David Spring – författare

Originally published in 1963. The English Landed Estate in the Nineteeth Century: Its Administration deals principally with the administration of large landed estates during the years from 1830 to 1870. The book also throws new light on the work of the Inclosure Commissioners, who, as a department of the central government, supervised agricultural improvements made by landowners who borrowed from the government and from land companies. Author David Spring argues that the British government intervened in agriculture much more than is commonly thought. In describing the hierarchy of estate management, Spring relies, wherever possible, on hitherto unused family papers and estate documents. Especially important is his material on the Dukes of Bedford and on the domestic economy and financial position of the Russell Family. The chapter titled "The Landowner," based on the seventh Duke of Bedford's correspondence with his agent, is a case study of a single estate and provides insight into the workings of a great landowner's mind. The remaining chapters, dealing with lawyers, land agents, and the Inclosure Commissioners, include other individual portraits. Among these are Christopher Haedy, the Duke of Bedford's chief agent; James Loch, king of estate agents in nineteenth-century England; Henry Morton, the Earl of Durham's land agent; and William Blamire and James Caird, two of the Inclosure Commissioners.

Originally published in 1977. Professor David Spring presents comparative histories of European landed elites in the nineteenth century, covering English, Prussian, Russian, Spanish, and French landed elites. European Landed Elites in the Nineteenth Century underscores the particularities of each case and underscores the differences between cases.

§1. Historical Remarks Convex Integration theory, ?rst introduced by M. Gromov [17], is one of three general methods in immersion-theoretic topology for solving a broad range of problems in geometry and topology. The other methods are: (i) Removal of Singularities, introduced by M. Gromov and Y. Eliashberg [8]; (ii) the covering homotopy method which, following M. Gromov’s thesis [16], is also referred to as the method of sheaves. The covering homotopy method is due originally to S. Smale [36] who proved a crucial covering homotopy result in order to solve the classi?cation problem for immersions of spheres in Euclidean space. These general methods are not linearly related in the sense that succ- sive methods subsumed the previous methods. Each method has its own distinct foundation, based on an independent geometrical or analytical insight. Con- quently, each method has a range of applications to problems in topology that are best suited to its particular insight. For example, a distinguishing feature of ConvexIntegrationtheoryisthatitappliestosolveclosed relationsinjetspaces, including certain general classes of underdetermined non-linear systems of par- 1 tial di?erential equations. As a case of interest, the Nash-Kuiper C -isometric immersion theorem can be reformulated and proved using Convex Integration theory (cf. Gromov [18]). No such results on closed relations in jet spaces can be proved by means of the other two methods. On the other hand, many classical results in immersion-theoretic topology, such as the classi?cation of immersions, are provable by all three methods.

§1. Historical Remarks Convex Integration theory, first introduced by M. Gromov [17], is one of three general methods in immersion-theoretic topology for solving a broad range of problems in geometry and topology. The other methods are: (i) Removal of Singularities, introduced by M. Gromov and Y. Eliashberg [8]; (ii) the covering homotopy method which, following M. Gromov's thesis [16], is also referred to as the method of sheaves. The covering homotopy method is due originally to S. Smale [36] who proved a crucial covering homotopy result in order to solve the classification problem for immersions of spheres in Euclidean space. These general methods are not linearly related in the sense that succes­ sive methods subsumed the previous methods. Each method has its own distinct foundation, based on an independent geometrical or analytical insight. Conse­ quently, each method has a range of applications to problems in topology that are best suited to its particular insight. For example, a distinguishing feature of Convex Integration theory is that it applies to solve closed relations in jet spaces, including certain general classes of underdetermined non-linear systems of par­ tial differential equations. As a case of interest, the Nash-Kuiper Cl-isometrie immersion theorem ean be reformulated and proved using Convex Integration theory (cf. Gromov [18]). No such results on closed relations in jet spaees can be proved by means of the other two methods.