Write to the booksellers
Annie PERRIER-ROBERT
Le THE
Un ouvrage de 128 pages, format 190 x 170 mm, illustré, relié cartonnage couleurs, publié en 1999, Editions du Chêne, collection "Les Carnets Gourmands", bon état
Reference : LFA-126750227
Histoire du thé
Bookseller's contact details
Lettre de France, L'Art de Vivre à la Française
M. Olivier Auriol de Bussy
04 74 33 45 19
Payment mode
Sale conditions
Vente par correspondance, lors de salons à l'extérieur ou au Château de Vallin lors de manifestations culturelles. Nous vous accueillerons notamment les 19, 20 et 21 juin 2026 (de 10 h à 18 h) à l'occasion de notre Foire aux Livres estivale, exposition-vente de plusieurs milliers d'ouvrages (sans oublier la Grande Braderie de livres à 1 €), organisée au Château de Vallin, demeure historique des XIVe et XVIIIe siècles, située à Saint Victor de Cessieu, proche de La Tour du Pin, en Isère. (entrée libre).
5 book(s) with the same title
O kulcie jednostki i jego nastepstwach. Referat I Sekretarza KC KPZR tow. N.S. Chruszczowa na XX Zjezdzie Komunistycznej Partii Zwiazku Radzieckiego 25 lutego 1956 r. [i.e. On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences. Keynote address by First Secr... - [THE SECRET SPEECH THAT CHANGED WORLD HISTORY]
Warsaw, March (27th) 1956. 8vo. Original printed wrappers. With ""Wylacznie do uzytku organizacji partyjnych"" (""Exclusively for inner-party use"") printed to top of front wrapper. Stamped serial number to front wrapper: 3083. Light sunning to outer margins of wrappers and a few small tears (no loss) to spine. Capitals with tiny loss. A very nice copy indeed. 72 pp.
Extremely rare first printing, printed for private circulation only (""exclusively for inner-party use""), of one of the most important documents of the 20th century, namely Khrushchev's so-called ""Secret Speech"", also known as the ""Khrushchev Report"". This seminal speech was delivered at an unpublicized closed session of Communist Party delegates, with guests and members of the press excluded, and the present Polish version of it was the only one that circulated during the Cold War, the official Russian text being unknown until its 1989 publication. The CIA counterfeit edition [falsely stating Moscow 1959] was in fact a translation into Russian from the present Polish text, which was smuggled out of Moscow and leaked, via Israel, to the USA. There are two impressions of the first edition of Khrushchev's speech, both bearing the date March 1956 and both ordered by the Polish communist party authorities in the span of March 27 - March 31. The present is the first. The present publication shook the Western world and changed our history for good. ""Its consequences, by no means fully foreseen by Khrushchev, shook the Soviet Union to the core, but even more so its communist allies, notably in central Europe. Forces were unleashed that eventually changed the course of history. But at the time, the impact on the delegates was more immediate. Soviet sources now say some were so convulsed as they listened that they suffered heart attacks"" others committed suicide afterwards."" (John Rettie, in The Observer, Sunday 26 February 2006 ).On February 24, 1956 before assembled delegates at a secret session of the Communist Party's Twentieth Congress, Nikita Khrushchev delivered his so-called ""Secret Speech"", denouncing Stalin for his transgressions. The public session of the 20th Congress had come to a formal end on 24 February 1956 when word was spread to delegates to return to the Great Hall of the Kremlin for an additional ""closed session,"" to which journalists, guests, and delegates from ""fraternal parties"" from outside the USSR were not invited. Special passes were issued to those eligible to participate, with an additional 100 former Party members, recently released from the Soviet prison camp network. The speech was thus secretly held in this closed session, without discussion, and it was neither published as part of the congress' proceedings nor reported in the Soviet press. The speech that sent shock waves through the congress participants denounced Stalin, describing him as satanic despot and terrorist who had committed the greatest of crimes. Quoting from correspondence, memoranda and his own observations, Khrushchev gave details of Stalin's horrible actions during the Terror of the late 1930'ies, the unpreparedness of the country at the time of the Nazi invasion in June 1941, numerous wartime blunders, the deportation of various nationalities in 1943 and 1944, and the banishing of Tito's Yugoslavia from the Soviet bloc after the war. Absolving the party itself of these grave actions, Khrushchev attributed them to the ""cult of personality"" that Stalin encouraged and his ""violations of socialist legality"". According to Khrushchev's speech, Stalin was a tyrant, a murderer and torturer of party members.Khrushchev gave his grim tale of the obscene crimes committed by his predecessor, Josef Stalin, only three years after the death of Stalin, who was then celebrated as a great leader and whose death was mourned by the great majority of Soviet citizens, who saw him as a divine father. It is no wonder that this lengthy speech from their new leader completely shocked Soviet communists, being told so soon after his death that far from far from being divine, their hero Stalin was actually outright satanic. The leaders who inherited the party from the old dictator had agreed - after months of furious argument - that Khrushchev should make the speech, but on the condition that it should never be published.Khrushchev read from a prepared report and no stenographic record of the closed session was kept. No questions or debate followed Khrushchev's presentation, and it is reported that delegates left the hall in a state of complete disorientation. It is even said that several delegates suffered heart attacks and that some even committed suicide upon listening to the horrifying speech. On the evening of the congress, delegates of foreign Communist parties were called to the Kremlin and given the opportunity to read the prepared text of the Khrushchev speech, which was treated as a top secret state document. Reports of the speech soon reached the West and as early as March the contents were reported in Western media. ""The content of the speech reached the west through a circuitous route. A few copies of the speech were sent by order of the Soviet Politburo to leaders of the Eastern Bloc countries. Shortly after the speech had been disseminated, a Polish journalist, Viktor Grayevsky, visited his girlfriend, Lucia Baranowski, who worked as a junior secretary in the office of the first secretary of the Polish Communist Party, Edward Ochab. On her desk was a thick booklet with a red binding, with the words: ""The 20th Party Congress, the speech of Comrade Khrushchev."" Grayevsky had heard rumors of the speech and, as a journalist, was interested in reading it. Baranowski allowed him to take the document home to read.As it happened, Grayevsky, who was Jewish, and had