#1794 w

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

Do you happen to know how often it occurred for wives of arrested deputies to share the same fate of their husbands, so either imprisoned, or condemned to death ? Do you have some examples? I'm referring to the years between 92-95. Moreover if it's not too much to ask for, could you also point out the signature of the CSP members who signed such warrants?

That’s a very interesting question, especially since no official studies seem to have been made on the subject. What I’ve found so far (and it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s way more) is:

Félicité Brissot — after the news of her husband’s arrest, Félicité, who had lived in Saint-Cloud with her three children since April 1793, traveled to Chartres. There (on an unspecified date?) she and her youngest son Anacharsis (born 1791) were arrested by the Revolutionary Committee of Saint-Cloud (the two older children had been taken in by other people) which sent her to Paris. Once arrived in the capital, Felicité was placed under surveillance in the Necker hotel, rue de Richelieu, in accordance with an order from the Committee of General Security dated August 9 1793 (she could not be placed under house arrest in her own apartment, since seals had already been placed on it). On August 11 she underwent an interrogation, and on October 13, she was sent from her house arrest (where she had still enjoyed a relative liberty) to the La Force prison. Félicité and her son were set free on February 4 1794, after six months spent under arrest. The order for her release was it too issued by the Committee of General Security, and signed by Lacoste, Vadier, Dubarran, Guffroy, Amar, Louis (du Bas-Rhin), and Voulland. Source: J.-P. Brissot mémoires (1754-1793); [suivi de] correspondance et papiers (1912) by Claude Perroud)

Suzanne Pétion — According to a footnote inserted in Lettres de madame Roland (1900), Suzanne was imprisoned in the Sainte-Pélagie prison since August 9 1793. In an undated letter written from the same prison, Madame Roland mentions that not only Suzanne, but her ten year old son Louis Étienne Jérôme is there too. I have however not been able to discover any official orders regarding Suzanne’s arrest and release, so I can’t say for exactly how long she and her son were imprisoned and who was responsible for it right now. @lanterne you wrote in this super old post that you’re waiting for a Pétion biography, did you get it? And if yes, does it perhaps say anything about Suzanne’s imprisonment in it? 😯)

Louise-Catherine-Àngélique Ricard, widow Lefebvre (Suzanne Pétion’s mother) — According to Histoire du tribunal révolutionnaire de Paris: avec le journal de ses actes (1880) by Henri Wallon, Louise was called before the parisian Revolutionary Tribunal on September 24 1793, accused “of having applauded the escape of Minister Lebrun by saying: “So much the better, we must not desire blood,” of having declared that the Brissolins and the Girondins were good republicans (“Yes,” her interlocutor replied, “once the national ax has fallen on the corpses of all of them”), for having said, when someone came to tell her that the condemned Tonduti had shouted “Long live the king” while going to execution; that everyone would have to share this feeling, and that for the public good there would have to be a king whom the “Convention and its paraphernalia ate more than the old regime”. She denied this when asked about Tonduti, limiting herself to having said: “Ah! the unfortunate.” Asked why she had made this exclamation she responded: ”through a sentiment of humanity.” She was condemned and executed the very same day.

Marie Anne Victoire Buzot — It would appear she was put under house arrest, but was able to escape from there. According to Provincial Patriot of the French Revolution: François Buzot, 1760–1794 (2015) by Bette W. Oliver, ”[Marie] had remained in Paris after her husband fled on June 2 [1793], but she was watched by a guard who had been sent to the Hôtel de Bouillon. Soon thereafter, Madame Buzot and her ”domestics” disappeared, along with all of the personal effects in the apartment. […] Madame Buzot would join her husband in Caen, but not until July 10; and no evidence remains regarding her whereabouts between the time that she left Paris in June and her arrival in Caen. At a later date, however, she wrote that she had fled, not because she feared death, but because she could not face the ”ferocious vengeance of our persecutors” who ignored the law and refused ”to listen to our justification.” I’ve unfortunately not been able to access the source used to back this though…

Marie Françoise Hébert — arrested on March 14 1794, presumably on the orders of the Committee of General Security since I can’t find any decree regarding the affair in Recueil des actes du Comité de salut public. Imprisoned in the Conciergerie until her execution on April 13 1794, so 30 days in total. See this post.

Marie Françoise Joséphine Momoro — imprisoned in the Prison de Port-libre from March 14 to May 27 1794 (2 months and 13 days), as seen through Jean-Baptiste Laboureau’s diary, cited in Mémoires sur les prisons… (1823) page 68, 72, 109.

Lucile Desmoulins — arrested on April 4 1794 according to a joint order with the signatures of Du Barran (who had also drafted it) and Voulland from the CGS and Billaud-Varennes, C-A Prieur, Carnot, Couthon, Barère and Robespierre from the CPS on it. Imprisoned in the Sainte-Pélagie prison up until April 9, when she was transferred to the Conciergerie in time for her trial to begin. Executed on April 13 1794, after nine days spent in prison. See this post.

Théresa Cabarrus — ordered arrested and put in isolation on May 22 1794, though a CPS warrant drafted by Robespierre and signed by him, Billaud-Varennes, Barère and Collot d’Herbois. Set free on July 30 (according to Madame Tallien : notre Dame de Thermidor from the last days of the French Revolution until her death as Princess de Chimay in 1835 (1913)), after two months and eight days imprisoned.

Thérèse Bouquey (Guadet’s sister-in-law) — arrested on June 17 1794 once it was revealed she and her husband for the past months had been hiding the proscribed girondins Pétion, Buzot, Barbaroux, Guadet and Salles. She, alongside her husband and father and Guadet’s father and aunt, were condemned to death and executed in Bordeaux on July 20 1794. Source: Paris révolutionnaire: Vieilles maisons, vieux papiers (1906), volume 3, chapter 15.

Marie Guadet (Guadet’s paternal aunt) — Condemned to death and executed in Bordeaux on July 20 1794, alongside her brother and his son, the Bouqueys and Xavier Dupeyrat. Source: Charlotte Corday et les Girondins: pièces classées et annotées (1872) by Charles Vatel.

Charlotte Robespierre — Arrested and interrogated on July 31 1794 (see this post). According to the article Charlotte Robespierre et ses amis (1961), no decree ordering her release appears to exist. In her memoirs (1834), Charlotte claims she was set free after a fortnight, and while the account she gives over her arrest as a whole should probably be doubted, it seems strange she would lie to make the imprisonment shorter than it really was. We know for a fact she had been set free by November 18 1794, when we find this letter from her to her uncle.

Françoise Magdeleine Fleuriet-Lescot — put under house arrest on July 28 1794, the same day as her husband’s execution. Interrogated on July 31. By August 7 1794 she had been transferred to the Carmes prison, where she the same day wrote a letter to the president of the Convention (who she asked to in turn give it to Panis) begging for her freedom. On September 5 the letter was sent to the Committee of General Security. I have been unable to discover when she was set free. Source: Papiers inédits trouvés chez Robespierre, Saint-Just, Payan, etc. supprimés ou omis par Courtois. précédés du Rapport de ce député à la Convention Nationale, volume 3, page 295-300.

Françoise Duplay — a CGS decree dated July 27 1794 orders the arrest of her, her husband and their son, and for all three to be put in isolation. The order was carried out one day later, July 28 1794, when all three were brought to the Pélagie prison. On July 29, Françoise was found hanged in her cell. See this post.

Élisabeth Le Bas Duplay — imprisoned with her infant son from July 31 to December 8 1794, 4 months and 7 days. The orders for her arrest and release were both issued by the CGS. See this post.

Sophie Auzat Duplay — She and her husband Antoine were arrested in Bruxelles on August 1 1794. By October 30 the two had been transferred to Paris, as we on that date find a letter from Sophie written from the Conciergerie prison. She was set free by a CPS decree (that I can’t find in Recueil des actes du Comité de salut public…) on November 19 1794, after 3 months and 18 days of imprisonment. When her husband got liberated is unclear. See this post.

Victoire Duplay — Arrested in Péronne by representative on mission Florent Guiot (he reveals this in a letter to the CPS dated August 4 1794). When she got set free is unknown. See this post.

