The Encyclopedia of world history ancient medieval

and modern chronologically arranged 6th ed., [rev.

and expanded] Edition Peter N. Stearns - PDF
Download (2025)
https://ebookultra.com/download/the-encyclopedia-of-world-
history-ancient-medieval-and-modern-chronologically-arranged-6th-
ed-rev-and-expanded-edition-peter-n-stearns/

Visit ebookultra.com today to download the complete set of

ebooks or textbooks
Here are some recommended products for you. Click the link to
download, or explore more at ebookultra.com

Childhood in World History Themes in World History 2nd

Edition Peter N Stearns

https://ebookultra.com/download/childhood-in-world-history-themes-in-
world-history-2nd-edition-peter-n-stearns/

American Fear The Causes and Consequences of High Anxiety

1st Edition Peter N. Stearns

https://ebookultra.com/download/american-fear-the-causes-and-
consequences-of-high-anxiety-1st-edition-peter-n-stearns/

Encyclopedia Of The Ancient Greek World David Sacks

https://ebookultra.com/download/encyclopedia-of-the-ancient-greek-
world-david-sacks/

A History of the Sudan 6th rev upd ed 2011 6th rev.upd.

ed. 2011 Edition Peter Malcolm Holt

https://ebookultra.com/download/a-history-of-the-sudan-6th-rev-upd-
ed-2011-6th-rev-upd-ed-2011-edition-peter-malcolm-holt/
Greek Magic Ancient Medieval and Modern 1st Edition John
Petropoulos

https://ebookultra.com/download/greek-magic-ancient-medieval-and-
modern-1st-edition-john-petropoulos/

Social and Cultural History of the Punjab Prehistoric

Ancient and Early Medieval 1st Edition J.S. Grewal

https://ebookultra.com/download/social-and-cultural-history-of-the-
punjab-prehistoric-ancient-and-early-medieval-1st-edition-j-s-grewal/

Medieval Ireland An Encyclopedia 1st Edition Seán Duffy

https://ebookultra.com/download/medieval-ireland-an-encyclopedia-1st-
edition-sean-duffy/

Science in the Ancient World An Encyclopedia Russell

Lawson

https://ebookultra.com/download/science-in-the-ancient-world-an-
encyclopedia-russell-lawson/

The Genealogist s Internet 2nd expanded ed Edition Peter

Christian

https://ebookultra.com/download/the-genealogist-s-internet-2nd-
expanded-ed-edition-peter-christian/
The Encyclopedia of world history ancient medieval and
modern chronologically arranged 6th ed., [rev. and
expanded] Edition Peter N. Stearns Digital Instant
Download
Author(s): Peter N. Stearns
ISBN(s): 9780395652374, 0395652375
Edition: 6th ed., [rev. and expanded]
File Details: PDF, 8.57 MB
Year: 2001
Language: english
 The Encyclopedia of World History
Ancient, Medieval, and Modern

Simply put, this is a Sixth Edition

volume that has always
intended to convey the Renowned historian Peter N. Stearns and thirty prominent historians have
key features of world combined their expertise over the past ten years to perfect this
history. comprehensive chronology of more than 20,000 entries that span the
—Preface to the Sixth millennia from prehistoric times to the year 2000.
Edition.

CONTENTS
Preface Contributing Editors Maps Genealogical Tables
Bibliographic Record

BOSTON: HOUGHTON MIFFLIN COMPANY, 2001

NEW YORK: BARTLEBY.COM, 2002

Table of Contents
I. Prehistoric Times
II. Ancient and Classical Periods, 3500 B.C.E.–500 C.E.
III. The Postclassical Period, 500–1500
IV. The Early Modern Period, 1500–1800
V. The Modern Period, 1789–1914
VI. The World Wars and the Interwar Period, 1914–1945
VII. The Contemporary Period, 1945–2000

Appendixes
I. Roman Emperors
II. Byzantine Emperors
III. Caliphs, to 1256
IV. Roman Popes
V. Presidents of the United States
VI. Members of the United Nations in Order of Admission

Subject Index
 NEXT

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001.

Table of Contents

Page 1

I. Prehistoric Times
A. Introduction
1. History and Prehistory
2. The Study of Prehistory
a. Archaeology as Anthropology and History
b. Culture and Context
c. Time and Space
d. Finding and Digging up the Past
e. Analysis and Interpretation
f. Subdividing Prehistoric Times
g. Theoretical Approaches to Prehistory
B. Prehistory and the Great Ice Age
C. Human Origins (4 Million to 1.8 Million Years Ago)
D. Homo Erectus and the First Peopling of the World (1.8 Million to 250,000 Years Ago)
1. Homo Erectus
2. Fire
3. Out of Africa
E. Early Homo Sapiens (c. 250,000 to c. 35,000 Years Ago)
1. The Neanderthals
F. The Origins of Modern Humans (c. 150,000 to 100,000 Years Ago)
G. The Spread of Modern Humans in the Old World (100,000 to 12,000 Years Ago)
1. Europe
2. Eurasia and Siberia
3. South and Southeast Asia
H. The First Settlement of the Americas (c. 15,000 Years Ago)
I. After the Ice Age: Holocene Hunter-Gatherers (12,000 Years Ago to Modern Times)
1. African Hunter-Gatherers
2. Asian Hunter-Gatherers
3. Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers in Europe
4. Near Eastern Hunters and Foragers
5. Paleo-Indian and Archaic North Americans
6. Central and South Americans
J. The Origins of Food Production
K. Early Food Production in the Old World (c. 10,000 B.C.E. and Later)
1. First Farmers in the Near East
2. Early European Farmers
3. Egypt and Sub-Saharan Africa
4. Asian Farmers
L. The Origins of Food Production in the Americas (c. 5000 B.C.E. and Later)
M. Later Old World Prehistory (3000 B.C.E. and Afterward)
1. State-Organized Societies
2. Webs of Relations
3. Later African Prehistory
a. Egypt and Nubia
b. West African States
c. East and Southern Africa
4. Europe after 3500 B.C.E.
5. Eurasian Nomads
6. Asia
a. South Asia
b. China
c. Japan
d. Southeast Asia
7. Offshore Settlement in the Pacific
N. Chiefdoms and States in the Americas (c. 1500 B.C.E.–1532 C.E.)
1. North American Chiefdoms
 2. Mesoamerican Civilizations
a. Olmec
b. Teotihuacán
3. Andean Civilizations
a. Beginnings
b. Chavin
c. Moche
d. Tiwanaku
e. Chimu
O. The End of Prehistory (1500 C.E. to Modern Times)

The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth edition. Peter N. Stearns, general editor. Copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Maps by Mary Reilly, copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

NEXT
I. Prehistoric Times

NEXT

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001.

I. Prehistoric Times
A. Introduction
1. History and Prehistory

Human beings have flourished on Earth for at least 2.5 million years. The study of history 1

in its broadest sense is a record of humanity and its accomplishments from its earliest
origins to modern times. This record of human achievement has reached us in many
forms, as written documents, as oral traditions passed down from generation to
generation, and in the archaeological record—sites, artifacts, food remains, and other
surviving evidence of ancient human behavior. The earliest written records go back about
5,000 years in the Near East, in Mesopotamia, and the Nile Valley. Elsewhere, written
history begins much later: in Greece, about 3,500 years ago; in China, about 2,000 years
ago; and in many other parts of the world, after the 15th century C.E. with the arrival of
Western explorers and missionaries. Oral histories have an even shorter compass,
extending back only a few generations or centuries at the most.
History, which remains primarily though not exclusively the study of written documents, 2

covers only a tiny fraction of the human past. Prehistory, the span of human existence
before the advent of written records, encompasses the remainder of the past 2.5 million
years. Prehistorians, students of the prehistoric past, rely mainly on archaeological
evidence to study the origins of humanity, the peopling of the world by humans, and the
beginnings of agriculture and urban civilization.
Archaeology is the study of the human past based on the material remains of human 3

behavior. These remains come down to us in many forms. They survive as archaeological
sites, ranging from the mighty pyramids of Giza built by ancient Egyptian pharaohs to
insignificant scatters of stone tools and animal bones abandoned by very early humans in
East Africa. Then there are caves and rock shelters adorned with ancient paintings and
engravings, and human burials that can provide vital information, not only on biological
makeup but also on ancient diet and disease and social rankings.
Modern scientific archaeology has three primary objectives: to study the basic culture 4

history of prehistoric times, to reconstruct ancient lifeways, and to study the processes by
which human cultures and societies changed over long periods of time. Archaeology is
unique among all scientific disciplines in its ability to chronicle human biological and
cultural change over long periods of time. The development of this sophisticated
approach to the human past ranks as one of the major scientific achievements of this
century.
Archaeology, by its very nature, is concerned more with the material and the 5

environmental. It is basically an anonymous science, dealing with generalities about

human cultures derived from artifacts, buildings, and food remains rather than with the
individuals who appear in many of the historians' archives. But by using complex
theoretical models and carefully controlled analogies from living societies, it is
sometimes possible for the archaeologist to gain insights into prehistoric spiritual and
religious life, and into the great complexities of ancient human societies living in worlds
remote from our own.

