular War and at the Battle of Waterloo, and he wrote admiringly of its effectiveness.

The design was improved by Captain E. M. Boxer of the Royal Arsenal around 1852 and crossed over when cylindrical shells for rifled guns were introduced. Lieutenant-Colonel Boxer adapted his design in 1864 to produce shrapnel shells for the new rifled muzzle-loader (RML) guns : the walls were of thick cast iron, but the gunpowder charge was now in the shell base with a tube running through the centre of the shell to convey the ignition flash from the time fuze in the nose to the gunpowder charge in the base. The powder charge both shattered the cast iron shell wall and liberated the bullets. The broken shell wall continued mainly forward but had little destructive effect. The system had major limitations: the thickness of the iron shell walls limited the available carrying capacity for bullets but provided little destructive capability, and the tube through the centre similarly reduced available space for bullets.

 
1870s cast-iron RML 16-pounder "Boxer" shrapnel shell showing limited space for bullets
 
 
In the 1870s William Armstrong provided a design with the bursting charge in the head and the shell wall made of steel and hence much thinner than previous cast-iron shrapnel shell walls. While the thinner shell wall and absence of a central tube allowed the shell to carry far more bullets, it had the disadvantage that the bursting charge separated the bullets from the shell casing by firing the case forward and at the same time slowing the bullets down as they were ejected through the base of the shell casing, rather than increasing their velocity. Britain adopted this solution for several smaller calibres (below 6-inch) but by World War I few if any such shells remained.
 
 

Forged steel shrapnel shells for BL 5 inch gun with bursting charge in base (left), and in nose (right) for comparison, 1886
 
 
The final shrapnel shell design, adopted in the 1880s, bore little similarity to Henry Shrapnel's original design other than its spherical bullets and time fuze. It used a much thinner forged steel shell case with a timer fuze in the nose and a tube running through the centre to convey the ignition flash to a gunpowder bursting charge in the shell base. The use of steel allowed the shell wall to be made much thinner and hence allow space for many more bullets. It also withstood the force of the powder charge without shattering, so that the bullets were fired forward out of the shell case with increased velocity, much like a shotgun. This is the design that came to be adopted by all countries and was in standard use when World War I began in 1914. During the 1880s, when both the old cast-iron and modern forged-steel shrapnel shell designs were in British service, British ordnance manuals referred to the older cast-iron design as "Boxer shrapnel", apparently to differentiate it from the modern steel design.

The modern thin-walled forged-steel design made feasible shrapnel shells for howitzers, which had a much lower velocity than field guns, by using a larger gunpowder charge to accelerate the bullets forward on bursting. The ideal shrapnel design would have had a timer fuze in the shell base to avoid the need for a central tube, but this was not technically feasible due to the need to manually adjust the fuze before firing, and was in any case rejected from an early date by the British due to risk of premature ignition and irregular action.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 

 
 
CONTENTS
  BACK-1803 Part I NEXT-1804 Part I