Fiches Repères

Même si la licence « Langues étrangères appliquées » a pour visée de former des personnes compétentes en anglais et dans une ou plusieurs autres langues, la maîtrise du français écrit demeure toutefois indispensable. Or, la règle de l’accord du participe passé n’est pas toujours maîtrisée par les étudiants de 1re année. L’épreuve de version anglaise, qui consiste à traduire en français un texte issu (habituellement) de la presse anglophone, révèle aussi et surtout les compétences rédactionnelles du candidat dans sa langue maternelle. Une faute d’accord en français est dès lors éliminatoire. Cette fiche a pour but de remédier à ce problème.

POURQUOI ACCORDER LE PARTICIPE PASSÉ ?

>> Problème de REPÉRAGE SYNTAXIQUE, essentiellement. L'idée, c'est de marquer (à la fois à l'oral et à l'écrit) les rapports logiques / de pensée entre les mots ou parties d'une phrase / d'un texte. Un « texte » est comme un tissu, un réseau délicat de parties inter-connectées dont dépend la « tenue », la cohérence, de l'ensemble. Si l'un des fils est mal cousu, l'ensemble peut se disloquer.
>> Contrairement aux langues flexionnelles comme le grec ancien ou le latin, le français n'a pas la possibilité de différencier la catégorie grammaticale des mots autrement que par l'ajout de particules (à, de, pour, etc.) et, dans certains cas, il n'y a aucune différence dans la langue « parlée », qui sert de base à la langue écrite. Certaines ambiguïtés peuvent émerger de ce problème, des double-sens, des problèmes d'interprétation. Or, s'il est possible à l'oral de marquer mélodiquement la différence ou de demander une explicitation (qu'entendez-vous par là ?), il n'est pas possible de questionner un texte, par nature muet, et dont le but est de « représenter » symboliquement, immatériellement la voix de son auteur. Exemple d'ambiguïté résolue à l'oral :

[Dans un repas de famille]
— Il a été fumer.
— Quoi, le saumon ?
— Non, Jean-Pierre, il a été fumer.

Ici, l'ambiguïté est levée grâce à une question du co-énonciateur qui n'a pas compris la valeur de « il » et de « fumer ». En l'occurrence, ce personnage imaginaire s'interroge sur la catégorie grammaticale de « fumer » : est-ce l'action générale, ou bien l'état dans lequel se trouve le poisson ? En français, il peut y avoir anguille sous roche... Dans certaines autres langues (l'anglais, par exemple), la syntaxe flexionnelle (i. e. l'ajout de terminaisons plus variées) empêcherait ce type de quiproquo [étymologie : quoi pour quoi]. À l'écrit, où il n'est pas possible d'interroger un texte et où l'auteur n'est souvent pas disponible, l'ambiguïté est levée par le biais de l'orthographe (Il a été FUMER / Il a été FUMé).

>> Ainsi, les accords grammaticaux ont un but précis en français : clarifier les liens logiques du texte, autrement dit la pensée de l'auteur, afin que le texte soit compris du lecteur. Si ce système de « marquage par l'orthographe » des rapports logiques n'est pas maîtrisé, vous risquez de faire passer le message que votre pensée n'est pas claire, que vous ne savez pas raisonner (voire de ne pas être compris/e).

>> De ce fait, certains mots présentant des catégories grammaticales / de pensée différentes sont prononcés de la même façon : Il A bronzé À la plage. À l'oral, la catégorie / valeur du mot peut être marquée ou explicitée (subtilement) par l'intonation, quand le contexte ne suffit pas.

PARTICIPE PASSÉ

Comme son nom l'indique, le « participe passé » PARTICIPE à la construction d'une valeur temporelle passée. Pour exprimer l'idée MOI / MANGER POMME / HIER = J'ai MANGé une pomme hier (où « mangé » marque l'idée de l'action révolue, et le verbe avoir sert d'auxiliaire, c'est-à-dire d'intermédiaire).

>> Or, cette terminologie pose problème dans la mesure où la même forme est utilisée dans d'autres structures de phrase, par exemple « la pomme a été mangéE », où la grammaire traditionnelle appelle « mangéE » un participe passé alors qu'il s'agit en réalité d'un adjectif qualificatif.

