text:
Radiation Oncology/Palliation/Brain Metastases/Randomized

Brain Metastases: Randomized Evidence

In progress of being cross-linked from the Brain Metastases chapter

Steroids +/- WBRT

 * ECOG -- prednisone +/- whole brain RT
 * Randomized. 48 patients. Brain metastases (by radioisotope brain scan, EEG, echo, angiogram, of CSF studies), and histologically proven cancer. Extracranial disease status not considered. Arm 1) Prednisone 40 mg QD x 4 weeks, then 30 mg QD until disease progression vs. Arm 2) Prednisone 40 mg QD + whole brain RT 4000 r in 22–29 days. At the end, further randomized to +/- prednisone 30 mg daily. Clinical criteria used since imaging unreliable
 * 1971 PMID 5541678 -- "The management of metastases to the brain by irradiation and corticosteroids." (Horton J, Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1971 Feb;111(2):334-6.)
 * Outcome: Clinical "remission" prednisone 63% vs. prednisone + RT 61%; duration of remission 5 weeks vs. 11 weeks (wide range); median OS 10 weeks vs 14 weeks
 * Toxicity: Alopecia
 * Conclusion: Combination of radiation and prednisone offers only a slight advantage over prednisone alone

Surgery +/- WBRT

 * Patchell study #2, 1998 (1989–97) - PMID 9809728 — "Postoperative radiotherapy in the treatment of single metastases to the brain: a randomized trial." Patchell RA. JAMA. 1998 Nov 4;280(17):1485-9.
 * 95 pts. Randomized. Solitary brain met. Pts with complete resection (verified by MRI) randomized to postoperative whole brain RT or observation. Dose was 50.4 Gy over 5.5 weeks. Allowed to have other sites of metastases, but KPS >= 70%.
 * Median f/u 43-48 wks. Postop RT was associated with less recurrence anywhere in the brain (18% vs 70%), at the site of resection (10% vs 46%), as well as other areas in the brain (14% vs 37%). Decreased neurologic death (6 of 43 pts, 14%; vs 17 of 39, 44%). No difference in overall survival (unlike Patchell #1) or length of time patient remained independent.
 * Criticism: non-standard whole brain RT dose

WBRT +/- Surgery

 * Canada Multi-Institutional (1989–1993) -- WBRT 30/10 vs. Surgery + WBRT 30/10
 * Randomized. 84 patients. Single brain metastasis, KPS >50, no lymphoma/SCLC. Dexamethasone per institutional policy. Arm 1) WBRT 30/10 vs. Arm 2) Surgery + WBRT 30/10. Treatment within 3 weeks of CT scan.
 * 1996 PMID 8839553 — "A randomized trial to assess the efficacy of surgery in addition to radiotherapy in patients with a single cerebral metastasis." (Mintz AH, Cancer. 1996 Oct 1;78(7):1470-6.)
 * Outcome: Median OS WBRT 6 months vs. surgery + WBRT 6 months (NS). No difference in QoL
 * Conclusion: No benefit from adding surgery to whole brain RT
 * Comment: Worse baseline KPS than Kentucky and Netherlands studies.
 * University Hospital Leiden (Netherlands)(1985–90) -- WBRT 40/20 BID vs. Surgery + WBRT 40/20 BID
 * Randomized. 63/66 patients. Single brain metastasis. Arm 1) Pts randomized to resection + WBRT vs WBRT alone. XRT was to whole brain 2Gy BID for 40 Gy over 2 weeks. No MRI.
 * 1993 PMID 8498838 — "Treatment of single brain metastasis: radiotherapy alone or combined with neurosurgery?" (Vecht CJ, Ann Neurol. 1993 Jun;33(6):583-90.)
 * Outcome: Stable extracranial disease: median OS 7 months vs. 12 months. Progressive extracranial disease: median OS 5 months both groups (NS).
 * Functional independence: Stable extracranial disease: 4 months vs. 9 months. Progressive extracranial disease: 2.5 months both groups (NS). More rapid and longer after surgery + RT
 * 1994 PMID 8040016 — "The choice of treatment of single brain metastasis should be based on extracranial tumor activity and age." (Noordijk EM, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1994 Jul 1;29(4):711-7.)
 * Outcome: median OS WBRT 6 months vs. surgery + WBRT 10 months (SS). Stable extracranial disease (7 months vs 12 months), active extracranial disease (5 months both groups). Age independent predictor (60 years). Majority of deaths due to systemic progression
 * Conclusions: surgery and radiotherapy should be offered over radiotherapy alone. However, for patients with active extracranial disease, radiotherapy alone is sufficient.
 * University of Kentucky / Patchell#1 (1985–1988) -- WBRT 36/12 vs. Surgery + WBRT 36/12
 * Randomized. 48 patients. Suspected single brain metastasis. Dexamethasone 4 mg Q6 hours. Arm 1) (biopsy) then WBRT vs. Arm 2) Surgery + WBRT. Surgery within 72 hours of randomization. WBRT within 14 days of surgery; within 48 hours of randomization or biopsy; dose 36/12
 * 1990 PMID 2405271 - "A randomized trial of surgery in the treatment of single metastases to the brain." (Patchell RA, N Engl J Med. 1990 Feb 22;322(8):494-500.
 * Outcome: Local recurrence WBRT 52% vs surgery + WBRT 20% (SS); time-to-recurrence 5 months vs >14 months (SS). Distant brain recurrence 13% vs. 20% (NS). QoL (KPS >=70, functionally independent) 2 months vs. 9 months (SS)
 * Survival: Median OS 3 months vs. 9 months (SS), "neurologic death" 6 months vs. 14 months (SS). No difference in "systemic death".
 * Toxicity: operative mortality 4%, operative morbidity 8%
 * Conclusion: Patients with single brain metastasis treated with surgery + RT live longer, have fewer recurrences, and better quality of life than patients treated with RT alone

SRS +/- WBRT

 * EORTC 22952-26001 (1996–2007) -- Surgery/SRS +/- WBRT
 * See: Radiosurgery +/- WBRT
 * MD Anderson (2001–2007) -- SRS vs SRS + WBRT
 * Randomized. Stopped early due to significantly worse cognitive outcome in WBRT+SRS arm. 58 of expected 90 patients. RPA I-II (KPS >=70), 1-3 brain mets (57% single). Arm 1) SRS (dose per RTOG 9005; median 19 Gy) vs. Arm 2) SRS first (median 20 Gy) + WBRT 30/12. No concurrent chemo. Primary endpoint neurocognitive function using HVLT-R recall test at 4 months
 * 2009 PMID 19801201 -- "Neurocognition in patients with brain metastases treated with radiosurgery or radiosurgery plus whole-brain irradiation: a randomised controlled trial." (Chang EL, Lancet Oncol. 2009 Nov;10(11):1037-44. Epub 2009 Oct 2.). Median F/U 9 months
 * Outcome: Significant decline in 4-month recall SRS 24% vs. SRS+WBRT 52% (SS). Functional brain assessment no difference. 1-year LC 67% vs. 100% (SS); 1-year distant brain control 45% vs. 73% (SS). 1-year CNS DFS 27% vs. 73% (SS). Median OS 15 months vs. 6 months (SS). Salvage much more aggressive in SRS only arm
 * Toxicity: SRS 7% Grade 4
 * Conclusion: Patients treated with SRS + WBRT were at greater risk of memory decline at 4 months
 * JROSG 99–1, Japan (1999–2003) -- SRS vs SRS + WBRT
 * Randomized. Stopped early due to low likelihood of showing a difference. 132 of expected 188 patients. 1-4 mets, size < 3 cm. RPA I-II (85% RPA II). 50% active extracranial disease. 11 centers in Japan. Arm 1) SRS alone (dose if <2 cm 22-25 Gy, if 2–3 cm 18-20 Gy) vs. Arm 2) WBRT 30/10 followed by SRS. SRS dose reduced by 30%. Primary endpoint OS
 * 2006 PMID 16757720 — "Stereotactic Radiosurgery Plus Whole-Brain Radiation Therapy vs Stereotactic Radiosurgery Alone for Treatment of Brain Metastases: A Randomized Controlled Trial." (Aoyama H et al. JAMA 2006;295 2483–2491.)
 * Outcome: Median OS SRS 8.0 months vs. SRS + WBRT 7.5 months (NS); 1-year OS 28% vs. 38% (NS); CNS death 19% vs. 23% (NS). 1-year LC ~75% vs. ~90% (SS); 1-year distant brain control 36% vs. 59% (SS). Decreased need for salvage brain treatment (10 pts vs 29 pts) with WBRT. No difference in neurocognitive measures
 * Conclusion: SRS alone can be a reasonable strategy, with close monitoring and salvage retreatment

