erdavies-essays

• Erin R. Davies • 20 • History Student • London • Essays, Film/Book Reviews and Analyses •

[erdavies-essays]

Peter I, the Great

In Moscow on 9th June 1672, was born arguably one of the most influential and successful rulers through history. Peter I was born in the country that is the product of its strange physical conditions; flat, vast, coast-less (well, covered in ice) and generally freezing. The beginnings of the Westernisation of Russia were solely down to this man, who brought her into the eighteenth century, rivalling  and overtaking other European nations.

When Peter I gained dominance of the throne in 1689, Russia was behind in every way, confused and still searching for identity - some might argue not much changes in Russian history. The government was unstable, in great need of a strong Tsar to keep persistent Russian nobles from asserting their own authority and to deal with an interfering Russian army. And that Tsar turned out to be Peter Romanov.

When he was a child, Peter I witnessed distressing uprisings related to family issues, and family members murdered. Historians argue that his complex, surly but also energetic and decisive character was shaped by these childhood experiences. He realised the only way to catch up with European Powers was to become like them. The new Tsar launched a series of reforms that affected every area of his nation’s life - administration, industry, commerce, fashion, technology and culture. He also successfully created a strong navy, and reorganised the army to Western standards. He achieved far more than some of his drippy predecessors!

He travelled Europe in disguise, hoping to pick up some tips. He studied ships, factories, museums and schools, artillery, and was shocked when, in London whilst listening to a session of the House of Commons, he heard common folk criticizing the policies of their Sovereign. His educational voyage, however, was cut short due to news of a revolt in Moscow. In fact, this, and his long hatred of the city, led to his most dramatic escapade - the destruction of Moscow and the emergence of the new capital, St. Petersburg which was deemed 'Russia's window to Europe'.

Peter could afford this due to gaining territory over Estonia, Latvia and partially Finland in the The Northern War with Sweden (1700-1721). Russia had been a predominantly agricultural country, seeing as she was cut off from the shipping trade, but St. Petersburg possessed a long sought after 'warm water port'. Although it does freeze over in winter months, it finally brought Russia access to the Baltic Sea and its trading possibilities.

Russia had become a great European nation and in 1721, he both proclaimed Russia an empire, and was given the title 'Peter the Great'. He died in 1724, the first Tsar to be buried in the Imperial Crypt in the Peter and Paul Cathedral. Unlike so many other important figures of history who merely took advantage of their situation, Peter I reshaped history itself. He transformed Russia massively, though sometimes ruthlessly and there is debate as to whether he was too hard on his people. But he undeniably paved the way for others who were deemed great, and expanded Russia further.

.94",qT�l8

[erdavies-essays]

Victorian Ideals of Femininity

When we think of 'Victorian women', presumably our minds are immediately cast to images of pious home makers, exuding an essence of gentility and affability. Almost unaware of, but content with the fact that their sole purpose was to run the home, bring up the children, obey their husband and act with the upmost decorum. It's not surprising, as the majority of the literature representing Victorian women, shows them this way.  Dickens, Thackery, John Ruskin for example, in their writing, all display women in this light.

Coventry Patmore, in his poem, 'The Angel in the House' writes about his wife, whom he truly believes is the perfect model for all women to follow. He writes, "Man must be pleased; but him to please is woman's pleasure..." and so on.  And his wife's role, as he describes, exemplifies the Victorian theory of  'separate spheres' which claims that men and women naturally belong in certain areas of society; women, obviously, involved with the private and domestic sphere, and men, the public and social sphere. This was even supported by contemporary literature where ideal female heroines were a source of inspiration for women. Only into the 1850s was a slight shift made away from this ideology and an awareness of inequity developed.

We can see how deeply ingrained this idea was even in women of the time. Sarah Strickney Ellis's book published in 1839, 'The Women of England',  analyzes women's power and influence within the domestic sphere. She argues that even in the sphere they belonged, women had less power than men and men still dominated. Women were merely a moral influence, happiest in the private sphere and all that comes with it - raising children, household upkeep etc - and how little importance they had  in the public sphere.

Isabella Beeton's 'Book of Household Management' actually presents a similar view point. I quote, "The modest virgin, the prudent wife, and the careful matron, are much more serviceable in life than petticoated philosophers, blustering heroines, or virago queens. She who makes her husband and her children happy, who reclaims the one from vice and trains up the other to virtue." Although heavily a recipe book, she sets out what it means to be a home owner and what one must do to please their husband.

However, could the ideals laid out by prescriptive literature be different to the reality of life for Victorian women? Have historians and writers been looking through fragmentary glasses and completely missed the truth? Jeanne Peterson would argue that  Victorian scholars have been "substituting fiction for fact" and the notion of 'the angel in the house' is possibly an inaccurate one. She studied the lives of 'the Paget' family and discovered contradictory realities. Women with passions and interests and determination to do what they wanted, not bound by husband and home. And these are what diary accounts reveal, whereas other descriptions of women who are 'angels in the house' are generally works of fiction.

So much of Victorian literature and literature on the Victorians does seem to favour the 'angel in the house' notion, or at least the aspiration to it. The angel must be respectful, religious, obedient and industrious in the home. She must always support her husband and accept her position without a fuss. But arguably it was just a fabricated ideal that wasn't actually realistic, nor attainable for most women. It could be the case many women were brain washed by controlling husbands? Or perhaps after centuries of the same treatment and expectation, women couldn't see a way for things to change? We can't dismiss the numbers of women living in poverty who couldn't possibly achieve those ideals so it can't be representative for all women anyway, exclusively the privileged class. And when one thinks of any society, no one women thinks or acts the same, or aspires  to the same goal, so surely the classic Victorian ideal of femininity didn't span across the population? Surely there were more women like the Pagets? Their family diaries show women, admittedly privileged, but with dreams and active determination to achieve what they wanted. If only more documents like that could be discovered, because I believe the Paget's weren't alone.

     &l�&��]

[erdavies-essays]

Were ideas of progress in the late 19th century mainly formed by technological innovation?

It could be argued that technological innovation was not actually key in forming ideas of progress in the late nineteenth century. There were many ideas of progress circulating at this time - namely the arts, women, science, politics etc - but rather than forming them, technological innovation was  an implement to spread these ideas of progress.

