The 1848 Revolutions In Europe

The 1848 Revolutions In Europe The fall of Napoleon marked the beginning of a new era for Europe. The people had witnessed 25 years of warfare. Old boundaries had been eliminated or altered. New political and social systems had arisen. New ideas and opinions had spread throughout Europe. The history of Europe after 1815 is therefore characterised by a struggle between revolutionary and reactionary forces. The struggle would, however, not be conducted merely in the political arena. A new economic factor was evolving in European life, namely the Industrial Revolution. Europe would therefore move in new directions, unheard of only a century earlier. European Society in 1815 Despite their widespread acceptance amongst certain sectors of the European population, the ideals of the French Revolution and the political settlements dictated on greater Europe by Napoleon Bonaparte could not entirely eradicate the institutions of the Old Order. The monarchies were far more deeply rooted for that. Indeed, after Napoleons final defeat, the people of Europe were weary of warfare and tended to look upon the monarchy as a symbol of unity and peace. The reactionary monarchies tended, therefore, to retain the support of the Church, the nobility and the great land-owners. In France the Revolution had attacked the Church quite as much as it had done the royal houses and the nobility. The fall of Napoleon tended, therefore, to be regarded as a victory for the Catholic Church. Because the Church was one of the more powerful forces in restraining the powers of the Revolution, it was natural that every effort would be made after 1815 to restore the Church to its traditional position. The Church therefore became a rallying point for reaction and the forces of continuity. In 1815 Europe generally was merely on the verge of the Industrial Revolution. Land therefore remained the chief source of wealth. As a result, landowners continued to be one of the paramount figures in determining social status and political power. On the other hand, because of the nationalisation of land belonging to both Church and aristocracy, a new landowning class had come into existence. This was particularly so in France. In essence, however, although differing considerably from the older order of landowner, the new class modelled itself on the old and remained extremely conservative. The widespread longing for peace created the atmosphere in which reactionary governments were able to introduce repressive measures against the revolutionary forces. Britain, for instance, (arguably the most liberal of states) brought in measures suspending individual rights and freedoms, prohibiting public gatherings and introducing press censorship. Similar proclamations were issued in France and Germany in 1819. Suppression by military force, use of secret police, control of universities and press censorship became the order of the day throughout Europe. The process of urbanisation had already long started in Europe. With the sudden evolution of the Industrial Age, however, a new industrial proletariat was suddenly created, totally different to the conservative agricultural community. These were people who had an axe to grind because often they had been rendered unemployed by that very revolution. They would therefore be ready followers of any radical political philosopher which promised them better conditions. There was also the new and steadily growing class of industrial bourgeoisie who were using their wealth and power to press for the abolition of obsolete laws and demanding greater political recognition. The New Political Philosophies New political philosophies were taking root during this period: Liberalism, Democracy, Socialism, Communism, Nationalism. One must also be careful not to confuse the liberalism of 1815 with democracy. Liberalism was the political system advocated by the wealthy financiers, merchants and industrialists who formed the backbone of the bourgeoisie. The movement aimed at breaking the political monopoly of the landed nobility. Liberal thinkers urged that birth was not the criterion of political power. Power had rather to depend on land-ownership, intelligence and education. The liberals were certainly not in favour of universal franchise. They did, however, believe in a free economy (laissez faire). To achieve this, they advocated limiting the activities of the state, especially in the economic field. Democrats, on the other hand, believed that political equality was a basic principle. Universal franchise was the basis for this political equality. The democrats therefore tended to be the political rallying ground of the lower classes, especially the petit bourgeoisie. As such they were feared by conservatives and liberals alike. Socialism at the beginning of the 19th century derived its inspiration from Rousseau and the ideals of the French Revolution. While the liberals stressed liberty and the democrats equality, the socialists stressed fraternity. As a result, socialists tended to be regarded as anti-national in character. The socialists were mainly interested in problems of poverty and social inequality which they blamed on the capitalist system of private ownership and production. Since socialism aimed at overthrowing the existing order, it threatened the liberals, the democrats and the conservatives. The nationalism of 1815 must not be confused with the nationalism of