>> La différence d'orthographe entre « J'ai MANGé une pomme hier » et « La pomme que j'ai MANGéE hier » dérive de cette différence d'ordre logique. Dans le premier cas, « j'ai mangé » décrit une action révolue (on peut le remplacer par un passé simple, je mangeai), tandis que, dans le deuxième cas, on s'intéresse à une caractéristique de la pomme (elle est mangée, la pomme). Le passé-composé correspond donc à deux " réalités " différentes ; c'est un terme inexact.

>> Le problème, c'est qu'à l'oral en français, pour les verbes se terminant en -ER, il n'existe pas de différence entre les trois fonctions que sont : l'infinitif (MANGER, notion générale), MANGé (invariable, pour marquer la notion d'action passée) et MANgé(e)/(es), l'adjectif. À l'écrit, par contre, il faut marquer la différence :

1) J'ai mangé une pomme hier. [je raconte ce que j'ai fait, une action passée, donc je n'accorde pas.]

2) La pomme que j'ai mangéE hier était très bonne. [je m'intéresse à la pomme, « elle est MANGéE », c'est un adjectif et pas un participe passé. Glose possible : *elle est à moi mangée].

C'est une question de découpage psychologique. IL ne faut pas interpréter la phrase comme « La pomme que/ j'ai mangé / hier était très bonne » mais plutôt comme « La pomme que j'ai / mangéE / hier / était très bonne ». À savoir : le verbe avoir est parfois décrit comme une forme plus sophistiquée du verbe être (« J'ai un chien, donc ce chien EST à moi. » Ici : *la pomme est à moi mangée].

Ce découpage psychologique, vous le faites déjà naturellement quand vous employez des verbes d'autres groupes, comme BOIRE par exemple.
1) Le verre de vin que j'ai BU hier. [le verre que j’ai boire hier]

2) J'ai BU un verre de vin hier.

Pourquoi pas « j'ai boire » ? (Pour ceux qui écrivent encore « j'ai manger », cela est aussi illogique que d’écrire « j'ai boire »). C'est parce que vous connaissez déjà, inconsciemment, la différence entre un infinitif, un p. passé et un p. passé à valeur adjectivale.

Autre exemple de verbe :

1) J'ai écrit une lettre (valeur temporelle).

2) La lettre que j'ai écritE (valeur adjectivale). [elle est à moi écrite]

Vous ne diriez pas : « J'ai écrite une lettre ».

Donc il s'agit simplement de marquer à l'écrit des nuances que vous maîtrisez déjà en tant que francophones.

Pour récapituler :

1 - valeur temporelle, description de l'action : pas d'accord, pas de transformation du verbe, ce qui correspond au « prétérit anglais ». J'ai mangé une pomme / I ATE AN APPLE.

2 - valeur adjectivale, on ne s'intéresse pas à l'action mais à son résultat, ce qui correspondrait au present perfect anglais. La pomme que j'ai mangéE / The apple I have EATEN.

3 - valeur générale détachée de tout ancrage dans le temps. Il est allé fumer dehors / He's gone out for a smoke.

L’aspect, c’est une information/un point de vue/une perspective ajoutée et incorporée à la forme du verbe (par le biais de la conjugaison), ayant trait à tout élément AUTRE QUE le repérage d’un fait/d’une action à un point T de l’échelle du Temps – c’est-à-dire situer l’action au passé, au présent ou au futur. « I WENT to England last week » ou encore « The world IS wide » sont donc des énoncés qui ne relèvent pas d’une forme aspectuelle, mais d’une simple forme temporelle, car ils se contentent de situer objectivement l’action dans le temps.

L’aspect peut ainsi avoir rapport à la durée d’une action dans le temps (et notamment à la perception subjective de cette durée), au repérage de l’action par rapport à une autre action (passé dans le passé, futur dans le passé, etc.), à l’attitude personnelle que l’on peut avoir vis-à-vis de l’action en question… ou tout autre élément subjectif de cet ordre. En d’autres termes, l’aspect en anglais introduit le point de vue de l’énonciateur sur l’action qu’il rapporte, mais cette perspective est incorporée au verbe par le biais de la grammaire.

Exemple 1 :

I MET a girl today.

I HAVE MET a girl today.

Dans le premier cas, l’énonciateur relate objectivement un fait, sans donner sa position personnelle par rapport à ce dernier. Dans le deuxième cas, le « present perfect », forme aspectuelle du bilan et de l’analyse rétrospective, pourrait suggérer ici que « the girl » en question n’a pas laissé l’énonciateur indifférent (vu qu’il fait « un retour en arrière » sur cette rencontre).