Éléonore Duplay — Her arrest warrant, ordering her to be put in the Pélagie prison, was drafted by the CGS on August 6 1794. Somewhere after this date she was moved to the Port-Libré prison, and on April 21 1795, from there to the Plessis prison. She was transfered back to the Pélagie prison on May 16 1795. Finally, on July 19 1795, after as much as 11 months and 13 days in prison, Éléonore was liberated through a decree from the CGS. See this post.

Élisabeth Le Bon — arrested in Saint-Pol on August 25 1794, ”suspected of acts of oppression” and sent to Arras together with her one year old daughter Pauline. The two were locked up in ”the house of the former Providence.” On October 26, Élisabeth gave birth to her second child, Émile, while in prison. She was released from prison on October 14 1795, four days after the execution of her husband. By then, she had been imprisoned for 1 year, 1 month and 19 days. Source: Paris révolutionnaire: Vieilles maisons, vieux papiers (1906), volume 3, chapter 1.

[syrupwit]

SELECTED PUBLIC DOMAIN HORROR & GOTHIC FICTION ONLINE IN ENGLISH

Short Stories

Benson, E. F. | sentimentality, spiritualism, satire

The Room in the Tower (1912)

Visible and Invisible (1923)

Spook Stories (1928)

More Spook Stories (1934)

"How Fear Departed the Long Gallery"

Hodgson, William Hope | occult detective, electric pentacle, fav

Carnacki, the Ghost-Finder (1913)

Ingulphus (AKA Arthur Gray) | Jesus College, Cambridge

Tedious Brief Tales of Granta and Gramarye (1919)

James, M. R. | scholarly, unsettling

Ghost Stories of an Antiquary (1904)

More Ghost Stories of an Antiquary (1911) - this has "Mr Humphreys and His Inheritance," which is one of my favorite ghost stories I've ever read, please read it if you like labyrinths

A Thin Ghost and Others (1919)

A Warning to the Curious (1925)

Lee, Vernon (AKA Violet Paget) | tormented artists, Italy, fav

Hauntings (1890)

Swain, E. G. | sweet and mild, East Anglia, i would go on a date with you mr. batchel

The Stoneground Ghost Tales (1912)

Novels

Maturin, C. R. | dissolute traded his soul for 150 extra years of life and wanders tempting the desperate to take over his bargain

Melmoth the Wanderer - Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3, Volume 4, ebook version (1820)

Radcliffe, Ann | best to ever do it, no supernatural explanation

A Sicilian Romance, ebook version (1790) -- good intro novel

The Romance of the Forest (1791)

The Mysteries of Udolpho, ebook version (1794)

The Italian (1797) -- the one with Father Schedoni

Reynolds, George W. M. | penny dreadfuls, I just started reading, female villain

Wagner the Werewolf (1846-1847)

[historicalbookimages]

🌎 Portraits of rare and curious birds, with their descriptions: London: Printed by W. Bulmer and Co., and published for the author by R. Faulder, 1794-1799.

[zenia62]

Letter From Janssens to Daendels (Part 4)

Hey guys, this is the last part of the Daendels letter to/from Janssens for now. As usual, translation might not be accurate since I'm only using google translate 🙏

Batavia, May 13, 1811.

To His Excellency Monsieur le Général Daendels, Grand Officer of the Legion of Honor, Grand Cross of the Union. MONSIEUR LE GÉNÉRAL! I must respond to the letter that you did me the honor of writing to me, dated the 16th of this month, in which you handed over to me the reins of the Government, expressing satisfaction with the actions Your Excellency has taken on this occasion, and in the reports we have exchanged since then, arousing my acknowledgment; I hope I have shown, on my part, how much I care about leaving nothing to be desired. I will always eagerly bear testimony to the grandeur and utility of the work that Your Excellency has undertaken and executed during the short period of your Government. I have traveled almost the entire length of the island; almost everywhere, I have found fine roads, intelligently laid out in locations that often offer the greatest obstacles: if some require repairs, or a more suitable direction, the orders have been given for the execution of these new works.

I have not yet had the opportunity to visit Fort Louis, but the officers you sent there provided a very satisfactory report, and I intend to take care of this fort and the work that will need to be done in this part of the island: the works undertaken to deepen the bed of the Surabaya River, and extending its course far into the sea, will be very beneficial for the commerce of this city, facilitating the supply of ships anchored in the harbor. If the [state of the] army leaves much to be desired, it is only a matter of resources; but one cannot help but be surprised at the state to which it has been reduced, with a frequent lack of resources.

Everywhere I have found, among public officials, a great level of activity and zeal under this burning sky. Your Excellency also wishes me to explain myself on the various branches of public administration. Nothing prevents me from declaring my opinion on this subject with the utmost candor; and, General, it is a part which, because of positions I have previously held, should not be entirely unfamiliar to me. However, a few days are not enough to examine and delve into matters as complex as this: the administration differs from the one we have in Europe, and cannot be the same; it also does not resemble that which I found established, or which I established myself during my time in the southern part of Africa. A judgment on its knowledge would not be worthy of you, and I must avoid condemning what I do not yet know: on such a delicate subject, I can only make a judgment after a long and scrupulous examination: however interesting this matter is, the multiplicity of current affairs prevents me from giving it the time it demands. Please, Monsieur le Général, accept the renewed assurances of my high regard.

The Governor-General. J. W. JANSSENS

I haven't anaylze this letter either y'all so I don't know what to say 😭 But anyways, I'm planning to post Daendels proclamation that he wrote on his bday in 1794 👀 So yeah, that's all for now, thank you guys n have a great day 🌙

[fanfictions-loveavatar]

Why always her? Part 2

Pairings: Neteyam x f!omatikaya reader (Neteyam is 19, reader is 17 and Lo’ak is 18)

Warning: angst, hurt Neteyam, fluff.

Summary: Following the first part, you are still mad at Neteyam and don’t plan on forgiving him anytime soon. But all the sudden attacks are happening, and you don’t know if Neteyam made it. 

Word count:  1794

Y/N POV:

It has been 3 days since I confessed my feelings to Neteyam. 3 days in which he hasn’t given up on trying to talk to me. Sadly, for him, all his attempts have failed. I don’t allow us to be in the same room together where it’s just us two. Fortunately Lo’ak understood where I was coming from and agreed to be with me so that me and his brother don’t end up alone together.

It was dinner time, all of the Sully’s and me circled around the fire eating food.

“So Y/N I wanted to ask you.” I looked up at Neytiri.

“Why have you been ignoring Neteyam?” she sounded generally concerned for our relationship, her and Jake knew how important Neteyam was for me. They still didn’t know why we have stopped talking.

“It’s not import-“

“Because I choose the wrong mate.” Neteyam voice cut my sentence. Everyone turned to look at him while he was looking at his mother.

“What do you mean son?” Jake asked puzzled expression on his face.

“I thought that Eyra was made for me, but now I realise how wrong I have been, I don’t want Eyra, my heart didn’t break when I saw her with another guy, but when Y/N stopped speaking to me.” He turned his gaze to me, while Jake and Neytiri looked at each other in shock.

“You love Y//N?” Neytiri asked. Before Neteyam could responded I stood up, making everyone look at me.

“It doesn’t matter if he wants me to be his mate, because I definitely don’t want to be his. He knew how much Eyra hurt me, yet he still chose to kiss her and if I am honest I don’t care anymore, I have loved Neteyam for so long but it’s clear he doesn’t feel the same way. And I would apricate it if he stopped trying to feed me lies that he does.” Saying that I left the tent. Quickly going to my ikran and flying away from everyone, I needed some alone time.

3rd person POV:

After Y/N left, both Jake and Neytiri looked at their eldest son.

“You want to explain what that was about?” Jake asked.

“I thought Eyra was meant for me but 3 days ago, I saw her kissing another boy and I didn’t feel anything  I didn’t feel anger, jealous or even hurt. But when I think about losing Y/N my heart hurts. I can’t lose her dad, I didn’t mean for this to happen, I didn’t know.” Shocking everyone, a tear rolled off Neteyam’s eye, causing Kiri and Tuk to get up and hug their brother. Lo’ak was still annoyed at Neteyam for causing all this pain to Y/N so he stayed sat down looking out of the tent where you have left. As Jake and Neytiri gave each other a look no one understood, Lo’ak got up ready to follow Y/N.