WBRT +/- SRS

 * RTOG 95-08 (1996–2001) -- WBRT vs WBRT + SRS
 * Randomized. 331 patients, 1-3 brain mets with maximum diameter 4 cm, RPA class 1 (26%) or class 2 (74%), lung 63%. Arm 1) WBRT 37.5/15 vs Arm 2) WBRT + radiosurgery (24-18-15 Gy based on size)
 * 2004 PMID 15158627 Full text — "Whole brain radiation therapy with or without stereotactic radiosurgery boost for patients with one to three brain metastases: phase III results of the RTOG 9508 randomised trial." (Andrews DW, Lancet. 2004 May 22;363(9422):1665-72.)
 * Outcome: Mean OS WBRT 6.5 months vs WBRT+SRS 5.7 months (NS); single metastasis 4.9 months vs 6.5 months (SS) though (NS) on multivariate analysis. Higher 3-month response rate and control at 1 yr (71% vs 82%). No difference in overall time to progression (any intracranial failure) and no difference in neurologic death. Local recurrence 43% more likely with WBRT than WBRT+SRS. Improved KPS (4% vs 13%) and decreased steroid use at 6 months but no difference in mental status.
 * Toxicity: Acute G3+ WBRT 0% vs WBRT+SRS 3%; Late G3+ 3% vs 6%
 * Conclusion: WBRT+SRS improved KPS, no difference in OS. Benefit in OS for single metastasis
 * Pittsburgh -- WBRT vs WBRT + SRS
 * Randomized. Trial stopped early after significant interim benefit in brain control for WBRT+SRS arm. 27 patients, 2-4 brain metastases <2.5 cm, KPS ≥ 70. Arm 1) WBRT 30/12 vs Arm 2) WBRT + SRS 16 Gy. Primary outcome brain control.
 * 1999 PMID 10487566 — "Stereotactic radiosurgery plus whole brain radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for patients with multiple brain metastases." Kondziolka D et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Sep 1;45(2):427-34.
 * Outcome: 1-year local failure WBRT 100% vs WBRT+SRS 8% (SS); time-to-failure 6 months vs 36 months (SS). Median OS WBRT 7.5 months vs WBRT+SRS 11 months (NS). However, patients in WBRT arm who received salvage SRS median OS 11 months (NS to WBRT+SRS), while patients who received only WBRT median OS 7 months (SS to WBRT+SRS)
 * Conclusion: WBRT+SRS significantly improves control of brain disease; WBRT alone does not provide effective and lasting control

Whole Brain RT Dose

 * Kogarah, Australia -- 40/20 BID vs 20/4 QD
 * Randomized. 113 patients, brain mets, stable or absent extracranial disease, ECOG <3. Surgical resection 36%. Arm 1) 40/20 BID vs. Arm 2) 20/4. Primary outcome intracranial control and QoL.
 * 2009 PMID 19836153 -- "Randomized Comparison of Whole Brain Radiotherapy, 20 Gy in Four Daily Fractions Versus 40 Gy in 20 Twice-Daily Fractions, for Brain Metastases." (Graham PH, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009 Oct 14. [Epub ahead of print])
 * Outcome: Median OS 40 Gy 6.1 months vs. 20 Gy 6.6 months (NS). Intracranial progression 44% vs. 64% (SS). Median time-to-CNS-progression 9 months vs 5 months (SS). Salvage RT/surgery 4% vs. 21% (SS). CNS death 32% vs. 52% (SS)
 * Toxicity: Minimal. QoL clinically improved in 20 Gy arm over 40 Gy arm, but (NS).
 * Conclusion: Intracranial control better with 40/20 BID than 20/4 QD; should be considered for better prognosis patients

Topotecan

 * Germany -- WBRT vs. WBRT + topotecan
 * Randomized. Closed early due to slow accrual. 96/320 patients with SCLC or NSCLC, with brain metastases. Arm 1) WBRT 40/20 vs. Arm 2) WBRT 40/20 + topotecan 0.4 mg/m2
 * 2009 PMID 19127261 -- "A phase III trial of topotecan and whole brain radiation therapy for patients with CNS-metastases due to lung cancer." (Neuhaus T, Br J Cancer. 2009 Jan 27;100(2):291-7. Epub 2009 Jan 6.) Median F/U 2.8 years
 * Outcome: No difference in LR or PFS
 * Conclusion: No significant advantage for concurrent topotecan in patients with lung cancer, but number too small

Thalidomide

 * RTOG 0118; 2007 (2002–2004) PMID 18164847 -- "A Phase III Study of Conventional Radiation Therapy Plus Thalidomide versus Conventional Radiation Therapy for Multiple Brain Metastases (RTOG 0118)." (Knisely JP, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Dec 28 [Epub ahead of print])
 * Randomized. Closed early due to non-superiority. 183 accrued patients from goal of 332 patients. Multiple (>3), large (>4 cm), or midbrain metastases from extracranial disease, PS 0–1. Arm 1) WBRT 37.5/15 vs. Arm 2) WBRT 37.5/15 + thalidomide
 * Outcome: median OS 3.9 months for both arms
 * Toxicity: 48% discontinued thalidomide due to toxicity
 * Conclusion: No survival benefit for thalidomide; significant toxicity

Motexafin gadolinium

 * Wisconsin; 2003 PMID 12829672 -- "Survival and neurologic outcomes in a randomized trial of motexafin gadolinium and whole-brain radiation therapy in brain metastases." (Mehta MP, J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jul 1;21(13):2529-36.)
 * Randomized. 401 patients (251 NSCLC). Arm 1) 30 Gy WBRT vs. Arm 2) concurrent MGd 5 mg/kg/d
 * Outcome: no difference in survival (4.9 months vs. 5.2 months, NS) or time-to-neurologic progression (9.5 months vs. 8.3 months, NS). Improvement in neurologic progression in NSCLC patients
 * Conclusion: No benefit, except possibly for NSCLC brain mets

Bromodeoxyuridine

 * RTOG 89–05; 1995 (1989–93) - PMID 7673021 — "Results of a randomized comparison of radiotherapy and bromodeoxyuridine with radiotherapy alone for brain metastases: report of RTOG trial 89-05." Phillips TL et al. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995 Sep 30;33(2):339-48.
 * Randomized. 72 patients, KPS >=70, primary absent, controlled, or under RT; no other mets. WBRT 37.5/15 +/- bromodeoxyuridine (BrdUrd)
 * Outcome: Median OS RT alone 6.1 months vs. RT + BrdUrd 4.3 months (NS)
 * Conclusion: No benefit for BrdUrd

Radioprotectants
Methylphenidate (d-MPH)
 * Wake Forest; 2007 PMID 17869448 -- "A Phase III, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of d-threo-methylphenidate HCl in Brain Tumor Patients Receiving Radiation Therapy." (Butler JM Jr, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 Sep 13; [Epub ahead of print])
 * Randomized. 68 patients with primary or metastatic brain tumors. Arm 1) prophylactic d-MPH 5 mg BID -> 15 mg BID vs. Arm 2) observation. Outcome measure QOL and cognitive function
 * Outcome: No difference in fatigue, QOL, or cognitive function
 * Conclusion: Prophylactic d-MPH not beneficial in brain tumor patients


text:
User talk:G096016

Table of Contents

Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally. -- Herby talk thyme 15:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate pages
Hi - you have created two pages that appear to be duplicates of each other Megauniversity/Anadolu University & MegaUniversity/Anadolu University. Be aware that one will almost certainly be deleted shortly. It is also not apparent how this work would fit into the scope of Wikibooks - adding some real content would give us a far better idea of your intentions, thanks -- Herby talk thyme 16:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, these pages are not textbooks. They seem like they might be macropedia pages. If I'm wrong, please let me know quickly, because I plan to delete them shortly. You can leave a note here - I'll be watching for a reply. Thanks. – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 17:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:G096016


text: User talk:90.199.238.243

title: User talk:90.199.238.243


text:
User talk:Ssuresh

Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally. – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 02:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ssuresh


text:
Template:Incomplete module

 * For modules that are expected to take quite a while to write, and cannot be completed in one go.

title: Template:Incomplete module


text:
User talk:Edward.Sarabia

Welcome message
Hello, and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * To learn the wiki-markup-language syntax, see Help:Editing.
 * Make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
 * There is a box at the top of the edit window (if javascript is enabled on your browser) that will insert it too (looks like part of a signature). This will let others know who left it, and make it easy to reply back to you.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox.
 * You can tell the community something about yourself in your userpage.
 * You can get to this page by clicking the tab at the top of the page labeled with your registered username.
 * Wikibooks is a collection of open-source textbooks. (What is Wikibooks).
 * If you are a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer on how things work here (it's a little different).
 * If you want to base your work here on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI (requests for importation) to bring the material over in compliance with the GFDL.
 * If you're an instructor and plan on using Wikibooks for a class project, see Guidelines for class projects
 * Please say hello at the Reading Room with any questions or ideas.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Help us by participating in policy and guideline creation.
 * Please take a look at Naming policy before starting a new book.
 * Remember to maintain a Neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Reading Room, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be a good idea to add that page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there. You can do that by clicking the tab labeled "watch" at the top of the page.

