Within days of Spinoza's death in February 1677, his Amsterdam publisher Jan Rieuwertsz received a writing box holding the philosopher's unpublished works and correspondence. Spinoza's friends edited them for posthumous publication.
By December the Latin Opera Posthuma and its Dutch counterpart, De Nagelate Schriften, had been printed in Amsterdam — roughly 800 and 700 pages respectively.
Five works, no name
The Latin volume printed the Ethics for the first time, alongside the Political Treatise, the Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect, selected correspondence, and Spinoza's Hebrew grammar.
The title page identified the author only as 'B.d.S.' and omitted both Amsterdam and Rieuwertsz's name, as security precautions. Lodewijk Meyer helped prepare the Latin texts; Jarig Jelles wrote the preface.
1677, or 1678
Secretive distribution began in December 1677, though copies may not have reached readers until the end of that month or, more probably, January 1678. Because the publication was clandestine, no precise release day is documented.
On 28 January 1678 the Hague Reformed Church council recorded its alarm that the posthumous works had appeared in both Latin and Dutch.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·5 sources·not yet auditedDate disputed
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
Date disputed. Sources disagree; the research places it at ~1677-12.
What the sources leave uncertain
Both editions bear the imprint year 1677, and printing was complete by December, but recent bibliography concludes that copies first reached readers either in late December 1677 or, more probably, January 1678.
Amsterdam and Rieuwertsz are established bibliographically; neither location nor publisher was printed on the original title page.
Because publication was clandestine, no precise release day is securely documented.
The Habeas Corpus Act received royal assent from Charles II on 27 May 1679 and became law. Its full title was 'An Act for the better secureing the Liberty of the Subject and for Prevention of Imprisonments beyond the Seas.'
Charles prorogued Parliament immediately afterwards — a prorogation, not an adjournment. It never met again before being dissolved on 12 July 1679.
The abuse it named
The Act's own preamble answered sheriffs and gaolers who delayed returns to habeas-corpus writs and used procedural shifts to keep legally bailable subjects imprisoned.
It set deadlines for producing prisoners and stating the causes of detention, provided access to judges outside ordinary court terms, penalized noncompliant officials, and restricted moving prisoners between gaols or beyond the seas to evade review.
The tariff
Deadlines ran by distance: three days if the prisoner was held within 20 miles, ten days beyond 20 and up to 100, twenty days beyond 100.
A gaoler's first failure to obey or produce the warrant cost £100 payable to the prisoner or injured party; a second cost £200 and disqualification from office. Knowingly recommitting someone discharged on habeas corpus for the same offence cost £500.
None of this invented habeas corpus. The writ and earlier statutory protections already existed; the Act made the remedy faster and harder for officials to evade.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·6 sources·not yet audited
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
What the sources leave uncertain
27 May is the date used by modern UK legislation records and most current histories. Some older histories and catalogues give 26 May, but the weight of the modern legal record supports 27 May.
The date is the contemporary English civil date under the Julian calendar, equivalent to 6 June 1679 in the Gregorian calendar.
On 30 June 1688 seven English notables signed a secret letter to William of Orange, asking him to come to England with a military force capable of protecting both himself and those who would rally to him.
They were Edward Russell, Henry Sidney, Richard Lumley, Henry Compton, Charles Talbot, William Cavendish, and Thomas Osborne — four peers, a bishop, and two untitled political-military figures, not simply seven nobles. Russell appears in the letter only as the code number 35.
What it claimed
The letter alleged that James II's government had invaded the people's religion, liberties, and property, and promised that many subjects would support William if his landing force could protect an initial rising.
It asserted that '19 parts of 20' of the people wanted change — a propaganda claim, not a measured statistic.
What it did not do
The letter was addressed to William alone. It did not offer the crown to William and Mary, and it did not expressly demand James's deposition; its immediate proposal was armed intervention capable of forcing political change.
Nor did it create William's plan from nothing — contacts and preparations already existed. The message stayed secret and changed neither monarch nor government that day.
