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 II NEXT-1804 Part II    
 
 
     
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
 
 
 

The Coronation of Napoleon by Jacques-Louis David in 1804
 
 
 
 
 HISTORY, RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, ART, LITERATURE, MUSIC, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, DAILY LIFE
 
 
 
 
YEAR BY YEAR:  1800 - 1899
 
 
 
1804 Part I
 
 
 
1804
 
 
The Duc d'Enghien executed for a plot against Napoleon I
 
 
Duc d'Enghien
 

Louis Antoine de Bourbon, (Duke of Enghien, "duc d'Enghien" pronounced [dɑ̃ɡɛ̃]; the i is silent) (Louis Antoine Henri; 2 August 1772 – 21 March 1804) was a relative of the Bourbon monarchs of France. More famous for his death than for his life, he was executed on trumped-up charges of aiding Britain and plotting against France. Royalty across Europe were shocked and dismayed, and never again trusted Napoleon. Tsar Alexander I of Russia was especially alarmed, and decided to curb Napoleon's power.

 

Louis Antoine, Duke of Enghien
  Biography
The Duke was the only son of Louis Henri de Bourbon "Duke of Bourbon", and of Bathilde d'Orléans, "Duchess of Bourbon". As a member of the reigning House of Bourbon, he was a Prince du Sang. He was born at the Château de Chantilly, the country residence of the Princes of Condé - a title he was born to inherit.

He was given the title Duke of Enghien from birth, his father already being the Duke of Bourbon and the heir of the Prince of Condé, the Duke of Bourbon being the Heir apparent of Condé.

His mother's full name was Louise Marie Thérèse Bathilde d'Orléans; she was the only surviving daughter of Louis Philippe d'Orléans (grandson of the Regent Philippe d'Orléans) and Louise Henriette de Bourbon. His uncle was the future Philippe Égalité and he was thus a first cousin of the future Louis-Philippe I, King of the French. He was also doubly descended from Louis XIV through his legitimated daughters, Mademoiselle de Blois and Mademoiselle de Nantes.

He was an only child, his parents separating in 1778 after his father's romantic involvement with one Marguerite Catherine Michelot, an opera singer, was discovered; it was his mother who was blamed for her husband's infidelity. Michelot was the mother of Enghien's two illegitimate sisters.

 
 
He was educated privately by the Abbé Millot, and in military matters by Commodore de Vinieux. He early on showed the warlike spirit of the House of Condé, and began his military career in 1788. At the outbreak of the French Revolution, he emigrated with his father and grandfather a few days after the fall of the Bastille, and remained in exile, seeking to raise forces for the invasion of France and the restoration of the monarchy. In 1792, at the outbreak of French Revolutionary Wars, he held a command in the corps of émigrés organized and commanded by his grandfather, the Prince of Condé. This Army of Condé shared in the Duke of Brunswick's unsuccessful invasion of France.

After this, the young duke continued to serve under his father and grandfather in the Condé army, and, on several occasions, distinguished himself by his bravery and ardour in the vanguard. On the dissolution of that force after the peace of Lunéville (February 1801), he married privately Charlotte de Rohan, niece of the Cardinal de Rohan, and took up his residence at Ettenheim in Baden, near the Rhine.
 
 
Death
Early in 1804, Napoleon Bonaparte, then First Consul of France, heard news which seemed to connect the young duke with the Cadoudal–Pichegru conspiracy then being tracked by the French police. The news ran that the duke was in company with Charles François Dumouriez and had made secret journeys into France. This was false; the acquaintance was Thumry, a harmless old man, and the duke had no dealings with either Cadoudal or Pichegru. Napoleon gave orders for the seizure of the duke. French dragoons crossed the Rhine secretly, surrounded his house and brought him to Strasbourg (15 March 1804), and thence to the Château de Vincennes, near Paris, where a military commission of French colonels presided by General Hulin was hastily convened to try him.

Meanwhile, Bonaparte had found out the true facts of the case, and the accusations were hastily changed. The duke was now charged chiefly with bearing arms against France in the late war, and with intending to take part in the new coalition then proposed against France.

The military commission, presided over by Hullin, hastily and most informally drew up the act of condemnation, being incited thereto by orders from Anne Jean Marie René Savary, who had come charged with instructions to kill the duke.

 
Charlotte Louise de Rohan, Louis Antoine's secret wife; miniature by François-Joseph Desvernois
 
 
Savary prevented any chance of an interview between the condemned and the First Consul, and, on 21 March, the duke was shot in the moat of the castle, near a grave which had already been prepared.

In 1816, his remains were exhumed and placed in the Holy Chapel of the Château de Vincennes.

 
 
Impact of death
Royalty across Europe were shocked and dismayed, and never again trusted Napoleon. Tsar Alexander I of Russia was especially alarmed, and decided to curb Napoleon's power.

The duc d'Enghien was the last descendant of the House of Condé; his grandfather and father survived him, but died without producing further heirs. It is now known that Joséphine and Madame de Rémusat had begged Bonaparte for mercy towards the duke; but nothing would bend his will. The blame which the apologists of the emperor have thrown on Talleyrand or Savary is debatable, as at times he was known to claim Talleyrand conceived the idea, while at others he took full responsibilities for the killing. On his way to St. Helena and at Longwood, Napoleon asserted that, in the same circumstances, he would do the same again; he inserted a similar declaration in his will.

The execution of Enghien shocked the aristocracy of Europe, who still remembered the bloodletting of the Revolution and thus lost whatever conditional respect they may have entertained for Napoleon.

 
Execution of the duke d Enghien
 
 
Either Antoine Boulay, comte de la Meurthe (deputy from Meurthe in the Corps législatif) or Napoleon's chief of police, Joseph Fouché, said about his execution "C'est pire qu'un crime, c'est une faute", a statement often rendered in English as "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder." The statement is also sometimes attributed to French diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1804
 
 
Napoleon I, proclaimed emperor by Senate and Tribunate, is crowned in the presence of Pope Pius VI in Paris
 
 

The Coronation of Napoleon by Jacques-Louis David in 1804
 
 
     
 
Napoleon I

Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815)
     
 
 
 
1804
 
 
War breaks out between East India Company and Holkar of Indore; ends with defeat of Holkar's army
 
 
Yashwantrao Holkar
 

Maharaja Yashwantrao Holkar defeated the British army, led by Colonel Fawcett, at Kunch, in Bundelkhand. On 8 June 1804, the Governor General, in a letter to Lord Lake, wrote that the defeat caused a great insult to the British prestige in India. On 8 July 1804, Maharaja Yashwantrao Holkar defeated the army of Colonel Manson and Leukan at Mukundare and Kota. Bapuji Scindia surrendered before Maharaja Yashwantrao Holkar.

 
From June till September 1804, he defeated the British at different battles. On 8 October 1804, Maharaja Yashwantrao Holkar attacked Delhi to free Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II, who was imprisoned by the British. He attacked the army of Colonel Actorloni and Berne. The battle lasted for a week, but Yashwantrao Holkar could not succeed as Lord Lake came to help Colonel Actorloni.
 
 

Yashwant Rao Holkar
  On 16 November 1804, Maharaja Yashwantrao Holkar reached Deeg by defeating the army of Major Frazer. After the death of Major Frazer, Manson took the charge of the British army. In Farrukhabad, Lord Lake was a mute spectator, watching Yashwantrao Holkar proceeding towards Deeg; he didn't attack Maharaja Yashwantrao Holkar. Lord Lake attacked Deeg on 13 December 1804 (see- Battle of Bharatpur); the army of Holkar and Jat resisted successfully and reached the Bharatpur Durg. Lord Lake attacked Bharatpur on 3 January 1805, along with General Manson, Colonel Marey, Colonel Don, Colonel Berne, Major General Jones, General Smith, Colonel Jetland, Setan, and others.

However, Maharaja Yashwantrao Holkar had to leave Bharatpur as the Jat King Ranjit Singh of Bharatpur signed a treaty with the British on 17 April 1805, when they had nearly won the war.

Covering a large part of the subcontinent, the Maratha Empire kept the British forces at bay during the 18th century, until dissension between the Peshwas and their sardars (army commanders) saw a gradual downfall of the empire with the eventual defeat in the third Anglo-Maratha war the First Anglo-Maratha War ended in a stalemate with both sides signing the treaty of Salbai. This led to a period of relative peace between the two powers till the decisive second Anglo-Maratha war took place.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
see also: Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803–1805)
 
 
 
1804
 
 
Francis II (Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor) assumes the title of Emperor of Austria as Francis I (—1835)
 
 

Francis II
 
 
 
1804
 
 
Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution
 

Twelfth Amendment, amendment (1804) to the Constitution of the United States repealing and revising presidential election procedures.

 
The catalyst for the Twelfth Amendment was the U.S. presidential election of 1800. Under the original text of the Constitution, political participation was at first reserved for the American elite. Only landowning white males could run for office and vote, and the voting privilege itself was restricted in presidential elections to elite slates of electors who would effectively choose the country’s president and vice president. The Framers had viewed political parties with suspicion, but by the 1790s party politics had taken root—and with it the interests of party organizations began to exert influence. In 1796 the Federalist Party supported John Adams for president, but it split its vote such that the Democratic-Republican candidate, Thomas Jefferson, earned the second greatest number of votes, thereby securing the post of vice president. To forestall this situation from occurring again, the parties sought to ensure that all its electors were united. In 1800 this produced an electoral college tie between Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican candidate for president, and Aaron Burr, the party’s vice presidential candidate. Under the rules, the electors voted for two candidates without specifying who should hold which office. The election ultimately went to the House of Representatives, which elected Jefferson.
These elections revealed both a growing influence of political parties and a serious deficiency in the presidential election process. The effect of the Twelfth Amendment was to require separate votes for presidential and vice presidential candidates.
 
Twelfth Amendment in the National Archives
 
 
Should an election result in a tie, the House of Representatives would chose for whom to cast votes, on the basis of a one-vote-per-state formulation, from among the top three electoral vote recipients. The Twelfth Amendment came into effect with the 1804 election.

The full text of the amendment is:

 

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President, shall be the Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.

* The part included in brackets has been superseded by Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment.