Firstly, it is worth considering what the technological innovations of this period were; railways heightened in grandeur and passenger traffic (nearly 2 billion in 1882), the steam ships brought about by Brunel generally increased  the speed of transport, the speed of communication allowed by the telegram (est. 1844) and of course this was also the age of the Great Exhibition which sought to show the rest of the world Britain's role as industrial leader.

However, despite these, and before these, there were many other ideas of progress coming to fruition. Progress was being seen in all areas of life and when considering the arts, in particular the pre-Raphaelites, who were aiming to progress the world of art by returning to realism after the work of the Impressionists. People like William Morris were aiming to encourage people to see value in quality crafted goods in response to some of the mass produced goods of industry. He introduced new patterns and designs new  and inspired the arts and crafts  movement.  Literature also reflected this with a move away from the romanticism of eighteenth century novels to a more gritty realism, as can be seen in novels such as Dickens’ Oliver Twist (published 1838). So in this area, it could be said that it was technological innovation that inspired other ideas of progress, even  if it was in reaction to it.

Conversely, the ideas of such people as John Stuart Mills on women and equality, and John Ruskin's very forward thinking and conjectures on pensions and social reforms were probably not interlinked with technological innovation much at all. These were visionary men with optimism for the future, and whose ideas had a marked impact on society in the nineteenth century, but it is not obvious that technological innovation formed these ideas of progress, although this, as previously mentioned, may have aided the dispersion of these ideas. Another  prominent area of progress was that of science. The increase in confidence in the power of science and technology to produce continual improvements in the human condition, along with the replacement of religion with science, as the main judge of truth about the physical world, led to massive progression in this realm. New information and ideas generated by Darwin's 1859 publication of  'The Origin of Species', as well as various debates with people such as Samuel Wilberforce and Thoma Huxley, were circulated  more widely and with greater immediacy as a result of technological innovation.  However it must also be said that the advances in scientific knowledge greatly contributed to the advances in technology, as the practices of Chemistry and Physics opened up many more possibilities in areas such as for machinery, fuels and electricity. The variety of political ideas could also be seen as an area of progress at this time. From the revolutionary ideas of Marxism for the overthrow of the existing state by the proletariat, and the removal of capitalism by the Synicalists, to the left wing socialist but non revolutionary groups, such as the Fabians. The reforms associated with Liberalism regarding voting and the improvement of working, health and living conditions could also be seen as progress. Also movements such Suffragists formed in 1897 and led by Millicent Fawcett were the result of progressive ideas that had been developing through the latter half of the nineteenth century.  It could be argued that some of the advances in technology could be used to alleviate some of these problems, especially in the areas of health and sanitation. In conclusion, during the second half of the nineteenth century there were many ideas of progress, such as art, gender equality, social reform, science, political ideology and liberalism. These ideas were certainly helped to spread by technological innovation. It is difficult to totally separate one aspect of progress from another as they are often interlinked, especially in the area of science. However they are  not always necessarily formed by them technological innovation, so it is possibly too bold a statement to say that ideas of progress were mainly formed by them.

[erdavies-essays]

"The rise of Marxism as a political ideology in the second half of the 19th century did not result in the  rise of revolutionary radicalism."Do you agree with this statement, and why?

I agree that the rise of Marxism did not result in the rise of revolutionary radicalism, perhaps because of the rise of other ideologies at the same time which kept Marxism as a relatively minority idea, and also because of the many reforms and the generally strong economic climate at the end of the nineteenth century, which took the edge off movements of revolutionary radicalism.

Marxism, as described by Karl Marx in the 1848 Communist Manifesto, was revolutionary. It did not believe in gradualism and stated that the working class should not merely take over the state, but had to smash it completely, that it should build its own apparatus of state based on proletarian democracy. "Marxist ideology developed...during the culmination of The Enlightenment, the middle and late 1800s, when America still had slaves, women did not have the right to vote anywhere, women had very few rights at all in most places, the poor were extremely bad off in Europe, imperialism and colonialism were the order of the day, the world truly was dominated by a handful of extremely wealthy men, and science was being more widely embraced by average citizens throughout  Western Civilization than ever before." However,  it could be argued that by the latter half of the nineteenth century, certain aspects of this were beginning to change without the radical revolution that Marxism called for.

Other ideologies also emerged by the latter half of the nineteenth century, many following on from the ideas that had arisen after the Enlightenment and French Revolution. For example, conservatism with its aim to maintain aristocracy could be seen as a backlash against the revolution.  Liberalism promoted the right of the individual but mostly for businessmen of industry. Nationalism  called for the right of the individual nation  and caused tension within the Empires that had developed by the latter half of the nineteenth century. There was also socialism. This wanted to see cooperation of society rather than individual or national competition, but not all socialism naturally developed in to Marxism or was especially revolutionary, so it could be argued that Marxism did not result in the rise of revolutionary radicalism. The radical left wing groups in Britain by the second half of the nineteenth century were; Marxists, who were small in number; Social Democratic Federation and Syndicalists who were radical but had limited following and the Fabians and Labour party who were left wing but not radical and believed in gradual change rather than revolution. It could be argued that the existence of these left wing organisations and the reforms of the Liberals, for example, the 1884/5 extension of franchise, took the edge off the revolutionary fervour in Britain.

In Europe at this time, it could be argued that the biggest danger of revolutionary radicalism came about because of nationalism rather than Marxism, for example, tension within the Hapsburg Empire led to revolts in Poland (1861), the unification of Germany (1866-71) and in1878, the independence of countries like Serbia and Romania from the Ottoman Empire.

Furthermore, in Germany, as in Britain, it could be argued that the strength was taken out of Marxism by the reforms of Bismarck e.g universal male suffrage and social insurance programmes in areas such as pensions, medical care and unemployment. However by the end of the nineteenth century, there were even some Marxist MPs in Germany so the movement was by no means insignificant.

History shows that revolutionary radicalism is most successful at times of economic crisis. Despite continuing poverty amongst sections of the working classes in Europe, many economies were expanding as a result of growing industries, trade and empires. Successful middle classes were emerging,  and welfare ideas were being introduced, so it could be argued that Marxism did not result in revolutionary radicalism at this time because the circumstances were not right. The one country which was behind rest of Europe as far as impact of industrial revolution and the more reaching reforms of liberalism were concerned was Russia and perhaps that helps to explain why that was the country that did go on to be affected by revolutionary Marxism in the form of communism. Even then, it could be argued that it was only after circumstances created by WW1 that made people desperate with their economic and social conditions, that led to revolution.

[erdavies-essays]

What were the intentions of the founder when he established the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford?

The Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford was established  by Lt-General Augustus Henry Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers in 1884. This influential figure in the development of archaeology and evolutionary anthropology had very specific intentions and vision for his collection, which he donated to the University of Oxford, and various factors contributed towards his love for archaeology, the investment in gathering such a collection, and also the purposes for which he actually donated his collection. The original collection contained an estimated 20,000 objects, but now over half a million are held at the museum, many of which have been donated by missionaries, scholars and travellers.

First it is important to consider what inspired and influenced Rivers' collection and the establishment of the museum, and the consequential intentions for which he established the Pitt Rivers Museum. Rivers (1827-1900) was a Yorkshire born  English army officer, archaeologist and ethnologist. His "interest in field archaeology seems to have begun in the 1860s  during his posting in southern Ireland, where he surveyed a number of prehistoric forts. In 1864 he was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London and on his return to England in 1867 began his archaeological field work in earnest." So clearly a travelled and learned man, Rivers had seen and experienced much of the world to be inspired to investigate further his interests, whilst adding to his growing collection. This of course contributed to his intentions in establishing the Pitt Rivers Museum.

Possibly the most significant factor that inspired Rivers to begin his archaeological journey was the publication of Darwin's 'On the Origin of Species 'in 1859. This book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve through a process called natural selection, over a course of generations. It gave a mass of evidence that the diversity of life emerged through a branching pattern of evolution. Rivers went on to develop this idea in terms of collection and display, thus formulating his theory of the' evolution of culture.' "This theory embodied the idea of typology—the realization that objects can be placed in chronological sequence on the basis of slight changes in design, a crucial concept for archaeology." This is a unique and obvious feature in the Pitt Rivers Museum, for objects are grouped by type rather than age.

Furthering this idea of the evolution of culture, which played a huge part in Rivers' intentions when establishing the museum,  he also held the view that the growth of culture among the majority of peoples had come to a jolt, mainly caused by factors concerning their own racial preferences. "As a consequence, the material artifacts which were employed by different peoples were representative  of varied stages in the unlinear path of cultural development. Different stages of development were locatable within different contemporary cultures, artifacts of which could be abstracted and combined, along with prehistoric implements, to form a complete record of evolution in the material arts." So he generally thought that museums had become unfair representations of the objects they held, due to cultural bias and restriction, and did not inform the general public to the extent of which they had potential.

This ideology led Rivers to create a completely new and different way of museum display. He longed for his collection to be grouped by type, rather than age or geography and it was his intention that if he donated his collection to the University of Oxford, that the layout remain this way. Rather than according to their age or origin, the collection is arranged thematically, according to how the object was used, emulating his theories of the evolution of culture, and showing his intention that the collection show progression in evolution of human culture and design, from the elementary to the complicated. Whilst this evolutionary approach to material culture is not fashionable in archaeology and anthropology today, and rather museums take a more chronological approach, Rivers donated on the condition that his original display be retained, and so it has been, setting the Pitt Rivers apart from most other museums. The display of many examples of a particular type of tool or artifact, showing historical and regional variations, is an unusual and distinct feature of this museum.

Rivers made two stipulations before handing over his collection to the University of Oxford, which were incorporated in the Deed of gift. The first was that the collection should be housed in a building that was being used for no other purpose, and the second, that someone should be appointed to lecture on the subjects relevant specifically to the museum. Rivers insisted on these factors to be put in to place so as to keep the museum separate from everything else, and to solely be a place of education, with people involved who understood the collection and could teach and inform others. To this day, lecturers in archaeology work at the Pitt Rivers Museum to maintain the founder's wish.

When considering the collection itself, it is clear that Rivers, although drawing obvious attention to the artifacts themselves, is more concerned with the fact that "they best serve to illustrate the development that has taken place in the branches of human culture, which cannot be so arranged in sequence because the links are lost and the successive ideas through which progress has been effected have never been embodied in material forms, on which account the Institutions of Mankind often appear to have developed by greater jumps than has really been the case." When establishing the museum, he did so with the intention to not only display and preserve his collection, but to educate, as aforementioned, in terms of cultural evolution and to show this, not by means of sequence, for there will always be missing parts, but rather by type.

In fact, Blackwood in 1970 evaluated that "The Pitt Rivers Museum has always made a practice of collecting 'ordinary, and typical specimens', although it also possesses many objects of rarity, beauty, and value. As a teaching museum we have always maintained that students should see enough in any exhibition to enable them to make up their own minds about it, rather than a few special objects picked out for them. To some visitors, this gives an impression of over-crowding, but most like it. The remark has often been made to members of the staff: 'I enjoy coming here, because I always find something I haven't seen before." This sums up Rivers' intentions when establishing the museum, that visitors receive the artifacts in their context, with their fellow types, and that the experience is full resulting in people coming to their own conclusions.

In conclusion, we can see that Rivers was a well travelled, educated man, who over the years collected an extensive collection of many artifacts, from weaponry, to means of transport or household appliances. Influenced by his travels and experiences, as well as the revolutionary writings of Charles Darwin, he wanted his collection to be educational and useful, and therefore donated the entirety to the University of Oxford as a permanent residence.  Furthermore, he had firm intentions and conditions on how it should all be displayed, and these have been upheld until this day - that a lecturer in archaeology be always employed, and that the collection have its own space, separate from everything else. With his theory of the evolution culture, Rivers wanted to educate the peoples in terms of artifact by type rather than age - a display method called typology. It was his intention that the viewer be given an overall experience and be exposed to a vast sample of the subject, in order to develop and conclude their own opinions on what they saw and experienced. Unique to many other museums, the Pitt Rivers feels cramped and busy, but this was the intention of the founder, so as to not deprive people of a full experience and only give them a selection to view.

[erdavies-essays]

The History of the Museum

The history of the museum/gallery is an interesting one, and when researching this issue, one can note many developments in its purpose and function. It has been argued that the museum is a 'transforming environment' and this can be seen when evaluating the role of the museum over time. Throughout history, mankind has had a fascination with idiosyncrasy, and the formation of the structured collection of  such, began a whole new avenue of human perception. Although the  idea of  a museum  is  widely accepted as an  institution that holds a collection of artifacts and other items of scientific, artistic, cultural, or historical importance, making them accessible to the public through exhibits etc, this understanding of the set up of the museum has not always been as it is now.