Right before he could exit the tent Neytiri put her hand on her younger son.

“It’s okay Lo’ak, I will go and see how she is, you stay here.” Lo’ak wanted to argue but the way his mom looked at him made him nod and sit back down.

Neytiri exited the tent, going to her own ikran, she set off to try and search for you. You were like a daughter to her and she hated to see you in pain the same it hurt her to see her son in pain.

Y/N POV:

I was currently sitting on a mountain far away from the village. I was looking at the sky wondering why did Eywa do this to me? Why does it hurt so much? Why do I want to believe Neteyam but I just couldn’t, for all I know my sister could of have manipulated him somehow to play with my feelings, to hurt me.

As I was lost in thoughts, I heard a ikran behind me I turned around to see Neytiri, climbing off her ikran.

I turned around not wanting her to see me like this so vulnerable.

“Ma child.” Is all she said as she sat down next to me, pulling me into a hug. I couldn’t stop the tears that escaped my eyes. I didn’t want to cry not in front of someone as fearless as Neytiri.

“I am sorry, we have a war at our hands and I am crying because your son wouldn’t admit he is lying.” I sobbed.

“Oh Y/N, don’t be sorry I know you feel betrayed by Neteyam but he is being truthful, I know my son.” she wiped away my tears as she said that. I wanted to believe her but..

“If he did he wouldn’t of hurt me like this. I wouldn’t have been this hurt if it was anyone else, but the fact it’s Eyra I just can’t forgive him so easily.”

3rd person POV:

Neytiri wanted to push further to let Y/N know how her son cried for the first time for her, how she saw herself and Jake in them. But she also knew how Y/N felt, she knew the betrayed wouldn’t go away that easy. Neytiri had to let you two figure it out.

She held you in her arms for a bit longer before suggesting going back and getting some sleep. You agreed and both you went back to the village.

Everyone but Jake were asleep, when he saw you Jake just hugged you and let you go inside. As you went to sleep, Neytiri and Jake stood outside the tent talking about the situation.

“So what should we do?” Jake asked.

“Ma Jake we should let them figure it out, it’s like how we were once, they have to learn themselves. But I am sure Y/N will forgive him, I can feel it, Eywa has plans for them.” Neytiri smiled at her husband who smiled back and both of them went inside.

A few days later

Y/N POV:

Nothing changed between me and Neteyam after the talk with Neytiri, I was still avoiding him.

Neteyam, Jake and Neytiri were with the war party that were going to blow up the sky people’s train and steal their weapons. Lo’ak, Kiri, Tuk and me were in the Sully’s tent just talking when we heard a lot of commotion going on outside.

We all immediately got up and went outside to see what was happening. Just as we exited the tent we saw Neytiri and Jake running towards us, they had a lot of scratches on them. My stomach sank to my feet when I realised Neteyam isn’t with them. They stopped in front of us.

“Y/N please, Neteyam.” Neytiri tried to speak but she was trembling too much.

“We were attacked by the sky people, they were prepared for us and send a helicopter, they hit Neteyam, we left him at Mo’at but-“ Before Jake could finish I started running towards Mo’ats tent.

Tears ran down my cheeks, I couldn’t lose him, not like this, not when we were still distant.

I entered Mo’ats tent and nearly screamed. Neteyam laid there unconscious, a bullet wound in his right leg and left arm, he was full of scratches.

I stumbled back the sight too much to bare, Neteyam all hurt. Before I could fall I felt strong arms holding me in place. When he saw his brother Lo’ak also panicked. Both of us turned to look at Mo’at.

“He will be okay, I removed the bullets and put medicine on his wounded, he should recover.” Mo’at spoke.

I fell to my knees from the relive of hearing he will be okay. Lo’ak sat next to me pulling me into a hug, he was also scared for a minute that his brother might be too hurt.

A few days later

3rd person POV:

It has been 2 days since Neteyam came back wounded. He was still unconscious, Y/N didn’t leave his side for a minute, she was too scared.

Mo’at told her that she didn’t know if her grandson will make it, at first it seemed like he would but not waking up for 2 days started worrying Mo’at.

Y/N was by his side 24/7, changing the towel that was on his head to stop him from having a fever. She didn’t eat or sleep. Lo’ak or Kiri would be with her most of the time. The whole family was worried for both her and Neteyam.

3 days later

Y/N POV:

It has been 5 days since Neteyam’ s accident and I haven’t left his side.

It was dark outside; I was alone in the healer’s tent where Neteyam was kept for constant watch. I couldn’t eat or sleep. I wouldn’t be able to forgive myself if he doesn’t wake up, I tortured him for weeks and Eywa was punishing me by taking him away from me. Tears started rolling down my cheeks as I remembered how devastated he looked after I told him that I used to love him.

I really did thought I could forget about him but I couldn’t, it felt like my heart was breaking, looking at his body that is full of scars.

Suddenly I felt a hand going on top of mine. I turned around and saw Neteyam’ s barely opened eyes, looking at me and his hand on top of mine.

“NETEYAM!” I screamed, throwing myself at him and hugging him. He immediately groaned from the sudden pain.

“Omg I am so sorry.” I quickly pulled myself back.

“Y/N…. I see you.” Neteyam’ s voice was weak and quite but I heard him. I heard him clearly.

“I see you Neteyam.” I smiled at him.

1 week later

Y/V POV:

Neteyam recovery was quick after the night he woke up. He was able to move his arm and leg. He still needed to rest and I did everything I could to help him. He wasn’t happy when he found out he couldn’t ride his ikran or go hunting for another 1-2 weeks.

“It’s not fair, I feel great.” Neteyam said receiving a glare from everyone.

“Too bad, you can’t ride your ikran yet, strict orders.” I said.

He puffed and I couldn’t help but giggle at his expression, he looked like an angry cat. I kissed his cheek which immediately made him smile.

He was finally mine, and I was his.

Ma Neteyam.

Tag list: 

@afro-hispwriter @elegantkidfansoul @szchaql @marcswife21 @jackiehollanderr @junnniiieee07 @eringaitskill @hellok1ttycake @graykageyama @fanboyluvr @abbersreads @arminsgfloll @yeosxxx @ghostjoohoney @alerouxstyxsblog @itssomeonereading @white-girl444 @sillyfreakfanparty

[gogmstuff]

Some more 1780s big hair fashion -

Top left  ca. 1780 Robe à la française (location ?). From fripperiesandfobs.tumblr.com-page/2 1548X1146.

Top right  ca. 1780 Robe à l'anglaise (Museo de la Moda - Santiago, Chile). From 18thcenturylove.tumblr.com-tagged-robe+a+l'anglaise-page-2 1678X1250.

Second row  ca. 1780 Four views of robe à la Polonaise (Metropolitan Museum of Art - New York City, New York, USA). From their Web site 2893X1315.

Third row  ca. 1780 Robe à la Polonaise (Metropolitan Museum of Art - New York City, New York, USA). From their Web site 900X1200.

Fourth row  1781 The Tea Garden by ? (British Museum - London, UK). From their Web site 3968X5518.

Fifth row  1781 (probable exh' date) Adélaïde Genet, Madame Auguié (1758-1794), sister of Mme. Campan by Anne Vallayer-Coster (Sotheby's - 8Jul09 auction Lot 41). From their Web site; fixed spots w Pshop 3428X4290.

Sixth row  1781 Ernestine Fredérique, Princess de Croy by Élisabeth-Louise Vigée-Lebrun (Nationalmuseum - Stockholm, Sweden). From Wikimedia 1067X1349.

Seventh row  1783 Madame Charles Mitoire, née Christine-Geneviève Bron (1760-1842), avec ses enfants by Adélaïde Labille-Guiard (Getty Museum - Los Angeles, California, USA). From their Web site; fixed spots & edges w Pshop 2332X2965

Eighth row  ca. 1785 Princesse de Lamballe by French school (location ?). From servimg.com-view-18669219-6356 812X973.