James Francis Edward Stuart's birth on 10 June had raised the prospect of a continuing Catholic succession, and the Seven Bishops were acquitted the same 30 June, showing how wide opposition to James's religious policy ran.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·5 sources·not yet audited
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
What the sources leave uncertain
The letter is dated 30 June 1688 in the Julian calendar then used in England, equivalent to 10 July Gregorian. The ISO date preserves the document's English date and the slug's convention.
The familiar name “Immortal Seven” is retrospective.
The invitation's assertions about overwhelming popular support and the newborn prince's legitimacy were partisan claims, not independently established facts.
William of Orange's invasion fleet departed Hellevoetsluis for a second time on 11 November 1688 in the Gregorian calendar used in the Netherlands, the same day called 1 November under the Julian calendar still used in England.
This was the successful departure. An earlier attempt had been driven back to its anchorage by strong north-westerly winds.
How large the fleet was
William sailed with an expeditionary army of about 15,000, carried in roughly 200 vessels and protected by 49 fighting ships, in the historian Robert Beddard's account.
Royal Museums Greenwich describes it differently — 50 ships of the line, 50 smaller warships and fireships, and about 400 transports. The totals diverge because sources classify warships, fireships, yachts, landing craft, and transports differently, so the figures should not be combined.
North first
The fleet initially sailed north, concealing where it meant to land, before turning down the English Channel. The easterly wind that carried it also prevented James II's fleet from intercepting it.
Four Gregorian days later, on 15 November, the fleet reached Torbay and William's army landed unopposed at Brixham.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·5 sources·not yet auditedDate corrected
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
Date corrected. The research places this at 1688-11-11.
What the sources leave uncertain
The event is 11 November 1688 in the Gregorian calendar used in the Netherlands and 1 November Old Style in contemporary English dating. The ISO date uses Gregorian because the event occurred in the Netherlands.
Sources give different fleet totals because they classify warships, fireships, yachts, landing craft and transports differently; the sourced figures should not be silently combined.
English-language histories often call this departure 1 November and the landing 5 November without stating that they are using the English Julian calendar.
On 13 February 1689 the English Convention formally offered the crowns of England and Ireland jointly to William and Mary at the Banqueting House in Whitehall, and read the Declaration of Rights aloud to them. William answered for himself and Mary, accepting the offer.
The settlement made them king and queen while assigning the full exercise of regal power to William during their joint lives. Contemporary English paperwork calls the day 13 February 1688, because the legal year began on 25 March; in modern numbering it is 13 February 1689, or 23 February Gregorian.
Heralds first, print afterwards
Officers of arms then proclaimed William and Mary in London as King and Queen of England, France, and Ireland. A contemporary annotation records the oral proclamation at about 11 a.m. at Whitehall Gate, followed by Temple Bar, Cheapside, and the Royal Exchange.
Printed proclamations were afterwards ordered posted in the customary public places, turning the shouted ceremony into displayed official news.
What was not settled
The French title was a traditional English claim, not a description of anything they ruled. Scotland was not settled by this ceremony at all: the Scottish estates made a separate offer, which William and Mary accepted 87 days later, on 11 May 1689.
The Declaration of Rights was read out with the offer of the crown. UK Parliament cautions that it was not formally presented as a condition they had to accept before becoming monarchs.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·6 sources·not yet auditedDate corrected
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
Date corrected. The research places this at 1689-02-23.
What the sources leave uncertain
The ceremony occurred on 13 February 1688 in contemporary English Old Style notation because England's legal year began on 25 March. In modern year numbering that is 13 February 1689, equivalent to 23 February Gregorian; the ISO date uses Gregorian.
The proclamation's formal style included England, France and Ireland, not Scotland.
The English Parliament claimed authority over Ireland, but William and Mary's effective rule there was contested by James's supporters.
On 16 December 1689 William III and Mary II gave royal assent to the Bill of Rights, turning it into an Act of the English Parliament. The House of Lords had passed it on 23 November.