the 20th and 21st century. First, it was less militant than modern nationalism. It tended to focus on loyalty to the king rather than on loyalty to the state. It was also more cultural than political. Nevertheless, the Napoleonic Wars had given nationalism a new turn. The French armies had been national rather than mercenary. Napoleon had therefore given his people the desire for national prestige. His conquests in Europe, on the other hand, fostered a national desire amongst the conquered nations to resist. Nationalism, rather than any other political philosophy, would in fact become one of the greatest threats to the European state system after 1815. Why were there so many Revolutions in 1848? Introduction The revolutions of 1848 were the most widespread in the history of Europe. They directly affected France, Germany, Prussia, the Austrian Empire (F-G A P), various Italian states, Moldavia and Wallacia. They also indirectly affected Switzerland, Denmark, England, Spain and Belgium. Of all the European states, only Russia was unaffected. Two aspects draw our attention. First, the immediate course of the revolutions where the drawing up of democratic constitutions was the order of the day. Second, the fact that by 1850 all the revolutions had collapsed into nothing and hard-nosed reaction appeared to triumph. To understand both these aspects, one needs to understand the forces underlying both the revolutions and militating against them. Conditions Underlying the Revolutions The conditions which triggered the 1830 uprising were still there in 1848 but were more widespread. Liberalism and nationalism were growing apace. Yet two new forces were fermenting just then, namely socialism and communism. Each of these forces, when harnessed and working with the others, would serve to drive the old order into retreat. But, if and when they pulled against each other, the old order could come back with full force and in alliance with one or other of these very forces to suppress the rest. The Radicals (from the Latin radix meaning root) desired to cut things to the root. They desired a complete reconstruction of the laws, law-courts, prisons, poor relief, municipal organisation and state constitution. On the continent the majority of the radicals were republicans who were generally drawn from the class of intelligentsia such as students, writers, university professors and lawyers. On the fringe were the socialists who saw the existing economic system as aimless, chaotic and unjust because too much economic power was in the hands of the capitalists. They generally believed in the right to be employed and wanted the nationalisation of essential institutions like banks, factories, the land and transportation. On the far fringe were the communists. These were a group of Germans who coined the name communism for their movement during the 1840s. The name was then adopted in 1848 by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to differentiate their beliefs from general socialism. A glance at the society of the day would indicate that there were factions within it, each wanting its own particular goal. Each would initially enter into alliance with the other to gain a concerted drive towards its objective. But, when it was seen that the other was either going too far or not far enough, then the alliances would break and new alliances would be forged. At the top end of the political/class structure was the government itself which was distrustful of any movement which might seek to destabilise Europe and bring about the chaos of 1789. Below the government were the aristocrats and landed gentry who were also essentially conservative (reactionary). They feared the philosophy of the masses because it could mean that they would lose everything as the result of a successful revolution. Then there were the wealthy merchants and industrialists (bourgeoisie). They were intent on a transfer of power from the aristocracy to themselves. Their desire was for a constitutional monarchy which would favour them in some form of a qualified franchise. Below the bourgeoisie were the petit bourgeoisie. Most vociferous here were the lawyers who desired greater equality before the law which would benefit their own businesses. They therefore formed the backbone of the democratic movement. The poorer bourgeoisie were generally democratic, wanting the franchise to be extended at least as far as themselves as a guarantee of liberty and equality. The academics at the universities, especially those in Germany, also desired constitutional reforms to bring about equality and justice for all. It had to be done, however, in an orderly and civilized fashion and not in such chaos as had happened in France in 1789. The university students (revolting at the best of times!) they owned nothing and had little to lose by revolution, they tended to favour forms of socialism. The urban artisans were at the forefront of the economic suffering. It was they who stood to lose most by the industrial revolution. They were therefore the most radical group in the revolutionary climate, producing most of the socialists and communists. The proletariat had little to lose but much to gain from socialist revolts. They had little loyalty or sympathy either for the aristocracy or the monarchy. It was from this group that the convinced republicans would emanate. The country peasants, on the other hand, desired little more than freedom of movement