The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth edition. Peter N. Stearns, general editor. Copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Maps by Mary Reilly, copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

NEXT
I. Prehistoric Times > A. Introduction > 2. The Study of Prehistory

PREVIOUS NEXT

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001.

2. The Study of Prehistory

a. Archaeology as Anthropology and History

In contrast to classicists and historians, prehistoric archaeologists deal with an enormous 1

time scale of human biological and cultural evolution that extends back at least 2.5
million years. Prehistoric archaeology is the primary source of information on 99 percent
of human history. Prehistoric archaeologists investigate how early human societies all
over the world came into being, how they differed from one another, and, in particular,
how they changed through time.
No one could possibly become an expert in all periods of human prehistory. Some 2

specialists deal with the earliest human beings, working closely with geologists and
anthropologists concerned with human biological evolution. Others are experts on stone
toolmaking, the early peopling of the New and Old Worlds, or on many other topics, such
as the origins of agriculture in the Near East. All of this specialist expertise means that
archaeologists, whatever time period they are working on, draw on scientists from many
other disciplines—botanists, geologists, physicists, zoologists.
Prehistoric archaeologists consider themselves a special type of anthropologist. 3

Anthropologists study humanity in the widest possible sense, and archaeological

anthropologists study human societies of the past that are no longer in existence. Their
ultimate research objectives are the same as those of anthropologists studying living
societies. Instead of using informants, however, they use the material remains of long-
vanished societies to reach the same general goals. Prehistorians also share many
objectives with historians, but work with artifacts and food remains rather than
documents. In some parts of the world, such as tropical Africa, for example, prehistoric
archaeology is the primary way of writing history, since oral traditions extend back only a
few centuries, and in many places written records appear no earlier than the 19th century
C.E.
The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth edition. Peter N. Stearns, general editor. Copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Maps by Mary Reilly, copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

PREVIOUS NEXT
I. Prehistoric Times > A. Introduction > 2. The Study of Prehistory > b. Culture and Context

PREVIOUS NEXT

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001.

b. Culture and Context

Anthropology, and archaeology as part of it, is unified by one common thread, the 1

concept of culture. Everyone lives within a cultural context—middle-class Americans,

Romans, and Kwakiutl Indians of northwestern North America. Each culture has its own
recognizable cultural style, which shapes the behavior of its members, their political and
judicial institutions, and their morals.
Human culture is unique because much of its content is transmitted from generation to 2

generation by sophisticated communication systems. Formal education, religious beliefs,

and daily social intercourse all transmit culture and allow societies to develop complex
and continuing adaptations to aid their survival. Culture is a potential guide to human
behavior created through generations of human experience. Human beings are the only
animals that use culture as their primary means of adapting to the environment. While
biological evolution has protected animals like the arctic fox from bitterly cold winters,
only human beings make thick clothes in cold latitudes and construct light thatched
shelters in the Tropics.
Culture is an adaptive system, an interface between ourselves, the environment, and other 3

human societies. Throughout the long millennia of prehistory, human culture became
more elaborate, for it is our only means of adaptation and we are always adjusting to
environmental, technological, and societal change.
The great Victorian anthropologist Sir Edward Tylor described culture as “that complex 4

whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other
capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.” Prehistoric
archaeologists prefer to define culture as the primary nonbiological means by which
people adapt to their environment. They consider it as representing the cumulative
intellectual resources of human societies, passed down by the spoken word and by
example.
Human cultures are made up of many different parts, such as language, technology, 5

religious beliefs, ways of obtaining food, and so on. These elements interact with one
another to form complex and ever-changing cultural systems, systems that adjust to long-
and short-term environmental change.
Archaeologists work with the tangible remains of ancient cultural systems, typically such 6

durable artifacts as stone tools or clay pot fragments. Such finds are a patterned reflection
of the culture that created them. Archaeologists spend much time studying the linkages
between past cultures and their archaeological remains. They do so within precise
contexts of time and space.

The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth edition. Peter N. Stearns, general editor. Copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Maps by Mary Reilly, copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

PREVIOUS NEXT
I. Prehistoric Times > A. Introduction > 2. The Study of Prehistory > c. Time and Space

PREVIOUS NEXT

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001.

c. Time and Space

Archaeologists date the past and study the ever-changing distributions of ancient cultures 1

across the world by studying the context of archaeological finds, whether sites, food
remains, or artifacts, in time and space. This is the study of culture history, the
description of human cultures as they extend back thousands of years.

1. Time

Human prehistory has a time scale of more than 2.5 million years and a vast landscape of 2

archaeological sites that were occupied for long and short periods of time. Some, like the
Aztec capital, Tenochtitlán, in the Valley of Mexico, were occupied for a few centuries.
Others, like Olduvai Gorge in East Africa, were visited repeatedly over hundreds of
thousands of years. The chronology of prehistory is made up from thousands of careful
excavations and many types of dating tests. These have created hundreds of local
sequences of prehistoric cultures and archaeological sites throughout the world.
Historical records provide a chronology for about 5,000 years of human history in Egypt 3

and Mesopotamia, less time in other regions. For earlier times, archaeologists rely on
both relative and absolute dating methods to develop chronological sequences.
Relative dating is based on a fundamental principle of stratigraphic geology, the Law of 4

Superposition, which states that underlying levels are earlier than those that cover them.
Thus any object found in a lower level is from an earlier time than any from upper layers.
Manufactured artifacts are the fundamental data that archaeologists use to study human
behavior. These artifacts have changed in radical ways with passing time. One has only to
look at the simple stone choppers and flakes made by the first humans and compare them
with the latest luxury automobile to get the point. By combining the study of changes in
artifact forms with observations of their contexts in stratified layers in archaeological
sites, the prehistorian can develop relative chronologies for artifacts, sites, and cultures in
any part of the world.
The story of prehistory has unfolded against a backdrop of massive world climatic change 5
during the Great Ice Age (See Prehistory and the Great Ice Age). Sometimes, when
human artifacts come to light in geological strata dating to the Ice Age, one can place
them in a much broader geological context. But in such cases, as with relative
chronologies from other archaeological sites, determining the actual date of these sites
and artifacts in years is a matter of guesswork, or of applying absolute dating methods.
Absolute chronology is the process of dating in calendar years. A whole battery of 6

chronological methods have been developed to date human prehistory, some of them
frankly experimental, others well established and widely used. The following are the best
known ones.

a. Historical Records and Objects of Known Age

Historical documents can sometimes be used to date events, such as the death of an 7

ancient Egyptian pharaoh or the Spanish conquest of Mexico in 1519–21 C.E. Clay tablet
records in Mesopotamia and ancient Egyptian papyri provide dates going back to about
3000 B.C.E. The early Near Eastern civilizations traded many of their wares, such as
pottery or coins with precise dates, over long distances. These objects can be used to date
sites in, say, temperate Europe, far from literate civilization at the time.

The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth edition. Peter N. Stearns, general editor. Copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Maps by Mary Reilly, copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

PREVIOUS NEXT
I. Prehistoric Times > A. Introduction > 2. The Study of Prehistory > d. Finding and Digging up the Past

PREVIOUS NEXT

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001.

d. Finding and Digging up the Past

The finding and excavating of archaeological sites is a meticulous process of uncovering 1

and recording the finite archives that make up the archaeological record. The sites, large
and small, that make up this record are finite resources. Once destroyed and the context
of their artifact contents disturbed, they are gone forever.
Although the destruction wrought by early archaeologists and treasure hunters was 2

devastating, that of modern industrial development, deep plowing, professional looters,

and amateur pothunters has been far worse. In some parts of North America, experts
estimate that less than 5 percent of the archaeological record of prehistoric times remains
intact. In recent years, massive efforts have been made to stem the tide of destruction and
to preserve important sites using federal and state laws and regulations. While some
progress has been made in such cultural resource management, the recent
archaeological record of human prehistory is a shadow of its former self and in many
parts of the world is doomed to near-total destruction.

1. Finding Archaeological Sites

Many archaeological sites come to light by accident: during highway or dam 3

construction, through industrial activity and mining, or as a result of natural phenomena

such as wind erosion. For example, the famous early human sites at Olduvai Gorge in
Tanzania, East Africa, were exposed in the walls of the gorge as a result of an ancient
earthquake that cut a giant fissure through the surrounding plains. Well-designed
archaeological field surveys provide vital information on ancient settlement patterns and
site distributions.
Increasingly, archaeologists are relying on remote sensing techniques, such as aerial 4

photography, satellite imagery (digital images of the earth recorded by satellites), or side-
scan radar (airplane-based radar used to penetrate ground cover). These allow them to
identify likely areas, even to spot sites without ever going into the field. The latest
approach involves the use of Geographic Information Systems (mapping systems based
on satellite imagery that inventory environmental data). The combination of satellite
imagery with myriad environmental, climatic, and other data provides a backdrop for
interpreting distributions of archaeological sites. For instance, in Arkansas, archaeologists
have been able to study the locations of river valley farming villages and establish that
they were founded close to easy routes to the uplands, where deer could be hunted in
winter.

