Music Party (1774). Louis de Trinquesse (French, 1745-c.1800). Oil on canvas. Alte Pinakothek, Munich.

Trinquesse painted a number of scenes in the tradition of 18th-century fetes galantes, but was best-known as a prolific draughtsman. His drawings, often signed and dated, were made between 1763 and 1797 or 1798.

William Blake, 1757–1827, British, The Poems of Thomas Gray, Design 77, “The Descent of Odin.”, between 1797 and 1798, Watercolor with pen and black ink and graphite on moderately thick, slightly textured, cream wove paper with inlaid letterpress page, Yale Center for British Art

Lams AU Masterpost

@publius-esquire and @madtomedgar have been writing a fantastic, extended Hamilton/Laurens fanfic since 2013. The basic premise is that Laurens survived the Battle of the Combahee River. Politics, angst, sex, and sometimes a combination of all three. 

They aren’t written in a serialized format, but I’ve made a list that puts them in chronological order. There are a few ficlets that can really go anywhere, so I’ve just placed them strategically. If you’d rather read them in order of when they were posted, you can here or here. Most stories that need a content warning have one at the start.

Last updated: August 1st, 2016. Most recently updated story is starred and bolded.

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

Why do you think Eliza found out about the affair in 72? I'm new to Eliza research and I've never heard anyone say that before, they all seem to think she was blindsided by the affair with the pamphlet which I never got.

I mean, the ultimate truth is we don’t know.

So everyone is just speculating.

But I think it’s possible she found out in 1792, though I’m not sure when that year.

If Reynolds is extorting Hamilton for money and threatening to tell Eliza the whole time, what is the way to make him stop?  What is the way that Reynolds loses his power over Hamilton?  Well, Hamilton could tell his wife.  Like, honestly, the way the affair cuts off doesn’t make sense in many ways unless Hamilton confesses to Eliza.  Otherwise, why wouldn’t Reynolds tell her as soon as Hamilton stops paying up?

But suppose he didn’t say it then, in December of that year, when Monroe & co confront Hamilton, Hamilton is now putting something very damaging in the hands of people who do not like him.  He’s opening himself up for exposure.  He can’t be stupid enough to think that the more people who know, the more likely it is someone tells Eliza.  And I can’t see him not telling her then.

There’s also other mentions from friends of Hamilton that make it pretty clear it was something that end up being known in their social circle well before 1797.  Again, it’s hard to think Eliza didn’t know.

idk for me it just makes logical sense that he would’ve told her before 1797. 

It also relates to what people wrote her (or about her) during 1797 and into 1798.  She seemed mostly upset that Hamilton’s name was being dragged through the mud.  That again indicates to me it wasn’t that the affair was new information, or even the exposure of it that was so hurting her at that moment, which makes me think this was not new information to her.

The French Revolution and Capitalism (François Hincker)

While the term « bourgeois revolution », applied to the French Revolution, has created debates, one knows that the one of « capitalist revolution » is virtually never used, not even by Marxists. The two notions do not corroborate each other, especially as it is henceforth learned that the bourgeois revolutionaries rather were « bourgeois in talent », small entrepreneurs and mediocre rentiers, than knights of the industry and finance ; that, during the Montagnard phase, opinion was indisputably hostile towards « capitalists », always thought of as « hoarders », « monopolists », rich idlers ; that, more generally, every accumulation of capital which was no product of perceptible personal work was suspected of incivisme.

It is therefore logical to ask oneself ; which place did the revolutionary decade hold in the coagulation of the characteristic structures of the capitalist mode of production, and, above all, which specific appearance did it give to French capitalism?

On a juridical level, by the radical destruction which it effected on the privileges and on the « corps », by the production of a system of principles and laws promoting individualism to a degree of irregular perfection, the French Revolution, even during the Montagnard phase, has set up the frameworks of a capitalist economy. One could even say that the Civil Code and the consular and imperial legislation, by valorising family and every hierarchy versus the individual, by submitting the transfer of goods to exact regulations, by affirming on numerous points the supremacy of public right over private right, have been « reactionary ».

On the other hand, on the economic level, the annihilation of a part of the funds that had been accumulated in the 18th century, the stop of investment, the disappearance of the Colonial Empire, have temporarily stopped, from 1792 to 1797-1798, the growth of the sectors which, in 1789, could have been described as « capitalist ».

The problem lies elsewhere, and comes up by comparison with the English evolution: the French society of the 19th century was Balzacian, dominated by an abundant phalanx of « proprietors », of « rentiers », of shopkeepers, from which some entrepreneurs, dreaded and often hated, barely emerged. Conversely, the English society valorised the industrialist, the productive work and mocked the rentier. In France, the typical « working classes » of the Industrial Revolution (those of coal and iron) were marginalised in the collective subconscious, while in England, the ideal was to integrate them. Finally, the specifics of the French development comes out if one regards it from the perspective of agriculture. The secular tendency will be the one of the disappearance of the three classes of the rural capitalist society – the rentier of soil, the leader of non-proprietary exploitation, the proletarian –, and, on the contrary, the one of the constitution of a mass of familial proprietor-exploiters, whose non-landed capital is very weak, and whose logic is simply the countable profitability: selling more than one buys ; and this without taking the volume of the exchanged products, the production cost, the productivity into account.

But, in any case, there is little basis for distinguishing between that which goes back to the Ancien Régime and that which goes back to the Revolution in the cases of these specifics: do the characteristics of the French Revolution not come from its preconditions?

It was rather on the level of the political and ideological superstructures of the French society of the 19th century that one found the most incontestable revolutionary heritage ; the originality of the political practices, the radicalisation of conflicts, the strong ideologisation of politics. Not considering that these elements are part of its identity would be to have a truly « economist » conception of capitalism.

Keep reading