 
Brian P. Smentkowski

Encyclopædia Britannica
 
 
 
1804
 
 
Action of 5 October 1804
 
The Battle of Cape Santa Maria (also known as the "Battle of Cape St Mary"; in Spanish Batalla del Cabo de Santa María) was a naval action of 5 October 1804' that took place off the southern Portuguese coast, in which a British squadron under the command of Commodore Graham Moore attacked a Spanish squadron commanded by Brigadier Don José de Bustamante y Guerra, in time of peace, without declaration of war between the UK and Spain.
 
Background
Under the terms of a secret convention Spain had to pay 72 million francs annually to France, until it declared war on Britain. The British had learned of the treaty, and knew it was likely that Spain would declare war soon after the arrival of the treasure ships. Since the British also knew that by law the fleet could only land at Cádiz, as well as its place and approximate time of departure from South America, it was not difficult to position a squadron to intercept it.

Bustamante had set sail from Montevideo on 9 August 1804 with four frigates loaded with gold and silver, as well as much other valuable cargo. On 22 September Vice Admiral Lord Collingwood ordered Captain Graham Moore, commanding the 44-gun frigate HMS Indefatigable, to intercept and detain the Spanish ships, peacefully, if possible.

Moore's ship arrived off Cadiz on 29 September and was joined on 2 October by HMS Lively, and by HMS Medusa and HMS Amphion the day after. In line abreast they patrolled the approaches to Cádiz.

  The battle
At dawn on 5 October, the Spanish frigates sighted the coast of Portugal. At 7 a.m. they sighted the four British frigates. Bustamante ordered his ships into line of battle, and within an hour the British came up in line, to windward of the Spaniards and "within pistol-shot".

Moore, the British Commodore, sent Lieutenant Ascott to the Spanish flagship Medea, to explain his orders. Bustamante naturally refused to surrender, and impatient of delays, at 10 a.m. Moore ordered a shot be fired ahead over the bows of Medea. Almost immediately a general exchange of fire broke out.

Within ten minutes the magazine of the Mercedes exploded destroying the ship, and killing all but 40 of her 240 crew. Within half an hour the Santa Clara and the Medea had surrendered, and the Fama broke away and trying to flee, the Medusa quickly followed.

However, Moore ordered the faster Lively to pursue, capturing the Fama a few hours later. The three frigates were taken to Gibraltar, and then to Gosport, England.

 
 

The action of 5th October 1804, a painting by Francis Sartorius.
 
 
The results
Spain declared war on Great Britain on 14 December 1804, only to suffer a catastrophic defeat less than a year later at the Battle of Trafalgar in October 1805. Napoleon, having crowned himself Emperor on 2 December, gained Spain as an ally in his war against Britain.
 
 
In practical terms, the British interception of the four Real Armada frigates represented the end of an era for Bourbon Spain and regular specie shipments from the Empires New World mines and mints. The squadron to which Mercedes belonged was the last of its kind that the world would see: a Spanish treasure fleet moving bullion from the New World Viceroyalties to the Iberian kingdoms.

Under the terms of the Cruizers and Convoys Act of 1708 ships captured at sea were "Droits of the Crown" and became the property of their captors, who received the full value of the ships and cargo in prize money.

However, since technically Britain and Spain were not at war at the time of the action, the Admiralty Court ruled that the three ships were "Droits of the Admiralty", and all revenues would revert to them.

The four Spanish ships carried a total of 4,286,508 Spanish dollars in silver and gold coin, as well as 150,000 gold ingots, 75 sacks of wool, 1,666 bars of tin, 571 pigs of copper, seal skins and oil, although 1.2 million in silver, half the copper and a quarter of the tin went down with the Mercedes.

  Still, the remaining ships and cargo were assessed at a value of £900,000 (equivalent to £69,103,000 today.). After much legal argument an ex gratia payment was made amounting to £160,000, of which the four Captains would have received £15,000 each (around £1,152,000 at present day values.).

The Medea was taken into the Royal Navy as HMS Iphigenia (later renamed HMS Imperieuse), Santa Clara as HMS Leocadia and the Fama as HMS Fama.

In March 2007 the Florida-based company Odyssey Marine Exploration recovered 17 tons of gold and silver from the Mercedes, insisting that it had been found in international waters and therefore beyond the legal jurisdiction of any one country. The Spanish government branded the Odyssey team "21st century pirates" and in May 2007 launched legal proceedings arguing that the wreck was protected by "sovereign immunity" which prohibits the unauthorized disturbance or commercial exploitation of state-owned naval vessels. In June 2009 the Federal Court in Tampa found against Odyssey and ordered the treasure to be returned to Spain as has been done on 25 February 2012.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
1804
 
 
Hamilton Alexander, former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, killed in a duel with Burr Aaron
 
 

Hamilton fighting his fatal duel with Vice President Aaron Burr (the depiction is inaccurate:
only the two "seconds" actually witnessed the duel)
 
 
 
1804
 
 
Disraeli Benjamin
 

Benjamin Disraeli, in full Benjamin Disraeli, earl of Beaconsfield, Viscount Hughenden of Hughenden, byname Dizzy (born December 21, 1804, London, England—died April 19, 1881, London), British statesman and novelist who was twice prime minister (1868, 1874–80) and who provided the Conservative Party with a twofold policy of Tory democracy and imperialism.

 

Disraeli circa 1870.
  Early life
Disraeli was of Italian-Jewish descent, the eldest son and second child of Isaac D’Israeli and Maria Basevi. The most important event in Disraeli’s boyhood was his father’s quarrel in 1813 with the synagogue of Bevis Marks, which led to the decision in 1817 to have his children baptized as Christians. Until 1858, Jews by religion were excluded from Parliament; except for the father’s decision, Disraeli’s political career could never have taken the form it did.

Disraeli was educated at small private schools. At the age of 17 he was articled to a firm of solicitors, but he longed to become notable in a more sensational manner. His first efforts were disastrous. In 1824 he speculated recklessly in South American mining shares, and, when he lost all a year later, he was left so badly in debt that he did not recover until well past middle age.

Earlier he had persuaded the publisher John Murray, his father’s friend, to launch a daily newspaper, the Representative. It was a complete failure. Disraeli, unable to pay his promised share of the capital, quarreled with Murray and others. Moreover, in his novel Vivian Grey (1826–27), published anonymously, he lampooned Murray while telling the story of the failure. Disraeli was unmasked as the author, and he was widely criticized.

Disraeli suffered what would later be called a nervous breakdown and did little during the next four years. He wrote another extravagant novel, The Young Duke (1831), and in 1830 began 16 months of travel in the Mediterranean countries and the Middle East.

These travels not only furnished him with material for Oriental descriptions he used in later novels but also influenced his attitude in foreign relations with India, Egypt, and Turkey in the 1870s.

 
 
Back in England, he was active in London social and literary life, where his dandified dress, conceit and affectation, and exotic good looks made him a striking if not always popular figure. He was invited to fashionable parties and met most of the celebrities of the day. His novel Contarini Fleming (1832) has considerable autobiographical interest, like many of his novels, as well as echoes of his political thought.
 
 


Disraeli as a young man—
a retrospective portrayal
 painted in 1852

  Political beginnings
By 1831 Disraeli had decided to enter politics and sought a seat in Buckinghamshire, near Wycombe, where his family had settled. As an independent radical, he stood for and lost High Wycombe twice in 1832 and once in 1835. Realizing that he must attach himself to one of the political parties, he made a somewhat eccentric interpretation of Toryism, which some features of his radicalism fitted. In 1835 he unsuccessfully stood for Taunton as the official Conservative candidate.

His extravagant behaviour, great debts, and open liaison with Henrietta, wife of Sir Francis Sykes (the prototype of the heroine in his novel Henrietta Temple [1837]), all gave him a dubious reputation. In 1837, however, he successfully stood for Maidstone in Kent as the Conservative candidate. His maiden speech in the House of Commons was a failure.
 
 
Elaborate metaphors, affected mannerisms, and foppish dress led to his being shouted down. But he was not silenced. He concluded, defiantly and prophetically, “I will sit down now, but the time will come when you will hear me.”

Before long, Disraeli became a speaker who commanded attention. He established his social position by marrying in 1839 Mrs. Wyndham Lewis, a widow with a life interest in a London house and £4,000 a year. She was deeply devoted to Disraeli, and, when he teased her in company that he had married for her worldly goods, she would say, “Dizzy married me for my money but if he had the chance again he would marry me for love.” Her husband agreed.

 
 
Breach with Peel
The Conservative leader, Sir Robert Peel, encouraged Disraeli, but, when in 1841 the Conservatives won the election and Peel became prime minister, Disraeli was not given office in the cabinet. He was mortified at the rebuff, and his attitude toward Peel and his brand of Conservatism became increasingly critical.

A group of young Tories, nicknamed Young England, and led by George Smythe (later Lord Stangford), looked to Disraeli for inspiration, and he obliged them, notably in his novel Coningsby; or, The New Generation (1844), in which the hero is patterned on Smythe, and the cool, pragmatic, humdrum, middle-class Conservatism that Peel represented is contrasted to Young England’s romantic, aristocratic, nostalgic, and escapist attitude.

In 1845, when the combination of the Irish famine and the arguments of Richard Cobden convinced Peel to repeal the protective duties on foreign imported grain known as the Corn Laws, Disraeli found his issue. Young England could rally against Peel not only their own members but the great mass of the country squires who formed the backbone of the Conservative Party. As lieutenant to Lord George Bentinck, the nominal leader of the rebels, Disraeli consolidated the opposition to Peel in a series of brilliant speeches.

His invective greatly embittered the battle and created lasting resentment among Peel’s followers. While Disraeli and his fellow protectionists could not stop the repeal of the Corn Laws because the Whigs also backed the bill, the rebels put Peel in the minority on another issue and forced him to resign in 1846.

  Conservative leader
The loyalty of most of the Conservative former ministers to Peel and the death of Bentinck made Disraeli indisputably the leader of the opposition in the Commons. Disraeli spent the next few years trying to extricate his party from what he had come to recognize as the “hopeless cause” of protection. While Disraeli’s policy was sensible, it raised mistrust among his followers, as did his pride in and insistence upon his Jewish ancestry. The party could not, however, do without his talents. His election to Parliament as member for Buckinghamshire in 1847 and his purchase of Hughenden Manor, near High Wycombe, in 1848 fortified his social and political power. His finances, however, remained shaky.

