It was an age of reason and sentiment, of political turbulence, of growing colonialism and wealth, of beautiful landscapes and parks, of gin addiction and Evangelicalism, of a burgeoning middle class and growing respect for middle-class values, of increasing literacy and decreasing dependence on patronage, and of cantankerous Tories and complacent Whigs.
Help the work today! Your donation contributes to the ongoing work of the Rudhyar Archival Project. These are times when the very ideals of democracy are challenged by powerful movements in Europe and in America; when a devastating conflict bleeds nations which for nearly a century and a half had striven to realize democratic ideals; when deep confusion spreads among citizens of the land of traditional liberty.
It is indeed relevant to ask what is the future of democracy? And such a question naturally leads to others: Whence came this democracy about which so many talk, yet which perhaps only a few understand in its historical background and development?
What is the essence and meaning of democracy, in America, in Europe, and elsewhere? Historians and philosophers have written volumes to answer these queries. And perhaps they have said all that can be said from their own points of view.
But what of astrologers? Astrology may not find it easy to deal with a broad movement responsible for the spread of democratic ideals and institutions spread over the entire world. Astrology can only make charts for the exact beginnings of particular manifestations of life, for the exact beginnings of individual lives and of nations or social groups.
Its understanding of vast historical cycles is at present very limited.
Nevertheless astrological research, while it cannot make a chart for the birth of democracy, may reveal very interesting signs and trends, and may provide a basis for the re-interpretation of the lives and activities of key personages who made history.
It may do so at any rate, provided the astrologer is able to think in broad terms of historical and social evolution. In this series of studies, our purpose is not quite as ambitious as the foregoing might suggest.
It is easy to speak, in sober or in passionate tones, about democracy. It is much more difficult so to define the term as to satisfy everyone who uses — and often abuses — it. It is very essential to distinguish between: In the first sense, democracy can be defined as an ideal of human relationship according to which any human being is considered as an individual with certain inalienable rights which he possesses simply by virtue of his being a member of the human species and with no regard to any difference of sex, color, race, social and financial situation and religious belief.
It is an ideal of relationship between human beings which deliberately ignores all distinctions and particular characteristics giving to a human being a personal character and personal destiny; which recognizes only that which, in every human being, is common to all: It denies the real significance of personal differences produced by heredity and claims that, if a healthy and harmonious social environment were created, human nature would show its glory.
As the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau — one of the most influential figures of the 18th century — taught, Natural Man — unspoiled by government and social systems — is good. Give men and women a real chance, and all will be well with society.
All trouble lies in the wickedness of civilization. Thomas Paine and others later indicted the fallacies and blind beliefs imposed by organizations. Give man his "self-evident" rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"; let the government operate by the "consent of the governed," and "by the people, for the people" — and mankind will reach happiness and security.
Such are the idealistic foundations of democracy. Democracy, thus considered, is a religion of optimism and faith in man. It became in the 19th century a religion of the "common people"; of the "average citizen" and later, of the "proletariat" — the virgin, pure, and supposedly unspoiled because undifferentiated masses in whom all potentialities and no crystallized, set attitudes abide.
At this point, it is essential to realize the strong differences between 18th century and 19th century ideals of democracy. The former was above all a philosophical, intellectual, political ideal which can be connected with the beginnings of modern Free Masonry in England. The latter became a religious, emotional Movement.
It took in America the form of Abolitionism — foreshadowed by Thomas Paine. It was forcefully presented in political ideology by Lincoln and in literature by Walt Whitman. The first step is to inquire into the relation of modern masonry to American democracy.Literature, a body of written kaja-net.com name has traditionally been applied to those imaginative works of poetry and prose distinguished by the intentions of their authors and the perceived aesthetic excellence of their execution.
Literature may be classified according to a variety of systems, including language, national origin, historical period, genre, and subject matter. The 18th century Publication of political literature.
The expiry of the Licensing Act in halted state censorship of the press. During the next 20 years there were to be 10 general elections.
The 18th century is one of the most popular assignments among students' documents. If you are stuck with writing or missing ideas, scroll down and find inspiration in the best samples. 18th century is quite a rare and popular topic for writing an essay, but it certainly is in our database.
Working-class people in 18th century England and the United States often wore the same garments as fashionable people—shirts, waistcoats, coats and breeches for men, and shifts, petticoats, and dresses or jackets for women—but they owned fewer clothes and .
The eighteenth century in Britain saw the blossoming of seventeenth century poetic modes and the sprouting of modes that would blossom into Romanticism. It was an age of reason and sentiment, of. On the 21st–22nd of May , French and Austrian soldiers engaged in battle near the village of Aspern on the outskirts of Vienna.
This battle, the first defeat of Napoleon’s army on land, was one of the largest and deadliest encounters during the Napoleonic Wars (–).