Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « 1708-1775 »

John Campbell’s (1708-1775) biographer, Guido Abbattista, has argued that Campbell sought to publish a pamphlet, Thoughts on Public Affairs, in 1761. However, a review of Campbell’s private correspondence in 1761 with the future prime minister, John Stuart, 3rd earl of Lord Bute (1713-1792), indicates that the historian sought not to publish a pamphlet, but newspaper articles that promote the king’s new reign and his administration. Six of these articles have been found in the London Evening Post, and they use ideas and language from Henry St. John, 1st viscount Bolingbroke to represent George III as a Patriot King, to advance the Tory policies of Bute’s future administration, and to encourage a prospective peace to the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763). These six, new attributions to Campbell not only expand his extensive canon, but also portray his significant role in offering the rhetoric and depicting the ideas of George III’s early reign and Bute’s ascendency to premiership.

The purpose of the article is to study the features of the administrative-territorial transformation of Novosilsky district and the city of Novosil in the 18th century, the future subjects of Tula province, which is currently a part of modern Oryol oblast. Much attention is given to the history of the city of Novosil and its county as administrative-territorial units in the provincial system of the state. The author emphasizes that various rulers carried out some administrative-territorial reforms in the internal policy of the state throughout the 18th century. The provin-cial reform of Peter I was the beginning of these transformations in 1708. The state was divided into 8 provinces. During this stage, a two-level system of administrative-territorial division was created: province-share. The second stage of the provincial reform was carried out in 1719. A three-level system of administrative-territorial division was created: province-province-district. The latter was replaced by a county in 1727. Catherine II began to carry out the provincial reform after the publication of the «Institutions for the Administration of Provinces» in 1775. It had a disaggregating nature. 50 provinces were formed. Governorships consisting of several provinces were approved. After Paul I accession, administrative-territorial transformations were continued in the state. The reform eliminated governorships and the number of provinces was reduced from 50 to 41. As a result, based on the study of the history of the developing of the city of Novosil and its county, the author draws conclusions about the reasons for these transformations.

The concept of ‘peasant wars’ in 17th- and 18th-century Russia was borrowed by Soviet historians from Friedrich Engels’ work on the Peasant War in Germany. The four peasant wars of the early modern period were identified as the uprisings led by Ivan Bolotnikov (1606-1607), Sten’ka Razin (1667-1671), Kondratiy Bulavin (1707-1708) and Emel’ian Pugachev (1773-1775). Following a debate in the journal Voprosy istorii in 1958-1961, the ‘first peasant war’ was generally considered to encompass the period c.1603-1614 rather than simply 1606- 1607. This approach recognised the continuities in the events of the early 17th century, and it meant that the chronological span of the ‘first peasant war’ was virtually identical to that of the older concept of the ‘Time of Troubles’. By the 1970s the term, ‘civil wars of the feudal period’ (based on a quotation from Lenin) was sometimes used to define ‘peasant wars’. It was recognised by Soviet historians that these civil wars were very complex in their social composition, and that the insurgents did not exclusively (or even primarily) comprise peasants, with Cossacks playing a particularly significant role. Nevertheless the general character of the uprisings was seen as ‘anti-feudal’. From the 1980s, however, R.G. Skrynnikov and A.L. Stanislavskiy discarded the view that the events of the ‘Time of Troubles’ constituted an anti-feudal peasant war. They preferred the term ‘civil war’, and stressed vertical rather than horizontal divisions between the two armed camps. Western historians, with the notable exception of the American historian Paul Avrich, generally rejected the application of the term ‘peasant wars’ to the Russian uprisings of the early modern period, regarding them as primarily Cossack-led revolts. From the 1960s, however, Western scholars such as Teodor Shanin (following the American anthropologist Eric Wolf) began to use the term ‘peasant wars’ in relation to the role played by peasants in 20th-century revolutionary events such as those in Russia and China. Some of these Western historians, including Avrich and Wolf, used the term not only for peasant actions in the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917, but also for peasant rebellions against the new Bolshevik regime (such as the Makhnovshchina and the Antonovshchina) that Soviet scholars considered to be counter-revolutionary banditry. The author argues that, in relation to the ‘Time of Troubles’ in early 20th-century Russia, the term ‘peasant war’ is not entirely suitable to describe peasant actions against the agrarian relations of the old regime in 1905 and 1917, since these were generally orderly and non-violent. The term is more appropriate for the anti-Bolshevik uprisings of armed peasant bands in 1918-1921, as suggested by the British historian Orlando Figes.

