Alexander Kerensky

1881-1970

Alexander Kerensky was a remarkable and heroic liberal idealist who played an important role in the Russian Revolution but was ultimately swallowed up in an Age of Anger and lost his battle to establish liberalism in Russia (Lipatova 267). Educated at the University of St Petersburg as a student of history and classical languages and then as a lawyer, Kerensky started his legal career defending activists who had been charged with political crimes during the first Revolution of 1905 (Darby 48).  Throughout his political career he stood for reform and human rights and was one of the leading representatives in the Russian Parliament (“The Duma”) (Rendle 929).  Kerensky believed that with increasing industrialization and modernization of Russia in the 19^th century the political system needed to be modernized.  Kerensky believed that only democratic renewal and freedom would move Russia into the modern age (Darby 52).  He also strongly believed that the system of autocracy after 300 years of the rule of Romanov Tsars was outdated and that a constitutional democracy as existed in England was a far better system. Kerensky was a leading spokesman for reform (Darby 52).  He was a nationalist and after Russia joined the Great War in 1914 he maintained that Russia’s future was to defend itself against Germany and Austria-Hungary and to align itself with more democratic countries such as England and France (Lipatova 274).  He opposed corruption in the system under the Tsarist system and he protested when the Czar suspended sittings of the Duma.  After three years of an exhausting and losing War with 7,000,000 Russian casualties, there were extreme food shortages and civil unrest in St Petersburg, which led to Tsar Nicholas II’s loss of civil control and his abdication (Rappaport 20).  A provisional government was appointed with representatives from the Duma, the only existing institution which had not been discredited by the Tsarist regime (Rappaport 20). Alexander Kerensky who was seen as a star in the Duma was appointed Minister of Justice.  Two months later following a vote in the Duma to continue to support the war, Kerensky became Minister of War and in July Kerensky became Prime Minister at the young age of 36.  Kerensky’s success at the time of the February Revolution and for the eight months which followed was attributable to the fact that Russia was like “a volcano” (Rappaport 39).  In this system Kerensky was seen as “a man of action” and “a man who seemed bound to become the government’s main spring” (Rappaport 151).  He made concessions to the Soviets and the Bolsheviks to try to get their support, delivered amnesty to political prisoners, abolished the death penalty and recognized freedom of speech, press, assembly and strikes (Rappaport 139).  The Bolsheviks were initially prepared to bide its time to gather more strength at least until Lenin returned to St Petersburg from political exile. Ironically, it was Kerensky’s amnesty that allowed Lenin to return to Russia.  The high point of Kerensky’s support and power came in July 1917 when an attempted rebellion by the Bolsheviks failed. From that high point to October, Kerensky and his provisional government were unable to keep the lid on the volcano.  Perhaps his biggest mistake was that he became closely too identified with War and supported an unsuccessful offensive in July called “The Kerensky Offensive” (Rendle 929).  His government was sabotaged by the army which became restless and under General Kornilov attempted a coup to gain more power.  This failed coup only highlighted Kerensky’s weakness. There was a cholera epidemic in St Petersburg, continued food shortages and protests, unrest and strikes (Rendle 929). Kerensky personally was overwhelmed by all the problems facing the country and lost the common touch and support of the people (Rappaport 229).  Finally in October 1917 the Bolsheviks who had been quietly reorganizing in the background under Lenin’s leadership appealed to the people with the promises of “Peace, Land and Bread” and “All power to the Soviets” which was too powerful for the Kerensky government to overcome (Rappaport 229).  The Kerensky government collapsed being unable to exercise control and was replaced ironically by an oppressive communist dictatorship which murdered anyone threatening its power including the Tsar and his family and any other opposition.  Kerensky fled the country to live in the United States where he died in 1970 (Darby 51).  Kerensky, like Gorbachev in the 1980s, was an advocate of progress, reform and liberalism.  Like Gorbachev, Kerensky was unable to marshall liberalism to defeat counter-revolution and dictatorship.  Kerensky was an important character in the Russian Revolution and he championed change and hope.  Although he was a rising star during times of anger, he and his quest for liberalism ultimately flamed out within an all too brief eight month experiment in power.

