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-1827 Part II NEXT-1828 Part II    
 
 
     
1820 - 1829
YEAR BY YEAR:
1820-1829
History at a Glance
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1820 Part I
Ferdinand VII
Trienio Liberal
Caroline of Brunswick
Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Berry
Henri, Count of Chambord
Cato Street Conspiracy
"Missouri Compromise"
Congress of Troppau
Liberal Revolution in Portugal
Ecuadorian War of Independence
Sucre Antonio Jose
Engels Friedrich
Erskine Thomas
Gorres Joseph
Spencer Herbert
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1820 Part II
Keats: "Ode to a Nightingale"
Pushkin: "Ruslan and Ludmila"
Fet Afanasy
Scott: "Ivanhoe"
Shelley: "Prometheus Unbound"
William Blake: The Book of Job
Tenniel John
Discovery of the Venus de Milo
Fromentin Eugene
Vieuxtemps Henri
Henri Vieuxtemps - Elegy for Viola and Piano Op.30
Henri Vieuxtemps
Moffat Robert
Florence Nightingale
Anthony Susan Brownell
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1821 Part I
Congress of Laibach
Victor Emmanuel I
Felix Charle
Battle of Novara
Greek War of Independence
Greek Revolution Timeline
Battle of Alamana
Battle of Carabobo
Missouri
Independence of Brazil
Ecole Nationale des Chartes
Concordats with individual states of Germany
Baker Eddy Mary
Grote George
Hegel: "Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts"
Mill James
Champollion Jean-François
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1821 Part II
Baudelaire Charles
Charles Baudelaire
"The Flowers of Evil"
Fenimore Cooper: "The Spy"
Dostoevsky Fyodor
Fyodor Dostoyevsky
"The Idiot"
Flaubert Gustave
Gustave Flaubert
"
Madame Bovary
Goethe: "Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre"
William Hazlitt: "Table-Talk"
Quincey Thomas
Thomas de Quincey: "Confessions of an English Opium Eater"
Thomas De Quincey 
"Confessions of an English Opium-Eater"
Shelley: "Adonais"
Nekrasov Nekolay
Brown Ford Madox
Ford Madox Brown
Weber: "Der Freischutz"
Helmholtz Hermann
Seebeck Thomas Johann
Virchow Rudolf
Wheatstone Charles
"The Guardian"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1822 Part I
Chios Massacre
Battle of Dervenakia
Grant Ulysses
Iturbide Augustin
Congress of Verona
Colebrooke Henry Thomas
Fourier Joseph
Poncelet Jean-Victor
Goncourt Edmond
Nodier Charles
Vigny Alfred-Victor
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1822 Part II
Delacroix: "Dante and Virgil Crossing the Styx"
Martin John
John Martin
Franck Cesar
Cesar Franck - Prelude, Chorale and Fugue
Cesar Franck
Royal Academy of Music, London
Schubert: Symphony No. 8 ("The Unfinished")
Mendel Gregor
Pasteur Louis
Schliemann Heinrich
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1823 Part I
Federal Republic of Central America
Monroe Doctrine
Leo XII
Renan Ernest
Ernest Renan
"The Life of Jesus"
Fenimore Cooper: "The Pioneers"
Ostrovski Alexander
Petofi Sandor
Yonge Charlotte Mary
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1823 Part II
Ferdinand Waldmuller: "Portrait of Beethoven"
Beethoven: "Missa Solemnis"
Bishop Henry Rowley
Bishop "Home! Sweet Home!"
Schubert: "Rosamunde"
Weber: "Euryanthe"
Babbage Charles
Macintosh Charles
Navigation of the Niger
Oudney Walter
Denham Dixon
Clapperton Bain Hugh
"The Lancet"
Royal Thames Yacht Club
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1824 Part I
First Anglo-Burmese War (1824–1826)
Russo-American Treaty of 1824
First Siege of Missolonghi
Constitution of Mexico
Battle of Ayacucho
Bockh August
Botta Carlo Giuseppe Guglielmo
Dumas Alexandre, fils
Landor Walter Savage
Walter Scott: "Redgauntlet"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1824 Part II
Delacroix: "The Massacre at Chios"
John Flaxman: "Pastoral Apollo"
Ingres: "Vow of Louis XIII"
Israels Joseph
Joseph Israels
Overbeck: "Christ's entry into Jerusalem"
Gerome Jean-Leon
Jean-Leon Gerome
Boulanger Gustave
Gustave Boulanger
Girodet Anne-Louis
Anne-Louis Girodet-Trioson
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1824 Part III
Beethoven: Symphony No. 9
Bruckner Anton
Anton Bruckner - Locus Iste
Anton Bruckner
Smetana Bedrich
Smetana - Die Moldau
Bedrich Smetana
Aspdin Joseph
Carnot Sadi
Thomson William
The Hume and Hovell expedition
Hume Hamilton
Hovell William Hilton
Athenaeum Club, London
"Le Globe"
Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1825 Part I
Ferdinand IV of Naples
Francis I of the Two Sicilies
Third Siege of Missolonghi
Treaty of Saint Petersburg of 1825
Uruguay became independent of Brazil (1825)
Kruger Paul
Maximilian I
Ludwig I of Bavaria
Nicholas I
Decembrist revolt in Russia
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1825 Part II
Lasalle Ferdinand
William Hazlitt: "The Spirit of the Age"
Manzoni: "The Betrothed"
Meyer Conrad Ferdinand
Pepys Samuel: "The Diaries of Samuel Pepys"
Pushkin: "Boris Godunov"
Tegner Esaias
Esaias Tegner: "Frithjofs Saga"
Constable: "Leaping Horse"
Collinson James
James Collinson
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1825 Part III
Boieldieu: "La Dame blanche"
Strauss II Johann , the "Waltz King"
Johan Strauss - Blue Danube Waltz
Johann Strauss II, the "Waltz King"
Charcot Jean Martin
Gurney Goldsworthy
Stockton and Darlington Railway
The Desert
Caillie Rene-Auguste
Laing Alexander Gordon
John Franklin Canadian and Arctic expedition
Horse-bus
Trade Union
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1826 Part I
The Sortie of Missolonghi
Ottoman–Egyptian Invasion of Mani
Treaty of Yandabo
Pedro I
Maria II, Queen of Portugal
Akkerman Convention
Congress of Panama
Russo-Persian War of 1826-1828
Zollverein
Khan Dost Mohammad
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1826 Part II
Liebknecht Wilhelm
Ruan Yuan
Fenimore Cooper: "The Last of the Mohicans"
Benjamin Disraeli: "Vivian Grey"
Scheffel Josef Viktor
Scott: "Woodstock"
Moreau Gustave
Gustave Moreau
Weber: "Oberon"
Nobili Leopoldo
Unverdorben Otto
Raffles Stamford
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1827 Part I
Battle of Phaleron
Kapodistrias Ioannis Antonios
Siege of the Acropolis (1826–27)
Treaty of London
Battle of Navarino
Mahmud II
Russo-Persian War - Campaign of 1827
Coster Charles
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1827 Part II
Bocklin Arnold
Arnold Bocklin
Constable: "The Cornfield"
Hunt William Holman
William Holman Hunt
Audubon John James
Audubon: "Birds of North America"
Baer Karl Ernst
Bright Richard
Lister Joseph
Niepce Nicephore
Ohm Georg Simon
Ressel Joseph
Simpson James
Wohler Friedrich
Timbuktu
Baedeker Karl
"London Evening Standard"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1828 Part I
Ypsilantis Alexander
Michael
Russo-Turkish War of 1828–1829
"Tariff of Abominations"
Treaty of Montevideo
Guerrero Vicente
Lange Friedrich Albert
Muller Karl Otfried
Taine Hippolyte Adolphe
Noah Webster "American Dictionary of the English Language"
About Edmond
Alexandre Dumas pere: "Les Trois Mousquetaires"
Ibsen Henrik
Meredith George
George Meredith 
"The Egoist"
Oliphant Margaret
Tolstoy Leo
Leo Tolstoy
"The Kreutzer Sonata"
Verne Jules
Jules Verne
"Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea."
"The Children of Captain Grant"
"The Mysterious Island"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1828 Part II
Bonington Richard Parkes
Richard Parkes Bonington
Rossetti Dante Gabriel
Dante Gabriel Rossetti
Stevens Alfred
Alfred Stevens
Stuart Gilbert
Gilbert Stuart
Auber: "La Muette de Portici"
Marschner: "Der Vampire"
Abel Niels Henrik
Burdon-Sanderson John
Cohn Ferdinand
De Vinne Theodore
Stewart Balfour
Swan Joseph
Dunant Henri
Hauser Kaspar
Working Men's Party
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1829 Part I
Schurz Carl
Biddle Nicholas
Metropolitan Police Act 1829
First Hellenic Republic
Treaty of Adrianople
Attwood Thomas
Bustamante Anastasio
O’Connell Daniel
Gran Colombia–Peru War (1828-1829)
Benson Edward White
Roman Catholic Emancipation Act
Gardiner Samuel Rawson
Pius VIII
Balzac: "Les Chouans"
Goethe: "Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre"
Jefferson Joseph  
Edgar Allan Poe: "Al Araaf"
Salvini Tommaso
Scott: "Anne of Geierstein"
Timrod Henry
Warner Charles Dudley
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1829 Part II
Feuerbach Anselm
Anselm Feuerbach
Millais John Everett
John Everett Millais
Gottschalk Louis
Louis Moreau Gottschalk - Grande Tarantelle
Louis Gottschalk
Rossini: "William Tell"
Rubinstein Anton
Rubinstein - Piano Concerto No. 1
Anton Rubinstein
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1829 Part III
Cantor Moritz Benedikt
Dobereiner Johann Wolfgang
Dreyse Nikolaus
Henry Joseph
Priessnitz Vincenz
Hydropathy, Hydrotherapy
Kekule August
Mitchell Silas Weir
Smithson James
Booth William
Salvation Army
Shillibeer George
Flong
Suttee
 
 
 

Battle of Akhalzic (1828), by January Suchodolski
 
 
 
 
 HISTORY, RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, ART, LITERATURE, MUSIC, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, DAILY LIFE
 
 
 
 
YEAR BY YEAR:  1800 - 1899
 
 
 
1828 Part I
 
 
 
1828
 
 
The Duke of Wellington (Wellesley Arthur) becomes Prime Minister of Great Britain
 
 
 
1826
 
 
Greek Revolution Timeline
 
Greek War of Independence (1821–1829)

1821, February 21: Revolt of Greek War of Independence declared by Alexandros Ypsilantis in Wallachia (Iaşi).
1821, March 25: According to tradition, Metropolitan Germanos of Patras blesses a big Greek flag at the Monastery of Agia Lavra in Peloponnesia and proclaims to people assembled the beginning of a Greek Revolution. Greece declares its independence. Beginning of the Greek War of Independence.
1821, 10 April, Easter Monday: Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory V of Constantinople Alyssa central outside portal of the Patriarchate by the Turks. The door has remained shut and out of use ever since
1821, 17 April: Former Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril VI is hanged in the gate of the Adrianople's cathedral
1821, 4 April: Constantine Mourousis, Dimitrios Paparigopoulos and Antonios Tsouras are decapitated by the Ottomans in Constantinople
1821, 5 April: The Phanariotes Petros Tsigris, Dimitrios Skanavis and Manuel Hotzeris are decapitated by the Turks, while Georgios Mavrocordatos is hanged by the Sultan forces in Constantinople
1821, 23–24 April: Battle of Alamana. After the Greek defeat, Athanasios Diakos is impaled on a spit.
1821, 4 May: Metropolitans Gregorios of Derkon, Dorotheos of Adrianople, Ioannikios of Tyrnavos, Joseph of Thessaloniki, and the Phanariote Georgios Callimachi and Nikolaos Mourousis are decapitated on Sultan's orders in Constantinople
1821, May: The Turkish governor Yusuf Bey orders his men to kill every Greek in Thessaloniki that they find. The killings last for days, with the metropolitan and major notables among the victims
1821, 2 June: Destruction of Kydonies in Asia Minor by the Ottoman army. Tens of thousands of Greek inhabitants become refugees
1821, 24 June: The massacre of Heraklion or 'the great ravage' occurs against the Greek community in Crete. Among the victims are the metropolitan of Crete and bishops
1821, 9 July: The chief of the Cypriot Orthodox Church Archbishop Kyprianos, along with 486 prominent Greek Cypriots, amongst them the Metropolitans Chrysanthos of Paphos, Meletios of Kition and Lavrentios of Kyrenia, are executed by beheading or hanging by the Turks in Nicosia
1821, July: Küçük Mehmet carries out several days of massacres of Greek Cypriots in Cyprus since July 9 and continues on for forty days, despite the Vizier's command to end the plundering since 20 July 1821
1821, 11 September: Tripolitsa captured by the Greeks, who proceed to eliminate the Turkish garrison, officials and civilians. A total of about 30,000 people perish.
1821, 15 October: Turkish Cypriot mobs hang most of the Greek Cypriots in Larnaca and other towns, among them an archbishop, five bishops, thirty six ecclesiastics

1822, 9 April: After a month's resistance, the city of Naousa is captured by Abdul Abud, devastating the city and massacring its Greek population. Ending of the Greek revolution in Macedonia.
1822: The Chios massacre occurs. A total of about 100,000 people perish, mostly Greeks.
1822, 26 July, Battle at Dervenakia. A decisive victory of the Greeks which saved the revolution.

1823, 18 January: Nafplio becomes the site of the Revolutionary Government.
1823, March: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, represented by George Canning, recognizes the Greeks as a nation at war, thus recognizing de facto the Greek Independence.

1824, 7–8 June: The civilization of the island of Kasos is completely destroyed by the Turkish-Egyptian forces of Hussein Rushdi Pasha. About 7,000 people perish.
1824, 21 June: More than 15,000 Greeks of Psara are slaughtered by the forces of Husrev Pasha.
1824: The First Siege of Missolonghi occurs.

1825, 22 May: Laskarina Bouboulina is assassinated in Spetses.
1825, 5 June: Odysseas Androutsos is assassinated in Athens.
1825, 22 June: Ibrahim Pasha retakes Tripoli, kills the Greek population and destroys the city and its walls.
1825, 6 November: Beginning of the Third Siege of Missolonghi.

1826, 10–11 April: The Sortie of Missolonghi occurs. Approximately 8,000 Greek soldiers and civilians perish.
1826, 24 June: Battle of Vergas.
1826, 11 November: Prime Minister Andreas Zaimis transfers the site of the government to Aegina.

1827, 22–24 April: Battle of Phaleron. Georgios Karaiskakis is killed in action.
1827, July 6: Signing of the Treaty of London.
1827, 20 October: Battle of Navarino.

1828, 24 January: John Capodistria is elected Governor of Greece.
1828, 31 January: Alexander Ypsilantis dies in Vienna.


1829. First Hellenic Republic (1829–1832)
The First Hellenic Republi is a historiographic term used for a series of councils and "Provisional Governments" during the Greek War of Independence. During the first stages of the rebellion, various areas elected their own regional governing councils. These were replaced by united administration at the First National Assembly of Epidaurus during early 1822, which also adopted the first Greek Constitution. A series of National Assemblies ensued, while Greece was threatened with collapse due to civil war and the victories of Ibrahim Pasha. During 1827, the Third National Assembly at Troezen selected Count Ioannis Capodistrias as Governor of Greece for seven years. He arrived during 1828 and established the Hellenic State, commanding with quasi-dictatorial powers. He was assassinated by political rivals during 1831 and was succeeded by his brother, Augustinos Kapodistrias until the Great Powers declared Greece a Kingdom and selected the Bavarian Prince Otto to be its king.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Alexander Ypsilantis, Greek politician, d. (b. 1792)
 
 
Ypsilantis Alexander
 

Alexander Ypsilantis, Ypsilanti, or Alexandros Ypsilantis (Greek: Αλέξανδρος Υψηλάντης; Romanian: Alexandru Ipsilanti; Russian: Александр Константинович Ипсиланти; 12 December 1792 – 31 January 1828) was a member of a prominent Phanariot Greek family, a prince of the Danubian Principalities, a senior officer of the Imperial Russian cavalry during the Napoleonic Wars, and a leader of the Filiki Eteria, a secret organization that coordinated the beginning of the Greek War of Independence against the Ottoman Empire. He should not be confused with his namesake grandfather, a Prince of Wallachia and Moldavia at the end of the 18th century.

 
Early life
The Ypsilantis family hailed from the Pontian population of Trabzon. He was born on 12 December 1792 in Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman Empire, as the eldest of three brothers (the other being Nicholas and Demetrios). His father Constantine Ypsilantis and grandfather Alexander were active in the Ottoman administration and highly educated, each with their own share of service as a dragoman in the Sultan's court and as hospodars of the Danubian Principalities.
 