[scotianostra]

On October 28th 1794 Robert Liston, the first surgeon to use general anaesthetic in Europe, was born in Ecclesmachan, West Lothian.

Liston may be remembered for the anaesthetic but he was also the best surgeon around in the 19th century and quite a remarkable man.

Using an anaesthetic wasn't new, Alcohol is said to have been used in ancient Mesopotamia going back thousands of years, the opium poppy is said to have been cultivated and harvested by the Sumerians in lower Mesopotamia as early as 3400 BC but they were not controlled like they are today. The inventor of the safety lamp Humphry Davy experimented with the gas nitrous oxide in 1799 and found it made him laugh, giving it the term used to this day "laughing gas" Davy wrote about the potential anaesthetic properties of nitrous oxide in relieving pain during surgery, but nobody at that time did not pursue the matter any further.

American physician Crawford W. Long noticed that his friends felt no pain when they injured themselves while staggering around under the influence of diethyl ether., he didn't publish his findings until 1849 though, by then other doctors were using Ether.

Enter Robert Liston, the most skilled surgeon of his generation, so adept that he was described as "the fastest knife in the West End. He could amputate a leg in 2​1⁄2 minutes" this was at a time when speed was essential to reduce pain and improve the odds of survival of a patient.

The eminent English surgeon Richard Gordon said about Liston that:

"He was six foot two, and operated in a bottle-green coat with wellington boots. He sprung across the blood-stained boards upon his swooning, sweating, strapped-down patient like a duelist, calling, 'Time me gentlemen, time me!' to students craning with pocket watches from the iron-railinged galleries. Everyone swore that the first flash of his knife was followed so swiftly by the rasp of saw on bone that sight and sound seemed simultaneous. To free both hands, he would clasp the bloody knife between his teeth."

His methods were the envy and despair of other surgeons, their dislike of him meant he left Scotland and Gordon goes on to describe this in this paragraph

"an abrupt, abrasive, argumentative man, unfailingly charitable to the poor and tender to the sick (who) was vilely unpopular to his fellow surgeons at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. He relished operating successfully in the reeking tenements of the Grassmarket and Lawnmarket on patients they had discharged as hopelessly incurable. They conspired to bar him from the wards, banished him south, where he became professor of surgery at University College Hospital (London) and made a fortune"

Another wee bit of interest is his suspicions regarding Dr Knox on the body of a young woman that Knox had kept in whisky, on show in his dissecting rooms, her name was Mary Paterson and Liston suspected foul play in the manner of her death, he was right, her name was Mary Paterson and she had been "Burked" by the West Port murderers Burke and Hare in April 1828, they were paid £8 for the corpse, which was still warm when they delivered it, Fergusson—one of Knox's assistants—asked where they had obtained the body, as he thought he recognised her. Burke explained that the girl had drunk herself to death, and they had purchased it "from an old woman in the Canongate" The pair went on to sell a further 11 bodies to Knox before they were caught.

Liston on confronting Knox over the poor woman's demise is said to have "knocked Knox down after an altercation in front of his students – Liston assumed some students had slept with her when she was alive, and that they should dissect her body offended his sense of decency. He removed her body for burial." So I think we get a sense of the character of Robert Liston.

Some of Liston's most famous cases documented in a book by the aforementioned Richard Gordon were; removal in 4 minutes of a 45-pound scrotal tumour, whose owner had to carry it round in a wheelbarrow; Amputated the leg in 2​1⁄2 minutes, but in his enthusiasm the patient's testicles as well; Amputated the leg in under 2​1⁄2 minutes (the patient died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene; they usually did in those pre-Listerian days). He amputated in addition the fingers of his young assistant (who died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene). He also slashed through the coat tails of a distinguished surgical spectator, who was so terrified that the knife had pierced his vitals he dropped dead from fright.

That was the only operation in history with a 300 percent mortality!

But it is the first operation in Europe under modern anaesthesia using ether, that Liston is best remembered, on 21 December 1846 at the University College Hospital. His comment at the time: "This Yankee dodge beats mesmerism hollow", referring to the first use of ether by doctors in the US. The first operation using ether as an anaesthetic was by William T. G. Morton on 16 October 1846, in the Massachusetts General Hospital.

The pics are Robert Liston , the surgeon performing an amputation in front of a crowd of spectators and a marble bust of the man.

[dwreader]

I think it's you who pointed out the black writer from s1 didn't return for s2. And it made me think (with your last ask about Armand's story). I really hope they touch on his individual story outside of Lestat. They don't need to reneact Venice but some background would be good. Another point, Armand is a brown 200 years vampire roaming the street of 1700's Paris. He was at the balcony in rags around white people. And nobody gave him looks or dragged him down? Granted, both scenes were short so we haven't seen them in full yet. But I really hope they didn't fumble on how his skin color is going to impact his surroundings. Also how he responds to them. French slavery was abolished in 1794 and 1848.

i believe so far there are 2 black writers with episode credits for s2 (out of 8 eps), however unlike last season the entire directors line up is white. and i do hope they get some asian and/or south asian writers in the room not only bc armand has his own story that requires handling w/ care but they also have some token asian vamps this season and like hopefully they get something to do other than stand there?? aljflskdjf at least have them take off their shoes before going into their coffins like please that just hurts me on a deeply personal level to see that.

but also while a diverse writers room is obviously important in fleshing out characters and writing individual episodes, dialogue, etc.. the people who determine the overall arc of the show are mark johnson and rolin. they're the ones who determine which characters are going to be mains, who gets the juicy arcs, the direction of the show at large. big decisions are made by higher ups ESP in a show where they have larger universe plans.

[gluecklichesereignis]

9. Brief - An Goethe

07. September 1794

,,Mit Freuden nehme ich Ihre gütige Einladung nach W. an, doch mit der ernstlichen Bitte, daß Sie in keinem einzigen Stück Ihrer häuslichen Ordnung auf mich rechnen mögen […]. Ich bitte bloß um die leidige Freiheit, bei Ihnen krank sein zu dürfen.“

Man mag sich gar nicht vorstellen, wie sehr von Schiller unter den Krankheiten gelitten und sich davon eingeschränkt gefühlt haben muss. Aber diese Ehrlichkeit gegenüber von Goethe und die Achtung vor der eigenen Gesundheit sind schön zu lesen.

[blueiight]

Lestat’s date of turning is also inconsistent, he says it was 1794 (I drank the waters) but Louis gives a different year for his turning in his narration like however many “years in the savage garden” quote like the math didn’t add up. I think they might just be bad at math lol

im not quite understanding why ur more inclined to think the disparity of ages is a mistake of the writing& not a point on the monster of memory to where these characters dont even remember their own exact ages at turning esp when the show beats our heads in w the theme of recollection n all

[mtlibrary]

A blog post from Jack Alphey, a work experience placement student from King’s College London

For the last several weeks, I have been working on reading through and cataloguing 18th century legal manuscripts within the Middle Temple Library. Having readily available and digitized information about the contents of manuscripts will allow easier access for researchers to the information they want to find. Thus far, I have found many interesting cases. From questions as to whether the theft of live pigeons was a felony to complex cases of financial fraud. Perhaps the most interesting thus far, however, is the case of theft from the Indian John Morgan in 1765 found within a manuscript of notes made at the Old Bailey from 1765-1769.[1]

On the surface, the case is very simple. Three prisoners allegedly stole money and several items of clothing from Morgan. Morgan’s origins in India came up both in the crime and the legal proceedings, and it appears that two of the prisoners were found guilty. After this case, however, the manuscript records a following argument in court over whether John Morgan was guilty of perjury. What was unique about Morgan was that he was a “Mahometan” (an earlier English term for someone of the Muslim faith) and he was only willing to swear an oath on the Qur’an instead of the Bible. My assumption here was that the solution would be a fairly simple yes.