Liam O’Brien

 

Works Cited

Darby, Graham. “KERENSKY in HINDSIGHT: Alexander Kerensky, the Last Russian Premier Before the Bolsheviks Took Power, Decided to Continue the War with Germany. He and His Country Would Pay the Price.” History Today, vol. 67, no. 7, July 2017, pp. 48-53. EBSCOhost,libaccess.mcmaster.ca/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?dire ct=true&db=ahl&AN=123878502&site=ehost-live&scope=site.

Lipatova, Nadezhda V. “On the Verge of the Collapse of Empire: Images of Alexander Kerensky and Mikhail Gorbachev.” Europe-Asia Studies, vol. 65, no. 2, Mar. 2013, pp. 264-289. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/09668136.2012.759715.

Rappaport, Helen. Caught In The Revolution: Petrograd, Russia, 1917-A World On The Edge. New York: St. Matin’s Press, 2017.

Rendle, Matthew. “The Officer Corps, Professionalism, and Democracy in the Russian Revolution.” Historical Journal, vol. 51, no. 4, Dec. 2008, pp. 921-942. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1017/S0018246X08007139.

Liang Qichao

1873-1929

Liang Qiacho was a late 19^th and early 20^th century Confucian scholar and political activist from China (Nguyen).  He started his traditional schooling at an early age of 5, but by the age of 17, rejected this classic form of education and decided to study “New Text Confucianism” under the guidance of Kang Youwei (Nguyen).  These men were two of the foremost thinkers involved in the Hundred Days Reform of 1898 in which they presented a case to modernize China while preserving the country’s cultural heritage (Wong).  This ideological revolution stemmed from the defeat of China in the Sino-Japanese wars and from the realization by men such as Liang that China’s “self-strengthening” movement was not strong enough to usher country into a modern era (Wong).  The period of reform ended in failure and Liang was forced to flee to Japan where he resided until he returned to China in 1913, a year after the Republic of China was founded (Kockum).

While residing in Japan, Liang was no less motivated to reform his country and began three journals (Qingyi bao, Xinmin congbao, and Xin xiaoshuo) as well as an international school named Datong xuexiao (Kockum).  His journal Xin xiaoshuo was a reflection of his dedication to reforming China’s literary field as it was devoted to the presentation of new Chinese novels (Kockum).  Liang also published theories on the “New Novel” in his magazine, pointing out the only two existing forms of stories in Chinese novels (hero stories and love stories) and called for a revolution in the field of literature with the introduction of the political novel (Kockum).  The political novel would have been an asset to Liang’s cause as its introduction in China would have helped spur the political reform that Liang was hoping for with the Hundred Days Reform.  Liang also influenced the appearance of the western library in China by encouraging the Qing government to seek out western works and fund the project as well as providing bibliographies of translated western works for the general Chinese public (Liao).

Nationalism and liberalism were major components of Liang’s theory of the New Citizen which discarded the idea of a benevolent ruler introduced to him by Kang (Nguyen).  Liang put forth a theory placing emphasis on “new citizens” that upheld civic virtue and independence in a powerful nation (Nguyen).  These two conditions for a new citizen were based on the basic principles of individual rationality and selfless civic virtue found in Buddhism (Nguyen).  Liang made national power and individual rights co-dependent by stating that it was a citizen’s right and duty to rise against the government and authoritarian rulers if it would benefit the country (Nguyen).  The New Citizen theory used Buddhism as a faith system (a system Liang believed China was lacking due to modernity) and education to popularize Liang Qichao’s ideas (Nguyen).   Overall, Liang’s New Citizen theory placed emphasis on individual rationalism and moral struggles (Nguyen).

Liang Qichao’s ideas went through a radical change from the beginning of his life to the end.  In his early years, Liang advocated for a shift to western ideals, but about midway through his life, he started advocating for a new respect of Chinese culture (Nguyen).  Due to this dramatic shift in ideologies, Liang was, and still is, often seen by scholars as a man who possessed no concrete ideals, but if looked at more closely, this shift in thought can be seen as Liang adapting ideas to an everchanging landscape of modernity in the 19^th and early 20^th century China (Nguyen).