The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth edition. Peter N. Stearns, general editor. Copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Maps by Mary Reilly, copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

PREVIOUS NEXT
I. Prehistoric Times > A. Introduction > 2. The Study of Prehistory > e. Analysis and Interpretation

PREVIOUS NEXT

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001.

e. Analysis and Interpretation

For every month of excavation there is at least six months' laboratory analysis—a long 1

process of classifying, analyzing, and interpreting the finds from the dig. Such finds come
in many forms. Stone tools, clay potsherds, and other artifacts tell us much about the
technology of our forebears. Broken animal bones, seeds, shells, and other food remains,
even desiccated human feces, are a mine of information on ancient subsistence, and
sometimes diet. All of these finds are combined to produce a reconstruction of human
behavior at the site.

1. Analysis of Artifacts

Human artifacts come in many forms. The most durable are stone tools and clay vessels, 2

while those in wood and bone often perish in the soil. Archaeologists have developed
elaborate methods for classifying artifacts of all kinds, classifications based on distinctive
features like the shapes of clay vessels, painted decoration on the pot, methods of stone
flaking, and so on. Once they have worked out a classification of artifact types, the
experts use various arbitrary units to help order groups of artifacts in space and time.
These units include the assemblage, which is a diverse group of artifacts found in one 3

site that reflect the shared activities of a community. Next is the component, a physically
bounded portion of a site that contains a distinct assemblage. The social equivalent of an
archaeologist's component is a community. Obviously a site can contain several
components, stratified one above another. The final unit is the culture, a cultural unit
represented by like components on different sites or at different levels of the same site,
although always within a well-defined chronological bracket.
Archaeological “cultures” are concepts designed to assist in the ordering of artifacts in 4

time and space. They are normally named after a key site where characteristic artifacts of
the culture are found. For instance, the Acheulian culture of early prehistory is named
after the northern French town of St. Acheul, where the stone hand axes so characteristic
of this culture are found.
The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth edition. Peter N. Stearns, general editor. Copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Maps by Mary Reilly, copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

PREVIOUS NEXT
I. Prehistoric Times > A. Introduction > 2. The Study of Prehistory > f. Subdividing Prehistoric Times

PREVIOUS NEXT

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001.

f. Subdividing Prehistoric Times

The 2.5 million years of human prehistory have seen a brilliant diversity of human 1

societies, both simple and complex, flourish at different times throughout the world. Ever
since the early 19th century, archaeologists have tried with varying degrees of success to
subdivide prehistory into meaningful general subdivisions.
The most durable subdivisions of the prehistoric past were devised by Danish 2

archaeologist Christian Jurgensen Thomson in 1806. His Three Age System, based on
finds from prehistoric graves, subdivided prehistory into three ages based on
technological achievement: the Stone Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age. This
scheme has been proven to have some general validity in the Old World and is still used
as a broad label to this day. However, the term Stone Age has little more than
technological significance, for it means that a society does not have the use of metals of
any kind. Stone Age has no chronological significance, for although societies without
metal vanished in the Near East after 4000 B.C., some still flourish in New Guinea to this
day. We only use the Three Age System in the most general way here.
Sometimes, the three ages are subdivided further. The Stone Age, for example, is 3

conventionally divided into three periods: the Palaeolithic, or Old Stone Age (Greek:
from palaios, old; and from lithos, stone), which applies to societies who used chipped-
stone technology; the Mesolithic (Middle Stone Age), which is a transitional period; and
the Neolithic (New Stone Age), when people used polished stone artifacts and were
farmers. However, only the term Palaeolithic remains in common use, as Mesolithic and
Neolithic have proved increasingly meaningless, even if they occasionally appear in
specialist and popular literature.
New World archaeologists have never used the Three Age System, largely because in the 4

Americas, metallurgy of any kind had limited distribution. They tend to use more local
terms, defined at intervals in these pages.
In recent years, archaeologists have tried to classify prehistoric societies on the basis of 5

political and social development. They subdivide all human societies into two broad
categories: prestate and state-organized societies.
Prestate societies are invariably small-scale, based on the community, band, or village. 6
Many prestate societies are bands, associations of families that may not exceed 25 to 60
people, the dominant form of social organization for most hunter-gatherers from the
earliest times up to the origins of farming. Clusters of bands linked by clans, groups of
people linked by common ancestral ties, are labeled tribes. Chiefdoms are societies
headed by individuals with unusual ritual, political, or entrepreneurial skills, and are
often hard to distinguish from tribes. Such societies are still kin-based, but power is
concentrated in the hands of powerful kin leaders responsible for redistributing food and
other commodities through society.
Chiefdoms tend to have higher population densities and vary greatly in their elaboration. 7

For example, Tahitian chiefs in the Society Islands of the South Pacific presided over
elaborate, constantly bickering chiefdoms, frequently waging war against their neighbors.
State-organized societies operate on a large scale, with a centralized political and social 8

organization, distinct social and economic classes, and large food surpluses created by
intensive farming, often employing irrigation agriculture. Such complex societies were
ruled by a tiny elite class, who held monopolies over strategic resources and used force
and religious power to enforce their authority. Such social organization was typical of the
world's preindustrial civilizations, civilizations that functioned with technologies that
did not rely on fossil fuels like coal.

The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth edition. Peter N. Stearns, general editor. Copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Maps by Mary Reilly, copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

PREVIOUS NEXT
I. Prehistoric Times > A. Introduction > 2. The Study of Prehistory > g. Theoretical Approaches to
Prehistory
PREVIOUS NEXT

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001.

g. Theoretical Approaches to Prehistory

Archaeologists study human prehistory within broad theoretical frameworks. Such 1

theoretical approaches are a means for looking beyond the facts and material objects from
archaeological sites for explanations of cultural developments and changes that took
place during the remote past.
Two broad theoretical approaches dominate interpretative thinking: 2

1. Culture History

Culture-historical approaches are based on systematic descriptions of sites, artifacts, and 3

entire cultural sequences. Culture history is based on studies of archaeological context in

time and space. Such studies are the backbone of all archaeological research and provide
us with the chronology of human prehistory. They also give us data on the broad
distributions of human cultures through the Old and the New World over more than 2.5
million years. No more sophisticated theoretical approaches can exist without this
culture-historical background.

The Encyclopedia of World History, Sixth edition. Peter N. Stearns, general editor. Copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Maps by Mary Reilly, copyright © 2001 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

PREVIOUS NEXT
I. Prehistoric Times > B. Prehistory and the Great Ice Age

PREVIOUS NEXT

CONTENTS · SUBJECT INDEX · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

The Encyclopedia of World History. 2001.

B. Prehistory and the Great Ice Age

The biological and cultural evolution of humankind unfolded against a complex backdrop 1

of constant climatic change. For most of geological time, the world's climate was warmer
and more homogeneous than it is today. The first signs of glacial cooling occurred in
Antarctica about 35 million years ago. There was a major drop in world temperatures
between 14 and 11 million years ago, and another about 3.2 million years ago, when
glaciers first formed in northern latitudes. Then, just as humans first appeared, about 2.5
million years ago, the glaciation intensified and the earth entered its present period of
constantly fluctuating climate.
Humans evolved during the period of relatively minor climatic oscillations. Between 4 2

and 2 million years ago, the world climate was somewhat warmer and more stable than it
became in later times. The African savanna, where humans originated, supported many
mammal species, large and small, including a great variety of the order Primates, to
which we belong.
About 1.6 million years ago, at the beginning of the Pleistocene (commonly called the 3

Great Ice Age), the world's climatic changes intensified. Global climates constantly
fluctuated between warm and intensely cold. For long stretches of time, the northern parts
of both Europe and North America were mantled with great ice sheets, the last retreating
only some 15,000 years ago. While glaciers covered northern areas, world sea levels fell
as much as 300 feet below modern shorelines, joining Alaska to Siberia, Britain to the
Continent, and exposing vast continental shelves off ocean coasts. The glacial periods
brought drier conditions to tropical regions. The Sahara and northern Africa became very
arid, and rain forests shrunk.
Fluctuations of warm and cold temperatures were relatively minor until about 800,000 4

years ago. Since then, periods of intense cold have recurred about every 90,000 years,
perhaps triggered by long-term changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun. Core samples
taken from the sea floor tell us that there have been at least nine cold periods in the last
800,000 years, each of them characterized by a gradual cooling that took tens of
thousands of years and a subsequent rapid warming up that saw glaciers retreat and world
sea levels rise with remarkable speed.
Other documents randomly have
different content
not come to such a tragic end, it is probable that no one would ever have
given him a thought after he had left office.
When he was murdered the Radical party had already secured a very
large majority in the Chamber as well as in the Senate, and all thoughts as
to the possibility of a Republic governed according to Conservative
principles had long ago vanished. For a few brief months his successor,
Casimir Périer, tried to fight against the tide of anarchism which was slowly
rising, but after him no one attempted it, and the Republic fell entirely into
the hands of M. Clemenceau and his friends.
 CHAPTER XX