Good luck! --Panic (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Edward.Sarabia


text:
User talk:Markhoney

Welcome message
Hello, and welcome to Wikibooks!

Here are some tips to help you get started:
 * To learn the wiki-markup-language syntax, see Help:Editing.
 * Make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
 * There is a box at the top of the edit window (if javascript is enabled on your browser) that will insert it too (looks like part of a signature). This will let others know who left it, and make it easy to reply back to you.
 * Remember to conduct any editing experiments in the sandbox.
 * You can tell the community something about yourself in your userpage.
 * You can get to this page by clicking the tab at the top of the page labeled with your registered username.
 * Wikibooks is a collection of open-source textbooks. (What is Wikibooks).
 * If you are a Wikipedian, see Wikibooks for Wikipedians for a primer on how things work here (it's a little different).
 * If you want to base your work here on materials from Wikipedia, please use WB:RFI (requests for importation) to bring the material over in compliance with the GFDL.
 * If you're an instructor and plan on using Wikibooks for a class project, see Guidelines for class projects
 * Please say hello at the Reading Room with any questions or ideas.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Help us by participating in policy and guideline creation.
 * Please take a look at Naming policy before starting a new book.
 * Remember to maintain a Neutral point of view.
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and have fun!

You will find more resources in Community Portal. If you want to ask a question, visit the Study help desk, the Reading Room, IRC channel or ask me personally on my talk page. For site news, see the Bulletin board. It might be a good idea to add that page to your "watchlist" so that you can see when any new information is posted there. You can do that by clicking the tab labeled "watch" at the top of the page.

Good luck! --Panic (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Markhoney


text:
User talk:125.168.41.95

--- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:125.168.41.95


text:
Cookbook talk:Pie Floater

Unfortunately the pie floater in this picture is not up-side-down. I would also suggest that tomato sauce be added to the list of ingredients. We could also consider listing variations such as the pasty floater and the curry pie floater.

title: Cookbook talk:Pie Floater


text:
User talk:58.68.97.94

--- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 06:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:58.68.97.94


text:
Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Characters/Cadwallader

Overview
Cadwallader (we never learn his fist name) plays in the Hufflepuff Quidditch team as Chaser. He is first mentioned in the sixth book.

Half-Blood Prince
With the graduation and departure of the previous commentator for Quidditch, Lee Jordan, others are being tried for the position. For the game between Gryffindor and Hufflepuff, Luna Lovegood is commentating, and she seems unable to recall Cadwallader's name, first believing his name to be "Bibble" or "Buggins".

Cadwallader's name is eventually revealed when Luna is prompted by Professor McGonagall.

Strengths
We must assume Cadwallader is a good Quidditch player as he made it onto the Hufflepuff team. His team also wins the match in which he was introduced, although that is largely due to misfortune.

Weaknesses
As we have never seen him before, or afterwards, there is nothing we can infer here.

Relationships with Other Characters
Presumably he is on good terms with his teammates.

Analysis
The Hufflepuff Quidditch team has been seen a few times throughout the story, seemingly with a "revolving door" policy, as opposed to the Gryffindor team, who remain fairly static, at least for Harry's first few years. Cadwallader is a new character, and we have no way of knowing how long he has been playing Quidditch for. He has never been mentioned before, so perhaps he is new.

It may be of note that this team also contains Zacharias Smith, a dislikeable character who goes against most traditional Hufflepuff values. Ron's comment to Harry just before the match specifically mentions that he hopes Harry "hammers" his team.

Questions

 * 1) For how long do you think Cadwallader has been playing Quidditch?
 * 2) Had Harry not been knocked out, do you think Hufflepuff would still have won the match that easily?

Greater Picture
The event in which Cadwallader makes his first and only named appearance serves to throw a couple of other characters into focusː Luna, in her role as commentator, and Cormac McLaggen, whose bravado and carelessness causes a catastrophic loss for Gryffindor. Whereas these incidents are comic and tragic respectively, we must remember that this is a Quidditch scene, and that there are fourteen young wizards and witches playing a sport. Naming some of them keeps Quidditch realistic.


text:
Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Characters/Andromeda Tonks

Overview
Andromeda Tonks, wife of Ted Tonks and mother of Nymphadora Tonks, was born into the Black family, but has been disowned.

Order of the Phoenix
When Harry and Sirius Black are discussing the tapestry of the Ancient and Honorable House of Black, Sirius mentions Andromeda in passing, saying she has been removed from the tapestry for the unforgivable crime of marrying a Muggle-born wizard, Ted Tonks. Nymphadora Tonks is their daughter.

Deathly Hallows
When Harry first sees Andromeda, he almost mistakes her for her sister, Bellatrix Lestrange, and is on the point of casting a jinx at her, but cannot find his wand. She, like her husband, is dismayed to hear that they had been ambushed by Death Eaters, and is concerned that her daughter may have gotten hurt.

Strengths
We don't see much of Andromeda, but we know she must have significant strength of character to marry Ted Tonks, a Muggle-born, in the full knowledge that this would cause the Black family to effectively cast her out.

Weaknesses
Her family – especially Nymphadora Tonks – is her weakness. This being all the family she has, with the Blacks disowning her, she will be concerned, perhaps overly so, with the wellbeing of her husband and daughter.

Relationships with Other Characters
She is Bellatrix Lestrange's and Narcissa Malfoy's sister. She was the middle Black daughter, Sirius Black's cousin, but she was disowned for marrying the Muggle Ted Tonks. (He is not really a muggle, but being descended from Muggles is not considered to be a true Wizard.) Her parents are Druella and Cygnus Black. She is the mother of Nymphadora Tonks, mother-in-law of Remus Lupin, wife of Ted Tonks, and grandmother of Teddy Remus Lupin.

Questions

 * 1) Do you think anyone in Andromeda's family accepted her choice of husband? Why or why not?


text:
Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Characters/Bob Ogden

Overview
Bob Ogden, seen only in Albus Dumbledore's Pensieve, is a member of the department of Magical Law Enforcement, part of the Ministry of Magic. Our memory of him predates the birth of Lord Voldemort.

Half-Blood Prince
In Dumbledore's Pensieve, Harry and Dumbledore watch as Bob Ogden arrives at the Gaunt residence. He is attacked and cursed by Morfin Gaunt, who is interrupted by Marvolo Gaunt. Ogden tells Marvolo that Morfin had cursed a Muggle, and was required to attend a hearing at the Ministry. Marvolo, showing Gaunt family heirlooms, says that he and his family are pure-blooded wizards. Ogden's statements that purity of blood counts little in the eyes of the law are interrupted by the sound of horses, and the revelation (in Parseltongue so Ogden doesn't understand it) that Marvolo's daughter Merope is sweet on the Muggle he had Jinxed. Marvolo, furious that his daughter could fall for a Muggle, attacks her; Ogden, though not fully aware of what is going on, defends her and is attacked in turn, and makes good his escape, running headlong into the horses that were passing.

Dumbledore tells Harry that Ogden had returned with a squad and had subdued both Marvolo and Morfin. After their hearings, they had both been sent to Azkaban.

Strengths
Ogden takes his duties seriously and maintains a professional and courteous demeanor despite Marvolo's hostility toward him and the Ministry. Ogden also shows bravery and compassion when he defends Merope from her father's assault.

Weaknesses
Like most wizards, Ogden is not very experienced or skilled at the subtleties of Muggle clothing. Trying to look like a Muggle, Ogden wears a frock coat and spats over a one piece bathing costume.

