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-1841 Part IV NEXT-1842 Part II    
 
 
     
1840 - 1849
YEAR BY YEAR:
1840-1849
History at a Glance
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1840 Part I
Bebel August
Maximilian of Mexico
Carlota
Convention of London
British North America Act
Francia Jose Gaspar
Macdonald Jacques
William I of the Netherlands
William II of the Netherlands
Retour des cendres
Lambton John George
Vaillant Edouard-Marie
Sampson William
Smith William Sidney
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1840 Part II
Ridpath John Clark
Sankey Ira David
James Fenimore Cooper: "The Pathfinder"
Blunt Wilfrid Scawen
Broughton Rhoda
Robert Browning: "Sordello"
Daudet Alphonse
Alphonse Daudet
"Tartarin de Tarascon"
Dobson Austin
Hardy Thomas
Thomas Hardy 
"Tess of the d'Urbervilles"
Lemercier  Nepomucene
Lermontov: "A Hero of Our Times"
Modjeska Helena
Symonds John Addington
Verga Giovanni
Zola Emile
Emile Zola
"
J'accuse" (I accuse)
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1840 Part III
Delacroix: "Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople"
Makart Hans
Hans Makart
Monet Claude
Claude Monet
Nasmyth Alexander
Alexander Nasmyth
Nast Thomas
Nelson's Column
Rodin Auguste
Auguste Rodin
Redon Odilon
Odilon Redon
Blechen Carl
Karl Blechen
Debain Alexandre-Francois
Donizetti: "La Fille du Regiment"
Haberl Franz Xaver
Tchaikovsky Peter Ilich
Tchaikovsky - The Seasons
Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky
Schneckenburger Max
Wilhelm Karl
"Die Wacht am Rhein"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1840 Part IV
Olbers Wilhelm
Blumenbach Johann Friedrich
Ball Robert
Kohlrausch Friedrich Wilhelm
Agassiz Louis
Basedow Carl Adolph
Graves disease
Maxim Hiram
Eyre Edward John
Brummell Beau
Father Damien
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
Washington Temperance Society
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1841 Part I
Second Battle of Chuenpee
Barere Bertrand
Fisher John Arbuthnot
British Hong Kong
Luzzatti Luigi
Merriman John
Harrison William Henry
Tyler John
Espartero Baldomero
Hirobumi Ito
Clemenceau Georges
Edward VII
Creole case
Laurier Wilfrid
New Zealand
Lamb William
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1841 Part II
Cheyne Thomas Kelly
Ludwig Feuerbach: "The Essence of Christianity"
Holmes Oliver Wendell
Holst Hermann Eduard
Jebb Richard Claverhouse
Ward Lester Frank
Black William
Robert Browning: "Pippa Passes"
Buchanan Robert
Fenimore Cooper: "The Deerslayer"
Coquelin Benoit
Dickens: "The Old Curiosity Shop"
Ewing Juliana Horatia
Sill Edward Rowland
Frederick Marryat: "Masterman Ready"
Mendes Catulle
Mounet-Sully Jean
"Punch, or The London Charivari"
Sealsfield Charles
Scott Clement William
White Joseph Blanco
Ruskin: "The King of the Golden River"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1841 Part III
Chantrey Francis
Morisot Berthe
Berthe Morisot
Renoir Pierre-Auguste
Pierre-Auguste Renoir
Wagner Otto
Wallot Paul
Olivier Ferdinand
Johann Heinrich Ferdinand Olivier
Bazille Frederic
Frederic Bazille
Zandomeneghi Federico
Federico Zandomeneghi
Guillaumin Armand
Armand Guillaumin
Chabrier Emmanuel
Chabrier - Espana
Emmanuel Chabrier
Dibdin Thomas John
Dvorak Anton
Antonin Dvorak: Rusalka
Antonin Dvorak
Pedrell Felipe
Felip Pedrell: Els Pirineus
Felipe Pedrell
Rossini: "Stabat Mater"
Sax Antoine-Joseph
Schumann: Symphony No. 1
Sgambati Giovanni
Sgambati - Piano Concerto in G minor
Giovanni Sgambati
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1841 Part IV
Cooper Astley
Braid James
Hypnosis
Candolle Austin
Aniline
Kocher Emil Theodor
Kolliker Rudolf Albert
Petzval Joseph
Hudson William Henry
Warming Eugenius
Whitworth Joseph
Barnum's American Museum
Bradshaw George
Cook Thomas
Hyer Tom
"The New York Tribune"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1842 Part I
Pozzo di Borgo Charles-Andre
Las Cases Emmanuel
Webster-Ashburton Treaty
Treaty of Nanking
General Strike of 1842
O’Higgins Bernardo
Giolitti Giovanni
Fiske John
Hartmann Eduard
Hyndman Henry Mayers
James William
Kropotkin Peter Alekseyevich
Anarchism
Anarchism
Lavisse Ernest
Robertson George Croom
Sorel Albert
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1842 Part II
Banim John
Sue Eugene
Eugene Sue: "The Mysteries of Paris"
Bierce Ambrose
Brandes Georg
Bulwer-Lytton: "Zanoni"
Graham Maria
Coppee Francois
Cunningham Allan
Espronceda Jose
Gogol: "Dead Souls"
Howard Bronson
Lanier Sidney
Lover Samuel
MacKaye Steele
Maginn William
Mallarme Stephane
May Karl
Рое: "The Masque of the Red Death"
Quental Antero Tarquinio
Woodworth Samuel
Macaulay: "Lays of Ancient Rome"
Tupper Martin Farquhar
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1842 Part III
Vereshchagin Vasily
Vasily Vereshchagin
Boldini Giovanni
Giovanni Boldini
Boito Arrigo
Arrigo Boito: Mefistofele Finale
Arrigo Boito
Glinka: "Russian and Ludmilla"
Hopkinson Joseph
"Hail, Columbia"
Lortzing: "Der Wildschiitz"
Massenet Jules
Massenet "Elegie"
Jules Massenet
Millocker Karl
Millocker: Gasparone
Karl Millocker
New York Philharmonic
Sullivan Arthur
Arthur Sullivan - The Mikado - Overture
Arthur Sullivan
Wagner: "Rienzi"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1842 Part IV
Dewar James
Doppler Christian Andreas
Flammarion Camille
Hansen Emile Christian
Long Crawford Williamson
Matthew Fontaine Maury
Charting the Ocean Depths
Mayer Julius Robert
Pelletier Pierre Joseph
Marshall Alfred
Strutt John William
Retzius Gustaf
Fremont John Charles
Darling Grace
Polka
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1843 Part I
McKinley William
Braga Teofilo
Wairau Affray
Dilke Charles
Avenarius Richard
Borrow George
Carlile Richard
Thomas Carlyle: "Past and Present"
Creighton Mandell
Liddell and Scott: "Greek-English Lexicon"
Liddell Henry
Scott Robert
Ward James
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1843 Part II
Bulwer-Lytton: "The Last of the Barons"
Elisabeth of Romania
Dickens: "Martin Chuzzlewit"
Doughty Charles Montagu
Dowden Edward
Emmett Daniel Decatur
Hood Thomas
Thomas Hood: "Song of the Shirt"
Horne Richard Hengist
James Henry
Rosegger Peter
Suttner Bertha
Harris George Washington
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1843 Part III
Allston Washington
Washington Allston
John Ruskin: "Modern Painters"
Trumbull John
John Trumbull
Werner Anton
Anton von Werner
Clairin Georges
Georges Clairin
Donizetti: "Don Pasquale"
Grieg Edward
Grieg - Solveig Song
Edward Grieg
Nilsson Christine
Patti Adelina
Richter Hans
Schumann: "Paradise and the Peri"
Wagner: "The Flying Dutchman"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1843 Part IV
British Archaeological Association
Chamberlin Thomas Chrowder
Ferrier David
Oliver Wendell Holmes: "The Contagiousness of Puerperal Fever"
Holmes Oliver Wendell
Joule James Prescott
Koch Robert
Erbium
Brunel Marc Isambard
Thames Tunnel
Dix Dorothea Lynde
Guy's, Kings and St. Thomas' Rugby Football Club
Sequoyah
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1844 Part I
Lowe Hudson
Drouet Jean-Baptiste
Oscar I of Sweden
Dole Sanford Ballard
Laffitte Jacques
Franco-Moroccan War
Polk James Knox
Herrera Jose Joaquin
Treaty of Wanghia
Breshkovsky Catherine
Comstock Anthony
Emerson: "Essays"
Grundtvig Nikolaj Frederik Severin
Hall Granville Stanley
Nietzsche Friedrich
Friedrich Nietzsche
Rice Edmund Ignatius
Riehl Alois
Stanley Arthur Penrhyn
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1844 Part II
Bernhardt Sarah
Sarah Bernhardt
Dumas, pere: "Le Comte de Monte Cristo"
Bridges Robert
Cable George Washington
Carte Richard
Cary Henry Francis
Disraeli: "Coningsby"
France Anatole
Hopkins Gerard Manley
Lang Andrew
Liliencron Detlev
O'Reilly John Boyle
O’Shaughnessy Arthur
Sterling John
William Thackeray: "Barry Lyndon"
Verlaine Paul
Paul Verlaine
"Poems"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1844 Part III
Eakins Thomas
Thomas Eakins
Ezekiel Moses Jacob
Moses Ezekiel
Luke Fildes Luke
Luke Fildes
Leibl Wilhelm
Wilhelm Leibl
Munkacsy Mihaly
Mihaly Munkacsy
Repin Ilya
Ilya Repin
Rousseau Henri
Henri Rousseau
Cassatt Mary
Mary Cassatt
Flotow: "Alessandro Stradella"
Mendelssohn: Violin Concerto in E minor
Rimsky-Korsakov Nikolay
The Best of Korsakov
Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
Sarasate Pablo
Pablo de Sarasate - Zigeunerweisen
Pablo de Sarasate
Verdi: "Ernani"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1844 Part IV
Grassmann Hermann Gunther
Baily Francis
Boltzmann Ludwig Eduard
DeLong George Washington
Golgi Camillo
Kielmeyer Carl Friedrich
Kinglake Alexander William
Strasburger Eduard Adolf
Huc Evariste Regis
Gabet Joseph
Sturt Charles Napier
Leichhardt Friedrich
Beckford William
Rochdale Society of Equitable Pioneers
"Fliegende Blatter"
Hagenbeck Carl
Keller Friedrich Gottlob
Pasch Gustaf Erik
Young Men’s Christian Association
Williams George
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1845 Part I
Root Elihu
Texas
Florida
Flagstaff War
Ludwig II of Bavaria
First Anglo-Sikh War
Sonderbund
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1845 Part II
Friedrich Engels: "The Condition of the Working Class in England"
Stirner Max
Disraeli: "Sybil, or The Two Nations"
Hertz Henrik
Prosper Merimee: "Carmen"
Рое: "The Raven"
Spitteler Carl
Wergeland Henrik
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1845 Part III
Bode Wilhelm
Hill David Octavius
Ingres: The Comtesse d'Haussonville
Oberlander Adam Adolf
Crane Walter
Walter Crane
Faure Gabriel
Faure - Pavane
Gabriel Faure
Lortzing: "Undine"
Wagner: "Tannhauser"
Widor Charles-Marie
Widor - Piano Concerto No. 1
Charles Marie Widor
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1845 Part IV
Armstrong William George
Bigelow Erastus Brigham
Cayley Arthur
Cornell Ezra
Submarine communications cable
Heilmann Joshua
Humboldt: "Cosmos"
Kolbe Hermann
Laveran Alphonse
McNaught William
Metchnikoff Elie
Charting the Northwest
Layard Austen Henry
Cartwright Alexander
United States Naval Academy
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1846 Part I
Battle of Aliwal
Battle of Sobraon
Treaty of Lahore
Greater Poland Uprising
Krakow Uprising
Mexican-American War
Battle of Monterrey
First Battle of Tabasco
Iowa
Pasic Nikola
Evangelical Alliance
Eucken Rudolf Christoph
Pius IX
Whewell William
Young Brigham
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1846 Part II
Balzac: "La Cousine Bette"
De Amicis Edmondo
Dostoevsky: "Poor Folk"
Jokai Maurus
Lear Edward
Melville Herman
Herman Melville: "Typee"
Herman Melville
"Moby Dick or The Whale"
Sienkiewicz Henryk
George Watts: "Paolo and Francesca"
De Nittis Giuseppe
Giuseppe de Nittis
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1846 Part III
Berlioz: "Damnation de Faust"
Lortzing: "Der Waffenschmied"
Mendelssohn: "Elijah"
Deere John
Deere & Company
Henle Friedrich
Howe Elias
Waitz Theodor
Mohl Hugo
Green William Thomas
Sobrero Ascanio
Heaphy Charles
Brunner Thomas
Europeans in New Zealand
"The Daily News"
Horsley John Callcott
Smithsonian Institution
Zeiss Carl
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1847 Part I
Liberia
Second Battle of Tabasco
Battle of Churubusco
BATTLE OF MEXICO CITY
Hindenburg Paul
Sonderbund War
Beecher Henry Ward
Blanc Louis
Proudhon Pierre-Joseph
roudhon: "Philosophy of Poverty"P
Karl Marx: "The Poverty of Philosophy"
Salt Lake City
Charlotte Bronte: "Jane Eyre"
Bronte Emily
Marryat: "The Children of the New Forest"
Thackeray: "Vanity Fair"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1847 Part II
Hildebrand Adolf
Liebermann Max
Max Liebermann
Friedrich von Flotow: "Martha"
Verdi: "Macbeth"
Boole George
Edison Thomas Alva
Bell Alexander Graham
Semmelweis Ignaz Philipp
Colenso William
Factory Act of 1847
Fawcett Millicent
Siemens & Halske
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1848 Part I
Frederick VII
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
Revolutions of 1848
French Revolution of 1848
June Days Uprising
Cavaignac Louis-Eugene
French Constitution of 1848
French Second Republic
Revolutions of 1848 in the Austrian Empire
Hungarian Revolution of 1848
Slovak Uprising 1848-1849
Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Europe, 1815-48 (part I)
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1848 Part II
First Italian War of Independence
Skirmish of Pastrengo
Battle of Goito
Battle of Custoza
Revolutions of 1848 in the Italian states
Revolutions of 1848 in the German states
Revolution of 1848 in Luxembourg
Greater Poland Uprising
Moldavian Revolution of 1848
Pan-Slav Congress of 1848
Pan-Slavism
Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Europe, 1815-48 (part II)
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1848 Part III
Second Anglo-Sikh War
Nasr-ed-Din
Ibrahim Pasha
Abbas I
Wisconsin
Balfour Arthur James
Seneca Falls Convention
Stanton Elizabeth Cady
Delbruck Hans
Macaulay: "History of England"
"The Communist Manifesto"
John Mill: "Principles of Political Economy"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1848 Part IV
Augier Emile
Chateaubriand: "Memoires d'Outre-Tombe"
Dumas fils: "La Dame aux Camelias"
Gaskell Elizabet
Elizabeth Gaskell: "Mary Barton"
Murger Louis-Henri
Henri Murger: "Scenes de la vie de Boheme"
Terry Ellen
Surikov Vasily
Vasily Surikov
Uhde Fritz
Fritz von Uhde
Gauguin Paul
Paul Gauguin
Caillebotte Gustave
Gustave Caillebotte
Millais: "Ophelia"
Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1848 Part V
Parry Hubert Hastings
Jerusalem by Hubert Parry
Hubert Parry
Duparc Henri
Duparc Henri: "L'invitation au voyage"
Henri Duparc
Bottger Rudolf Christian
Parsons William
Frege Gottlob
"New Prussian Newspaper"
"Neue Rheinische Zeitung"
Grace William Gilbert
Kneipp Sebastian
Lilienthal Otto
Starr Belle
California Gold Rush
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1849 Part I
Battle of Chillianwala
Battle of Gujrat
Roman Republic on February 9, 1849
Battle of Novara
Victor Emmanuel II
Virginia Oldoini, Countess of Castiglione
Virginia Oldoini, Countess of Castiglione
Peace of Milan
Taylor Zachary
Dresden Rebellion of 1849
Surrender at Vilagos
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1849 Part II
Kemble John Mitchell
Key Ellen
Arnold Matthew
Dickens: "David Copperfield"
Kingsley Charles
Scribe: "Adrienne Lecouvreur"
Strindberg August
Smith Horace
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1849 Part III
Waterhouse John William
John William Waterhouse
John Ruskin: "The Seven Lamps of Architecture"
Carriere Eugene
Eugene Carriere
Liszt: "Tasso"
Meyerbeer: "Le Prophete"
Otto Nicolai: "The Merry Wives of Windsor"
Schumann: "Manfred"
 