made a recent trip to Israel to visit his sick father, decided to emigrate there. After he read the speech, he decided to take it to the Israeli Embassy and gave it to Yaakov Barmor who had helped Grayevsky make his trip to visit Grayevsky's sick father. Barmor was a Shin Bet representative"" he photographed the document and sent the photographs to Israel. By the afternoon of April 13, 1956, the Shin Bet in Israel received the photographs. Israeli intelligence and United States intelligence had previously secretly agreed to cooperate on security matters. James Jesus Angleton was the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) head of counterintelligence and in charge of the clandestine liaison with Israeli intelligence. The photographs were delivered to him. On April 17, 1956, the photographs reached the CIA chief Allen Dulles, who quickly informed U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower. After determining that the speech was authentic, the CIA leaked the speech to The New York Times in early June.""""In the West, the impact of the speech received a colossal boost from the publication of the full, albeit sanitised, text in The Observer and the New York Times. This was the first time the full text had been available for public scrutiny anywhere in the world. Even local party secretaries who read it to members had to return their texts within 36 hours. (Those texts were also sanitised, omitting two incidents in the speech that Orlov related to me.)According to William Taubman, in his masterly biography of Khrushchev, the full text leaked out through Poland where, like other central European communist allies, Moscow had sent an edited copy for distribution to the Polish party."" (John Rettie, in The Observer, Sunday 26 February 2006).The speech sent shock waves throughout the Communist world and caused many Western Communists to abandon the movement. In central Europe, the impact of the speech was enormous. By autumn Poland was ready to explode and in Hungary an anti-communist revolution overthrew the Stalinist party and government, replacing them with the short-lived reformist Imre Nagy.""Some may doubt that Stalin's Soviet Union could ever have been reformed, but Khrushchev was not among them - and neither, indeed, was Gorbachev. But after two decades of decay under Brezhnev, even he could not hold the country together. It can well be argued that the 'secret speech' was the century's most momentous, planting the seed that eventually caused the demise of the USSR."" (John Rettie, in The Observer, Sunday 26 February 2006).It is the present version of the seminal text that leaked behind the Iron Curtain. Allegedly the CIA offered USD 1.000.000 for a copy, before they came into possession of the text through other channels. Khrushchev himself stated: ""It was supposed to have been secret, but in fact it was far from being secret.. our document fell into the hands of some Polish comrades who were hostile towards the Soviet Union. They used my speech for their own purposes and made copies of it. I was told that it was being sold for very little.""Almost all the copies of this extremely scarce publication - which were all numbered and strictly registered - were withdrawn and destroyed after 11 April 1956. We have been able to locate no copies outside of Poland and can find no copies registered in OCLC (apart from the one in Poland).
Regler for Tidens nöiagtige Afmaaling ved Uhre. (Rules govening the measurement of the accuracy of time by Watches and Clocks). - [MAGNUM OPUS OF MODERN WATCHMAKING]
Kiöbenhavn, N. Möller og Sön, 1804. 4to. Near contemporary brown half calf with cloth-covered boards gilt title to spine (UREMAKER KUNST), with Australian bookbinder's etiquette: ""W. Detmold, Melbourne"" to inside of front board. Pencil name and doodles to front end-papers and traces of the same kind of pencil-names and doodling to the first leaves, removed. Front free end-paper with a portrait inserted (possibly of Urban Jürgensen, possibly of his brother Jøregen Jørgensen - see below under Provenance). Hinges and capitals worn. Hinges professionally re-enforced from verso and restorations to capitals. Text overall nice and clean, with the occasinal browning or dampstaining. Plates have some overall toning/even soiling and staining and some occasional offsetting or spotting. They have been lightly, and very professionally, cleaned, and a few of them have edge restorations (far from affecting image) or a small re-enfircement from verso, barely noticeable. Bothe text and plates printed on thick, heavy paper. XXVI,242 pp. and 18 double-page folded engraved plates.
Exceedingly scarce first edition of the first Danish book on watchmaking, constituting a magnum opus of modern watchmaking. After having trained abroad, in Le Locle, Paris, and London, Urban Jürgensen was one of the best-trained watchmakers in the world by the time he returned to Copenhagen in 1801. Not only did he master to perfection the finest techniques of the age, he also improved upon them and experimented with various technologies. His great treatise from 1804, Rules for the Accurate Measurement of Time by Watches and Clocks, is arguably the most important treatise on watchmaking from this period"" it was used as a manual for watchmakers all over Europe and is still in use today. The first edition is of the utmost scarcity, with very few copies known on private hands and only a handful of copies in libraries worldwide. The work was quickly translated into French, and a second edition of the Danish translation appeared in 1839. “The story starts with Jørgen Jürgensen, an early Danish watchmaker, in 1773. To give a sense of what Danish watchmaking looked like in the late 1700s, around 20 craftsmen were registered to the trade in Copenhagen. Before Jørgen received Royal support for his business in 1781, the majority of watches in Denmark were imported and of low quality. He successfully made the case over many years that with the government's support, he could create a true domestic industry. As a result, Jørgen can be described as the father of Danish watchmaking. He trained apprentices and was given the right to run a manufacturer. This right was even extended to his sons... ""if they possessed the necessary competence for the task."" Jørgen's eldest son, Urban Jürgensen, proved to possess more than the necessary competence. Born in 1776, Urban was incredibly intelligent, leaving Copenhagen at the age of 21 after Jørgen decided he had learned all that he could in his home country. His travels brought him to Le Locle, studying under Jacques-Frédéric Houriet" to Paris, to learn from Abraham-Louis Breguet and Ferdinand Berthoud and then to London, apprenticing for John Arnold and John Brockbank. Urban Jürgensen was one of the best-trained watchmakers in the world by the time he returned to Copenhagen in 1801 – and he backed it up. Before his death in 1830, he produced over 700 watches, including 45 marine chronometers. Urban experimented with various escapement technologies he had