Background:Interstitial lung disease (ILD) is one of the most significant comorbidities of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), increasing the mortality in these patients [1,2]. Although the pathogenesis of ILD associated to RA (RA-ILD+) remains poorly defined [1], it is known that vascular tissue plays a crucial role in lung physiology [3]. In this context, a population of cells termed endothelial progenitor cells (EPC) are involved in vasculogenesis and endothelial tissue repair [4]. Previous reports suggest the implication of EPC in different conditions such as RA and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), the most common and destructive ILD [5,6]. Nevertheless, little is known about their specific role in RA-ILD+.Objectives:The purpose of this study was to shed light on the potential role of EPC in endothelial damage in RA-ILD+.Methods:Peripheral venous blood was collected from a total of 68 individuals (18 with RA-ILD+, 17 with RA-ILD-, 19 with IPF and 14 healthy controls). All subjects were recruited from the Rheumatology and Pneumology departments of Hospital Universitario Marqués de Valdecilla, Santander, Spain. Quantification of EPC was analyzed by the expression of surface antigens by flow cytometry. The combination of antibodies against the stem cell marker CD34, the immature progenitor marker CD133, the endothelial marker VEGF receptor 2 (CD309) and the common leukocyte antigen CD45 was used. EPC were considered as CD34+, CD45Low, CD309+and CD133+. All statistical analyses were performed using Prism software 5 (GraphPad).Results:EPC frequency was significantly increased in patients with RA-ILD+, RA-ILD-and IPF compared to controls (p=0.001, p=0.002, p< 0.0001, respectively). Nevertheless, patients with RA, both RA-ILD+and RA-ILD-, showed a lower frequency of EPC than those with IPF (p= 0.048, p= 0.006, respectively).Conclusion:Our results provide evidence for a potential role of EPC as a reparative compensatory mechanism related to endothelial damage in RA-ILD+, RA-ILD-and IPF patients. Interestingly, EPC frequency may help to establish a differential diagnostic between patients with IPF and those who have an underlying autoimmune disease (RA-ILD+).References:[1] J Clin Med 2019; 8: 2038;[2] Arthritis Rheumatol 2015; 67: 28-38;[3] Nat Protoc 2015; 10: 1697-1708;[4] Science 1997; 275: 964-966;[5] Rheumatology (Oxford) 2012; 51: 1775-1784;[6] Angiogenesis 2013; 16: 147-157.Acknowledgments:Personal funds, VP-C: PREVAL18/01 (IDIVAL); SR-M: RD16/0012/0009 (ISCIII-ERDF); LL-G: PI18/00042 (ISCIII-ERDF); RL-M: Miguel Servet type I CP16/00033 (ISCIII-ESF).Disclosure of Interests:Verónica Pulito-Cueto: None declared, Sara Remuzgo-Martínez: None declared, Fernanda Genre: None declared, Victor Manuel Mora-Cuesta: None declared, David Iturbe Fernández: None declared, Sonia Fernández-Rozas: None declared, Leticia Lera-Gómez: None declared, Pilar Alonso Lecue: None declared, Javier Rodriguez Carrio: None declared, Belén Atienza-Mateo: None declared, Virginia Portilla: None declared, David Merino: None declared, Ricardo Blanco Grant/research support from: AbbVie, MSD, Roche, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB Pharma and MSD, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Bristol-Myers, Janssen, UCB Pharma. MSD, Alfonso Corrales Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Jose Manuel Cifrián-Martínez: None declared, Raquel López-Mejías: None declared, Miguel A González-Gay Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Abbvie, MSD, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Abbvie, MSD