YEAR BY YEAR:
1849 Part IV
Fizeau Armand
Frankland Edward
Livingstone David
Explorations of David Livingstone
Baines Thomas
"Who's Who"
Bedford College
Bloomer Amelia
Bloomers (clothing)
Stead William Thomas
 
 
 

Signing of the Treaty of Nanking, 1842
 
 
 
 
 HISTORY, RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY, ART, LITERATURE, MUSIC, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, DAILY LIFE
 
 
 
 
YEAR BY YEAR:  1800 - 1899
 
 
 
1842 Part I
 
 
 
1842
 
 
Pozzo di Borgo Charles-Andre
 

Carlo Andrea, count Pozzo di Borgo (8 March 1764 – 15 February 1842), was a Corsican politician who became a Russian diplomat.

 

Pozzo di Borgo. Portrait by George Dawe
  Charles-André, Comte Pozzo di Borgo, original Italian Carlo Andrea Pozzo di Borgo (born March 8, 1768, Alata, Corsica—died February 15, 1842, Paris, France), Corsican nobleman who entered the Russian diplomatic service and promoted French interests after the Napoleonic Wars in the courts of the Russian emperors Alexander I (reigned 1801–25) and Nicholas I (reigned 1825–55).

A native of Corsica, Pozzo favoured its political incorporation into France and, after Corsica was declared a département of France, served as Corsican delegate to the French Legislative Assembly (1791–92).

After his return to Corsica, however, he supported a rebellion to make the island a British protectorate (1793).

Following the end of British rule (1796), Pozzo accompanied Sir Gilbert Elliot, the former British viceroy in Corsica, to Vienna (1798), where he stayed until, in anticipation of Russia’s entry into an anti-Napoleonic coalition, he entered the Russian service.

Subsequently, Pozzo went on sensitive diplomatic missions to Vienna and Constantinople.
When Alexander made peace with Napoleon (Treaty of Tilsit; 1807), however, Pozzo resigned and retired to Vienna.

 
 
Only after Alexander and Napoleon resumed their hostilities and Alexander had recalled him did Pozzo rejoin the Russian service (1812), obtain Sweden’s collaboration against the French, and become a general in the Russian army.
 
 

Pozzo di Borgo. Portrait by Karl Brullov, 1833-1835
  After Napoleon’s defeat and the accession of Louis XVIII to the throne of France (1814), Pozzo was appointed Russia’s ambassador to the French court and one of the Russian representatives to the Congress of Vienna.

During the Hundred Days, when Napoleon returned to France (1815), Pozzo joined Louis at his temporary refuge at Ghent, Belgium. After Napoleon’s final defeat, Pozzo became a champion of French interests, for which service the French government made him a count and peer (1818).

Although his influence in Paris declined during the reactionary reign of Charles X (ruled France 1824–30), Pozzo remained at his post; after the French Revolution of 1830 had deposed Charles, he maintained cordial relations between Russia and France despite Emperor Nicholas’ overt reluctance to recognize Louis-Philippe as the new king of the French.

Transferred to London in 1835 because his excessive sympathy for the French was considered potentially damaging to Russian interests, Pozzo became ill and retired to Paris (1839).

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
1842
 
 
Las Cases Emmanuel
 

Emmanuel, count de las Cases, in full Emmanuel-augustin-dieudonné-joseph, Count De Las Cases (born June 21, 1766, Languedoc, France—died May 15, 1842, Passy), French historian best known as the recorder of Napoleon’s last conversations on St. Helena, the publication of which contributed greatly to the Napoleonic legend in Europe.

