Read history

26 May 1859, at the Royal Society

On 26 May 1859, Joseph Prestwich presented the Royal Society with evidence that humanly worked flints occurred in undisturbed late-geological deposits alongside remains of extinct mammals. His case rested on gravel pits at Saint-Acheul near Amiens and at Abbeville in the Somme valley, with comparable evidence from Hoxne in England.

A month earlier, on 27 April, he and John Evans had inspected and photographed a handaxe still embedded in an apparently undisturbed Saint-Acheul gravel face — 17 feet below the old surface and 6½ feet above the chalk.

One week later, the antiquaries

On 2 June, Evans put the archaeological argument to the Society of Antiquaries, describing worked flints in undisturbed gravel, sand and clay on the Continent and in England.

He concluded that the evidence strongly supported human coexistence with mammoths, rhinoceroses and other extinct mammals — while declining to assign an exact age.

Verification, not discovery

Jacques Boucher de Perthes had been reporting ancient flints from the Somme gravels for years, and guided the British visitors through his collection and the sites. Hugh Falconer, after seeing that collection, had urged Prestwich to go and look.

What the two presentations supplied was influential British scientific verification of claims that had been disputed.

The association they established was between stone tools and the remains of extinct nonhuman mammals, not ancient human skeletons — and the word Palaeolithic did not yet exist, arriving with John Lubbock's Pre-Historic Times in 1865.

17 March 1861, at Turin

At Turin on 17 March 1861, Victor Emmanuel II sanctioned and promulgated Law No. 4671 of the Kingdom of Sardinia. Its single operative article said that he assumed, for himself and his successors, the title King of Italy.

Parliament had already finished voting. The Senate approved the bill on 26 February, 129 to 2, and the Chamber of Deputies unanimously on 14 March; the 17th was the day of royal sanction and promulgation.

Continuity, on purpose

The law created no new constitution. The Sardinian Statuto Albertino, the legislature's numbering and the royal numeral all carried over — Victor Emmanuel stayed "the Second" rather than beginning again as a first king of Italy.

Issue No. 67 of the official gazette, dated 17 March, preserved the public record. Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour, who had introduced the single-article measure in the Senate, countersigned the promulgated law.

Announced to London the same day

Cavour wrote that day to Emanuele Tapparelli D'Azeglio at the Italian legation in London: Parliament had voted, the king had approved, and Italy was proclaiming its existence to the world.

What the new kingdom left out was substantial — Rome and the surviving Papal State, Austrian-ruled Veneto and Mantua, other Italian-speaking Habsburg territories, and independent San Marino.

Sardinian Law No. 4671 was later renumbered as Law No. 1 in the Kingdom of Italy's collection of laws, effective 21 April 1861.

19 February Old Style, 3 March New Style

In St. Petersburg, Alexander II signed the Emancipation Manifesto and the General Regulation on 19 February 1861 by Russia's Julian calendar — 3 March in the Gregorian one.

What he signed was not a single edict. It was the manifesto plus seventeen legislative acts governing peasants emerging from private serfdom, running in print to more than 300 pages by the historian Theodore R. Weeks's description.

What it dismantled, and what it kept

The legislation freed the privately owned serf population from personal bondage and granted civil rights, sharply curtailing landlords' powers to buy, sell, lease, punish or imprison them. On the 1858–59 estimate cited by the Yale Law Library, that meant about 23 million people out of a population of 67 million.

It did not hand them the land they worked. Landlords kept their estates, and allotment land passed through village communes under fixed obligations and redemption arrangements, with the state normally advancing 80 percent of an agreed value against a 49-year loan.

The commune that held the land also retained substantial authority over whether a peasant could leave.

Publication was held back

The manifesto was not proclaimed across the empire on the day of signing. It was held back and promulgated during March; Kropotkin recalled its reading and posting in St. Petersburg on 5 March Old Style — 17 March New Style.

Even after publication, rents and labour obligations continued through the transition, so little changed at once in daily village life.