Leon Gambetta

Without being an intimate friend of Leon Gambetta, I used nevertheless to

see him very often, and there existed between us one of those close
relationships which sometimes draw together people whose opinions are
totally different. I had first met him before the war, when he had not
reached the fame which ultimately became his. I admired him more than I
liked him, and to tell the truth he never was fully in sympathy with me, but
it was impossible to see him often and not to be struck by his immense
intelligence, and especially by the extraordinary powers of assimilation
which distinguished him.
I have already mentioned that at the beginning of his political career he
had little idea of social requirements, yet as soon as he found out his
mistake he speedily made it his aim to acquire knowledge of the customs
and manners current in the higher classes of society, and to make a special
study of its code of etiquette. He realised quite well that sometimes trivial
details bring about tremendous results, and that if a man wants to lead his
country he must not begin by giving the public occasion to ridicule him.
Besides, there lay at the bottom of the character of this extraordinary man a
thirst for luxury, for power, for riches, for all the good things of the world,
which alone would have been sufficient to make him study the refinements
without which they become useless. Gambetta was an epicure in the fullest
sense of that word, and the apparent carelessness which he had affected in
outward appearance when he entered political life proceeded more from the
desire to attract notice to himself than from anything else.
He wanted to impose his personality upon others, and not knowing how
to do so, he tried to attain it by an apparent indifference to those outward
things that rule the actions of ordinary men.
When once he was thrown into contact with good society, and especially
after he had fallen under the influence of Madame Edmond Adam, or
Juliette Adam as earlier I referred to her, his views of life changed
considerably. He very soon became more refined in his tastes and habits,
the equal in social deportment of those men and women whose judgments
and opinions he had affected to despise in the days when he was a street
orator who frequented the Café Procope and other meeting-places of the
young Radical party who made it its business to attack the Empire at every
opportunity.
The war sobered him, and his short sojourn in the responsible position of
member of a government, such as it was, considerably changed his ideas.
He at once perceived that it was easier to criticise men in power than to do
their work. He was a great patriot in the sense that he put his country before
anything else in the world, and that he was ready to sacrifice all that he held
dear for its welfare, but he was no chauvinist, though so often accused of
fomenting chauvinism in France. He had a very clear comprehension of
every political situation, and also of the different ways in which it could be
explained to the crowd, who generally see only the externals of questions
without ever going into their details.
He wanted his country to regain its former power and fame, and he knew
that this would be difficult if the idea of the humiliation it had endured was
always put before its eyes, and if the wounds it had received were always
made to smart. In a certain sense he was right, in another he was wrong,
because France might have been more quiet now, and more prosperous even
in the material sense of the word, if that idea of a revanche had not always
been fostered, and had she been taught to reconcile herself to accomplished
facts. In saying this I know that many among my readers will scream
outright, but not being a Frenchman I may be allowed to express my
opinion, that it would be to the advantage of a country for which I have
always had the greatest sympathy if she began thinking more about herself
and less about another war with Germany.
Gambetta exercised an unbounded influence on many people, and was
the object of hatred to many others, but no one who met him could pass him
by with indifference. If he had not been of a lazy disposition he might easily
have become Prime Minister long before he did, and in this connection I
must relate a story which probably will surprise more than one person.
Gambetta, though he led his party, and though he was at one moment the
most powerful man in France, showed always some reluctance when the
question of his forming a government was raised. I ventured one day to ask
him why. He replied to me that, now he understood the responsibility of the
head of a Cabinet, and had studied European politics, he did not think
himself up to the task, and also did not think that his presence in a ministry
would be to the advantage of France, because his name had become
synonymous with the principle of a war with Germany, for which he was
but too well aware that his country was not prepared. “Later on,” he added,
“my day may come, but I feel that now, though I may have a great deal
more intelligence than some of the foreign ministers who lead the destinies
of other countries, I haven’t their experience of affairs, nor their perfect
knowledge of saying pretty things which they do not mean. This would
make me appear inferior to them, and France must not be represented by a
man to whom this reproach applies. France must hold her own, and
something more, in the presence of Europe.”
I made a gesture of surprise, which he noticed.
“You are astonished at what I tell you,” he remarked, “but do you think
me such a poor patriot to put my own personal advantage or ambitions
before her welfare? This would be very miserable indeed, and I know of no
meaner thing than accepting office when one is aware that it is not for the
good of one’s fatherland. I know very well what is thought about me in
Europe, and especially in Germany, and I do not wish to give the latter
country the slightest excuse to say that she has been provoked, or that we
are following a policy of aggression. Such policy is unworthy of a great
nation, and we are a great nation, in spite of our reverses, and we must
remain one, though some people would like us to come down from that
height. We must work to consolidate our position, to become powerful
enough and strong enough to be able to strike when the day comes, not only
with the chance, but with the certitude, of success. What is the good of
wasting one’s time in petty strifes or petty recriminations? Yes, I think
about revenge, I think of nothing else, but I should be ashamed to be
thought eager for it at once, and at any price; above all I would not like to
risk losing it by such a miserable circumstance as my becoming head of the
government at a time when the hour for it had not yet struck.”
I relate this conversation in its entirety as it shows the real patriotism
which animated Gambetta, as well as his great foresight and intuition in
politics in general. Very few statesmen would have viewed a situation with
such entire self-abnegation. In France especially, where the thirst after
power and official positions was so great, he constituted a solitary and
noble exception. I think that the happiest time in Gambetta’s life was when
he was President of the Chamber, and inhabited the Palais Bourbon. There
he felt in his element, and also at the height, not of his ambitions, but of his
wishes—a totally different matter. In the old home of the Duc de Morny he
did not consider himself inferior to that clever councillor of Napoleon III.,
and reflected with some satisfaction on the circumstances that had brought
him there, and placed him in the chair occupied with such authority by the
illegitimate son of Queen Hortense. In his new position also he could give
way to the luxurious tastes which he had always nursed and only appeared
to scorn, because he had not been able to believe he would ever be in a
position to gratify them.
Leon Gambetta also felt that in the capacity of leader of the
representatives of the nation he would have more opportunities of learning
the real wants of that nation, and thus, when the day came that he could do
so, would be able to work for its welfare with better chances of success than
he had had hitherto. His rare tact served him well, and his knowledge of
mankind, something quite different from knowledge of the world, made him
avoid many of the mistakes another placed in his position would inevitably
have fallen victim to. He made an excellent President of the Chamber, just
as he made an admirable host in the Palais Bourbon, where he displayed his
epicurean tastes in a way that drew upon him the censure of the
newspapers, which tried to ridicule the former Socialist leader, whose first
care had been to get as his cook the most famous chef in Paris.
Madame Adam used sometimes to smile at the change which her
influence, more than anything else, had brought about in Gambetta. But
when he became President of the Chamber their intimacy slackened, for a
very short time it is true, but slackened all the same. Gambetta, it must be
owned, was very sensible to feminine charms and feminine blandishments.
Strange as it may seem when one takes into consideration his extreme
ugliness, the fact that he had but one eye, and was enormously fat, he yet
exercised a great fascination on women in general, and he liked to use it,
and to spend part of his spare time in the society of the fair ladies who
worshipped at his shrine. This partly was the cause of his death. But about
this we shall speak later on.
When at last circumstances arose which obliged Gambetta to accept the
task of forming a Cabinet, it was with the utmost reluctance, in spite of all
that has been said concerning this subject, that he undertook it. He had no
faith in the possibility of being a long time at the head of affairs, and as he
told one of his friends: “Why take such trouble when one is assured
beforehand it is for nothing?” Nevertheless he started earnestly to work to
give to the government the direction he thought the best for the interests of
the country. But the composition of the Chambers was not congenial to him;
he felt himself far superior to all those men upon the vote of whom his fate
depended, and this made him impatient as to the control which they
pretended to exercise over him. He despised them, if the truth must be said,
and involuntarily he allowed this feeling to appear in the manner in which
he handled them, a fact that had much to do with the short time he remained
in power.
His advent as Prime Minister had excited considerable sensation abroad;
even in France it was the signal for the retirement from public life of many
people who felt that they could not remain in office under such a thoroughly
Radical government as the one he was supposed to lead. Among those who
resigned was the Comte de St. Vallier, at that time French Ambassador in
Berlin.
When his resignation was accepted he thought himself obliged,
nevertheless, to call on the Prime Minister when he returned to Paris, in
order to express to him his regrets that the opinions which he held
prevented him from working harmoniously with him. Gambetta received