 

Statue of Emmanuel, comte de Las Cases
in Lavaur, Tarn
  An officer of the royal navy, Las Cases in 1790 emigrated from France to England, where he wrote and published his Atlas Historique . . . (1802), a work that attracted Napoleon’s attention. Consequently, on his return to France (1809) with other Royalists rallying to Napoleon, Las Cases was given a minor position on the council of state and created count in 1810.

After Napoleon’s defeat (1814), he returned to England but joined Napoleon during the Hundred Days (1815), following him into exile at St. Helena. For 18 months he recorded his conversations with Napoleon on his principles of warfare, his identification of the French Revolution with the Empire, his political philosophy, and his sentiments on religion and philosophy.
A letter of complaint about Napoleon’s treatment led to Las Cases’ deportation and to the seizure of his manuscript by the British government. Forbidden to enter England, he traveled in Germany and Belgium until he was allowed to return to France after the death of Napoleon in 1822.

Recovering his manuscript, he published his Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène (1823), which at once became extremely popular. A deputy for Saint-Denis (1831–34; 1835–39), he sat with the extreme left, opposing the rule of Louis-Philippe.

Las Cases’ Mémorial de Sainte-Hélène was the first defense of Napoleon after his defeat. Although prejudiced in Napoleon’s favour, the identification of the idea of the Revolution with Napoleon furthered a union of liberals with Bonapartists, thus contributing to the rise of Napoleon III.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 

Napoléon Ier dictant ses mémoires aux généraux Montholon et Gourgaud en présence du grand-maréchal Bertrand et du comte de Las Cases, École française (xixe siècle), musée napoléonien de l'île d'Aix.
 
 
 
1842
 
 
Webster-Ashburton Treaty
 

The Webster–Ashburton Treaty, signed August 9, 1842, was a treaty resolving several border issues between the United States and the British North American colonies.

 
It resolved the Aroostook War, a nonviolent dispute over the location of the Maine–New Brunswick border. It established the border between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods, originally defined in the Treaty of Paris (1783), reaffirmed the location of the border (at the 49th parallel) in the westward frontier up to the Rocky Mountains defined in the Treaty of 1818, defined seven crimes subject to extradition, called for a final end to the slave trade on the high seas, and agreed to shared use of the Great Lakes.

The treaty was signed by United States Secretary of State Daniel Webster and British diplomat Alexander Baring, 1st Baron Ashburton.

 
In the East
The treaty incorporated a geographic oddity. Since "Fort Blunder", an unnamed US fort in what is now part of northeastern New York, had been inadvertently constructed on Canadian soil, the northern border of New York between the Saint Lawrence River and the New York-Vermont line was adjusted 3/4 of a mile northward, beyond the 45th parallel, to incorporate the half-finished and abandoned fort on US soil. Following the signing of the treaty, construction was resumed on the site. The new project replaced the aborted 1812-era construction with a massive third-system masonry fortification known as Fort Montgomery.
This treaty marked the end of local confrontations between lumberjacks (known as the Aroostook War) along the Maine border with the Canadian provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick. It also resolved issues that had led to the Indian Stream dispute as well as the Caroline Affair. The border was fixed with the disputed territory divided between the two nations. The British acquired the Halifax-Quebec road route their military desired because it gave a wintertime connection from Quebec to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Portions of the US-Canada border were adjusted so as to give the US a little more land to the north. The Webster–Ashburton Treaty failed to clarify ownership of Machias Seal Island and nearby North Rock, which remain in dispute today. Additionally, the signing of the treaty put an end to several building improvements planned for Upper Canadian defense forts such as Fort Malden in Amherstburg, which as a result was later abandoned by the British government when it no longer served a defense purpose.
 
Webster–Ashburton Treaty Ratification.
 
 
In the West
The border between Lake Superior and the Lake of the Woods needed clarification because the faulty Mitchell Map used in the negotiations for the Treaty of Paris was inadequate to define the border according to the terms of that treaty. The ambiguity in the map and treaty resulted in Minnesota's Arrowhead region being disputed, and previous negotiations had not resolved the question. The treaty speaks of the border passing through "Long Lake", the location of which was unstated, but the map showed the lake flowing out into Lake Superior near Isle Royale, which is consistent with the Pigeon River route.

The British, however, had previously taken the position that the border should leave Lake Superior at Fond du Lac (the "head of the lake") in modern Duluth, Minnesota, proceed up the Saint Louis and Embarrass rivers, across the height of land, and down Pike River and Lake Vermilion to the Rainy River.

To counter this western route, the U.S. advocated for an eastern route, used by early French explorer Jacques de Noyon in 1688, and the later a well-used fur traders' route after 1802. This way headed north from the lake at the site of Fort William up the Kaministiquia and Dog Rivers to Cold Water Lake, crossed the divide by Prairie Portage to Height of Land Lake, then went west by way of the Savanne, Pickerel, and Maligne rivers to Lake La Croix, where it joined the present border.

The Mitchell map had shown both of those routes, and also showed the "Long Lake" route between them. Long Lake was thought to be the Pigeon River (despite the absence of a lake at its mouth).

  The traditional traders' route left the Lake at Grand Portage and went overland to the Pigeon, up that river and a tributary across the Height of Land Portage, and thence down tributaries of the Rainy River to Lac La Croix, Rainy Lake and River, and Lake of the Woods. This is finally the route which was designated as the border in the treaty.

Another clarification made in this treaty resulted in clarifying the anomaly of the Northwest Angle.

Again, due to errors on the Mitchell Map, Treaty of Paris reads "... through the Lake of the Woods to the most northwesternmost point thereof, and from thence on a due west course to the river Mississippi ..." The Anglo-American Convention of 1818 defined the boundary about Lake of the Woods to the Rocky Mountains.

This 1842 treaty reaffirmed the border and further defined it by modifying the border definition to instead read as

"... at the Chaudiere Falls, from which the Commissioners traced the line to the most northwestern point of the Lake of the Woods, thence, along the said line to the said most northwestern point, being in latitude 49°23′55″ north, and in longitude 95°14′38″ west from the Observatory at Greenwich; thence, according to existing treaties, due south to its intersection with the 49th parallel of north latitude, and along that parallel to the Rocky Mountains ..."

The Webster–Ashburton Treaty failed to deal with the Oregon question, although the issue was discussed in negotiations.

 
 

Settlement in the East
 
 
Other issues
Article 10 of the Webster–Ashburton Treaty identified seven crimes subject to extradition: "murder, or assault with intent to commit murder, or piracy, or arson, or robbery, or forgery, or the utterance of forged paper."
It did not include slave revolt or mutiny. In addition, the United States did not press for the return or extradition of an estimated 12,000 fugitive slaves who had reached Canada.

While agreeing to call for a final end to the slave trade on the high seas, Webster and Ashburton agreed to pass over the Creole case of 1841 in the Caribbean, which was then in contention.

In November 1841, a slave revolt on the American brig Creole, part of the coastwise slave trade, had forced the ship to Nassau. Bahama officials eventually emancipated all 128 slaves who chose to stay in Nassau, as Britain had abolished slavery in its colonies, effective in 1834. The US initially demanded return of the slaves, then compensation. A settlement was made in 1855 as part of a much larger claims treaty of 1853, covering claims by both nations to 1814.

  Results
Shortly after ratification of the Webster-Ashburton treaty, the Ojibwa nations about the south shore of Lake Superior ceded land to the United States in the Treaty of La Pointe. However, the news of the ratification of the international treaty did not reach either of the parties negotiating the land cession. The Grand Portage Band was mistakenly omitted from the Ojibwe treaty council. In addition, the Grand Portage Band was misinformed on the details of the Treaty of Paris; they believed that the border passed through the center of Lake Superior to the Saint Louis River, placing both Isle Royale and their band in British territory. The Treaty of Paris specifically notes Isle Royale to be in the territories of the United States. Consequently, the Isle Royale Agreement was signed between the United States and the Grand Portage Band in 1844 as an adhesion to the Treaty of La Pointe, with other Ojibwa tribes reaffirming the treaty.

Ten months of negotiations for the treaty were held largely at the Ashburton House, home of the British legation on Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C. The house has been designated a U.S. National Historic Landmark.

 
 
In order to make the controversial treaty more popular in the United States, Webster released a map of the Maine-Canada border, which he claimed had been drawn by Benjamin Franklin. It showed British ownership at the time of the area the United States claimed and largely received under the Treaty.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1842
 
 
Treaty of Nanking
 

The Treaty of Nanking (traditional Chinese: 南京條約; simplified Chinese: 南京条约), formally called the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Commerce between Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of China, was signed on the 29 August 1842 to mark the end of the First Opium War (1839–42) between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Qing dynasty of China. It was the first of the unequal treaties against the Chinese, as Britain had no obligations in return.

In the wake of China's military defeat, with British warships poised to attack the city, representatives from the British and Qing Empires negotiated aboard HMS Cornwallis anchored at Nanjing. On 29 August 1842, British representative Sir Henry Pottinger and Qing representatives, Qiying, Yilibu, and Niujian, signed the treaty. It consisted of thirteen articles and ratification by Queen Victoria and the Daoguang Emperor was exchanged nine months later.

 
Terms
Foreign trade

The fundamental purpose of the treaty was to change the framework of foreign trade imposed by the Canton System, which had been in force since 1760. Under Article V, the treaty abolished the former monopoly of the Cohong and their Thirteen Factories in Canton. Four additional "Treaty ports" opened for foreign trade alongside Canton (Shameen Island from 1859 until 1943): Amoy (Xiamen until 1930), Foochowfoo (Fuzhou), Ningpo (Ningbo) and Shanghai (until 1943),[2] where foreign merchants were to be allowed to trade with anyone they wished. Britain also gained the right to send consuls to the Treaty Ports, which were given the right to communicate directly with local Chinese officials (Article II). The treaty stipulated that trade in the treaty ports should be subject to fixed tariffs, which were to be agreed upon between the British and the Qing governments (Article X).
  Reparations and demobilization
The Qing government was obliged to pay the British government six million silver dollars for the opium that had been confiscated by Lin Zexu in 1839 (Article IV), 3 million dollars in compensation for debts that the Hong merchants in Canton owed British merchants (Article V), and a further 12 million dollars in war reparations for the cost of the war (VI).