 

Alexander Ypsilantis
  Russian military service
With the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish War in 1805, his father fled with family to Imperial Russia. The young Alexander had received a thorough education, becoming fluent in Russian, French, German and Romanian. At the age of 15, he was presented to the Russian Court, where he came under the patronage of Empress Maria Feodorovna. On 12 April 1808, he entered a commission in the prestigious Chevalier Guard Regiment with the rank of cornet. Moving rapidly up the ranks, he was promoted to lieutenant on 27 September 1810 and to Stabs-Rittmeister on 18 October of the same year. During the French invasion of Russia, he fought in the battles of Klyastitsy and Polotsk. Promoted to full Rittmeister (Captain) on 20 February 1813, he went on to participate in the Battle of Bautzen. On 6 July, he was transferred to the 6th Klyastitsy Hussar Regiment as Lieutenant Colonel, and participated with his new unit in the Battle of Dresden, where his right arm was torn off by a shell. Although he was immediately promoted to full Colonel, it meant that Ypsilantis would not be able to see action again. However, he attended the Congress of Vienna where he was a popular figure in society, and earned the sympathy of Tsar Alexander I, who appointed him his aide-de-camp on 1 January 1816. In late 1817, at the age of 25 he became a Major General and commander of the 1st Brigade of Hussars of the 1st Hussar Division.
 
 
Preparations for the Greek insurrection
In 1820, on the refusal of Count John Capodistria, the then Russian foreign minister, to accept the post of leader of the Filiki Eteria, the post was offered to Ypsilantis, who was then elected as the leader of the secret society. Following that, he processed and approved the general plan of the Greek war of independence, which was revised during May 1820 at Bucharest, with the participation of rebel captains from mainland Greece.

The main points of the plan were:

-to aid the simultaneous revolt of Serbs and Montenegrins.
-to provoke a revolt in Wallachia, by also enlisting rebels from the Serbian lands, battle-hardened from the first and second Serbian uprisings.
-to provoke civil unrest in Istanbul through the use of agents, and burn the Ottoman fleet at the city's port.
-to start the revolution in Greece in the Peloponnese, after Ypsilantis' arrival there.

 
 

Alexandros Ypsilantis crosses the Pruth by Peter von Hess, Benaki Museum, Athens.
  Campaign in Moldavia and Wallachia
Because information regarding the existence and the activities of the Filiki Eteria had leaked to the Ottoman authorities, Ypsilantis hastened the outbreak of the revolt in Wallachia and participated personally in it. Beginning the revolution in the Danubian Principalities had the added benefit that they, being autonomous under the joint suzerainty of Russia and the Ottoman Empire, did not have Ottoman garrisons, while in turn the local leaders were entitled to maintain small armed retinues for their own protection.

Therefore, on 22 February 1821 (O.S.), accompanied by several other Greek officers in Russian service, he crossed the Prut river at Sculeni into the Principalities. Two days later, at Iaşi he issued a proclamation, announcing that he had "the support of a great power" (meaning Russia).

Ypsilantis hoped that a revolt would ultimately lead to a Russian intervention: since the Ottomans would have to invade and quell the rebellion, the Orthodox Russians would certainly intervene in favour of their fellow Orthodox. In this hope he was justified, since eventually, the Greek rebellion led to the Russo-Turkish War of 1828 in which Russian troops marched to the outskirts of Constantinople and forced the Sultan to recognize the autonomy of the new Greek state. In 1821 however, Tsar Alexander was still a committed member of the Holy Alliance, and acted swiftly to disassociate himself from Ypsilantis: Count Capodistria denounced Ypsilantis for having misused the Tsar's trust, stripped him of his rank and commanded him to lay down arms.

 
 
Soon after, Capodistria himself had to take an "indefinite leave of absence" from his post.

These moves emboldened the Turks, who began assembling a large number of troops to quell the insurrection in Wallachia. Ypsilantis marched from Iaşi to Bucharest, trying to enlist volunteers.
 
 
It was then that the Sacred Band was formed, composed of young Greek volunteers from all over Europe. In Bucharest, where he had arrived after some weeks' delay, it became plain that he could not rely on the Wallachian Pandurs to continue their Oltenian-based revolt for assistance to the Greek cause; Ypsilantis was met with mistrust by the Pandur leader Tudor Vladimirescu, who, as a nominal ally to the Eteria, had started the rebellion as a move to prevent Scarlat Callimachi from reaching the throne in Bucharest, while trying to maintain relations with both Russia and the Ottomans. He further took the Russian renunciation of Ypsilantis to mean that his commitment to the Filiki Eteria was over, and as result, a conflict erupted inside his camp. In the end, Vladimirescu was tried and executed by the pro-Greek faction and the Eteria.

In the meantime, the Ottomans crossed the Danube river with 30,000 tactical troops, and Ypsilantis, instead of advancing on Brăila, where he arguably could have prevented the Ottoman armies entering the Principalities and might have forced Russia to accept a fait accompli, retreated and organized his defense at a semi-mountainous area close to Iaşi. There followed a series of major battles that lead to the defeat of the Eteria's forces, culminating in the final defeat at Drăgăşani on 19 June.
  Refuge
Ypsilantis, accompanied by what remained of his followers, retreated to Râmnic, where he spent some days in negotiating with the Austrian authorities for permission to cross the frontier. Fearing that his defeated followers might surrender him to the Turks, he gave out that Austria had declared war on Turkey, caused a Te Deum to be sung in the church of Cozia, and, on pretext of arranging measures with the Austrian commander-in-chief, crossed the frontier.

But the reactionary policies of the Holy Alliance were enforced by Francis I and Klemens Metternich, and the country refused to give asylum for leaders of revolts in neighboring countries. Ypsilantis was kept in close confinement for seven years (1823 to 1827 in Terezín), until he was released at the insistence of the emperor Nicholas I of Russia.

Death
After his release, he got retired to Vienna where he died in extreme poverty and misery on 29 January 1828. His last wish that his heart be removed from his body and sent to Greece was fulfilled by Georgios Lassanis, and it is now located at the Amalieion in Athens. His appearance in likenesses and the accounts of his life suggest he had Dystrophia myotonica, a congenital multi-system disorder.

 
 
His body was originally buried on St. Marx cemetery, and later on his remains were transferred in Ypsilanti-Sina estate "Schloss Rappoltenkirchen" Sieghartskirchen-Austria by members of his family on 18 February 1903. His last transfer occurred on August 1964, when he was finally relocated to the Taxiarches Church in Pedion tou Areos Athens, Greece, 136 years after his death. Ypsilanti Township, Michigan in the United States of America is named in honor of him. Later the city of Ypsilanti, located within the township, was named after his brother Demetrius.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1828
 
 
Brougham Henry Peter delivers the longest recorded speech (six hours) in the House of
Commons
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Clinton DeWitt , U.S. political leader, d. (b. 1769)
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Maria II deposed, Dom Miguel proclaimed King of Portugal
 
 
Michael
 

Michael, (born Oct. 26, 1802, Queluz, Port.—died Nov. 14, 1866, Brombach, Baden), younger son of King John VI of Portugal, regent of Portugal from February 1828 and self-proclaimed king from July 1828 to 1834, though his royal title was not everywhere recognized.

 

Miguel I around age 27, c.1829
  Michael went with the rest of the royal family to Brazil in 1807, escaping from Napoleon’s armies, but returned with them in 1821 to Portugal. He was then—and remained—much under the influence of his Spanish mother, Queen Carlota Joaquina. On his return, King John VI accepted the liberal constitution of 1821, but Queen Carlota refused to take the oath. When in 1823 the French overthrew the radical regime in Spain, Michael led a military rebellion that dissolved the discredited Cortes in Portugal. His father promised an amended constitution but appointed liberal ministers, and on April 30, 1824, Michael again led a military rebellion. When it faltered, his father reluctantly exiled him to Vienna (June 1824). When John VI died (March 10, 1826), his elder son, Peter, emperor of Brazil, became Peter IV of Portugal but constitutionally abdicated in favour of his daughter Maria, then seven years of age. She was to marry Michael, who was to accept Peter’s constitutional Charter.
Michael swore to accept the Charter, returned to Portugal, and assumed the regency (Feb. 22, 1828); however, he promptly fell under his mother’s influence, settled old scores, and had himself proclaimed king (July 7, 1828). He was so recognized by the Holy See, Spain, the United States, and Russia but not by the liberal monarchies. In 1830 the Duke of Wellington’s government in Britain was about to recognize him, but it fell. In 1831 Peter abdicated in Brazil, returned to Europe, and initiated a civil war.
 
 
Michael lost Porto, but the struggle was protracted; he was finally forced by foreign intervention to leave Lisbon and surrendered at Évora-Monte on May 26, 1834. He renounced the throne, departed for Genoa (where he cancelled his renunciation), and settled in Italy and Germany.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
1828
 
 
Russo-Turkish War of 1828–1829
 

The Russo-Turkish War of 1828–1829 was sparked by the Greek War of Independence. The war broke out after the Sultan closed the Dardanelles to Russian ships and revoked the Akkerman Convention in retaliation for Russian participation in the Battle of Navarino.

 

Battle of Akhalzic (1828), by January Suchodolski
 
 
Opening hostilities
At the start of hostilities the Russian army of 100,000 men was commanded by Emperor Nicholas I, while the Ottoman forces were commanded by Hussein Pasha. In April and May 1828 the Russian commander-in-chief, Prince Peter Wittgenstein, moved into Romanian Principates Wallachia and Moldavia. In June 1828, the main Russian forces under the emperor crossed the Danube and advanced into Dobruja.

The Russians then laid prolonged sieges to three key Ottoman citadels in modern Bulgaria: Shumla, Varna, and Silistra. With the support of the Black Sea Fleet under Aleksey Greig, Varna was captured on 29 September. The siege of Shumla proved much more problematic, as the 40,000-strong Ottoman garrison outnumbered the Russian forces. As the latter were harassed by Turkish troops and ill-equipped, many of its soldiers died of disease or exhaustion. The campaign turned to be an embarrassing one for Russia, considered a great military power, as its troops had to withdraw to Moldavia with heavy losses without having captured Shumla and Silistra.
  Changing fortunes
As winter approached, the Russian army was forced to leave Shumla and retreat back to Bessarabia. In February 1829 the cautious Wittgenstein was replaced by the more energetic Hans Karl von Diebitsch, and the Tsar left the army for St Petersburg.

On 7 May, 60,000 soldiers led by Field Marshal Diebitsch crossed the Danube and resumed the siege of Silistra. The Sultan sent a 40,000-strong contingent to the relief of Varna, which was defeated at the Battle of Kulevicha on 30 May. Three weeks later on 19 June, Silistra fell to the Russians.

Meanwhile Ivan Paskevich advanced on the Caucasian front defeated the Turks at the Battle of Akhalzic and captured Kars on 23 June and Erzurum, in north-eastern Anatolia on 27 June, the 120th anniversary of the Poltava.

On 2 July Diebitsch launched the Transbalkan offensive, the first in Russian history since the 10th-century campaigns of Svyatoslav I.

 
 

Action of 26 May 1829, by Nikolay Krasovsky.
 
 
The contingent of 35,000 Russians moved across the mountains, circumventing the besieged Shumla on their way to Constantinople. The Russians captured Burgas ten days later, and the Turkish reinforcement was routed near Sliven on 31 July. By 22 August, the Russians had taken Edirne, reportedly causing the Muslim population in the city to leave. The Ottoman palace in Edirne, Saray-i Djedid-i Amare, was heavily damaged by Russian troops.
 
 

Siege of Kars (1828), by January Suchodolski.
 
 
The Treaty of Adrianople
Faced with these several defeats, the Sultan decided to sue for peace. The Treaty of Adrianople on 14 September 1829 gave Russia most of the western shore of the Black Sea and the mouth of the Danube. Turkey recognized Russian sovereignty over parts of northwest present-day Armenia. Serbia achieved autonomy and Russia was allowed to occupy Moldavia and Wallachia (guaranteeing their prosperity and full "liberty of trade") until Turkey had paid a large indemnity. Moldavia and Wallachia remained Russian protectorates until the end of Crimean War. Archaic slavery[clarification needed] was abolished during this period. The Straits Question was settled four years later, when both powers signed the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1828
 
 
"Tariff of Abominations"
 

"Tariff of 1828" was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States. It was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy.

 
The major goal of the tariff was to protect industries in the northern United States which were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods by taxing them. The South, however, was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, and indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the U.S. made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South. The reaction in the South, particularly in South Carolina, would lead to the Nullification Crisis that began in late 1832.

The tariff marked the high point of U.S. tariffs. It was approached, but not exceeded, by the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.

 
 
Passage of the bill
The 1828 tariff was part of a series of tariffs that began after the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars, when the blockade of Europe led British manufacturers to offer goods in America at low prices that American manufacturers often could not match. The first protective tariff was passed by Congress in 1816; its tariff rates were increased in 1824. Southern states such as South Carolina contended that the tariff was unconstitutional and were opposed to the newer protectionist tariffs, but Western agricultural states favored them, as well as New England’s industries.

In an elaborate scheme to prevent passage of still higher tariffs, while at the same time appealing to Andrew Jackson’s supporters in the North, John C. Calhoun and other southerners joined them in crafting a tariff bill that would also weigh heavily on materials imported by the New England states. It was believed that President John Quincy Adams’s supporters in New England, the National Republicans, or as they would later be called, Whigs, would uniformly oppose the bill for this reason and that the southern legislators could then withdraw their support, killing the legislation while blaming it on New England:

“ What that plan was, Calhoun explained very frankly nine years later, in a speech reviewing the events of 1828 and defending the course taken by himself and his southern fellow members. A high-tariff bill was to be laid before the House. It was to contain not only a high general range of duties, but duties especially high on those raw materials on which New England wanted the duties to be low. It was to satisfy the protective demands of the Western and Middle States, and at the same time to be obnoxious to the New England members. The Jackson men of all shades, the protectionists from the North and the free-traders from the South, were to unite in preventing any amendments; that bill, and no other, was to be voted on. When the final vote came, the southern men were to turn around and vote against their own measure.

  The New England men, and the Adams men in general, would be unable to swallow it, and would also vote against it. Combined, they would prevent its passage, even though the Jackson men from the North voted for it. The result expected was that no tariff bill at all would be passed during the session, which was the object of the southern wing of the opposition. On the other hand, the obloquy of defeating it would be cast on the Adams party, which was the object of the Jacksonians of the North. The tariff bill would be defeated, and yet the Jackson men would be able to parade as the true “friends.”

Southern opponents generally felt that the protective features of tariffs were harmful to southern agrarian interests and claimed they were unconstitutional because they favored one sector of the economy over another. New England importers and ship owners also had reason to oppose provisions targeting their industries—provisions inserted by Democratic Party legislators to induce New Englanders to sink the legislation.

A substantial minority of New England Congressmen (41%) saw what they believed to be long-term national benefits of an increased tariff, and voted for it; they believed the tariff would strengthen the manufacturing industry nationally.

The Democratic Party had miscalculated: despite the insertion by Democrats of import duties calculated to be unpalatable to New England industries, most specifically on raw wool imports, essential to the wool textile industry, the New Englanders failed to sink the legislation, and their plan backfired.

The 1828 tariff was signed by President Adams, although he realized it could weaken him politically. In the Presidential election of 1828, Andrew Jackson defeated Adams with a popular tally of 647,286 votes and an electoral count of 178 as opposed to Adams’s 508,064 tally and 83 electoral votes.

 
 
Effects of the tariff
Faced with a reduced market for goods and pressured by British abolitionists, the British reduced their imports of cotton from the United States, which weakened the southern economy even more. The tariff forced the South to buy manufactured goods from U.S. manufacturers, mainly in the North, at a higher price, while southern states also faced a reduced income from sales of raw materials. Despite the sufferings of the South, the US experienced net economic growth with US GDP increasing from $888 million in 1828 to $1.118 billion by 1832 largely due to growth of the Northern manufacturing base.
 
 
Current Vice-President John C. Calhoun strongly opposed the tariff, anonymously authoring a pamphlet in December 1828 titled: The South Carolina Exposition and Protest in which he urged nullification of the tariff within South Carolina.

The South Carolina legislature, although it printed and distributed 5,000 copies of the pamphlet, took none of the legislative action that the pamphlet urged.Template: Hofstadter, Richard. The American Political Tradition. 1973 edition, pg. 93

The expectation of the tariff’s opponents was that with the election of Jackson in 1828, the tariff would be significantly reduced. When the Jackson administration failed to address its concerns, the most radical faction in South Carolina began to advocate that the state itself declare the tariff null and void within South Carolina.