The date is Old Style, corresponding to 26 December in the Gregorian calendar — and official statute collections often label the Act the Bill of Rights 1688, following regnal-year and Old Style conventions.
From declaration to statute
The Act gave statutory force to the Declaration of Rights presented to William and Mary the previous February, including limits on suspending laws, on taxation, and on peacetime standing armies without Parliament.
It also confirmed William and Mary as sovereigns, settled the succession, and excluded Catholics — and people married to Catholics — from the Crown.
Read the clauses, not the legend
This was not a modern universal catalogue of individual rights. Much of it addressed Parliament's privileges and the actions its preamble attributed to James II's government, among them illegal dispensing with laws, taxation, and maintaining a standing army.
The celebrated arms clause applied only to Protestant subjects, to arms suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law.
The surviving original is an iron-gall-ink manuscript on parchment, held by the Parliamentary Archives.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·5 sources·not yet auditedDate corrected
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
Date corrected. The research places this at 1689-12-16.
What the sources leave uncertain
The standard British date, 16 December 1689, is Old Style (Julian); it corresponds to 26 December in the Gregorian calendar.
Official statute collections often label the Act the Bill of Rights 1688 because of regnal-year and Old Style dating conventions, even though royal assent occurred in 1689.
13 December 1690: a sixth-magnitude object in Taurus
On 13 December 1690, at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, Astronomer Royal John Flamsteed observed a faint object in Taurus. It was Uranus.
Flamsteed was systematically measuring and cataloguing the positions of apparently fixed stars for the observatory's star-mapping and navigation work. He recorded this one at sixth magnitude and treated it as an ordinary star.
The 13 December date is the contemporary English Julian one; modern astronomical tables commonly normalize it to 23 December 1690.
Filed as 34 Tauri
The object entered Flamsteed's catalogue as 34 Tauri — a star designation, not a planet. No new planet was announced in 1690.
He looked at the same wandering object again in 1712 and 1715 without recognizing that his 'star' had moved. At least six Flamsteed pre-discovery observations are known, spread across those three years.
The position later astronomers came back for
After Uranus was recognized as a planet, Johann Elert Bode went through older catalogues and argued that Flamsteed's 34 Tauri was the same body. The 1690 measurement became the earliest definite pre-discovery position of Uranus.
A scholarly proposal identifies a position inherited from Hipparchus's catalogue in 128 BCE as Uranus. Because that identification remains inferential, Flamsteed's is best described as the earliest definite recorded observation rather than the first human sighting.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·4 sources·not yet audited
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
What the sources leave uncertain
The listed 13 December date is the contemporary English Julian-calendar date. Modern astronomical tables commonly normalize it to 23 December 1690 Gregorian.
A scholarly proposal identifies a position inherited from Hipparchus’s catalogue in 128 BCE as Uranus. Because that identification remains inferential, Flamsteed’s is best described as the earliest definite recorded observation, not necessarily the first human sighting.
On 11 January 1693, at approximately 13:30 GMT — about 21:00 under the local 'Italian hours' convention — the strongest shock of that January's sequence struck southeastern Sicily.
It was not the first. A damaging foreshock on 9 January had already frightened people out of their houses.
The mainshock devastated communities in the modern provinces of Catania, Syracuse and Ragusa.
The water at Augusta
Within minutes a destructive tsunami reached the eastern and southern Sicilian coast. At Augusta the sea first withdrew, grounding vessels; the returning water flooded the harbour district.
It killed people who had camped near the waterfront after the earlier shocks. Reported run-up at Augusta was about 15 m, and tsunami effects were recorded along roughly 300 km of coastline, from Messina to Marina di Ragusa.
The toll, and the volcano that was blamed
An official statistic compiled in May 1693 counted about 54,000 dead; later scholarship commonly gives more than 60,000 in eastern Sicily. Retrospective magnitude estimates are Mw 7.4 in the CPTI04 catalogue, with one EMS-based revision at 7.1.
In Malta and Gozo the shock caused widespread structural damage at EMS-98 intensity VII–VIII, and the Knights of St John formed a commission to inspect it. The Maltese historical catalogue records no direct fatalities there.