The package covered privately owned and household serfs; appanage peasants, state peasants and several peripheral populations were dealt with under separate, later measures.

A trade notice in the Börsenblatt

The first German volume of Karl Marx's Das Kapital was published by Otto Meissner of Hamburg on 14 September 1867. That day's Börsenblatt für den Deutschen Buchhandel carried Meissner's notice that the volume had appeared.

The notice identified it as Volume I, Book I, “Der Produktionsprocess des Kapitals,” and priced it at 3⅓ Reichsthaler. The reported first-edition print run was apparently 1,000 copies.

One volume, not the set

What went on sale was Book I, the analysis of capital's production process — not the complete, later three-volume Capital. Engels edited the unfinished manuscripts that became Volumes II and III.

Nor was anything published in English that day. The first English edition appeared in 1887, translated by Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling and edited by Engels.

Marx started revising immediately

Marx had delivered the manuscript to Meissner and finished the final proof corrections in August; the release followed a delay he complained about to Engels on 12 September.

His own annotated first-edition copy is crowded with penciled corrections. He did not treat the 1867 wording and arrangement as fixed, and reworked the difficult opening chapters for the second German edition and the French edition.

9 November 1867, in Kyoto

The fifteenth shōgun, Tokugawa Yoshinobu, submitted a proposal to the Imperial Court in Kyoto on 9 November 1867 returning the shogunate's administrative authority to the emperor. In the Japanese lunisolar calendar the date was Keiō 3, tenth month, fourteenth day.

Tosa leaders had proposed the move: Yamauchi Toyoshige presented the memorial that immediately preceded it, and Gotō Shōjirō helped advance Tosa's plan for a deliberative government. The court took until the following day to accept.

Two documents, ten days apart

Yoshinobu did not resign the office of shōgun on 9 November. He submitted that separate resignation on 19 November.

Nor did the proposal dismantle the shogunate's machinery. Yoshinobu and the existing administration kept handling business while a successor political order was debated.

A surrender that was also a gamble

Yoshinobu adopted the Tosa plan while armed anti-Tokugawa forces were looking for a justification to overthrow him. Returning authority took that justification away.

He expected the Tokugawa house to remain the strongest participant in a new court-centered council. Satsuma, Chōshū and allied court nobles instead began planning a palace coup to keep him from dominating the successor regime.

Washington, 18 February 1881

At the seventh session of the Fifth International Sanitary Conference in Washington on 18 February 1881, Carlos Finlay — a special Spanish delegate representing Cuba and Puerto Rico — addressed the dispute between contagionists and non-contagionists over yellow fever.

He believed neither camp could explain every observed outbreak, so he added a third character to the chain: an independent agent that carried the disease from a patient to a healthy person.

Three conditions, no name

Finlay said transmission required three things — a prior yellow-fever case, a susceptible person, and that independent carrying agent. He called it a plausible hypothesis.

He did not identify the agent as a mosquito at this session. That came six months later, on 14 August 1881, before the Royal Academy of Medical, Physical and Natural Sciences of Havana.

Nobody argued

No discussion followed his statement. The conference was principally concerned with international quarantine and sanitary cooperation, and its proceedings run to 449 pages.

Delegates did approve a separate proposal for a temporary yellow-fever scientific commission, 14 in favour with four abstentions and none against. That commission never materialized, and experimental confirmation of mosquito transmission waited until the U.S. Army Yellow Fever Commission's work in 1900.

15 October 1883, five cases at once

The Supreme Court decided the five consolidated Civil Rights Cases on 15 October 1883 — not 16 October, the date this entry lists — reported at 109 U.S. 3. By 8–1 it held sections 1 and 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional as applied within the states.

Four were federal criminal proceedings over alleged denials at hotels and theatres. One theatre indictment did not even state the excluded person's colour. The fifth, Robinson and wife v. Memphis & Charleston Railroad, was a private civil action after Sallie Robinson was excluded from a railroad's ladies' car because she was of African descent.