When the Whig government fell in 1852 and the earl of Derby, leader of the Conservative Party, formed a short-lived minority government, Disraeli was chancellor of the Exchequer despite his protest that he knew nothing of finance. His budget in fact brought the government down in 1852, though Disraeli could hardly be blamed. The free-trade majority in the Commons was determined to defeat measures that relieved agriculture, even though the method chosen did not involve protection, yet Disraeli had to bring forward some such proposals to placate his followers. Again, until 1858, the Tories were in opposition. Then Derby again formed a minority government with Disraeli as chancellor of the Exchequer. Disraeli for some time had felt there was no reason to allow parliamentary reform to be a Whig monopoly, and so he introduced a moderate reform bill in 1859. The bill, however, seemed too obviously designed to help his party, and so it was defeated; the Tories again were out of office and remained so for six years.

 
 
In 1865 when the Whig-Liberal leader Lord Russell brought forward a moderate reform bill, a combination of Tory opposition and a revolt against Russell toppled his government. Derby formed his third minority government with Disraeli as chancellor of the Exchequer. Although the initiative for a new Conservative reform bill came from Queen Victoria and Lord Derby, Disraeli introduced it in the Commons and conducted the fight for it with unsurpassed enthusiasm and mastery of parliamentary tactics. He believed the bill should be a sweeping one with certain safeguards, and he was determined that it should be carried by a Conservative government. The Liberals, however, had a majority, and he had to accept their amendments, which removed nearly all the safeguards. The bill that passed doubled the existing electorate and was more democratic than most Conservatives had foreseen. Derby called it “a leap in the dark,” but Disraeli could fairly claim that the bill had gone far toward “realizing the dream of my life and re-establishing Toryism as a national foundation.”
 
 

Disraeli, photographed by Cornelius Hughes in 1878
  In 1868 when Derby retired from politics, Disraeli became prime minister. “Yes,” he said in reply to a friend’s congratulations, “I have climbed to the top of a greasy pole.” The government was only a caretaker one, for the general election awaited only the completion of a new electoral register, and later in 1868 the Liberals won. Disraeli set a precedent by resigning before Parliament met.

In the following 12-year period, politics changed from the chaotic collection of ill-defined, shifting groups that had been common from the beginning of Disraeli’s career. Now the old politics defined by personalities shifted to an emergence of two parties with coherent policies. The party leaders, Disraeli and William E. Gladstone, were implacable enemies, and they polarized the parties.

At first Disraeli played a comparatively peaceful role. He tried to create a new image for the Conservative Party that he hoped would persuade the new electorate. His seeming apathy disturbed his followers, and his novel Lothair (3 vol., 1870), a political comedy, seemed to some of them undignified.

From 1872, however, Disraeli ran the party with a firm hand. He sharply differentiated Conservative from Liberal policy on several issues: he defended the monarchy, the House of Lords, and the church against what he took to be the threat of radical Liberal policy; he put forth a policy to consolidate the empire, with special emphasis on India; he dwelt on social reform; he enunciated a strong foreign policy, especially against Russia.

 
 
In 1872 Disraeli’s wife died of cancer after many months of illness. Her death brought material losses: her house in London and her fortune passed to cousins. At age 68 his health was not good, but he turned implacably to political battle. He began a romantic friendship with two sisters, Lady Bradford and Lady Chesterfield, with whom he corresponded on politics and his personal feelings until his death.

His political fortunes turned when Gladstone’s ministry was defeated in 1873. When Gladstone resigned, Disraeli refused to take office, pleading there was too much uncompleted business to dissolve Parliament, and that a minority government could only damage his party’s prospects. Gladstone reluctantly returned to office, but within a year he dissolved the Parliament himself. Disraeli had been at work on party organization and electoral machinery, and the Conservatives won a resounding victory in 1874.
 
 

Benjamin Disraeli
  Second administration
Disraeli gained power too late. He aged rapidly during his second ministry. But he formed a strong cabinet and profited from the friendship of the queen, a political conservative who disliked Gladstone. Disraeli treated her as a human being, whereas Gladstone treated her as a political institution.

In regard to social reform, Disraeli was able at last to show that Tory democracy was more than a slogan. The Artizans’ and Labourers’ Dwellings Improvement Act made effective slum clearance possible. The Public Health Act of 1875 codified the complicated law on that subject. Equally important were an enlightened series of factory acts (1874, 1878) preventing the exploitation of labour and two trades union acts that clarified the legal position of those bodies.

Disraeli’s imperial and foreign policies were even more in the public eye. His first great success was the acquisition of Suez Canal shares. The extravagant and spendthrift khedive Ismāʾīl Pasha of Egypt owned slightly less than half the Suez Canal Company’s shares and was anxious to sell. An English journalist discovered this fact and told the Foreign Office.

Disraeli overrode its recommendation against the purchase and bought the shares using funds provided by the Rothschild family until Parliament could confirm the bargain. The deal was seen as a notable triumph for imperial prestige. Early in 1876 Disraeli brought in a bill conferring on Queen Victoria the title empress of India.

 
 
There was much opposition, and Disraeli would have gladly postponed it, but the queen insisted. For some time his poor health had made leading the Commons onerous, so he accepted a peerage, taking the titles earl of Beaconsfield and Viscount Hughenden of Hughenden, and became leader in the House of Lords.

Foreign policy largely occupied him until 1878. The Russian-Turkish conflict had lain dormant since the Crimean War in the 1850s, but Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire revolted against intolerable misrule. Russia declared war on Turkey in 1877 and reached the gates of Constantinople early in 1878. Britain feared for the safety of the route to India, but Disraeli correctly judged that a show of force would be enough to bring the exhausted Russian forces to terms. The highly Pan-Slavist Treaty of Stefano forced on Turkey by Russia had to be submitted to a European Congress at Berlin in 1878.
 
 
Beaconsfield attended and won all concessions he wanted. He returned to London in triumph, declaring that he had brought back “peace with honour.”

At this climax of his career, the queen offered him a dukedom, which he refused, and the Order of the Garter, which he accepted. Thereafter his fortunes waned with disaster in Afghanistan, forces slaughtered in South Africa, agricultural distress, and an industrial slump. The Conservatives were heavily defeated in the general election of 1880.

Beaconsfield kept his party leadership and finished Endymion (3 vol., 1880), a mellow, nostalgic political novel viewing his early career. His health failed rapidly, and, a few days after his burial in the family vault at Hughenden, Queen Victoria came to lay a wreath upon the tomb of her favourite prime minister.

Robert Norman William Blake, Baron Blake

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
Disraeli's tomb at Hughenden
 
 
 
1804
 
 
British and Foreign Bible Society
 

The British and Foreign Bible Society, often known in England and Wales as simply Bible Society, is a non-denominational Christian Bible society with charity status whose purpose is to make the Bible available throughout the world.

The Society was formed on 7 March 1804 by a group of people including William Wilberforce and Thomas Charles to encourage the 'wider circulation and use' of the Scriptures.

 
History
The British and Foreign Bible Society dates back to 1804 when a group of Christians sought to address the problem of a lack of affordable Bibles in Welsh for Welsh-speaking Christians. This was highlighted by a young girl called Mary Jones who walked over 20 miles to get a Bible in Bala, Gwynedd.

From the early days, the Society sought to be ecumenical and non-sectarian, and from 1813 allowed inclusion of the Biblical Apocrypha. Controversy in 1825-6 about the Apocrypha and the Metrical Psalms resulted in the secession of the Glasgow and Edinburgh Bible Societies, which later formed what is now the Scottish Bible Society. A similar 1831 controversy about Unitarians holding significant Society offices resulted in a minority separating to form the Trinitarian Bible Society.

The Bible Society extended its work to England, India, Europe and beyond. Protestant communities in many European countries (such as Croatia and Albania) date back to the work of nineteenth century BFBS Bible salesmen. Auxiliary branches were set up all over the world, which later became Bible Societies in their own right, and today operate in co-operation as part of the United Bible Societies. The Bible Society is a non-denominational Christian network which works to translate, revise, print, and distribute affordable Bibles in England and Wales.

  During World War One Bible Society distributed more than nine million copies of Scripture, in over 80 languages, to combatants and prisoners of war on all sides of the war. Bible Society managed this despite immense challenges – supply shortages, rising paper costs, paper rationing, submarine blockades and the sinking of merchant shipping.

Even greater than these physical difficulties was the emotional toll – former colleagues suddenly found themselves fighting on opposing sides. Bible salesmen throughout Europe were conscripted or volunteered into their respective armies.

Bible Society responded to the challenge. They printed New Testaments in khaki, stamped with a cross, for distribution via the Red Cross among sick and wounded soldiers, sailors and prisoners of war.

On average between 6–7,000 volumes were sent out every working day for fighting men, the sick and wounded, the prisoners of war, exiles and refugees. That’s over four copies distributed each minute, day and night, for the duration of the war.

Translation work never stopped – between August 1914 and November 1918, Bible Society printed Scriptures in 34 new languages and dialects. This meant on average there was one new version every seven weeks during the whole period of war.

 
 
The Society today
The Society is working to circulate the Scriptures across the world, in the church and through the culture.

The strategy of Bible Society centres on Bible availability, accessibility and credibility - what it calls the ‘lifecycle’ of the Bible. These strategic approaches encompass all of its activity: translation, production, distribution, literacy, engagement and advocacy.

-Translation: making the Bible available in new languages, and revising existing Bibles to bring the language up-to-date, so that everyone can experience the Scriptures in their ‘heart language’
-Production: printing physical copies of the Bible and producing sign language, audio and digital Scriptures in order to meet the demands of the millions around the world who want a Bible of their own
-Distribution: taking the Bible to places it might otherwise be hard to come by, in formats that people can use
-Literacy: helping people to read and to read well, using the Bible as a resource
-Engagement: helping people grapple with the Bible, read and respond to it wisely
-Advocacy: giving the wider culture a reason and opportunity to encounter the joys of the Bible.

 
 
Where the Society works
The Society's mission is global. Its work is organised into two categories: domestic and international.