In contrast, however, the court came to a conclusion which upheld Morgan’s testimony. Once the court had become “satisfied of the Belief of Mahometans in a Deity” they deemed the Qur’an “to be their method of being sworn”. Seemingly the importance was in a valid belief that would make an oath taker stay honest instead of requiring a state sanctioned ‘true God’. Hidden at the back of the manuscript, however, is a copy of a letter from “Mr Gould” (that is, Sir Henry Gould, 1710-1794) addressing the case written in 1784, nineteen years after the ruling. This letter provides an admonition on the ruling citing the importance of “corporal oaths”. This was something, in Gould’s eyes, that could only be undertaken by a Christian touching the Bible in front of the Christian God. According to Sir Henry’s reasoning, Morgan’s oath on the Qur’an made his testimony perjury. What happened to John Morgan does not seem public. Did the letter almost two decades later pertain to his actual future or simply to future theory? 

This case is useful, however, in letting us address the lives and trials of non-Western and non-Christian individuals within Britain in this period. Morgan was clearly a man of means: he had a significant amount of money stolen, as shown by the case. This lines up in name, location, and time to be the Indian John Morgan seen working with the artist George Stubbs during his paintings of exotic animals.[2] When a crime was committed, however, Morgan’s testimony put him in danger with the Christian rigidity of the courts. Rare cases like these provide insight into the British system’s struggles and resistances to adapting to a world in which differences such as other religions would more commonly find their way integrating and how this challenged existing institutions.

Jack Alphey, MA student King’s College London

[1] https://www.middletemplelibrary.org.uk/client/en_GB/default/search/results?qu=ms47&te=

[2] Mark Sorrell, ‘A Zebra, A Tigress, and a Cheetah: New Light on George Stubbs’ Exotic Animal Subjects’, British Art Journal, 15 (2014), https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA389175724&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=14672006&p=AONE&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Efd5ab7ed? (accessed 28th February 2023).

[bobmccullochny]

History

April 11, 1968 - A week after the assassination of Martin Luther King, the Civil Rights Act of 1968 was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The law prohibited discrimination in housing, protected civil rights workers and expanded the rights of Native Americans.

April 11, 1970 - Apollo 13 was launched from Cape Kennedy at 2:13 p.m. Fifty-six hours into the flight an oxygen tank exploded in the service module. Astronaut John L. Swigert saw a warning light that accompanied the bang and said, "Houston, we've had a problem here." Swigert, James A. Lovell and Fred W. Haise then transferred into the lunar module, using it as a "lifeboat" and began a perilous return trip to Earth, splashing down safely on April 17th.

April 11, 1983 - Harold Washington became the first African American mayor of Chicago, receiving 51 percent of the vote. Re-elected in 1987, he suffered a fatal heart attack at his office seven months later.

Birthday - American orator Edward Everett (1794-1865) was born in Dorchester, Massachusetts. In 1863, at the dedication of the Gettysburg Battlefield, he delivered the main address, lasting two hours. He was then followed by President Abraham Lincoln who spoke for about two minutes delivering the Gettysburg Address.

[jgmail]

Heidegger, Schelling y la realidad del mal

Por Collin Cleary

Traducción de Juan Gabriel Caro Rivera

Introducción: el cenit de la metafísica del idealismo alemán

En 1936 Martin Heidegger impartió un curso sobre el tratado de F. W. J. Schelling de 1809 Investigaciones filosóficas sobre la esencia de la libertad humana, al que los eruditos suelen referirse simplemente como Freiheitsschrift (Ensayo sobre la libertad) [1]. En este curso, un filósofo alemán extremadamente difícil se enfrenta a otro que también lo es. De hecho, el Freiheitsschrift es posiblemente el texto más oscuro y desconcertante de Schelling. Las cosas se complican aún más por el hecho de que el autor que más influyó en este ensayo de Schelling fue un filósofo alemán aún más difícil de leer que Schelling o Heidegger: Jacob Boehme (1575-1624), el zapatero místico de Görlitz. Schelling no se refiere ni una sola vez a Boehme en su ensayo, pero su influencia en el texto es amplia, evidente y ha sido universalmente reconocida por los estudiosos de Schelling [2].

Me he ocupado extensamente del “primer Schelling” en otro ensayo (véase En defensa de la naturaleza: Una introducción a la filosofía de F. W. J. Schelling), en el que presenté a los lectores su vida y sus escritos. Cinco años más joven que Hegel, Schelling era considerado una estrella emergente de la filosofía alemana de finales del siglo XVIII y principios del XIX. Desde 1794 (cuando Schelling sólo tenía diecinueve años) hasta 1804, publicó numerosos libros y ensayos presentando a los lectores su “sistema de filosofía”. Después de 1804, sin embargo, esta notable producción disminuyó y luego se detuvo abrupta y misteriosamente. Freiheitsschrift fue la última gran obra que Schelling vio publicada en su vida.

En 1807, Hegel publicó su Fenomenología del espíritu y en pocos años alcanzó la fama en la profesión filosófica en Alemania, para disgusto de su colega más joven. El silencio de Schelling a partir de 1809 contribuyó a crear la impresión de que ya no tenía nada que decir. Sin embargo, no fue así, pues el Freiheitsschrift fue sólo el comienzo del “segundo Schelling”. A partir de 1809 produjo una gran cantidad de obras – tratados, diálogos y conferencias –, la mayoría de las cuales se publicaron póstumamente y gran parte de las cuales estaban dedicadas a elaborar las ideas del Freiheitsschrift.

¿Por qué Heidegger retomó el ensayo de Schelling y dio una conferencia sobre él? Aunque Heidegger tiene mucho que decir sobre Schelling aquí y allá, no dedicó un curso entero a ninguna otra obra suya. Observando las exposiciones de Heidegger y la forma respetuosa, casi reverencial, en que trata el texto, se desprende que el Freiheitsschrift tuvo para él una gran importancia personal. Heidegger afirma en el curso de 1936 que se trata del “mayor logro de Schelling y al mismo tiempo [es] una de las obras más profundas de la filosofía alemana, y por tanto de la filosofía occidental” [3]. Algunos años más tarde, sus elogios fueron aún más efusivos, al referirse al Freiheitsschrift como “la cumbre de la metafísica del idealismo alemán” [4].

El comentario de Heidegger en su curso de 1936 es casi enteramente expositivo, lo que significa que, aunque interpreta el ensayo de Schelling y nos ofrece ideas que a menudo son brillantes, hace pocas críticas. La razón de ello es que Schelling le resulta afín y simpatiza con las ideas del ensayo. Cualquier lector imparcial podrá ver que Heidegger se siente como en casa en el singularmente extraño y teosóficamente inspirado Begriffswelt (mundo conceptual) del Freiheitsschrift.

En un momento temprano de sus conferencias, Heidegger hace una observación que puede considerarse crítica, aunque sólo en un sentido matizado. Cree que Schelling dejó de publicar después de 1809 porque se esforzaba – al final, sin éxito – por dar a luz ideas que en realidad no podían expresarse utilizando el vocabulario y los presupuestos del idealismo alemán. Compara a Schelling en este sentido con Nietzsche, quien, como dice Heidegger, “se quebró en medio de su verdadera obra, La voluntad de poder, por la misma razón” [5].

Heidegger no parece referirse aquí al colapso mental de Nietzsche. Más bien parece querer decir que Nietzsche se esforzaba por expresar algo en La voluntad de poder, pero no podía hacerlo dentro de los presupuestos de la tradición metafísica. Nietzsche creía que rechazaba esos presupuestos, pero Heidegger sostenía que seguía apoyándolos encubiertamente. Así pues, el trabajo “se rompió” porque era imposible seguir desarrollándolo sin trascender el propio pensamiento metafísico. Heidegger cree que Schelling dejó de publicar porque estaba luchando con la misma cuestión, sin que (al igual que Nietzsche) se diera cuenta de que era así.

Un nuevo comienzo para la filosofía

Heidegger continúa diciendo lo siguiente: “Pero esta doble y gran ruptura de los grandes pensadores no es un fracaso ni nada negativo, al contrario. Es la señal del advenimiento de algo completamente diferente, el calor del relámpago que inaugura un nuevo comienzo. Quien realmente conoce la razón de este quiebre y es capaz de conquistarlo inteligentemente tendrá que convertirse en el fundador del nuevo comienzo de la filosofía occidental” [6].