Analysis
"Ogden" seems to be a common Wizarding surname, possibly an old family. Professor Tofty, one of Harry's O.W.L. examiners, mentions his friend Tiberius Ogden. Tiberius was present at Harry's hearing in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. There is also Ogden's Old Firewhiskey, a brand preferred by Gilderoy Lockhart.


text:
Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim

Though the Yiddish language took a heavy toll during the Holocaust, when most of its speakers were lost, the language is still commonly used to give shiurim or musar shmuessn in yeshivos. Unfortunately, many English-speaking yeshiva-students, though they already know many Yiddish words, and even incorporate them into their English, are unable to understand a full shiur given in Yiddish.

The purpose of this guide is to teach enough vocabulary and grammar to understand a Yiddish shiur.

Table of Contents

 * /Introduction/

Grammar

 * 1)  /Reading Yiddish/
 * 2)  /Conjugating verbs/
 * 3)  /Verbs with prefixes and זיך/
 * 4)  /Possessive pronouns/

Vocabulary

 * 1)  /Some very common words/
 * 2)  /Questions/
 * 3)  /Prepositions/
 * 4)  /Verbs/
 * 5)  /Nouns and adjectives/
 * 6)  /Phrases that do not fit into other lessons/

Miscellaneous

 * /About contributing/ - Please read this before editing this book
 * /Authors/

title: Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim


text:
Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/Reading Yiddish

Though a typical yeshiva bachur doesn’t need to read Yiddish too often, this lesson is essential so that you’ll be able to read the Yiddish words found in the remaining lessons.

Yiddish is written with the Hebrew alphabet. However, its rules of spelling are quite different. Unlike Hebrew, all vowels are written as full letters. Nekudos aren’t written, with a few exceptions, which are always written. Also, consonant blends are allowed. In other words, two consonants in a row are pronounced together, unlike in Hebrew where there must be a vowel or shva in between. For example, בּענטש is pronounced bentsh.

Words which come from Hebrew are spelled as they are in Hebrew, though they are pronounced the way Ashkenazim would pronounce them in everyday conversation (as opposed to the more correct pronunciation used for davening and layning). For example, יום טובֿ is pronounced yontiff; שלש סעודות is pronounced shalashudes; תּוספֿות is pronounced toysfis; ײשר כּח is pronounced shkoyach.

Pronunciation cannot always be determined exactly from the way it is spelled. For example, ער is sometimes pronounced like the English word air (such as in the word ער which means he) and sometime like the er in the English word her (such as the word שטאַרקער, stronger).

There are several different pronunciation systems for Yiddish; for convenience the Litvish and Polish systems are given here.

Following is a list of letters in the Yiddish alphabet, and how they differ from their Hebrew equivalents.

Vowels
Some vowels are preceded by a silent א when they appear at the beginning of a word.

 * אָ, אַ – pronounced the same as in Ashkenazi Hebrew (Polish: אָ is often oo as in too)
 * ו – Litvish: oo as in too (Polish: usually pronounce ea as in read)
 * ױ – This represents two distinct vowels. 1 Litvish: ay as in say (Polish: oy); 2 Litvish: oy as in boy (Polish: sometimes oy and sometimes ow as in bowl);
 * י – i as in him (Polish: also ee as in green)
 * ײ – Litvish: ay as in say (Polish: y as in by)
 * ײַ – Litvish: y as in by (Polish: a as in car)
 * ע – e as in bed (Polish: also ey as in prey)

Consonants

 * א, ע – never used as a consonant in Yiddish, except for words that originate from Hebrew
 * ב – always pronounced as a b, except in words originating from Hebrew. In these words, it may be pronounced with a v, in which case a line may be added on top (בֿ).
 * ג, ד, ה, ז, ט, ל, מ, נ, ס, צ, ק, ר – same as Hebrew
 * װ – when used as a v sound, a vov is always doubled
 * ח, ת, כּ – used mostly in words originating from Hebrew
 * י – same as in Hebrew, when used as a consonant. If a yud sound comes at the beginning of a word, it may be changed into an א (as in the word אידיש).
 * כֿ – generally pronounced like a chof. In Hebrew words with a כּ, a dot is written.
 * פֿ, פּ – f when written with a line, and p when not. If a p appears at the end of a word, it does not change into a ף (as in כֿאַפּ, catch).
 * ש – when written without a dot (which is usually), it is pronounced sh. It has a dot for Hebrew words with a sin.


text: User talk:Mu301

title: User talk:Mu301


text: Template:Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/nword


text:
Template:Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/example

 * style="background-color: #DDFFDD;" | Example
 * style="direction: rtl;" |
 * style="direction: rtl;" |


text:
Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/Some very common words

There are several different words which all translate to the English word "the". There are rules when to use each word, but if your goal is just to know basic Yiddish, it's not so important to actually know these rules.

These words are also used to mean "this". When it means this, more emphasis is given to the word.
 * }

Another common word, which has already been used in some of the examples, is איז. It is usually pronounced exactly like the English word is, but sometimes the ז at the end is left unpronounced. It means the exact same thing as the English word is.
 * }

Here are a few more common words:
 * }

 * }

 * }

The word ניט is very often used together with קײן, which is somewhat hard to translate. It usually replaces the word אַ or אַן before a noun.
 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }


text:
A-level Physics (Advancing Physics)/Potential Dividers

A potential divider, or potentiometer, consists of a number of resistors, and a voltmeter. The voltage read by the voltmeter is determined by the ratio of the resistances on either side of the point at which one end of the voltmeter is connected.

To understand how a potential divider works, let us consider resistors in series. The resistances add up, so, in a circuit with two resistors:

$$\Sigma R = R_1 + R_2$$

If we apply Ohm's law, remembering that the current is constant throughout a series circuit:

$$\frac{\sum V}{I} = \frac{V_1}{I} + \frac{V_2}{I}$$

Multiply by current (I):

$$\Sigma V = V_1 + V_2$$

So, just as the resistances in series add up to the total resistance, the potential differences add up to the total potential difference. The ratios between the resistances are equal to the ratios between the potential differences. In other words, we can calculate the potential difference across a resistor using the formula:

$$V_{resistor} = \sum V \times \frac{R_{resistor}}{\sum R_{external}}$$

In many cases, you will be told to assume that the internal resistance of the power source is negligible, meaning that you can take the total potential difference as the EMF of the power source.

A potential divider may work by combining a variable resistor such as an LDR or thermistor with a constant resistor, as in the diagram below. As the resistance of the variable resistor changes, the ratio between the resistances changes, so the potential difference across any given resistor changes.

Alternatively, a potential divider may be made of many resistors. A 'wiper' may move across them, varying the number of resistors on either side of the wiper as it moves, as in the following diagram:

Questions
1. A 12 kΩ resistor and a 20 kΩ resistor are connected to a 9V battery. A voltmeter is connected across the 12kΩ resistor. What is the reading on the voltmeter? (Assume negligible internal resistance.)

2. A potential divider consists of 100 5Ω resistors, with a wiper which moves on one resistor for every 3.6° a handle connected to it turns. The wiper is connected to a voltmeter, and the circuit is powered by a 120V power source with negligible internal resistance. What is the reading on the voltmeter when the handle turns 120°?

3. A 9V battery with internal resistance 0.8Ω is connected to 3 resistors with conductances of 3, 2 and 1 Siemens. A voltmeter is connected across the 3 and 2 Siemens resistors. An ammeter is placed in the circuit, between the battery and the first terminal of the voltmeter, and reads 2A. What is the reading on the voltmeter?

/Worked Solutions/


text:
A-level Physics (Advancing Physics)/Potential Dividers/Worked Solutions

'''1. A 12 kΩ resistor and a 20 kΩ resistor are connected to a 9V battery. A voltmeter is connected across the 12 kΩ resistor. What is the reading on the voltmeter? (Assume negligible internal resistance.)'''

$$V_{12 k\Omega} = 9 \times \frac{12}{12 + 20} = 3.375 V$$

'''2. A potential divider consists of 100 5Ω resistors, with a wiper which moves on one resistor for every 3.6° a handle connected to it turns. The wiper is connected to a voltmeter, and the circuit is powered by a 120V power source with negligible internal resistance. What is the reading on the voltmeter when the handle turns 120°?'''