The Society is part of an international fellowship of over 140 Bible Societies around the world, known as the United Bible Societies. Its entire international programme is delivered on the ground through the close relationship they have with each of their fellow Bible Societies.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1804
 
 
Code Napoleon
 

Napoleonic Code, French Code Napoléon , French civil code enacted in 1804 and still extant, with revisions; it has been the main influence in the 19th-century civil codes of most countries of continental Europe and Latin America.

 
The demand for codification and, indeed, codification itself preceded the Napoleonic era. Diversity of laws was the dominant characteristic of the prerevolutionary legal order. Roman law governed in the south of France, whereas in the northern provinces, including Paris, a customary law had developed, based largely on feudal Frankish and Germanic institutions.

Marriage and family life were almost exclusively within the control of the Roman Catholic church and governed by canon law. In addition, starting in the 16th century, a growing number of matters were governed by royal decrees and ordinances and by a case law developed by the parlements.
Each area had its own collection of customs, and, despite efforts in the 16th and 17th centuries to organize and codify each of these local customary laws, there had been little success at national unification. Vested interests blocked efforts at codification, because reform would encroach upon their privileges.

After the French Revolution, codification became not only possible but almost necessary. Powerful control groups such as the manors and the guilds had been destroyed; the secular power of the church had been suppressed; and the provinces had been transformed into subdivisions of the new national state.

The Napoleonic Code, therefore, was founded on the premise that, for the first time in history, a purely rational law should be created, free from all past prejudices and deriving its content from “sublimated common sense”; its moral justification was to be found not in ancient custom or monarchical paternalism but in its conformity to the dictates of reason.

 
Early version of the Code Civil des Français (“Civil Code of the French”; known as the Napoleonic Code), dated 1803 (year XI of the French republican calendar). The code was promulgated in its entirety in 1804 (year XII) by First Consul Napoleon Bonaparte.

Public Domain Photo

 
 
Under the code all male citizens are equal: primogeniture, hereditary nobility, and class privileges are extinguished; civilian institutions are emancipated from ecclesiastical control; freedom of person, freedom of contract, and inviolability of private property are fundamental principles.
 
 
The first book of the code deals with the law of persons: the enjoyment of civil rights, the protection of personality, domicile, guardianship, tutorship, relations of parents and children, marriage, personal relations of spouses, and the dissolution of marriage by annulment or divorce. The code subordinated women to their fathers and husbands, who controlled all family property, determined the fate of children, and were favoured in divorce proceedings. Many of these provisions were only reformed in the second half of the 20th century. The second book deals with the law of things: the regulation of property rights—ownership, usufruct, and servitudes. The third book deals with the methods of acquiring rights: by succession, donation, marriage settlement, and obligations. In the last chapters, the code regulates a number of nominate contracts, legal and conventional mortgages, limitations of actions, and prescriptions of rights.

With regard to obligations, the law establishes the traditional Roman-law categories of contract, quasi-contract, delict, and quasi-delict. Freedom to contract is not spelled out explicitly but is an underlying principle in many provisions.

The code was originally introduced into areas under French control in 1804: Belgium, Luxembourg, parts of western Germany, northwestern Italy, Geneva, and Monaco. It was later introduced into territories conquered by Napoleon: Italy, the Netherlands, the Hanseatic lands, and much of the remainder of western Germany and Switzerland.

  The code is still in use in Belgium, Luxembourg, and Monaco.

During the 19th century, the Napoleonic Code was voluntarily adopted in a number of European and Latin American countries, either in the form of simple translation or with considerable modifications. The Italian Civil Code of 1865, enacted after the unification of Italy, had a close but indirect relationship with the Napoleonic Code. The new Italian code of 1942 departed to a large extent from this tradition. In Latin America in the early 19th century, the code was introduced into Haiti and the Dominican Republic and is still in force there. Bolivia and Chile followed closely the arrangement of the code and borrowed much of its substance. The Chilean code was in turn copied by Ecuador and Colombia, closely followed by Uruguay and Argentina.

In Louisiana, the only civil-law state in the United States (which is otherwise bound by common law), the civil code of 1825 (revised in 1870 and still in force) is closely connected with the Napoleonic Code.

The influence of the Napoleonic Code was diminished at the turn of the century by the introduction of the German Civil Code (1900) and the Swiss Civil Code (1912); the former was adopted by Japan and the latter by Turkey. In the 20th century, codes in Brazil, Mexico, Greece, and Peru were products of a comparative method, with ideas borrowed from the German, French, and Swiss.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
     
 
Napoleon I

Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815)
     
 
 
 
1804
 
 
Thomas Brown: "Inquiry into the Relation of Cause and Effect"
 
 
Brown Thomas
 

Thomas Brown, (born Jan. 9, 1778, Kilmabreck, Kirkcudbright, Scot.—died April 2, 1820, Brompton, near London), British metaphysician whose work marks a turning point in the history of the common-sense school of philosophy.

 

Thomas Brown
  Between 1792 and 1803 Brown studied philosophy, law, and medicine at the University of Edinburgh, where he met the philosopher Dugald Stewart and the founders of the Edinburgh Review. After practicing medicine briefly, Brown was deputy lecturer for Stewart (1808–09) and became joint professor of moral philosophy with him in 1810. From Stewart, who was the chief expositor of the views of Thomas Reid (1710–96), a Scottish philosopher of common sense, Brown accepted many of Reid’s arguments that were characteristic of the school. Brown modified some tenets of the school and rejected others, thus standing at the dividing point between two factions. The group led by Brown was oriented toward sense perception and was supported by John Stuart Mill and Alexander Bain; the other group, represented by Sir William Hamilton, sought to introduce the views of various German Idealist philosophers and thereby direct attention away from sensations and toward thought processes. Brown’s writings include Observations on the Zoonomia of Erasmus Darwin (1798); Observations on the Nature and Tendency of the Doctrine of Mr. Hume Concerning the Relation of Cause and Effect (1804), eight books of verse (collected ed., 4 vol., 1820); and Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind, 4 vol. (1820).

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 

Criticism of Darwin

One of Brown's notable works included a critique of Erasmus Darwin's theory of transmutation. The philosopher published it in the form of a detailed study Observations on the zoonomia of Erasmus Darwin (1798), which was recognized as a mature work of criticsm.

There, Brown wrote:

As the earth, to a considerable depth, abounds with the recrements of organic life, Dr. Darwin adopts the opinion, that it has been generated, rather than created; the original quantity of matter having been continually increased, by the processes of animalization, and vegetation. This production of the causes of effects he considers, as affording a more magnificent idea of the infinite power of the Creator, than if he had simply caused the effects themselves; and, if the inconceivable be the source of the magnificent, the opinion is just. It is contrary, however, to all the observations, which prove the processes of animal, and vegetable growth, to be the result of new combinations of matter, previously existing; and it is also in direct opposition to the opinions, which Dr. Darwin has himself advanced.
A body can increase in bulk, only by the farther separation of its parts, in expansion, or by the accretion of new parts. In the former case, no addition is made to the origina quantity of matter; and it will surely be admitted, that nothing can accresce, which does not exist. The parts accreted, existing before their junction with the animal, must have formed a portion of the original matter of the world, or been called into being,, in a new creation, not by the animal, to which they accresce, but by the great fource of animal existence.
The immense beds of limestone, chalk, and marble, may have been, at one time, the shells of fish, and may thus have received a difference of form; but, unless the calcareous earth, of which they are composed, if that earth be a simple body, or its ingredients, if it be compound, had previously existed, all the powers of animation which the ocean contains would have been insufficient to create a single shell...
The process of generation is said to consist in the secretion by the male of a living filament, and by the female of a nutritive fluid, which stimulates the filament, to absorb particles, and thus to add to its bulk: At the earliest period of its existence the embryon, as secreted from the blood of the male, would seem to consist of a living filament, with certain capabilities of irritation, sensation, volition and association," p. 484. To say, that the filament is living, and that it possesses these powers, is to say, that it possess sensorial power, which is considered by Dr. Darwin, as the source of animation...
Dr. Darwin seems to consider the animals of former times, as possessing powers, much superior to those of their posterity. They reasoned on their wants : they wished : and it was done. The boar, which originally differed little from the other beasts of the forest, first obtained tusks, because he conceived them to be useful weapons, and then, by another process of reasoning, a thick shield-like shoulder, to defend himself from the tusks of his fellows. The stag, in like manner, formed to himself horns, at once sharp, and branched, for the different purposes of offence, and defence. Some animals obtained wings, others fins, and others swiftness of foot; while the vegetables exerted themselves, in inventing various modes of concealing, and defending their feeds, and honey. These are a few of many instances, adduced by Dr. Darwin, which are all objectionable, on his own principles ; as they require us to believe the various propensities, to have been the cause, rather than the effect, of the difference of configuration...
If we admit the supposed capacity of producing organs, by the mere feeling of a want, man must have been greatly degenerated, or been originally inferior, in power. He may \Nash for wings, as the other bipeds are supposed to have done with success ; but a century of wishes will not render him abler to take flight. It is not, however, to man that the observation must be confined. No improvements of form have been observed, in the other animals, since the first dawnings of zoology ; and we must, therefore, believe them, to have lost the power of production, rather than to have attained all the objects of their desire.

Noteworthy, Brown's criticism of the Darwinian thesis, like that of Rudolf Virchow, did not come from a religious feeling.

 
 
 
1804
 
 
Feuerbach Ludwig
 

Ludwig Feuerbach, in full Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach (born July 28, 1804, Landshut, Bavaria [Germany]—died September 13, 1872, Rechenberg, Germany), German philosopher and moralist remembered for his influence on Karl Marx and for his humanistic theologizing.

 

Ludwig Feuerbach
  The fourth son of the eminent jurist Paul von Feuerbach, Ludwig Feuerbach abandoned theological studies to become a student of philosophy under G.W.F. Hegel for two years at Berlin. In 1828 he went to Erlangen to study natural science, and two years later his first book, Gedanken über Tod und Unsterblichkeit (“Thoughts on Death and Immortality”), was published anonymously. In this work Feuerbach attacked the concept of personal immortality and proposed a type of immortality by which human qualities are reabsorbed into nature. His Abälard und Heloise (1834) and Pierre Bayle (1838) were followed by Über Philosophie und Christentum (1839; “On Philosophy and Christianity”), in which he claimed “that Christianity has in fact long vanished not only from the reason but from the life of mankind, that it is nothing more than a fixed idea.”