The total sum of 21 million dollars was to be paid in installments over three years and the Qing government would be charged an annual interest rate of 5 percent for the money that was not paid in a timely manner (Article VII).

The Qing government undertook to release all British prisoners of war (Article VIII) and to give a general amnesty to all Chinese subjects who had cooperated with the British during the war (Article IX).

 
 
The British on their part, undertook to withdraw all of their troops from Nanking and the Grand Canal after the emperor had given his assent to the treaty and the first installment of money had been received (Article XII). British troops would remain in Gulangyu and Zhoushan until the Qing government had paid reparations in full (Article XII).
 
 

Signing of the Treaty of Nanking
 
 
Cession of Hong Kong
In 1841, a rough outline for a treaty was sent for the guidance of Plenipotentiary Charles Elliot. It had a blank after the words "the cession of the islands of _". Pottinger sent this old draft treaty on shore, with the letter s struck out of islands and the words Hong Kong placed after it. Robert Montgomery Martin, treasurer of Hong Kong, wrote in an official report:

The terms of peace having been read, Elepoo the senior commissioner paused, expecting something more, and at length said "is that all?" Mr. Morrison enquired of Lieutenant-colonel Malcolm if there was anything else, and being answered in the negative, Elepoo immediately and with great tact closed the negotiation by saying, "all shall be granted—it is settled—it is finished."

The Qing government agreed to make Hong Kong Island a crown colony, ceding it to the British Queen "in perpetuity" (常遠, Cháng yuǎn, in the Chinese version of the treaty), to provide British traders with a harbour where they could unload their goods (Article III). Pottinger was later appointed the first governor of Hong Kong.

In 1860, the colony was extended with the Kowloon peninsula and in 1898, the Second Convention of Peking further expanded the colony with the 99-year lease of the New Territories. In 1984, the governments of the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China (PRC) concluded the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, under which the sovereignty of the leased territories, together with Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (south of Boundary Street) ceded under the Convention of Peking (1860), was transferred to the PRC on 1 July 1997.

  Aftermath and legacy
Because of the brevity of the Treaty of Nanking and its terms being phrased only as general stipulations, the British and Chinese representatives agreed that a supplementary treaty should be concluded to establish more detailed regulations for relations. On 3 October 1843, the parties concluded the supplementary Treaty of the Bogue at Bocca Tigris outside Canton.

Nevertheless, the treaties of 1842–43 left several unsettled issues. In particular they did not resolve the status of the opium trade. Although the American treaty of 1844 explicitly banned Americans from selling opium, the trade continued as both the British and American merchants were only subject to the legal control of their consuls. The opium trade was later legalised in the Treaties of Tianjin, which China concluded after the Second Opium War.

The Nanking Treaty ended the old Canton System and created a new framework for China's foreign relations and overseas trade which would last for almost a hundred years. From the Chinese perspective, the most injurious terms were the fixed trade tariff, extraterritoriality, and the most favoured nation provisions. These were conceded partly out of expediency and partly because Qing officials did not yet know of international law or understand the long term consequences.

The tariff fixed at 5% was higher than before, the concept of extraterritoriality seemed to put the burden on foreigners to police themselves, and most favoured nation treatment appeared to set the foreigners one against the others. Although China regained tariff autonomy in the 1920s, extraterritoriality was not formally abolished until 1943.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1842
 
 
General Strike of 1842
 

The 1842 General Strike, also known as the Plug Plot Riots, started among the miners in Staffordshire, England, and soon spread through Britain affecting factories, mills in Yorkshire, Lancashire and coal mines from Dundee to South Wales and Cornwall.

 

Statue commemorating the Plug Plot Riots in Preston
 
 
The strike was influenced by the Chartist movement - a mass working class movement from 1838-1848. After the second Chartist Petition was presented to Parliament in May 1842, Stalybridge contributed 10,000 signatures. After the rejection of the petition the first general strike began in the coal mines of Staffordshire. The second phase of the strike originated in Stalybridge.

A movement of resistance to the imposition of wage cuts in the mills, also known as the Plug Riots, it spread to involve nearly half a million workers throughout Britain and represented the biggest single exercise of working class strength in nineteenth century Britain. On 13 August 1842 there was a strike at Bayley's cotton mill in Stalybridge, and roving cohorts of operatives carried the stoppage first to the whole area of Stalybridge and Ashton, then to Manchester, and subsequently to towns adjacent to Manchester including Preston, using as much force as was necessary to bring mills to a standstill. The Preston Strike of 1842 resulted in a riot where four men were shot on 13 August at Lune Street. The West Riding of Yorkshire saw disturbances at Bradford, Huddersfield and Hunslet. At least six people died in a riot at Halifax.

One perspective is that the movement remained, to outward appearances, largely non-political. Although the People's Charter was praised at public meetings, the resolutions that were passed at these were in almost all cases merely for a restoration of the wages of 1820, a ten-hour working day, or reduced rents.

  In contrast, Mick Jenkins in his "General Strike of 1842" offers a Marxist interpretation which sees the strike as becoming insurrectionary and intrinsically linked to the Chartist movement.

"What clearly emerges... is the changing character of the strike--an understanding that the main aim of the strike was for the People's Charter" (p. 144). He cites resolutions in support of the Reform Bill and the Charter. Jenkins also sees the political nature of the strike expressed in the repression of the strikers: "When the meeting had assembled, a party of the Rifle Brigade charged into the crowd, and one man had his hand run through with a bayonet." (p. 143). The repression that followed was "unmatched in the nineteenth century...In the North-West alone over 1,500 strikers were brought to trial" (p. 119). John Foster, in his introduction, argues that Jenkins' account of the strike "compels historians to reassess a number of crucial aspects in the country's political development" (p. 13). In considering universal suffrage, he argues that "historians have tended to emphasize the inevitability of Britain's progress towards majority rule. A study of 1842 supplies a useful corrective. It spurs us to look in a quite different direction to ask why universal suffrage was withheld for so long and what combination of forces made it possible to do this" (p. 14) and "how the demand for universal suffrage was successfully resisted, and in what way the working class was persuaded not to make political use again of its industrial strength ... poses the most interesting and fundamental problem" (p. 16).

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1842
 
 
Wellesley Richard Colley, British statesman, Governor of India, d. (b. 1760)
 
 

Richard Colley Wellesley, Marquess Wellesley
 
 
 
1842
 
 
O’Higgins Bernardo
 

Bernardo O’Higgins, (born probably Aug. 20, 1776/78, Chillán, Chile, Viceroyalty of Peru—died October 1842, Peru), South American revolutionary leader and first Chilean head of state (“supreme director,” 1817–23), who commanded the military forces that won independence from Spain.

 

Bernardo O’Higgins
  Bernardo O’Higgins was born in Chillán, a town in southern Chile, then a colony of Spain. As noted in his Certificate of Baptism, he was the illegitimate son of Ambrosio O’Higgins, a Spanish officer of Irish origin who became governor of Chile and later viceroy of Peru; his mother was Isabel Riquelme, a prominent lady of Chillán.

Bernardo’s father had only indirect contact with his son, who used his maternal surname until his father’s death. At 12, Bernardo was sent to Lima for his secondary education. Four years later he went to Spain. At 17 he was sent to England for further education. In London he became imbued with a sense of nationalist pride in Chile, a pride largely fostered by his contact with several political activists, of whom Francisco Miranda, the Venezuelan champion of Latin American independence, exerted the greatest influence on him. Along with several other future revolutionary leaders, he belonged to a secret Masonic lodge, established in London by Miranda, the members of which were dedicated to the independence of Latin America. In 1799 he left England for Spain, where he came into contact with Latin American clerics who also favoured independence and doubtless further strengthened his views. His political position was remarkable in view of the fact that his father was viceroy of Peru.

Bernardo’s father died in 1801, leaving him a large hacienda near Chillán; by 1803 he was working the estate.

 
 
This interlude may have been the most satisfying period of his life. The hacienda began to prosper almost immediately, and Bernardo was soon maintaining a house in Chillán. In 1806 he became a member of the local town council.

Before O’Higgins had time to settle into his agrarian way of life, however, the foundations of Chilean society were threatened. In 1808 Napoleon invaded Spain, which, occupied with its own defense, left its colonies, including Chile, largely uncontrolled; the first steps toward national independence began to be taken throughout Spanish America. On Sept. 18, 1810, a national junta, composed of local leaders who replaced the governor-general, was established in Santiago, and by 1811 Chile had its own congress. O’Higgins was a member, and during the next two years he played a key role in the country’s turbulent political affairs.

 
 

Bernardo O’Higgins
  By early 1813 Chile had a constitution and a junta that seemed able to control the country and to avert the threat of civil war. In 1814, however, the viceroy of Peru sponsored an expedition to reestablish royal authority. Within a few months, O’Higgins rose from the rank of colonel of militia to general in chief of the independentist forces. Soon he was also appointed governor of the province of Concepción, in which the early fighting took place. But the war went badly, and O’Higgins was superseded in command. In October 1814, at Rancagua, the Chilean patriots led by him lost decisively to the royalist forces, which, for the next three years, occupied the country.

Several thousand Chileans, including O’Higgins, crossed the Andes into Argentina in flight from the royalists. O’Higgins spent the next three years preparing for the reconquest of Chile. In January 1817 he returned to Chile with the Argentine general José de San Martín and a combined army consisting of Argentine troops and Chilean exiles. At Chacabuco, on Feb. 12, 1817, they decisively defeated the Spanish, and, with Chile largely reconquered, O’Higgins was elected interim supreme director.

For the next six years, as supreme director, O’Higgins maintained, on balance, a successful administration.

 
 
He created a working governmental organization and provided the essentials of the new nation—peace and order. Under adverse circumstances he succeeded in building a national navy and in mounting a major military expedition against Peru to fight the royalists.

O’Higgins, however, was not politically astute: by 1820 he had antagonized the conservative church and the unruly aristocracy with his reforms. Later he alienated the business community. He did not perceive the importance of a solid political base, and, because his support was based on his prestige as a war leader in a threatened country, his fall was assured once the danger of war had disappeared. O’Higgins was associated with a grand scheme of continental independence that was essentially Argentine in its conception; by the time of his resignation—under pressure—in January 1823, a growing Chilean nationalism had rendered him and his Argentine colleagues much less attractive than they had been in 1817.