Bradley's line between state and private action

Justice Joseph P. Bradley's majority opinion held that the Fourteenth Amendment authorized corrective federal legislation against state action, not direct regulation of purely private refusals by innkeepers, theatres and public conveyances.

The majority accepted that Congress could legislate against slavery's badges and incidents under the Thirteenth Amendment, but held that denial of equal public accommodations was not such a badge or incident. The $500 statutory penalty went with the sections.

Harlan alone

Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented, arguing that licensed inns, public conveyances and places of amusement exercised public or quasi-public functions, and that the majority read the Reconstruction Amendments too narrowly. He contrasted the national power once used to protect slaveholders with the majority's refusal to use national power for freed citizens.

The Court affirmed the judgments in Ryan and Robinson and directed that the remaining indictments be disposed of on the ground that sections 1 and 2 were void. It expressly left questions involving the territories and Congress's interstate-commerce power undecided.

A claim made after the fact

The Irish amateur astronomer Isaac W. Ward later said that on 19 August 1885 he had seen a star-like object near the centre of the Andromeda nebula from Belfast.

He reported an estimated magnitude of about 9.5, apparently using an 11-centimetre refractor, and did not publish or announce the observation at the time.

Why the estimate does not fit

Ernst Hartwig independently detected the object at Dorpat Observatory the next night and judged it magnitude 6–6.5 or brighter — far brighter than Ward's figure only a night earlier.

Ward's estimate is difficult to reconcile with Hartwig's and with the reconstructed light curve, which places maximum at visual magnitude 5.85 on 21–22 August and an early decline of two magnitudes in 12.5 days. Historians therefore question the claim.

Ludovic Gully had reported a bright star at the centre of M31 while testing a telescope in Rouen on 17 August, which may be the earliest positive sighting of all.

Sighting, discovery and announcement are three claims

No public discovery announcement occurred on 19 August. Hartwig's 20 August detection is generally treated as the discovery because it was verified, and he telegraphed the announcement on 31 August.

The object is now identified as SN 1885A, a peculiar and probably subluminous thermonuclear supernova in the Andromeda Galaxy.

That extragalactic reading was not available in 1885: astronomers had not yet established that the Andromeda nebula was a separate galaxy.

October 1891, on the Solo riverbank

The excavation directed by Eugène Dubois at Trinil, on Java's Bengawan Solo River, uncovered a fossil skullcap in October 1891. It is now catalogued as Trinil 2, and Dubois reported maximum dimensions of 18.2 cm by 13.3 cm.

A rich fossil-bearing layer had been exposed along the river during the dry season, prompting the government-supported team to excavate the bank systematically.

A metre from last month's tooth

The skullcap lay about one metre from a wisdom tooth uncovered the previous month, at what the excavators recorded as precisely the same stratigraphic level.

That September molar had been the first candidate primate remain from Trinil, so October was not the start of the sequence. The femur came later still, in August 1892, and modern research disputes whether it and the skullcap came from the same individual or depositional context.

Not a missing link, not yet

Dubois initially reported the tooth and skullcap as Anthropopithecus, a chimpanzee-like anthropoid. The name Pithecanthropus erectus and the transitional “ape-man” reading came later, after the femur and further study.

Nor did Dubois dig it out himself. Army noncommissioned officers G. Kriele and A. de Winter supervised the largely unnamed colonial labourers who exposed and recovered the fossils. The skullcap was recorded in Dubois's fourth-quarter memorandum, and the rainy season then halted work until May 1892.

22 March 1895, before the Société d'encouragement

Louis and Auguste Lumière demonstrated their Cinématographe on 22 March 1895 to a restricted Paris audience at the Société d'encouragement pour l'industrie nationale, projecting a single moving photographic view, La Sortie d'usine.

The scene showed employees — many of them women, along with bicycles and a dog — passing through the gate of the Lumière photographic factory in Lyon-Monplaisir.

This was a restricted institutional audience, not a ticketed public cinema show.