Anne Houser

FURTHER READINGS

Sino Japanese War:

Jansen, Marius B., et al. “The Historiography of the Sino-Japanese War.” The International History Review, vol. 1, no. 2, 1979, pp. 191–227. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/ 40105728.

Boxer Rebellion:

“Boxer Rebellion”.  History.com, 2009, A+E Networks, http://www.history.com/topics/boxer-rebellion

May Fourth Movement:

Chen, Joseph T. “The May Fourth Movement Redefined.” Modern Asian Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, 1970, pp. 63–81. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/311753.

Works Cited

Kockum, Keiko.  “Liang Qichao: The Japanese Years.” Cina, no. 21, 1988, pp. 195–203. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40855642.  Accessed 6 Nov. 2017.

Liao, Jing. “The Genesis of the Modern Academic Library in China: Western Influences and the Chinese Response.” Libraries & Culture, vol. 39, no. 2, 2004, pp. 161–174. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25549174..  Accessed 6 Nov, 2017.

Nguyen, Anh. “Reconstructing Liang Qichao”.  Earlham College, Spring 2016.   earlham.edu/ media/2858509/reconstructing-lian-qichao.pdf.  Accessed 3 Nov. 2017.

Wong, Young-Tsu. “Revisionism Reconsidered: Kang Youwei and the Reform Movement of 1898.” The Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 51, no. 3, 1992, pp. 513–544. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2057948. Accessed 6 Nov, 2017.

Marie-Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier de Lafayette

September 6, 1757-May 20, 1834

Marquis de Lafayette, otherwise known as ‘The Hero of Two Worlds’, was an army General and a prominent figure in both the French and American Revolutions in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Lafayette was born into a wealthy family but was left orphaned by the age of twelve (Payan). At fourteen, while still in school, he became a second lieutenant in the French army (Payan). At seventeen, he married Marie Adrienne Francoise, the daughter of a French Duke, and had four children (Payan).

In 1775, Lafayette had dinner with the Duke of Gloucester, King George the Third’s brother (Payan). The Duke had mentioned his admiration for Americans’ liberalism and resilience. Lafayette, who was now a Lt. General in the French army, found out that French officers were being sent to America to fight alongside Americans against the British and insisted on being deployed. Two years later, in 1777, Lafayette arrived in South Carolina and became a Maj. General for the American army shortly after (Lopez). He befriended and worked closely with Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton (Kramer). Lafayette’s first battle in America was in Brandywine, where he was shot in the leg yet managed to lead his troops to safety (Cloquet). He continued aiding and leading American forces in battle until 1779 when he went back to France (Payan). Once there, he was awarded a golden sword, presented to him on behalf of the Continental Congress (Payan). While in France, he gathered more soldiers to bring back with him to America. In the fall of 1781, Lafayette fought in the Battle of Yorktown (Payan). He intimidated the impending British forces by having his troops attack in waves rather than all at once (Payan). He, along with Hamilton, was able to rally his troops and attack the British once they were stationed at Yorktown, ultimately resulting in a victory (Payan). After the Battle of Yorktown, Lafayette became a close confidante to Franklin, John Jay and John Adams, all of whom were stationed across Europe (Lopez). Due to his efforts in the American Revolution, Lafayette was able to negotiate the terms of agreement for the Treaty of Paris (Brown). He began working closely with Thomas Jefferson to finalise terms between France and America (Lopez). Lafayette was awarded the title of Marechal de Camp in the French army and was knighted in the Order of Saint Louis (Payan). He was also given an American citizenship, for him and all of his male heirs (Payan).