Continuing this view in his most important work, Das Wesen des Christentums (1841; The Essence of Christianity), Feuerbach posited the notion that man is to himself his own object of thought and that religion is nothing more than a consciousness of the infinite. The result of this view is the notion that God is merely the outward projection of man’s inward nature. In the first part of his book, which strongly influenced Marx, Feuerbach analyzed the “true or anthropological essence of religion.”

 
 
Discussing God’s aspects “as a being of the understanding,” “as a moral being or law,” “as love,” and others, he argued that they correspond to different needs in human nature. In the second section he analyzed the “false or theological essence of religion,” contending that the view that God has an existence independent of human existence leads to a belief in revelation and sacraments, which are items of an undesirable religious materialism.

Although Feuerbach denied that he was an atheist, he nevertheless contended that the God of Christianity is an illusion. As he expanded his discussion to other disciplines, including philosophy, he came to see Hegel’s principles as quasi-religious and embraced instead a form of materialism that Marx subsequently criticized in his Thesen über Feuerbach (written 1845). Attacking religious orthodoxy during the politically turbulent years of 1848–49, Feuerbach was seen as a hero by many of the revolutionaries. His influence was greatest on such anti-Christian publicists as David Friedrich Strauss, author of the skeptical Das Leben Jesu kritisch bearbeitet (1835–36; The Life of Jesus Critically Examined), and Bruno Bauer, who, like Feuerbach, had abandoned Hegelianism for naturalism. Some of Feuerbach’s views were later endorsed by extremists in the struggle between church and state in Germany and by those who, like Marx, led the revolt of labour against capitalism. Among his other works are Theogonie (1857) and Gottheit, Freiheit, und Unsterblichkeit (1866; “God, Freedom, and Immortality”).

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
1804
 
 
Kant Immanuel d. (b. 1724)
 
 

Immanuel Kant
 
 
     
  Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant
"Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals"
"
THE METAPHYSICAL ELEMENTS OF ETHICS"
"
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS"
"
THE CRITIQUE OF PURE REASON"
"THE CRITIQUE OF PRACTICAL REASON"
     
 
 
     
  IDEAS that Changed the World

Myths and Legends
History of Religion
History of Philosophy
     
 
 
 
1804
 
 
Sainte-Beuve Charles-Augustin
 

Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve, (born Dec. 23, 1804, Boulogne—died Oct. 13, 1869, Paris), French literary historian and critic, noted for applying historical frames of reference to contemporary writing. His studies of French literature from the Renaissance to the 19th century made him one of the most respected and most powerful literary critics in 19th-century France.

 

Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve.
By Bertall.
  Early life and Romantic period.
Sainte-Beuve was the posthumous only child of a tax collector. After a sheltered childhood, he completed his classical education in Paris and began to study medicine, which he abandoned after a year. A talented but in no way brilliant youth, he continued his general education at his own pace, attending the University of Paris and extension institutions, and in 1825 was drawn into journalism by his former teacher, Paul Dubois, editor of a new liberal periodical, Le Globe. In its pages he wrote his first essays on the poetry of Victor Hugo and soon became a member of his literary circle of Romantic writers and poets. In his first book, Tableau historique et critique de la poésie française et du théâtre français au XVIe siècle (1828; “Historical and Critical Description of French Poetry and Theatre in the Sixteenth Century”), he discovered, perhaps naturally, a Renaissance ancestry for Hugo and others of his new friends. A brief visit to England in 1828 strengthened his taste for the poetry of William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, both of whom were then little known in continental Europe. His visit to England may also account for the appearance of elements of the style of William Cowper and George Crabbe in volumes of his own poetry, Vie, poésies et pensées de Joseph Delorme (1829; “The Life, Poetry, and Thought of Joseph Delorme”) and Les Consolations (1830), which on their publication attracted some attention—not least because of their deliberate flatness and apparent uncouthness, much in contrast to the grander manner of Hugo and the poet Alfred de Vigny.
 
 
He had meanwhile developed a taste for social speculation and a concern for problems of religious experience. His social concerns first crystallized in a passing attachment to the group of reformers assembled around the doctrines of Count Claude-Henri de Saint-Simon. According to Saint-Simon’s disciples, the feudal and military systems were to be replaced by one controlled by industrial managers, and scientists rather than the church were to become the spiritual directors of society. When this group in 1830 took over management of Le Globe, Sainte-Beuve was entrusted with drafting two manifestos, or “professions of faith”; and, although he was soon to be repelled by the sentimental excesses and intemperance of its leaders, he retained for 30 years a lingering sympathy for its vision of a technocratic society founded on the brotherhood of man. Almost simultaneously, Sainte-Beuve came under the spell of a religious reformer and polemist, Félicité Robert de Lamennais, to whom for a time he looked for religious guidance. Lamennais was then the spiritual adviser of the wife of Victor Hugo, Adèle, with whom Sainte-Beuve in 1831 struck up a lasting but seemingly platonic relationship of great intensity. Many of the details of this shadowy affair are more or less accurately related in the critic’s privately printed volume of lyrics, Livre d’amour (1904), which was, however, not published in the lifetime of either of them.
 
 
Early critical and historical writings.
Besides Le Globe, Sainte-Beuve from 1831 contributed articles to another new periodical, the Revue des deux Mondes. The success of his articles in the two reviews prompted him to collect them as Critiques et portraits littéraires, 5 vol. (1832–39). In these “portraits” of contemporaries, he developed a kind of critique, novel and much applauded at the time, of studying a well-known living writer in the round and entering into considerable biographical research to understand the mental attitudes of his subject.

In the early 1830s Sainte-Beuve was hampered by his dislike for the newly established regime of King Louis-Philippe, which had aroused his anger mainly by its brutal handling of the riots of 1832. He accordingly refused several educational posts that would have relieved his poverty, fearing that they might compromise his freedom of judgment.

Sainte-Beuve’s friendship with Victor Hugo, which had already begun to cool in 1830, was almost extinguished by the anonymous publication of Sainte-Beuve’s autobiographical novel Volupté in 1834. In this book the hero Amaury’s hopeless love for the saintly and unapproachable Madame de Couaën reflects its author’s passion for Adèle Hugo. Volupté is an intensely introspective and troubling study of Amaury’s frustration, guilt, religious striving, and final renunciation of the flesh and the devil.

While continuing to produce intellectual “portraits” of his literary contemporaries, as further collected in Portraits contemporains (1846), Sainte-Beuve became a member of the circle presided over by Mme Récamier, the famous hostess, and the writer and politician François-René de Chateaubriand. Sainte-Beuve greeted the appearance of Chateaubriand’s memoirs with enthusiasm, though a decade and a half later he was to write an extensive and far more detached study of that writer and his literary circle, entitled Chateaubriand et son groupe littéraire sous l’empire (1861).

  A softening of Sainte-Beuve’s attitude toward Louis-Philippe’s regime coincided in 1836 with an invitation from François Guizot, then minister of education, to accept a one-year appointment as secretary of a government commission studying the nation’s literary heritage. Guizot’s suggestion at that time that Sainte-Beuve demonstrate his eminence as a scholar by producing a major work led to Port-Royal, his single most famous piece of writing. In 1837 Sainte-Beuve accepted a year’s visiting professorship at the University of Lausanne to lecture on Port-Royal, the convent famous in the 17th century for advancing a highly controversial view of the doctrine of grace, loosely called Jansenism. For his lectures he produced Histoire de Port-Royal, 3 vol. (1840–48), which he revised over the next two decades. This monumental assemblage of scholarship, insights, and historical acumen—unique of its kind—covers the religious and literary history of France over half of the 17th century, as glimpsed through the internal records of Jansenism.

On completing his year in Lausanne, Sainte-Beuve returned to Paris, and in 1840 he was appointed to a post in the French Institute’s Mazarine Library, a position he held until 1848. He continued regular essay writing, and the first two volumes of Port-Royal had also been published when he was elected to the French Academy in 1844. By then he had already broken his earlier close links with the Romantics and was highly critical of what now appeared to him as the undisciplined excesses of that movement.

After the overthrow in 1848 of Louis-Philippe, Sainte-Beuve was not impressed by what he saw of revolutionary democracy. Unfairly accused in the republican press of accepting secret government funds for the repair of a chimney in his apartment, he resigned his library appointment in a fit of pique and settled for a year at the University of Liège (Belgium) as visiting professor. There he wrote his definitive—but unfinished—study of Chateaubriand and the birth of literary Romanticism and carried out research on medieval French literature.

 
 
The Causeries du lundi period.
After Sainte-Beuve returned to Paris in 1849, he was asked by Louis Véron, editor of the newspaper Le Constitutionnel, to write a weekly article or essay on current literary topics, to appear every Monday. This was the start of the famous collection of studies that Sainte-Beuve named Causeries du lundi (“Monday Chats”), after their day of publication. These critical and biographical essays appeared in Le Constitutionnel from October 1849 to November 1852 and from September 1861 to January 1867; in Le Moniteur from December 1852 to August 1861 and from September 1867 to November 1868; and in Le Temps in 1869. Their success was such that Sainte-Beuve began collecting them as Causeries du lundi, 3 vol. (1851); the definitive 3rd edition formed 15 volumes (1857–62). A new series, consisting of the articles of 1861–69, was published in 13 volumes as Nouveaux lundis (1863–70).
 
 

Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve
  In his articles Sainte-Beuve wrote about both past and present French authors, with some attention paid to those of other European nations as well.