The first form of museum can be traced back to the idea of a sacred and beautiful place of sanctuary and reverence, for example, The Temple of Apollo at Delphi which dates back to the fourth century B.C. Although nothing was necessarily kept in cabinets or hung on the walls, as one might expect of a museum, these first forms were made using special materials and served a greater purpose than others. Specifically, the original Temple of Apollo was constructed from "laurel leaves gathered in the Vale of Tempe in northern Greece; the second was made of beeswax and feathers sent by Apollo from the land of the Hyperboreans; and the third was made out of bronze." So the purpose of the first museums was not to display certain artefacts, but rather to be a presence of consecration and to be the artifact themselves.

Later on, museums  and galleries began to serve the purpose of proving the wealth of individuals, typically formulated in  private collections of art or rare natural objects and artifacts that only those wealthy enough could get their hands on. Often, these were displayed in 'wonder rooms' or 'cabinets of curiosities.'  The prototypical cabinets of curiosities emerged in the sixteenth century, although more primitive collections had existed earlier. "Cabinets of curiosities were a strange bridge between atavistic myth and dawning scientific reality. As such, their revival speaks to our own vexed relationship with the natural world, at a time when we seem bent on destroying it – partly as a result, some might say, of the schism between science and art." People began to treasure and value items more as a result, their intrigue in the 'peculiar' reignited.

These 'cabinets' started out with the purpose to authenticate  the owner's credibility in certain fields. For example, Frederick 1st of Prussia invested heavily in armament. The function of the building in which he displayed this was extravagant and grandiose. It was opened to a small elite, as the King needed to be seen as impressive. Ambassadors were walked around the galleries of guns and the whole place sent a message of power to diplomats. Because it expressed the power of a monarchy it therefore became a museum; heavily adorned with sculptures showed extravagance. It interestingly emulated the style of Louis XIV, Frederick's main competitor, as a way to prove himself as an equal. The sculptures within included Fleur de Lis, as a symbol of triumph over France. So it can be concluded that museums, in the form of 'wonder rooms' and 'cabinets of curiosity', were intended to highlight the wealth of those who owned them, and also as a personal way of displaying certain traits or talents.

The Age of Enlightenment, generally starting in the seventeenth century in Europe, cannot be overlooked when considering what museums are for historically. Of course, along with the Enlightenment  came a revolution in human thinking and using reason and individualism rather  

than tradition was emphasised. "Its purpose was to reform society using reason, to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and to advance knowledge through the scientific method." For the museum, this meant a whole new wave of ideas concerning education and information.  The original Ashmolean Museum in Oxford was established in 1683 as the world's first university museum. It was built to house the 'cabinet of curiosities' that Elias Ashmole gave to the university of Oxford a few years prior. Ashmole was a learned and well traveled individual who collected a lot of artifacts throughout his life. He donated them to the university for educational purposes, so in this case, we can see the purpose of the museum was for educational as well as personal collection purposes.

Of course we know that the Ashmolean has undergone much renovation and modernisation and the collection has grown extensively since then. Rather than museums holding personal collections of those who founded them, their function developed again as society plunged  in to the nineteenth century.

Another great example of enlightenment's influence on the museum can be seen in the Louvre, Paris. What was once a royal palace became a royal museum and was opened on 10th August 1793, the anniversary of the fall of the monarchy. The Minister of the Interior famously said in October 1792," As I conceive of it, it [The Louvre] should attract and impress foreigners. It should nourish a taste for the fine arts, please art lovers and serve as a school to artists. It should be open to everyone. This will be a national monument. There will not be one single individual who does not have the right to enjoy it. It will have such influence on the mind, so it will elevate the soul, it will so excite the heart that it will be one of the most powerful ways of proclaiming the illustriousness of the French Republic."This was quite a revolutionary development in the role and accessibility of the museum, as never before had they been available to all people, and with such ambition and intention to influence the nation. No more were museums for elitist or rich groups,  to define someone as wealthy or even to be used as a collection place for individual's belongings. For the first time in history, museums were to be an educational and appealing place, filled with a various array of artefacts, artworks from different places and owners and to be available for all people types.

Influenced by this new development, the National Gallery was founded in London in 1824. "It was not formed by nationalising an existing royal or princely art collection but came into being when the British government bought 38 paintings from the heirs of John Julius Angerstein, an insurance broker and patron of the arts, in 1824. The late eighteenth century saw the nationalisation of royal or princely art collections across mainland Europe."However, Britain did not fall in to this conformity and even today, the British Royal Collection belongs to the sovereign. Although fairly stingy to begin with as to what was accepted in to the collection (an art collection of international stature by Sir Robert Walpole and 150 paintings from the Orleans also failed to join the collection), over the next years the collection grew and became increasingly international. A unique element to the National Gallery is also the fact that a painting school was set up in association with the Gallery.  Masters and protégés alike worked together under the establishment, and many renowned artists were formed as a result, including many of the pre-Raphaelite brotherhood. Unlike anything before it, the National Gallery welcomed new ideas of globalisation whilst at the same time very much retaining the peculiar manner of British culture and tradition. Furthermore, the gallery was increasingly educational, by means of actually providing a school of learning and edification in the area of art.

A final example of what a museum has been used for historically, is the Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford. It was founded in 1884 by Lt-General Augustus Pitt Rivers who donated his collection to Oxford University under the condition that a permanent anthropology lecturer was appointed. This museum is a unique one also as "the collection is arranged thematically, according to how the objects were used, rather than according to their origin.” Pitt Rivers actually intended for his collection to show the progression in evolution and design in human culture from the straight forward to the complex. This is also notable as the evolutionary approach is not really popular anymore in archaeology and anthropology and yet the museum has retained the original wishes of the founder. This museum shows that the founder can be very much involved in the execution and style of both the content and layout of a museum, and in this case, education in anthropology is dominant.

To conclude, we can see how much the role and purpose of the museum/gallery has changed over time, and how the present circumstances have so much to do with the changes.

[erdavies-essays]

The unprecedented carnage  of the First World War was not simply the consequence of advances in military technology. Discuss.

The First World War was a conflict which greatly involved societies to a level peculiar in the history of war. Militarisation and the consequential nature of total war saw society change and life lost to an extent greater than ever before. To say that this 'unprecedented carnage  was not simply the consequence of advances in military technology' is an arguably accurate statement, for although there is no doubt that advances in military technology contributed, and obviously had  the power to do the majority of the physical damage during war, there are also many other factors to consider, namely the size of the armies, imperialism, tactics, infrastructure, political legislation and morale etc.