  In Washington, an open split on the issue occurred between Jackson and Vice-President Calhoun. On July 14, 1832, Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832 which made some reductions in tariff rates. Calhoun resigned on December 10 of the same year.

The reductions were too little for South Carolina. In November 1832 the state called for a convention. By a vote of 136 to 26, the convention overwhelmingly adopted an ordinance of nullification drawn by Chancellor William Harper. It declared that the tariffs of both 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina.[citation needed] While the Nullification Crisis would be resolved in early 1833, tariff policy would continue to be a national political issue between the Democratic Party and the newly emerged Whig Party for the next twenty years.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Muhammad Ali of Egypt agrees to Britain's demand to quit Greece
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Uruguay (since 1821 part of Brazil) becomes independent republic following Treaty of Rio de Janeiro
 
 
Treaty of Montevideo
 

In the Treaty of Montevideo, signed on 27 August 1828, after British mediation, Brazil and Argentina recognized the independence of Uruguay.

 
Called the Preliminary Peace Convention as a result of the meetings held by representatives from the Empire of Brazil and the United Provinces of Río de la Plata — another name for Argentina — between 11 and 27 August 1828 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
 
 
This convention, or treaty, accorded independence to Uruguay in respect to Brazil and Argentina. Uruguay's independence would be definitively sealed on 4 October of the same year when, in Montevideo, the signing nations ratified the treaty.

Purpose

By 1828 the Cisplatine War had been fought to a stalemate with Argentina’s fleet destroyed, it’s land forces unable to capture any major cities, and Brazil suffering a temporary lack of manpower for a full-scale land offensive against Argentine forces. The severe economic consequences imposed by the Brazilian blockade of Buenos Aires allied with increasing public pressure in Brazil to end the war and motivated interest for a peaceful solution on both sides.

In this context, on 20 February, 1828 Brazil and Argentina decided to begin peace talks with mediation by Great Britain, who also had an interest in a peaceful resolution of the war due to the severe trade impediments the blockade of Buenos Aires had brought to the Plata region.

  Lord John Ponsonby was chosen as mediator for the talks and was immediately faced with Argentina’s unwillingness to allow Brazil to retain its sovereignty over Uruguay and by Brazil’s demands to keep its sovereignty over the Missões Orientales, to free navigation in the Plata River and refusal to allow Argentina to annex any area of the Cisplatine Province.

With these considerations in mind, Posonby made a proposal for an independent Uruguay to placate both Brazil and Argentina in order to reestablish peace on La Plata, and conceded to the Brazilian demands regarding its sovereignty over the Missões Orientales and the right to freely navigate in the Plata River.

Although faced with initial Argentine opposition, the diplomat managed to convince Argentina that it was no longer viable to spend money on a war for the Eastern Province and managed to strike a deal on August 27, 1828.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
     
 



World Countries



Uruguay
     
 
 
 
1828
 
 
U.S. presidential election; Jackson Andrew defeats Adams John Quincy
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Liberal revolt in Mexico, Vicente Guerrero becomes president
 
 
Guerrero Vicente
 
Vicente Ramon Guerrero Saldana (August 10, 1782 – February 14, 1831) was one of the leading revolutionary generals of the Mexican War of Independence. He fought against Spain for independence in the early 19th century, and later served as President of Mexico. Of Mestizo and African ancestry, he was the grandfather of the Mexican politician and intellectual Vicente Riva Palacio.
 

Vicente Ramon Guerrero Saldana
  Vicente Guerrero, (born Aug. 10, 1782, Tixtla, Mex.—died Feb. 14, 1831, Chilapa), hero of the Mexican efforts to secure independence. Guerrero began his military career in 1810, and soon the early Mexican independence leader José Maria Morelos commissioned him to promote the revolutionary movement in the highlands of southwestern Mexico.
After Morelos’ execution by the Spanish in 1815, Guerrero continued to lead his guerrilla forces against the Spanish until 1821, when he joined forces with Agustín de Iturbide and with him issued the Plan of Iguala, which became the political platform for the conservative wing of the Mexican independence movement. The Mexican forces triumphed over the Spaniards and achieved independence for Mexico in August 1821.
Guerrero continued to participate in the military and political struggles that followed independence, and in March 1829 he attained the presidency of Mexico as the result of a successful liberal revolt against the conservative candidate who had been chosen president in the election of 1828. But the aged Guerrerro proved to be less adept at political administration than at military command, and that same year he was unseated by General Antonio López de Santa Anna, who replaced him in the presidency with Anastasio Bustamante. After leading rebel forces Guerrero was captured, tried, and executed.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
1828
 
 
Arnold Thomas appointed headmaster of Rugby School
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Brit. Test and Corporation Acts repealed; Catholics and Nonconformists may hold public office
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Lange Friedrich Albert
 
Friedrich Albert Lange (September 28, 1828 – November 23, 1875), was a German philosopher and sociologist.
 

Friedrich Albert Lange
  Biography
Lange was born in Wald, near Solingen, the son of the theologian, Johann Peter Lange. He was educated at Duisburg, Zürich and Bonn, where he distinguished himself in gymnastics as much as academically. In 1852 he became a schoolmaster at Cologne; in 1853 Privatdozent in philosophy at Bonn; and in 1858 schoolmaster at Duisburg, resigning when the government forbade schoolmasters to take part in political activities.

Lange entered journalism as editor of the Rhein- und Ruhr-Zeitung in 1862 in the cause of political and social reform. His ceterum censeo can be considered to be the repeated demand for Bismarck's resignation. He was prominent in public affairs, yet found enough time to write most of his best-known books, Die Leibesübungen (1863), Die Arbeiterfrage (1865, 5th ed. 1894), Geschichte des Materialismus (1866), and John Stuart Mills Ansichten über die soziale Frage (1866). He also wrote a number of works on pedagogy and psychology. In 1863, Lange supported the socialist leader Ferdinand Lassalle in an important trial concerning the constitutional guarantee of academic freedom. From 1864 to 1866, Lange was a member of the executive committee of the Association of German Labour Unions (Verband Deutscher Arbeitervereine), an early organisation of the German labour movement. One of his colleagues there was August Bebel, the Social-Democratic leader.

In 1866, discouraged by affairs in Germany, he moved to Winterthur, near Zürich, to become connected with the democratic newspaper, Winterthurer Landbote. In 1869 he was Privatdozent at Zürich, and the next year he was appointed professor of inductive philosophy, a new position.

 
 
He was also engaged in the Swiss Democratic movement and helped write the constitution of the Canton of Zurich. This was distinguished by the use of “direct democratic” measures such as referendum and recall. Still in Zürich he recognized first signs of his illness, which lead several year later to his death. The strong French sympathies of the Swiss in the Franco-Prussian War as well as the prospect for a pension for his wife in the case of his death led to his speedy resignation. He had an offer from the universities of Würzburg, Königsberg, Kiel, Gießen and Jena, but in 1872 he accepted a professorship at the University of Marburg. He is sometimes credited with founding the Marburg School of Neo-Kantianism, along with his star pupil, Hermann Cohen. It was Cohen, however, who pioneered the Marburg School's characteristic logicist interpretation of Kantian philosophy. In later years, Lange accepted Cohen's refutation of a psychological interpretation of the a priori, to which he himself had once subscribed.

Although he rejected Marxist materialism, Lange continued to influence the German Social-Democratic movement. He favoured an ethically motivated, reformist socialism. He especially influenced some leaders of the Lassallean General German Workers' Union and, posthumously, the Revisionist theoretician Eduard Bernstein, whose slogan "Kant, not cant" proclaimed his abandonment of Marxian 'scientific socialism' in favour of a Neo-Kantian, ethically based social reformism. Subsequent leaders of the Marburg School, such as Cohen and Natorp, continued this association with the reformist wing of the SPD. Unhappily, his body was already stricken with disease. He no longer played a role in the unification of the Lassalleans with Bebel's socialists into the unified SPD in May 1875. After a lingering illness, probably gastro-intestinal cancer, he died in Marburg in November of that year. His Logische Studien (Logical Studies) were published by Hermann Cohen in 1877. Lange also wrote a number of literary studies which were published posthumously. His main work, the Geschichte des Materialismus is a didactic exposition of principles rather than a history in the proper sense. According to Lange, to think clearly about materialism is to refute it.

There is a comprehensive school named after him, the Friedrich-Albert-Lange-Gesamtschule, in Wald, his birthplace, which is now part of the city of Solingen.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Ger. scholar K. O. Muller  (1797-1840) publishes his treatise on Etruscan antiquities
 
 
Muller Karl Otfried
 

Karl Otfried Muller, (born Aug. 28, 1797, Brieg, Silesia [now in Poland]—died Aug. 1, 1840, Athens), German professor and scholar of classical Greek studies whose considerations of ancient Greece in a broad historical and cultural context began an important era in the development of Hellenic scholarship.

 

Karl Otfried Muller
  Müller was a pupil of August Boeckh, founder of a famous school of philology. His first published work, Aegineticorum liber (1817; “On the Isle of Aegina”), was of such brilliance that within two years he was made adjunct professor of ancient literature at the University of Göttingen (1819), where he lectured on archaeology and the history of ancient art. His most important work, Geschichten hellenischer Stämme und Städte (1820; “History of Greek Peoples and Cities”), provides a cultural history of the civilizations of ancient Greece and emphasizes the study of myths, successfully combining the historical and allegorical methods.

His other works include numerous archaeological papers, historical surveys on the Dorians and Etruscans, and valuable methodological studies. Among the more noteworthy are his Prolegomena zu einer wissenschaftlichen Mythologie (1825; “Prolegomena to a Scientific Mythology”), which prepared the way for the scientific investigation of myths, and his edition of Aeschylus’ Eumenides (1833), in which he attacks the prevalent philological criticisms of the classics.

As political troubles made his position at Göttingen difficult, Müller left Germany for archaeological visits in Greece, where he succumbed to fever.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
1828
 
 
Stewart Dugald, Scot. philosopher, d. (b. 1753)
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Taine Hippolyte Adolphe
 
Hippolyte Taine, in full Hippolyte-Adolphe Taine (born April 21, 1828, Vouziers, Ardennes, France—died March 5, 1893, Paris), French thinker, critic, and historian, one of the most esteemed exponents of 19th-century French positivism. He attempted to apply the scientific method to the study of the humanities.
 

Hippolyte Taine
  Early life and career
Taine was born into a professional middle-class family; his father was a lawyer. He was educated privately at home until shortly after his father’s death; thereafter, he went with his mother to live in Paris and became an outstanding pupil at the Collège Bourbon and then at the highly prestigious École Normale. He gained his licenceès-lettres (preliminary degree) in 1848 and began to study for his agrégation (advanced degree) in philosophy, one of his dominant interests. He already held unorthodox intellectual views. He had apparently lost his Christian faith by the age of 15, and his youthful rationalist attitude led him to admire the ideas of the ideologue philosophers, who held that all knowledge must be based on sense experience, on observation, and on controlled experiment; this overriding conviction guided his later career. He was also already attracted by the metaphysical ideas of Hegel and Spinoza, which inspired in him a desire to find a total explanation of the causal forces of life and the universe.

In contrast to these views, his new teachers of philosophy in Paris held the prevailing philosophical doctrine of eclecticism. Consequently—and not without creating some scandal in academic circles—Taine’s agrégation jury failed him in 1851.

 
 
He then taught for brief periods at Nevers and Poitiers but in 1852 applied for leave of absence. Returning to Paris, he devoted himself to preparing his two dissertations for the doctorate in literature: De Personis Platonicis (“Concerning Plato’s Characters”) and his first well-known work, a study of La Fontaine (1853; revised and published in 1861 as La Fontaine et ses fables [“La Fontaine and His Fables”]).

He gained a doctoral degree in May 1853 and began an essay on Livy, Essai sur Tite-Live (1856), which, despite further criticism of his philosophical outlook, won a prize from the Académie Française. During this period he was also attending lectures in science and gathering the knowledge of physiology that he utilized later in his work on psychology. Reluctant to return to full-time teaching, he lived by private tutoring and as a man of letters. Even a holiday in 1854, necessitated by ill health, was turned to advantage: in 1855 he published a literary guidebook based on his travels, Voyage aux eaux des Pyrénées (“Voyage to the Waters of the Pyrenees”).

 
 
Attack on eclecticism
More important for his own development, he contributed frequent literary and historical articles to such leading journals as the Revue des Deux Mondes, the Revue de l’Instruction Publique, and the Journal des Débats, articles that provided the basis for three books further enhancing the reputation he had gained by his works on La Fontaine and Livy. These were Les Philosophes français du XIXe siècle (1857; “The French Philosophers of the 19th Century”), a critical polemic against the prevailing eclectic philosophy of Victor Cousin and his group, which also provides in its later chapters a lucid exposition of his own positivist theory of knowledge; a first collection of Essais de critique et d’histoire (1858; “Essays of Criticism and History”); and his notable Histoire de la littérature anglaise, 4 vol. (1863–64; History of English Literature).

The celebrated “Introduction” to the Histoire gives a succinct statement of Taine’s approach to literary and cultural history and a basic text for the understanding of his scientific attitude to literary criticism. The same great causal factors underlie any cultural artifact of a given age and society, he claims. By studying the literary documents, one may understand the psychology of their author, and this, complemented by scrutiny of the facts of his life and personality, illuminates the faculté maîtresse, the predominant characteristic that determines his work; this in turn can then be “explained” by reference to three great conditioning facts: la race, le milieu, and le moment—i.e., the writer’s inherited personality, his social, political, and geographical background, and the historical situation in which he writes. It is evident that Taine’s interest here is less in literature itself than in historical causation and psychology, and his method may well be thought to have encouraged in his admirers an excessive preoccupation with biography and literary history at the expense of critical judgment, though Taine’s own abilities as a critic were considerable.

Throughout the 1860s Taine indefatigably continued his researches and his writing. Even his travels (to England, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands) were utilized to gather notes for future work—for example, his closely observed if simplifying Notes sur l’Angleterre (1872; Notes on England); and even his life in Paris led to his Notes sur Paris: Vie et opinions de M. Frédéric-Thomas Graindorge (1867; Notes and Opinions of Mr. Frédérick-Graindorge), perhaps the most personal and entertaining of his books.

In 1864, by a happy decision of Napoleon III, he was appointed to succeed architect Viollet-le-Duc as professor of aesthetics and of the history of art at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, where he subsequently lectured for 20 years. The lecture courses, which he eventually published, include Philosophie de l’art (1865; The Philosophy of Art), De l’idéal dans l’art (1867; “On the Ideal in Art”), and those on the philosophy of art in Italy (1866), the Netherlands (1868), and Greece (1869). This post also gave him a security that favoured his more-protracted scientific studies and helped make the later 1860s a happy and fertile period in his life. He published, in addition to the works named, his second volume of essays, Nouveaux essais de critique et d’histoire (1865; “New Essays of Criticism and History”), including his perceptive articles on Racine, Balzac, and Stendhal (whose psychological acuity he was one of the first to admire). In 1868 he married Mlle Denuelle, the daughter of a well-known architect and artist, by whom he had a son and a daughter.

  Publication of De l’intelligence
In 1870 he published the two volumes of De l’intelligence (On Intelligence), a major work in the discipline of psychology, which had interested him since his youth. His devotion to science is most fully illustrated here; he opposes the speculative and introspective approach of the eclectics and outlines a scientific methodology for the study of human personality that established him, alongside thinkers such as Théodule Ribot and Pierre Janet, as a founder of empirical psychology. Though much of the work is now outdated, in its day it helped to modify methods of research by its emphasis on experiment, the search for causes, the study of pathological cases, and the physiological basis of personality. It also intensified opposition to his ideas, and he was angrily accused of holding a strictly determinist and materialist view of man—not altogether unfairly, even though he claimed to reject materialism and argued that moral responsibility was compatible with determinism as he conceived it.

The work also develops his long-standing attempt to fuse Ppositivism and Hegelian idealism and to provide a method for a scientific metaphysics. Through such a metaphysics, he maintained, the final causes of life itself might be discovered; its insights inspired him to an exalted pantheistic trust in nature that is movingly expressed in essays on Marcus Aurelius (in Nouveaux essais) and Iphigeneia (in Derniers essais).

Germany’s invasion and defeat of France in 1870–71 had a profound impact upon Taine (already prepared in his mind by a visit in 1869 that had disabused him of his earlier enthusiasm for German civilization). The French defeat, in his view, sprang from a deep national sickness, and he determined to devote his final years to examining its causes. A shift of interest toward politics is illustrated by a brochure of 1872 on the problems and effects of universal suffrage, but, above all, his approach was historical: to seek the sources of the political instability that he held responsible for his country’s plight.