encountered during his travels, working with various ébauches, but he certainly preferred the chronometer or detent escapement. He even improved upon the work of Thomas Earnshaw and John Arnold in England by developing the detached double-wheel chronometer escapement toward the end of his career. Jørgen established the idea of Danish watchmaking, and Urban ran with it – particularly with an eye for scientific precision and accuracy.” (https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/urban-jurgensen-then-and-now). “In 1773, Danish horologist Jürgen Jürgensen presented his masterpiece, a repeating watch, to the Danish Watchmakers Guild in Copenhagen, Denmark. The culmination of six years of training in Germany and Switzerland, his efforts earned him the title of Master Watchmaker. Three years later, his eldest son Urban was born. Urban’s star would eclipse even that of his talented father, sparking a multigenerational saga that continues to this day. … Urban, born in 1776, set out on an apprenticeship journey — much as his father had before him — at the age of 21. Having already studied horology under his father’s tutelage, he made his way to France and England, where he had the tremendous fortune of studying in the workshops of Abraham-Louis Breguet, Ferdinand Berthoud and John Arnold. Due to his Danish citizenship, Jürgensen was able to navigate the geopolitical waters that would otherwise have stifled the ambition of an Englishman or a Frenchman desiring to work with his fellows across the Channel. (The two countries were archrivals and soon to be engaged in the Napoleonic Wars.). Returning to Copenhagen in 1801, Urban got to work designing marine chronometers, astronomical pendulum clocks, and even a bi-metallic pocket thermometer that functioned better than standard mercury-based models in freezing temperatures. His 1804 treatise Rules for the Accurate Measurement of Time by Watches and Clocks — published at the age of 28 — was the first Danish book on watchmaking and is still in use today. The influence of Breguet, Arnold and Berthoud combined with his Danish sense of design in functional, forward-thinking, beautiful timepieces began to impress in the highest circles: In quick succession, Jürgensen became the official supplier of marine chronometers to the Royal Danish Navy the first tradesman inducted into the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences" and, in 1824, a Knight of the Order of the Dannebrog.” (https://www.insidehook.com/watches/urban-jurgensen-historical-watchmaker-returns) “Urban Jürgensen is an independent high-end brand known for obsessing over details, creating masterpieces that may appear minimalistic, but hide an execution of subtleties that few ateliers can match. Founded in Copenhagen in 1773 by Jürgen Jürgensen, the company is among the foremost watchmaking dynasties in history. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the Jürgensen family worked with legends like Jacques-Frédéric Houriet, Abraham-Louis Breguet and John Arnold to set standards for fine watchmaking that still apply today. Urban Jürgensen, first son of Jürgen, continued building the family's brand with innovations like a cylinder escape wheel comprised of hardened steel (instead of traditional brass) to greatly reduce wear and increase reliability. His book, Principes Généraux de l'Exacte Mesure du temps par les Horloges [i.e. the present book, French translation], is still a relevant reference for today's watchmakers. Headquartered in Biel/Bienne, Switzerland, the company was for a time under Danish ownership with Soren Petersen (formerly with Nokia) as President and CEO, before being acquired in 2025 by US-based Rosenfield family and a group of investors, with Finnish independent watchmaker Kari Voutilainen serving as Co-CEO and head of watchmaking.” (https://monochrome-watches.com/urban-jurgensen/) On OCLC, we have been able to locate no more than four copies outside of Copenhagen: Paris, London, Stockholm, and Chicago. Provenance: It is curious that a book like the present should end up in Melbourne (where it was bound) in the mid 19th century. The portrait inserted on the front free end-paper may point to an explanation. This portrait bears quite a bit of resemblance with that of Urban Jürgensen printed in the second edition of the work. But it also bears great resemblance with the portrait (by Eckersberg) of his famous brother Jørgen Jørgensen (the Danish version of the name Jürgensen), who spent the lest part of his life in Tasmania. We have not been absle to establish with certainty whether it is Jørgen or Urban himself, but it seems likely that Jørgen will have brought his brother's great treatise with him to Australia, where it will have remained after his death in 1841. Jørgen Jørgensen (1780-1841), also known as “The King of Iceland”, was a famous Danish adventurer, who led a rather remarkable life. “The ‘Viking of Van Diemen’s Land', Jørgen Jørgensen is without a doubt the most colourful and (in)famous Dane to have come to Australia. He was once called one of the most interesting human comets ever recorded in history. In his 61 years of life, he was a sailor, diplomatic agent, convict, self-proclaimed king of Iceland, police officer, gambler, convict, naval captain, writer, explorer and the list goes on.” (Danes in Australia) “Jørgen Jørgensen (later anglicised to Jorgen Jorgenson) was born on 29 March 1780 in Copenhagen as the second son of royal clockmaker Jürgen Jürgensen and wife Anna Leth Bruun, a very well-respected family. At the age of 14, Jorgen took his first job as an apprentice on an English coal ship sailing mainly in the North Sea and the Baltic. In the next years he worked on several Danish and English ships, including a whaling ship bound for South Africa. In 1800, he was taken on as a second-mate on the Lady Nelson, an English brig commissioned by New South Wales Governor King to discover whether Van Diemen’s Land (now known as Tasmania) was part of the mainland or not (all maps prior to 1800 showed that this was the case). In January 1801, the brig made its first passage through the Bass Strait. Jorgen served on the survey ship during which time Launceston was discovered, Hobart was founded and a permanent settlement was established at Newcastle. In 1804, Jorgen joined the whaling ship Alexander where, at the age of 24, he became an assistant captain. The large pod of whales, which he had discovered during his voyages around the Bass Strait, resulted in a very successful whaling expedition. Eventually, this led to a permanent whaling station at Hobart, which played a huge part in the Tasmanian economy right into the 20th century. Jorgen then sailed a cargo of whale blubber back to Europe, and eventually returned to Copenhagen in 1806 where he was hailed as the first Dane to sail around the world. After Denmark’s declaration of war against England he was appointed captain on a Danish privateer, the Admiral Juul, and sent out to destroy British warships. However, he was quickly captured, and subsequently