The engineer in the room

At the meeting Louis encountered the engineer Jules Carpentier, who undertook to refine and manufacture the Cinématographe.

The apparatus ran at 16–18 frames per second, and the Lumière film strip topped out at 17 metres — roughly fifty seconds of running time.

Eleven further demonstrations followed during 1895.

Which strip, and whose first

The 22 March date is the projection date, not the filming date; the Institut Lumière puts the original filming probably on 19 March 1895.

The exact strip shown that day is not securely represented by the surviving catalogue versions, which the Catalogue Lumière dates to 26 May 1895, 10 March 1896 and 15 August 1896.

Whether this counts as the first public projection depends on how film, photography, projection and "public" are defined; surviving sequences by Louis Le Prince and other experiments predate it.

28 December 1895, in a basement on the boulevard des Capucines

On 28 December 1895 the Lumière organisation opened its Cinématographe to paying members of the public in the Salon Indien, a basement room at the Grand Café, 14 boulevard des Capucines in Paris.

Antoine Lumière and the photographer Clément Maurice organised the launch. Auguste, Louis and the engineer Jules Carpentier were absent; three Lumière employees handled the projection.

Admission was one franc, and the reported first public session drew 33 paying customers.

Ten views, about fifteen minutes

The programme comprised ten short views: Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory, Trick Riding, Fishing for Goldfish, The Photographic Congress Arrives in Lyon, Blacksmiths, The Gardener, Baby's Meal, Place de la Concorde, Place des Cordeliers and The Sea.

The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat was not among them, so the familiar story of spectators fleeing an oncoming train cannot describe this programme.

An invited presentation for journalists, theatre managers and friends preceded the public performances; Georges Méliès attended it and tried unsuccessfully to buy a machine.

First — under which definition?

The conventional description of this as the world's first commercial public projected-film show is disputed. The Latham group had charged New York audiences for projected Eidoloscope films from 20 May 1895, and the Skladanowskys presented paid Bioscop programmes in Berlin in November.

Émile Reynaud had offered paying public Théâtre Optique performances of hand-painted moving-image bands from 1892, so the answer depends on what counts as film.

The apparatus used that day, Cinématographe no. 1, survives in the Institut Lumière's museum collection.

A night march that came apart

During the night of 29 February–1 March 1896, General Oreste Baratieri advanced an Italian colonial army in separate columns through mountainous ground toward Emperor Menelik II's army near Adwa. Faulty maps, poor reconnaissance and misunderstood orders left the columns separated.

Ethiopian advance posts detected the movement early enough for Menelik's commanders to prepare before daybreak. Baratieri had moved under pressure from Rome, deteriorating supplies and his own brigadiers' demands for action.

Defeated one formation at a time

At dawn Ethiopian forces engaged Matteo Albertone's isolated column and kept the other Italian formations from joining it. Albertone's left was routed by midmorning, the centre and reserve around noon, and Vittorio Dabormida's right by about 4 p.m.

Albertone was captured; Dabormida and Giuseppe Arimondi were killed. Regional forces under Ras Mengesha Yohannes, Ras Alula, Ras Makonnen, Ras Mikael, Tekle Haymanot and Fitawrari Gebeyehu did the fighting, and Empress Taytu Betul accompanied the campaign with her own following, contributing to mobilization, provisions, intelligence and morale.

What was left on the field

By nightfall the battlefield was in Ethiopian hands and Baratieri's survivors were retreating north toward Eritrea. The Ethiopians captured all 56 Italian artillery pieces and about 11,000 rifles, along with between 2,865 and 4,000 prisoners.

Casualty figures vary widely by source. George Berkeley's accounting gives 6,133 killed and 1,428 wounded from the roughly 17,700-strong Italian and Eritrean force; reported Ethiopian dead range from roughly 3,867 to 10,000.

Eritrean askari formed a substantial part of that army and suffered heavily. Francesco Crispi resigned on 5 March, four days after the battle.