him with great affability and courteousness, and at once said: “You are
wrong to go away, I shall not remain for long where I am now, and you
would have rendered a greater service to France by remaining at your post
than by a retreat which, as you will see, will prove to have been useless. Je
ne suis qu’un bouche-trou (‘I am only a stop-gap’), and very probably the
President of the Republic in entrusting to me the task of forming a
government wanted to prove to France how impossible it is for a Radical
ministry ever to maintain itself. The sad part of this is that, though I am a
Republican, I have no Radical sympathies. I assure you that this is the fact,
and that you would have found me far more inclined to sympathise with
your opinions than with those of the people who are supposed to be my
followers. The great mistake that we are constantly making in France is to
mix up opinions with the way in which the country must be governed. We
ought to have neither a Conservative, nor a Radical, nor even a Republican
government; we ought to have a French one. This would be quite enough. I
am sorry you have resigned; very sorry, indeed.”
But Gambetta did not convince M. de St. Vallier, and he insisted on
retiring from the diplomatic service, a fact which I have reasons to believe
he regretted later on.
 The great dream of Gambetta was to establish a modus vivendi and a
kind of understanding with Germany. He knew very well how useless it is
in life to go back on things which are already accomplished, and to cry over
spilt milk. And he did not care for France to go on living in the state of qui
vive which had been hers ever since the disasters which had accompanied
the war of 1870. He knew also that he had far greater chances to take into
his hands the reins of government, and to keep them if once he had
succeeded in doing away with this fear of a German aggression, which
haunted the public mind. He was no partisan of compulsory service, and did
not approve of too great military expenses, entered into by fear of an
imaginary danger. That it was imaginary he was convinced, because he
knew very well that Germany was in the same position in which Napoleon
III. had found himself: that of risking the loss of everything and gaining
nothing from a new campaign. But this conviction which was his alone he
could not persuade others to share, and for this reason he tried to arrange an
interview between himself and Prince von Bismarck.
A great deal has been written about this episode, and several of
Gambetta’s friends have done their best to try to induce the public to forget
it. I don’t know why they believed that it was not to his honour. Nor why,
either, Gambetta could not have met the German Chancellor when other
French political men had done so without anyone saying a single word
against it. By every sensible person the idea of this interview could only
have been hailed with pleasure. Two great minds like those could not but
have found together the solution of many difficulties which divided the two
nations, and it would have been doing the greatest injustice to Leon
Gambetta to imagine that he would not have borne himself with the dignity
necessary to the representative of a great country.
It was Count Henckel von Donnersmarck, the husband of Madame de
Paiva, whose fame still lives in Paris, who was sounded by Gambetta as to
the possibility of a meeting between himself and Bismarck, and he did his
very best to arrange it in such a manner that it might not become known to
the public, at least not until after it had actually taken place. Unfortunately
outward circumstances interfered with this plan, and Gambetta had to forgo
his intention, partly because his great friend Ranc told him that if he
ventured on such a thing he would entirely lose the confidence of the
Radical party. Whether it was this consideration or another one, the fact
remains that he felt afraid at the last minute, in view of the hostility of his
constituents, to incur the responsibility of a step which his intelligence and
his intuition told him was the best for the interests of the France he loved so
dearly.
Much has been written, and much surmised, concerning the death of
Gambetta. It is now pretty certain that the wound which he received was not
its immediate cause, which must be looked for elsewhere, and can be
attributed partly to his general constitution, which was considerably
impaired, and partly to the treatment which had been applied to him. But
upon this point it must not be forgotten that at that time operations were not
the usual thing that they have become since, and surgical intervention was
generally dreaded, and resorted to only as a last resource.
As to the pistol shot, about which so many suppositions have been made,
I think that in spite of Gambetta’s own denials there can be hardly a matter
of doubt that it was a lady who, in a fit of fury, had inflicted the wound that
disabled him. It is no secret now, that Gambetta was on the point of
marrying a lady of high social standing, the Marchioness Arconati-Visconti,
the daughter of the Senator Peyrat, and the widow of a Milanese nobleman.
That union was to put the seal to his career, and to open for him many new
vistas. As the husband of a beautiful, accomplished woman of the world, he
could in time aspire to anything and, who knows, become President of the
Republic for life, which was his dearest secret wish.
But in order to accomplish his desire, he had first to end a situation that
did not date from yesterday, to cut off an intimacy of twenty years with a
noble woman who had been his friend in the bad as well as in the good
days, and who had given him innumerable proofs of her devotion. Gambetta
was well aware of the difficulties which such a step presented, and for a
long time he had not the courage to tackle the subject, hoping that she
would hear something about his new plans, and herself begin the
conversation on this delicate matter. The lady, however, kept silent, perhaps
because she did not believe in the rumours which had reached her, and
partly because she would not give her friend the opportunity he was
seeking. At last Gambetta asked his old comrade Spuller to see her and to
try to persuade her to have the courage to sacrifice herself to his welfare. He
reasoned like a man, and an ungrateful man into the bargain, and she
refused to accept the solution which was offered to her, and which might
have soothed the pride of a person more devoid of feelings of attachment
for her lover of long years than was the case with her. She dismissed Spuller
with scorn, and rushed to Ville d’Avray, where Gambetta was residing, in
order to seek an interview that could only be a stormy one.
It was during this interview that Gambetta was wounded. And those who
were made aware of all the circumstances attending this drama of feminine
jealousy, knew who it was that fired the fatal shot which lodged itself in the
right hand of the French statesman. When he himself was questioned as to
the accident, he always said that he had wounded himself in trying to clean
a revolver, a circumstance that was the more unlikely because he was
seldom in possession of such a weapon. Moreover, to some of his friends,
like Spuller and Paul Bert, he only remarked that he had got nothing but
what he had deserved.
Perhaps it was this consciousness which made him so patient during his
illness, and also so shy of seeing anyone, even his friends, whilst it lasted.
He used to lie quietly, with closed eyes, and avoid any conversations that
could have touched upon the subject of the accident which had occurred to
him. And when later on other symptoms made their appearance, he begged
the people who surrounded him to say everywhere that these symptoms had
nothing to do with his wound.
If, in his dying moments, he was conscious, he must have regretted
deeply his ingratitude in regard to the woman who had loved him with such
true affection, and who had been tempted to an act of despair when she
learned that she was about to be forsaken for one who certainly did not have
for Gambetta the same passionate affection. It was after all the sweet lady
who had for so long had him in her affections who watched over his
deathbed, and who closed his eyes for ever, whilst the proud lady for whose
sake he had been about to sacrifice her never even made an appearance at
Ville d’Avray. She went on living her former life as if no tragedy had
crossed it, after death had removed from this worldly scene the great
politician to whom ambition had very nearly united her.
And now that years have passed over this drama, since the removal from
the scene of political France of the great patriot who was called Leon
Gambetta, it is still very difficult to form a true judgment about him. He
died before he had given the full measure of his qualities, or shown the real
stuff he was made of. He was for too short a time in a responsible position
to allow us to say whether he would have proved as able a leader of a
government as he had shown himself to be a powerful leader of men. The
two things are very different, and the man who can master one is found
sometimes to be lacking in the other. What, however, cannot be taken away
from him is his true, earnest patriotism, the absence of all vanity that
distinguished him, his readiness to sacrifice everything in his power at the
shrine of his fatherland, and his desire to serve it, according to what he
considered to be its interests. He was fearless in his devotion, and worked
for his country without paying any attention to the reproaches of the crowd.
The man was colossal in his way, and there was nothing mean about
him. His conceptions were as great as his soul. Of course he was often
mistaken, like every human being, but he was always sincere even in his
errors, and he never hesitated to acknowledge the latter when they were
shown to him.
Reared in different circumstances, and able to show his value otherwise
than by starting on the road of revolution, which bordered very closely on
anarchy, he might have become truly a great man. He had all the instincts of
one—and all the imperfections. He was authoritative and could be very
firm, but he tried always to be just, and avoided wounding others, even his
adversaries, as much as it was possible for him to do so. He was invariably
courteous, even in his exhibitions of rage, and essentially kind, a faithful
friend, and a gallant enemy. Hated by those who had never known him, or
met him personally, he contrived to fascinate all those who had done so;
they always went away from him liking the man, even when condemning
the politician. He had a careless manner in talking about his foes, which
was superb in its way, and though he seldom spoke about himself, yet he
liked to find that he was respected, feared, or even abused.
The one thing he never could have reconciled himself to would have
been to be ignored, and this indignity was spared him. Perhaps it was better
for his memory that he died in the full force of his talent, and before he had
reached the maturity of his years—perhaps it was a pity. Who knows?
 CHAPTER XXI