Se trata de una afirmación muy significativa. A partir del mismo año en que Heidegger pronunció sus conferencias sobre Schelling, comenzó a escribir lo que proyectó como su segunda gran obra, después de Ser y tiempo: Contribuciones a la filosofía (Del acontecimiento) (Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis)). Este texto, que no se publicó hasta años después de la muerte de Heidegger, se habla de un “otro comienzo” (anderer Anfang) para la filosofía. El “primer comienzo” fue con la filosofía presocrática. En Contribuciones, Heidegger afirma que “la disposición básica del primer comienzo es el asombro [Er-staunen]: asombro frente a que los seres sean y de que los propios seres humanos sean y estén en medio de lo que no son” [7].

Con el platonismo, sin embargo, comienza a producirse un cambio intelectual, un cambio denominado en los estudios de Heidegger como un movimiento hacia la “metafísica de la presencia”. Heidegger sostiene que, a partir de Platón, toda la metafísica occidental estará marcada por esta metafísica, que es esencialmente una voluntad oculta de distorsionar nuestra comprensión del ser de los seres acomodándola al deseo humano de que los seres estén (1) permanentemente presentes para nosotros, sin ocultarnos nada, y (2) disponibles para nuestra manipulación. Como veremos, el concepto de “voluntad” desempeña un papel crucial en el tratado de Schelling y es un concepto central para Heidegger [8]. Esto es particularmente cierto en el pensamiento posterior de Heidegger, en el que “voluntad” (Wille) se refiere esencialmente a la metafísica de la presencia en su iteración “final” como el “mundo de la explotación” moderno y tecnológico, en el que la voluntad es amada únicamente por sí misma [9].

Heidegger considera que la tradición metafísica occidental ha terminado con la “voluntad de poder” de Nietzsche, que expresa la esencia de la moderna “voluntad de querer”. Así pues, si algo le queda ahora a la filosofía, debe ser necesariamente “post-metafísica” y tendría que haber un “otro comienzo” o un “nuevo comienzo”. Éste es el significado de la afirmación de Heidegger de que la incapacidad de Schelling y Nietzsche para trascender el pensamiento metafísico constituye al “al calor del relámpago que da nacimiento a un nuevo comienzo”.

Centrándonos sólo en Schelling, ya que es nuestro tema central, Heidegger quiere decir que el pensamiento posterior de Schelling contenía el germen de un alejamiento de la metafísica, el germen de un nuevo comienzo, que Schelling finalmente no pudo llevar a buen término porque permaneció confinado dentro de las restricciones del pensamiento metafísico. Su pensamiento, por lo tanto, “se rompe”. Cuando Heidegger escribe que quien pudiera descubrir la razón precisa de esta ruptura “tendría que convertirse en el fundador del nuevo comienzo de la filosofía occidental” se está refiriendo, de hecho, a sí mismo.

Parece, pues, que la Freiheitsschrift fue un texto extraordinariamente importante para Heidegger. Afirma que “el núcleo esencial de toda la metafísica occidental puede ser expuesto con total determinación a partir de este tratado” [10] Así, para Heidegger, la Freiheitsschrift nos proporciona una clave para desentrañar la naturaleza de la metafísica occidental y, por lo tanto, una clave para comprender las ideas fundacionales sobre las que descansa nuestra cultura y a las que se debe su actual decadencia.

F. W. J. Schelling (Se trata de la fotografía más antigua que se conoce de un filósofo).

Tan importante era el Freiheitsschrift para Heidegger que en 1941 volvió a impartir un curso de conferencias sobre este texto. Además, hay una marcada diferencia entre estas conferencias y las anteriores. Como ya se ha señalado, las conferencias de 1936 son casi totalmente expositivas y contienen pocas críticas. Las de 1941, sin embargo, muestran una mayor distancia crítica respecto a Schelling. Al parecer, Heidegger consideraba muy importantes sus clases sobre Schelling. El curso de conferencias de 1936 fue uno de los últimos textos que preparó para su publicación antes de morir (se publicó en 1971 y Heidegger murió cinco años después). Las conferencias de 1941 se publicaron en 1991. Desgraciadamente, el texto de las conferencias de 1941 parece más bien un esbozo y a menudo es frustrantemente conciso y críptico. Las notas de las conferencias de 1936, por el contrario, contienen pensamientos totalmente elaborados, aunque con la habitual oscuridad heideggeriana. En mi ensayo, todas las citas y pensamientos atribuidos a Heidegger proceden de las conferencias de 1936, a menos que se especifique lo contrario.

Como ya he mencionado, las conferencias de Heidegger sobre Schelling poseen múltiples capas oscuras. Heidegger es un pensador notoriamente difícil, que comenta al notoriamente difícil Schelling, quien se inspira libremente en las ideas y la terminología del notoriamente difícil Boehme. Sin embargo, tomando prestada una imagen común de Boehme y Schelling, hay una luz discernible en esta oscuridad. Estos textos no son imposibles y el esfuerzo por comprenderlos es sumamente gratificante. El Freiheitsschrift, y las conferencias de Heidegger sobre él, nos proporcionan en efecto una clave para entender la metafísica occidental, tal como promete Heidegger. Espero poder demostrarlo en el presente ensayo, aunque el lector debe tener paciencia. Mucha paciencia.

La influencia de Boehme en Schelling también abre nuevas perspectivas para los estudios sobre Heidegger y para nuestra comprensión de la filosofía moderna en su conjunto, perspectivas que los estudiosos no han decidido explorar hasta ahora. Debido a que el Freiheitsschrift está tan fuertemente influenciada por las ideas de Boehme, las conferencias de Heidegger a menudo se leen como un comentario sobre Boehme, pero sólo para aquellos que ya están familiarizados con la filosofía de Boehme y su terminología única. Heidegger era consciente de la influencia de Boehme en Schelling, pero no está claro hasta qué punto conocía los escritos de Boehme [11].

Voy a argumentar que el tratado de Schelling fue una influencia importante en el pensamiento posterior de Heidegger. Si eso es cierto, entonces Boehme fue, indirectamente, una importante influencia para Heidegger. Los escritos de Boehme fueron extremadamente importantes para los románticos – por ejemplo, fueron leídos por los hermanos Schlegel, Novalis y Ludwig Tieck – así como para Schelling y Hegel. Si se puede afirmar que las ideas de Boehme también influyeron en Heidegger, entonces Boehme se convierte en una especie de “rey secreto” de la filosofía moderna, ignorado por la mayoría de los estudiosos debido a su reputación de místico y a su merecida fama de oscuro. Sin embargo, no puedo abordar la cuestión de la influencia de Boehme en este artículo.

Tratado sobre el mal

Hay otra razón más por la que el encuentro de Heidegger con Schelling tiene una importancia capital. Heidegger señala en sus conferencias que el título de Schelling es en realidad engañoso. Por el título, uno espera encontrar un tratado sobre el “libre albedrío” (en alemán, Willkür), pero Heidegger afirma, correctamente, que el ensayo no tiene “nada que ver con esta cuestión de la libertad de la voluntad”. Y continúa: “Pues la libertad no es aquí [en el Freiheitsschrift] propiedad del hombre, sino al revés: el hombre es, en el mejor de los casos, propiedad de la libertad. La libertad es la naturaleza abarcadora y penetrante, en la que el hombre sólo llega a ser hombre cuando está anclado en ella. Eso significa que la naturaleza del hombre se fundamenta en la libertad. Pero [según Schelling] la libertad misma es una determinación del ser verdadero en general que trasciende todo ser humano. En la medida en que el hombre como hombre, debe participar en esta determinación del ser, y el hombre es en la medida en que realiza esta participación en la libertad”. Luego, en un movimiento inusual para Heidegger, añade, entre paréntesis: “Frase clave: La libertad no es propiedad del hombre, sino: el hombre propiedad de la libertad” [12].