and freedom from serfdom. They were essentially conservative, deeply religious (superstitious), loyal to their aristocratic overlords and fearful of revolutionary excesses. At the bottom of the pile were the growing numbers of poor and unemployed. They had little to lose by revolution but everything to gain. They would therefore rally behind any leader who promised them security of employment. The religious pull was always very strong. Although many of the lawyers, university students and proletariat claimed that religion was merely the opiate of the masses, most of the population were still bound by the dictates of the Church. The Church in turn preached order, submission to authority and an afterlife where true freedom would be attained. Although the masses might temporarily be caught up in anti-religious hysteria and rioting, their loyalty to the cause could not be sustained. Economic conditions were critical. With the absence of trade-unionism, most workers were prepared to accept their lot in life as long as the economic climate was favourable. An economic depression, on the other hand, produced escalating unemployment and job insecurity. Economic Conditions The period from 1815 to 1848 was marked by significant economic fluctuations. Initially (1815-1818) there was a post-Napoleonic War depression in which the economies of all countries except France went into recession. The early 1820s saw an upswing in economic fortunes but another recession accompanied the 1830 revolutions. Although the 1830s were generally prosperous years, a major recession descended on Europe during the 1840s. The industrialisation was making significant inroads into the European states, especially France and Germany. It was accompanied, however, with gross exploitation and increasing unemployment. Urbanisation was therefore on the increase and the cities became centres for the unemployed masses. Poverty led to destitution, with an accompanying increase in the crime-rate. The ruling classes and the elite bourgeoisie appeared indifferent to the plight of the people. Any political philosophy which promised change would therefore be supported by the masses. The recession of the 1840s was also accompanied by a major crop failure. The potato crop throughout Europe was destroyed by blight in 1845. This was followed by a bad harvest of cereals, leading to inflated prices and a drop in spending power. Conditions became progressively worse in 1846 and 1847. It is estimated that about one-fifth of the population of Paris was unemployed in February 1848 when the revolution occurred. Circumstances in Germany were similar. There was also general disillusionment over the political conditions throughout Europe. The defeat of Napoleon in 1815 had been heralded as the triumph of reason and stability. The governments which were thereupon installed promised constitutions to their people but by the 1840s the constitutions were either not forthcoming or the rulers had regressed into new forms of oppression. A person born in 1815 would be over 30 years of age by 1848 which meant that the young people knew nothing of the hardships of the Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic campaigns. On the contrary, the stories had now become legends of a glorious and romantic past, in contrast to which the contemporary rulers were not only oppressive but boringà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  as well. Pupils of year 9 are requested to please be prepared for the History test based on these notes (pages 1 à ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬ 6 only) and explanations in the class. The test will be held on Monday 27th July, 2009. Why did the Revolutions of 1848 fail? Revolutionary Outbreak When the revolutions did break out in 1848, however, they were entirely spontaneous with no organisation whatever. The revolt in Paris erupted by the banning of the Reform Banquet. Revolts then spread rapidly the length and breadth of Europe: 22 February in Paris, 12 March in Vienna, 17 March in Berlin, thereafter in Rome, Venice and Milan that same month. There was no unity of purpose or in planning. The very rapidity appeared to take the governments by surprise. The fact that the revolts were so sudden and so widespread meant that the governments were caught napping. They lacked policy rather than the power to suppress them. In all cases, the armies remained intact but were not initially used simply because the governments needed time to review the situation. Tensions between Protagonists This very lack of planning and unity of purpose would also serve to tear the revolutions apart. The wealthier bourgeoisie wished to see an end to state interference in the economy so that a policy of laissez faire could operate. The socialists, on the other hand. wanted to see a new constitution which would allow more state interference in the economy so as to bring about an equal distribution of wealth and opportunities. The small communist element wanted to see the end of the state altogether and the introduction of the dictatorship of the proletariat so as to prevent both the aristocrats and the bourgeoisie from ever being able to seize power again. Each of these three groups feared the other. The bourgeoisie desire social order as the pre-requisite for economic growth but saw the socialists and communists as destroyers of that social order. The socialists wanted a new social order that would