In the winter of 1786, Lafayette became part of the Assembly of Notables in France (Brown). In the summer of 1789, he proposed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which he penned with Jefferson (Brown). Days later, Bastille was raided, and the Assembly named him Commander in Chief of the National Guard of France, and his role was to create peace and order in the midst of chaos (Brown). In the summer of 1791, Lafayette was accused of being a royalist due to his position in the Guard, and his reputation suffered (Brown). He later resigned from his post after attempts were made on his family. Lafayette went to battle as the war began between France and Austria (Brown). He found it increasingly difficult to lead his troops, as many were radicals, so he asked the Assembly to negotiate peace, but was instead accused of desertion when he tried to speak to them (Brown). He was now considered to be, not only a royalist but a traitor. In part to his crumbling reputation, a warrant was issued for his arrest. In 1792 in Austria, Lafayette was arrested (Murphy). His wife, Marie, was also imprisoned in France with their children, but was able to smuggle off their son, Georges, to America, and convince the Emperor of Vienna to detain her and their daughters with Lafayette (Payan). Lafayette and his family were released in 1797 due to the appeal of his French and American supporters, but in large part to Napoleon Bonaparte, who fought to liberate all those imprisoned due to the Treaty of Campo Formio (Cloquet). Lafayette eventually snuck back into France and was allowed to stay only if he refrained from politics (Payan). Lafayette was offered many government positions, by Napoleon and by Jefferson, but refused (Payan).

Lafayette was a key supporter of abolishment, the Bourbon restoration, the monarchy, and of the American political system, suggesting in 1830 that the French govern in that manner (Murphy). When Lafayette had passed, he was honoured and celebrated in both France and America by many of his friends and admirers.

Abigail Ghanime

Further Reading

Kramer, Lloyd S. “Lafayette and the Historians: Changing Symbol, Changing Needs, 1834-1984.” Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques, vol. 11, no. 3, 1984, pp. 373–401. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41298840.

Neely, Sylvia. “The Politics of Liberty in the Old World and the New: Lafayette’s Return to America in 1824.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 6, no. 2, 1986, pp. 151–171. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3122556.

Sellers, John R. “Lafayette Papers at the Library of Congress.” The Quarterly Journal of the Library of Congress, vol. 29, no. 2, 1972, pp. 138–154. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/29781505.

Works Cited

Brown, Michelle. “THE POPULAR LEADERSHIP OF MARQUIS DE LAFAYETTE IN THE FRENCH REVOULTION.”

Cloquet, Jules. Recollections of the private life of General Lafayette. Baldwin and Cradock, 1835.

Kramer, Lloyd S. “America’s Lafayette and Lafayette’s America: A European and the American Revolution.” The William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 2, 1981, pp. 228–241. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1918776.

Lopez, Claude A. “Benjamin Franklin, Lafayette, and the ‘Lafayette.’” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 108, no. 3, 1964, pp. 181–223. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/985679.

Murphy, Kevin D. “A Presentation Map Case for the Marquis De Lafayette: Memory and Geography in the Early Republic.” West 86th: A Journal of Decorative Arts, Design History, and Material Culture, vol. 20, no. 1, 2013, pp. 92–109. JSTOR, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/670977.

Payan, Gregory. Marquis de Lafayette: French Hero of the American Revolution. The Rosen Publishing Group, 2002.

Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela was born on July 18^th, 1918 in a small village called Mvezo is South Africa. At current time, South Africa was ruled by white colonizers slowly taking over the entire country. His father was the councillor of the village’s chief hence it becomes no surprise that Mandela grows up to become a leader. From a young age, he was a prospect in the village, and the elders were very concerned with him learning the true histories of the atrocities inflicted upon his people by colonizers instead of learning fake history in post secondary institutions.

In 1936, Nelson was forced to flee into another village after white colonizers demanded the village would follow repressive rules. His dad resisted causing them to be forced to leave to another village; again, Mandela’s rebellion comes as no surprise considering his dad was one too.

Mandela started his post secondary education in Clarkebury, earning a three year degree in just two years then getting more education at Heldatown. After studies, he was meant to go back to his village to become chief and submit to his parent’s desire for a pre determined marriage, however he fled to a town at the edge of Johannesburg. When there Mandela started his long career of activism and resistance.

In 1941, Mandela joined the African National Congress (ANC) an antiapartheid organization. This organization main goal was fight back through boycott, strikes, and civil disobedience against the white colonizers to gain political freedom. Mandela was arrested in 1952 and jailed, but he got out of jail after a few months only. He continued his education afterwards to become a graduate lawyer from the university of Witwatersrand. He never stopped his thrive to give speeches about true democracy and freedom. He travelled villages under the threat of imprisonment, being the most influential figure in South African history. He escaped numerous times but was finally arrested but this time under the accusations of treason, and he was sentenced to heavy labor and life in prison. He got out after 27 years. He was offered to come out earlier but in return would stop preaching for his cause but he refused.