 
 


O'Higgins' breakout charge at the Battle of Rancagua

 
In 1809, at the age of 31, O’Higgins had observed: “The career to which I seem inclined by instinct and character, is that of labourer”; in rural life, he would have come to be “a good campesino and a useful citizen.” As supreme director, O’Higgins had the positive attributes of solid moral principles, an eagerness to work hard, and singular honesty. In the countryside, as he himself understood, these virtues would have been ample, but in public administration they were not enough.

From 1823 until his death, O’Higgins lived in exile in Peru, dividing his time between his hacienda and Lima. His last years were poignantly similar to his first: in his youth, circumstances required that he live away from home; now in maturity, circumstances again conspired to keep him abroad. In both periods, he longed to return home.

 
 

Bernardo O'Higgins, erroneously depicted attending the declaration of Chilean independence.
 
 
Little is known of O’Higgins’s personal life. Though he never married, he managed to acquire a family, in the same manner as his father had. His natural son Pedro Demetrio O’Higgins was his companion in exile.

O’Higgins was a liberal in the 19th-century sense of the term and an admirer of the British constitutional system. Although not as conservative as some contemporary Chilean leaders, he was not a democrat either. While his reputation since his death has fluctuated with the political predilections of governments and historians, his leading role in establishing Chile as a republic remains unquestioned.

Jay Kinsbruner

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
1842
 
 
Giolitti Giovanni
 

Giovanni Giolitti, (born Oct. 22, 1842, Mondovì, Piedmont, Kingdom of Sardinia [now in Italy]—died July 17, 1928, Cavour, Italy), statesman and five times prime minister under whose leadership Italy prospered. He had many enemies, however, and retained power by using the highly criticized technique called giolittismo, which is associated with corruption and violence on election days and with personal deals rather than with party loyalty.

 

Giovanni Giolitti
  After graduating in law from the University of Turin (1860), Giolitti entered the civil service and spent the next 20 years gaining experience in finance and as an administrator. Somewhat reluctantly, he became a deputy in the Italian parliament (1882), a position he held until his death.

Giolitti first came to public attention by criticizing the minister of finance, Agostino Magliani (February 1886), after whose downfall Giolitti became the minister of the treasury (March 1889). Many were surprised when Giolitti, the bureaucrat, was chosen prime minister in May 1892. He outlined a program of reform and reorganization but was soon enveloped in a bank scandal, in which many government officials were implicated. Furthermore, his moderate reaction to strikes in Sicily proved unpopular and forced him to resign in November 1893.
Viciously attacked by his successor as prime minister, Francesco Crispi, for his part in the bank scandal (1894), Giolitti presented evidence clearing himself but greatly damaging Crispi. After the eventual downfall of Crispi in March 1896, Giolitti took an influential behind-the-scenes role in forming governments. After a widespread outbreak of strikes in 1901, he delivered an important speech; in it he argued that the government should maintain order but remain neutral in labour disputes. As minister of the interior (February 1901–June 1903) and as prime minister (November 1903–March 1905), he adopted toward strikes a calm attitude that earned him both praise and criticism. Strikes and protests in the south were still repressed in the old way, however.

 
 
Giolitti’s critics, from the socialists to statesman Gaetano Salvemini, lambasted him on his policies toward the south, where deputies continued to maintain power through corruption and violence and where the reformist impetus of the period failed to make an impact. Giolitti resigned his second ministry but saw to it that one of his supporters filled his place. His third ministry, formed in May 1906, was marked by useful reform and concessions to the church on education; and he resigned while still powerful (December 1909). He began a fourth ministry in March 1911, during which he bowed to nationalistic pressures and began the Italo-Turkish War (1911–12), which ended with Italian possession of Libya. He also introduced wider suffrage (1913). Nevertheless, dissatisfaction with his leadership increased, and he resigned in March 1914.

Giolitti actively opposed intervention in World War I because he knew that Italy, which had declared neutrality in August 1914, was unprepared. Italy entered the war on the side of the Allies in May 1915. As prime minister for the last time, Giolitti in June 1920 undertook the reconstruction of Italy. Shunning a repressive policy, he tolerated the Fascist squadristi (“armed squads”) when he could have crushed them, and, as the Fascists gained strength, he welcomed their support. He resigned in June 1921. While he was waiting for the right moment to take power again, the Fascists marched on Rome (October 1922) and took over Italy. Giolitti seemed to back the new regime, but in November 1924 he formally withdrew his support. He remained in the parliament, where, shortly before his death, he spoke against the new Fascist election bill.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
1842
 
 
Arnold Thomas, Eng. educator, headmaster of Rugby, d. (b. 1795)
 
 

Thomas Arnold
 
 
 
1842
 
 
Fiske John
 

John Fiske, original name Edmund Fisk Green (born March 30, 1842, Hartford, Conn., U.S.—died July 4, 1901, East Gloucester, Mass.), American historian and philosopher who popularized European evolutionary theory in the United States.

 

John Fiske
  After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1865, Fiske briefly practiced law in Boston before turning to writing. In 1860 he had encountered Herbert Spencer’s adaptation of the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin to aspects of philosophy. Deeply impressed by their ideas, he attempted to incorporate them into his own writings. A visit to Europe (1873–74) provided him the opportunity to meet and talk at length with Darwin, Spencer, and T.H. Huxley. The result was the publication, in 1874, of Fiske’s Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy, an exposition of evolutionary doctrine that was well received both at home and abroad. About 1880 his interests turned to American history as interpreted in the light of evolutionary theory, and from 1885 to 1900 he lectured and published voluminous works on the American colonial and revolutionary periods.
The same belief in inevitable progress through evolutionary change prevailed in Fiske’s interpretation of American history in such works as The Critical Period of American History, 1783–1789 (1888). His primary contribution to American thought was popularizing the evolutionary thesis against the adamant opposition of the churches, however.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
1842
 
 
Hartmann Eduard
 

Karl Robert Eduard von Hartmann, (born Feb. 23, 1842, Berlin—died June 5, 1906, Gross Lichterfelde, Ger.), German metaphysical philosopher, called “the philosopher of the unconscious,” who sought to reconcile two conflicting schools of thought, rationalism and irrationalism, by emphasizing the central role of the unconscious mind.

 

Karl Robert Eduard von Hartmann
  Hartmann, the son of a Prussian artillery officer, was educated for the army, but a knee injury in 1861 made a military career impossible, and he began the study of philosophy. His numerous writings include studies of Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer, and G.W.F. Hegel; metaphysical and psychological works; and studies in religion, politics, and ethics. His reputation, however, rests primarily on Die Philosophie des Unbewussten, 3 vol. (1870; The Philosophy of the Unconscious, 1884), which went through many editions. Notable for the diversity of its contents, its many concrete examples, and its vigorous and lucid style, the book also gained for Hartmann an exaggerated reputation for pessimism. Although he adopted the pessimistic view of the state of civilization held by Schopenhauer, he modified it with Hegel’s optimistic outlook for the future of mankind.

Hartmann centred his system on the single phenomenon of the human unconscious, thought by him to evolve through three stages. In the first, called the “unconscious,” both reason and will, or rationalism and irrationalism, were united as an absolute, all-embracing spiritual principle underlying all existence. With the fall of man, reason and will were separated, and will, as blind impulse, began to determine the melancholy career of the unconscious. The second stage, called “cosmic,” began with the origin of conscious life, in which man began to strive for such idealistic goals as happiness. According to Hartmann, mankind presently lives in this stage, when the forces of irrational will and rational mind compete.

 
 
Both human misery and civilization will continue to advance until misery and decay reach the maximum. Only then will the third stage be possible, a Hegelian triumph by which the will is checked and reason prevails. For individual human beings, the present requires that temptations to commit suicide and all other forms of selfishness be overcome by rational thinking. Mankind must devote itself to gradual social evolution, rather than strive after an illusory and impossible happiness in the immediate future. Despite his ultimate optimism, Hartmann has been considered a pessimist whose views contributed to such extreme 20th-century philosophies as nihilism.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
1842
 
 
Hyndman Henry Mayers
 
Henry Mayers Hyndman, (born March 7, 1842, London—died Nov. 22, 1921, London), the first important British Marxist, who strongly influenced, especially in the 1880s, many other leading British Socialists, although his difficult personality antagonized most of them and lessened his political effectiveness.
 

Henry Mayers Hyndman
  Educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, Hyndman played cricket for Sussex in county competitions (1863–68), travelled extensively, and worked as a journalist in London (1871–80). Converted to Marxism on reading Das Kapital in 1880, he joined several other radicals in founding the Democratic Federation. For its first conference (June 1881) he wrote England for All, the first socialist book published in England since the decline of Robert Owen’s reform movement in the 1830s. In this work he expounded the theories of Marx, who was offended, however, because in his view Hyndman did not make the necessary acknowledgment of this intellectual debt. Marx’s chief associate, Friedrich Engels, who disliked Hyndman, deliberately widened the breach, and so the only articulate British-born Marxist of the time ceased to be on speaking terms with Marx. In 1884 the Democratic Federation was renamed the Social Democratic Federation (SDF). Within it many socialists, including William Morris, John Elliot Burns, and George Lansbury, were steered toward Marxism by Hyndman. With Engels’ assistance, however, Morris and others soon broke away to form the Socialist League. Although Hyndman’s control of British socialism was thereby weakened, he attained his greatest prominence in 1889, when it was widely though inaccurately believed that he directed the London dock-workers’ strike. Convinced of what he called “the German menace” to Great Britain, Hyndman took a patriotic and pro-French line when World War I began. As a result, the British Socialist Party (as the SDF had become) removed him in 1915. He then formed the National Socialist Party, which later revived for itself the name Social Democratic Federation. During the war Hyndman was an adviser to the Ministry of Food. Among his writings is The Evolution of Revolution (1920).

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
1842
 
 
James William
 

William James, (born Jan. 11, 1842, New York, N.Y., U.S.—died Aug. 26, 1910, Chocorua, N.H.), American philosopher and psychologist, a leader of the philosophical movement of Pragmatism and of the psychological movement of functionalism.