taken back to England as a prisoner of war. In London he befriended a merchant, Samuel Phelps, and later went with him on a trading expedition to Iceland, which was ruled by Denmark. Upon arrival in Iceland, the Danish officials refused to let the Icelanders trade with the newly arrived ship. After a week or so with no change, Jorgen, along with Phelps and a dozen British seamen, marched to the governor’s residence and declared him a prisoner of war. Jorgen, at the time 28 years old, subsequently announced himself as His Excellency the Protector of Iceland, Commander in Chief by Sea and Land and soon after his proclamations began “We, Jorgen Jorgensen, Rex”. He designed a flag and built a fort, Fort Phelps. He is still known today by the Icelanders as Jörundur hundadaga konungur (Jorgen the king of the dog-days). His rule was short-lived. A British war ship arrived and the Captain put an end to Jorgen’s two months as a ‘king’, and took him back to England where he was imprisoned, yet again. Through powerful connections, Jorgen managed to get out of this prison sentence and was sent to Continental Europe as a spy. His gambling, drinking and ever-mounting debts, however, were getting the better of him, and the final straw was after he was caught pawning off his landlady’s furnishings and bed linen. He was sentenced to 7 years of exile, caught a month later for still remaining in the country, and sentenced to death, which was then commuted to exile for life. During the next three years, he managed to stay in England, even working as an assistant to the surgeon at Newgate Prison. Antagonised by one of Jorgen’s religious publications, the Home Secretary eventually was forced to send him to Van Diemen’s Land. In 1825 he boarded the convict ship Woodman and arrived on 29 April, 1826, some 22 years after he had first sailed through these waters. The island now had a population of 13,000 (of which 6,000 were convicts) with 5,000 living in Hobart. Jorgen’s first job was working as a clerk in the local customs office. Here he discovered a suspected forgery of government bonds, which led to the police arresting the forgers and confiscating 4000 pounds worth of forged bonds. In recognition of exposing the forgery, Jorgen was put in touch with the manager of the Van Diemen’s Land Company. Here he was chosen to lead an expedition to the unexplored northwest corner of the island, a journey of 300 km. Together with another convict, they were the first white men to cross the Central Plateau. However, snow, lack of provisions and exhaustion, forced them to turn back. In July 1827, Jorgen got a conditional pardon and started a new career as a police officer. This involved protecting the white colonists in the village of Oatlands, northwest of Hobart, against the so-called ‘hostile natives’ as well as escaped convicts. He was also made member of a special police corps, responsible for the ‘black wars’, an unsuccessful attempt by the colonial government to drive all the aborigines out of the island. As a reward for his services Jorgen was awarded 100 acres of land. Eventually, Jorgen received his full pardon, and in 1831 he resigned from the police force. A week later, he married an Irish convict, Norah Corbett, who was half his age and an alcoholic. She proved to be the greatest trial of his life and was often seen chasing her husband down the streets of Oatlands. Jorgen wrote several books and contributed regularly to two daily newspapers in Hobart during his last years.” Bookbinder William Detmold was among the earliest and most important bookbinders in Australia. ""William Detmold (1828-1884) of Melbourne, who began in 1854, was an important bookbinder. Hannover-born, Detmold is believed to have trained in New York, where he lived from 1846 until 1852."" ""Binding skills were originally immigrant. Training by apprenticeship, formal or otherwise followed. Trades training away from the workplace began about the beginning of the twentieth century. Examples of the second generation of binders are Charles Harwood, originally a convict, trained by Moffitt, later in business for himself in Sydney for at least twenty years, and the Wrigleys, who arrived in Melbourne as children in the 1850s, worked for Detmold, and for themselves in the 1870s and 1880s. By the second half of the nineteenth century, we find a gradual separation of specialised book trades into freestanding businesses. The emergence was slow and incomplete. The association of binding with related trades makes it difficult to determine who were the BOOK binders. The emphasis of advertisments sometimes provides a clue. John L Sherriff, of Sydney, in The Australian almanac for the year 1874 advertises himself as 'bookseller, stationer and publisher', although stating 'JLS gives his attention to the following branches of business:- Bookselling, publishing, binding, printing, engraving and lithographing, picture framing, account book manufacturing' (p37). In A glance at Australia in 1880 by Mortimer Franklyn (Melbourne, 1881) Maddock advertises himself as, 'importer of books and stationery', listing bookbinding in a long list of services provided. Bookseller George Robertson of Melbourne's new premises were described by the Bookseller in 1872 as having a bindery for the manufacture of account books. Without the ledger trade, in particular, it is dubious if the competence to be found in much nineteenth century Australian binding would have been possible. From stickers we know that Robertson bound books, presumably for customers, and his own publications. Even binders working independently offered services such as the manufacture of account books or fancy boxes. William Detmold (1828-1884) of Melbourne, who began in 1854, was an important bookbinder. Hannover-born, Detmold is believed to have trained in New York, where he lived from 1846 until 1852. As well as Detmold, Tanner's Melbourne directory for 1859. (Melbourne, John Tanner) lists Cook & Fox, E. Esquilant and T.J. Walters. The publication itself, bound in khaki coloured buckram with a blind embossed rectangular cover design, gilt lettering on the front cover and a blank spine, is a publisher's binding with Detmold's sticker on the endpapers.W. Detmold, Bookbinder, paper Ruler, and Manufacturer of Account Books, In acknowledging the liberal patronage he has received from the Victorian Public, desires to inform them that, to his already extensive Bookbinding Establishment he has added all the latest improvements in machinery, by the aid of which, and by careful attention, he is enabled to execute orders with increased promptitude, in a more SUPERIOR AND FINISHED STYLE than hitherto, and at REDUCED PRICES"" and ventures to hope for a continuance of the support which he has hitherto been honoured. W. Detmold is employed by all the Leading Houses, the Clergy and Gentry, as well as the Public Library, University, and most other Libraries in the Colony. 163, Swanston street, Melbourne."" (Carol Mills: Australian Bookbinders and Bookbinding History of the Nineteenth Century).