Some would argue that the carnage of WW1 was a primarily a consequence of advances in military technology. Science and industrialization had multiplied the lethality of the weapons available to the soldiers on the battlefield. These years saw the first mass use of machine guns, grenades, large artillery  guns and tanks and also gas as chemical warfare. As a result, over 8.5 million soldiers were killed, many more than in previous wars, so one may come to the conclusion that it was due to the betterment of weaponry that caused such shocking cost to life.

However, this conclusion has not considered the development of militarism pre war. This movement across Europe meant that large armies on all sides were prepared, all intent on taking the offensive. The growth of mass conscript armies brought the military, and military service, in to the lives of an ever increasing proportion of the European population. Between 1870 and 1914, European nationalisation became increasingly militaristic and central to public life.

Another factor that would suggest it was not just military technology advancements which contributed to the unprecedented carnage of WW1 is imperialism. Rivalries for not just colonies, but colonial trade and trade routes developed between the emerging economic and great powers. The 1851 Great Exhibition in London as a showcase of Empire's saw the beginnings of massive development across the world in areas such as city building, telegraphs and travel. Industrial production meant weapon production of course, but also as a result of this, countries had  huge populations to draw from and so could continue to be sending soldiers out to war. Had imperialism  not been a contributing factor, then armies would not have been able to send out so many men, and therefore there would not have been such a huge number of fatality.

Linked to this are the many areas of infrastructure, including economic, military and construction. The new railroads brought troops quicker and in greater numbers. For example, in Russia,

Unprecedented carnage was also a result of the particular tactics used in WW1. Neither side had experienced war with this advanced weapons and different conditions before, an d so used old tactics of attrition. To support the point of imperialism providing vast numbers of men, and therefore vast numbers of causalities, attrition also meant the wearing down of the other side by keeping on sending these soldiers, and consequently millions of lives cost.

The fact that certain Generals, Hague for example, believed in this kind of war and was actually nicknamed the butcher of the Somme because of this. Revisionists now say that this is unfair as no alternative method was thought up. Had this ideology been replaced, perhaps men would not have been ordered out in the numbers they were, and therefore fewer numbers killed. This reiterates the fact that there are other factors to consider other than military technology, when regarding the carnage of WW1.

Trench warfare meant that thousands of men were concentrated in close proximity making them easy targets. The particular intensity of WW1 trench warfare meant10% of the fighting soldiers were killed. This environment also meant that disease was common and easily spread. Trench foot and parasites among other horrific diseases were commonplace and lead to many more deaths. In this case however, it could be argued that on the frontline, it was heavily down to developed weapons, especially grenades and gas which were so effective in the trenches, that led to so much slaughter and following infection and disease. But to reiterate, this is not the exclusive cause and reason for the unprecedented carnage of WW1, as there are more further factors that played a part.

Perhaps secondary to other factors considered when talking about whether it was military development which contributed the most to WW1 carnage, but still an important factor, is political legislation. The DORA scheme encouraged many men to sign up. Moreover, the mobilisation of public opinion and the changing views of the enemy kept the civilian population positive about the war effort, and therefore men (this cannot be generalised to everyman of course) were proud and determined to fight and were continually sent out.

To conclude, the First World War was one more brutal than ever before, with a massive loss of life and society drastically impacted. Developments in military technology no doubt had a massive part to play in this, for it was the weapons essentially that did the most physical destruction. However, this was certainly not the primary factor causing the unprecedented carnage of this war, as many other factors contributed, and therefore it can be argued that the statement is not a fair one.

[erdavies-essays]

'The Story of Art' by E. H. Gombrich, Chapter 5: Harmony Attained.

Chapter 15 of 'The Story of Art' by E. H. Gombrich is entitled Harmony Attained and is concerned with Tuscany and Rome in the early sixteenth century. Gombrich's writing is heavily biographical, and suggests that the most important factor in the production of art is individual talent or 'genius' and he consequently takes the reader through a series of 'genius' artist's lives. He considers factors such as how to convey depth, how to arrange the figures in a painting and how use colour to name a few.

As aforementioned, Gombrich has written a biography. He takes us through the sixteenth century chronologically, questioning what exactly made it so these renowned artists, and others of their kind, "were born in the same period." Gombrich feels it important to look at the wider contexts within which these artists existed, be they social, economic, ideological or political, in order to understand them more deeply. He takes in to consideration the pride of the Italian cities, which were at competition with each other to secure "the services of the greatest artists to beautify their buildings and to create works of lasting fame", hence giving the masters incentive to outdo each other. Furthermore, Gombrich remembers the following period of discovery; mathematics and anatomy, artist's horizons widening and incentive to become more learned in order to be accepted. To explore the cultural history of Italy at this time is fundamental in understanding society and how the artists fit in to it.

The text is also concerned with periodisation, shown by Gombrich's naming of the sixteenth century art world as the High Renaissance, which is quite unique and separate to other art movements. According to him, as mentioned briefly,  the genius like of Michelangelo, Raphael, Titian and da Vinci were all present in the same period, and it is better to simply enjoy the fact rather than try and explain it. Periodisation is a useful technique to writing art history as it divides it in to distinct periods, each within its own artistic and cultural character.

It is most probable that this text is aimed at either younger readers e.g students, or someone who has little to no previous formal contact with art history. Sharing the works and his insights with the reader is new and exciting to Gombrich, and the enthusiasm is infectious, which suggests that it is meant to engage newcomers. Furthermore, it teaches how to look at art in a broader view, taking a look at the main historical events of each time period, and the role that tradition has had to play within the historical development of our culture, which also supports this.

The progress of art is evidently recognised by Gombrich and is linked closely with change in society as, of course, what is going on around the lives of these artists is going to affect their art. He addresses  the fact that the role of the artist was changing during these years and states that "in earlier times it was the prince who bestowed his favours on the artist...now the role was reversed, and  the artist granted a favour to a rich prince or potentate by accepting a commission from him. Thus it came about that the artists could frequently choose the kind of commission which they liked...[and this] had the effect of a liberation." Although this statement involves progression in terms of the artist rather than art itself, Gombrich shows he sees it moving forward in this area.