The Adventure of General Boulanger

One of the most curious episodes in the life of the Third Republic was
certainly the adventure of General Boulanger, with all its attendant
circumstances, many of which have not yet seen the light of day. It
illustrates the taste of the Frenchman for what is vulgarly called, in the
argot of the boulevards, “le panache.”
The “Brave Général,” to give him the name used in the romances sung
by Paulus, was anything but a superior being. I doubt if he was a strikingly
intelligent one. He had neither the qualities nor the aptitudes which
constitute a hero. He never understood his own power, nor realised the
influence which, at a certain moment, he wielded over the masses; he was
almost without ambition; he seldom knew what was required of him; and no
one was more surprised than himself when suddenly he found that he had
become the most popular man in all France.
His rise as well as his fall prove very forcibly that the time is past, and
past for ever, when adventurers, by the glamour which they exercise over
the crowd, can become masters as well as leaders.
To those who were in Paris at that period, it is more than difficult to
account for the sudden blossoming of this very inferior plant in the garden
of French political life, whilst those who have never lived in the French
capital will utterly fail to realise the circumstances that brought it into
evidence. The fact is that Boulangism was the product of the private
ambitions of a considerable number of people who, strange as it may seem,
had nothing to do with each other, and who did not work together to ensure
triumph. On the other hand, each individual directed his effort to securing
for himself alone all the benefit arising from the movement, and in this
General Boulanger played no part at all, though he appeared to be the
leading spirit of the whole intrigue associated with his name.
The rise into popularity of General Boulanger took place some little time
after the election of M. Sadi Carnot to the Presidency of the Republic.
Carnot was a perfect type of the bourgeoisie of Paris of the olden days—
always cool and methodical, severe in his principles, strong in his
convictions, rather narrow-minded in his views; an austere figure, the
embodiment of honesty, self-respect personified. His very possessions he
looked upon merely as a means for commanding an added respect, and
throughout his life he was also a strict observer of the law. To these sterling
qualities, however, he added nothing that appealed to the hearts of his
countrymen. He did not excite public enthusiasm, and scarcely succeeded in
winning for himself public sympathies. He was too correct, and perhaps this
extreme observance of his duties, whether political, social, or private,
interfered with his popularity; nations, as well as individuals, do not care to
be always confronted by perfection; they are apt to think it rather dull.
Under such circumstances it is little wonder that people began to look
beyond the President of the Republic for the hero which they had yearned
after ever since the disasters of the Franco-German War had awakened in
them the desire for revenge on the victors. Further, there were certain
ambitious politicians who wanted to come into the limelight, and who felt
that the steady determination of M. Carnot to govern according to strictly
constitutional principles left no room for them or for their plans.
The Republic, at that distant time of which I am writing, was not yet
established so firmly in the heart of the people that its overthrow could not
be admitted within the range of possibilities. Is it therefore to be wondered
that those who longed for change should have looked around them for the
man strong enough to lead such an adventure?
Boulanger, beyond looking well on his black horse, had but little to
recommend him as a possible destroyer of the Republic. Still, he was a
general, a position which has always possessed great prestige in the eyes of
a certain section of French society. He was not shrewd enough to observe
where his so-called friends were trying to lead him. As a consequence he
allowed himself to be carried away by the tide that at last threw him against
the rocks of Jersey, where his political career ended even before his life
came to a sudden close in the little churchyard of Uxelles, near Brussels.
There is no denying that Boulangism was engineered by the Royalist
party on the one side, and by some enterprising journalists on the other.
Either of these two circumstances would have been enough in itself
ultimately to wreck the cause, but at the beginning it appeared in the light of
a movement which appealed so well to the sympathies and to the feelings of
the whole nation that it seemed even more formidable from a distance than
when in its midst.
Everything conspired to transform it into a vast conspiracy. When, after
the fall of the Goblet ministry, in which he held the portfolio of the War
Office, Boulanger found himself obliged to retire from political life, and
was transferred to the command of an army corps at Clermont Ferrand, he
could not reconcile himself to his exile, but used to come back

Photo: Gerschel, Paris.

CAPTAIN DREYFUS
 Photo: Petit, Paris.
GENERAL BOULANGER
 Photo: Gerschel, Paris.
EMILE ZOLA
 Photo: Gerschel, Paris.
M. DE LESSEPS