Moral grundet paa Nytte- eller Lykkeprincippet. Oversat og indledet ved G. Brandes. - [THE STARTING POINT FOR THE WELFARE STATE]
Kjøbenhavn (Copenhagen), Gyldendal, 1872. 8vo. Contemporary brown half cloth with gilt lettering to spine. Capitals worn and wear along edges. Internally a bit of light scattered brownspotting, but overall very nice. With numerous pencil-underlinings as well as pencil-markings, and -annotations, the latter in Høffding's hand (the underlinings possibly in Brandt's). With the ownership signature of Harald Høffding to front free end-paper and with a later presentation-inscription from Frithiof Brandt (signed F. B.) underneath. Recent ownership signature in pencil to foot of front free end-paper (1973). (2), VIII, 85, (1) pp.
Scarce first edition of the first Danish translation of Mill’s seminal “Utilitarianism”, translated by the great Georg Brandes and with the most excellent provenance, namely that of the founder of the welfare principle, which laid the groundwork for the welfare state as we know it today, Harald Høffding, with his numerous handwritten notes, annotations, and markings, and later given to someone by Høffding’s pupil, the important Danish philosopher Frithiof Brandt. Mill’s “Utilitarianism” constitutes a classic within the field of moral and political thought and is considered ""the most influential philosophical articulation of a liberal humanistic morality that was produced in the nineteenth century."" (Encycl. Of Philosophy). Originally published as a series of three separate articles in 1861, it was collected and printed as a single work under the canonical title in 1863. This publication is now considered the classic exposition and defense of Utilitarianism in ethics, a revolution within moral philosophy. The work was translated into Danish by the immensely influential literary critic Georg Brandes, by many considered the greatest intellectual of his time. Brandes played a key role in introducing especially German and British thought to Scandinavia, most notably the works by such thinkers as Darwin and Nietzsche. He is also the first to translate Mill’s works and make them accessible to a Scandinavian readership. His translation of “Utilitarianism” appeared in 1872 and was responsible for spreading the utilitarian philosophy to a wider audience in the North, indirectly - through Høffding - contributing to the formation of the welfare state that the Scandinavian countries are so famous for. It was through the reading of primarily Mill and Bentham that Harald Høffding came to develop his welfare principle, a principle that he is the first in the world to work out, and the principle upon which the modern welfare state is founded. He is primarily inspired by Mill’s Utilitarianism, but comes to largely replace the conceptions of utility and happiness using instead the welfare principle as a specification of the yardstick that must be used to evaluate actions. “The object of the welfare-principle is not the individual or momentary inclination, rather the lasting vital necessities of the human race, and therefore it places the point of judgment at the effects of an action.” (Thyrring Andersen, p. 105). “In the abandonment of the Christian ethics, positivism had to try to give the grounds for a morality which does not seek refuge with a divine authority. The contribution of Harald Høffding lies in a continuation of the utilitarianism in Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mills, whose normative theories on ethics claim that the correct ethically is the one that compared to the other options produces the greatest amount of positive values. And that means that the ethical values of an action depend on its ability to increase the amount of happiness. The principle of utility is formulated this way: The greatest possible happiness for the greatest possible number of people. Among the problems in this ethics are how different forms of values can be compared, which yardstick they can be measured by, and how a just and/or fair distribution of boons can be based.” (Thyrring Andersen, p. 104). Høffding had his starting point in Utilitarianism, but he transcended the more narrow principle of happiness. His welfare principle does not identify the supreme good with the happiness of the individual, “but considers the utmost purpose of being as the appearance of men of sterling characters, who have a feeling of happiness in working for the common good. … a decisive precondition of this was the commandment concerning charity in the Gospels and the historical development of this in Christianity.” (Thyrring Andersen, p. 109). Georg Brandes was the leading intellectual of his time in Denmark and must be credited with bringing European thought to Scandinavia, not only through his incredibly popular and famous lectures, but also through his own writings and not least through his translations of the most important works of the period into Danish. In Denmark, Brandes was synonymous with “the modern breakthrough” and therefore, for most, also the symbol of democracy and what we today would call welfare-thinking. At a closer look, however, Brandes was also in many ways an anti-democrat and so influenced by the thoughts of Darwin and especially Nietzsche that his views came to be very much opposed to those of a society based on a welfare principle that Høffding came to develop. “[I]t was Høffding who was the first in the world to work out a welfare-principle, namely in his “Etik” (Ethics) in 1887. Today, Høffding is not widely known, but in his lifetime and up to the 1950ties he was an internationally famous philosopher, whose works were translated into many languages and who was several times nominated for the Nobel Prize.” (Andersen, A.T.: The Dialogic and Religious Theme of Welfare in Harald Høffding…, p. 104). His great work ""Etik"", in which he developed the welfare-principle, constitutes an ethical