Historical theories

This major reorientation of concern led to his great historical work, Les Origines de la France contemporaine (“The Origins of Contemporary France”), a monumental analysis, claiming scientific objectivity (although its factual and interpretative reliability have been challenged). It seeks to show that France’s primary fault lay in excessive centralization, originating during the ancien régime, and intensified by the French Revolution, about which he shares and develops Edmund Burke’s hostile view.

Taine asserted that far from promoting liberty, as most of the French believe, the Revolution merely transferred absolute power to even more illiberal hands. The first volume, L’Ancien Régime (“The Old Regime”), appeared in 1876, followed by three volumes on the Revolution (1878–85). In 1878 he was also elected to the Académie Française.

To have more time for his self-appointed task, he withdrew increasingly from Paris and after 1883 even resigned his professorship. He died in Paris in March 1893 and was buried at Menthon-Saint-Bernard. Only one volume of Le Régime moderne (“The Modern Regime”), however, had been published in his lifetime (1891); the second volume came out in November 1893. The entire work was reissued in 1899. There also appeared after his death his Derniers essais de critique et d’histoire (1894; “Last Essays of Criticism and History”) and an unfinished autobiographical and psychological novel, written about 1861, Étienne Mayran (1910).
 
 
Taine had achieved fame over a wide range of disciplines—as a leading French thinker, as a literary and art critic, and as a historian. His greatest influence upon his contemporaries, however, was as an intellectual leader, one of the most esteemed exponents of 19th-century French positivism, the cult of science in its most devoted, high-minded, and rational form. His work represents a reaction against excessive emotionalism and spiritualist philosophy and was unified by his attempt to apply the scientific method to the study of literature and art, psychology, and cultural history and to ethics and metaphysics. Taine’s ideas helped provide a theoretical basis for the literary movement of naturalism; the novel, he argued, should contribute to the scientific understanding of human nature, revealing, like the new scientific psychology he advocated, the physiological and psychological determinants of human behaviour.

Donald Geoffrey Charlton

Encyclopædia Britannica
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Noah Webster "American Dictionary of the English Language"
 

The name Webster's Dictionary may refer to any of the line of dictionaries first developed by Webster Noah in the early 19th century, and also to numerous unrelated dictionaries that added Webster's name just to share his prestige. The term is a genericized trademark in the U.S. for comprehensive dictionaries of the English language.

 
Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language
Noah Webster (1758–1843), the author of the readers and spelling books that dominated the American market at the time, spent decades of research in compiling his dictionaries. His first dictionary, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language, appeared in 1806. In it, he popularized features that would become a hallmark of American English spelling (center rather than centre, honor rather than honour, program rather than programme, etc.) and included technical terms from the arts and sciences rather than confining his dictionary to literary words. Webster was a proponent of English spelling reform for reasons both philological and nationalistic. In A Companion to the American Revolution (2008), John Algeo notes: "it is often assumed that characteristically American spellings were invented by Noah Webster. He was very influential in popularizing certain spellings in America, but he did not originate them. Rather […] he chose already existing options such as center, color and check on such grounds as simplicity, analogy or etymology". He spent the next two decades working to expand his dictionary.
 
 
ADEL first edition 1828
In 1828, at the age of 70, Noah Webster published his American Dictionary of the English Language (ADEL) in two quarto volumes containing 70,000 entries, as against the 58,000 of any previous dictionary. There were 2,500 copies printed, at $20 for the two volumes. At first, the book sold poorly, but after lowerng the dictionary price to $15 the book sales improved and in 1836 it was announced that the edition was exhausted. All copies were not bound up at the same time; the book also appeared in publisher's boards; other original bindings of a later date are not unknown.

ADEL second edition 1841
1841 printing

In 1841, 82-year-old Noah Webster published a revised and expanded edition of his lexicographical masterpiece in two volumes, a 2nd Edition, Corrected and Enlarged of the American Dictionary of the English Language, with the help of his son, William G. Webster. It was published in octavo size, and contained the whole vocabulary of the quarto (1st edition), with corrections, improvements and five thousand additional words. Published by the author, the first printing was in 1841 by B.L. Hamlen, of New Haven.

1844 printing
When Webster died, his heirs sold unbound sheets of his 1841 Revised American Dictionary of the English Language to the firm of J.S. & C. Adams of Amherst, Massachusetts. This firm bound and published a small number of copies in 1844 – the same edition that Emily Dickinson used as a tool for her poetic composition. However, a $15 price tag on the book made it too expensive to sell easily, so the Amherst firm decided to sell out. Merriam acquired rights from Adams, as well as signing a contract with Webster’s heirs for sole rights.

1845 printing
A third printing of the ADEL second edition was in 1845 by George & Charles Merriam, Springfield, Massachusetts, and this was the first "Webster's Dictionary" with a Merriam imprint.

  Impact
Lepore (2008) demonstrates Webster's innovative ideas about language and politics and shows why Webster's endeavours were at first so poorly received. Culturally conservative Federalists denounced the work as radical—too inclusive in its lexicon and even bordering on vulgar. Meanwhile Webster's old foes the Jeffersonian Republicans attacked the man, labelling him mad for such an undertaking.

Scholars have long seen Webster's 1844 dictionary to be an important resource for reading poet Emily Dickinson's life and work; she once commented that the "Lexicon" was her "only companion" for years. One biographer said, "The dictionary was no mere reference book to her; she read it as a priest his breviary – over and over, page by page, with utter absorption."

Austin (2005) explores the intersection of lexicographical and poetic practices in American literature, and attempts to map out a "lexical poetics" using Webster's dictionaries. He shows the ways in which American poetry has inherited Webster and drawn upon his lexicography in order to reinvent it.
Austin explicates key definitions from both the Compendious (1806) and American (1828) dictionaries and brings into its discourse a range of concerns including the politics of American English, the question of national identity and culture in the early moments of American independence, and the poetics of citation and of definition.

Webster's dictionaries were a redefinition of Americanism within the context of an emergent and unstable American socio-political and cultural identity. Webster's identification of his project as a "federal language" shows his competing impulses towards regularity and innovation in historical terms. Perhaps the contradictions of Webster's project comprised part of a larger dialectical play between liberty and order within Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary political debates.

The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, was based on Noah Webster’s American Dictionary edition of 1841.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1828
 
 
About Edmond
 

Edmond François Valentin About (14 February 1828 – 16 January 1885) was a French novelist, publicist and journalist.

 
Biography
About was born at Dieuze, in the Moselle département in the Lorraine region of France. In 1848 he entered the École Normale, taking second place in the annual competition for admission in which Hippolyte Taine came first. Among his college contemporaries, besides Taine, were Francisque Sarcey, Challemel-Lacour and Prevost-Paradol. Of them all, About was considered the most highly vitalized, exuberant, brilliant and "undisciplined". It is said that one of his schoolmasters told him "You will never be more than a little Voltaire," and About's career did tend toward Voltaire-style witty satire and commentaries on contemporary issues.

At the end of his college career, he joined the French school in Athens, but claimed that he had never intended to follow the professorial career for which the École Normale was a preparation, and in 1853 he returned to France and devoted himself to literature and journalism.

 
 

About at the time of his first notoriety, by Félix-Henri Giacomotti, 1858 (Musée des Beaux-Arts de Strasbourg)
  Career
He made his name as an entertaining anti-clerical writer. The satirical Le Roi des montagnes (1856; translated into English by Mary Louise Booth as The King of the Mountains, and by Tom Taylor as The Brigand and His Banker, for a dramatized version)[2] is the best-known of his novels. In Greece, About had noticed that there was a curious understanding between the brigands and police: brigandage was becoming almost a safe and respectable industry. About pushed this idea to invent the story of a brigand chief who converts his business into a registered joint-stock company.

About's commentary on modern Greece, La Grèce contemporaine (1854), was an immediate success. But his Tolla (1855), the story of a young Parisian actress, gave rise to charges of drawing too freely on an earlier Italian novel, Vittoria Savelli (1841). This aroused prejudice against him, and he was the object of numerous attacks. The Lettres d'un bon jeune homme, written to the Figaro under the signature of "Valentin de Quevilly", provoked more animosities. During the next few years, he wrote novels, stories, a play (which failed), a book-pamphlet on the Roman question, many pamphlets on other subjects of the day, innumerable newspaper articles, some art criticisms, rejoinders to the attacks of his enemies, and popular manuals of political economy, L'A B C du travailleur (1868), Le progrès (1864). His more serious novels include Madelon (1863), L'Infâme (1867), the three that form the trilogy of the Vieille Roche (1866), and Le roman d'un brave homme (1880) – a kind of counterblast to the view of the French workman presented in Émile Zola's L'Assommoir.
 
 
He is best remembered as a farceur, for the books Le nez d'un notaire (1862); Le roi des montagnes (1856); L'homme à l'oreille cassée (1862); Trente et quarante (1858); Le cas de M. Guérin (1862; see Georges Maurice de Guérin).

About's attitude towards the empire was friendly but critical. He greeted the liberal ministry of Émile Ollivier at the beginning of 1870 with delight, and welcomed the Franco-Prussian War. But as a result of the war he lost his beloved home in Alsace, which he had purchased in 1858 out of the fruits of his earlier literary successes. With the fall of the empire, he became a republican, and threw himself into battle against conservative reactionaries. From 1872 to about 1877, his paper, the XIXe Siècle (19th century), became a power in the land. His political career, however, failed to advance further.

On 23 January 1884 he was elected a member of the Académie française, but died before taking his seat. His grave at the Père Lachaise Cemetery in Paris includes a sculpture by Gustave Crauck.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Alexandre Dumas pere: "Les Trois Mousquetaires"
 

The Three Musketeers (French: Les Trois Mousquetaires) is a novel by Dumas Alexandre, pere.

 
Set in the 17th century, it recounts the adventures of a young man named d'Artagnan after he leaves home to travel to Paris, to join the Musketeers of the Guard. D'Artagnan is not one of the musketeers of the title; those being his friends Athos, Porthos and Aramis, inseparable friends who live by the motto "all for one, one for all" ("tous pour un, un pour tous"), a motto which is first put forth by d'Artagnan.

In genre, The Three Musketeers is primarily a historical novel and adventure. However Dumas also frequently works into the plot various injustices, abuses and absurdities of the ancien regime, giving the novel an additional political aspect at a time when the debate in France between republicans and monarchists was still fierce.

The story was first serialized from March to July 1844, during the July monarchy, four years before the French Revolution of 1848 violently established the second Republic. The author's father, Thomas-Alexandre Dumas had been a well-known general in France's Republican army during the French revolutionary wars.

Although adaptations tend to portray d'Artagnan and the three musketeers as heroes, the novel portrays less appealing characters, who are willing to commit violence over slight insults and through unquestioning loyalty to the king and queen, and treat their servants and supposed social inferiors with contempt and violence.

 
 
 
The story of d'Artagnan is continued in Twenty Years After and The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later. Those three novels by Dumas are together known as the d'Artagnan Romances.
 
 
Origin
In the very first sentences of his preface, Alexandre Dumas indicated as his source Mémoires de Monsieur d'Artagnan (1700), a historical novel by Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras, which Dumas discovered during his research for his history of Louis XIV, printed by Pierre Rouge in Amsterdam. It was in this book, he said, that d'Artagnan relates his first visit to M. de Tréville, captain of the Musketeers, where in the antechamber he met three young men with the names Athos, Porthos and Aramis. This information struck the imagination of Dumas so much—he tells us—that he continued his investigation and finally encountered once more the names of the three musketeers in a manuscript with the title Mémoire de M. le comte de la Fère, etc.. Elated—so continues his yarn—he asked permission to reprint the manuscript. Permission granted:

Now, this is the first part of this precious manuscript which we offer to our readers, restoring it to the title which belongs to it, and entering into an engagement that if (of which we have no doubt) this first part should obtain the success it merits, we will publish the second immediately.

In the meanwhile, since godfathers are second fathers, as it were, we beg the reader to lay to our account, and not to that of the Comte de la Fère, the pleasure or the ennui he may experience.

 
 
 
This being understood, let us proceed with our story.

The book he referred to was Mémoires de M. d'Artagnan, capitaine lieutenant de la première compagnie des Mousquetaires du Roi (Memoirs of Mister d'Artagnan, Lieutenant Captain of the first company of the King's Musketeers) by Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras (Cologne, 1700). The book was borrowed from the Marseille public library, and the card-index remains to this day; Dumas kept the book when he went back to Paris.

Following Dumas's lead in his preface, Eugène d'Auriac (de la Bibliothèque Royale) in 1847 was able to write the biography of d'Artagnan: d'Artagnan, Capitaine-Lieutenant des Mousquetaires– Sa vie aventureuse– Ses duels– etc. based on Courtilz de Sandras.

The Three Musketeers was first published in serial form in the newspaper Le Siècle between March and July 1844.

When Alexandre Dumas wrote The Three Musketeers, he also was a practising fencer and like many other French gentlemen of his generation he attended the schools for Canne de combat and Savate of Michel Casseux, Charles Lecour and Joseph Charlemont (who had been a regular fencing instructor in the French army).

 
 
Plot summary
In 1625 France, d'Artagnan — a poor young nobleman — leaves his family in Gascony and travels to Paris to join the Musketeers of the Guard. At an inn in Meung-sur-Loire, an older man derides d'Artagnan's horse. Insulted, d'Artagnan demands a duel. The older man's companions beat d'Artagnan unconscious with a cooking pot and a metal tong that breaks his sword. His letter of introduction to Monsieur de Tréville, the commander of the Musketeers, is also stolen. D'Artagnan resolves to avenge himself upon the man (who is later revealed to be the Comte de Rochefort, an agent of Cardinal Richelieu, who is there to pass orders from the Cardinal to Milady de Winter, another of his agents).

In Paris, d'Artagnan visits de Tréville at the headquarters of the Musketeers but without the letter, de Tréville politely refuses his application. He does, however, write a letter of introduction to an academy for young gentlemen which may prepare him for recruitment at a later time. From de Tréville's window, d'Artagnan sees Rochefort passing in the street below and rushes out of the building to confront him but in doing so, he offends three Musketeers, Athos, Porthos, and Aramis, who each demand satisfaction; D'Artagnan must fight a duel with all of them that afternoon. As d'Artagnan prepares himself for the first duel, he realizes that Athos' seconds are Porthos and Aramis, who are astonished that the young Gascon intends to duel them all. As d'Artagnan and Athos begin, Cardinal Richelieu's guards appear and try to arrest d'Artagnan and the three Musketeers for illegal dueling. 
 
 
 
Although outnumbered, the four men win the battle. D'Artagnan seriously wounds Jussac, one of the Cardinal's officers and a renowned fighter. After learning of this, King Louis XIII appoints d'Artagnan to des Essart's company of the King's Guards and gives him forty pistoles.

D'Artagnan hires a servant, Planchet; finds lodgings; and reports to Monsieur des Essart. Des Essart's company is a less prestigious regiment in which he must serve for two years before being considered for the Musketeers. Shortly after, his landlord speaks to him about his wife's kidnapping, (she is released presently) D'Artagnan falls in love at first sight with her, Constance Bonacieux. She works for the Queen Anne of France, who is secretly conducting an affair with the Duke of Buckingham. The King, Louis XIII, gave the Queen a gift of diamond studs but she gives them to her lover as a keepsake. Cardinal Richelieu, who wants war between France and England, plans to expose the tryst and persuades the King to demand the Queen wear the diamonds to a soirée that the Cardinal is sponsoring. Constance tries to send her husband to London but the man is manipulated by Richelieu and does not go so D'Artagnan and his friends intercede. En route, the Cardinal's henchmen repeatedly attack them and only d'Artagnan and Planchet reach London. Before arriving, d'Artagnan is compelled to assault and nearly kill the Comte de Wardes, a friend of the Cardinal, cousin of Rochefort, and Milady's lover. Although Milady stole two of the diamond studs, the Duke of Buckingham provide replacements while delaying the thief's return to Paris. D'Artagnan is thus able to return a complete set of jewels to Queen Anne just in time to save her honour. In gratitude, she gives him a beautiful ring.

 
 
Shortly afterwards, d'Artagnan begins an affair with Madame Bonacieux. Arriving for an assignation, he sees signs of a struggle and discovers that Rochefort and M. Bonacieux, acting under the orders of the Cardinal, have assaulted and imprisoned her. D'Artagnan and his friends, now recovered from their injuries, and brings them back to Paris. D'Artagnan meets Milady de Winter officially, and recognizes her as one of the Cardinal's agents, but becomes infatuated with her until her maid reveals that Milady is indifferent toward him. Entering her quarters in the dark, he pretends to be the Comte de Wardes and trysts with her. He finds a fleur-de-lis branded on Milady's shoulder, marking her as a felon. Discovering his identity, Milady attempts to kill him but d'Artagnan eludes her. He is ordered to the siege of La Rochelle.