Sainte-Beuve welcomed the rise of Napoleon III’s more dictatorial and orderly regime in the early 1850s. In due course, his sympathy was rewarded by appointment to the chair of Latin at the Collège de France, a well-paid but largely nominal post. His first lectures there were interrupted by the demonstrations of radical students critical of his support of Napoleon III, however, and he resigned his duties and salary, retaining only the title. The intended lectures were published as Étude sur Virgile (1857), a full-length study of Virgil. In 1858 Sainte-Beuve received a temporary teaching appointment in literature at the École Normale Supérieure, where he drew upon his 1848 researches to deliver a course on medieval French literature; but otherwise his whole later career was based on freelance essay writing.
Under the Second Empire, many of Sainte-Beuve’s earlier acquaintances, now dead or in retirement, were replaced by other writers: Gustave Flaubert, Ernest Renan, the Goncourt brothers, Prosper Mérimée, Ivan Turgenev, Matthew Arnold, and a large number of scholars, historians, and academicians.
He frequented the salon of Napoleon III’s cousin, the princess Mathilde, somewhat of a literary centre itself, though less formal in style than had been the salon of Mme Récamier until 1848.
 
 
Nevertheless, the crushing task of researching, writing, correcting, and proofreading a 3,000-word essay for publication every Monday largely prevented Sainte-Beuve from exploring in the same leisurely way as in his youth the many new trends being developed by young writers. There is no doubt that his literary tastes, though unprecedentedly wide, ceased to develop much after about 1850.

In 1865 he was made a senator by imperial decree. His addresses to the Senate were unpopular with his colleagues because of his liberal views, but two were important: that in support of public libraries and liberty of thought (1867) and that on liberty of education (1868). In December 1868 Le Moniteur, which had been independent, was reorganized and became a government organ. An article Sainte-Beuve wished to publish in the paper caused difficulties, and for the first time he was asked to correct and cut a sentence. He withdrew the article and offered it to Le Temps, for which he remained a contributor until his death in 1869 after unsuccessful bladder stone operations.

 
 

Charles-Augustin Sainte-Beuve
  Assessment.
It was with Sainte-Beuve that French literary criticism first became fully independent and freed itself from personal prejudice and partisan passions. That he was able to revolutionize critical methods was partly a result of the rise of the newspaper and the critical review, which gave prestige and wide circulation to criticism and guaranteed its independence.

Sainte-Beuve’s critical works, published over a period of about 45 years, constitute a unique collection of literary portraits. He ranged widely, covering every genre of literature and reinstating writers whose works had been forgotten, neglected, or misunderstood. To use his own phrase, Sainte-Beuve was primarily a creator of likenesses of great men (imagier des grands hommes). He wished, as he said, to understand fully those about whom he wrote, to live alongside them, and to allow them to explain themselves to present-day readers. To this end, he conceived the practice of providing in his essays extensive data on an author’s character, his family background, physical appearance, education, religion, love affairs and friendships, and so on. Though now a standard method of historical criticism, this practice led to allegations that Sainte-Beuve was providing merely biographical explanations of literary phenomena.

 
 
The field of criticism has widened since Sainte-Beuve’s day, and as a result he has come to be reproached for his omissions and injustices toward some of his great French contemporaries. As one who prepared the way for modern poetry, he is disappointing when writing on Charles Baudelaire, and he was unfair to Gustave Flaubert, Stendhal, and especially to Honoré de Balzac. But from his earliest review articles on Hugo, Sainte-Beuve was never afraid to introduce specific reservations into his most enthusiastic eulogies, and it was this uncompromising independence that earned him the reputation of being an unreliable, or even perfidious, critic of friends.

Sainte-Beuve was able to achieve his enormous output, which constitutes an encyclopaedia of thought, only by relentless labour and an unequaled tenacity of purpose, linked with unusually subtle intellectual power. A portion of his scholarly research has, with time, become old-fashioned, but within limits the precision of his documentation is almost always impeccable, even over details on which it has been challenged by literary opponents. This precision was due to a lifetime’s habit of extreme care in documentation and to a fanatical respect for historical accuracy.

To older critical traditions whose judgment rested on rigid standards of taste, Sainte-Beuve added a much more flexible and historical approach, entailing the sympathetic reconstruction of values not necessarily shared by himself and his readers. Although he was not without limitations as a critic of literature, his success in his vocation was probably unequaled in his time. A fitting summary of his life and work was given by Barbey d’Aurevilly in his words “Sainte-Beuve, abeille des livres . . . faisant miel de tout pour le compte de la littérature” (“Sainte-Beuve, like a bee among books . . . distilling honey from everything of literary value”).

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
see also: Charles-Augustin de Sainte-Beuve
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1804
 
 
Hawthorne Nathaniel
 

Nathaniel Hawthorne, (born July 4, 1804, Salem, Mass., U.S.—died May 19, 1864, Plymouth, N.H.), American novelist and short-story writer who was a master of the allegorical and symbolic tale. One of the greatest fiction writers in American literature, he is best known for The Scarlet Letter (1850) and The House of the Seven Gables (1851).

 
Early years
Hawthorne’s ancestors had lived in Salem since the 17th century. His earliest American ancestor, William Hathorne (Nathaniel added the w to the name when he began to write), was a magistrate who had sentenced a Quaker woman to public whipping. He had acted as a staunch defender of Puritan orthodoxy, with its zealous advocacy of a “pure,” unaffected form of religious worship, its rigid adherence to a simple, almost severe, mode of life, and its conviction of the “natural depravity” of “fallen” man. Hawthorne was later to wonder whether the decline of his family’s prosperity and prominence during the 18th century, while other Salem families were growing wealthy from the lucrative shipping trade, might not be a retribution for this act and for the role of William’s son John as one of three judges in the Salem witchcraft trials of 1692. When Nathaniel’s father—a ship’s captain—died during one of his voyages, he left his young widow without means to care for her two girls and young Nathaniel, aged four. She moved in with her affluent brothers, the Mannings. Hawthorne grew up in their house in Salem and, for extensive periods during his teens, in Raymond, Maine, on the shores of Sebago Lake. He returned to Salem in 1825 after four years at Bowdoin College, in Brunswick, Maine. Hawthorne did not distinguish himself as a young man. Instead, he spent nearly a dozen years reading and trying to master the art of writing fiction.
 
 

Portrait of Nathaniel Hawthorne by Charles Osgood, 1841 (Peabody Essex Museum)
  First works
In college Hawthorne had excelled only in composition and had determined to become a writer. Upon graduation, he had written an amateurish novel, Fanshawe, which he published at his own expense—only to decide that it was unworthy of him and to try to destroy all copies. Hawthorne, however, soon found his own voice, style, and subjects, and within five years of his graduation he had published such impressive and distinctive stories as “The Hollow of the Three Hills” and “An Old Woman’s Tale.” By 1832, “My Kinsman, Major Molineux” and “Roger Malvin’s Burial,” two of his greatest tales—and among the finest in the language—had appeared. “Young Goodman Brown,” perhaps the greatest tale of witchcraft ever written, appeared in 1835.

His increasing success in placing his stories brought him a little fame. Unwilling to depend any longer on his uncles’ generosity, he turned to a job in the Boston Custom House (1839–40) and for six months in 1841 was a resident at the agricultural cooperative Brook Farm, in West Roxbury, Mass. Even when his first signed book, Twice-Told Tales, was published in 1837, the work had brought gratifying recognition but no dependable income. By 1842, however, Hawthorne’s writing had brought him a sufficient income to allow him to marry Sophia Peabody; the couple rented the Old Manse in Concord and began a happy three-year period that Hawthorne would later record in his essay “The Old Manse.”

 
 
The presence of some of the leading social thinkers and philosophers of his day, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Thoreau, and Bronson Alcott, in Concord made the village the centre of the philosophy of Transcendentalism, which encouraged man to transcend the materialistic world of experience and facts and become conscious of the pervading spirit of the universe and the potentialities for human freedom. Hawthorne welcomed the companionship of his Transcendentalist neighbours, but he had little to say to them. Artists and intellectuals never inspired his full confidence, but he thoroughly enjoyed the visit of his old college friend and classmate Franklin Pierce, later to become president of the United States. At the Old Manse, Hawthorne continued to write stories, with the same result as before: literary success, monetary failure.
His new short-story collection, Mosses from an Old Manse, appeared in 1846.
 
 
Return to Salem
A growing family and mounting debts compelled the Hawthornes’ return in 1845 to Salem, where Nathaniel was appointed surveyor of the Custom House by the Polk administration (Hawthorne had always been a loyal Democrat and pulled all the political strings he could to get this appointment). Three years later the presidential election brought the Whigs into power under Zachary Taylor, and Hawthorne lost his job; but in a few months of concentrated effort, he produced his masterpiece, The Scarlet Letter. The bitterness he felt over his dismissal is apparent in “The Custom House” essay prefixed to the novel. The Scarlet Letter tells the story of two lovers kept apart by the ironies of fate, their own mingled strengths and weaknesses, and the Puritan community’s interpretation of moral law, until at last death unites them under a single headstone. The book made Hawthorne famous and was eventually recognized as one of the greatest of American novels.

Determined to leave Salem forever, Hawthorne moved to Lenox, located in the mountain scenery of the Berkshires in western Massachusetts.
There he began work on The House of the Seven Gables (1851), the story of the Pyncheon family, who for generations had lived under a curse until it was removed at last by love.

  At Lenox he enjoyed the stimulating friendship of Herman Melville, who lived in nearby Pittsfield. This friendship, although important for the younger writer and his work, was much less so for Hawthorne. Melville praised Hawthorne extravagantly in a review of his Mosses from an Old Manse, and he also dedicated Moby Dick to Hawthorne. But eventually Melville came to feel that the friendship he so ardently pursued was one-sided. Later he was to picture the relationship with disillusion in his introductory sketch to The Piazza Tales and depicted Hawthorne himself unflatteringly as “Vine” in his long poem Clarel.

In the autumn of 1851 Hawthorne moved his family to another temporary residence, this time in West Newton, near Boston. There he quickly wrote The Blithedale Romance, which was based on his disenchantment with Brook Farm. Then he purchased and redecorated Bronson Alcott’s house in Concord, the Wayside. Blithedale was disappointingly received and did not produce the income Hawthorne had expected. He was hoping for a lucrative political appointment that would bolster his finances; in the meantime, he wrote a campaign biography of his old friend Franklin Pierce. When Pierce won the presidency, Hawthorne was in 1853 rewarded with the consulship in Liverpool, Lancashire, a position he hoped would enable him in a few years to leave his family financially secure.