Exemple 2 :

I have waited here for two hours.
(J’attends ici depuis deux heures.)

I have been waiting here for two hours.
(Cela fait deux heures que j’attends ici.)

Dans le premier cas, il s’agit d’un simple constat, neutre, objectif, sans qu’il y ait clairement derrière la moindre idée de plainte ou d’agacement. Dans la deuxième phrase, en revanche, avec l’ajout de la forme –ING, l’énonciateur insiste sur la durée de l’attente (vécue ici comme trop longue).

Contrairement à la langue anglaise, riches en formes grammaticales aspectuelles, le français doit souvent passer par des éléments de lexique/vocabulaire afin d’exprimer ce type de points de vue.

En anglais, l’article THE est considéré par les grammairiens comme étant un déictique (du mot latin signifiant doigt), et il est parfois représenté symboliquement par un doigt ou par une flèche (→). Étymologiquement, il est beaucoup plus proche de « this » et « that » que CE par rapport à LE en français. L’aspect démonstratif, de désignation, est donc plus marqué. Il arrive, dans certains cas, que l’article THE retrouve, en anglais moderne, cette ancienne fonction de pur démonstratif, comme dans l’expression « things of the sort » (des choses de ce genre/de cette sorte). Cette différence de perspective dans les fonctions grammaticales de THE et de LE est à l’origine de certains problèmes de traduction.

Une méthode mnémotechnique assez simple permet pourtant d’éviter, en anglais, les principales erreurs relatives au choix du déterminant.

(1)    Si en français, vous pouvez remplacer « le/la/les » par « ce/cette/ces » sans que cela n’altère substantiellement le sens de la phrase, il faut alors employer en anglais l’article THE. Exemple : « Les oiseaux que j’ai achetés ont des plumes vertes » Modification → « Ces oiseaux que j’ai achetés ont des plumes vertes » ( ?). Réponse : oui, cela fonctionne, on parle bien des mêmes oiseaux dans les deux cas. En anglais, il faudra donc dire : « The birds that I bought have green feathers ».

(2)    Si cette manipulation ne fonctionne pas, il faut alors utiliser, en anglais, aucun article, c’est-à-dire ce qu’on nomme l’article zéro en grammaire. Exemple : « Les oiseaux sont des êtres à plumes ». Modification → « Ces oiseaux sont des êtres à plumes » ( ?). Réponse : Mais de quels oiseaux parle-t-on ? Y aurait-il donc des oiseaux sans plumes, si je spécifie qu’un certain type d’oiseaux en ont et d’autres pas ? Ici, l’opération ne marche pas, car elle change le sujet de la phrase. Il ne s’agit tout simplement plus des mêmes oiseaux. Ainsi, il convient de dire en anglais : « Ø Birds are feathered creatures ».

In America, the Deep South was formed of the States situated south of the Mason and Dixon line, hence the name of Dixieland given to the Southern States. Most of these states made a living out of the growing of cotton. To make a fortune, the planters needed an inexpensive labor force which was to be found in Africa. The Blacks were lured on board the ships of the slave-merchants by a few trinkets (babioles) and then after a horrible voyage, during which a lot of them perished, they were sold at auction sales (vendus aux enchères). That was called the ebony-trade. Of course, family links were rarely taken into account. The planters only thought of their own interest. The slaves were examined just as horses: they had to show their teeth (in order to know their age) and muscles to test their strength.

The stronger ones worked on the plantation; they were called field-slaves and picked cotton all day long, under the supervision of a white foreman who whipped them when they didn’t work fast enough. If one of them tried to escape, he was severely punished and might have one of his feet cut off. The field slaves were so unhappy that they did their best to imagine      better life after death – they celebrated their faith in religious songs that were to be known later all over the world as “negro spirituals” and led to the creation of jazz music.

The weaker ones became house slaves and were usually better treated. Sometimes a house slave was considered almost as a family member, for example Scarlett’s nanny in “Gone with the wind”. To make sure they would never escape from their conditions of living, teaching them the 3 “r” (reading, writing, arithmetic) was against the law. However, some of them were driven to rebellion by injustice and grief. So did Nat Turner, for example, who was killed (1832) after he and his followers had murdered quite a few white people. In fact, the slaves represented a growing wealth for the Southern planters, all the more as the European demand for cotton was expanding. The European conscience did not object to the existence of slavery. Profit came first. Never was the French city of Bordeaux as rich at the time of the ebony trade. Let us keep in mind that slavery was abolished in France as late as in 1848.