destroy capitalist monopolies but believed that the new order could be brought about through reform of the existing state. The communists believed that the existing state could not be reformed at all but could only be overthrown. Added to this were the disagreements over the question of the nationalities. A feature of Europe of the 1840s was the lack of national states. The Habsburg Empire consisted of Germans, Magyars, Czechs, Slavs, Italians and other assorted peoples. Prussia consisted of Germans, Poles and Slavs. Italy was a miscellany of small states with no cohesion. Nationalists within these states wanted not only new constitutions but also the creation of national states. If they were to have their own way, the existing states of Europe would be carved up. Italy, for example, could only be united into a nation state if Lombardy and Venetia were taken from Austria. Hungary could only become a nation state if the Habsburg Empire was destroyed. The Poles could have had a national state only if both Prussia and Russia were destroyed. Germany could become a nation state only through the destruction of the Habsburg (Austrian) Empire and the incorporation of parts of Prussia. At the same time, those very nationalists could not agree with one another. Magyar nationalists wanted a Magyar state of Hungary which would incorporate the other minority groups and thereby suppress their nationalist ideals. German nationalists wanted the incorporation of the whole of Prussia which would deny national rights to the Poles. Communist groups, on the other hand, had no desire for any nation states at all but believed that the proletariat of all nations must be united. They were therefore advocating the creation of a stateless society. The disunity of objectives then allowed the armies, which had not been overthrown, to intervene and suppress the revolutions. The Habsburg Empire, first to respond, used nationalistic squabbles as the pretext to suppress the entire movement. The Prussian King then gained courage and used the insurmountable political confrontations to pull the rug from under the revolutionaries feet. In Italy there was no agreement as to whether the new national state would be formed under the Pope, under the King of Sardinia or would be a simple republic. In the end the nation state wasnt formed at all. In France the revolt was essentially a Parisian affair, dominated by the socialists. Discord in the ranks of the revolutionaries, however, allowed Louis Napoleon to seize control and impose yet another dictatorship and empire. The New Philosophies The 1848 revolutions, though so wide-spread, had little of lasting value to show. Only a handful of countries gained constitutions. France had adopted universal franchise but it was not a lasting democracy because Louis Napoleon quickly established a popular dictatorship. In Prussia, Germany, Austria and Italy the pre-1848 conditions were soon restored. For Germany particularly this was a tragedy. It meant that a future German Empire would be created not on the foundations of liberalism and democracy but on Prussian militarism. Prussia would soon embark upon major expansion, using her military might to defeat both Austria and France. That in turn would set imperialism in motion which would ultimately end in the Great War (1914-1918), the 2nd World War (1939-1945) and finally the Cold War (1945-1990). As in France in 1789, the real winners in 1848 were the peasants. They were emancipated in most countries except Russia and would maintain their liberty even after the collapse on the revolts. Yet the peasants were essentially conservative and, having gained freedom, would become another element in the support of the reactionary governments. The failure of the revolutions led to the evolution of new attitudes throughout Europe. Romanticism, the backbone of revolutionary idealism, had failed and was now discredited. After more than half a century of struggle, the ideals of liberalism and nationalism seemed to be no closer than before. The governments felt more secure and could afford to be reactionary. The economic depression of the 1840s eased (it was ironically already easing in 1848 when the first revolts took place) and ushered in a period of relative prosperity. Realism A new philosophy therefore came to dominate Europe which based itself on realism rather than romanticism. The Age of Realism had therefore been born. It was similar to the Age of the Enlightenment but encompassed a far greater spread of the population. The emphasis in Realism was on science, not only for understanding nature, as in the Age of the Enlightenment, but to understand humankind itself. It therefore gave rise to two new sciences: psychology and sociology. Religion also came under renewed attack because of its unscientific nature. Indeed, the radicals went as far as to claim that religion was the invention of the aristocrats and bourgeoisie for the sole purpose of keeping the proletariat subservient. Religion, Karl Marx would say, was simply the opiate of the masses. Politically, the failed revolutions ushered in the politics of realism, known generally by its German term realpolitik. For the people, this meant giving up utopian dreams and relying on the hard work of honest governments. For the governments it meant giving up ideologies and working pragmatically for the best interests of the state, without scruples and without natural alliances. War now became a natural means to gain objectives. War was neither glorious nor romantic. It was not an end in itself but it was certainly a useful tool in the hands of the statesman. (The Prussian statesman, Otto von Bismarck, was a convinced advocate of realpolitik, as is seen in his policies.) Rise of Communism Another philosophy also began to grow as a result of the failed 1848 Revolutions. It became known as Marxism. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels both worked in England but became caught up in the radical Communist League in 1844. During the revolutions in Germany the Communist League became a vociferous voice working for radical ideals. It was for this group that Marx and Engels wrote their Communist Manifesto (published in January 1848) as a guiding document for their future action. But there was still no philosophy of Marxism which would only become a major force in the 1870s after the publication of Das Kapital in 1867. The foundation of Marxist ideology was the French Revolution of 1789 which Karl Marx believed (a) had been successful and (b) had been a revolution of the bourgeoisie. He believed therefore that, if the bourgeoisie could attain success in a revolution, then the proletariat could do the same. Marx also believed that the French Revolution had left unfulfilled promises. It had promised liberty, equality and fraternity for the masses. It had, however, only provided these for the bourgeoisie. The proletariat had therefore been left in a condition of exploitation. Marx saw in the failed 1848 revolutions a major source of concern. First, the revolutionaries had worked with no real objective. Second, much of the concern had been over the creation of national states. Both Marx and Engels believed therefore that the great revolution of the proletariat had to be systematically worked for, with clear guidelines of action. Nationalism could have no place in this revolution. Instead, all workers in all countries had to be united in the common goal of overthrowing the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Hence their battle-cry: Workingmen of all countries, unite! All things are in a state of movement and evolution. All change comes through a clash of antagonistic elements. Every event therefore happens in a sequence and never due to accident. History cannot therefore happen in any way different from the way it has happened. Ideas, claimed Marx, could not change society but ideas stemmed from altering material conditions. These economic conditions determine such things as religion, law, government philosophy, etc. According to Marxist philosophy, therefore, historical development evolved in the following pattern. Material conditions gave rise to economic classes. Agrarian conditions gave rise to feudalism and mercantilist conditions gave rise to capitalism. Each class then develops an ideology suited to its needs. Class conflict is then inevitable and happened in France in 1789. But, as the bourgeoisie developed as a class, the antithesis became inevitable: the development of an antagonistic proletariat. The more a country becomes capitalist, the more it becomes proletarian. Ultimately capitalism leads to monopolies whereby capitalists eat each other. The conflict that then ensues leaves the field clear for the revolution of the proletariat. Such a revolution is inevitable. Moreover, it will eventually lead to a classless society. But there is always the danger of a counter-revolution in which the bourgeoisie regain control. To prevent that, the proletariat need to establish an interim dictatorship of the proletariat. Ultimately, however, the state would simply disappear as it would no longer be necessary except as an organisational or facilitating vehicle. The great revolution nevertheless had to be planned and fought for. The natural antagonism between the capitalists and worker had to be fostered. It was a war, said Marx, and there could be no negotiations and compromises. Capitalism could not be reformed; it could only be overthrown. The problem, as far as Europe was concerned, was that the workers were not united. They were also not prepared to sink their all into a continual class war. Indeed, many of the workers were fundamentally conservative. More dangerous was the fact that religion still played a major factor. Another major problem, said Marx, was the fact that the decades after 1848 were generally prosperous ones during which worker salaries had been gradually raised. As a result, the worker failed to see the government as the enemy which was to be overthrown at all costs. The aim of the dedicated communist was therefore to remind the worker continually of his fundamental loyalties: to work incessantly to bring about the revolution of the proletariat. It is probable that Marxism would have died a natural death had it not been for the great catastrophe of international war in 1914. The economic structure was creating a more prosperous working class which would naturally have killed off communism. The Great War would change all that. The war would bring about two periods of major depression, the first from 1918 to 1923 and the second from 1929 to 1935. Furthermore, Russia collapsed during the war, allowing the radicals to take control. From Russia, then, the idea of exporting communism as a means of destabilising the international community saw Marxism become a potent threat of the 20th century. But thats another story.