secretly and disguised to Paris, to see Madame de Bonnemains, who had

sacrificed for him her social position in a most select circle of Parisian
society. Once or twice people met him in disguise, and recognised him, in
spite of a pair of blue spectacles behind which he fondly hoped he would
remain unknown. Thereupon he was immediately invested with mystery
and romance by those who hoped to find in him a docile instrument to
further their personal ambitions; and so, in order to compel those in power
to deprive him of his command, he was accused of conspiring against the
safety of the Republic. Thus, by restoring him to private life, he had thrust
upon him by these intriguers the opportunity to aspire to the supreme
functions of Head of the State.
 For some time even staunch Republicans looked at him with dread. The
next step was taken by an unknown journalist, who came forth suddenly as
the apostle of this new messiah, and who conceived the idea of distributing,
in several departments, bulletins of votes bearing the name of General
Boulanger.
In a few days, therefore, France heard with amazement that a multitude
of voters had expressed their willingness to send Boulanger as a deputy to
the Chamber, a thing undreamt of but for M. George Thiebaud’s
adventurous experiment. It was M. Thiebaud who had created Boulangism.
He was not the only factor in fostering the movement. Another journalist,
one who was well known on the boulevards, M. Arthur Meyer, the
proprietor of the Gaulois, Count Dillon, and the private secretary of the
Comte de Paris, the Marquis de Beauvoir—all played a part. All three were
men of no mean intelligence, who saw possibilities in this man to whom the
attention of France had been attracted for bringing back to the throne of
their ancestors those Orleans Princes who had failed to secure for
themselves the help of Marshal MacMahon during the time he reigned at
the Elysée.
These three men were credited, in the estimation of those behind the
scenes, with starting this extraordinary adventure which ended so piteously
for its principal character. They furthermore drew into the enterprise three
other strong elements—Henri Rochefort, Count Albert de Mun, and the
Duchesse d’Uzés, while through their influence also became champions,
though in lesser degree, such men as Paul Déroulède and George Laguerre
—an advocate of great talent, who nevertheless is forgotten to-day—and
Lucien Millevoye, who was given charge of one of the most important
missions that those who played with the name of Boulanger ever entrusted
to their adherents.
Strange to say, each one of these persons, down to Madame Adam, who,
almost unknown to herself, was also drawn into the many dark intrigues to
which Boulangism gave rise, worked for a different aim. The Duchess
d’Uzés, when asked to contribute financially to the success of the
enterprise, was actuated by the secret desire to become the Egeria of the
new hero whose star was rising in the firmament of her country’s existence,
and to rule that country under his name. Albert de Mun thought only of the
restoration of the Monarchy. The Marquis de Beauvoir saw himself so
firmly established in the confidence of the Comte de Paris that the latter
would feel himself in honour bound to stand by him whenever one of those
financial catastrophes, which were periodical events with him, should once
again occur. Henri Rochefort was actuated by his everlasting mania of
opposing every existing government, a mania to which he owed his success
as a journalist and as a politician, and to which he would only have given
way with more virulence than before had some freak of fortune really
brought to the pinnacle Boulanger and his black horse. Arthur Meyer saw in
the emprise the opportunity to present himself before the world as the
statesman he firmly believed himself to be. Others, such as Déroulède,
imagined that the General would conquer at the point of his sword those
provinces which had been snatched from France; or Laguerre, who hoped
for a substantial financial reward, and Millevoye, who aspired to become
the Prime Minister of a President of Republic after his own heart—all these
men worked with the same tools for different purposes. They were
interested in the cause they were supporting, but they did not believe in it
otherwise than as a means to an end.
Whether they would have gone on fighting under the same flag had that
cause triumphed is another question. Very probably not; but while the
struggle lasted, they threw themselves into it with all the faculties for good
or for evil with which nature had endowed them. And when the battle was
lost, the disillusion was equally bitter for each of them.
Any attempt to analyse the different phases through which Boulangism
had to pass can only result in wonder that it could have maintained its
popularity for such a relatively considerable time, and also that it aroused
the serious apprehensions which permeated the ranks of the Republican
supporters of the government. The party had no leader except the irresolute
General whom it had adopted.
Madame d’Uzés, who was in possession of a considerable fortune
through her mother, was a woman who had never been handsome. She was
intelligent, like all the Mortemart family to which she belonged, ambitious,
rather tyrannical in character, and violent in her temper when she was
opposed or annoyed. She had been left a widow while still young, and
enjoyed a foremost position in the Faubourg St. Germain owing to her great
name and immense riches. One of her daughters had married the Duc de
Brissac, the second one was the Duchesse de Luynes. She was allied to the
bluest blood of France, and had Court precedence been in vogue, she would
have held first rank. She had nothing to gain and everything to lose by
throwing herself into the arms of the “Brave Général,” and the cause which
led her to join the ranks of Boulangism must have been that she had
imagined that when once the “King” had entered again into his inheritance,
the part she had played in that restoration would win for her a foremost
place in his confidence, would ensure for her an exclusive position among
the ranks of his advisers. Then, too, if the truth must be told, like so many
women before her, she had also been fascinated by the personal charm of
Boulanger, and when in his presence her heart, old though it was already,
would beat just a little faster than usual. Her desire to rescue her idol from
the fascinations of the woman who held him tied to her apron strings may
also have had something to do with the facility with which she opened her
purse to him as well as the doors of her house.
Not only did she become his friend, but also the confidante of his
ambitions; of his deceptions; of his ever-increasing bitterness at the daily
insults and the calumnies which were showered upon him by some of his
former friends who accused him of treason against their party; of his doubts
concerning the so-called virtues of the Republicans as well as of the
Republic itself. She used to comfort him, turn his thoughts away from such
vexatious matters, and try to win him over almost imperceptibly to her own
political ideas. At last she thought she had succeeded; but she had not
sufficient perspicacity to judge of the true character of Boulanger, who had
never understood anything in the way of politics except the old saying:
“Otes toi de là, que je m’y mette!” (“Get out from there in order that I may
step into your place!”)
Count Albert de Mun was the only really strong man who had joined the
ranks of the Boulangists—I mean strong in the sense of principles and
opinions. He was the son of the charming Eugénie de la Forronays, one of
the most delightful among the gallery of delightful women who adorn that
so widely read book, the “Récit d’une Sœur,” by Mrs. Augustus Craven. He
had been singularly blessed by Providence with all the qualities, physical,
moral, and intellectual, that help to make a man attractive. He had talent,
moreover, and remarkable eloquence, and he believed in monarchy as a
system and as a tradition to which all his past as well as that of his race
enjoined him to remain faithful. He had earnestly hoped that through
Boulanger the cause to which he had devoted his life would triumph, and he
did not hesitate to lend to the General the prestige of his personal influence
over his own followers.
 The Duchesse d’Uzés and the Count Albert de Mun were the most
sincere in this most insincere adventure. It could add nothing to what they
already possessed, and might, on the contrary, considerably endanger their
position among their former friends in case of failure. All honour to them.
They at least pursued no other aims than the gratification of their patriotic
feelings. They may have been childish in their loyalty, but there was
nothing of sordidness or of petty feelings of revenge or of worldly triumph
in its composition.
One can hardly say the same concerning others whom I have already
mentioned. Laguerre was of a type of condottieri met with in the pages of
the history of the Italian republics, ready to do anything except turn back on
the enterprise once begun, whose hands were always open to receive but not
to give, whose ambitions were great, but unselfishness limited, who looked
toward the enjoyments of the present hour and toward the gratification of
the fancies of the moment, but never ahead; who could not see the
consequences of their actions, because they knew that these would fall on
other heads than their own. A brilliant man was Laguerre, but a character
that did not inspire confidence and sacrifice, one of those tools which are
indispensable to every conspiracy. His eloquence was unrivalled, his wit
something marvellous, his way of handling irony as a weapon, quite
indescribable; but though he was a politician, he was not a political man,
and even less a statesman.
Déroulède was a patriot, if patriotism is synonymous with rabidness. He
could influence the masses by the torrent of his words. Whether he could
lead them is a question which has remained unanswered to this day, and one
may be excused if one entertains doubts concerning his capacities in that
respect. He had made a name for himself by his anti-German feelings; he
gave it even more importance by his attitude in the Boulanger conspiracy;
but when he put his undoubted popularity at the service of the General he
did so with the intention of working for the welfare of the Republic, and he
would have become his most bitter foe had he found out that Boulanger was
but the instrument of the Orleanist party.
As for Millevoye, it was another thing. He was the only one among all
these passengers in the same ship who had something akin to political
penetration, and who could understand that, when one aspires to overthrow
the government of a country, it is necessary to secure for oneself strong
sympathies abroad in order not to find obstacles in the way later on. He also
had patriotic feelings akin to those of Déroulède, but he had more
shrewdness, and he it was who deceived himself that he could procure for
General Boulanger the support of no less a personage than the Tsar of all
the Russias.
When the events which I am about to relate occurred, the Franco-
Russian rapprochement had not yet taken place. In 1888 the idea of a
French alliance was not popular in Russia, and especially was its Foreign
Office strongly German in its leanings. Nevertheless, Millevoye determined
to see for himself whether it would not be possible to triumph over a certain
mistrust which existed in Russian official spheres in regard to the French
Republic. He resolved to offer in exchange a mute acquiescence to the
election for life of General Boulanger as its President, a defensive alliance
against Germany and Austria, as well as the support of France in case
Russia wanted to settle to her advantage the long-pending question of the
Straits and the Bosphorus.
In this episode lies the only attempt at seriousness of the Boulanger
conspiracy, and it would be a pity that it should remain in the darkness
which hitherto has enshrouded it. Millevoye, in order to execute the plan
that he had elaborated, addressed himself to Madame Adam (Juliette
Lambert), and asked her for her advice. Juliette Lambert, who still dreamed
of an ideal Republic, put at the service of Millevoye all her genius and all
her heart. She gave him a letter of introduction to a friend she had in St.
Petersburg, a lady well known in Court circles; and, in order to ensure the
success of Millevoye, who had been very careful to hide from her the fact
that he wanted to enlist the sympathies of Russia in favour of General
Boulanger—rather, telling her that his aim was to propose, in the name of
the Republican party, an alliance against Germany—she had given him
certain political documents calculated to help him in his perilous adventure.
Millevoye first sent to St. Petersburg his friend, Miss Maud Gonne, a
lovely Irish girl, who since that time made herself widely known owing to
her advocacy of Fenianism.
Miss Maud Gonne duly arrived in Russia, and, thanks to her efforts and
those of the Russian lady to whom I have already referred, Millevoye was
introduced into the presence of M. Pobedonostseff, then Procurator of the
Holy Synod and personal friend of Alexander III., who promised he would
himself submit to the Sovereign the documents which Millevoye left in his
charge.
During this interview which the Russian statesman granted to the French
politician the latter broached at once the question of General Boulanger, but
this met with no response. The Tsar was far too shrewd a man to allow
himself to be drawn into an adventure which, besides everything else, had
against it a shade of ridicule. Millevoye was discouraged in his dreams, but
the seeds sown by his journey were to bring fruit in quite an unexpected
fashion much later on.
Madame Adam was furious when she heard that Millevoye, instead of
pleading the cause of the Republic, had tried to put forward that of General
Boulanger. She not only turned her back upon him when he returned
crestfallen from his journey, but joined the ranks of the adversaries of the
pseudo hero, becoming one of the advisers of M. Constant in the campaign
that the latter led with such success against Boulangism and its chief
leaders.
M. Arthur Meyer, to whom already I have made a passing reference, is
more in his proper place among journalists than in the ranks of political
men. He is a curious figure in the kaleidoscopic picture that Parisian society
represents to-day, and though he has no aristocratic ancestry behind him, he
is ever a welcome and much-desired guest in the select salons of the city.
It can, therefore, hardly be wondered that with such elements the
Boulangist party was doomed to failure. It was born by accident out of the
imagination of a man who had nothing better to do than to try to raise tiny
storms in a teacup. It wanted a leader, and it required soldiers to push it
forward. Unfortunately, it attracted politicians, each of whom wanted to
exploit it for the furtherance of his own cause, and was led by a man in
love, who preferred the caresses of Madame de Bonnemains to the chances
of being imprisoned, and who afterwards was carried to the Elysée by the
enthusiasm of an intoxicated nation, who would have risen like one man to
deliver him had the government tried to capture him.
M. Constant, one of the ablest Prime Ministers France has ever had,
judged the acute situation with perfect accuracy. General Boulanger in
prison was a danger to the safety of the Republic; General Boulanger in a
voluntary exile ceased to be a subject of dread to anyone. In France, more
than in any other country, cowardice is fatal. She turned her head away
from her favourite of the day before when she found out that he had not the
courage to take a single risk in order to ensure his future triumph. When M.
Constant caused to be conveyed secretly to the “Brave Général” the fact
that he was to be arrested during the night, and also managed to procure for
himself the alliance of Madame de Bonnemains in her fear of losing her
lover, the fate of Boulangism was sealed. Deprived of its chief, and of his
prestige—which was far more important, because it was on that prestige the
leaders of the party had reckoned far more than on the man himself—the
forlorn cause he had embodied was bound to fall with a crash and bury
everything under its debris.
As for the heroine of this semi-burlesque and semi-dramatic adventure,
she died shortly after its dénouement. When Boulanger had fled from
France at her earnest request, she was already doomed, and what is worse,
she knew it. She was selfish enough to wish to keep for herself during the
few days which were left to her on earth the love of the man she adored,
and, seriously, who can blame her for it? Certainly had Boulanger been of
the material from which conspirators are made he would have sacrificed her
on the altar of his future glory. It would have been masculine selfishness,
and though his partisans may regret he did not display it, others may be
forgiven if they see a redeeming feature to all the follies which will ever
remain inseparable from the name of Boulanger, in the weakness which
made him lose and destroy a political party, because he could not bear to
see a woman weep. It is certain that he truly loved Madame de
Bonnemains; his suicide is proof.
 CHAPTER XXII