He is informed that the Queen has rescued Constance from prison. In an inn, the musketeers overhear the Cardinal asking Milady to murder the Duke of Buckingham, a supporter of the Protestant rebels at La Rochelle who has sent troops to assist them. Richelieu gives her a letter that excuses her actions as under orders from the Cardinal himself, but Athos takes it. The next morning, Athos bets that he, d'Artagnan, Porthos, and Aramis, and their servants can hold the recaptured St. Gervais bastion against the rebels for an hour. They resist for an hour and a half before retreating, killing 22 Rochellese in total. They warn Lord de Winter and the Duke of Buckingham. Milady is imprisoned on arrival in England but seduces her guard, Felton (a fictionalization of the real John Felton), and persuades him to allow her escape and to kill Buckingham himself. On her return to France, Milady hides in a convent where Constance is also staying.

 
 
 
The naive Constance clings to Milady, who sees a chance for revenge on d'Artagnan, and fatally poisons Constance before d'Artagnan can rescue her. The Musketeers arrest Milady before she reaches Cardinal Richelieu. They bring an official executioner, put her on trial and sentence her to death. After her execution, the four friends return to the siege of La Rochelle. The Comte de Rochefort arrests d'Artagnan and takes him straight to the Cardinal. When questioned about Milady's execution, d'Artagnan presents her letter of pardon as his own. The Cardinal is impressed with d'Artagnan's wilfulness and secretly glad to be rid of her, the Cardinal destroys the letter and writes a new order, giving the bearer a promotion to lieutenant in de Treville's company of musketeers, leaving the name blank. D'Artagnan offers the letter to Athos, Porthos, and Aramis in turn but each refuse it, proclaiming d'Artagnan the most worthy among them.

The siege of La Rochelle ends in 1628. Aramis retires to a monastery, Porthos marries his wealthy mistress and Athos serves in the Musketeers under D'Artagnan until 1631, when he retires to his mansion in the countryside.

The four Musketeers meet again in Twenty Years After.

 
 
Important characters
Musketeers

Although adaptations tend to portray d'Artagnan and the three musketeers as heroes, the novel portrays less appealing characters, who are willing to commit violence over slight insults and through unquestioning loyalty to the king and queen, and treat their servants with contempt and violence.

Athos - Armand de Sillègue d'Athos d'Autevielle: The last Musketeer to be introduced. He seems immune to romantic feeling. To an extent, he becomes a father figure to d'Artagnan, but troubles d'Artagnan with the revalation that in his earlier life, he murdered his teenage wife.
Aramis – Henry d’Aramitz: A deeply religious younger Musketeer.
Porthos – : Isaac de Portau: A dandy, fond of fashionable clothes.
d'Artagnan – Charles de Batz de Castelmore d'Artagnan: He is not one of the "Three Musketeers" in the sense that although he is in fact a musketeer, he is attached to des Essarts' company instead of de Treville's. The novel is about him becoming one of the musketeers. When his servant tries to leave employment because d'Artagnan cannot pay him, d'Artagnan beats him, to the approval of the musketeers.

Musketeers' servants

Planchet – a young man from Picardy, he is seen by Porthos on the Pont de la Tournelle spitting into the river below. Porthos takes this as a sign of good character and hires him on the spot to serve d'Artagnan. He turns out to be a brave, intelligent and loyal servant.

 
 
 
Grimaud – a Breton. Athos is a strict master, and only permits his servant to speak in emergencies; he mostly communicates through sign language.
Mousqueton – originally a Norman named Boniface; Porthos, however changes his name to one that sounds better. He is a would-be dandy, just as vain as his master. In lieu of pay, he is clothed and lodged in a manner superior to that usual for servants, dressing grandly in his master's old clothes.

Bazin – from the province of Berry, Bazin is a pious man who waits for the day his master (Aramis) will join the church, as he has always dreamed of serving a priest. Also, he enchants many ladies.
 
 
Others
Milady de Winter – A beautiful but evil spy of the Cardinal and Athos's ex-wife. D'Artagnan has a brief relationship with her, but comes to his senses about her demise.
Rochefort is essential to the plot. Following their duel on the road to Paris, d'Artagnan swears to have his revenge. He loses several opportunities, but their paths finally cross again towards the end of the novel.
Queen Anne of Austria – The unhappy Queen of France.
M. de Tréville – Captain of The Musketeers, and something of a mentor to d'Artagnan, though he has only a minor role.
Constance Bonacieux – The Queen's seamstress and confidante. After d'Artagnan rescues her from the Cardinal's guard, he immediately falls in love with her. She appreciates his protection, but the relationship is never consummated.
George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham
Monsieur Bonacieux – Constance's husband. He initially enlists d'Artagnan's help to rescue his wife from the Cardinal's guards, but when he himself is arrested, he and the Cardinal discover they have an understanding. Richelieu turns Monsieur Bonancieux against his wife, and he goes on to play a role in her abduction.
Kitty – A servant of Milady de Winter. She dislikes her mistress, and pities d'Artagnan.
John Felton – Assigned to guard Milady. However, she makes him fall in love with her, and he helps her escape.
 
 
 
Editions
Les Trois Mousquetaires was translated into three English versions by 1846. One of these, by William Barrow (1817-1877), is still in print and fairly faithful to the original, available in the Oxford World's Classics 1999 edition.

To conform to 19th-century English standards, all of the explicit and many of the implicit references to sexuality were removed, adversely affecting the readability of several scenes, such as the scenes between d'Artagnan and Milady.

The most recent and now standard English translation is by Richard Pevear (2006), who in his introduction notes that most of the modern translations available today are "textbook examples of bad translation practices" which "give their readers an extremely distorted notion of Dumas' writing."

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
     
 
Alexandre Dumas

"The Three Musketeers"
     
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Ibsen Henrik
 
Henrik Ibsen, in full Henrik Johan Ibsen (born March 20, 1828, Skien, Norway—died May 23, 1906, Kristiania [formerly Christiania; now Oslo]), major Norwegian playwright of the late 19th century who introduced to the European stage a new order of moral analysis that was placed against a severely realistic middle-class background and developed with economy of action, penetrating dialogue, and rigorous thought.
 

Henrik Ibsen
  Ibsen was born at Skien, a small lumbering town of southern Norway. His father was a respected general merchant in the community until 1836, when he suffered the permanent disgrace of going bankrupt. As a result, he sank into a querulous penury, which his wife’s withdrawn and sombre religiosity did nothing to mitigate. There was no redeeming the family misfortunes; as soon as he could, aged just 15, Henrik moved to Grimstad, a hamlet of some 800 persons 70 miles (110 km) down the coast. There he supported himself meagerly as an apothecary’s apprentice while studying nights for admission to the university. And during this period he used his few leisure moments to write a play.

This work, Catilina (1850; Catiline), grew out of the Latin texts Ibsen had to study for his university examinations. Though not a very good play, it showed a natural bent for the theatre and embodied themes—the rebellious hero, his destructive mistress—that would preoccupy Ibsen as long as he lived.

In 1850 he went to Christiania (known since 1925 by its older name of Oslo), studied for entrance examinations there, and settled into the student quarter—though not, however, into classes. For the theatre was in his blood, and at the age of only 23 he got himself appointed director and playwright to a new theatre at Bergen, in which capacity he had to write a new play every year.

 
 
This was a wonderful opportunity for a young man eager to work in drama, but it brought Ibsen up against a range of fearsome problems he was ill-equipped to handle. In the medieval Icelandic sagas Norway possessed a heroic, austere literature of unique magnificence; but the stage on which these materials had to be set was then dominated by the drawing-room drama of the French playwright Eugène Scribe and by the actors, acting traditions, and language of Denmark. Out of these materials young Ibsen was asked to create a “national drama.”
 
 
First at Bergen and then at the Norwegian Theatre in Christiania from 1857 to 1862, Ibsen tried to make palatable dramatic fare out of incongruous ingredients. In addition to writing plays which were uncongenial to him and unacceptable to audiences, he did a lot of directing. He was too inhibited to make a forceful director, but too intelligent not to pick up a great deal of practical stage wisdom from his experience. After he moved to Christiania and after his marriage to Suzannah Thoresen in 1858, he began to develop qualities of independence and authority that had been hidden before.

Two of the last plays that Ibsen wrote for the Norwegian stage showed signs of new spiritual energy. Kjaerlighedens komedie (1862; Love’s Comedy), a satire on romantic illusions, was violently unpopular, but it expressed an authentic theme of anti-idealism that Ibsen would soon make his own; and in Kongsemnerne (1863; The Pretenders) he dramatized the mysterious inner authority that makes a man a man, a king, or a great playwright. This one play was in fact the national drama after which Ibsen had been groping so long, and before long it would be recognized as such. But it came too late; though the play was good, the theatre in Christiania was bankrupt, and Ibsen’s career as a stage writer was apparently at an end.

But the death of his theatre was the liberation of Ibsen as a playwright. Without regard for a public he thought petty and illiberal, without care for traditions he found hollow and pretentious, he could now write for himself. He decided to go abroad, and applied for a small state grant. He was awarded part of it, and in April 1864 he left Norway for Italy. For the next 27 years he lived abroad, mainly in Rome, Dresden, and Munich, returning to Norway only for short visits in 1874 and 1885. For reasons that he sometimes summarized as “small-mindedness,” his homeland had left a very bitter taste in his mouth.

  With him into exile Ibsen brought the fragments of a long semi-dramatic poem to be named Brand. Its central figure is a dynamic rural pastor who takes his religious calling with a blazing sincerity that transcends not only all forms of compromise but all traces of human sympathy and warmth as well. “All or nothing” is the demand that his god makes of Brand and that Brand in turn makes of others. He is a moral hero, but he is also a moral monster, and his heart is torn by the anguish that his moral program demands he inflict on his family.

He never hesitates, never ceases to tower over the petty compromisers and spiritual sluggards surrounding him. Yet in the last scene where Brand stands alone before his god, a voice thunders from an avalanche that, even as it crushes the pastor physically, repudiates his whole moral life as well: “He is the god of love,” says the voice from on high.

So the play is not only a denunciation of small-mindedness but a tragedy of the spirit that would transcend it. The poem faced its readers not just with a choice but with an impasse; the heroic alternative was also a destructive (and self-destructive) alternative. In Norway Brand was a tremendous popular success, even though (and in part because) its central meaning was so troubling.

Hard on the heels of Brand (1866) came Peer Gynt (1867), another drama in rhymed couplets presenting an utterly antithetical view of human nature. If Brand is a moral monolith, Peer Gynt is a capering will-o’-the-wisp, a buoyant and self-centred opportunist who is aimless, yielding, and wholly unprincipled, yet who remains a lovable and beloved rascal. The wild and mocking poetry of Peer Gynt has ended by overshadowing Brand in the popular judgment. But these two figures are interdependent and antithetical types who under different guises run through most of Ibsen’s classic work. Like Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, they are universal archetypes as well as unforgettable individuals.

 
 
With these two poetic dramas, Ibsen won his battle with the world; he paused now to work out his future. A philosophicalhistorical drama on the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate had long been on his mind; he finished it in 1873 under the title Kejser og Galilaeer (Emperor and Galilean), but in a ten-act form too diffuse and discursive for the stage. He wrote a modern satire, De unges forbund (1869; The League of Youth) and then after many preliminary drafts a prose satire on small-town politics, Samfundets støtter (1877; Pillars of Society). But Ibsen had not yet found his proper voice; when he did, its effect was not to criticize or reform social life but to blow it up. The explosion came with Et dukkehjem (1879; A Doll’s House).
 
 

Ibsen, late in his career
  This play presents a very ordinary family—a bank manager named Torvald Helmer, his wife Nora, and their three little children. Torvald supposes himself the ethical member of the family, while his wife assumes the role of a pretty irresponsible in order to flatter him. Into this snug, not to say stifling, arrangement intrude several hard-minded outsiders, one of whom threatens to expose a fraud that Nora had once committed (without her husband’s knowledge) in order to obtain a loan needed to save his life. When Nora’s husband finally learns about this dangerous secret, he reacts with outrage and repudiates her out of concern for his own social reputation. Utterly disillusioned about her husband, whom she now sees as a hollow fraud, Nora declares her independence of him and their children and leaves them, slamming the door of the house behind her in the final scene. Audiences were scandalized at Ibsen’s refusal in A Doll’s House to scrape together (as any other contemporary playwright would have done) a “happy ending,” however shoddy or contrived. But that was not Ibsen’s way; his play was about knowing oneself and being true to that self. Torvald, who had thought all along that he was a sturdy ethical agent, proves to be a hypocrite and a weak compromiser; his wife is not only an ethical idealist, but a destructive one, as severe as Brand.

The setting of A Doll’s House is ordinary to the point of transparency. Ibsen’s plot exploits with cold precision the process known as “analytic exposition.” A secret plan (Nora’s forgery) is about to be concluded (she can now finish repaying the loan), but before the last step can be taken, a bit of the truth must be told, and the whole deception unravels. It is a pattern of stage action at once simple and powerful. Ibsen used this technique often, and it gained for him an international audience.

 
 
Ibsen’s next play, Gengangere (1881; Ghosts), created even more dismay and distaste than its predecessor by showing worse consequences of covering up even more ugly truths. Ostensibly the play’s theme is congenital venereal disease, but on another level, it deals with the power of ingrained moral contamination to undermine the most determined idealism. Even after lecherous Captain Alving is in his grave, his ghost will not be laid to rest. In the play, the lying memorial that his conventionally-minded widow has erected to his memory burns down even as his son goes insane from inherited syphilis and his illegitimate daughter advances inexorably toward her destiny in a brothel. The play is a grim study of contamination spreading through a family under cover of the widowed Mrs. Alving’s timidly respectable views.
 
 
A play dealing with syphilis on top of one dealing with a wife’s abandonment of her family sealed Ibsen’s reputation as a Bad Old Man, but progressive theatres in England and all across the Continent began putting on his plays. His audiences were often small, but there were many of them, and they took his plays very seriously. So did conventionally-minded critics; they denounced Ibsen as if he had desecrated all that was sacred and holy. Ibsen’s response took the form of a direct dramatic counterattack. Doctor Stockmann, the hero of En folkefiende (1882; An Enemy of the People), functions as Ibsen’s personal spokesman. In the play he is a medical officer, charged with inspecting the public baths on which the prosperity of his native town depends. When he finds their water to be contaminated, he says so publicly, though the town officials and townspeople try to silence him. When he still insists on speaking the truth, he is officially declared an “enemy of the people.” Though portrayed as a victim, Doctor Stockmann, like all Ibsen’s idealistic truth-tellers after Brand, also carries within him a deep strain of destructiveness. (His attacks on the baths will, after all, ruin the town; it’s just that by comparison with the truth, he doesn’t care about this.) Ibsen’s next play would make this minor chord dominant.

In Vildanden (1884; The Wild Duck) Ibsen completely reversed his viewpoint by presenting on stage a gratuitous, destructive truth-teller whose compulsion visits catastrophic misery on a family of helpless innocents. With the help of a number of comforting delusions, Hjalmar Ekdal and his little family are living a somewhat squalid but essentially cheerful existence. Upon these helpless weaklings descends an infatuated truth-teller, Gregers Werle. He cuts away the moral foundations (delusive as they are) on which the family has lived, leaving them despondent and shattered by the weight of a guilt too heavy to bear. The havoc wrought on the Ekdal family is rather pathetic than tragic; but the working out of the action achieves a kind of mournful poetry that is quite new in Ibsen’s repertoire.

  Each of this series of Ibsen’s classic modern dramas grows by extension or reversal out of its predecessor; they form an unbroken string. The last of the sequence is Rosmersholm (1886), in which variants of the destructive saint (Brand) and the all-too-human rogue (Peer) once more strive to define their identities, but this time on a level of moral sensitivity that gives the play a special air of silver serenity. Ex-parson Johannes Rosmer is the ethical personality, while the adventuress Rebecca West is his antagonist.

Haunting them both out of the past is the spirit of the parson’s late wife, who had committed suicide under the subtle influence, we learn, of Rebecca West, and because of her husband’s high-minded indifference to sex. At issue for the future is a choice between bold, unrestricted freedom and the ancient, conservative traditions of Rosmer’s house. But even as he is persuaded by Rebecca’s emancipated spirit, she is touched by his staid, decorous view of life. Each is contaminated by the other, and for differing but complementary reasons, they tempt one another toward the fatal millpond in which Rosmer’s wife drowned. The play ends with a double suicide in which both Rosmer and Rebecca, each for the other’s reasons, do justice on themselves.