Path-Goal Leadership Theory Essay -- Path-Goal Leadership Theory

Path-goal theory deals with the leader's style to motivate followers, to accomplish set goals (Northouse, 2010). The path-goal theory is simply the implication that a leader works with an individual to establish a goal. The leader does this by individual motivation to achieve the proposed goal, while working through obstacles that may hinder achieving that goal (Whitener, 2007). The basic assumption of path-goal theory is that the following motivates subordinates: the capability to perform the work, their efforts will result in a certain outcome, and the payoff will be worthwhile (Whitener, 2007). The path-goal theory is a pragmatic approach that the leader uses to motivate the followers to achieve the set goals. The path-goal theory is derived from the expectancy theory and contains four types of leadership behaviors: directive, supportive, participative, and achievement-oriented (Whitener, 2007). Directive leaders provide clear task instructions, timeline for task completion, and standards of expectancy and how to accomplish the task (Northouse, 2010). Supportive leaders are friendly and approachable, treat followers as equals, and attempt to make the work pleasurable for the follower (Whitener, 2007). A participative leader shares decision making with followers and integrates their suggestions and feedback into the task goals (Northouse, 2010). Finally, achievement-oriented leaders challenge followers to achieve excellence by encouraging them to work at the highest level of achievement possible (Northouse, 2010). However, each of the behaviors can be used individually or collectively as different situations call for different behaviors (Whitener, 2007). Follower characteristics describe how an individual will interpret ... ...ality, it is my belief it will prove also efficient. By automating the asset tracking processes, our people will be freed up to think and plan as opposed to do and react. In addition, our management will have the accurate and timely information they need to make strategic and tactical asset procurement, tracking and retirement decisions. Works Cited CSC. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.csc.com/global_alliances/alliances/32254-sap Kinicki, A., & Kreitner, R. (2009). Organizational behavior: Key concepts, skills and best practices (customized 4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications, Inc. Whitener, J. K. (2007). Year of wonders: The wonder of leadership. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 9(2), 214-222,226-230,234-235. from ABI/INFORM Global.

Miller further Essay

Miller further continues the feeling of contempt towards John Proctor in the following Act through Elizabeth Proctor’s despair. Instantly we can see the tension and strain is the Proctor marriage as when her husband returns home late after a long day planting in the fields, Elizabeth is intensely suspicious of him. This tension is reinforced when the couple sit down for dinner as she uses a patronising tone with him and he secretly insults her by adding more seasoning to the soup she has made when she is not in the room, this is a metaphor showing how their marriage has grown bland and tasteless. This underlying tension between them is undoubtedly caused by Proctor’s affair with Abigail. When Elizabeth informs him that Mary Warren, their servant, had been in court that day as an official of the witchcraft trials, Proctor tells her how he knows the witchcraft accusations are all false as Abby told him when he was with her last week. Elizabeth is disturbed that the two were alone together, but Proctor tells her ‘I’ll not have your suspicion anymore’. He shouts at her with a ‘violent undertone’ to ‘learn charity’, as he has ‘tiptoed around the house for seven months’ since Abigail left. He tells his wife that he has honestly confessed to his sin and tells her that her ‘justice would freeze beer’. This represents him as being an uncaring man as his wife is obviously in distress and we feel sorry for Elizabeth as he is shouting at her and telling her that she is a cold woman when it is he who has been in the wrong when he had his affair with Abby. His callous way makes the audience assume that he will later not be hanged as it is thought that he will not care about admitting to witchcraft, and therefore sacrifice his family name for his life. However, this act also allows the audience to first see how Proctor is not all an evil man through his deep, utter regret, his guilt and his constant desire to cleanse himself of his previous sinful activities with Abigail. It is this break down that helps so show Proctor as no longer being wicked, but rather as being weak and pitiful. As a result, Miller represents Proctor as humanity, as he is someone who is at the same time strong and weak, someone who has made mistakes but who has the sense to learn from them, therefore becoming a better person. The inevitability of his death therefore starts to show, as his true character is honest. The audience further start to have some second thoughts about Proctor’s first cold hearted appearance in the way that Elizabeth seems to be a cold and demanding woman and Elizabeth herself believes that her chilly behaviour may have driven her husband to adultery. She is also withdrawn and distant, this has gradually given her home a silent and insecure atmosphere, and as she continues to punish her husband for his sin, their marriage becomes increasingly tenser. The tension continues to build when Mary Warren then