But in the north of America, a growing number of liberal-minded people started worrying about the problem of slavery, especially after the publication of the book “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” by Harriet Beacher Stowe (1852). That book, classified as “children’s literature” today, was originally intended for adults. Abolitionists were then considered as trouble-makers. In fact, slavery was the pretext for the outbreak of the Civil War (1860-65).

To cut a long story short, the newly elected President Abraham Lincoln wished to abolish slavery. The Southern states, considering it was none of his business, withdrew from the Union and formed the Confederation. There were ups and downs that eventually led to the victory of the North at Appomatox, where General Lee surrendered to General Grant (1865). Unfortunately for the Blacks, Lincoln was murdered immediately after in Washington at the Ford theater by an actor, John Booth.

The Blacks derived little profit from this victory, even though slavery had been abolished as early as in 1862 by Lincoln. Anti-negro organizations were founded, such as the Klu Klux Klan or the John Birch Society, which made it difficult for the Blacks to survive in the South. Therefore, many of them drifted to the industrial areas of the North and has to settle in ghettos. From then on, racism kept growing in the North and so did segregation.

Before the arrival of the Europeans, America was inhabited by people belonging to what was known “the yellow race”. Their complexion (teint) was of a reddish-brown hue. The Europeans called them Indians or Redskins (Peaux-Rouges).

I.    The Indians before the arrival of the Europeans (circa 1, 200, 000 Indians).

Many different tribes lived on the American territory. At the beginning, almost all of them were engaged in agricultural activities. This is still the case with the Indians of the Southwest: the Pueblo Indians. But in the 17th and 18th centuries, after the horse had been imported into Mexico by the Spaniards, some tribes based their way of life on buffalo hunting (chasse au bison).
The tribes were under the authority of chiefs. The chiefs were chosen for their abilities as warriors, for the tribes were often at war with one another.
So, when Christopher Columbus reached the New World, there was no such thing as an Amerindian culture. Languages, human types, customs and ways of life were as varied as the natural scene. White settlers found hunting, fishing and farming communities whose crops included beans, corn and squash (courge). Religion was extremely important. They worshipped various gods, but mostly Nature. The Earth was sacred and a Mother to them.

II.    Relationships between the Indians and the Palefaces

As long as colonization was limited, the conflicts were also limited. But in the 19th century, they became more cruel with the spread of colonization and the increasing reduction of the Indians’ hunting-grounds by the American authorities.
Some facts:
1832: Bad Axe Massacre. That ended the resistance of the tribes east of the Mississippi.
1876: Little Big Horn. Sitting Bull and his Sioux slaughtered Generak Custer and his troops.
1886: Defeat of Geronimo, chief of the Apaches.
1887: Allotment Act (réparition). The Indian territories officially became reservations.

III.    The Indians today

Hardly more than half a million Indians live in the US today. Some of them live on reservations, others have adjusted to modern American civilization: for instance, construction-workers (ouvriers du bâtiment) and window-cleaners for the skyscrapers are recruited among the Mohawks who are not subject to vertigo.
There remains very little of the old Indian civilization, apart from the fact that many places and 28 states have Indian names, reminding the American people that the land was once theirs. The plight of American Indians today is a tragic one. Bad housing (dilapidated houses, shanties), unemployment (40% of the global Amerindian adult population, low incomes, illiteracy, disease (high mortality rate, especially among babies). No wonder, then, why Indian activists more and more refuse forced assimilation and patriotism, demanding full equality.

The Caribbean is a component of Spanish, French, Dutch and English- speaking islands. The English-speaking islands are in greater numbers than the others, both part of the Windward and Leeward Islands. They had all been inhabited by Amerindian peoples – the Arawak and Carib Indians, and the Tainos in some Islands as Jamaica and the Bahamas – before European colonization took place.
The English-speaking islands were the former British colonies in the Caribbean, plus British Guyana and Belize.
Indentured labourers (travailleurs sous contrat) from India were brought to the Caribbean in 1838 to replace the free African slaves on the plantations.
Then in the 1960s, many British colonies were gaining their independence: the Greater Antilles were the first ones who claimed for it, and then a Commonwealth Caribbean was created. The term “Commonwealth Caribbean” was used to refer to the independent English – speaking countries of the Caribbean region. Anglophone Caribbean or Commonwealth Caribbean becomes the preferred sub-regional term as a replacement to that of “British West-Indies” for countries fully independent from the United Kingdom, but English remained the official language.
In 1965, The FEDERATION OF THE WEST-INDIES was created; this had been a moment of self- definition and consequences in particular for writers and politicians. This creation lasted up to 1980, it was very short-lived, but the name was kept and adopted by the islands which were part of it: The WEST-INDIES.