First, work out the number (n) of resistors between the terminals of the voltmeter:

$$n = \frac{120}{3.6} = 33.\bar{3}$$

The handle, then, has not turned enough to reach the 34th resistor, so the voltmeter is connected just after the 33rd resistor.

$$V = 120 \times \frac{33 \times 5}{100 \times 5} = 39.6\mbox{ V}$$

'''3. A 9V battery with internal resistance 0.8Ω is connected to 3 resistors with conductances of 3, 2 and 1 Siemens. A voltmeter is connected across the 3 and 2 Siemens resistors. An ammeter is placed in the circuit, between the battery and the first terminal of the voltmeter, and reads 2A. What is the reading on the voltmeter?'''

First, work out the resistances of the resistors:

$$R = \frac{1}{G} = \frac{1}{3}, \frac{1}{2} , 1 \mbox{ }\Omega$$

Then, work out the external potential difference (i.e. excluding the potential difference lost due to the battery's internal resistance):

Vexternal = E - IRinternal = 9 - (2 x 0.8) = 7.4V

$$V_{3\Omega, 2\Omega} = 7.4 \times \frac{\frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{2}}{\frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{2} + 1} \approx 3.36\mbox{ V}$$


text:
Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/Conjugating verbs

Present tense
Most verbs are conjugated in the same form in present tense, though there are some exceptions. The subject usually comes before the verb (like in English), but sometimes the order is reversed (like Hebrew) to change the tone (most notably, in questions). Here is an example of a regular verb: Verbs that come from Hebrew are usually conjugated together with the word זײַן to be, similar to in Yeshivish (they are Modeh; he is Meyasheiv the Stirah; they are Mechaleik between them). Here is an example:
 * הערן – hear
 * איך הער – I hear
 * דו הערסט – you hear
 * ער הערט – he hears
 * זי הערט – she hears
 * עס הערט – it hears
 * מיר הערן – we hear
 * איר הערט – you (plural or formal) hear
 * זיי הערן – they hear
 * מסכּים זײַן – agree
 * איך בּין מסכּים – I agree
 * דו בּיסט מסכּים – you agree
 * ער/זי/עס איז מסכּים – he/she/it agrees
 * מיר/זיי זײַנען מסכּים – we/they agree
 * איר זײַנט מסכּים – you agree

Past tense
Past tense is conjugated by adding the helping verb האָבּן have, and (usually) adding the letters גע to the verb. This is similar to some past tense words in English ("I have done that.") For words which come from Hebrew, זײַן becomes געווען. Here are some examples:
 * האָבּן געהערט - Had
 * איך האָבּ געהערט – I had
 * דו האָסט געהערט – you had
 * ער/זי/עס האָט געהערט – he/she/it had
 * מיר/זיי האָבּן געהערט – we/they had
 * איר האָט געהערט – you had

 * האָבּן מסכּים געווען – agreed
 * איך האָבּ מסכּים געווען – I agreed
 * דו האָסט מסכּים געווען – you agreed
 * ער/זי/עס האָט מסכּים געווען – he/she/it agreed
 * מיר/זיי האָבּן מסכּים געווען – we/they agreed
 * איר האָט מסכּים געווען – you agreed

Future tense
Similar to past tense (and future tense in English), future tense is expressed by adding the helping verb װעלן will. Here are the (now familiar) examples:
 * וועלן הערן – will hear
 * איך װעל הערן – I will hear
 * דו װעסט הערן – you will hear
 * ער/זי/עס װעט הערן – he/she/it will hear
 * מיר/זיי װעלן הערן – we/they will hear
 * איר װעט הערן – you will hear

 * וועלן מסכּים זײַן – will agree
 * איך װעל מסכּים זײַן – I will agree
 * דו װעסט מסכּים זײַן – you will agree
 * ער/זי/עס װעט מסכּים זײַן – he/she/it will agree
 * מיר/זיי װעלן מסכּים זײַן – we/they will agree
 * איר װעט מסכּים זײַן – you will agree


text:
Cookbook:Kartoshnik

A Kartoshnik is a Russian holiday potato cake, typically made with cheese and onions. A typical recipe may include potatoes, eggs, whipping cream, cheddar cheese, Swiss cheese, baking powder and sour cream. It is assembled in such a way as to rise when cooking, and then slightly settle when cooled, resembling a cake. It is then cut into squares, and served as a side dish.

title: Cookbook:Kartoshnik


text:
Urban Traffic Operations/ANSI Safety Signs

The new ANSI standards also emphasizes on a custom design for the safety sign. As per the standard convention a sign can include an Action statement, consequences, a symbol, the message can be written in mixed case and can add emergency information.

Seven Steps to an effective ANSI Standard Safety Sign
Here are seven secrets to make your signs and labels as effective as possible following the ANSI standards:

1. Over Emphasis on the Action

Give the viewer instructions on how to avoid the hazard. Bias the sign towards action. Signs are really advertisements for safety. They need to be persuasive.

2. Incorporating Symbols

Many people cannot read English. Many more cannot see clearly enough to read, even if they do understand English. A symbol provides a quick way to reinforce the safety message and broaden your audience.

3. Choosing the Proper Header

The header helps get the sign noticed. A warning, after all, should not be a wallflower.

 4. Describe the Hazards & Consequences

You will die or get hurt if you ignore this warning! A safety message should tell you (1) why the situation is dangerous and (2) what will happen if you don't obey.

5. Write in a Headline Style

Use simple and direct words. Unfortunately, most people cannot read above the sixth grade level.

Use active rather than passive verbs: "Wear Hard Hats" is better than "Hard Hats are Required". Avoid adverbs that are difficult to interpret: "Respond within one minute" is better than "Respond quickly."

6. Provide Emergency Info.

Without a telephone number, lifesaving minutes can be lost. In a pinch, you don't want someone fumbling through the phone book to report an accident, or a potentially dangerous situation.

7. Choose the Right Material

Installation and ordering costs are often more expensive than the sign itself. As a result, a durable sign always pay in the long run.


text:
Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/Questions

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

title: Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/Questions


text:
Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/Prepositions

There are quite a few prepositions in Yiddish, and they don't all quite correspond to an equivalent English expression. It takes a while to get used to all of their different uses. Here are a few examples of some common ones.

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }


text:
Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/Verbs with prefixes and זיך

Lots of verbs in Yiddish have associated adverbs attached to them. For equivalent English example, take and take on have quite different meanings, as do pay and pay back. These added words are usually added on to the beginning of the word in infinitive form, and to the end in conjugated form. Here are a few examples.

 * }

Another word which is commonly added to Yiddish verbs is the word זיך (pronounced zach or zich). It is always the next word after a verb, and it makes the verb before it passive. For example, עסן means to eat. עסן זיך means to be eaten.
 * }

 * }


text:
Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/Phrases that do not fit into other lessons

 * }

 * }

 * }


text:
Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/About contributing

Please feel free to edit, add to, and improve this book. The person who started this Wikibook does not speak Yiddish fluently at all, and it is very likely that there are many mistakes and lots of room for improvement.

Please try to conform to the following points if you contribute. If you disagree with any of these rules, discuss it on the discussion page and change the rule if a consensus is reached.
 * 1) No lashon hara, leitzanus, bizayon talmidei chachamim, nivul peh or any inappropriate content that a typical Yeshivah Bachur would not want to read.
 * 2) Try to keep the book as short as possible, but still containing all the useful information needed to understand a basic Shiur in Yiddish. For example, a lengthy list of all the appropriate way of adding adjectives to nouns would be considered unimportant. Keep in mind that the reader is already expected to know at least a basic level of Yeshivish, so it is unnecessary to teach words that exist in English (such as פּראָבּלעם), Hebrew/Aramaic (like חבֿר), or even basic Yeshivish (like טאַקע).
 * 3) Examples are very useful, since most of the readers probably already know the basic idea behind Yiddish, and just need some concrete usage to put it all together.
 * 4) To prevent confusion, both dageshes and rafes have been added to letters that can receive them (בּ, בֿ, כּ, כֿ, פּ, פֿ, תּ, תֿ). Please keep to this standard. If you would like to change this, you can discuss it on the discussion page, but keep in mind that it will take a long time to change the entire book to different standard.
 * 5) Don’t add unnecessary Nekudos. Only אָ, אַ, and ײַ get vowels (unless there is ambiguity).
 * 6) Don’t spell Yiddish words in English letters. See below to learn how to type Yiddish.
 * 7) Don’t use fancy English words. Though many Yeshivah Bochrim, and in particular those that don’t yet know Yiddish, do speak a high level of English, many don’t. On the other hand, don’t go out of your way to follow this rule. For example, there is simply no simple English word for conjugate.
 * 8) This book is only for Yiddish words and grammar that would be useful when trying to understand a Yiddish Shiur. If you would like to teach conversational Yiddish, then feel free to develop the other Yiddish Wikibook, but this is not the place for it. Speaking of the other Wikibook, it is really a pity that no-one is working on it. Feel free to steal information from this book, though you'll probably have to significantly change the style due to the different audience. No forking is allowed in Wikibooks, but the content and style would have to be changed so significantly for the other book that it is very unlikely this would pose a problem.
 * 9) Include the code  at the bottom of every page.
 * 10) Feel free to add yourself to the Authors page if you have contributed significantly.