Ibsen’s playwriting career by no means ended with Rosmersholm, but thereafter he turned toward a more self-analytic and symbolic mode of writing that is quite different from the plays that made his world reputation. Among his later plays are Fruen fra havet (1888; The Lady from the Sea), Hedda Gabler (1890), Bygmester Solness (1892; The Master Builder), Lille Eyolf (1894; Little Eyolf), John Gabriel Borkman (1896), and Naar vi døde vaagner (1899; When We Dead Awaken).

Two of these plays, Hedda Gabler and The Master Builder, are vitalized by the presence of a demonically idealistic and totally destructive female such as first appeared in Catiline. Another obsessive personage in these late plays is an aging artist who is bitterly aware of his failing powers.

 
 
Personal and confessional feelings infuse many of these last dramas; perhaps these resulted from Ibsen’s decision in 1891 to return to Norway, or perhaps from the series of fascinated, fearful dalliances he had with young women in his later years. After his return to Norway, Ibsen continued to write plays until a stroke in 1900 and another a year later reduced him to a bedridden invalid. He died in Kristiania in 1906.
 
 

Henrik Ibsen
  Ibsen was in the forefront of those early modern authors whom one could refer to as the great disturbers; he belongs with Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, and William Blake. Ibsen wrote plays about mostly prosaic and commonplace persons; but from them he elicited insights of devastating directness, great subtlety, and occasional flashes of rare beauty.

His plots are not cleverly contrived games but deliberate acts of cognition, in which persons are stripped of their accumulated disguises and forced to acknowledge their true selves, for better or worse. Thus, he made his audiences reexamine with painful earnestness the moral foundation of their being. During the last half of the 19th century he turned the European stage back from what it had become—a plaything and a distraction for the bored—to make it what it had been long ago among the ancient Greeks, an instrument for passing doom-judgment on the soul.

Robert M. Adams

Encyclopædia Britannica
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Irving Washington: "History of the Life and Voyage of Christopher Columbus"
 
 
 
     
  Washington Irving

"The Legend of Sleepy Hollow"
"Rip Van Winkle"


Illustrations by Arthur Rackham
     
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Bulwer-Lytton Edward George: "Pelham"
 
 

Bulwer-Lytton: "Pelham"
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Meredith George
 

George Meredith, (born Feb. 12, 1828, Portsmouth, Hampshire, Eng.—died May 18, 1909, Box Hill, Surrey), English Victorian poet and novelist, whose novels are noted for their wit, brilliant dialogue, and aphoristic quality of language. Meredith’s novels are also distinguished by psychological studies of character and a highly subjective view of life that, far ahead of his time, regarded women as truly the equals of men. His best known works are The Ordeal of Richard Feverel (1859) and The Egoist (1879).

 

George Meredith in 1893 by George Frederic Watts
  Early life
George Meredith, the son and grandson of tailors, was born above the family tailor shop in Portsmouth. The name Meredith is Welsh in origin, and family tradition held that its bearers were descendants of Welsh kings and chieftains. In keeping with this tradition, the young Meredith was proud and patrician in his bearing. A small inheritance from his mother, who died when he was five, enabled Meredith to attend a superior local seminary and thus early to assume the role of a young “gentleman.” Yet the sensitive boy must gradually have become conscious of the contrast between this role and his actual social status. And the reality was to become even harsher with the bankruptcy of the tailoring shop when he was about 11 and his father’s subsequent marriage to the young woman who had been their housekeeper.

In 1840 a second legacy, this time from an aunt, enabled him to go first to a boarding school and then, in 1842, to the Moravian School at Neuwied on the Rhine River, which was to leave its stamp upon the remainder of his life. The picturesque Rhineland, with its cliffs, its ruined castles, and its legends, stimulated the fancy of the already romantic youth. Tolerant religious instruction was combined with humanism: the boys were taught to think for themselves, to respect truth, to admire courage, to love nature, and to live in peace and amity with their fellows. The monotony of study was broken by daily sports, storytelling, and playacting and on vacations by week-long expeditions or boating trips down the Rhine.

 
 
All of these influences except the religious remained with Meredith throughout life. After “a spasm of religion which lasted about six weeks,” he later said, he never “swallowed the Christian fable” and thereafter called himself a freethinker.

Meredith’s return to England in 1844, at the age of 16, ended his formal education. Like all of the other great Victorian novelists, he was to be largely self-educated. After several false starts, he was apprenticed at 18 to a London solicitor named Richard Charnock and was ostensibly launched upon a career in law. There is no evidence, however, that he ever pursued it. Probably, like the writer and politician Benjamin Disraeli, the novelist William Makepeace Thackeray, and others before him, he found it intolerably dull and abandoned it at the start. But if not the law, what profession offered hope to a young man who was brilliant but untrained, ambitious but without means? If to be a poet seems an unlikely choice, it nevertheless accorded with his romantic nature.

He was steeped in The Arabian Nights and German legends and literature; he had already written verse, and he soon found that Charnock’s interests were more literary than legal and that he had gathered around him a coterie of young friends whose interests were also literary. Perhaps all of these were influences. At any rate, among the Charnock circle was Edward “Ned” Peacock, son of Thomas Love Peacock, the eccentric author, and through Edward he met Edward’s sister, Mary Ellen Nicolls, a widow with a small daughter. She was brilliant, witty, handsome, and about eight years older than he. In the course of editing and writing for a manuscript literary magazine conducted by the Charnock circle, he fell in love with her. Shortly after he reached his majority and came into the remainder of his little inheritance, they were married.

 
 

"Our first novelist"
Meredith as caricatured by Max Beerbohm in Vanity Fair, September 1896
  Beginnings as poet and novelist.
On their return, the Merediths took lodgings at Weybridge, Surrey, near Peacock’s house at Lower Halliford, Middlesex, and George busied himself writing poems and articles and making translations. Unfortunately, they brought in little money. Somehow, nevertheless, he managed to pay the publication costs of a little collection of verse, entitled Poems, in 1851. Though the writer and critic William Michael Rossetti praised it, Charles Kingsley, the novelist, found “very high promise” in it, and the poet Alfred Tennyson said kindly that he wished he might have written the beautiful “Love in the Valley,” praise added nothing to the family coffers.

Beset by creditors, the Merediths had to take refuge in Peacock’s house, where their only child, Arthur, was born in 1853. Understandably, Peacock soon preferred to rent a cottage for them across the village green from him. As poetry did not pay, Meredith now in desperation turned his hand to prose, writing a fantasy entitled The Shaving of Shagpat: An Arabian Entertainment, published in 1855. Original in conception but imitative of The Arabian Nights in manner, it baffled most readers, who did not know whether to regard it as allegory or fairy tale. But the most perceptive of the critics, the novelist George Eliot, praised it as “a work of genius, and of poetical genius.”

Poverty, disappointment, and the growing antagonism between two highly strung, critical natures placed an unbearable strain upon the marriage of the Merediths. Little more is known of this period in their lives, except that Mrs. Meredith was in Wales, in the company of an artist friend of the couple, Henry Wallis, during the summer of 1857. In April 1858 she gave birth to a son, whose father was registered as “George Meredith, author,” but whose paternity Meredith always denied. Subsequently, Mrs. Meredith and Wallis went off to Capri together. She died in 1861, leaving Meredith with his eight-year-old son, Arthur.

 
 
Work was Meredith’s only solace, and he was feverishly working upon a novel, The Ordeal of Richard Feverel (published in 1859), with which he hoped to win fame and fortune. It was characteristic of his best work in many respects: in form it is a romantic comedy (but with a tragic ending, as is frequent in Meredith); it deals with the relationship between a baronet and his son; the son falls in love with a lower class girl and is subjected to an ordeal—a recurring motif in Meredith—by his father; the novel is rich in allusion, image, and metaphor; the dialogue is sparkling, witty, and elliptical as in life; there are frequent intrusions by the author; three of the chapters are written in highly lyric prose; and the psychology of motive and rationalization is explored in depth. Father and son suffer from excessive pride and self-delusion (regarded by Meredith as forms of egoism), which it is the purpose of comedy, as he later said in his “Essay on Comedy,” to purge and replace with sanity. Though not without faults, the novel nevertheless remains Meredith’s most moving and most widely read novel. But delicate readers found it prurient and had it banned by the influential lending libraries, scattering Meredith’s hopes of affluence. He was forced to accept employment as a reader of manuscripts for a publisher and as a writer of editorials and news items for a provincial newspaper. His own writing had to be done in what spare time remained.
 
 
Feverel was followed by Evan Harrington (1860), an amusing comedy in which Meredith used the family tailoring establishment and his own relatives for subject matter. The hero is the son of a tailor who has been brought up abroad as a “gentleman” and has fallen in love with the daughter of a baronet. His ordeal comes when he returns home to find his father dead and himself heir to the tailor shop and a considerable debt. Taking up poetry again, Meredith next published a volume of poems, Modern Love, and Poems of the English Roadside, with Poems and Ballads, in 1862. If Evan Harrington had exorcised the tailor demon that haunted him, “Modern Love” doubtless served a similar purpose for his own disastrous marriage. Semi-autobiographical, it is concerned with the tragedy of marital infidelity and its nemesis, though his own wound was now sufficiently healed for him to write compassionately. The poem deserves a place among his permanent contributions to English poetry.

After a walking tour on the Continent, he once more turned to prose. The theme of his next novel, Emilia in England (later renamed Sandra Belloni), was the contrast between a simple but passionate girl and some sentimental English social climbers—an excellent theme for Meredithian comedy. Its publication in 1864 was made the occasion of the first general consideration of all his works up to this point in an article in the Westminster Review by the Irish journalist and writer Justin M’Carthy. A second event of importance in 1864 was his remarriage. Arthur had been placed in boarding school, and Meredith’s own loneliness was intensified. Luckily, he met an attractive, well-bred young woman of Anglo-French descent, Marie Vulliamy, fell in love with her, and, after undergoing his own ordeal in persuading her father of his respectability, married her in September 1864. Thus ended a period in his life: he was no longer unknown and no longer lonely.

A son was born to the couple in 1865 and a daughter in 1871. With a family to support and popularity still elusive, Meredith had to keep hard at work for the next 15 years, with only occasional walking expeditions on the Continent. In 1866, however, he was sent out by The Morning Post to report the Italian campaign in the Austro-Prussian War, which lasted only seven weeks but enabled him to spend three months in his beloved Italy.
After his return he was able to purchase a comfortable cottage near the bottom of Box Hill, Surrey, where he was to live quietly until his death. It stands today much as when he lived in it.

  Mature works.
During the next 20 years, from 1865 to 1885, Meredith continued the drudgery of reading manuscripts but substituted weekly readings to an elderly rich widow for the newspaper work. It was, however, a period marked by the birth of the children, the publication of seven novels and a volume of poems, and, in the 1880s, by growing public recognition. The next two novels, Rhoda Fleming (1865) and a sequel to Emilia, entitled Vittoria, added nothing to his reputation. With The Adventures of Harry Richmond (1871), however, Meredith returned to what was his forte—romantic comedy. Once more he wrote a close study of a father–son relationship, only this time the father is an impostor who out-Micawbers Dickens’ Mr. Micawber in his belief that something will “turn up” to make his fortune. The son’s ordeal is that he must perceive and reject the world of fantasy in which his father lives and achieve maturity through painful experience. After an interval of about four years came Beauchamp’s Career. Its hero is a self-deluded idealist who is converted to radicalism and whose ordeal is both political and personal. It is one of Meredith’s better novels and confirmed what was clear by now, that one of his greatest strengths was the creation of spirited, flesh-and-blood women who think for themselves.

The next two novels of consequence, The Egoist (1879) and Diana of the Crossways (1885), marked the beginning of Meredith’s acceptance by a wider reading public and a more favourable reception by critics. Both are comedies, full of Meredithian wit and brilliant dialogue and notable for women characters who prove their right to be accepted as individuals, equal with men, rather than puppets. In The Egoist the enemy is egoism, and the egoist is tested by a succession of ordeals before joining the ranks of humanity. While that novel is concerned with the dangers of wrong choice before marriage, Diana is the first of a series of studies of mismating in marriage. Diana herself is a memorable character of spirit and brains, although Meredith is less successful in persuading readers that she could naively be guilty of a grave breach of confidence. In both novels, however, the men that Meredith approves of and hands the heroines over to are rather flat and uninteresting.

A new period now began in Meredith’s life. Fame, if not popularity, and financial independence had come at last. Yet his enjoyment of them was to be tempered by the death of his wife in 1885 and of Arthur in 1890, by the beginning of deafness, and by the onset of ataxia that was first to limit his ability to walk and finally to render him immobile.

 
 
Honours and testimonials came in plenty: an honorary LL.D. degree from the University of St. Andrews, Fife, Scot.; election to the prestigious office of President of the Society of Authors; and in 1905 the Order of Merit, strictly limited to 24 members, was conferred upon him by order of the King. Meredith had become a public institution, his home at Box Hill almost a literary shrine.

After 1885 his work was done except for three novels and five volumes of poems that were increasingly more philosophic than poetic. One of Our Conquerors (1891) is probably the most difficult of his novels because of the indirect and cryptic style, metaphor, and long passages of interior monologue. Lord Ormont and His Aminta (1894), unlike its predecessor, was praised for the brilliancy and clarity of its style. The final novel, The Amazing Marriage (1895), repeats the theme of Lord Ormont—that a wife is free to leave a husband who does not recognize her as an equal.

 
 

The Death of Chatterton by Henry Wallis, Birmingham version, for which Meredith posed in 1856.
 
 
In person Meredith was slightly built but athletic, remarkably handsome, and aristocratic in manner. Because of his concern with upper class life in his novels, he has sometimes been accused of being ashamed of his lowly birth and of being at heart a snob. The charge hardly bears inspection: he chose the fashionable world as a subject because it was fittest for his brand of comic treatment. His own tastes and manner of living were almost spartanly simple, his greatest pleasures being long walks and communion with nature. His friends, for the most part, were not aristocrats; they were chiefly writers and artists, along with a few professional men. It is true that in the years of his fame he was taken up by various fashionable ladies—usually young ones whom he had fascinated—and that journalists began to beat a path to his door. If he was not the oracle with all the answers, he was willing to play the role. A brilliant talker, he delighted in expressing radical and startling ideas to journalists—that the Boers should have been given their freedom; that Britain should join the United States; that marriage should be for a 10-year trial period, renewable by mutual consent; that there was no future life; and that Britain should arm itself against impending German aggression. On his 80th birthday he was presented with another testimonial, with 250 signatures of the great ones of the world, and both King Edward VII and Pres. Theodore Roosevelt sent congratulations.
 
 

George Meredith in middle age.
  Influence
On his 80th birthday the newspapers of the world saluted Meredith as “the Dean of English Writers,” the “last Great Victorian,” the “Grand Old Man of Letters,” and the “Sage of Box Hill.” Shortly after his death, The Times Literary Supplement said that his mind was “so rich, so full, that one wonders where there is another mind so rich, outside Shakespeare, in English literature.” As not infrequently happens, however, his great reputation went into eclipse, and other gods—Henry James, James Joyce, Joseph Conrad, and D.H. Lawrence—replaced him. Ardent Meredithians remained, but the pendulum of popular taste has not swung back. The Ordeal of Richard Feverel and The Egoist will continue to have a share in college and university curricula, The Adventures of Harry Richmond and Beauchamp’s Career may have limited appeal, and for the rest, Meredith will be left to scholars and the intellectual elite. The influence of Meredith on the novel has been indirect rather than direct. Although his highly personal style was incapable of imitation, his extensive use of interior monologue anticipated the stream-of-consciousness technique of James Joyce and others. Moreover, with George Eliot he was creating the psychological novel and thus was an important link between his 18th-century precursors and 19th- and 20th-century followers. Among later novelists influenced by him the Marxist critic Jack Lindsay cites George Robert Gissing, Thomas Hardy, Henry James, and Robert Louis Stevenson; and the writer and critic J.B. Priestley points to Virginia Woolf, D.H. Lawrence, and E.M. Forster.

C.L. Cline

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
     
 
George Meredith 

"The Egoist"
     
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Oliphant Margaret
 

Margaret Oliphant Wilson Oliphant (née Margaret Oliphant Wilson) (4 April 1828 – 25 June 1897), was a Scottish novelist and historical writer, who usually wrote as Mrs. Oliphant. Her fictional works encompass "domestic realism, the historical novel and tales of the supernatural".