Johann Jacob QuandT’S ACADEMIC ACCOUNT: THE LITHUANIAN LANGUAGE SEMINAR AT THE KÖNIGSBERG UNIVERSITY IN 1724 S u m m a r y The article introduces a document found in the Secret State Archives Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation (Germ. Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz; GStA PK: I. HAGR, Rep. 7 Preußen, Nr. 187 [1716–1729]) in Berlin that sheds new light on the seminar of the Lithuanian language – the first centre for teaching Lithuanian – that was founded at the Faculty of Theology of the Königsberg University in late 1720s. It is an academic account by Johann Jacob Quandt (1686–1772), the chief preacher of the court and the then dean of the Faculty of Theology of the Königsberg University and the fourth professor of theology in ordinary, who ran the seminar of the Lithuanian language between 1723 and 1727. This account provides insights into the early activities of the seminar that have not been documented in much detail so far. Neither the account nor any of its three appendices – lists of students attending Quandt’s courses – are dated. Based on other documents in the same archive file and the Christian holidays to which the account refers, Quandt’s account has been dated between 28 December 1724 and 11 January 1725, and the data that it contains cover the first half of the 1724–1725 winter semester: October–December of 1724. Quandt’s account shows that during the winter semester of 1724–1725, the seminar of theLithuanian language at the Königsberg University was attended by thirty theological students. Theology and language was taught twice daily between 10 and 11 AM and between 3 and 4 PM . The seminar under Quandt’s management continued to apply the so-called collegium privatissimum, the teaching method of its first supervisor, Heinrich Lysius (1670–1731). The names of the seminar attendees from that period are documented in the second appendix to Quandt’s account titled ‘Beyl. B. Auditores Seminarii Lithvanici’: these were Peter Gottlieb Mielcke (1695–1753), who was in his second year as a teacher, Gottfried Boeckel (?–after 1724), Samuel Boeckel (?–after 1724), Alexander Deutschmann (?–after 1724), Michael Sigismund Engel (1700–1758), Carl Julius Fleischmann (1704–1778), Christophor Daniel Franck?–after 1724), Georg Friedrich Gehrke (?–after 1724), Heinrich Grabau (Grabovius, ?–after 1724), Friedrich Wilhelm Haack (1707–1754), Georg Ernst Klemm (1701–1774), Johann Friedrich Leo (1696–1759), Christophorus (Georg) Liebe (1705–1764), Joachim Friedrich Mey (?–after 1724), Johann Friedrich Mülner (?–after 1724), Jacob Friedrich Naugardt (1694–1751), Friedrich Gottlieb Perbandt (?–after 1724), Adam Heinrich Pilgrim (1702–1757), Heinrich Preuss (?–after 1728), Christoph Rabe (?–after 1724), Heinrich Ernst Rabe (1707/1708–1744), Gottlieb Richter (1707–1775), Johann Richter (1705–1754), Friedrich Rosenberg (?–1727), Adam Friedrich Schimmelpfennig (1699–1763), Ernst Gottfried Schimmelpfennig (1704–1768), Martin Schimmelpfennig (1706–1778), Gottfried Schumacher (1704–1786), Friedrich Sigismund Schuster (1703–after 1732), Johann Trentovius (Trentowski, 1700–1765). Seven of them attended the seminar back in the winter semester of 1723–1724 and were among the first attendees of the seminar of the Lithuanian language under Quandt after it had been reinstated in 1723. Peter Gottlieb Mielcke was the first teacher at the reinstated seminar. During the winter semester of 1724–1725, the age of the theological students attending the seminar of the Lithuanian language at the Königsberg University was between 17 and 30. Most of them were from Prussian Lithuania. After finishing their studies, at least 19 of the attendees were ordained priests and served in Lithuanian parishes. Out of the thirty students who signed the second appendix to Quandt’s account, at least one-half have not been known as attendees of the seminar of the Lithuanian language yet. Even though the Pietist Georg Friedrich Rogall was very critical towards the seminar of the Lithuanian language under the orthodox Lutheran Quandt in his 1725 letter to August Hermann Francke (1663–1727), professor of theology at the Halle University, it is beyond any dispute that the seminar had brought up a new generation of authors of Lithuanian writings. Six of the theological students who attended the seminar in the winter semester of 1724–1725 had become involved in Lithuanistic activity, albeit from the camps of two protestant movements – the orthodox Lutherans and the Pietists. Three of them – Peter Gottlieb Mielcke, Adam Heinrich Pilgrim, and Adam Friedrich Schimmelpfennig – were actively involved in Johann Jacob Quandt’s project that aimed to renew and enhance the repertoire of religious Lithuanian literature. Three others – Johann Richter, Friedrich Wilhelm Haack (by the way, he became involved in Lithuanistic activity with his proof-reading of the 1727 New Testament published by Quandt in Lithuanian), and Martin Schimmelpfennig – later went to Halle, the centre of Pietism, where they became teachers at the seminar of the Lithuanian language that was founded there in 1727 and drafted Lithuanian books. Quandt’s pupils made a significant contribution to the breakthrough in Lithuanian writings between the 1730s and 1760s.

Fossilised insects probably brought man’s attention since the prehistory, since first amber with an insect entombed in resin was found. Amber was collected and used by humans first in the Upper Paleolithic period, perhaps as long ago as 20,000 years (Beck et al., 2009; Burdukiewicz, 2009; Płonka & Kowalski, 2017). The written testimonies on amber inclusions goes back to Ancient Rome (Plinius Secundus, 77). During 17th and 18th centuries the inclusions in amber were noted by philosophers (Bacon, 1638), their values discussed and illustrated (e.g., Sendel, 1742) and their importance to understanding the history of life pointed (Kant in Hagen, 1821). Shortly after Linnaeus “Systema Naturae” editions, the first research using binomial names for insect included in the copal was published (Bloch, 1776) and Pleistocene record of Recent beetle was noted by Fabricius (1775). Notes and information on fossil insects from imprints and amber were presented by Lang (1708), Bertrand (1763), Linnaeus (1778) and Volta (1796). The first regular description of beetle inclusion in Baltic amber came from Gravenhorst (1806) and works of de Serres (1828, 1829) seems to be the first with more detailed overview and description of insects as adpression fossils. Therefore, human’s palaeoentomological interests predates official beginning of modern taxonomy and palaeoentomology as science is as old as modern entomology (Azar et al., 2018).

Defence date: 27 April 1988
Examining board: Franco Angiolini ; Alphonse Dupront (Supervisor) ; Giuseppe Ricuperati ; Daniel Roche (Co-supervisor) ; Salvatore Rotta
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digitised archive of EUI PhD theses completed between 2013 and 2017