 
 


Daguerrotype of Hawthorne,
Whipple & Black, 1848

  Last years
The remaining 11 years of Hawthorne’s life were, from a creative point of view, largely anticlimactic. He performed his consular duties faithfully and effectively until his position was terminated in 1857, and then he spent a year and a half sight-seeing in Italy. Determined to produce yet another romance, he finally retreated to a seaside town in England and quickly produced The Marble Faun.
In writing it, he drew heavily upon the experiences and impressions he had recorded in a notebook kept during his Italian tour to give substance to an allegory of the Fall of man, a theme that had usually been assumed in his earlier works but that now received direct and philosophic treatment.

Back in the Wayside once more in 1860, Hawthorne devoted himself entirely to his writing but was unable to make any progress with his plans for a new novel. The drafts of unfinished works he left are mostly incoherent and show many signs of a psychic regression, already foreshadowed by his increasing restlessness and discontent of the preceding half dozen years. Some two years before his death he began to age very suddenly. His hair turned white, his handwriting changed, he suffered frequent nosebleeds, and he took to writing the figure “64” compulsively on scraps of paper.
He died in his sleep on a trip in search of health with his friend Pierce.

 
 
Major novels
The main character of The Scarlet Letter is Hester Prynne, a young married woman who has borne an illegitimate child while living away from her husband in a village in Puritan New England. The husband, Roger Chillingworth, arrives in New England to find his wife pilloried and made to wear the letter A (meaning adulteress) in scarlet on her dress as a punishment for her illicit affair and for her refusal to reveal the name of the child’s father. Chillingworth becomes obsessed with finding the identity of his wife’s former lover.

He learns that Hester’s paramour is a saintly young minister, Arthur Dimmesdale, and Chillingworth then proceeds to revenge himself by mentally tormenting the guilt-stricken young man. Hester herself is revealed to be a compassionate and splendidly self-reliant heroine who is never truly repentant for the act of adultery committed with the minister; she feels that their act was consecrated by their deep love for each other. In the end Chillingworth is morally degraded by his monomaniac pursuit of revenge, and Dimmesdale is broken by his own sense of guilt and publicly confesses his adultery before dying in Hester’s arms.
  Only Hester can face the future optimistically, as she plans to ensure the future of her beloved little girl by taking her to Europe.

The House of the Seven Gables is a sombre study in hereditary sin based on the legend of a curse pronounced on Hawthorne’s own family by a woman condemned to death during the witchcraft trials.

The greed and arrogant pride of the novel’s Pyncheon family down the generations is mirrored in the gloomy decay of their seven-gabled mansion, in which the family’s enfeebled and impoverished poor relations live. At the book’s end the descendant of a family long ago defrauded by the Pyncheons lifts his ancestors’ curse on the mansion and marries a young niece of the family.

In The Marble Faun a trio of expatriate American art students in Italy become peripherally involved to varying degrees in the murder of an unknown man; their contact with sin transforms two of them from innocents into adults now possessed of a mature and critical awareness of life’s complexity and possibilities.

 
 

Nathaniel Hawthorne in the 1860s
  Assessment
Hawthorne’s high rank among American fiction writers is the result of at least three considerations. First, he was a skillful craftsman with an impressive arthitectonic sense of form. The structure of The Scarlet Letter, for example, is so tightly integrated that no chapter, no paragraph, even, could be omitted without doing violence to the whole.

The book’s four characters are inextricably bound together in the tangled web of a life situation that seems to have no solution, and the tightly woven plot has a unity of action that rises slowly but inexorably to the climactic scene of Dimmesdale’s public confession. The same tight construction is found in Hawthorne’s other writings also, especially in the shorter pieces, or “tales.” Hawthorne was also the master of a classic literary style that is remarkable for its directness, its clarity, its firmness, and its sureness of idiom.

A second reason for Hawthorne’s greatness is his moral insight. He inherited the Puritan tradition of moral earnestness, and he was deeply concerned with the concepts of original sin and guilt and the claims of law and conscience. Hawthorne rejected what he saw as the Transcendentalists’ transparent optimism about the potentialities of human nature. Instead he looked more deeply and perhaps more honestly into life, finding in it much suffering and conflict but also finding the redeeming power of love. There is no Romantic escape in his works, but rather a firm and resolute scrutiny of the psychological and moral facts of the human condition.

 
 
A third reason for Hawthorne’s eminence is his mastery of allegory and symbolism. His fictional characters’ actions and dilemmas fairly obviously express larger generalizations about the problems of human existence. But with Hawthorne this leads not to unconvincing pasteboard figures with explanatory labels attached but to a sombre, concentrated emotional involvement with his characters that has the power, the gravity, and the inevitability of true tragedy. His use of symbolism in The Scarlet Letter is particularly effective, and the scarlet letter itself takes on a wider significance and application that is out of all proportion to its literal character as a scrap of cloth.

Hawthorne’s work initiated the most durable tradition in American fiction, that of the symbolic romance that assumes the universality of guilt and explores the complexities and ambiguities of man’s choices. His greatest short stories and The Scarlet Letter are marked by a depth of psychological and moral insight seldom equaled by any American writer.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
see also: Nathaniel Hawthorne
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1804
 
 
Morike Eduard
 

Eduard Friedrich Morike, (born Sept. 8, 1804, Ludwigsburg, Württemberg [Germany]—died June 4, 1875, Stuttgart), one of Germany’s greatest lyric poets.

 

Eduard Friedrich Morike
  After studying theology at Tübingen (1822–26), Mörike held several curacies before becoming, in 1834, pastor of Cleversulzbach, the remote Württemberg village immortalized in Der alte Turmhahn, where inhabitants and pastor are seen through the whimsical but percipient eyes of an old weathercock. All his life Mörike suffered from psychosomatic illnesses, which were possibly intensified by an unconscious conflict between his humanist aspirations and his church dogmas. When only 39, Mörike retired on a pension, but after his marriage to Margarete von Speeth in 1851, he supplemented his pension by lecturing on German literature at a girls’ school in Stuttgart. After many years of rich literary achievement, the tensions caused by Margarete’s jealousy of Clara, Mörike’s sister who lived with them, almost killed his creative urge. Mörike spent most of his last two years with Clara and his younger daughter and was separated from Margarete until shortly before his death.

Mörike’s small output is characterized by its variety. Everything he wrote has its own distinctive flavour, but in his early days romantic influences preponderate. His novel, Maler Nolten (1832), in addition to its stylistic perfection and psychological insight into mental unbalance, explores the realm of the subconscious and the mysterious forces linking the main character and his early love even beyond the grave. Mörike’s poems in folk-song style and his fairy tales also show the influence of German romanticism, though his best folk tale, Das Stuttgarter Hutzelmännlein (1853), is peculiarly his own, with its Swabian background and humour.

 
 
In his Mozart auf der Reise nach Prag (1856), Mörike penetrates deeper into Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s personality than do many longer studies.

It is, however, as a lyric poet that Mörike is at the height of his powers. Mörike worked with free rhythms, sonnets, regular stanza forms, and, more particularly in his later poems, classical metres with equal virtuosity. The “Peregrina” poems, immortalizing a youthful love of his Tübingen days, and the sonnets to Luise Rau, his one-time betrothed, are among the most exquisite German love lyrics.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
see also: Eduard Friedrich Morike
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1804
 
 
Sand George
 

Amantine-Lucile-Aurore Dupin (French: [amɑ̃tin lysil oʁɔʁ dypɛ̃]; 1 July 1804 – 8 June 1876), best known by her pseudonym George Sand (French: [ʒɔʁʒ sɑ̃d]), was a French novelist and memoirist. She is equally well known for her much publicized romantic affairs with a number of celebrities including Frédéric Chopin and Alfred de Musset.

 

Portrait of George Sand at 34, by Auguste Charpentier, 1838
  George Sand, pseudonym of Armandine-Aurore-Lucille Dudevant, née Dupin (born July 1, 1804, Paris, France—died June 8, 1876, Nohant), French Romantic writer, known primarily for her so-called rustic novels.

She was brought up at Nohant, near La Châtre in Berry, the country home of her grandmother. There she gained the profound love and understanding of the countryside that were to inform most of her works.

In 1817 she was sent to a convent in Paris, where she acquired a mystical fervour that, though it soon abated, left its mark.

In 1822 Aurore married Baron Casimir Dudevant. The first years of the marriage were happy enough, but Aurore soon tired of her well-intentioned but somewhat insensitive husband and sought consolation first in a platonic friendship with a young magistrate and then in a passionate liaison with a neighbour.

In January 1831 she left Nohant for Paris, where she found a good friend in Henri de Latouche, the director of Le Figaro, who accepted some of the articles she wrote with Jules Sandeau under the pseudonym Jules Sand. In 1832 she adopted a new pseudonym, George Sand, for Indiana, a novel in which Sandeau had had no part.

This novel, which brought her immediate fame, is a passionate protest against the social conventions that bind a wife to her husband against her will and an apologia for a heroine who abandons an unhappy marriage and finds love.

 
 
In Valentine (1832) and Lélia (1833) the ideal of free association is extended to the wider sphere of social and class relationships. Valentine is the first of many Sand novels in which the hero is a peasant or a workman.
 
 

George Sand by Nadar, 1864
  Meanwhile, the list of her lovers was growing; eventually it included, among others, Prosper Mérimée, Alfred de Musset, and Frédéric Chopin. She remained impervious to Musset’s skeptical views and Chopin’s aristocratic prejudices, while the man whose opinions she adopted wholeheartedly, the philosopher Pierre Lerous, was never her lover. The fact remains, however, that most of her early works, including Lélia, Mauprat (1837), Spiridion (1839), and Les sept Cordes de la lyre (1840), show the influence of one or another of the men with whom she associated.

Eventually, she found her true form in her rustic novels, which drew their chief inspiration from her lifelong love of the countryside and sympathy for the poor. In La Mare au diable (1846), François le Champi (1848), and La Petite Fadette (1849), the familiar theme of George Sand’s work—love transcending the obstacles of convention and class—in the familiar setting of the Berry countryside, regained pride of place. These rustic tales are probably her finest works. She subsequently produced a series of novels and plays of impeccable morality and conservatism. Among her later works are the autobiography Histoire de ma vie (1854–55; “Story of My Life”) and Contes d’une grand’mère (1873; “Tales of a Grandmother”), a collection of stories she wrote for her grandchildren.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 


Sand sewing, by Delacroix, 1838

 
see also: George Sand
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1804
 
 
Schiller: "Wilhelm Tell"
 

William Tell (German: Wilhelm Tell) is a drama written by Schiller Friedrich in 1804. The story focuses on the legendary Swiss marksman William Tell as part of the greater Swiss struggle for independence from the Habsburg Empire in the early 14th century. Gioachino Rossini's four-act opera Guillaume Tell was written to a French adaptation of Schiller's play.