Using the templates
To produce one of the new word boxes, use the following code: This produces the following box:

Make sure that the two lines are kept on two separate lines. Don't worry if you see the punctuation in the Yiddish part going to the wrong side when editing; it will go to the right side when you save it (preview to test).
 * }

You may optionally add examples to the new word box by adding one or more example lines in between the two lines of the nword command, with the following exact format: which looks like this:

Again, remember to close it with the  at the end.
 * }

Speaking of the new word template, I would highly appreciate it if someone made it look nicer. I'm not insulting anyone, because I made the template myself. I don't like it. I especially don't like the look when there are a few of them on the same page. I tried centering it, and that made it even worse. Please remove this notice if you change it and you like the changes.

Typing Yiddish
It took me a while to figure out how to type certain Yiddish symbols, so I'll save you some time (if you’re using a relatively recent version of Windows). It is assumed that you know how to type Hebrew, and if you don't, there are lots of instructions around the Internet. If you don’t want to learn how to type Yiddish, and you just want to make a "quick-fix", you can copy-and-paste from other parts of this book (such as Lesson 1).

Following is a list of Yiddish symbols that don't exist in Hebrew and how to type them in Windows. All of them assume that your keyboard layout is set to Hebrew. Right alt means the Alt key to the right of the space bar. It is unclear why there are separate symbols for ײ, ױ, and װ, but since they do exist the starter of this Wikibook does use them. You are welcome to use them or not as you wish. You can take a look at the keyboard layout from Start->Programs->Accessories->Accessibility->On-Screen Keyboard.

 * ײ – Right alt-H
 * ױ – Right alt-J
 * װ – Right alt-U
 * ײַ – Right alt-H, Caps Lock, Shift-7, Caps Lock
 * אַ – א, Caps Lock, Shift-7, Caps Lock
 * אָ – א, Caps Lock, Shift-8, Caps Lock
 * בּ – ב, Caps Lock, Shift-=, Caps Lock
 * בֿ – ב, Right alt-- (that means Right alt pressed together with the minus symbol, i.e. underscore)


text:
Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/Authors

 * Clum - Started the book, and contributed significant text

title: Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/Authors


text:
User:Clum

Clum is the first author of Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim.

title: User:Clum


text: Category:Book:Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim


text:
Template:Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/Bottombar

This should be included at the bottom of every page in the book .


text:
User talk:Whitneyb406

Welcome!
Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally.-- – Mike.lifeguard  | talk 17:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Whitneyb406


text:
Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/Introduction

Intended audience
Though the Yiddish language took a heavy toll during the Holocaust, when most of its speakers were lost, the language is still commonly used to give shiurim or mussar shmuessn in yeshivos. Unfortunately, many English-speaking yeshivah-students, though they already know many Yiddish words, and even incorporate them into their English, are unable to understand a full shiur given in Yiddish.

The purpose of this guide is to teach enough vocabulary and grammar to understand a Yiddish shiur.

Because of this intended purpose, this booklet differs from typical Yiddish lessons in two ways. First of all, it is assumed that the reader is already familiar with the large number of Yiddish words that most yeshivah bachurim already know. If you understand the following sentence, you should be okay: The Rambam holds that it’s a machlokes hasugyos, but other rishonim are meyasheiv the stirah.

The other difference between this book and others is the type of Yiddish that is taught. The goal of this kuntres is to enable the reader to listen to a shiur in Yiddish, not to buy a washing machine in Meah Shearim. If you want to learn the more everyday words of Yiddish, consider reading the other Yiddish Wikibook.

That being said, the grammar and much of the vocabulary presented here would be useful to anyone learning Yiddish. At the time of writing, the regular Yiddish Wikibook has very little content and this book may serve as a temporary substitute.

Sections
The book is divided into two sections. The first section is about some basic grammar rules. It avoids going into any boring details that are unnecessary for someone whose sole purpose is to understand Yiddish, not to speak it. The second section is a list of words, divided into categories, which are commonly used in Yeshivos, together with examples.

The two sections are more or less independent of each other. You can read either section first, or both at the same time. If you are already more familiar with the vocabulary (as is common with people who have been learning in Yeshivah for a long time), you may want to concentrate more on the grammar section. If you already know the basic grammar (which is, in any case, similar to English and easy to pick up), you may wish to concentrate on the vocabulary section. One suggested reader order is first to read the ../Reading Yiddish/ section, followed by the section about ../Some very common words/, followed by the rest of the grammar section, and finally the remainder of the vocabulary section.

The book may be freely copied and distributed. Please be mezakeh the rabim by doing so.


text: User talk:66.99.52.230

title: User talk:66.99.52.230


text:
Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/Verbs

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

 * }

title: Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/Verbs


text:
Yiddish for Yeshivah Bachurim/Nouns and adjectives

 * }


text: X86 Disassembly/Disassembly Examples

title: X86 Disassembly/Disassembly Examples


text:
MediaWiki:Perbook/X86 Disassembly.css

pre { overflow: auto; }

title: MediaWiki:Perbook/X86 Disassembly.css


text:
X86 Disassembly/Manual of Style

Global Stylesheet
This book has a global stylesheet that can be loaded for you. Go to the Gadgets tab at Special:Preferences, and activate the "Per-book Javascript and Stylesheets" gadget.

title: X86 Disassembly/Manual of Style


text: User talk:168.212.239.3

title: User talk:168.212.239.3


text: User talk:170.91.5.4

title: User talk:170.91.5.4


text:
XForms/Event Logger

Motivation
You want to be able to see a record of events as they happen. This is a great way to learn about how XML Events work.

Method
We create an instance and add a element to that for each event.

Link to Example
Load XForms application

Sample Code
         Demonstration of XForms Event Logging  Input 1:     <xf:action ev:event="xforms-value-changed"> <xf:insert nodeset="instance('log')/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="instance('log')/event[last]" value="'xforms-value-changed in input 1'" /> </xf:action> <xf:action ev:event="DOMFocusOut"> <xf:insert nodeset="instance('log')/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="instance('log')/event[last]" value="'Out of input 1'" /> </xf:action> </xf:input>

<xf:input ref="instance('my-form')/element2" incremental="true"> <xf:label>Input 2:</xf:label> <xf:action ev:event="DOMFocusIn"> <xf:insert nodeset="instance('log')/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="instance('log')/event[last]" value="'DOMFocusIn in input 2'"/> </xf:action> <xf:action ev:event="xforms-value-changed"> <xf:insert nodeset="instance('log')/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="instance('log')/event[last]" value="'xforms-value-changed in input 2'" /> </xf:action> <xf:action ev:event="DOMFocusOut"> <xf:insert nodeset="instance('log')/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="instance('log')/event[last]" value="'Out of input 2'" /> </xf:action> </xf:input>

<xf:input ref="instance('my-form')/element3" incremental="true"> <xf:label>Input 3:</xf:label> <xf:action ev:event="DOMFocusIn"> <xf:insert nodeset="instance('log')/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="instance('log')/event[last]" value="'DOMFocusIn in input 3'" /> </xf:action> <xf:action ev:event="xforms-value-changed"> <xf:insert nodeset="instance('log')/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="instance('log')/event[last]" value="'xforms-value-changed in input 3'" /> </xf:action> <xf:action ev:event="DOMFocusOut"> <xf:insert nodeset="instance('log')/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="instance('log')/event[last]" value="'Out of input 3'" /> </xf:action> </xf:input> Event Log <xf:repeat id="results-repeat" nodeset="instance('log')/event"> <xf:output ref="."/> </xf:repeat>

Sample code 2
The above code doesn't work in the mozilla xforms plugin 0.8.5 with firefox 2.0.0.12 (it seems buggy dealing with instance). Try this code instead:

</xf:instance> <xf:action ev:event="xforms-ready"> <xf:setfocus control="field-1"/> <xf:insert nodeset="/data/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="/data/event[last]" value="'Set Focus on Field-1'"/> </xf:action> </xf:model> Demonstration of XForms Event Logging <xf:input ref="/data/element1" incremental="true" id="field-1"> <xf:label>Input 1:</xf:label> <xf:action ev:event="DOMFocusIn"> <xf:insert nodeset="/data/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="/data/event[last]" value="'DOMFocusIn in input 1'"/> </xf:action> <xf:action ev:event="xforms-value-changed"> <xf:insert nodeset="/data/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="/data/event[last]" value="'xforms-value-changed in input 1'"/> </xf:action> <xf:action ev:event="DOMFocusOut"> <xf:insert nodeset="/data/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="/data/event[last]" value="'Out of input 1'"/> </xf:action> </xf:input>

<xf:input ref="/data/element2" incremental="true"> <xf:label>Input 2:</xf:label> <xf:action ev:event="DOMFocusIn"> <xf:insert nodeset="/data/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="/data/event[last]" value="'DOMFocusIn in input 2'"/> </xf:action> <xf:action ev:event="xforms-value-changed"> <xf:insert nodeset="/data/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="/data/event[last]" value="'xforms-value-changed in input 2'"/> </xf:action> <xf:action ev:event="DOMFocusOut"> <xf:insert nodeset="/data/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="/data/event[last]" value="'Out of input 2'"/> </xf:action> </xf:input>

<xf:input ref="/data/element3" incremental="true"> <xf:label>Input 3:</xf:label> <xf:action ev:event="DOMFocusIn"> <xf:insert nodeset="/data/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="/data/event[last]" value="'DOMFocusIn in input 3'"/> </xf:action> <xf:action ev:event="xforms-value-changed"> <xf:insert nodeset="/data/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="/data/event[last]" value="'xforms-value-changed in input 3'"/> </xf:action> <xf:action ev:event="DOMFocusOut"> <xf:insert nodeset="/data/event" at="last" position="after"/> <xf:setvalue ref="/data/event[last]" value="'Out of input 3'"/> </xf:action> </xf:input> Event Log <xf:repeat id="results-repeat" nodeset="/data/event"> <xf:output ref="."/> </xf:repeat>

Discussion
This uses the insert element to insert text into an event log.

title: XForms/Event Logger


text:
User talk:EVula

Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally. -- Herby talk thyme 19:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Always nice to see a friendly face. ;) EVula // talk // 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Closure of mn wikinooks
Hi could you copy all of the main page templates in to Wb/mn/Нүүр хуудас please link to closure of mn wikinooks 95.215.63.86 (discuss) 20:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:EVula


text:
The Rowers of Vanity Fair/Dilke CW

“A Far Advanced Radical” (Coïdé), November 25, 1871
''Sir Charles Dilke is a far advanced Radical, a skirmisher who is ever ready to throw himself out far away from support, and to engage single-handed with the most portentous questions, which he attacks with a jaunty agility that leaves no doubt as to the contempt he feels for them. As a man not yet thirty, he believes in “dear races,” in women, in the English language, and in Greater Britain, the destinies of which he has disposed of airily in a work wherein he has published all that he heard and thought in a rapid voyage around the world. In the House of Commons he has displayed a marked want of reverence for age and prescription; and he is but too well known to whips as the founder and secretary of that compact body of kindred male and female politicians, the Radical Club -- the birth-place of all subversive ideas, and the cradle of all projects for forcing the unwilling Government to carry them into effect.''

''It was to be hoped that age and greater tactical experience would have made Sir Charles at least an endurable Radical, but his last exploit shows that any such hopes are not likely to be realised. Himself the first inheritor of a title which was conferred through the personal friendship of a Royal Personage, he has, with a singular want of taste, attacked Royalty in a singularly wanton and unjust manner. Sir Charles Dilke is unhappy when dealing with facts. He asserts that the Queen’s pages do not pass examination when they enter the army; whereas they do pass examination. He asserts that the Queen pays no income-tax upon her income; whereas She does pay it. He asserts that the appropriation of savings out of the sums voted by Parliament for the Civil List to the Privy Purse is “directly in the teeth of the Act of Parliament”; whereas the Act expressly authorises such an appropriation. Nevertheless, upon such assertions as these he has founded a suggestion so presented that it almost amounts to a charge of a conspiracy between Her Majesty and the Treasury to form a large private Royal fortune in an unlawful manner. Seldom has so unwarrantable an attack been made, or one so ill-calculated for its purpose. It has found an echo throughout the country which has unexpectedly proved the attachment of the English people to Royal Institutions, and above all to the Lady in whom they are personified; and Sir Charles Dilke in endeavoring to promote a Republic has but disclosed the strength of the Monarchy.''

Unlike his Cambridge contemporary C.B. Lawes, Charles Wentworth Dilke (1843-1911) had no rowing experience on going up to Trinity Hall in 1862 but found, according to one of his biographers, that “it offered exactly the sort of purposive, vigorous, comparatively non-time-wasting athleticism which he wanted.” In this effort Dilke found a perfect role model in Leslie Stephen, his academic tutor and rowing coach, who founded the Dictionary of National Biography and had coached Hall crews while running alongside them on the towpath. By the end of the first year Dilke was No. 4 in the Hall crew that entered the 1863 Grand and Ladies’. The next year he was secretary of the club and rowed at No. 3 in the crew that again entered the Grand and Ladies’ and went head of the river (“the ever-memorable May 12th, 1864,” he wrote his father). The boat was later cut up and Dilke kept his section on the wall of his Sloane Street study for the rest of his life. In 1865, Dilke’s crew got bumped the second night by Third Trinity with Lawes and four other university oars. Dilke had a chance to row at No. 7 in the 1865 and 1866 university boats, but “declined on the score of constitution,” he later wrote. “I was strong, but afraid of the rowing in training over the long course, although perfectly able to stand up to the short course work of Cambridge or of Henley. . . . I believe that I was unduly frightened by my doctor, and that I might have rowed.”   None of this came at the expense of academic success, as Dilke was Senior Legalist in his third year, the highest honor open to him, and twice served as both vice-president and president of the Union Society. His “methodical bee-like industry,” and ability to read in quantity and remember most of it served him well both at Cambridge and after.

On leaving Cambridge, Dilke toured the world. His Greater Britain: A Record of Travel in English-Speaking Countries During 1866 and 1867, published in 1869 to popular and critical acclaim, included a moment with the 1866 Harvard crew. Dilke measured them, like others whose paths he crossed en tour, with Darwin’s new yardstick of natural selection:

''They were in strict training for their University race with Yale, which was to come off in a week; and as Cambridge had been beaten twice running, and this year had a better crew, they were wishful for criticisms on their style. Such an opinion as a stranger could offer was soon given; they were dashing, fast, long in their stroke; strong, considering their light weights, but terribly overworked. They have taken for a rule the old English notions as to training which have long since disappeared at home, and, looked upon as fanatics by their friends and tutors, they have all the fanatic’s excess of zeal.''

''Rowing and other athletics, with the exceptions of skating and base-ball, are both neglected and despised in America. When the smallest sign of a reaction appears in the New England colleges, there comes at once a cry from Boston that brains are being postponed to brawn. If New Englanders would look about them, they would see that their climate has of itself developed brains at the expense of brawn, and that, if national degeneracy is to be long prevented, brawn must in some way be fostered. The high shoulder, head-voice, and pallor of the Boston men are not incompatible with the possession of the most powerful brain, the keenest wit; but it is not probable that energy and talent will be continued in the future generations sprung from the worn-out men and women of to-day.''