Reports of Etna's summit in flames circulated almost immediately. Historical catalogues of Etnean eruptions do not support an eruption connected to the disaster, and the fault that ruptured remains disputed.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·6 sources·not yet audited
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
What the sources leave uncertain
The exact fault and epicentral location remain debated. Proposed sources include the Malta Escarpment, inland faults and the Calabrian subduction interface.
Magnitude values are retrospective estimates derived from historical damage and tsunami evidence, not instrumental measurements.
Death totals vary by source and may combine the 9 and 11 January shocks and subsequent deaths. The May 1693 official statistic was about 54,000; later studies often use more than 60,000.
Tsunami-generation models disagree over the precise combination of earthquake displacement and possible submarine landsliding.
On 11 September 1697 Mustafa II's army was crossing the Tisza near Zenta. The sultan, much of the cavalry and the imperial treasury had already gone over; Grand Vizier Elmas Mehmed Pasha and much of the infantry were still at the western bridgehead.
Prince Eugene of Savoy learned of the split from Jovan Popović Tekelija, a Serbian commander in Habsburg service, and from Cafer Pasha, a captured Ottoman commander who gave up details of the dispositions under threat during interrogation.
Eugene verified the position himself and ordered an attack late in the day. His own report, cited in recent scholarship, says his troops had marched for 18 hours.
About two hours, ending at sunset
The Habsburg attack drove the Ottoman defenders toward the river, penetrated their fieldworks and seized the bridgehead, cutting the pontoon bridge amid the retreat. Mustafa II remained on the far bank and could not send troops back across.
Elmas Mehmed Pasha and numerous senior Ottoman commanders were killed. The fighting ran about two hours and was over around sunset.
The camp, the next morning
Learning that night how bad the defeat was, Mustafa withdrew toward Timișoara. The victors entered the abandoned camp the following morning and recovered the sultan's seal along with extensive matériel — a recent study counts 423 banners, 87 cannon and 62 river vessels, plus roughly three million forints taken to Vienna.
How many died is a partisan question. Habsburg sources report 25,000–30,000 Ottoman losses; Ottoman chronicles give about 7,000–8,000, and a frequently cited Habsburg report lists 429 killed and 1,598 wounded on the victors' side.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·6 sources·not yet audited
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
What the sources leave uncertain
Ottoman battlefield strength is uncertain because the approximately 100,000 figure describes the expedition leaving Edirne, while only part of that force remained at the bridgehead.
Casualty totals are sharply partisan: Habsburg accounts give roughly 25,000–30,000 Ottoman losses, while Ottoman chronicles give about 7,000–8,000.
Habsburg loss totals also vary across reports. The familiar 429 figure is a count of killed, not total casualties.
Descriptions of Elmas Mehmed Pasha’s precise manner of death differ; some secondary accounts say mutinous Janissaries killed him, while other studies state only that he died during the fighting.
26 January 1699: three instruments, not one treaty
On 26 January 1699, at the congress at Karlowitz in Sirmium, Ottoman representatives concluded separate peace instruments with representatives of Emperor Leopold I, the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Venice.
The familiar singular name is shorthand for a set of bilateral settlements rather than one multilateral treaty signed by the coalition as a unit. Russia did not conclude a permanent peace at Karlowitz that day.
What each party kept
The imperial–Ottoman instrument recognized Transylvania and Bačka as remaining under Leopold I, while the province of Temesvár and territory toward Belgrade remained Ottoman.
The Polish settlement restored Podolia and Kamianets-Podilskyi to the Commonwealth and ended its tribute obligation. Venice retained the Morea and territories in Dalmatia, Albania and the Ionian sphere, and relinquished Athens.
Twenty articles, twenty days to tell the frontier
The imperial–Ottoman instrument ran to 20 articles and set the peace at a nominal 25 years. Wolfgang, Count of Oettingen, and Leopold Schlick signed and sealed the surviving Latin text, with William Paget and Jacob Colyer mediating between the imperial and Ottoman delegations.