As he goes through the artist's lives, we can see other areas of progress also. Starting with da Vinci, we see that in an age of discovery and intrigue, he "thought that the artist's business was to explore the visible world just as his predecessors had done, only more thoroughly and with greater intensity and accuracy...he would trust nothing but his eyes." Furthermore, "exploration of nature was to him first and foremost a means of gaining knowledge of the visible world, such as he would need for his art." Like no one ever before did da Vinvi emphasizes the need to study anatomy and nature in order to have a fuller understanding before starting a work, and he was particularly gifted, succeeding where others had failed. Gombrich emphasises this progress more when talking about the Mona Lisa: "the painter must leave the beholder something to guess. If the outlines are not quite so firmly drawn, if the form is left a little vague, as though disappearing into a shadow, this impression of dryness and stiffness will be avoided. This is Leonardo's famous invention which the Italians call 'sfumato' - the blurred outline and mellowed colours that allow one form to merge with another and always leave something to our imagination." Gombrich goes on to explain about how Michelangelo in some ways brought around further change to the position of the artist, surpassing the renowned masters and "made his own research in human anatomy...[striving] with an incredible singleness of purpose to master this one problem, but to master it fully." Furthermore, Gombrich concludes his ideas of progress in art under artists with Raphael. Quite different from the previous two artists, his works "seem so effortless that one does not usually connect them with the idea of hard and relentless work."Raphael proved his mastery of perfect design and balanced composition...in the perfect and harmonious composition of freely moving figures." The progress of art in the sixteenth century according to Gombrich seems to have turned from 'striving for 'ideal' beauty to trying to fit nature in to the idea of beauty they had formed when looking at classical statues, hence 'idealizing' the model.

Concerning gender difference, Gombrich does not really address it at all. There is brief reference to women in painting content e.g Mary Magdalene, Mona Lisa and the Virgin Mary, but other than, typical to Gombrich's writings, not much else. This is possibly a thought provoking reality, for although women were obviously not renowned artists at this time and their place in society had a long way to go before reaching anywhere near equality, it may have been beneficial and relevant for Gombrich to at least comment upon the women used in the artworks mentioned, and how gender differences contributed to how they are portrayed etc.

Not a great deal of emphasis is placed on reception in Gombrich's writing either. The text is, again, highly bibliographical and focuses on the artists and the works themselves rather than the reaction and response of the viewers. The text however, does feel complete without reference to reception, as it is so obviously bibliographical.

In terms of historicism, Gombrich is historicist to a fairly large extent. He very much looks in to the time of the artists and the situation in which they were placed as well as the degree of progress and enlightenment Italy was at during the sixteenth century. When thinking about value judgments, a few can be spotted in this text, but they are by no means extreme of imposing. Many of them were in fact current in the period about which Gombrich is writing. For example, the skill of anatomy which Michelangelo possessed, or when his statement of " The Last Supper remains one of the great miracles wrought by human genius."

As a whole, Gombrich's chapter works well. Due to its bibliographical nature, each point and artist flows from one to the next. It is informative and clear but also engaging and exciting. He takes in to account many art historical approaches, but could possibly have taken more in to consideration. For example, teleology or patronage. However, for its purpose, which is to educate young or new to art history readers, this chapter is brilliant in laying down a foundation on which to build up knowledge.

To conclude, this text is a highly bibliographical chapter focusing on the High Renaissance of the sixteenth century. It is heavily weighted in ideas of periodisation and the progress of art and is also highly informative for its audience. However it fails to  give much attention to some other important issues such as gender difference, reception, projection to a certain extent and aspects such as formalisation and function. However, for a beginner these elements may get confusing, so Gombrich may have had this in mind, but generally as a piece of art history, it does miss a lot of crucial factors.

[erdavies-essays]

To what extent did gaining the vote lead to improvements in women's lives in the 1920's and 1930's?

The gaining of the vote in 1918 was the first achievement for women on a long, slow journey to total emancipation and equality- a goal that arguably has not been totally won to the present day. It has been claimed that improvements in their lives were clearly made in areas such as politics, employment and cultural and social changes, and historians have debated whether it was the war or the vote  that acted as a catalyst in pushing along certain gains and also the extent of those gains.

In politics, it could be argued that the extent to which women's lives improved was limited. The fact that the sex barrier had been broken, and women had received the right to vote at all, was a huge achievement, and women could now exercise direct influence on Parliament which in return could affect them. The right to vote gave them leverage on policies because they now made up 43% of the electorate. It has been argued that the reason only women over 30 who were married and property owners were given the vote, was due to the mass loss of life in young men during the war. Had women been given the right to vote on the same basis as men in 1918, more women than men would be voting and that was thought to be a means of losing control over balanced decisions being made. So it could be said that the war affected women's lives more than the vote, making a more immediate impact. However, it had already been proved  to be a slow long-term pattern; in 1869 women could vote in local elections, by 1900 the majority of Liberal MPs favoured female enfranchisement, in 1907 women were allowed to serve on town and country councils, in 1918 the first female MP - Constance Markievicz  was the only woman elected and then the 1928 Equal Franchise Act gave all women over 21 the vote which meant that 15 million women could vote.

The partial emancipation granted in the Representation of the People Act of 1918 saw married women over the age of thirty granted the vote. This gave  more immediate opportunities in employment post 1918, but it could be argued that the war played an even bigger part in this. Although there were split opinions on the decision for the NUWSS to join in the war effort to prove their worthiness of citizenship, women achieved the respect of male politicians and members of the public by doing their jobs well. Women were now able to develop new skills, grow in self confidence, and as domestic service and heavy industry declined, opportunities opened up in the professions to become teachers, doctors and solicitors etc thanks to the 1919 Sex Disqualification Removal Act. "The vote was now important because of the women's right to serve the state as equals of men, not because the public sphere was in need of the influence of feminine qualities. The emphasis was on the woman voter's capacity to work within a masculine sphere and not, as in the pre war time, on importance of a specifically feminine influence on public life." However, these gains proved to be ephemeral for many women as after the war many were forced to give up their jobs to returning soldiers and were expected to do so willingly (1919 Restoration of Pre War Practices Act). Furthermore, there was still the infuriating reality of unequal pay between men and women working in the same jobs, the wage for women often barely enough to support their families. For example, "in 1938 male weavers earned 36% more per hour than women", a typically female job, yet still paid far less than males. It could be argued therefore that the employment  gains were as much a consequence of the war as of the vote at this time and progress was still slow.