And he never stopped, he still went from town to town planning sanctions against South Africa and finally after intense negotiations the ANC and the government reached an agreement to form a transitional government and it finally ended its apartheid. The black people of south Africa were finally allowed to vote, and participate in the political process. In 1994 Mandela was elected President. Mandela’s influence can not be summed up into a 500 word page. Under constant threat of imprisonment and death, he never stopped his cause and spread this fire for resentment in an oppressed nation but knocking from door to door. And yet after he took power, took no revenge or segregated the whites from the blacks, yet he brought unity using Rugby and public speeches. He formed a multiracial South Africa, and his voice of equality, freedom and unity echoed into the world. He brought universal education to South Africa free of race privilege or segregation. His works is a monument and an example that people use to fight racism and segregation till today.

Miguel Elsaid

Relevant readings:

• Long walk to freedom
• Conversations with myself

Work cited

Limb, P. (2009). Nelson Mandela: A Biography. ABC-CLIO, LLC, 71(4).

Williams, M. (2016). Nelson Mandela. Eds.a.ebscohost.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca.

Étienne Bonnot de Condillac

Sept. 30, 1715—Aug. 2/3, 1780

Etienne Bonnot, Abbé de Condillac was a French priest, philosophe, psychologist, logician, and economist that lived during the Enlightenment period. From his birthplace of Grenoble, he moved to Paris to continue his education as a seminarian. In 1740, he was ordained a Roman Catholic priest but did no pastoral work throughout his life. It was also in 1740 that he begun a lifelong friendship with Rousseau. He became acquainted with the writers of the Encyclopedie, lead by Denis Diderot, and befriended numerous philosophes, including La Mettrie and d’Alembert. His position in the French Enlightenment-era salons was solidified with the presence of his first book, Essai sur l’origine des connaissances humaines (1746). He followed this up with Traite des systemes (1749) and his most important work, Traite des sensations (1754). A disciple of English philosopher, John Locke, who had been popularized by Voltaire in France, he was a radical empiricist whose views have come to be known as sensationalism. His published work performed well and earned him a position as a tutor to the Prince of Parma, the grandson of Louis XV (Person para.5) from 1758-68. After this appointment, he returned to Paris but soon left, in 1773, offended by the irreligiousness of the Parisian intellectuals (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica). On logic, he authored works such as La Logique (1780) and La Langue des calculs (1798) (which was incomplete at his death). He left an unmistakeable mark upon the philosophers and scientists of his time.

When Thomas Nugent translated Condillac’s first book into An Essay on the Origin of Human Thought in 1756, he wrote that it was a companion to Locke’s 1690 book, Essay concerning Human Understanding (Albury 118). Condillac is likewise often pegged as merely a disciple of Locke and Newton and also an opponent to Descartes (who also undoubtingly influenced his philosophy). This is not false–in the introduction of his first book, Condillac writes that “Mr. Locke […] has confined himself to the study of the human understanding and has succeeded in the pursuit. Descartes was acquainted neither with the origin nor the formation of our ideas” (Condillac 3). However, the association with philosophers before him has cast a shadow over the ways in which Condillac expanded upon and differed from his predecessors. While Condillac was not the originator of sensationalism, he is a chief proponent of its radical version. He started with Locke’s empiricist thought that the entire content of the mind comes from sense impressions and furthered them, writing that the way that the mind transforms sense impressions also stems from characteristics that are inherent in impressions (Dieckmann 256). While Locke wrote that association of ideas was an uncontrollable process that lead chiefly to errors, Condillac spent the first part of his first essay trying to prove that the use of signs gives us control over the connections between ideas (Albury 118). Without these shared signs, he argues, and then built upon in his second essay, no thinking and no knowledge would be possible (Aarsleff 579). As such, the origin and development of language mirrors the origin of the development of human thought itself. All philosophical studies of language following this launched from Condillac’s theory. His fellow philosophes took to the book and several philosophers borrowed from it in their own works, including d’Alembert, Rousseau, Helvetius, and d’Holbach (Albury 118).