The treaty declared peace effective from the day of signature, allowed 30 days for the exchange of ratifications, and 20 days for news to reach remote frontier officers.
Many clauses simply confirmed current possession and ordered later boundary surveys, so the territories did not all change hands on 26 January.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·5 sources·not yet audited
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
On Vaisakhi in 1699, Guru Gobind Singh addressed a large Sikh gathering at Anandpur and called for people prepared to offer their lives in founding a new order.
He had summoned Sikhs directly to Anandpur after instructing congregations to bypass the masands, against whom he had received complaints.
In the received Sikh account, five volunteers came forward: Daya Ram, a Khatri from Lahore; Dharam Das, a Jat from Hastinapur; Himmat, a water-carrier from Jagannathpur; Muhkam Chand, a washerman from Dwarka; and Sahib Chand, a barber from Bidar. They became the Panj Piare, the nucleus of the Khalsa.
Sweetened water, stirred with a double-edged sword
Guru Gobind Singh initiated the five with khande di pahul — sweetened water stirred with a double-edged sword — and gave them the shared name Singh.
He then received the same initiation from the five, investing the initiated collective with authority rather than reserving the rite to himself.
The new discipline emphasized unshorn hair, weapons, the name Singh and a prescribed way of life. The SGPC account also associates the five articles beginning with K with this inauguration.
What the date is, and what comes through tradition
The event is securely traditional to Vaisakhi 1699, but its Common Era date is unsettled. Sikh institutional and many historical works give 30 March; a specialist study of calendar conversions argues for 29 March Julian. April 13 is the modern recurring date of Vaisakhi and is not a secure date for 1699.
The familiar drawn-sword, tent, blood and goats narrative comes from Sikh tradition rather than a surviving contemporary eyewitness record. The Oxford historian Louis Fenech explicitly cautions that much of the accepted Panj Piare narrative evolved in later manuscripts.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·5 sources·not yet auditedTraditional date
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
Traditional date. Conventionally dated here; the research places it at ~1699-03-30.
What the sources leave uncertain
The event is securely traditional to Vaisakhi 1699, but its exact Common Era date is unsettled. Sikh institutional and many historical works give March 30; a specialist study of calendar conversions argues for March 29 Julian. Neither supports April 13 as a secure date for the 1699 event.
April 13 or 14 is the modern recurring date of Vaisakhi in commonly used calendars and should not automatically be projected backward onto 1699.
The familiar drawn-sword, tent, blood and goats narrative comes from Sikh tradition rather than a surviving contemporary eyewitness record. Oxford historian Louis Fenech explicitly cautions that much accepted Panj Piare narrative evolved in later manuscripts.
Charles II of Spain died childless at Madrid's Royal Alcázar on 1 November 1700, five days short of what would have been his thirty-ninth birthday. The direct male Spanish Habsburg succession ended with him.
His long illness had worsened sharply that autumn. Both of his marriages, the second to Mariana of Neuburg, had produced no children.
The will, opened before the assembled nobles
The will was opened immediately, before assembled nobles, and named Philip, Duke of Anjou — a grandson of Louis XIV — heir to the undivided Spanish monarchy. Charles had signed the final testament on 3 October 1700.
It stipulated that the Spanish monarchy should not be partitioned or united with another state. Philip's younger brother, Archduke Charles and the Duke of Savoy followed in its contingency order.
A regency for a king who was still at Versailles
A regency council assumed government pending the new king's arrival, with Cardinal Luis Manuel Fernández de Portocarrero as its most important member. Philip did not reach Madrid immediately.
Charles's last instruction tried to prevent exactly what foreign diplomats had been planning: the partition of his worldwide monarchy.
The succession moved that day from speculation to a concrete Bourbon claim, opposed by Vienna, which backed Archduke Charles.
Researched 24 Aug 2026·5 sources·not yet audited
How this was checked
Researched from the web into a fact sheet and rewritten from that sheet. This article has not yet had an independent model audit. How the pipeline works →
View full image ↗ 