 

Margaret Oliphant Wilson Oliphant
  Life
The daughter of Francis W. Wilson (c.1788–1858), a clerk, and his wife, Margaret Oliphant (c.1789–1854), she was born at Wallyford, near Musselburgh, East Lothian, and spent her childhood at Lasswade (near Dalkeith), Glasgow and Liverpool. As a girl, she constantly experimented with writing. In 1849 she had her first novel published: Passages in the Life of Mrs. Margaret Maitland. This dealt with the Scottish Free Church movement, with which Mr. and Mrs. Wilson both sympathised, and met with some success.
It was followed by Caleb Field in 1851, the year in which she met the publisher William Blackwood in Edinburgh and was invited to contribute to the famous Blackwood's Magazine. The connection was to last for her whole lifetime, during which she contributed well over 100 articles, including, a critique of the character of Arthur Dimmesdale in Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter.

In May 1852, she married her cousin, Frank Wilson Oliphant, at Birkenhead, and settled at Harrington Square in London. An artist working mainly in stained glass, her husband had delicate health, and three of their six children died in infancy, while the father himself developed alarming symptoms of consumption. For the sake of his health they moved in January 1859 to Florence, and then to Rome, where Frank Oliphant died. His wife, left almost entirely without resources, returned to England and took up the burden of supporting her three remaining children by her own literary activity.
 
 
She had now become a popular writer, and worked with amazing industry to sustain her position. Unfortunately, her home life was full of sorrow and disappointment. In January 1864 her only remaining daughter Maggie died in Rome, and was buried in her father's grave. Her brother, who had emigrated to Canada, was shortly afterwards involved in financial ruin, and Mrs. Oliphant offered a home to him and his children, and added their support to her already heavy responsibilities.

In 1866 she settled at Windsor to be near her sons who were being educated at Eton. That year, her second cousin, Annie Louisa Walker, came to live with her as a companion-housekeeper. This was her home for the rest of her life, and for more than thirty years she pursued a varied literary career with courage scarcely broken by a series of the gravest troubles. The ambitions she cherished for her sons were unfulfilled. Cyril Francis, the elder, died in 1890, leaving a Life of Alfred de Musset, incorporated in his mother's Foreign Classics for English Readers, The younger, Francis (whom she called "Cecco"), collaborated with her in the Victorian Age of English Literature and won a position at the British Museum, but was rejected by Sir Andrew Clark, a famous physician. Cecco died in 1894. With the last of her children lost to her, she had but little further interest in life. Her health steadily declined, and she died at Wimbledon, London, on 25 June 1897.

In the 1880s she was the literary mentor of the Irish novelist Emily Lawless. During this time Oliphant wrote several works of supernatural fiction, including the long ghost story A Beleaguered City (1880) and several short tales, including "The Open Door" and "Old Lady Mary".

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Tolstoy Leo
 

Leo Tolstoy, Tolstoy also spelled Tolstoi, Russian in full Lev Nikolayevich, Count (Graf) Tolstoy (born Aug. 28 [Sept. 9, New Style], 1828, Yasnaya Polyana, Tula province, Russian Empire—died Nov. 7 [Nov. 20], 1910, Astapovo, Ryazan province), Russian author, a master of realistic fiction and one of the world’s greatest novelists.

 

Leo Tolstoy by I. Kramkoy; from the collection of the State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow.
  Tolstoy is best known for his two longest works, War and Peace and Anna Karenina, which are commonly regarded as among the finest novels ever written. War and Peace in particular seems virtually to define this form for many readers and critics. Among Tolstoy’s shorter works, The Death of Ivan Ilyich is usually classed among the best examples of the novella. Especially during his last three decades Tolstoy also achieved world renown as a moral and religious teacher. His doctrine of nonresistance to evil had an important influence on Gandhi. Although Tolstoy’s religious ideas no longer command the respect they once did, interest in his life and personality has, if anything, increased over the years.

Most readers will agree with the assessment of the 19th-century British poet and critic Matthew Arnold that a novel by Tolstoy is not a work of art but a piece of life; the 20th-century Russian author Isaak Babel commented that, if the world could write by itself, it would write like Tolstoy. Critics of diverse schools have agreed that somehow Tolstoy’s works seem to elude all artifice. Most have stressed his ability to observe the smallest changes of consciousness and to record the slightest movements of the body. What another novelist would describe as a single act of consciousness, Tolstoy convincingly breaks down into a series of infinitesimally small steps. According to the English writer Virginia Woolf, who took for granted that Tolstoy was “the greatest of all novelists,” these observational powers elicited a kind of fear in readers, who “wish to escape from the gaze which Tolstoy fixes on us.”

 
 
Those who visited Tolstoy as an old man also reported feelings of great discomfort when he appeared to understand their unspoken thoughts. It was commonplace to describe him as godlike in his powers and titanic in his struggles to escape the limitations of the human condition. Some viewed Tolstoy as the embodiment of nature and pure vitality, others saw him as the incarnation of the world’s conscience, but for almost all who knew him or read his works, he was not just one of the greatest writers who ever lived but a living symbol of the search for life’s meaning.
 
 

Tolstoy at age 20, 1848
  Early years
The scion of prominent aristocrats, Tolstoy was born at the family estate, about 130 miles (210 kilometres) south of Moscow, where he was to live the better part of his life and write his most important works. His mother, Mariya Nikolayevna, née Princess Volkonskaya, died before he was two years old, and his father Nikolay Ilich, Count Tolstoy, followed her in 1837. His grandmother died 11 months later, and then his next guardian, his aunt Aleksandra, in 1841.

Tolstoy and his four siblings were then transferred to the care of another aunt in Kazan, in western Russia. Tolstoy remembered a cousin who lived at Yasnaya Polyana, Tatyana Aleksandrovna Yergolskaya (“Aunt Toinette,” as he called her), as the greatest influence on his childhood, and later, as a young man, Tolstoy wrote some of his most touching letters to her. Despite the constant presence of death, Tolstoy remembered his childhood in idyllic terms. His first published work, Detstvo (1852; Childhood), was a fictionalized and nostalgic account of his early years.

Educated at home by tutors, Tolstoy enrolled in the University of Kazan in 1844 as a student of Oriental languages.
His poor record soon forced him to transfer to the less demanding law faculty, where he wrote a comparison of the French political philosopher Charles de Secondat de Montesquieu’s The Spirit of Laws and Catherine II the Great’s nakaz (instructions for a law code).

 
 

Interested in literature and ethics, he was drawn to the works of the English novelists Laurence Sterne and Charles Dickens and, especially, to the writings of the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau; in place of a cross, he wore a medallion with a portrait of Rousseau. But he spent most of his time trying to be comme il faut (socially correct), drinking, gambling, and engaging in debauchery. After leaving the university in 1847 without a degree, Tolstoy returned to Yasnaya Polyana, where he planned to educate himself, to manage his estate, and to improve the lot of his serfs. Despite frequent resolutions to change his ways, he continued his loose life during stays in Tula, Moscow, and St. Petersburg. In 1851 he joined his older brother Nikolay, an army officer, in the Caucasus and then entered the army himself. He took part in campaigns against the native Caucasian tribes and, soon after, in the Crimean War (1853–56).

In 1847 Tolstoy began keeping a diary, which became his laboratory for experiments in self-analysis and, later, for his fiction. With some interruptions, Tolstoy kept his diaries throughout his life, and he is therefore one of the most copiously documented writers who ever lived. Reflecting the life he was leading, his first diary begins by confiding that he may have contracted a venereal disease. The early diaries record a fascination with rule-making, as Tolstoy composed rules for diverse aspects of social and moral behaviour. They also record the writer’s repeated failure to honour these rules, his attempts to formulate new ones designed to ensure obedience to old ones, and his frequent acts of self-castigation. Tolstoy’s later belief that life is too complex and disordered ever to conform to rules or philosophical systems perhaps derives from these futile attempts at self-regulation.

 
 
 

Leo Tolstoy, 1862
  First publications
Concealing his identity, Tolstoy submitted Childhood for publication in Sovremennik (“The Contemporary”), a prominent journal edited by the poet Nikolay Nekrasov. Nekrasov was enthusiastic, and the pseudonymously published work was widely praised. During the next few years Tolstoy published a number of stories based on his experiences in the Caucasus, including “Nabeg” (1853; “The Raid”) and his three sketches about the Siege of Sevastopol during the Crimean War: “Sevastopol v dekabre mesyatse” (“Sevastopol in December”), “Sevastopol v maye” (“Sevastopol in May”), and “Sevastopol v avguste 1855 goda” (“Sevastopol in August”; all published 1855–56). The first sketch, which deals with the courage of simple soldiers, was praised by the tsar. Written in the second person as if it were a tour guide, this story also demonstrates Tolstoy’s keen interest in formal experimentation and his lifelong concern with the morality of observing other people’s suffering. The second sketch includes a lengthy passage of a soldier’s stream of consciousness (one of the early uses of this device) in the instant before he is killed by a bomb. In the story’s famous ending, the author, after commenting that none of his characters are truly heroic, asserts that “the hero of my story—whom I love with all the power of my soul . . . who was, is, and ever will be beautiful—is the truth.” Readers ever since have remarked on Tolstoy’s ability to make such “absolute language,” which usually ruins realistic fiction, aesthetically effective.
After the Crimean War Tolstoy resigned from the army and was at first hailed by the literary world of St. Petersburg. But his prickly vanity, his refusal to join any intellectual camp, and his insistence on his complete independence soon earned him the dislike of the radical intelligentsia.
 
 

He was to remain throughout his life an “archaist,” opposed to prevailing intellectual trends. In 1857 Tolstoy traveled to Paris and returned after having gambled away his money.

After his return to Russia, he decided that his real vocation was pedagogy, and so he organized a school for peasant children on his estate. After touring western Europe to study pedagogical theory and practice, he published 12 issues of a journal, Yasnaya Polyana (1862–63), which included his provocative articles “Progress i opredeleniye obrazovaniya” (“Progress and the Definition of Education”), which denies that history has any underlying laws, and “Komu u kogu uchitsya pisat, krestyanskim rebyatam u nas ili nam u krestyanskikh rebyat?” (“Who Should Learn Writing of Whom: Peasant Children of Us, or We of Peasant Children?”), which reverses the usual answer to the question. Tolstoy married Sofya (Sonya) Andreyevna Bers, the daughter of a prominent Moscow physician, in 1862 and soon transferred all his energies to his marriage and the composition of War and Peace. Tolstoy and his wife had 13 children, of whom 10 survived infancy.

Tolstoy’s works during the late 1850s and early 1860s experimented with new forms for expressing his moral and philosophical concerns. To Childhood he soon added Otrochestvo (1854; Boyhood) and Yunost (1857; Youth). A number of stories centre on a single semiautobiographical character, Dmitry Nekhlyudov, who later reappeared as the hero of Tolstoy’s novel Resurrection. In “Lyutsern” (1857; “Lucerne”), Tolstoy uses the diary form first to relate an incident, then to reflect on its timeless meaning, and finally to reflect on the process of his own reflections. “Tri smerti” (1859; “Three Deaths”) describes the deaths of a noblewoman who cannot face the fact that she is dying, of a peasant who accepts death simply, and, at last, of a tree, whose utterly natural end contrasts with human artifice. Only the author’s transcendent consciousness unites these three events.

“Kholstomer” (written 1863; revised and published 1886; “Kholstomer: The Story of a Horse”) has become famous for its dramatic use of a favourite Tolstoyan device, “defamiliarization”—that is, the description of familiar social practices from the “naive” perspective of an observer who does not take them for granted. Readers were shocked to discover that the protagonist and principal narrator of “Kholstomer” was an old horse. Like so many of Tolstoy’s early works, this story satirizes the artifice and conventionality of human society, a theme that also dominates Tolstoy’s novel Kazaki (1863; The Cossacks). The hero of this work, the dissolute and self-centred aristocrat Dmitry Olenin, enlists as a cadet to serve in the Caucasus. Living among the Cossacks, he comes to appreciate a life more in touch with natural and biological rhythms. In the novel’s central scene, Olenin, hunting in the woods, senses that every living creature, even a mosquito, “is just such a separate Dmitry Olenin as I am myself.” Recognizing the futility of his past life, he resolves to live entirely for others.

 
 
The period of the great novels (1863–77)
Happily married and ensconced with his wife and family at Yasnaya Polyana, Tolstoy reached the height of his creative powers. He devoted the remaining years of the 1860s to writing War and Peace. Then, after an interlude during which he considered writing a novel about Peter I the Great and briefly returned to pedagogy (bringing out reading primers that were widely used), Tolstoy wrote his other great novel, Anna Karenina. These two works share a vision of human experience rooted in an appreciation of everyday life and prosaic virtues.
 
 

Leo Tolstoy, 1876
  War and Peace
Voyna i mir (1865–69; War and Peace) contains three kinds of material—a historical account of the Napoleonic wars, the biographies of fictional characters, and a set of essays about the philosophy of history. Critics from the 1860s to the present have wondered how these three parts cohere, and many have faulted Tolstoy for including the lengthy essays, but readers continue to respond to them with undiminished enthusiasm.
The work’s historical portions narrate the campaign of 1805 leading to Napoleon’s victory at the Battle of Austerlitz, a period of peace, and Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812. Contrary to generally accepted views, Tolstoy portrays Napoleon as an ineffective, egomaniacal buffoon, Tsar Alexander I as a phrasemaker obsessed with how historians will describe him, and the Russian general Mikhail Kutuzov (previously disparaged) as a patient old man who understands the limitations of human will and planning. Particularly noteworthy are the novel’s battle scenes, which show combat as sheer chaos. Generals may imagine they can “anticipate all contingencies,” but battle is really the result of “a hundred million diverse chances” decided on the moment by unforeseeable circumstances. In war as in life, no system or model can come close to accounting for the infinite complexity of human behaviour. Among the book’s fictional characters, the reader’s attention is first focused on Prince Andrey Bolkonsky, a proud man who has come to despise everything fake, shallow, or merely conventional.
 
 

Recognizing the artifice of high society, he joins the army to achieve glory, which he regards as truly meaningful. Badly wounded at Austerlitz, he comes to see glory and Napoleon as no less petty than the salons of St. Petersburg. As the novel progresses, Prince Andrey repeatedly discovers the emptiness of the activities to which he has devoted himself. Tolstoy’s description of his death in 1812 is usually regarded as one of the most effective scenes in Russian literature.

The novel’s other hero, the bumbling and sincere Pierre Bezukhov, oscillates between belief in some philosophical system promising to resolve all questions and a relativism so total as to leave him in apathetic despair. He at last discovers the Tolstoyan truth that wisdom is to be found not in systems but in the ordinary processes of daily life, especially in his marriage to the novel’s most memorable heroine, Natasha. When the book stops—it does not really end but just breaks off—Pierre seems to be forgetting this lesson in his enthusiasm for a new utopian plan.

In accord with Tolstoy’s idea that prosaic, everyday activities make a life good or bad, the book’s truly wise characters are not its intellectuals but a simple, decent soldier, Natasha’s brother Nikolay, and a generous pious woman, Andrey’s sister Marya. Their marriage symbolizes the novel’s central prosaic values.

The essays in War and Peace, which begin in the second half of the book, satirize all attempts to formulate general laws of history and reject the ill-considered assumptions supporting all historical narratives. In Tolstoy’s view, history, like battle, is essentially the product of contingency, has no direction, and fits no pattern. The causes of historical events are infinitely varied and forever unknowable, and so historical writing, which claims to explain the past, necessarily falsifies it. The shape of historical narratives reflects not the actual course of events but the essentially literary criteria established by earlier historical narratives.

According to Tolstoy’s essays, historians also make a number of other closely connected errors. They presume that history is shaped by the plans and ideas of great men—whether generals or political leaders or intellectuals like themselves—and that its direction is determined at dramatic moments leading to major decisions. In fact, however, history is made by the sum total of an infinite number of small decisions taken by ordinary people, whose actions are too unremarkable to be documented. As Tolstoy explains, to presume that grand events make history is like concluding from a view of a distant region where only treetops are visible that the region contains nothing but trees. Therefore Tolstoy’s novel gives its readers countless examples of small incidents that each exert a tiny influence—which is one reason that War and Peace is so long. Tolstoy’s belief in the efficacy of the ordinary and the futility of system-building set him in opposition to the thinkers of his day. It remains one of the most controversial aspects of his philosophy.

 
 

Tolstoy's wife Sophia and their daughter Alexandra
  Anna Karenina
In Anna Karenina (1875–77) Tolstoy applied these ideas to family life. The novel’s first sentence, which indicates its concern with the domestic, is perhaps Tolstoy’s most famous: “All happy families resemble each other; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Anna Karenina interweaves the stories of three families, the Oblonskys, the Karenins, and the Levins.