enters, as she informs Proctor and Elizabeth of the many people that have been arrested and how some people will hang. She hands Elizabeth a poppet that she made in court that day, ‘I made a gift for you today, Goody Proctor’ and claims that Sarah Osburn sent her spirit out in court to get them, this shows how easily Abby influenced her and the increasing power Abby is getting as the girls are willing to do whatever she orders them to do. Proctor can not believe the power Abby seems to have over the girls at court and demands evidence of witchcraft from Mary Warren and forbids her to go to court again but she replies that she is ‘amazed you do not see the weighty work we do’ but he threatens her with a whip, ‘strangely she does not resist him’. This shows how although Proctor can use his strength and power to his advantage, he can also use it in a negative way. It also illustrates how Abby is gaining increasingly more power as even the girls themselves are starting to believe that there is witchcraft. Mary claims that she saved Elizabeth’s life today, for she was accused. Elizabeth then realises that Abigail wants to kill her, ‘she wants me dead, John, you know it’. Proctor underestimates Abby, as he never once thought that she would be as wicked or malicious as to accuse Elizabeth of witchery, as Elizabeth is such a good, honest woman who strongly believes in justice and sticking to moral principles. Elizabeth is a well-respected and dignified woman and to accuse her shows that Abigail must strongly hate her as it was dangerous to accuse such a honourable, devout Christian woman of sinful activities when she has such strong religious beliefs. The religious beliefs of Elizabeth and her husband are later questioned when Hale arrives at their house, ‘I thought sir, to put some questions as to the Christian character of this house’. Proctor tries to explain why he works on a Sabbath and has not to been to church as often, he criticises Parris and claims that he spends the church’s money wasteful. Hale asks why only two of Proctor’s children are baptized and asks him to say the Ten Commandments but he can only remember nine of the ten, Elizabeth instantly gives him a sharp and bitter reminder of the tenth, adultery. This is ironic as he broke this commandment when he had his affair with Abby. Proctor obviously knows how foolish he was to be unfaithful and now feels very guilty, this is shown in his constant desire to forget about his sins, and when Elizabeth reminds him, it is ‘as though a secret arrow had pained his heart’. When Proctor tries to tell Hale that witchcraft accusations are not true he does not believe him as he feels that many have confessed to witchcraft. It is here that the hypocrisy of the witchcraft hysteria is exposed as the only way for people to save themselves from hanging was to admit to witchcraft, this sent the witchcraft trials off in a vicious spiral as people would definitely confess to witchery and accuse others, if they would be hanged for denying it. This makes the audience consider if Proctor would confess to witchcraft like the majority of the village to save his life as although he has been represented as not being totally religious by not going to church all the time like the rest of the community, he has given good, moral reasons for not attending. Some of Proctor’s qualities are also helped to be further expressed in Elizabeth’s arrest on the charge that her spirit stabbed Abigail with a needle, ‘stuck two inches in the flesh of her belly he drew a needle out’. He says that he will ‘not give his wife to vengeance’ and when Reverend Hale insists that the court is just, Proctor calls him a ‘Pontius Pilate’. His deep passion and love for his wife mounts along with his anger against the charge and how he is willing to fight for what is right and moral is also expressed. This also shows how Proctor misjudged Abigail as is actually more cunning than he first thought, this seems to show how Proctor sees some good in everybody as he thought she was better than that. The poppet shows that Abigail is yet more wicked, it illustrates how she is jealous and envious of Elizabeth because John loves her so much and also shows how she is determined, unscrupulous, cold and scheming. In the first act, she behaved just in her own interests; she was ready to harm others, but only to save herself. However, in this instance she frames Elizabeth on purpose out of revenge, planting the poppet to murder her. When Elizabeth is taken away, Proctor demands that Mary Warren come to court with him, he uses his intelligence as he knows that he can use Mary to his advantage by making her give evidence against the charges of witchcraft and therefore to prove Elizabeth’s innocence. However, Miller adds irony here as Proctor can rely on one single person to save them from Abigail’s charges but this one person, Mary Warren, is one of the weakest characters in ‘The Crucible’. She alone has the power to stop the hysteria of the witchcraft trials, but does not have the strength or will to do it. Mary needs a lot of force from Proctor to even think about coming clean about the lie in court and as Proctor uses one of his qualities, power, as he is demanding her to give evidence against Abby. She sobs ‘I cannot, I cannot’ but Proctor further expresses his love for his wife as he cries that his ‘wife will not die for him’. His morals and principles allo w the audience to believe that his death will be inescapable. Act Three continues to defend Proctor by focusing on his good points. He enters the court in