 
Composition
The play was written by Friedrich Schiller between 1803 and 1804, and published that year in a first edition of 7000 copies. Since its publication, Schiller’s William Tell has been translated into many languages, including Slovene, Croatian, Turkish, Romansh, and Hebrew.

Friedrich Schiller (who had never been to Switzerland, but was well informed, being a historian) was inspired to write a play about the legendary Swiss marksman William Tell by his wife Lotte, who knew the country from her personal experience. After his friend, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, had returned from his second journey to the Lake of Lucerne in 1779, Schiller started collecting sources.

Most of Schiller’s information about the history of the Swiss confederation is drawn from Aegidius Tschudi’s Chronicon Helveticum (Latin: ‘Swiss Chronicle’), Johannes von Müller’s History of the Swiss Confederation (German: Geschichten Schweizerischer Eidgenossenschaft), as well as two chronicles of Petermann Etterlin and Johannes Stumpf.

 
 

Wilhelm Tell aus der Schiller-Galerie,
Stich von Johann Leonhard Raab nach Pecht
 
Tell's Knabe aus der Schiller-Galerie,
Stahlstich von Gonzenbach nach Pecht, um 1859
 
 
Plot Synopsis
The fateful enmity of the tyrant Gessler, Governor of the Swiss cantons, and William Tell, an obscure huntsman, begins during a tempest on Lake Lucerne when Tell braves the angry waves to row to safety a peasant who is pursued by the Governor's horsemen. "The lake may take pity on him; but the Governor, never," says Tell.

His opinion of the bloodthirsty Gessler is shared increasingly by the peasantry as the oppressor fills the old jails, builds a huge new prison at Altdorf for more victims, and sets his cap upon a pole before it, commanding that all who pass must bow to it or pay the penalty of death. Public anger is fanned into rebellion when Gessler blinds an aged man for a trifling misdemeanor. Tell, the individualist, holds aloof from the rebels' councils, but promises his aid when needed.

A friend of the peasants is the aged Baron of Attinghausen, but his nephew and heir, Ulrich of Rudenz, fascinated by the splendor of Gessler's court and love for Bertha, the Governor's ward, is allied with the tyrant. The Baron warns Ulrich that Bertha is being used only to bait him, and that the freedom-loving people will prevail in the end, but the youth goes to join Gessler. While they are together hunting, however, Bertha reveals that she will love him only if he joins in the fight to liberate his own people from Gessler's grip.

Tell prepares to pay a promised visit to his father-in-law, a leader of the rebels, and his wife, fearful that the Governor counts him as an enemy, asks him in vain to postpone the trip.

Tell insists that he has nothing to fear, and sets off with his crossbow, accompanied by Walter, his son. They pass the prison where Tell, failing to salute the Governor's cap, is seized by a guardsman. Several peasants are trying to rescue him when the Governor's hunting party rides up and Gessler demands an explanation from the huntsman. Tell declares his failure to salute was an oversight, and the Governor remarks that he has heard that Tell is a master of the bow. Walter boasts: "Yes, my lord! My father can hit an apple at a hundred yards!" Says Gessler: "Very well, you shall prove your skill now. Shoot an apple from the boy's head. If you miss, your own head shall pay the forfeit."

The spectators are horrified. Tell falls upon his knees, imploring Gessler to withdraw so barbarous a command. He bares his own breast, but the Governor laughs and says: "It is not your life I want, but the shot—the proof of your skill." The boy speaks up: "Shoot, Father! Don't be afraid. I promise to stand still." Tell removes two arrows from his quiver, puts one in his belt, takes aim and sends the other on its way. The boy remains standing. Walter runs to his father, crying: "Here's the apple, Father! I knew you'd never hit me!"

Tell falls upon his knees to embrace his son, but Gessler has not finished with him. "A word with you, Tell," he commands. "I saw you place a second arrow on your belt ... what was the object?" Tell answers: "If the first arrow had struck my child, the second would have gone through your heart."

  For this answer, Gessler orders him bound and taken to the prison at Küssnacht for his threat; but a great storm comes up which proves to be the huntsman's salvation. Since he alone can take the boat through the gale, his guards release his bonds and Tell steers to a shelving ledge, leaps out, and with his foot thrusts his captors' boat back into the waves. Now, he tells a fisherman, he is planning "a deed that will be in everybody's mouth!"

Meanwhile, Bertha has been borne off by Gessler's men. Ulrich, who earlier had condemned his master for Tell's ordeal and had declared that to keep silent longer would be treason to his country and his King, has gone over wholly to the side of his people. But he returns too late to find the old Baron of Attinghausen alive; his uncle has died with this injunction to the peasants: "The day of the nobles is passing. The new day of the people is at hand ... the flower of chivalry is cut down, but freedom waves her conquering flag on high.... Hold fast together, men—hold forever fast.... Be one—be one—be one----"

Ulrich rallies the peasants and is acclaimed their leader. He directs that they arm and wait for a fiery signal on the mountain tops, then swoop down upon the tyrant. A more ominous figure in the revolt, however, is hidden upon the brow of a hill overlooking a road. Tell, with his crossbow ready in his hand, awaits Gessler, who is expected to enter the pass below. Gessler soon appears with his retinue. His way is barred by Armgart, a peasant woman, and her seven children. She cries to the Governor: "Mercy, my lord! Pardon!... Pardon!... My husband lies in prison. My children cry for bread. Pity, my lord, have pity on me!"

Gessler shouts: "Step aside or, by Heaven, I'll ride you down!" Armgart throws herself and her children before the horses, crying out: "Very well, then ride us down." Gessler shouts: "I've been too mild a ruler to these people. From now on, I must change. I will proclaim a new law throughout the land. I will----"

The sentence is never finished; an arrow pierces his body. Clutching his breast, Gessler cries: "It is William Tell's work!... O Lord, have mercy on my soul!" Armgart rejoices: "Dead, dead! He reels, he falls!... Look, children! This is how a tyrant dies!"

The shaft that killed Gessler ignites the signal fires of revolution, and at daybreak peasants and workingmen are tearing down the prisons. In one they find Bertha; they rescue her just as burning timbers are about to fall on her. The liberated peasants, with Ulrich and Bertha among them, now throng Tell's home with the cry: "Long live William Tell, our shield and saviour!" Bertha, greeting the commoners as comrades, asks to be accepted into their League of Freedom. Her request is granted and she gives her hand to Ulrich. He proclaims: "And from this moment all my serfs are free!"

But soon word comes that Albert, the Emperor of Austria, has been assassinated by his own nephew John. One day, Tell's wife receives a visitor at their cottage; it is presumably a monk, but Tell soon recognizes him as John in disguise, fleeing his would-be captors. John, knowing that Tell has killed Gessler, expects approving words from the archer, who, instead, denounces his crime. Nevertheless, Tell helps John flee, on the condition that John expiate his crime as soon as possible.

 
 

Gessler aus der Schiller-Galerie,
Stahlstich nach Pecht, um 1859
 
Hedwig, Tells Frau aus der Schiller-Galerie,
Stahlstich nach Pecht, um 1859
 
 
Performance history and influence
The first public performance of Schiller’s Wilhelm Tell was staged in Weimar under the direction of Johann Wolfgang Goethe on March 17, 1804. In the summers of 1912 to 1914 and again between 1931 and 1939, Schiller's play was staged in Interlaken. It was filmed in both German and English versions in 1934, both versions starring the same leading actors (Conrad Veidt was Gessler). Since 1947 the play has been performed annually in Interlaken at the Tellspiele. In 2004 Schiller’s play was staged for the first time at the Rütli Meadow (German: Rütliwiese), on the occasion of its 200th anniversary. Since 1938 it has also been performed every Labor Day weekend in New Glarus, Wisconsin in English, and until recently also in German.

The characters of the play are used in the national deck of cards of Hungary (also used in surrounding countries). The deck was born in the times before the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, when revolutionary movements were awakening all over in Europe.

The Aces show the four seasons. It was long believed that the card was invented in Vienna at the Card Painting Workshop of Ferdinand Piatnik, however in 1974 the very first deck was found in an English private collection, and it has shown the name of the inventor and creator of deck as József Schneider, a Master Card Painter at Pest, and the date of its creation as 1837.

  Had he not chosen the Swiss characters of Schiller's play, had he chosen Hungarian heroes or freedom fighters, his deck of cards would never have made it into distribution, due to the heavy censorship by the government at the time. Interestingly, although the characters on the cards are Swiss, these cards are unknown in Switzerland.

Jose Rizal, the famous Philippine revolutionary nationalist and author, translated the drama into his native Tagalog in 1886, having drawn much of his literary and political inspiration from Schiller and his works. During the 19th century, William Tell inspired many freedom fighters, e.g. in Italy and the Russian Empire.

Although Schiller’s play was frequently staged during the Nazi regime, it was banned from public performance in 1941. Adolf Hitler, who had only narrowly escaped an assassination attempt by the young Swiss Maurice Bavaud (who was later dubbed the “New William Tell” by Rolf Hochhuth), is reported to have publicly announced his regret that Friedrich Schiller had immortalized the Swiss sniper William Tell (“Ausgerechnet Schiller musste diesen Schweizer Heckenschützen verherrlichen” – "Of all people Schiller had to glorify this Swiss sniper").

In 1949 the play was adapted into an Italian film William Tell with Gino Cervi playing Tell.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 

Berta von Bruneck aus der Schiller-Galerie,
Stahlstich nach Pecht, um 1859
 
Arnold vom Melchthal aus der Schiller-Galerie,
Stahlstich nach Pecht, um 1859
 
 
 
     
  Friedrich von Schiller

"Love and Intrigue"
     
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 

 
 
CONTENTS
  BACK-1803 Part II NEXT-1804 Part II