The novel begins at the Oblonskys, where the long-suffering wife Dolly has discovered the infidelity of her genial and sybaritic husband Stiva. In her kindness, care for her family, and concern for everyday life, Dolly stands as the novel’s moral compass. By contrast, Stiva, though never wishing ill, wastes resources, neglects his family, and regards pleasure as the purpose of life. The figure of Stiva is perhaps designed to suggest that evil, no less than good, ultimately derives from the small moral choices human beings make moment by moment.

Stiva’s sister Anna begins the novel as the faithful wife of the stiff, unromantic, but otherwise decent government minister Aleksey Karenin and the mother of a young boy, Seryozha. But Anna, who imagines herself the heroine of a romantic novel, allows herself to fall in love with an officer, Aleksey Vronsky. Schooling herself to see only the worst in her husband, she eventually leaves him and her son to live with Vronsky. Throughout the novel, Tolstoy indicates that the romantic idea of love, which most people identify with love itself, is entirely incompatible with the superior kind of love, the intimate love of good families. As the novel progresses, Anna, who suffers pangs of conscience for abandoning her husband and child, develops a habit of lying to herself until she reaches a state of near madness and total separation from reality. She at last commits suicide by throwing herself under a train. The realization that she may have been thinking about life incorrectly comes to her only when she is lying on the track, and it is too late to save herself.

 
 

The third story concerns Dolly’s sister Kitty, who first imagines she loves Vronsky but then recognizes that real love is the intimate feeling she has for her family’s old friend, Konstantin Levin. Their story focuses on courtship, marriage, and the ordinary incidents of family life, which, in spite of many difficulties, shape real happiness and a meaningful existence. Throughout the novel, Levin is tormented by philosophical questions about the meaning of life in the face of death. Although these questions are never answered, they vanish when Levin begins to live correctly by devoting himself to his family and to daily work. Like his creator Tolstoy, Levin regards the systems of intellectuals as spurious and as incapable of embracing life’s complexity.

Both War and Peace and Anna Karenina advance the idea that ethics can never be a matter of timeless rules applied to particular situations. Rather, ethics depends on a sensitivity, developed over a lifetime, to particular people and specific situations. Tolstoy’s preference for particularities over abstractions is often described as the hallmark of his thought.

 
 


Tolstoy dressed in peasant clothing,
by Ilya Repin (1901)

  Conversion and religious beliefs
Upon completing Anna Karenina, Tolstoy fell into a profound state of existential despair, which he describes in his Ispoved (1884; My Confession). All activity seemed utterly pointless in the face of death, and Tolstoy, impressed by the faith of the common people, turned to religion. Drawn at first to the Russian Orthodox church into which he had been born, he rapidly decided that it, and all other Christian churches, were corrupt institutions that had thoroughly falsified true Christianity. Having discovered what he believed to be Christ’s message and having overcome his paralyzing fear of death, Tolstoy devoted the rest of his life to developing and propagating his new faith. He was excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox church in 1901.

In the early 1880s he wrote three closely related works, Issledovaniye dogmaticheskogo bogosloviya (written 1880; An Examination of Dogmatic Theology), Soyedineniye i perevod chetyrokh yevangeliy (written 1881; Union and Translation of the Four Gospels), and V chyom moya vera? (written 1884; What I Believe); he later added Tsarstvo bozhiye vnutri vas (1893; The Kingdom of God Is Within You) and many other essays and tracts. In brief, Tolstoy rejected all the sacraments, all miracles, the Holy Trinity, the immortality of the soul, and many other tenets of traditional religion, all of which he regarded as obfuscations of the true Christian message contained, especially, in the Sermon on the Mount.

He rejected the Old Testament and much of the New, which is why, having studied Greek, he composed his own “corrected” version of the Gospels. For Tolstoy, “the man Jesus,” as he called him, was not the son of God but only a wise man who had arrived at a true account of life. Tolstoy’s rejection of religious ritual contrasts markedly with his attitude in Anna Karenina, where religion is viewed as a matter not of dogma but of traditional forms of daily life.

Stated positively, the Christianity of Tolstoy’s last decades stressed five tenets: be not angry, do not lust, do not take oaths, do not resist evil, and love your enemies. Nonresistance to evil, the doctrine that inspired Gandhi, meant not that evil must be accepted but only that it cannot be fought with evil means, especially violence. Thus Tolstoy became a pacifist. Because governments rely on the threat of violence to enforce their laws, Tolstoy also became a kind of anarchist. He enjoined his followers not only to refuse military service but also to abstain from voting or from having recourse to the courts. He therefore had to go through considerable inner conflict when it came time to make his will or to use royalties secured by copyright even for good works. In general, it may be said that Tolstoy was well aware that he did not succeed in living according to his teachings.

 
 
Tolstoy based the prescription against oaths (including promises) on an idea adapted from his early work: the impossibility of knowing the future and therefore the danger of binding oneself in advance. The commandment against lust eventually led him to propose (in his afterword to Kreytserova sonata [1891; The Kreutzer Sonata]), a dark novella about a man who murders his wife) total abstinence as an ideal. His wife, already concerned about their strained relations, objected. In defending his most extreme ideas, Tolstoy compared Christianity to a lamp that is not stationary but is carried along by human beings; it lights up ever new moral realms and reveals ever higher ideals as mankind progresses spiritually.
 
 

Tolstoy in May 1908 by Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky
  Fiction after 1880
Tolstoy’s fiction after Anna Karenina may be divided into two groups. He wrote a number of moral tales for common people, including “Gde lyubov, tam i bog” (written 1885; “Where Love Is, God Is”), “Chem lyudi zhivy” (written 1882; “What People Live By”), and “Mnogo li cheloveku zemli nuzhno” (written 1885; “How Much Land Does a Man Need”), a story that the Irish novelist James Joyce rather extravagantly praised as “the greatest story that the literature of the world knows.” For educated people, Tolstoy wrote fiction that was both realistic and highly didactic.

Some of these works succeed brilliantly, especially Smert Ivana Ilicha (written 1886; The Death of Ivan Ilyich), a novella describing a man’s gradual realization that he is dying and that his life has been wasted on trivialities. Otets Sergy (written 1898; Father Sergius), which may be taken as Tolstoy’s self-critique, tells the story of a proud man who wants to become a saint but discovers that sainthood cannot be consciously sought.

Regarded as a great holy man, Sergius comes to realize that his reputation is groundless; warned by a dream, he escapes incognito to seek out a simple and decent woman whom he had known as a child. At last he learns that not he but she is the saint, that sainthood cannot be achieved by imitating a model, and that true saints are ordinary people unaware of their own prosaic goodness. This story therefore seems to criticize the ideas Tolstoy espoused after his conversion from the perspective of his earlier great novels.
 
 
In 1899 Tolstoy published his third long novel, Voskreseniye (Resurrection); he used the royalties to pay for the transportation of a persecuted religious sect, the Dukhobors, to Canada. The novel’s hero, the idle aristocrat Dmitry Nekhlyudov, finds himself on a jury where he recognizes the defendant, the prostitute Katyusha Maslova, as a woman whom he once had seduced, thus precipitating her life of crime. After she is condemned to imprisonment in Siberia, he decides to follow her and, if she will agree, to marry her. In the novel’s most remarkable exchange, she reproaches him for his hypocrisy: once you got your pleasure from me, and now you want to get your salvation from me, she tells him. She refuses to marry him, but, as the novel ends, Nekhlyudov achieves spiritual awakening when he at last understands Tolstoyan truths, especially the futility of judging others. The novel’s most celebrated sections satirize the church and the justice system, but the work is generally regarded as markedly inferior to War and Peace and Anna Karenina.

Tolstoy’s conversion led him to write a treatise and several essays on art. Sometimes he expressed in more extreme form ideas he had always held (such as his dislike for imitation of fashionable schools), but at other times he endorsed ideas that were incompatible with his own earlier novels, which he rejected.
 
 

Leo Tolstoy
  In Chto takoye iskusstvo? (1898; What Is Art?) he argued that true art requires a sensitive appreciation of a particular experience, a highly specific feeling that is communicated to the reader not by propositions but by “infection.” In Tolstoy’s view, most celebrated works of high art derive from no real experience but rather from clever imitation of existing art.

They are therefore “counterfeit” works that are not really art at all. Tolstoy further divides true art into good and bad, depending on the moral sensibility with which a given work infects its audience. Condemning most acknowledged masterpieces, including Shakespeare’s plays as well as his own great novels, as either counterfeit or bad, Tolstoy singled out for praise the biblical story of Joseph and, among Russian works, Dostoyevsky’s The House of the Dead and some stories by his young friend Anton Chekhov. He was cool to Chekhov’s drama, however, and, in a celebrated witticism, once told Chekhov that his plays were even worse than Shakespeare’s.

Tolstoy’s late works also include a satiric drama, Zhivoy trup (written 1900; The Living Corpse), and a harrowing play about peasant life, Vlast tmy (written 1886; The Power of Darkness). After his death, a number of unpublished works came to light, most notably the novella Khadji-Murat (1904; Hadji-Murad), a brilliant narrative about the Caucasus reminiscent of Tolstoy’s earliest fiction.

 
 
Last years
With the notable exception of his daughter Aleksandra, whom he made his heir, Tolstoy’s family remained aloof from or hostile to his teachings. His wife especially resented the constant presence of disciples, led by the dogmatic V.G. Chertkov, at Yasnaya Polyana. Their once happy life had turned into one of the most famous bad marriages in literary history.
 
 

Leo Tolstoy
  The story of his dogmatism and her penchant for scenes has excited numerous biographers to take one side or the other. Because both kept diaries, and indeed exchanged and commented on each other’s diaries, their quarrels are almost too well documented.

Tormented by his domestic situation and by the contradiction between his life and his principles, in 1910 Tolstoy at last escaped incognito from Yasnaya Polyana, accompanied by Aleksandra and his doctor. In spite of his stealth and desire for privacy, the international press was soon able to report on his movements. Within a few days, he contracted pneumonia and died of heart failure at the railroad station of Astapovo.


Assessment
In contrast to other psychological writers, such as Dostoyevsky, who specialized in unconscious processes, Tolstoy described conscious mental life with unparalleled mastery. His name has become synonymous with an appreciation of contingency and of the value of everyday activity.

Oscillating between skepticism and dogmatism, Tolstoy explored the most diverse approaches to human experience. Above all, his greatest works, War and Peace and Anna Karenina, endure as the summit of realist fiction.

Gary Saul Morson

 
 
 
     
 
Leo Tolstoy

"The Kreutzer Sonata"
     
 
 
     
  Western Literature

English Literature - German literature
French literature - Russian literature
American literature
     
 
 
 
1828
 
 
Verne Jules
 
Jules Verne, (born Feb. 8, 1828, Nantes, France—died March 24, 1905, Amiens), prolific French author whose writings laid much of the foundation of modern science fiction.
 

Jules Verne
  Verne’s father, intending that Jules follow in his footsteps as an attorney, sent him to Paris to study law. But the young Verne fell in love with literature, especially theatre. He wrote several plays, worked as secretary of the Théâtre Lyrique (1852–54), and published short stories and scientific essays in the periodical Musée des familles.

In 1857 Verne married and for several years worked as a broker at the Paris Stock Market. During this period he continued to write, to do research at the Bibliothèque Nationale (National Library), and to dream of a new kind of novel—one that would combine scientific fact with adventure fiction. In September 1862 Verne met Pierre-Jules Hetzel, who agreed to publish the first of Verne’s Voyages extraordinaires (“Extraordinary Journeys”)—Cinq semaines en balloon (1863; Five Weeks in a Balloon).

Initially serialized in Hetzel’s Le Magasin d’éducation et de récréation, the novel became an international best seller, and Hetzel offered Verne a long-term contract to produce many more works of “scientific fiction.”
Verne subsequently quit his job at the stock market to become a full-time writer and began what would prove to be a highly successful author-publisher collaboration that lasted for more than 40 years and resulted in more than 60 works in the popular series Voyages extraordinaires.

Verne’s works can be divided into three distinct phases. The first, from 1862 to 1886, might be termed his positivist period.

 
 
After his dystopian second novel Paris au XXe siècle (1994; Paris in the 20th Century) was rejected by Hetzel in 1863, Verne learned his lesson, and for more than two decades he churned out many successful science-adventure novels, including Voyage au centre de la terre (1863, expanded 1867; Journey to the Centre of the Earth), De la terre à la lune (1865; From the Earth to the Moon), Autour de la lune (1870; Trip Around the Moon), Vingt mille lieues sous les mers (1870; Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea), and Le Tour du monde en quatre-vingts jours (1873; Around the World in Eighty Days). During these years Verne settled with his family in Amiens and made a brief trip to the United States to visit New York City and Niagara Falls. During this period he also purchased several yachts and sailed to many European countries, collaborated on theatre adaptations of several of his novels, and gained both worldwide fame and a modest fortune.
 
 
The second phase, from 1886 until his death in 1905, might be considered Verne’s pessimist period. Throughout these years the ideological tone of his Voyages extraordinaires began to change. Increasingly Verne turned away from pro-science tales of exploration and discovery in favour of exploring the dangers of technology wrought by hubris-filled scientists in novels such as Sans dessus dessous (1889; Topsy-Turvy), L’Île à hélice (1895; Floating Island), Face au drapeau (1896; For the Flag), and Maître du monde (1904; Master of the World). This change of focus also paralleled certain adversities in the author’s personal life: growing problems with his rebellious son, Michel; financial difficulties that forced him to sell his yacht; the successive deaths of his mother and his mentor Hetzel; and an attack by a mentally disturbed nephew who shot him in the lower leg, rendering him partially crippled. When Verne died he left a drawerful of nearly completed manuscripts in his desk.

The third and final phase of the Jules Verne story, from 1905 to 1919, might be considered the Verne fils period, when his posthumous works were published—after being substantially revamped—by his son, Michel. They include Le Volcan d’or (1906; The Golden Volcano), L’Agence Thompson and Co. (1907; The Thompson Travel Agency), La Chasse au météore (1908; The Chase of the Golden Meteor), Le Pilote du Danube (1908; The Danube Pilot), Les Naufragés du Jonathan (1909; The Survivors of the Jonathan), Le Secret de Wilhelm Storitz (1910; The Secret of Wilhelm Storitz), Hier et demain (1910; Yesterday and Tomorrow, a collection of short stories), and L’Étonnante aventure de la mission Barsac (1919; The Barsac Mission). Comparing Verne’s original manuscripts with the versions published after his death, modern researchers discovered that Michel Verne did much more than merely edit them.

 
A Hetzel edition of Verne's The Adventures of Captain Hatteras (cover style "Aux deux éléphants")
 
 
In most cases he entirely rewrote them—among other changes, he recast plots, added fictional characters, and made their style more melodramatic. Scholarly reaction to these discoveries has been mixed. Some critics condemn these posthumous works as contaminated; others view them as a legitimate part of the Verne père et fils collaboration. The debate continues.
With Michel Verne’s death in 1925, the final chapter of Jules Verne’s literary legacy was more or less complete. The following year American publisher Hugo Gernsback used a representation of Verne’s tomb as a logo for his Amazing Stories, the first literary magazine featuring tales of “scientifiction.”
 
 
As the term scientifiction evolved into science fiction, the new genre began to flourish as never before, and Verne became universally recognized as its patron saint.
During the 20th century, Verne’s works were translated into more than 140 languages, making him one of the world’s most translated authors. A number of successful motion pictures were made from Verne novels, starting in 1916 with 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (remade in 1954 by Walt Disney) and including The Mysterious Island (1929 and 1961), From the Earth to the Moon (1958), Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959), and, perhaps the most popular, Around the World in 80 Days (1956).

Verne’s influence extends beyond literature and film into the world of science and technology, where he inspired generations of scientists, inventors, and explorers. In 1954 the United States Navy launched the world’s first nuclear-powered submarine, named for Verne’s Nautilus. And for more than 130 years, adventurers such as Nellie Bly (1890), Wiley Post (1933), and Steve Fossett (2005) have followed in the footsteps of Verne’s fictional hero Phileas Fogg by attempting to circumnavigate the globe in record-breaking times. Verne and his enduringly popular Voyages extraordinaires continue to remind us that “What one man can imagine, another will someday be able to achieve.”

Arthur B. Evans

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
An 1889 Hetzel poster advertising Verne's works
 
 
 
     
  Jules Verne

"Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea."
"The Children of Captain Grant"
"The Mysterious Island"
     
 
 
     
  Western Literature

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

 
 
CONTENTS
  BACK-1827 Part II NEXT-1828 Part II