a powerful manner, presenting a piece of paper signed by Mary Warren saying that the accusations of witchery are false. This shows how he is a natural leader but this quality causes friction between him and Parris. This is revealed as Parris takes the evidence from Proctor as an attack on the court, and even as an attack on him, further, it illustrates how Parris is paranoid and foolish. When Proctor is told that his wife is pregnant by Danforth; although Proctor did not know if it is true or not, he tells everyone in the court that Elizabeth never lies so he believes it, this shows that even thought Elizabeth is often cold towards him, he still deeply loves and trusts her. When Abigail starts to pretend that she can feel a sharp cold wind, ‘a wind, a cold wind has come’, Proctor calls her a ‘whore’ and grabs her by the hair, finally admitting that he had an affair with her, he cries ‘I have known her sir, I have known her’. This again shows how Proctor’s energy and strength can be used negatively. However, he also illustrates deep shame and regret for his unfaithfulness but lets all of the truth be known even if it does mean that he will be charged and the once totally respected member of the community will have a dint in his reputation. He lets all the truth be known as he knows that many innocent people are dying for stupid reasons, this expresses how Proctor supports the theme of truth and justice. It also conveys how Proctor will not lie to defend himself, therefore portraying the idea that he will not later admit to witchcraft to save his own life, therefore expressing how his death may be inevitable. This scene is very ironic as to prove that he is innocent and to show that he is now faithful to his wife, Proctor has to openly tell everyone in the court about his affair. To save Elizabeth and to stop himself from being accused of witchcraft, he has to blacken his name. Even with this sin, Proctor is still shown as a martyr, as he sacrifices his good reputation in Salem, where public reputation is very important, in order to save his wife and others who have been accused of witchcraft even though they are innocent. His great belief in justice helps the audience to believe that his death will be unavoidable as it expresses how he will not carry on the accusations, which will undoubtedly cause many more unjustified deaths, and therefore his life will be lost to save other people.

What Is the Midhinge in Statistics

Within a set of data one important feature are measures of location or position. The most common measurements of this kind are the first and third quartiles. These denote, respectively, the lower 25% and upper 25% of our set of data.   Another measurement of position, which is closely related to the first and third quartiles, is given by the midhinge. After seeing how to calculate the midhinge, we will see how this statistic can be used. Calculation of the Midhinge The midhinge is relatively straightforward to calculate. Assuming that we know the first and third quartiles, we do not have much more to do to calculate the midhinge. We denote the first quartile by Q1 and the third quartile by Q3. The following is the formula for the midhinge: (Q 1 Q 3) / 2. In words we would say that the midhinge is the mean of the first and third quartiles. Example As an example of how to calculate the midhinge we will look at the following set of data: 1, 3, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 To find the first and third quartiles we first need the median of our data. This data set has 19 values, and so the median in the tenth value in the list, giving us a median of 7. The median of the values below this ( 1, 3, 4, 4, 6, 6, 6, 6, 7 ) is 6, and thus 6 is the first quartile. The third quartile is the median of the values above the median ( 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13). We find that the third quartile is 9. We use the formula above to average the first and third quartiles, and see that the midhinge of this data is ( 6 9 ) / 2 7.5. Midhinge and the Median It is important to note that the midhinge differs from the median.   The median is the midpoint of the data set in the sense that 50% of the data values are below the median.   Due to this fact, the median is the second quartile.   The midhinge may not have the same value as the median because the median may not be exactly between the first and third quartiles. Use of the Midhinge The midhinge carries information about the first and third quartiles, and so there are a couple of applications of this quantity. The first use of the midhinge is that if we know this number and the interquartile range we can recover the values of the first and third quartiles without much difficulty. For instance, if we know that the midhinge is 15 and the interquartile range is 20, then Q3 - Q1 20 and ( Q3 Q1 ) / 2 15. From this we obtain Q3 Q1 30. By basic algebra we solve these two linear equations with two unknowns and find that Q3 25 and Q1 ) 5. The midhinge is also useful when calculating the trimean. One formula for the trimean is the mean of the midhinge and median: trimean ( median midhinge ) /2 In this way the trimean conveys information about the center and some of the position of the data. History Concerning the Midhinge The midhinge’s name is derived from thinking of the box portion of a box and whiskers graph as being a hinge of a door. The midhinge is then the midpoint of this box. This nomenclature is relatively recent in the history of statistics, and came into widespread use in the late 1970s and early 1980s.