The Statue of Liberty is the best-known monument to freedom in the world. Yet, next to Liberty Island, stands Ellis Island, the immigrant processing center from 1892 to 1954, where millions first stepped onto American ground.

    If the Statue of Liberty embodied the immigrants’ dreams of a new life with a bright future, Ellis Island was looked upon with dread, and represented fears of separation, rejection and deportation (rapatriement).

    After a rough journey from their countries of origin on board ships, where they were jammed into steerage (entassésdansl’entrepont), and traveled in appalling conditions, the “Island of Tears” as it was called, was the last hurdle (obstacle) to America.

    Although most immigrants were eventually admitted into the USA, the consequences of deportation for those who were denied entry could be devastating. The joy and excitement of reaching the “Promised Land” was mingled with the dread of being turned away. Yet, they came by the millions, lured by religious and/or political freedom and the chance to improve their living conditions. All shared the belief that life in America would be better. But once they had landed on Ellis Island, their troubles were not over yet! For most of them, it was a traumatic experience.

    After being loaded onto barges headed for Ellis Island, they had to undergo both medical and legal examinations. The medical exam started before the immigrants even reached the second floor. Medical inspectors were standing at the top of the stairs, looking for signs of sickness or infirmity. Then, sick and exhausted from the voyage, the immigrants huddled in the Great Hall and were made to wait for hours before being examined by doctors, in case they should suffer from contagious diseases such as tuberculosis or trachoma (a disease that causes blindness); the doctors wanted to be sure that they could make a living in America, and would not be a burden to the country.

    All of them were sorted out (triés) and chalked (marqués à la craie). An E chalked on a coat lapel stood for “eye disease”, an L meant “lameness”(claudication), and so on. The legal exam consisted mainly of making sure that each immigrant had at least 25 dollars in cash, and in later years that they could read and write. Prostitutes, insane individuals and anarchists were denied entry. About 80% of all applicants passed, receiving landing cards to enter the country.

    After being fully restored, the Ellis Island immigration center reopened its doors in 1990 as a museum of immigration.

Although one is sometimes used for the other by foreign observers, you should know better!

Remember Great Britain is first an island, composed of three different countries: Wales, England and Scotland.

Over the centuries, the countries of Great Britain agreed to gradually unite their crowns and parliaments. King Edward I controlled Wales in the 13th century and gave his eldest son the title of Prince of Wales, a tradition in the British royal family ever since. With the 1534 Act of Union, Wales then accepted to abandon its national parliament and to send representatives to a London Parliament instead.

In 1541 Henry VIII declared himself head of the kingdom of Ireland, thus extending his royal power. In 1603, his daughter Queen Elizabeth died without children and the crown was passed to her nephew James VI of Scotland, who also became James I of England. The Union of crowns between Wales, England, Ireland and Scotland was thus achieved.

However the Scots were very proud of their political independence and only accepted a union of parliaments in 1707, essentially for economic reasons, in a period when Scotland was in heavy debt and needed to secure commercial cooperation with England. This second Act of Union marked the beginning of Great Britain as a full political entity. In 1801, a third Act of Union was forced on Ireland, which the English considered a dangerous ally to the French and wanted to control more closely. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was thus created.
  
However Irish nationalism continued to grow and the British settlers were seen as oppressors. In 1921, after several years of violent clashes and an Anglo-Irish war, a partition of Ireland occurred: the northern county of Ulster, where the majority of the population was of British descent, stayed in the United Kingdom, while the South of Ireland gained first its political autonomy and then became an independent republic in 1949. Up to this day, the island of Ireland has been split into two parts, one of them remaining in the UK. This situation has led to many nationalist claims and violent actions by paramilitary groups.

In 1998, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland got back political autonomy for local matters through devolution and they now have a regional parliament or assembly and a regional government headed by a First Minister, while still relying on London for British issues. But the United Kingdom is more fragile than ever in the aftermath of the Referendum on Independence held in Scotland in 2014 and of the Brexit vote in 2016, with which Scotland and Northern Ireland disagree.