Where education was concerned, slight improvements were made for women when they won the vote. The Education Act of 1918 raised the school leaving age to 14 so for the first time, more education was accessible. Having women in Parliament would also ensure that girls were included in further education reforms. Furthermore, the 1919 Sex Disqualification Removal Act made it easier for women to attend university and go on to take up professional jobs. During the 20s and 30s, middle class women especially benefited and took up jobs in" increasing numbers in the civil service accounting for about a quarter of all such posts by 1935, though these were mostly at clerical and administrative grades rather than the technical and professional jobs which were still dominated by men."

Analysis of the social and cultural changes for women during the 20s and 30s might suggest that it was in these areas that most improvements were made as a result of gaining the vote. The fact that women were now in Parliament and able to vote on these issues meant that more favourable terms for women could be voted through. "Women's suffrage now meant far more than just the vote - it also meant the transformation of society,"  and the NUWSS changed its  name in 1919 to the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship (NUSEC).  Femininity in the 20s saw skirts exposing legs for the first time, makeup became virtually an obligation and women were seeking pleasure and resisting marriage. Arabella Kenealy in 1920 said ‘Many of our young women have become de-sexed and masculinised, with short hair, skirts little longer than kilts, narrow hips, insignificant breasts, there has arrived a confident, active, game-loving, capable human being who shuns the servitude of household occupations.’ There was indeed a certain confidence and blasé attitude to the 'Flapper culture of the 20s and 30s. The change in social circumstances that fuelled this included the 1923 Matrimonial Causes Act which equalized grounds for divorce, coupled with movements such as Marie Stopes' attempt to make contraception respectable and the argument for marriage of two equals in her novel 'Married Love'.

Writers like Marie Stopes contributed to the feminist school of thought, along with Suffragettes like the Pankhursts, the initial advocates for improvements in the lives of women. These women impacted how people viewed women's issues at the time, as did the works of novelists such as Virginia Woolf (Three Guineas 1938). The interpretation of the 'roaring 20s' and the progress made for women can be seen set against a later context of another world war. Historians argue that the 1920s formed an important milestone towards modernity. Some examples of changing interpretations of the impact of the vote on women at this time can also be seen in later decades of the twentieth century. For example, during the 1960s and 70s a group of historians including Arthur Marwick and David Mitchell "championed the notion that the First World War had ushered significant changes to the lives of women." However during the 1980s another group of historians (Gail Braybon and Harold Smith among others) "challenged this, presenting evidence of a backlash against women" post war. By the 1990s a third group had emerged e.g Cheryl Law and Caitriona Beaumont, who argued that the 20s formed an important moment of modernity for young women and placed great weight on the importance of cultural representations of modernity."

Depending on your interpretation of the impact the war had on the lives of women during the 20s and 30s, the vote can either be seen as central to the changes or something which just facilitated changes which had already been set in motion by the war. Whilst the Flapper culture certainly indicated that changes were made, the extent of change on the majority of women, especially the working classes can also be debated.

[erdavies-essays]

The Duchess (dir. Saul Dibb, 2008) Film Review

The true story depicting the love life of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire (great-great-great-great aunt of Diana, Princess of Wales) has unmistakable parallels to that of her royal relative. Married off young to an unaffectionate husband who couldn't cope with her high spirits, going on to have a passionate affair, and keen to make a difference politically and socially, Georgiana's turbulent life experiences truly mirror those of Diana.

Accurately represented in an embellished world of wealth, wigs and longing for true connection from her husband, the Duchess reveals what married life was like for women like Georgiana in the 18th Century; men interested more in their sport and the seemingly urgent matter of producing a male heir.

The film is a true representation of historian Amanda Foreman's bestselling biography on the Duchess of Devonshire. The historcial context of the 18th Century and its characterstics in terms fashion, language and behaviour is not blighted by anachronism, but rather informatively serves as a trustworthy source for understanding the period. However, the film does focus predominantly on Georgiana's love life, her disatisfaction with the Duke and the introduction of his new mistress - her only former friend - Lady Elizabeth Foster, into the household. Elements of politics and Revolution come into play, as we watch the Duchess become involved with such matters, and her childhood lover and aspiring politician, Charles Grey is a keen revolutionary, but these themes are not explored like they could have been.

 Saul Dibb as an English director and native to the country of its setting, I imagine was keen to make an accurate depiction of this story. Especially as the biography has already been written and the research has been done.

 The film is not a feel good, as some period dramas have been. Rather, it portrays the harsh realities that were often hidden in marriages of the upper class, the struggle for satisfaction and true love, the pressure of presentation - socially, visually and in behaviour, and the element of lonliness that women often experienced.

 Along with the attention to detail in terms of the buildings, clothes and speech, 'The Duchess' fairly if not meticulously shows what life was like for the wealthy in 18th Century Britain. It does not stray from the true life of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, but follows her blossoming journey into womanhood amidst a troublesome marriage.

[erdavies-essays]

Opium and the opium trade, c.1750-1900

‘Drug problem’ is a modern phenomenon, isn’t it? Perhaps not, when looking at the empire, which, a century ago, was destroyed by illegal drugs. Opium, the heavily addictive  and narcotic drug acquired from the opium poppy, is most famously associated with China. Visions of little men with long beards and conical hats, laying around in draped rooms, surrounded by dense smoke seeping out of long pipes come to mind.

China was largely self sufficient, unknown and seemingly inaccessible. Outsiders longed to trade with China for their silks, porcelain and tea (which were in high demand, especially in England, of course). However, China viewed herself at the centre of the universe, monocentric and without need of interaction with the West. You could go as far to say she looked down her nose at the West with hostility. She would sell, but not buy in return, and with no possibility of export, an imbalance of trade developed.“Ironically, it was opium that in the end forced her unwillingly to open her ports to free trade with the world,” John Elma Rahn, Plants that changed History (New York, 1985).

Despairing, Britain found the solution was opium. In1750 the British East India Company took control of opium-growing districts of India. The Company established a monopoly on the opium trade and forbade Indian poppy growers to stray to other competitors. Although used medicinally for centuries, opium as a recreational drug was introduced to China in 1825. A successful trade began - British merchants sold opium to China for silver and the silver was used to buy the aforementioned Chinese goods - both Britain and China profiting.

Millions of Chinese became addicted to opium. The decade of the 1830s witnessed a huge rise in opium importation  - 40,000 chests per annum by 1838, the year before the First Opium War. The introduction of smoking the substance as opposed to chewing (as was commonly done in India) along with the increase in tobacco smoking, added hugely to this. Serious social and economic problems resulted in China. The nation abandoned responsibility. “If one thousand or two thousand person only had been injured by it, this would have been a small thing; but it has injured a whole Empire.” Samuel S. Mander, Our Opium Trade with China (London, 1877).