 

William James
  Early life and education
James was the eldest son of Henry James, an idiosyncratic and voluble man whose philosophical interests attracted him to the theology of Emanuel Swedenborg. One of William’s brothers was the novelist Henry James. The elder Henry James held an “antipathy to all ecclesiasticisms which he expressed with abounding scorn and irony throughout all his later years.” Both his physical and his spiritual life were marked by restlessness and wanderings, largely in Europe, that affected the training of his children at school and their education at home. Building upon the works of Swedenborg, which had been proffered as a revelation from God for a new age of truth and reason in religion, the elder James had constructed a system of his own that seems to have served him as a vision of spiritual life. This philosophy provided the permanent intellectual atmosphere of William’s home life, to some degree compensating for the undisciplined irregularity of his schooling, which ranged from New York to Boulogne, Fr., and to Geneva and back. The habits acquired in dealing with his father’s views at dinner and at tea carried over into the extraordinarily sympathetic yet critical manner that William displayed in dealing with anybody’s views on any occasion.

When James was 18 years of age he tried his hand at studying art, under the tutelage of William M. Hunt, an American painter of religious subjects. But he soon tired of it and the following year entered the Lawrence Scientific School of Harvard University.
 
 
From courses in chemistry, anatomy, and similar subjects there, he went to the study of medicine in the Harvard Medical School; but he interrupted this study in order to accompany the eminent naturalist Louis Agassiz, in the capacity of assistant, on an expedition to the Amazon. There James’s health failed, and his duties irked him. He returned to the medical school for a term and then during 1867–68 went to Germany for courses with the physicist and physiologist Hermann von Helmholtz, who formulated the law of the conservation of energy; with Rudolf Virchow, a pathologist; with Claude Bernard, the foremost experimentalist of 19th-century medicine; and with others. At the same time he read widely in the psychology and philosophy then current, especially the writings of Charles Renouvier, a Kantian Idealist and relativist.

The acquaintance with Renouvier was a focal point in James’s personal and intellectual history. He seems from adolescence to have been a delicate boy, always ailing, and at this period of his stay in Germany he suffered a breakdown, with thoughts of suicide. When he returned home in November 1868, after 18 months in Germany, he was still ill. Though he took the degree of M.D. at the Harvard Medical School in June 1869, he was unable to begin practice. Between that date and 1872 he lived in a state of semi-invalidism in his father’s house, doing nothing but reading and writing an occasional review. Early in this period he experienced a sort of phobic panic, which persisted until the end of April 1870. It was relieved, according to his own statement, by the reading of Renouvier on free will and the decision that “my first act of free will shall be to believe in free will.” The decision carried with it the abandonment of all determinisms—both the scientific kind that his training had established for him and that seems to have had some relation to his neurosis and the theological, metaphysical kind that he later opposed in the notion of “the block universe.” His revolutionary discoveries in psychology and philosophy, his views concerning the methods of science, the qualities of men, and the nature of reality all seem to have received a definite propulsion from this resolution of his poignant personal problem.
 
 

William James in Brazil, 1865
  Interest in psychology
In 1872 James was appointed instructor in physiology at Harvard College, in which capacity he served until 1876. But he could not be diverted from his ruling passion, and the step from teaching physiology to teaching psychology—not the traditional “mental science” but physiological psychology—was as inevitable as it was revolutionary. It meant a challenge to the vested interests of the mind, mainly theological, that were entrenched in the colleges and universities of the United States; and it meant a definite break with what Santayana called “the genteel tradition.” Psychology ceased to be mental philosophy and became a laboratory science. Philosophy ceased to be an exercise in the grammar of assent and became an adventure in methodological invention and metaphysical discovery. With his marriage in 1878, to Alice H. Gibbens of Cambridge, Mass., a new life began for James. The old neurasthenia practically disappeared. He went at his tasks with a zest and an energy of which his earlier record had given no hint. It was as if some deeper level of his being had been tapped: his life as an originative thinker began in earnest. He contracted to produce a textbook of psychology by 1880. But the work grew under his hand, and when it finally appeared in 1890, as The Principles of Psychology, it was not a textbook but a monumental work in two great volumes, from which the textbook was condensed two years later.

The Principles, which was recognized at once as both definitive and innovating in its field, established the functional point of view in psychology. It assimilated mental science to the biological disciplines and treated thinking and knowledge as instruments in the struggle to live. At one and the same time it made the fullest use of principles of psychophysics (the study of the effect of physical processes upon the mental processes of an organism) and defended, without embracing, free will.

 
 
Interest in religion
The Principles completed, James seems to have lost interest in the subject. Creator of the first U.S. demonstrational psychological laboratory, he disliked laboratory work and did not feel himself fitted for it. He liked best the adventure of free observation and reflection. Compared with the problems of philosophy and religion, psychology seemed to him “a nasty little subject” that he was glad to have done with. His studies, which were now of the nature and existence of God, the immortality of the soul, free will and determinism, the values of life, were empirical, not dialectical; James went directly to religious experience for the nature of God, to psychical research for survival after death, to fields of belief and action for free will and determinism. He was searching out these things, not arguing foregone conclusions. Having begun to teach ethics and religion in the late 1880s, his collaboration with the psychical researchers dated even earlier. Survival after death he ultimately concluded to be unproved; but the existence of divinity he held to be established by the record of the religious experience, viewing it as a plurality of saving powers, “a more of the same quality” as oneself, with which, in a crisis, one’s personality can make saving contact. Freedom he found to be a certain looseness in the conjunction of things, so that what the future will be is not made inevitable by past history and present form; freedom, or chance, corresponds to Darwin’s “spontaneous variations.” These views were set forth in the period between 1893 and 1903 in various essays and lectures, afterward collected into works, of which the most notable is The Will to Believe and Other Essays in Popular Philosophy (1897). During this decade, which may be correctly described as James’s religious period, all of his studies were concerned with one aspect or another of the religious question.

His natural interest in religion was reinforced by the practical stimulus of an invitation to give the Gifford Lectures on natural religion at the University of Edinburgh. He was not able to deliver them until 1901–02, and their preparation focussed his labours for a number of years. His disability, involving his heart, was caused by prolonged effort and exposure during a vacation in the Adirondacks in 1898. A trip to Europe, which was to have taken up a sabbatical year away from university duties, turned into two years of invalidism. The Gifford Lectures were prepared during this distressful period. Published as The Varieties of Religious Experience (1902), they had an even greater acclaim as a book than as articles. Cautious and tentative though it was, the rich concreteness of the material and the final summary of the evidence—that the varieties of religious experience point to the existence of specific and various reservoirs of consciousness-like energies with which we can make specific contact in times of trouble—touched something fundamental in the minds of religionists and at least provided them with apologetic material not in conflict with science and scientific method. The book was the culmination of James’s interest in the psychology of religion.

 
 

Portrait of William James by John La Farge,
circa 1859
  Career in philosophy
James now explicitly turned his attention to the ultimate philosophic problems that had been at least marginally present along with his other interests. Already in 1898, in a lecture at the University of California on philosophical conceptions and practical results, he had formulated the theory of method known as Pragmatism. Originating in the strict analysis of the logic of the sciences that had been made in the middle 1870s by Charles Sanders Peirce, the theory underwent in James’s hands a transforming generalization. He showed how the meaning of any idea whatsoever—scientific, religious, philosophical, political, social, personal—can be found ultimately in nothing save in the succession of experiential consequences that it leads through and to; that truth and error, if they are within the reach of the mind at all, are identical with these consequences. Having made use of the pragmatic rule in his study of religious experience, he now turned it upon the ideas of change and chance, of freedom, variety, pluralism, and novelty, which, from the time he had read Renouvier, it had been his preoccupation to establish. He used the pragmatic rule in his polemic against monism and the “block universe,” which held that all of reality is of one piece (cemented, as it were, together); and he used this rule against internal relations (i.e., the notion that you cannot have one thing without having everything), against all finalities, staticisms, and completenesses.
 
 
His classes rang with the polemic against absolutes, and a new vitality flowed into the veins of American philosophers. Indeed, the historic controversy over Pragmatism saved the profession from iteration and dullness.

Meanwhile (1906), James had been asked to lecture at Stanford University, in California, and he experienced there the earthquake that nearly destroyed San Francisco. The same year he delivered the Lowell Lectures in Boston, afterward published as Pragmatism: A New Name for Old Ways of Thinking (1907). Various studies appeared—“Does Consciousness Exist?” “The Thing and Its Relations,” “The Experience of Activity”—chiefly in The Journal of Philosophy; these were essays in the extension of the empirical and pragmatic method, which were collected after James’s death and published as Essays in Radical Empiricism (1912). The fundamental point of these writings is that the relations between things, holding them together or separating them, are at least as real as the things themselves; that their function is real; and that no hidden substrata are necessary to account for the clashes and coherences of the world.

 
 
The Empiricism was radical because until this time even Empiricists believed in a metaphysical ground like the hidden turtle of Hindu mythology on whose back the cosmic elephant rode.
James was now the centre of a new life for philosophy in the English-speaking world. The continentals did not “get” Pragmatism; if its German opponents altogether misunderstood it, its Italian adherents—among them, of all people, the critic and devastating iconoclast Giovanni Papini—travestied it. In England it was championed by F.C.S. Schiller, in the United States by John Dewey and his school, in China by Hu Shih. In 1907 James gave his last course at Harvard. In the spring he repeated the lectures on Pragmatism at Columbia University. It was as if a new prophet had come; the lecture halls were as crowded on the last day as on the first, with people standing outside the door. Shortly afterward came an invitation to give the Hibbert Lectures at Manchester College, Oxford. These lectures, published in 1909 as A Pluralistic Universe, state, in a more systematic and less technical way than the Essays, the same essential positions. They present, in addition, certain religious overbeliefs of James’s, which further thinking—if the implications of the posthumous Some Problems of Philosophy may be trusted—was to mitigate. These overbeliefs involve a panpsychistic interpretation of experience (one that ascribes a psychic aspect to all of nature) that goes beyond radical Empiricism and the pragmatic rule into conventional metaphysics.

Home again, James found himself working, against growing physical trouble, upon the material that was partially published after his death as Some Problems of Philosophy (1911). He also collected his occasional pieces in the controversy over Pragmatism and published them as The Meaning of Truth (1909). Finally, his physical discomfort exceeded even his remarkable voluntary endurance. After a fruitless trip to Europe in search of a cure, he returned, going straight to the country home in New Hampshire, where he died in 1910.

