Search

Maximilian Harden, editor of the magazine Die :(,ukunft (The Future), which appeared weekly from 1892 until 1922, was Wilhelminian Germany's greatest publicist. Bismarck and Clemenceau as well as Max Reinhardt and Pirandello recognized his political and literary genius. Thomas Mann sent early works to him with the inscription:'To the hero and savior';1 and when Paul Valery learned that Harden had attended one of his lectures, he wrote that there was'nothing more flattering and... intimi­ dating than to know that you were among those who had listened to me.'2 Today Harden is misunderstood, if not forgotten. It is known that he was an actor who turned to journalism and became famous as a champion of the retired Bismarck. He was the most persistent and daring critic of Kaiser Wilhelm II. He befriended Friedrich von Holstein, the disgraced'evil genius'of the Foreign Office. He entered the First World War a flaming patriot, but later became the voice of the'good German.'He vainly aspired to a post of high responsibility under the Weimar Repub­ lic; and he died in 1927, allegedly a bitter, misanthropic radical. His name is associated with the homosexual scandals of 1907-1909, which were the result of his public campaign against Prince Eulenburg, the Kaiser's close friend and advisor. More than anything else, the Eulenburg affair has obscured Harden's accomplishments as the master critic and guide to a generation of German intellectuals and politicians.

Although the works of Francis Hutcheson are unfamiliar to most students of philosophy, it cannot be said that he has been entirely ignored. To be sure, most of the recent writers who deal with Hutcheson's philosophy do so in the course of writing about Hutcheson's famous contemporary, David Hume. This is true, for example, of Norman Kemp Smith, whose book entitled The Philosophy of David Hume 1 includes much detailed information concerning Hume's indebtedness to Hutcheson. But others have written about Hutcheson on his own account. William R. Scott's Francis Hutcheson,2 although mainly biographical and historical, is well worth reading. In his article'Some Reflections on Moral-Sense Theories in Ethics,'3 C. D. Broad presents a sustained analysis of the sort of theory held by Hutcheson. D. Daiches Raphael's The Moral Sense 4 is competent, interesting, and especially valuable in its treatment of epistemological issues surrounding the moral sense theory. William K. Frankena's article entitled'Hutcheson's Moral Sense Theory'Ji is search­ ing and profound. And, most recent of all, a book by William T. Black­ stone has appeared entitled Francis Hutcheson and Contemporary Ethi­ cal Theory. 6 One of the difficulties encountered in presenting a study of Hutcheson is that all of his books are extremely rare. Fortunately, L. A. Selby-Bigge'l) 1 Nonnan Kemp Smith, The Philosophy of David Hume (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1949). Ii William Robert Scott, Francis Hutcheson (Cambridge, Eng. : Cambridge Uni­ venity Press, 1900).

'It was the best oftimes. It was the worst oftimes.'The famous open­ ing sentence ofCharles Dickens'Tale oJ Two Cities can serve as a motto to characterize the mixture of optimism and pessimism with which a large number of nineteenth-century intellectuals viewed the con­ dition of their age. It is nowadays hardly necessary to accentuate the optimistic elements in the nineteenth-century view of history; many recent historians have sharply contrasted the complacency and the great expectations of the past century with the fears and anxieties rampant in our own age. It is often too readily assumed that a hundred years ago all leading thinkers as weil as the educated public were addicted to the cult of progress and ignored or minimized those trends of their times that paved the way for the catastrophes of the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century the intoxicating triumphs of modern science undeniably induced the general public to believe that pro­ gress was not an accident but a necessity and that evil and immo­ rality would gradually disappear. Yet fears, misgivings, and anxieties were not as exceptional in the nineteenth century as is often imagined. Such feelings were not restricted to a few dissenting philosophers and poets like Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard,'Dostoevsky, Baudelaire, and Nietzsche.

I t was the unanimous verdict of British and American historians that the Kings of Burma were arrogant barbarians, absolutely without any knowledge of diplomacy and diplomatie practice, whose foolish actions forced the British to annex the countr)'. Although the una­ nimity was broken in 1962 by Miss Dorothy Woodman in her brilliant work The Making 01 Burma, it still remains the majority verdict, and has even been re-affirmed. Mr. E. C. V. Foucar, who expressed his verdict in 1944 in They Reigned in Mandalay, confirmed it in 1963 in Mandalay the Golden. Professor John F. Cady, who fuHy agreed with the verdict in 1960 in A History 01 Modern Burma, has modified his opinion only with regard to the Second Anglo-Burmese War, in his recendy published work South-East Asia: fts Historical Development. The verdict is an ex parte one, because no consideration was given to the Burmese point ofview or to the Burmese sources ofhistory. More­ over, it was arrived at on false and fraudulent evidence. The British fought three wars against the Burmese during the period 1824-1886. For the First war, both the British and the Burmese must share the blame, and exeept for the great disparity in arms, it was a But after gaining two out of the three Burmese maritime fair fight.

Life of Bolivar Sim6n Bolivar was born in Caracas, Venezuela, on July 24, 1783, and died in Santa Marta, Colombia, on December 17, 1830. His life was relatively brief, but it was crowded with many activities, many hardships, many re­ verses, and many accomplishments. He is now revered as the Liberator of five Latin American countries: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. A descendant of a distinguished Creole family that originated in Biscay, Spain, the young Bolivar was orphaned at an early age and was cared for by his uncle, Carlos Palacios. As was customary, tutors were employed to edu­ cate the young boy. One of these was Andres Bello, later to become a distin­ guished scholar. Another was Sim6n Rodriguez, who was particularly influ­ enced by Rousseau and other eighteenth century philosophers. Later the young BoHvar was sent to Spain to continue his education. There he met Maria Teresa Rodriguez del Toro, whom he married in 1802. Bolivar and his bride returned to Caracas, where she died of yellow fever in 1803. Boli­ var never remarried. Returning to Europe, Bolivar went to Spain and then to France. There he found that Napoleon, the former republican, had proclaimed himself Em­ peror of the French. After a trip to Italy, Bolivar returned to Caracas in 1807 by way of several cities in the United States.