Extreme measures were taken by Imperial Commissioner Lin Tse-Hsu to eradicate the trade. He ordered all foreign traders to surrender their opium, destroyed  20,000 chests and opium smuggling began as a result. It seemed, however, not only the Chinese relied heavily on the drug, for the British resisted the bans tremendously. So much so, they sent expeditionary warships to the coast of China, beginning The First Opium War.

No match for British industrial weaponry, China was defeated  in1839 and a series of unequal treaties followed, giving the British commercial entry. A second Opium War was launched by Britain in 1856, taking even more control from China. “The proud Central Kingdom had lost the ability to control trade and foreign nationals within its own borders”, could no longer protect its people, had lost support, and birthed a republic in 1911.

It seemed that opium was the downfall of China, and although victory was won for British traders, it seemed that a guilty conscience was sparked in some. The Anglo-Oriental Society for the suppression of the Opium Trade (1974-1917) was created by the Quakers. The population may have had (still does) a love for tea, but could what opium was doing to China be justified? The Society disbanded in 1917 having achieved its goal, with the British ending opium trade between India and China in 1913. And so the widespread use of opium was suppressed…

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heroin/etc/history.html

https://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr/WDR_2008/WDR2008_100years_drug_control_origins.pdf

http://blog.eteacherchinese.com/history-of-china/opium-war/

http://www.kew.org/discover/blogs/library-art-and-archives/opium-wars

[erdavies-essays]

Jeanne Peterson, ‘No angels in the house: the Victorian myth and the Paget women’, American Historical Review, 89 (1984), pp. 677-708.

‘No angels in the house: The Victorian myth and the Paget women,’  is a unique essay exploring this Victorian notion of 'the angel in the house’. The extensive, context filled introduction delves in to the idea that research on Victorian women has not changed its conclusions for thirty years; pious and upright homemakers, submissive to their husbands and content to be educated for married life and nothing more.

Although this seems to be a fixed view among scholars, Peterson shows that opinions  differ. For some, the pious ideal  was the 'golden age’ of family life, whilst others see it as a symbol of oppression, women “trapped in the gilded cage of Victorian male domination.” Peterson’s main argument is contradictory to a lot of literature supporting the 'angel’ notion (Dickens, Thackery, John Ruskins etc). She argues that the angel never existed, and students of the Victorian period have been “substituting fiction for fact”.

Her microscopic approach, examining the Victorian women of a family - the Pagets - seeks to test the angel image against their life accounts. Her exploration into themes of education, interests, successes, money, relationships and comparison with stereotypical Victorian women, prove eye opening realisations. Her argument is legitimately supported by the fact her research and source are a real life family’s documents, and issues she raises from these do contradict accepted beliefs. For example, historians have assumed that the sole purpose of educating women was to make them 'marriageable’ but the Paget girls showed deep passions in various subjects, showing “ a fine education was part of the cultural equipage of the new urban gentry of both sexes”.

Her study - I assume as a feminist historian seeking to open up a new understanding of the Victorian woman, adding depth and life to the dull and predictable angel - is well supported. She considers the fact that this may not be able to be used as a new generalisation of all women, as the 'angel’ notion cannot be either, and more personal studies are needed. Even within the Paget family, women varied massively so how much more did women of the time differ? She also acknowledges, importantly, that this is only representative of upper middle class women, who faced no struggle and had freedom. But even so, her argument, which I agree with, is that the 'angel of the house’ was nowhere to be found in living women.

[erdavies-essays]

Tipu’s Tiger: Historical and present significance

Tipu’s Tiger, the mechanical musical toy constructed for the Tipu Sultan, ruler of Mysore in South India from 1782-1799, has fascinated humanity for centuries, proving to be quite a controversial artefact.

Although many suggestions have been put forward, the Tiger remains cryptic; bearing no inscription or credible origin. When operated, the Tiger exposes the inner pipe organ as the twinned growls and groans of beast and man sound out of the object.

It is widely thought that the commission was inspired by the death of Briton, Hugh Munro; killed by a tiger in 1792, and whose father was a division commander during a battle in the Second Anglo-Mysore War, in which Tipu Sultan’s father was defeated. So not only a means by which to amuse his morbid humour, the Tiger can be ‘seen to represent symbolic retribution for this defeat’, and Tipu Sultan’s 'metaphorical expression of his political ambitions’ to triumph over the position of the British in India. In fact,  'Tiger of Mysore’ was his self proclaimed title, and according to the V&A, Tipu Sultan had quite a thing for tigers; 'tigers and symbols adorned most of his possessions…hand weapons decorated with gold tiger heads…live tigers were kept in the city and there were stories of prisoners thrown into the tiger pits.’

Interestingly, his morbid fantasy as an explanation for the nature of the toy  is supported by his own treatment of his British war prisoners between 1780-1784. He kept them imprisoned, subjecting them to humiliating and excruciating circumcisions; a rarity for Europeans and more commonly practised on Islam converts. Not that forced conversion seemed to be his ploy, rather Tipu Sultan’s belittling of British manhood is interpreted as a statement of personal violence.

For the ruler of Mysore, the Tiger mauling the man was a gruesome amusement, a symbol of his fantasies of victory; and being right in the midst of British extension of dominion in India, and inevitably, an arch enemy of and great threat to the East India Company, which was engaged in this enterprise, war between the company and the Mysore establishment became unavoidable. However, as the British killed him and stormed his palace,  during the Siege of Seringapatam in 1799, Tipu Sultan’s beloved Tiger acquired new meanings, especially in Britain where it was brought back as plunder, becoming a museum artefact. It went on display in London’s East India House in 1808, where it remained until its transfer to the V&A in 1879.

The Tiger holds many different meanings for different people to this day. For some people in India now, British oppression and imperialism is associated with the Tiger, and Tipu is seen as a kind of freedom fighter or nationalist. And curiously, it has become a favourite exhibit of the museum in Britian; the bloodthirsty tiger, hungry to tear apart the European man - a symbol of hope of victory for India. 'It’s either a really twisted form of nationalism, or just goes to show you how powerful our love of gruesome curiosities really is.’

http://ridiculouslyinteresting.com/2013/07/23/tipus-tiger/

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/tipus-tiger

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/t/tippoos-tiger/

g7lKH[ҷy