system. Here, Høffding discusses the principal questions in order to develop a scientific ethics, or a moral science if one will, analyzes the ethical principles that are expressed in ethical assessments, and on the basis hereof develops an individualistic and a social ethic that was way ahead of its time, but which found great resonance within the reading public. The book had an enormous impact. It appeared five times in Høffding’s life-time, sold extremely well, and was quickly translated into German and French – “Denmark had gotten its first internationally known and acknowledged philosopher, several decades before Kierkegaard had his breakthrough on the international scene.” (Koch, Dansk filosofi i positivisments tidsalder, p. 41 – translated from Danish). “Høffding became a mentor to many – not least because of the humanity that marks this book [i.e. Ethics] and because of the well-balanced treatment it gives of the social and political questions of the time, of the relationship between the sexes and between church and state, just to mention a few of the “important life conditions” it deals with. Students in personal crisis contacted him, and people in difficult circumstances wrote to him for advice. Not least because of his ethical view, he came to appear as the old, wise man of the nation… His influence in the neighboring countries was also great. For instance, his ethical considerations in the years around 1900 came to play a significant role for the young Swedish social democrats and for their conception of a coming welfare state.” (Koch, Dansk filosofi i positivisments tidsalder, p. 60 – translated from Danish). The opposing views of the two intellectual giants of late 19th century Denmark would develop into a public feud that is now known as “the great debate”, an acrimonious exchange between the two concerning the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche (running from August 1889 to April 1890). “The significance of the dispute is due largely to the fact that it constitutes the earliest public interpretation and evaluation of Nietzsche’s philosophy.” (William Banks: “The Great Debate”: Nietzsche, Culture, and the Scandinavian Welfare Society”, 2024, p. 133). The feud was begun by Brandes after having read Høffding’s “Ethics” from 1887, where he presented his welfare principle for the first time, a welfare principle he had developed under the influence of Mill’s Utilitarianism that Brandes had translated an published 15 years earlier. Brandes, ultimately, wholeheartedly joins the views of Nietzsche and dissociates himself not only from the welfare principle of Høffding, but also from the ideal of Utilitarianism. Frithiof Brandt (1892–1968) was a student and follower of Høffding. He succeeded Høffding as professor in philosophy and held the chair of professor of philosophy and psychology at the University of Copenhagen from 1922 to 1958. During his lifetime, Brandt was a significant figure in Danish philosophy and psychology, most notably with his works on Kierkegaard, and especially in Danish cultural life. “Harald Høffding, the Danish philosopher and historian of philosophy, was born in Copenhagen and lived there throughout his life. From 1883 to 1915 he was professor of philosophy at the University of Copenhagen. Høffding received a degree in divinity in 1865, but he had already decided not to take orders. A study of Søren Kierkegaard's works, and especially of his views on Christianity, had led to an intense religious crisis ending in a radical break with Christianity. Høffding sought in philosophy a new personal orientation and gradually developed into an extraordinarily many-sided liberal humanist. His philosophical development was influenced during a stay in Paris (1868–1869) by the study of French and English positivism… his activity as a scholar ranged over every branch of philosophy, including psychology. His works display a vast knowledge, a keen eye for essentials, and a critically balanced judgment. They were translated into many languages and widely used as textbooks. By the turn of the twentieth century Høffding's reputation was worldwide and he knew personally many leading thinkers. He was the outstanding Danish philosopher of his day, and in 1914 the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters assigned him the honorary residence of Gammel Carlsberg, where he lived to the end of his life. The residence later passed to the physicist Niels Bohr, a younger friend of Høffding.” (Frithiof Brandt, Encyclopaedia of Philosophy). “The Danish philosopher Harald Høffding was the first in the world to work out a welfare-principle. He expressed a dialogic and democratic standpoint, a fellowship and an ideal concerning equality, and consequently a distinct philosophical basis for the realization of the formation of the welfare state.” (Andersen, A.T.: The Dialogic and Religious Theme of Welfare in Harald Høffding…, p. (103).).
Danicorum Monumentorum Libri Sex: E spissis antiquitatum tenebris et in Dania ac Norvegia extantibus ruderibus eruti + Regum Daniae Series duplex et Limitum inter Daniam & Sveciam Descriptio. Ex vetustissimo Legum Scanicarum Literis Runicis in membran... - [THE FOUNDATION OF RUNOLOGY]
Hafnia, Joachim Moltke, 1643 + Melchior Martzan, 1642. Folio (290 x 200 mm). In contemporary full calf with four raise bands and embossed super ex-libris (C. H. Helwerskov (1655 - 1733), Danish landowner and supreme court judge) to front- and back-board. Rebacked and back-board with repair. Annotations to pasted down front end-paper and front free end-paper. Closed tear to leaf B2. A very nice, clean and wide margined copy printed on heavy paper. Engraved title-page (by Simon de Pas). (24), 526, (16) pp. + large folded woodcut plate (the Golden Horn). Large woodcuts in the text + (12), 36 pp. The text is in two columns, in Latin and runes. Captions and some runic letters printed in red.