Además, como veremos más adelante, Schelling define la libertad como “la capacidad de hacer el bien y el mal” [13]. En apoyo de esta afirmación, Schelling ofrece una larga meditación sobre la naturaleza del mal, con el resultado de que la Freiheitsschrift tiene en realidad más que ver con el mal que con la libertad. Esta es una de las razones por las que el texto es tan interesante. En palabras de Heidegger: “El mal es la palabra clave del tratado principal. La cuestión de la naturaleza de la libertad humana se convierte en la cuestión de la posibilidad y la realidad del mal” [14]. El concepto del mal de Schelling es radicalmente diferente de las teorías filosóficas anteriores y es extraordinariamente fructífero. Nos da una clave inestimable para entender el punto de vista que Heidegger critica en sus escritos posteriores como “voluntad”, que está estrechamente relacionada con la metafísica de la presencia. Existen incluso fascinantes paralelismos entre la idea del mal de Schelling y el modo en que se concibe el mal tanto en la mitología clásica como en la nórdica. Schelling, que elaboró tardíamente una Filosofía de la mitología, habría estado abierto a tales paralelismos.

Por último, si injertamos la concepción del mal de Schelling en la teoría del resentimiento de Nietzsche (que constituye la base de la “moral del esclavo”) llegamos a una poderosa herramienta para comprender las motivaciones de la izquierda actual. No en vano, en el siglo XIX, los individuos que hoy llamaríamos simplemente “izquierdistas” – generalmente comunistas y anarquistas – eran calificados habitualmente de “nihilistas” (véanse, por ejemplo, las obras de Dostoievski). No hace mucho, Elon Musk describió el izquierdismo como un “culto a la muerte”. Me atrevería a decir que la mayoría de los que pertenecemos a la derecha política hemos tenido esos pensamientos: hemos intuido que el objetivo del izquierdismo es la destrucción de la vida, la salud, el orden y la misma civilización.

Pero, ¿a qué se debe esto? ¿Cómo surge algo tan perverso y pernicioso como el izquierdismo? La teoría del mal de Schelling puede darnos algunas respuestas. La explicación del izquierdismo de Nietzsche – el resentimiento – es puramente psicológica. Pero en los últimos años he empezado a sentir cada vez más que hay, a falta de una palabra mejor, alguna “fuerza” extrahumana trabajando en este proceso. Cada vez más, he empezado a pensar seriamente en “la realidad del mal”. Cuando menciono esto a muchos de mis amigos laicos de derechas, tienden a quedarse muy callados, y luego, tímida y vacilantemente, admiten que han tenido cavilaciones similares.

Creo que estoy expresando un pensamiento que ellos mismos se habían planteado, pero que no se atrevían a admitir, quizá porque sonaba demasiado cristiano. Schelling, que nominalmente era cristiano protestante, sí cree en la realidad del mal. A diferencia de numerosos filósofos que le precedieron (entre ellos la mayoría de los filósofos antiguos y medievales y muchos de los primeros filósofos modernos, especialmente Leibniz), Schelling rechaza la idea de que el mal sea una mera “privación”: una ausencia de bondad o ausencia de un principio de orden o forma. En cambio, Schelling sostiene que el mal es una “fuerza” sustantiva por derecho propio, que se opone al bien.

En esta serie – que es en realidad una continuación de mi serie “Historia de la metafísica de Heidegger” – seguiré el ejemplo de Heidegger y comenzaré por exponer los puntos esenciales del tratado de Schelling (omitiendo muchas cosas, por desgracia). Por el camino, discutiré los comentarios de Heidegger sobre Schelling. Las próximas nueve partes de esta serie estarán dedicadas a esa tarea. En las últimas cinco partes de la serie nos ocuparemos de algunas de las implicaciones de este encuentro entre los dos filósofos, al que se ha aludido anteriormente: cómo el ensayo de Schelling puede iluminar la metafísica occidental en su conjunto, las críticas de Heidegger a Schelling, la influencia positiva de Schelling en Heidegger y las implicaciones más amplias de la teoría del mal de Schelling.

Notas

[1] El título completo es Investigaciones filosóficas sobre la esencia de la libertad humana y cuestiones afines (Philosophische Untersuchungen über das Wesen der menschlichen Freiheit und die damit zusammenhängenden Gegenstände).

[2] Véase Robert Brown, The Later Philosophy of Schelling: The Influence of Boehme on the Works 1809-1815 (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 1977), 19. Se han publicado muchos otros estudios, la mayoría en alemán.

[3] Heidegger, Schelling’s Treatise on the Essence of Human Freedom, trad. Joan Stambaugh (Athens, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1985), 2. En adelante, "ST".

[4] Martin Heidegger, The Metaphysics of German Idealism, trad. Ian Alexander Moore y Rodrigo Therezo (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2021), 1. En adelante, "MGI".

[5] Heidegger, ST, 3.

[6] Heidegger, ST, 3.

[7] Heidegger, Contributions to Philosophy (Of the Event), trad. Richard Rojcewicz y Daniela Vallega-Neu (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2012), 37.

[8] Para una discusión exhaustiva de este tema, véase Bret W. Davis, Heidegger and the Will (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2007).

[9] “Mundo de explotación” es la traducción de Thomas Sheehan del término Gestell de Heidegger, que es otro término para el despliegue moderno y tecnológico de la voluntad. Sheehan escribe: “Heidegger lee la actual dispensación [del Ser] como una que provoca e incluso nos obliga a tratar todo en términos de su explotabilidad para el consumo: el ser de las cosas es ahora su capacidad de convertirse en productos para el uso y el disfrute… La Tierra se ve ahora como un vasto almacén de recursos, tanto humanos como naturales; y el valor y la realidad de esos recursos, su ser, se mide exclusivamente por su disponibilidad para el consumo”. Véase Thomas Sheehan, Making Sense of Heidegger: A Paradigm Shift (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015), 258-259.

[10] Heidegger, MGI, 2.

[11] Heidegger menciona a Boehme en las conferencias de 1936. En el contexto de la defensa de Schelling contra la vacua acusación de “misticismo”, Heidegger escribe: “pero no se trata del vacuo juego de pensamientos de un maníaco ermitaño, sino sólo de la continuación de una actitud de pensamiento que comienza con Meister Eckhart y se desarrolla de manera única en Jacob Boehme. Pero cuando se cita este contexto histórico, se vuelve inmediatamente a la jerga, se habla de “misticismo” y de “teosofía”. Ciertamente, se le puede llamar así, pero con ello no se dice nada respecto al acontecer espiritual y a la verdadera creación del pensamiento, no más que cuando acertadamente se afirma sobre una estatua griega de un Dios que se trata como un trozo de mármol y todo lo demás es lo que unos pocos han imaginado sobre ella y fabricado como misterios. Shelling no es un místico en el sentido de la palabra, es decir, un embrollo al que le gusta enredarse en lo oscuro y encuentra su placer en sus velos”. Heidegger, ST, 117.

[12] Heidegger, ST, 9. Cursiva en el original.

[13] F.W.J. Schelling, Philosophical Investigations into the Essence of Human Freedom, trad. Jeff Love y Johannes Schmidt (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2006), 23. Cursiva mía. He modificado esta traducción aquí y allá cuando me ha parecido que podía ser más precisa. Por ejemplo, he suprimido la práctica de los traductores de poner en mayúscula la letra inicial de “ser” (Sein). Como en alemán todos los sustantivos se escriben con mayúscula inicial, no hay justificación para hacerlo.

[14] Heidegger, ST, 97.

[zenia62]

Daendels Proclamation

Hey guys, as I promised, I'll be sharing Daendels proclamation that he made on his bday in 1794 👀 I remembered reading that he didn't rlly made this n that Paape were the one that makes it 🤔 Maybe Daendels told him to do it? I'm not sure either, I'll tell u guys if I find more information abt this ☺️ Anyways, I actually found the document of this online but it was too blury to be read by Google translate but I managed to it one on Google; Source

Anyways, that's all for now, istg I'll start uploading consistently again by next week cus this week I've been busy w couple assignments n also Genshin js dropped a new update so I've been playing alot to finish the quest etc 😭 Yeah, thank you guys n have a wonderful day, stay safe 🌙

Awake my dear compatriots, the time has come when we must free ourselves from the slavery under which the country, and especially the peasantry, has long labored.