Known for his rigorous application of logic, the methodology with which Condillac approached his arguments is almost as important as the arguments themselves. He spent much time clearly and precisely stating his goal, method, and criteria (Dieckmann 259). An Essay on the Origin of Human Thought was not simply a piece of influential philosophy, but also of psychology and linguistics. The final section of the book is dedicated to considering the analytic method of reasoning used. An entire generation of French scientists, from 1780, embraced this methodology and used it to radically alter fields such as natural history and chemistry (Albury 119). It is the use of this method in psychology that helped to push psychology further from the realm of philosophy and closer to the bracket of science. His book, La Logique, also had a profound influence on science – Lavoisor, for one, acknowledged that he used Condillac’s ideas in his reformation of chemical nomenclature.

Condillac’s influence on science is hardly surprising, as the philosophes sought to apply the scientific method to everything – government, economics, ethics, law, society, and even inner life (Mishra 55). Condillac, himself, sought to expand the application of such methodology to even the nature of the soul. While largely seen as a philosopher of empirical science, he opens An Essay on the Origin of Human Thought with “Of all sciences […] which contributes most to open, as well as to fix and enlarge the understanding […] is metaphysics. said that he hoped to “save Locke’s philosophy from the materialists,” but in trying to prove the existence of the soul scientifically, he strengthens the materialist cause for no science can prove positively the existence of the immaterial (Coski 12). It is likely this departure from the secularity of the philosophes that pulled him away from the liberalism of Paris. Yet while he was there, arguing empiricism with his scientific methodology, he left tremendous influence on those who partook in his work.

Rya Buckley

Works Cited

Aarsleff, Hans. “Reviewed Work: Linguistics, Anthropology and Philsophy in the French Enlightenment by Ulrich Ricken.” Anthropological Linguistics, no. 4 (1995): 578-585. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30028335.

Albury, William R. “Reviewed Work: An Essay on the Origin of Human Knowledge, Being a Supplement to Mr. Locke’s Essay on the Human Understanding by Etienne Bonnot de Condillac, Thomas Nugent.” Isis, no. 1 (1974): 118-119. http://www.jstor.org/stable/228906.

“Condillac and the Principle of Identity.” Literature Criticism from 1400-1800, edited by James E. Person, Jr, vol. 26 (1995). go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=LitRC&sw=w&u=ocul_mcmaster&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CH1420012338&it=r&asid=392a8a5f7d77945ff06152d2223e2a6a.

Condillac, Etienne Bonnot de. An essay on the origin of human knowledge. Being a supplement to Mr. Locke’s essay on the human understanding. Translated from the French of the Abbè de Condillac, Member of the Royal Academy of Berlin. By Mr. Nugent. London, 1746. http://find.galegroup.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/ecco/retrieve.do?qrySerId=Locale%28en%2C%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28BN%2CNone%2C7%29N001707%24&sort=Author&docLevel=TEXT_GRAPHICS&inPS=true&prodId=ECCO&userGroupName=ocul_mcmaster&doDirectDocNumSearch=false&tabID=T001&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchId=&currentPosition=1&contentSet=ECCOArticles&showLOI=&bookId=0215500200&collectionId=N001707&relevancePageBatch=CW118359702

Coski, Christopher R. “Condillac’s Metaphysical Paradox: The Nature of the Soul, versus the Natural Origin of Language and Reason.” Dalhousie French Studies, Vol 67 (Summer 2004): 3-15. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40837556.

Dieckmann, Herbert. “Condillac’s Philophical Works.” The Review of Metaphysics, no. 2 (1953): 255-261. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20123371

Falkenstein, Lorne and Grandi, Giovanni. “Étienne Bonnot de Condillac” last modified September 21 2017.  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/condillac/.

Mishra, Pankaj. Age of Anger: A History of the Present. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, 2017.

The Editors of Enclyopaedia Britannica. “Etienne Bonnot de Condillac” last modified September 20, 2007. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Etienne-Bonnot-de-Condillac

Other Relevant Reading:

It is worth reading Condillac’s major works for a first-hand account of his methodology and of his departure from Locke and Descartes. Thus the following compilation book is recommended:

Philosophical Works of Etienne Bonnot, Abbe de Condillac: Volume 1 by F. Phillip and H. Lane