A very nice wide margined copy printed on good paper of the scarce first editions of both of Worm's famous masterpieces on runes - 1) ""Danicorum Monumentorum"" being Worm's runic magnum opus, which not only constitutes the first written study of runestones and the first scientific analysis of them, but also one of the only surviving sources for depictions of numerous runestones and inscriptions from Denmark, many of which are now lost"" 2) ""Regum Daniae"", which contains the highly important reproduction of The Law of Scania in runes as well as in Latin translation with commentaries. The ""Danicorum Monumentorum"", with its numerous woodcut renderings of monuments with rune-inscriptions - including the world-famous folded plate of the Golden Horn, which had been found only five year previously, and which is now lost - is arguably the most significant work on runes ever written, founding the study of runes and runic monuments. Most of the woodcuts were done after drawings by the Norwegian student Jonas Skonvig"" they are now of monumental importance to the study of runes and runic monuments, not only because they appeared here for the first time in print, but also because many of the monuments are now lost and these illustrations are the only surviving remains that we have. Ole Worm (Olaus Wormius) (1588-1655) was a famous Danish polymath, who was widely travelled and who had studied at a range of different European universities. Like many of the great intellectuals of the Early Modern era, Worm's primary occupation was as a physician, for which he gained wide renown. He later became court doctor to King Christian IV of Denmark. In 1621, Worm had become professor of physics, but already the year before, in 1620, had he begun the famous collection that would become one of the greatest cabinets of curiosites in Europe (and one of the first museums) and which would earn him the position as the first great systematic collector (within natural history) in Scandinavia. It was his then newly begun collection that enabled him, as professor of physics, to introduce demonstrative subject teaching at the university, as something completely new. He continued building and adding to his magnificent collection, now known as ""Museum Wormianum"", throughout the rest of his life. Worm's fascination for antiquarian subjects not only resulted in his famous ""Museum Wormianum"", but also in a deep fascination with early Scandinavian and runic literature and the history and meaning of runestones. These monuments found throughout Scandinavia, were carved with runic inscriptions and set in place from about the fourth to the twelfth centuries. In most cases, they are burial headstones, presumably for heroes and warriors.Worm published works on the runic calendar, translations of runic texts and explications of folklore associated with the runestone histories. By far his most extensive and important work was the ""Danicorum Monumentorum"", which was the first serious attempt at scientifically analyzing and recording all 144 then known runestone sites in Denmark. With the King's blessing and support, Worm contacted bishops all over the country who were instructed to provide details and drawings of the barrows, stone circles and carved inscriptions in their regions.Many of the monuments recorded in this splendid work have since disappeared. Some of them appeared in the fire of Copenhagen, to which they were brought at the request of Worm himself. The book thus contains highly valuable data about missing sites in Scandinavian archaeology and is an invaluable source to anyone studying runes and runic monuments. Included in the work are Worm's three earlier, small treatises on runes, here collected for the first time and set into a systematic an scientific context, among them his 1641 treatise on the Golden Horn. For Danes, the Golden Horns, discovered on 1639 and 1734 respectively, with their amazing, complicated, and tragic story, constitute the Scandinavian equivalent to the Egyptian pyramids and have been the object of the same kind of fascination here in the North, causing a wealth of fantastical interpretations, both historical, literary, mystical, linguistic, and artistic. The two golden horns constitute the greatest National treasure that we have. They are both from abound 400 AD and are thought to have been a pair. A span of almost 100 years elapsed between the finding of the first horn and the finding of the second. Both findings are now a fundamental part of Danish heritage. In 1802 the horns were stolen, and the story of this theft constitutes the greatest Danish detective story of all times. The thief was eventually caught, but it turned out that he had melted both of the horns and used the gold for other purposes.Before the horns were stolen, a copy of the horns was made and shipped to the King of Italy, but the cast which was used to make this copy was destroyed, before news had reached the kingdom of Denmark that the copies made from the cast were lost on their way to Italy, in a shipwreck. Worm's work constitutes not only the earliest description of the seminal first horn, but also the most important source that we now have to the knowledge of the horn. It is on the basis of the description and depiction in the present work that the later copies of the first horn were made. Both horns were found in Gallehus near Møgeltønder, the first in 1639, by Kirsten Svendsdatter, the second in 1734, by Jerk (Erik) Lassen.Kirsten Svendsdatter made her discovery on a small path near her house, initially thinking that she had stumbled upon a root. When she returned to the same place the following week, she dug up the alleged root with a stick, and took it for an old hunting horn. She brought it back home and began polishing it. During the polishing of it, a small piece broke off, which she brought to a goldsmith in Tønder. It turned out that the horn was made of pure gold, and rumors of Kirsten's find quickly spread. The horn was eventually brought to the King, Christian IV, and Kirsten was given a reward corresponding to the gold value of the horn. The king gave the horn to his son, who had a lid made for it so that he could use it as a drinking horn. An excavation of the site where the horn was found was begun immediately after, but nothing more was found - that is until 95 years later when Jerk Larsen was digging clay on his grounds - merely 25 paces from where Kirsten had found the first horn. The year was now 1734. The horn that Larsen found was a bit smaller in size and was lacking the tip, but it still weighed 3,666 kg. As opposed to the first horn, this second horn had a runic inscription. After the horn had been authenticated, it was sent to King Christian VI, where it was placed in a glass case in the royal art chamber, together with the first horn. Before being placed here, a copy was made of both horns. These copies were lost in a ship wreck, however, and the casts had already been destroyed. In the fatal year of 1802, the gold smith and counterfeiter Niels Heldenreich broke in to the royal art chamber and stole the horns. By the time the culprit was discovered, the horns were irrevocably lost - Heldenreich had melted them and used the gold to make other things, such as jewellery. A pair of ear rings that are still preserved are thought to have been made with gold from the horns, but this is all that we have left of the original horns. New horns were produced on the basis of the descriptions and engraved illustrations that were made after the finding of the horns. And thus, the plate used in the present works constitute our main source of knowledge of the appearance of the first horn. ""The longest of the golden horns was found in 1639 and described by Ole Worm in the book 'De Aureo Cornu', 1641 (a treatise which is also included in his greater ""Danicorum Monumentorum""). The German professor at Soro Academy Hendrich Ernst, disagreed with Worm’s interpretation of the horn. Ernst believed that the horn came from Svantevits temple on Rügen, while Worm interpreted it as a war trumpet from the time of Frode Fredegods, decorated with pictures, calling for virtue and good morals. Worm immediately sent his book to Prince Christian and the scholars at home and abroad. You can see in his letters, that not only did the horn make an impression, but also the letter and the interpretation. In that same year there were such lively discussions on the horn among the scholars of Königsberg, now Kaliningrad!In 1643 Worm reiterated the description of the golden horn in his great work on Danish runic inscriptions, 'Monumenta Danica'. In 1644, his descriptions of the horn reached for scholars and libraries in Schleswig, Königsberg, London, Rome, Venice and Padua. Several learned men wrote poems for him, and the golden horn was mentioned in an Italian manus. Map Cartoonist Johannes Meyer placed the finds on several of his map of South Jutland. When the Swedish commander Torstensson attacked Jutland in 1643, Peter Winstrup wrote a long poem in Latin addressed to the bishop of Scania (which at that time still belonged to Denmark), the poem was called 'Cornicen Danicus'. It was immediately translated into Danish, entitled 'The Danish Horn Blower'. He interpreted the horn and its images as an warning of war, and his interpretations were very hostile to the Swedish. Paul Egard and Enevold Nielssen Randulf were among some of the other scholars who interpreted the Golden Horn In the 1640s. They were both deans in Holstein, and had a more Christian interpretation of the horn.All these works were illustrated with copies of Worms depictions of the horn. The Golden Horn remained known throughout the 1600s, both in terms of interpretations of the horn and designs. The found of the short golden horn in 1734 renewed the interest of the meaning of the horns."" (National Museum of Denmark). Thesuarus: 727 & 733Biblioteca Danica III, 23
"MARX, KARL [Translated by:] P. RUMYANTSEV [Edited by:] A.MANUILOV.