  Significance and influence
In psychology, James’s work is of course dated, but it is dated as is Galileo’s in physics or Charles Darwin’s in biology because it is the originative matrix of the great variety of new developments that are the current vogue. In philosophy, his positive work is still prophetic. The world he argued for was soon reflected in the new physics, as diversely interpreted, with its resonances from Charles Peirce, particularly by Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, and the Danish quantum physicist Niels Bohr—a world of events connected with one another by kinds of next-to-next relations, a world various, manifold, changeful, originating in chance, perpetuated by habits (that the scientist calls laws), and transformed by breaks, spontaneities, and freedoms.

In human nature, James believed, these visible traits of the world are equally manifest. The real specific event is the individual, whose intervention in history gives it in each case a new and unexpected turn. But in history, as in nature, the continuous flux of change and chance transforms every being, invalidates every law, and alters every ideal.

James lived his philosophy. It entered into the texture and rhythms of his rich and vivid literary style. It determined his attitude toward scientifically unaccepted therapies, such as Christian Science or mind cure, and repugnant ideals, such as militarism. It made him an anti-imperialist, a defender of the small, the variant, the unprecedented, the weak, wherever and whenever they appeared.
His philosophy is too viable and subtle, too hedged, experiential, and tentative to have become the dogma of a school. It has functioned rather to implant the germs of new thought in others than to serve as a standard old system for others to repeat.

Horace M. Kallen

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
see also: William James
 
 
     
  IDEAS that Changed the World

Myths and Legends
History of Religion
History of Philosophy
     
 
 
 
1842
 
 
Kropotkin Peter Alekseyevich
 

Peter Alekseyevich Kropotkin, (born December 21 [December 9, Old Style], 1842, Moscow, Russia—died February 8, 1921, Dmitrov, near Moscow), Russian revolutionary and geographer, the foremost theorist of the anarchist movement. Although he achieved renown in a number of different fields, ranging from geography and zoology to sociology and history, he shunned material success for the life of a revolutionist.

 

Peter Alekseyevich Kropotkin
  Early life and conversion to anarchism
The son of Prince Aleksey Petrovich Kropotkin, Peter Kropotkin was educated in the exclusive Corps of Pages in St. Petersburg. For a year he served as an aide to Tsar Alexander II and, from 1862 to 1867, as an army officer in Siberia, where, apart from his military duties, he studied animal life and engaged in geographic exploration. On the basis of his observations, he elaborated a theory of the structural lines of mountain ranges that revised the cartography of eastern Asia. He also contributed to knowledge of the glaciation of Asia and Europe during the Ice Age.

Kropotkin’s findings won him immediate recognition and opened the way to a distinguished scientific career. But in 1871 he refused the secretaryship of the Russian Geographical Society and, renouncing his aristocratic heritage, dedicated his life to the cause of social justice. During his Siberian service he already had begun his conversion to anarchism—the doctrine that all forms of government should be abolished—and in 1872 a visit to the Swiss watchmakers of the Jura Mountains, whose voluntary associations of mutual support won his admiration, reinforced his beliefs.

 
 
On his return to Russia he joined a revolutionary group, the Chaiykovsky Circle, that disseminated propaganda among the workers and peasants of St. Petersburg and Moscow. At this time he wrote “Must We Occupy Ourselves with an Examination of the Ideal of a Future System?,” an anarchist analysis of a postrevolutionary order in which decentralized cooperative organizations would take over the functions normally performed by governments. Caught in a police dragnet, he was imprisoned in 1874 but made a sensational escape two years later, fleeing to western Europe, where his name soon became revered in radical circles. The next few years were spent mostly in Switzerland until he was expelled at the demand of the Russian government after the assassination of Tsar Alexander II by revolutionaries in 1881. He moved to France but was arrested and imprisoned for three years on trumped-up charges of sedition. Released in 1886, he settled in England, where he remained until the Russian Revolution of 1917 allowed him to return to his native country.
 
 

Peter Alekseyevich Kropotkin, 1864
  Philosopher of revolution
During his long exile, Kropotkin wrote a series of influential works, the most important being “Paroles d’un révolté” (1885; “Words of a Rebel”), In Russian and French Prisons (1887), The Conquest of Bread (1892), Fields, Factories and Workshops (1899), Memoirs of a Revolutionist (1899), Mutual Aid (1902), Russian Literature (1905), and The Great French Revolution 1789–1793 (1909). In recognition of his scholarship, Kropotkin was invited to write an article on anarchism for the 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. Kropotkin’s aim, as he often remarked, was to provide anarchism with a scientific basis. In Mutual Aid, which is widely regarded as his masterpiece, he argued that, despite the Darwinian concept of the survival of the fittest, cooperation rather than conflict is the chief factor in the evolution of species. Providing abundant examples, he showed that sociability is a dominant feature at every level of the animal world. Among humans, too, he found that mutual aid has been the rule rather than the exception. He traced the evolution of voluntary cooperation from the primitive tribe, peasant village, and medieval commune to a variety of modern associations—trade unions, learned societies, the Red Cross—that have continued to practice mutual support despite the rise of the coercive bureaucratic state. The trend of modern history, he believed, was pointing back toward decentralized, nonpolitical, cooperative societies in which people could develop their creative faculties without interference from rulers, clerics, or soldiers. In his theory of “anarchist communism,” according to which private property and unequal incomes would be replaced by the free distribution of goods and services, Kropotkin took a major step in the development of anarchist economic thought.
 
 
For the principle of wages he substituted the principle of needs. Each person would be the judge of his own requirements, taking from the common storehouse whatever he deemed necessary, whether or not he contributed a share of the labour. Kropotkin envisioned a society in which people would do both manual and mental work, both in industry and in agriculture. Members of each cooperative community would work from their 20s to their 40s, four or five hours a day sufficing for a comfortable life, and the division of labour would yield a variety of pleasant jobs, resulting in the sort of integrated, organic existence that had prevailed in the medieval city.

To prepare people for this happier life, Kropotkin pinned his hopes on the education of the young. To achieve an integrated society, he called for education that would cultivate both mental and manual skills. Due emphasis was to be placed on the humanities and on mathematics and science, but, instead of being taught from books alone, children were to receive an active outdoor education and to learn by doing and observing firsthand, a recommendation that has been widely endorsed by modern educational theorists. Drawing on his own experience of prison life, Kropotkin also advocated a thorough modification of the penal system. Prisons, he said, were “schools of crime” that, far from reforming the offender, subjected him to brutalizing punishments and hardened him in his criminal ways. In the future anarchist world, antisocial behaviour would be dealt with not by laws and prisons but by human understanding and the moral pressure of the community.

Kropotkin combined the qualities of a scientist and moralist with those of a revolutionary organizer and propagandist. For all his mild benevolence, he condoned the use of violence in the struggle for freedom and equality, and, during his early years as an anarchist militant, he was among the most vigorous exponents of “propaganda by the deed”—acts of insurrection that would supplement oral and written propaganda and help to awaken the rebellious instincts of the people. He was the principal founder of both the English and Russian anarchist movements and exerted a strong influence on the movements in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. But he alienated many of his comrades by supporting the Allied powers during World War I. His action, though prompted by the fear that German authoritarianism might prove fatal to social progress, violated the strong antimilitarist tradition among anarchists and touched off bitter polemics that nearly destroyed the movement for which he had laboured nearly half a century.

 
 

Peter Alekseyevich Kropotkin, circa1900
  Return to Russia
Events took an unexpected turn with the outbreak of the Russian Revolution in 1917. Kropotkin, by this time age 74, hastened to return to his homeland. When he arrived in Petrograd (now St. Petersburg) in June 1917 after 40 years in exile, he was greeted warmly and offered the ministry of education in the provisional government, a post he brusquely declined. Yet his hopes for the future were never brighter, because in 1917 the organizations that he thought might form the basis of a stateless society—the communes and soviets, or soldiers’ and workers’ councils—suddenly began to appear in Moscow and St. Petersburg.

With the Bolshevik seizure of power in October 1917, however, his earlier enthusiasm turned to bitter disappointment. “This buries the revolution,” he remarked to a friend. The Bolsheviks, he said, have shown how the revolution was not to be made—that is, by authoritarian rather than libertarian methods. Kropotkin’s last years were devoted chiefly to writing a history of ethics, one volume of which was completed. He also fostered an anarchist cooperative in the village of Dmitrov, north of Moscow, where he died in 1921. His funeral, attended by tens of thousands of admirers, was the last occasion in the Soviet era when the black flag of anarchism was paraded through the Russian capital.

Kropotkin’s life exemplified the high ethical standard and the combination of thought and action that he preached throughout his writings.

 
 
He displayed none of the egotism, duplicity, or lust for power that marred the image of so many other revolutionaries.

Because of this he was admired not only by his own comrades but by many for whom the label of anarchist meant little more than the dagger and the bomb. The French writer Romain Rolland said that Kropotkin lived what Leo Tolstoy only advocated, and Oscar Wilde called him one of the two really happy men he had known.

Paul Avrich
Martin A. Miller

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
 
Anarchism
 

Anarchism, cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary. Anarchist thought developed in the West and spread throughout the world, principally in the early 20th century.

 
Derived from the Greek root (anarchos) meaning “without authority,” anarchism, anarchist, and anarchy are used to express both approval and disapproval. In early usage all these terms were pejorative: for example, during the English Civil Wars (1642–51) the radical Levellers, who called for universal manhood suffrage, were referred to by their opponents as “Switzerising anarchists,” and during the French Revolution the leader of the moderate Girondin faction of Parliament, Jacques-Pierre Brissot, accused his most extreme rivals, the Enragés, of being the advocates of “anarchy”:

Laws that are not carried into effect, authorities without force and despised, crime unpunished, property attacked, the safety of the individual violated, the morality of the people corrupted, no constitution, no government, no justice, these are the features of anarchy.