Do not hesitate to take up arms, and to rid yourselves of your Drosten, Hoofdschouten, Richters, Amts-Jonkers, Schouten, Collectors, Pagters and other executioners and bloodsuckers. You will not be betrayed as before by foreign Commanders; I and other Gelderland and Overijssel Boys, who have learned the tricks of war under the French, are ready to take charge, and you will see the haughty and beautifully powdered Officers and Soldiers running for Farmer Boys in their linen smocks. Do not fear that we cannot hold out; so poor and greedy, for themselves; the Orange Party is, so rich and generous are the Patriots, who have already transferred many millions of guilders here from Holland; so that we can easily give each man 35 st. holl. can give during the week; besides one and a half pounds of bread, and one and a half pounds of meat daily, as the French volunteers have.

Fear not that we shall lack arms; we have already many thousands of them, and the necessary powder and fire, and we shall make further use of such as we find in the magazines.

Begin by arming yourselves with hunting-rifles, which you will find a lot in the manors and in the mansions, with pikes, hay-gaffels or other long and sharp tools. Form companies of 125 men, and choose captains, not the richest who are best dressed, or can talk best, but those who can best bring you in and out of the fire. We will provide you with captains who know war.

Do not be afraid that if you take up arms, you will be a soldier for many years, that no one will have to bear arms any longer if his business permits, or that Orange and his gilded servants will have left the country.

I will write privately to those among you who have always steadfastly adhered to the cause of the People; who trust you, and whose advice and proposals you must follow: for you understand that one cannot print secrets.

O my friends! how happy we shall be, when our Country shall once be cleansed of all that Noble and Aristocratic Vermin; when there shall be no more Drostendienst; when everyone shall be allowed to Hunt and Fish freely; when the Burdens and Taxes shall be reduced to a great extent, and shall no longer oppress the poor in the main, as is the case at present; and when the Country shall be governed by good Citizens and Farmers, elected thereto by general vote.

Citizens of Zutphen and Arnhem , who first raised their heads against the aristocrats, and on all occasions showed that they loved your rights, now show the same feelings, and that there is still Gelderland blood flowing through your veins. Be jealous to free yourselves, and do not wait for the French to come and do it; for every upright Netherlander will wish with me, that we even with arms in our fists regain our rights, and show that we are worthy of our brothers the French, and not as contemptible as William of Nassau has portrayed us.

Doesburgers ! avenge the death of our brave hairman and follow in his footsteps. I expect no less from Deutekom and from the other cities and villages of the County.

Harderwyk, Hattem and Elburg with their dependent villages will not be the last to join me and show William of Hattem that treason, and not our cowardice, has delivered our cities to him.

We expected everything from Zwolle , and further from the whole of Overijssel , which would be no less the terror of the tyrants than in 1787.

Make haste, my Friends, to comply with this my exhortation, for the desired moment is there and must not be lost. I will join you in a few days with a few thousand brave people from Den Bosch, whom we are now recruiting, and have already obtained from the Representatives of the French People a leave of a few months, to be absent from the French Army.

Greetings and Brotherhood! Long live Freedom and our inalienable Rights!

's-Hertogenbosch , the 30th Vendemiaire, (21 October 1794) the 3rd Year of the French Republic.

DAENDELS.

[kovalski-flagsoftheworld1]

48) Belgia (CD)

1. Cesarski oriflamme Karola Wielkiego. Trójramienne zielone pole z 8 złotymi krzyżami i 6 kwiatami (800-888)

2. Sztandar Cesarski Świętego Cesarza Rzymskiego. Orzeł cesarski z czarną aureolą, uzbrojony i czerwony (początek lat 1400)

3. Flaga hrabstwa Flandrii. Żółta flaga z czarnym lwem w środku (862–1797)

4. Flaga hrabstwa Hainaut. Żółty baner z czarnymi i czerwonymi lwami (900–1477)

5. Flaga Księstwa Brabancji. Złoty lew na czarnym polu (1183–1794)

6. Flaga hiszpańskich Niderlandów. Biała flaga z krzyżem Burgundii (1482–1714)

7. Flaga Arcyksięcia Austrii. Żółte pole z czarnym dwugłowym orłem z koroną na szczycie i trójkolorowym herbem Austrii na piersi (1713–1740)

8. Flaga austriackich Niderlandów.Trójkolorowa, z trzema równymi poziomymi pasami w kolorze czerwonym, białym i złotym z herbem Austrii (1781–1786)

9. Flaga rewolucji brabanckiej. Trójkolorowa, z trzema równymi poziomymi pasami w kolorze czerwonym, czarnym i żółtym (1789–1790)

10. Flaga Księstwa-Biskupstwa Liège, a także Republiki Liège. Dwukolorowa, z dwoma równymi pionowymi pasami w kolorze czerwonym i żółtym (-1790)

11. Flaga rewolucji belgijskiej. Trójkolorowa, z trzema równymi poziomymi pasami w kolorze czarnym, żółtym i czerwonym (1830–1831)

12. Flaga Legionu Belgijskiego podczas interwencji francuskiej w Meksyku. Trójkolorowa flaga Cesarstwa Meksykańskiego, nałożona na trójkolorową flagę Belgii w lewym górnym rogu (ok. 1865)

13. Flaga Neutralnego Moresnet. Trójkolorowa, z trzema równymi poziomymi pasami w kolorze czarnym, białym i niebieskim (1883–1920)

14. Pierwsza wersja flagi Regionu Stołecznego Brukseli. Niebieskie pole z żółtą tęczówką i białą obwódką na górze (1991–2015)

15. Pierwsza wersja flagi Walonii (1913–1998)

16. Flaga Belgijskiego Konga. Niebieska flaga z żółtą pięcioramienną gwiazdą (1908–1960)

17. Sztandar gubernatora generalnego Belgijskiego Konga. Pionowa trójkolorowa flaga w kolorze czarnym, żółtym i czerwonym z żółtą gwiazdą w lewym górnym kantonie na niebieskim polu (1936–1960)

[gogmstuff]

1790s dresses - Some dresses belong in the French court of Marie Antoinette while others show Greco-Roman influence.

Top  1790 Marianne Dorothy Harland, Later Mrs. William Dalrymple by Richard Cosway (location ?). From tumblr.com/sims4rococo76; fixed edges, sots, & flaws w Pshop 1280X989.

Second row  1790 Presumed portrait of the Marquise de Lafayette by Adélaïde Labille-Guiard (National Museum of Women in the Arts - Washington, DC, USA). From Wikimedia 2564X3175.

Third row  ca. 1790 Marquise de Grécourt, née de la Fresnaye by Jean Laurent Mosnier (auctioned by Christie's). From their Web site 951X1186.

Fourth row  1791 Mme. de Genlis playing a harp by François Guérin (location ?). From books0977.tumblr.com/image/88627828797 797X900.

Fifth row  1794 Catherine Grey, Lady Manners by Sir Thomas Lawrence (Cleveland Museum of Art - Cleveland, Ohio, USA). From their Web site 2774X4495 @150 14.1Mj.

Sixth row left  1794 Elizabeth Holland avec son fils by Louis Gauffier (Musée Fabre - Montpellier, Hérault, Occitanie, France). From Wikimedia 2739X3483.

Sixth row right  1795 Elizabeth, Lady Webster by Louis Gauffier (Christie's -  Live auction 14277 Lot 51). From their Web site. From their Web site; fixed spots & flaws w Pshop 4026X3032.

Seventh row  ca. 1795 Anne, Duchess of Cumberland by Sir Martin Archer Shee (private collection), From tumblr.com/fashion-inspiration-s; fixed spots w Pshop 2048X2852 @72 984kj.

Eighth row left  1795 Madame Fravega by Antoine-Jean Gros (Musée des beaux-arts de Marseille - Marseille, Bouches-du-Rhône, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, France). From Wikimedia; fixed spots w Pshop and cropped 1544X1555.

Eighth row right  ca. 1796 Madame Boyer-Fonfrède and Son by François-André Vincent (location ?). From tumblr.com/silverfoxstole; fixed spots & blurred background w Pshop 730X888.