The British system is a parliamentary monarchy, that is to say, a system in which the monarch has to take into account the position of Parliament on important issues.

The history of the relationship between Parliament and the monarch was marked by several major confrontations.

In 1605, Guy Fawkes tried to blow Parliament. The failure of this Gunpowder plot is celebrated every year on November 5th.

In 1649, after a civil war, the parliamentary army defeated the king’s army. King Charles I was arrested and executed. He was accused of trying to govern without consulting Parliament on important issues. For 11 years (The 11 years’ tyranny) he had not summoned a Parliament. Between 1649 and 1660, as a consequence of this English Revolution, the monarchy was interrupted and replaced by a republic called the Commonwealth.

In 1660, the monarchy was restored, but less than three decades later King James II, also suspected of absolutist sympathies, was deposed by Parliament. Parliament called his daughter and son in law (Mary and William IV) to replace him in 1688 and passed the famous Bill of Rights which reaffirmed the rights of Parliament as well as basic individual freedoms. In 1701, the Act of Settlement redefined the royal line of succession, excluding absolutists and Catholics. This was a victory of the Whig party (who was in favour of a stronger Parliament) against the Tories, who traditionally supported a strong monarchical power.

From its beginning in the Anglo-Saxon period, the British Parliament was always bicameral: its two chambers are called the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The first is an elected house. Its members (called members of Parliament or MPs) and are elected for 5 years at general elections; the second chamber is unelected. Its members are representatives of the Church of England (Lords Spiritual), aristocrats who inherited their title (hereditary peers) and life peers who get their title as a reward for a service rendered to the country, but cannot transmit it.

In order to become an act, a bill has to go through readings in the two houses. However, over the years the powers of the House of Lords have been considerably reduced and today the Lords can only delay legislation by proposing amendments, but not stop it. In 1997, the number of hereditary peers was also reduced. The reform of the House of Lords is still on its way.

Every year, the State Opening of Parliament marks the beginning of the parliamentary year: on that occasion, the monarch reads the Queen/King’s speech which describes in detail the legislative programme of the government. Today, the monarch is still central to the British political institutions and life but has no powers to oppose decisions taken by the government or acts voted by Parliament.

Queen Victoria ‘s reign lasted from 1837 to 1901 and is the second longest in British history after Elizabeth II’s .

From her name, the adjective Victorian and the noun Victorianism were derived. They both refer to a vast and complex period.

The Victorian period coincided with the second part of the Industrial Revolution and the golden age of steam. Steam-powered factories were built in many cities. As a consequence, industrial cities developed very fast, especially in the Midlands and in the north of the country. Manchester was for example nicknamed Cottonopolis, because it grew as a consequence of the development of the cotton industry. Coal mining and metallurgy also contributed to the wealth of the economy.

The country became predominantly urban and the industrial middle classes were very powerful. However, wealth was not equally shared and the social gap between the rich and the (numerous) poor constantly grew. The period is very often remembered for the difficult living and working conditions the lower classes had to endure. Poor people were illiterate and had to work from a very early age. These striking inequalities were described by novelists like Charles Dickens and illustrators like Gustave Doré.

In spite of the social ‘laissez-faire’ and the general belief in self-help, the Victorian period was also marked by major advances, especially as regarded the gradual reform of the right to vote (the 1867 reform act was a landmark), which led to universal suffrage in the 20th century. On the other hand, free and compulsory education for children of all social backgrounds was first introduced in 1870. Similarly, at the end of the period, trade-unions were at the origin of the birth of a representation committee for workers, which later became the Labour party.

In the 19th century, Britain ruled the world. It had a very large colonial empire and controlled territories in all the continents of the world. Many supporters of the British Empire thought the country had a civilizing mission to educate supposedly inferior peoples.

The period is also associated with the so-called Victorian values, a set of moral rules introduced by the middle classes and supported by the Royal family. Seriousness, hard work, the importance of the family and of religion were often stressed and the ideal middle or upper class woman should restrict her role and action to being a wife and a mother.

For all these reasons, the hypocrisy of the period was often harshly criticized in the 20th century. On the contrary, some Conservative politicians like Margaret Thatcher suggested the period was a prestigious one and had to be taken as a model. Nevertheless, because the Victorian era was very long and rich in events and debates, the complexity of the context should always be considered and simplification avoided.