These words could serve as a model for the denunciations delivered by all opponents of anarchism. The anarchists, for their part, would admit many of Brissot’s points. They deny man-made laws, regard property as a means of tyranny, and believe that crime is merely the product of property and authority. But they would argue that their denial of constitutions and governments leads not to “no justice” but to the real justice inherent in the free development of man’s sociality—his natural inclination, when unfettered by laws, to live according to the principles and practice of mutual aid.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 
 
     
  IDEAS that Changed the World

Anarchism
     
 
 
 
1842
 
 
Lavisse Ernest
 

Ernest Lavisse (December 17, 1842 – August 18, 1922) was a French historian.

 

Ernest Lavisse
  Biography
He was born at Le Nouvion-en-Thiérache, Aisne.

In 1865 he obtained a fellowship in history, and in 1875 became a doctor of letters; he was appointed maître de conférence (1876) at the École Normale Supérieure, succeeding Fustel de Coulanges, and then professor of modern history at the Sorbonne (1888), in the place of Henri Wallon.

He was an eloquent professor and very fond of young people, and played an important part in the revival of higher studies in France after 1871.

His learning was displayed in his public lectures and his addresses, in his private lessons, where he taught a small number of pupils the, historical method, and in his books, where he wrote ad probandum at least as much as ad narrandum: class-books, collections of articles, intermingled with personal reminiscences (Questions d'enseignement national, 1885; Etudes et étudiants, 1890; A propos de nos écoles, 1895), rough historical sketches (Vue générale de l'histoire politique de l'Europe, 1890), etc. His works of learning are lucid and vivid.

After the Franco-Prussian War Lavisse studied the development of Prussia and wrote Etude sur l'une des origines de la monarchie prussienne, ou la Marche de Brandebourg sous la dynastie ascanienne, which was his thesis for his doctor's degree, and Etudes sur l'Histoire de la Prusse (1879).

 
 
In connection with his study of the Holy Roman Empire, and the cause of its decline, he wrote a number of articles which were published in the Revue des Deux Mondes; and he wrote Trois empereurs d'Allemagne (1888), La Jeunesse du grand Frédéric (1891) and Frédéric II. avant son avènement (1893) when studying the modern German empire and the grounds for its strength.

With his friend Alfred Rambaud he conceived the plan of L'Histoire générale du IVe siècle à nos jours, to which, however, he contributed nothing.

He edited the Histoire de France depuis les origines jusqu'à la Révolution (1901-), in which he carefully revised the work of his numerous assistants, reserving the greatest part of the reign of Louis XIV for himself. This section occupies the whole of volume vii. It is a remarkable piece of work, and the sketch of absolute government in France during this period has never before been traced with an equal amount of insight and brilliance. Lavisse was admitted to the Académie française on the death of Admiral Jurien de la Gravière in 1892, and after the death of James Darmesteter became editor of the Revue de Paris. He is, however, chiefly a master of pedagogy. When the école normale was joined to the university of Paris, Lavisse was appointed director of the new organization, which he had helped more than any one to bring about.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1842
 
 
Robertson George Croom
 
George Croom Robertson (10 March 1842 – 20 September 1892[1]) was a Scottish philosopher.
 

George Croom Robertson
  Biography
He was born in Aberdeen. In 1857 he gained a bursary at Marischal College, and graduated MA in 1861, with the highest honours in classics and philosophy. In the same year he won a Fergusson scholarship of £100 a year for two years, which enabled him to pursue his studies outside Scotland. He went first to University College, London; at the University of Heidelberg he worked on his German; at the Humboldt University in Berlin he studied psychology, metaphysics and also physiology under Emil du Bois-Reymond, and heard lectures on Hegel, Kant and the history of philosophy, ancient and modern. After two months at the University of Göttingen, he went to Paris in June 1863. In the same year he returned to Aberdeen and helped Alexander Bain with the revision of some of his books.

In 1864 he was appointed to help William Duguid Geddes with his Greek classes, but he devoted his vacations to working on philosophy. In 1866 he was appointed professor of philosophy of mind and logic at University College, London. He remained there until he was forced by ill-health to resign a few months before his death, lecturing on logic, deductive and inductive, systematic psychology and ethics. He left little published work. A comprehensive work on Hobbes was never completed, though part of the materials were used for an article in the Encyclopædia Britannica, and another portion was published as one of Blackwood's "Philosophical Classics."

 
 
Together with Bain, he edited George Grote's Aristotle, and was the editor of Mind from its foundation in 1876 till 1891. Robertson had a keen interest in German philosophy, and took every opportunity to make German works on English writers known in the United Kingdom. In philosophy he was principally a follower of Bain and John Stuart Mill. He and his wife (a daughter of Mr Justice Crompton) were involved in many kinds of social work; he sat on the Committee of the National Society for Women's Suffrage, and was actively associated with its president, John Stuart Mill. He also supported the admission of women students to University College.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 
 
 
1842
 
 
Jean Simonde de Sismondi (Sismondi Jean), Swiss historian, d. (b. 1773)
 
 

Jean Charles Léonard de Sismondi
 
 
 
1842
 
 
Sorel Albert
 
Albert Sorel (13 August 1842 – 29 June 1906), was a French historian. He was born at Honfleur and remained throughout his life a lover of his native Normandy. His father, a rich manufacturer, wanted him to take over the business but his literary vocation prevailed. He went to live in Paris, where he studied law and, after a prolonged stay in Germany, entered the Foreign Office (1866). He had strongly developed literary and artistic tastes, was an enthusiastic musician (even composing a little), and wrote both poetry and novels (La Grande Falaise, 1785–1793, Le Docteur Egra in 1873); but he was not a socialite.
 

Albert Sorel
  Academic life
Anxious to understand present as well as past events, he was above all a student. In 1870 he was chosen as secretary by M. de Chaudordy, who had been sent to Tours as a delegate in charge of the diplomatic side of the problem of national defence. He proved a most valuable collaborator, full of finesse, good temper, and excellent judgment, and at the same time hard-working and discreet. After the war, when Emile Boutmy founded the Ecole libre des sciences politiques (which later became the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris or, as it is more widely known, Sciences Po). Sorel was appointed to teach diplomatic history (1872), a duty which he performed with striking success. Some of his courses were converted into books: Le traité de Paris du 20 novembre 1815 (1873); Histoire diplomatique de la guerre franco-allemande (1875); and the Précis du droit des gens which he published (1877) in collaboration with his colleague Theodore Funck-Brentano.

Writings
In 1875 Sorel left the Foreign Office and became general secretary to the newly created office of the Présidence du sénat. Here again, in a position where he could observe and review affairs, he performed valuable service, especially under the presidency of the duc d'Audiffred Pasquier, who was glad to have Sorel's advice in the most serious crises of internal politics.

His duties left him, however, sufficient leisure to enable him to accomplish the great work of his life, L'Europe et la revolution française. His object was to repeat the work already done by Heinrich von Sybel but from a less restricted point of view and with a clearer and calmer understanding of the chessboard of Europe.

 
 
He spent almost thirty years in the preparation and composition of the eight volumes of this diplomatic history of the French Revolution (vol. i., 1885; vol. viii., 1904).

He was not merely a conscientious scholar; the analysis of the documents, mostly unpublished, on French diplomacy during the first years of the Revolution, which he published in the Revue historique (vol. v.-vii., x.-xiii.), shows with what scrupulous care he read the innumerable despatches which passed under his notice. He was also, and above all things, an artist. He drew men from the point of view of a psychologist as much as of a historian, observing them in their surroundings and being interested in showing how greatly they are slaves to the fatality of history. It was this fatality which led the rashest of the Conventionals to resume the tradition of the ancien régime, and caused the revolutionary propaganda to end in a system of alliances and annexations which carried on the work of Louis XIV. This view is certainly suggestive, but incomplete; it is largely true when applied to the men of the French Revolution, inexperienced or mediocre as they were, and incompetent to develop the enormous enterprises of Napoleon I.
 
 
Literary works
In the earlier volumes the reader is struck by the grandeur and relentless logic of the drama which the author unfolds. In the later volumes the reader may begin to have reservations, but the work is so complete and so powerfully constructed that it commands its audiences admiration.

Side by side with this great general work, Sorel undertook various detailed studies more or less directly bearing on his subject. In La Question d'Orient au XVIII' siècle, les origines de la triple alliance (1878), he shows how the partition of Poland on the one hand reversed the traditional policy of France in eastern Europe, and on the other hand contributed towards the salvation of republican France in 1793.

In the Grands écrivains series he was responsible for Montesquieu (1887) and Mme de Staël (1891). The portrait which he draws of Montesquieu is all the more vivid for the intellectual affinities which existed between him and the author of the Lettres persanes (Persian Letters) and the Esprit des lois (The Spirit of the Laws).

Later, in Bonaparte et Hoche en 1797, he produced a critical comparison which is one of his most finished works (1896). In the Recueil des instructions données aux ambassadeurs he prepared vol. i. dealing with Austria (1884).

Most of the articles which he contributed to various reviews and to the Temps newspaper have been collected into volumes: Essais d'histoire et de critique (1883), Lectures historiques (1894), Nouveaux essais d'histoire et de critique (1898), Etudes de littérature et d'histoire (1901).

  These writings contain a great deal of information and ideas not only about political men of the last two centuries but also about certain literary men and artists of Normandy.

Honours came to him in abundance as an eminent writer and not as a public official. He was elected a member of the Académie des sciences morales et politiques (December 18, 1889) on the death of Fustel de Coulanges, and of the Académie française (1894) on the death of Hippolyte Taine.

Criticisms

Sorel's work, especially on the downfall of Napoleon, has come under much criticism recently by revisionist historians. His view that Napoleon was legitimately fighting for the long-established French aim of 'natural frontiers' and that Napoleon merely inherited a foreign 'situation' (and therefore did not create his own foreign policy), has been contended. Indeed recent historians, such as Matthew MacLachlan and Michael Broers, have stressed that Napoleon was a non-conformist General and that his actions abroad did not conform with any traditional French foreign policies.

Later years
His speeches on his two illustrious predecessors show how keenly sensible he was of beauty and how unbiased was his judgment, even in the case of those whom he most esteemed and loved. He had just obtained the great Prix Osiris of a hundred thousand francs, conferred for the first time by the Institut de France, when he was stricken with his last illness and died at Paris. He graduated the Turkish poets like Yahya Kemal Beyatlı and The historian Yusuf Akçura.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
 

 
 
CONTENTS
  BACK-1841 Part IV NEXT-1842 Part II