Reference : 59587
(1896)
Kritika nekotorykh polozhenii politicheskoi ekonomii. (i.e.: ""Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie"", i.e.: ""A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy""). - [FIRST RUSSIAN TRANSLATION OF THE BLUEPRINT FOR ""DAS KAPITAL"" ]
Moscow, Izdanie Vladimira Bonch-Bruevicha, 1896. 8vo. In a later modest black half calf binding with marbled boards. Traces of stamp to verso of front and back board. Title-page slightly rubbed. Occassional underlignings in text and margins. Pp. 145-146 reinforced in margin. Otherwise a fine copy. XII, (4), (1)-160 pp.
Exceedingly rare first Russian translation of this groundbreaking work, in which Marx first presents his revolutionizing theories of capitalism. For years, the present work was largely overshadowed by ‘Das Kapital’, and despite being published 8 years earlier (The original being published in 1859, ‘Das Kapital’ in 1867), the present work was not translated, until ‘Das Kapital’ had made Marx a household name in socialist and revolutionary circles, making the present translation comparatively early (the first English translation being from 1904).The Russian censorship cut Marx’ preface in this first translation - the full text did not appear until the revolutionary decade of 1905-1917. This Manuilov/Rumiantsev-translation remained the canonic-translation throughout the Soviet rule. The translation was made by Bolshevik revolutionary Petr Rumiantsev (1870-1924), who left the party in 1907 and emigrated in 1918, but the success of the present translation is primarily due to editor Manuilov. Editor Alexander Appolonovich Manuilov (1861-1929) was a Russian economist and politician, famous not only as one of the founding members of the Constitutional Democratic party (known as the Kadets), but also as the Russian translator of the present work. ""Manuilov graduated from the law department of the University of Novorossiia (Odessa, 1883). He began scholarly and pedagogical work in political economy in 1888. In 1901 he became head of a subdepartment at Moscow University, becoming assistant rector in 1905 and serving as rector from 1908 to 1911. He was dismissed by the tsarist government for attacking the ""extremes"" of Stolypin's agrarian legislation. In the 1890's he was a liberal Narodnik (Populist), later becoming a Constitutional Democrat (Cadet) and a member of the Central Committee of the Cadet Party. Manuilov's draft on agrarian reform (1905) was the basis for the Cadets' agrarian program. V. I. Lenin sharply criticized Manuilov, calling him one of ""the bourgeois liberal friends of the muzhik who desire the 'extension of peasant land ownership' but do not wish to offend the landlords"" (Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 11, p. 126, note).""At the beginning of his scholarly career Manuilov accepted the labor theory of value. In 1896 he translated K. Marx' work A Contribution to the Criticism of Political Economy (Zur Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie). During the years of reaction he espoused subjectivist and psychological views in political economy. In 1917 he was minister of education of the Provisional Government. After the October Revolution in 1917 he emigrated but soon returned and cooperated with Soviet power. He participated in the orthographic reform (1918). In 1924 he became a member of the board of Gosbank (State Bank). He taught in higher educational institutions. Changing to Marxist positions and relying on Lenin's works, he criticized the revisionists and neo-Narodniks on the agrarian question."" (Encycl. Britt.). For many years, the exclusive focus on ""Das Kapital"" meant that the ""Kritik"" was overlooked. Since the beginning of the 1960's, however, scholars have become increasingly aware of its importance as the blueprint for the social and economic theory Marx shall go on to develop (see for example Raymond Aron, ""Le Marxisme de Marx"", 1962). It is here that Marx outlines the research programme to which he shall devote the rest of his working life. He himself described ""Das Kapital"" as a continuation of his ""Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie"" (see e.g. PMM 359), in which his primary concern is an examination of capital and in which he provides the theoretical foundation for his political conclusions later presented in ""Das Kapital"". ""I examine the system of bourgeois economy in the following order: capital, landed property, wage-labour" the State, foreign trade, world market. The economic conditions of existence of the three great classes into which modern bourgeois society is divided are analysed under the first three headings the interconnection of the other three headings is self-evident. The first part of the first book, dealing with Capital, comprises the following chapters: 1. The commodity, 2. Money or simple circulation" 3. Capital in general. The present part consists of the first two chapters."" (Preface to the present work, in the translation (by S.W. Ryazanskaya) of the Progress Publishers-edition, Moscow, 1977). Apart from the obvious importance of the work as the foundational precursor to what is probably the greatest revolutionary work of the nineteenth century, the ""Kritik"" is of the utmost importance in the history of political and economic thought, as it is here, in the preface, that Marx outlines his classic formulation of historical materialism. This preface contains the first connected account of what constitutes one of Marx's most important and influential theories, namely the economic interpretation of history - the idea that economic factors condition the politics and ideologies that are possible in a society. ""The first work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a critical re-examination of the Hegelian philosophy of law"" the introduction to this work being published in the Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher issued in Paris in 1844. My inquiry led me to the conclusion that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of a so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of English and French thinkers of the eighteenth century, embraces within the term ""civil society"""" that the anatomy of this civil society, however, has to be sought in political economy. The study of this, which I began in Paris, I continued in Brussels, where I moved owing to an expulsion order issued by M. Guizot. The general conclusion at which I arrived and which, once reached, became the guiding principle of my studies can be summarised as follows. In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or - this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms - with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure."" (Preface to the present work, in the translation (by S.W. Ryazanskaya) of the Progress Publishers-edition, Moscow, 1977). OCLC lists merely three copies, all in the US (Havard, Wisconsin, and Hoover Institute on War).