The Panama Scandal

One of the saddest of the many sad scandals that have damaged the fair
fame of the Third Republic has certainly been the lamentable adventure
connected with the Panama Canal. It gave rise to such despicable intrigues,
brought to light such demeaning cupidities, provoked such bitter
animosities, that the only wonder is that the Republic itself did not perish in
the resulting sea of mud which was showered upon it as well as upon its
leading men.
It would be difficult to relate all the intricacies of this memorable affair,
but an effort can be made to describe its various phases so far as they have
become known. It is next to impossible to determine the limit where truth
ends and fabrication begins in this inextricable embroglio, which arose out
of the fear of some, the avarice of others, the general corruption
everywhere. This struck home the more because it occurred in a country
where the establishment of a Republican government had been hailed with
joy by those who accused the Empire of having brought along with it the
system of pots de vin, to use the typical French expression, about which
fierce Radicals, like Ranc, for instance, spoke always with such disdain and
contempt.
Whatever occurred later on, the Panama enterprise was a perfectly
honest one at its beginning. The high honour of Ferdinand de Lesseps
would alone have been a perfect guarantee as to the intentions of its
promoters, even if these had been unknown men, and such was not the case.
But the difficulties which the whole affair presented had never been
properly appreciated, and the brilliant success of the Suez Canal had
blinded the eyes of those who aspired to emulate it under different
conditions, and without the moral help of powerful people such as the
Emperor Napoleon III., and the Khedive Ismail. Without this even the
genius of Lesseps might have proved insufficient, in presence of the
opposition which England made to the construction of the canal.
Lesseps himself had grown old, and, thanks to the atmosphere of flattery
with which he was surrounded, had come to believe that nothing would be
impossible once he was associated with it. At the same time he naively
acknowledged that he had not the slightest idea either of the country, or of
the local conditions with which the builders of the new canal would find
themselves confronted in actual working.
The first difficulty which arose was, of course, the want of money. It was
soon discovered that the funds first subscribed would prove totally
insufficient. Then someone suggested the unfortunate idea of an appeal to
the government for permission to organise a public lottery, the proceeds of
which would be devoted to the construction of the canal.
It was the issue of these so-called Panama bonds which was to end in a
disaster quite unprecedented in the annals of French finance, and which
struck the country to its heart, because its principal victims belonged to the
poorer classes who had been fascinated by the magical name of Ferdinand
de Lesseps.
The lottery, however, was not so easy to organise, and at first met with
considerable opposition in political circles. Lotteries were not looked upon
with favour; one which had for object the continuation of an enterprise that
after all was not French, and which offered no guarantee that it would
remain in French hands, did not inspire sympathy, indeed, several leading
politicians openly declared that they would do their very best to discredit
the scheme. On the other hand money was wanted, and, what is still more
important, courage was wanting also on the part of the directors of the new
company to declare openly that, the result of the subscriptions not having
answered their expectations, the best thing to do would be to go into
voluntary liquidation.
But by adopting such a course, one would have proclaimed defeat
openly, and even an honest man like Charles de Lesseps recoiled before
such a course, well realising the storm of abuse which it would provoke on
all sides. The directors therefore looked around them for means of
salvation, and the issue of lottery bonds appeared as the best solution.
From that moment the sad story began, and the imprudent course which
ended by bringing the grey hairs of the great Ferdinand de Lesseps to the
grave in sorrow and shame was started. The permission of the government
had to be obtained, either by fair means or by foul, and the necessity to save
a work upon which so many hopes had been centred, and which had already
cost so much money, persuaded the administrators of the Panama Company
to listen to the tempting advice given to them by men like Cornelius Herz,
or Arton, and to have recourse to the persuasion of cheques offered with the
necessary discretion in order to win over to them a few rebellious
consciences that hitherto had refused to be convinced of the necessity of
issuing Panama lottery bonds.
This fact alone was sad enough. Unfortunately it was aggravated by
political passion, and all the enemies of the government who afterwards
were the first to cry out that this scandal ought to have been prevented at all
costs, that the services rendered to his country by the man known
everywhere by the name of the “Grand Français” ought to have guaranteed
him from such vile attacks which began from all sides to be made against
his honour, were at that time the most rabid in their outcries against him and
against the light-heartedness with which he had allowed himself to be
drawn into the adventure which was ultimately to land him in the criminal
dock.
The fact is that the scandal connected with the Panama enterprise could
never have reached the proportions it attained had it not been for the
passions of the Royalist party, which thought the situation might, if properly
engineered, bring down the Republic, and allow them to instal a Monarchy
in its place. They wanted to discredit the ministry then in power, to discredit
the two Legislative Chambers—to discredit France, in short; but then it was
of France that they thought the least.
I find a proof of this assertion in the book published a few years ago by
Arthur Meyer, in which he mentions the Panama affair among other things,
and relates how he called upon Charles de Lesseps at the time the truth was
just beginning to ooze out in public, and told him that in order to save his
skin, he ought to transform the private scandal into a public demonstration
of the corruption prevailing in French political circles.
Charles de Lesseps, let it be said to his honour, was incapable of lending
himself to such a proposal, and his reply deserves to be quoted in its
entirety, for it illustrates his native honesty better than a thousand
panegyrics would do:
“My conscience forbids me to reply to you,” he said to Arthur Meyer
when the latter implored him to name the individuals to whom the Panama
company had distributed cheques with a lavish hand. “Supposing even,
which I deny, that the directors or the friends of the Panama Company, in
order to serve its interests, had had recourse to measures which for my part
I would always blame, do you think that I have the right to denounce people
who have had confidence in my loyalty and in my discretion? No, I shall
say nothing; and more than that, I have nothing to say. Our honesty will
come out victoriously in all this campaign which has been started against
us, and which I deplore far more for my father’s sake than for our own. And
then, I must add it, and I am talking now to you in perfect frankness, I care
for the Republic. I will not go so far as to say that my Republican ideal has
been attained at the present moment, but my wish is to spare to the Republic
the shame of being plunged into that torrent of mud which you do not
hesitate to throw upon her. You belong to a party which has particular
opinions as to that subject; this is your private affair whether you accept its
methods or not, but I certainly won’t help you.”
Meyer had to content himself with this proud reply, which is the more to
be admired in that at the moment when he was so generously refusing to
buy his own safety by denouncing those who had trusted to his honour,
Charles de Lesseps was perfectly well aware that the very people whom he
was trying to shield were themselves preparing to throw him overboard in
order to save their already shattered reputations. When, however, the editor
of the Gaulois pressed him to say whether it was true or not that Baron
Jacques Reinach had been deputed to smooth down the timorous
consciences of certain deputies and political men, and whether his name did
not figure on the books of the Panama Company as the recipient of huge
sums of money, he was obliged to own that as to this point, the accounts of
the Panama Company being open to inspection by its shareholders, he could
not hide the fact that the Baron’s name figured upon its books as having
touched the sum of five million francs.
It was not much, but for a man endowed with the journalistic qualities of
Arthur Meyer, it was enough. He forthwith proceeded to inquire as to what
Baron Reinach had done with these millions which had been so liberally put
at his disposal, and he very soon discovered that the said five millions had
been transferred to a banking house called Thierrie, the owner of which had
for sleeping partner the same Jacques Reinach.
Once this fact was established the rest was but child’s play. Meyer very
quickly secured the necessary proofs that a considerable number of deputies
had received important bribes in order to vote for the issue of the Panama
lottery bonds. He also discovered something else, and that was that this
corruption had given birth to a huge system of blackmail, which had
drained all the resources of the Panama Company. It had cruelly expiated its
initial error, and had been made to pay for it dearly, in the literal sense of
that word. A host of adventurers had threatened it with revelations, the
divulging of which it could not risk, and the ball, once set rolling, had very
soon been transformed into an avalanche which had carried away with it not
only the money of the unfortunate shareholders, but also the honour and the
reputation of the directors of this doomed concern.
Meyer, after holding a consultation with his faithful lieutenant, Cornély,
of Figaro fame, did not hesitate one single moment as to what he had to do.
He firmly believed that by raising the formidable scandal, the proofs of
which in such an unexpected manner had been put within his reach, he
would bring about the fall of the Republic, and thus pave the way towards
the restoration of the Monarchy. Events showed that he was totally
mistaken, because the Panama scandal did not kill the Republic, it only
overthrew a few political men and several Cabinets, and the shame of it fell
more, perhaps, upon those who had made it public than upon the miserable
beings who had been responsible for it without realising the abyss into
which their light-heartedness would plunge them.
The man who set the ball rolling was a deputy belonging to the Extreme
Right, M. Jules Delahaye, member for the department of Maine-et-Loire.
He did not hesitate to brand with disgrace many of his colleagues, whose
hands he had pressed perhaps a few hours before he consigned them to
ignominy. He threw as a challenge to France, and also to Europe, the names
of 104 deputies whose consciences had not hesitated before submitting to
the fascination of the all-powerful cheque.
I have met M. Delahaye, and in justice to him I must say that he always
maintained that he had never thought his speech would have the terrible
consequences which followed upon it. Not in the least had he expected that
that list of 104 deputies constituted but a fraction of the people who had,
under one pretext or another, received money from the coffers of the
Panama Company. He had never admitted, nor even believed possible, that
the directors of that company would have so entirely lost their heads as to
listen to every threat, submit to every extortion, and pay, pay, without
discrimination and without hesitation, the enormous sums of hush money
that had been drained out of them, half of the time by people who could not
have harmed them in the least degree.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a
vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to
specialized publications, self-development books, and children's
literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding
knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade

Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge
connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With
an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system,
we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping
experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery
services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and

personal growth!

ebookultra.com