Vanity Fair featured Dilke in 1871 just before the less spectacular of the two great crashes in his political life. Elected three years earlier (at age twenty-five) as a Liberal M.P. for Chelsea, he came to see Gladstone’s government as unduly conservative, and in 1870 organized the Radical Club of like-minded members to press for more aggressive reforms in such areas as voting rights and education. At the same time, republican sentiment was on the rise, due in part to the declaration of the French Republic and, at home, an economic slump and working class disillusionment with the Reform Act of 1867. In the summer of 1871, an anonymous pamphlet entitled What Does She Do With It? appeared questioning the Queen’s disposition of her budget, the Civil List. Dilke responded, likely influenced both positively by his grandfather (who had been a mentor and lifelong republican) and negatively by his father (who received a baronetcy for service as a royal commissioner for the 1862 exhibition). In a speech at Newcastle, Dilke called for a parliamentary audit of the Civil List, relying on the pamphlet and an 1855 report by the Financial Reform Association, and concluding: “If you can show me a fair chance that a Republic here will be free from the political corruption that hangs about the Monarchy, I say, for my part -- and I believe the middle classes in general, will say -- let it come.”  From an M.P. who shared the podium with working-class leaders at a time of industrial unrest, his remarks were considered beyond the pale. But rather than retreat in the face of such critiques as Vanity Fair ’s, Dilke continued to speak on royal finance (with appropriate factual corrections) for the next several months. Tissot’s caricature for Vanity Fair captured the penetrating eyes and aggressive posture of a man on a mission. In March 1872, Dilke formally moved Parliament for an inquiry into the Civil List. Gladstone, a fellow Liberal, cheered on from the Conservative bench, “went ‘smashing’ into him as if he were Chelsea china.” In the end Dilke lost 276 to 2, thereby not only killing parliamentary republicanism but also strengthening the constitutional monarchy, Gladstone’s goal all along.

It took Dilke the better part of a decade to recover. By 1880, his relative moderation on domestic issues and unsurpassed competence in foreign, military, and colonial affairs earned him the Under-Secretaryship at the Foreign Office in the second Gladstone administration. He excelled. Disraeli not only described Dilke as “the rising man on the other side,” but used him as the fictional hero of Endymion (1881): a novel about an under-secretary of state for foreign affairs who becomes premier. In 1882 Dilke entered the Cabinet as head of the Local Government Board, from which post he appeared in Vanity Fair ’s 1883 Winter Number, “The Gladstone Cabinet” by Chartran. By 1885, he and Joseph Chamberlain were the recognized co-leaders of the radical wing of the Liberal party, bent on the further democratization of central and local government. In June Dilke drew this barb from Vanity Fair after he and the rest of the Gladstone cabinet resigned, having lost a Parliamentary vote of confidence:

Weeks later, before Dilke could regroup from this modest political setback, disaster struck: one Donald Crawford filed for divorce on the grounds of adultery, naming Dilke as the co-respondent. Mrs. Crawford was Dilke’s sister-in-law, quite young, and among the allegations was that Dilke taught her “every French vice” and orchestrated a ménage-à-trois with one of her servants. To make matters worse, Dilke had in fact twice had an affair with her mother: for a time before he married, and again after he was widowed. The revelation of the details, through the course of two proceedings, made for “the most sensational trial that has taken place [in the New Law Courts],” Vanity Fair declared afterward, “a trial that will be mentioned years hence in the same breath with the Tichborne case, the Mordaunt case, the Belt case, and other causes célèbres associated with Westminster Hall.” ( Vanity Fair ’s coverage is excerpted below.)

This time Dilke never fully recovered. He lost his Chelsea seat at the July 1886 general election, though defeat had less to do with the then-pending Crawford case than with more purely political matters. For several years following the scandal he avoided office but turned to his pen, especially in foreign and military affairs. That he might be content as a bystander to history was “a misfortune,” wrote Vanity Fair (January 7, 1888). “There was no clearer head than his in the whole House of Commons, and his grasp of details was phenomenal. ‘Literary and historical work,’ which he has mapped out for himself for some years to come, are useful pursuits in their way, but Nature did not intend the author of ‘Greater Britain’ for a bookworm. He is essentially a man of action, and in his present sphere his powers are to a great extent frittered away.”

Dilke’s self-enforced absence from public life did free up time to row. In 1883 he bought property at Dockett Eddy, an island in the Thames near Shepperton. At his bungalow there, completed just before the lawsuit, Dilke enjoyed a structured regimen of rowing, riding, and fencing, all of which he had continued in true Leslie Stephen fashion since Cambridge days. Among his guests were oarsmen from Trinity Hall (such as Reginald McKenna) and a handful of other Oxbridge colleges (such as S.D. Muttlebury from Trinity, Cambridge). One guest, Charles Boyd, recalled one of these “happiest and healthiest of week-ends or more extended summer holidays,” where “the black and white blazer of his old college carried a certain prescriptive right to share in every belonging of the most famous of old Hall men”:

''Less a country-house, indeed, than a camp of exercise. You did as you pleased, but under Sir Charles’s guidance you were pleased to be strenuous. He called everybody to bathe at 7 a.m., and where was ever better -- fresh-water -- bathing-place than the floating raft below the boat-house at Dockett? Etiquette required you to dive in and go straight across to the other bank, touch, and return; when, like as not, Sir Charles, in shorts and sweater, might be seen very precisely preparing tea on the landing-stage for the deserving valiant. His little kindnesses had an added and affecting quality from his reserve and sternness. A rare figure of an athlete he was, and a rare athlete’s day his was in that retreat. For hours before he called and turned out the morning guard he had been up busy gardening, or reading, or writing. At a quarter to nine he breakfasted. Very shortly after breakfast an ex-champion sculler, the admirable Bill East, would arrive from Richmond, and he and Sir Charles would row in a racing skiff a measured mile or more of the river. One summer at least he changed from the rowing kit to boots and breaches after his rowing, and rode till luncheon. At four o’clock there would be a second bout with East, and thereafter, having changed from his rowing kit into flannels and his Hall cap, he would take Lady Dilke in her dinghy, which nobody else has ever used or will use.''

Dilke returned to Parliament in 1892 as Liberal M.P. for the Forest of Dean, where he pursued an independent blend of social radicalism in domestic policy and power politics in foreign affairs until his death in 1911. A recent comprehensive biography credits him with a great deal during this final stage, which historians formerly overlooked due to the denigration he suffered by his contemporaries at the time of and well after the Crawford divorce. Indeed, even the centenary history of the Trinity Hall Boat Club, published in 1930, virtually omits Dilke while showering notice on every other alumnus who made rank in the judiciary, clergy, or politics. For his own unpublished memoir, Dilke chose an epigram from Ibsen that Leslie Stephen could have penned: “We are all of us run over, sometime or other in life. The thing is to jump up again, and let no one see you are hurt.”

Crawford v. Crawford
On the success of Greville’s Memoirs, Dilke remarked that it made one think that “the art of biography consists solely in the reviving of forgotten scandals.” About himself the record has been mixed:  his literary executrix who was also his niece did her level best to skip the Crawford case entirely in her 1917 biography, Roy Jenkins did the opposite in 1958, and David Nicholls took a middle path in 1995. The first mention of the case in Vanity Fair (August 1, 1885) reported on Dilke’s withdrawal from public life, his immediate reaction to the refusals of Crawford to agree to a private investigation and of Mrs. Crawford to a retraction:

''The very sudden and very unexpected withdrawal of Sir Charles Dilke from all his engagements, from his place in the House of Commons, and from all political activity whatever, is a very serious blow to the Radical section of the Liberal Party. It involves the loss of action in Parliament for which Sir Charles had been counted upon, and will probably involve also the abandonment of that campaign in Ireland from which so much had been expected. It is in every sense a remarkable phenomenon and a portentous one, for Sir Charles Dilke has justly been regarded as the most possible and practicable of all the Radicals. He has governed himself with great judgment and caution, his deliverances have been entirely free from that offensive character which has made so many of his late colleagues to be personally hated, and he has shown much statesmanlike ability in the elaboration and the conduct through Parliament of some of the most important practical measures that have been passed in our time.''

''It is inevitable that the sudden self-effacement of so important a politician should give rise to gossip and to rumours, and accordingly the town is full of stories affecting to be precise and circumstantial, accounting for it on special personal grounds. It would be however extremely unfair to accept, much less to adopt, any such stories. When a public man retires from public life, either temporarily or permanently, the only reasons for the course he takes which can fairly be entertained or canvassed are those which he publicly assigns for it himself; and in this case the reason assigned is the very probable, natural, and sufficient one of ill-health arising from overwork. It is a reason which must therefore be freely accepted, and which it is equally unfair and ungenerous to question or to override by the adventurous whispering of irresponsible gossip.''

Within two weeks, the Crawford case and the allegations concerning Dilke had become public, and Vanity Fair (August 15, 1885) offered its legal and political prediction:

The “Dilke Scandal” seems already to have become a permanent department of news with some of the papers, and the Tories appear to expect that it will be the end of Sir Charles Dilke’s career, and to expect this with all the greater confidence since the publication of Sir Charles’s own letter on the subject.

''I do not share these anticipations. My expectation, on the contrary, is that the affair will either be settled out of Court altogether, or else that, if it comes into Court, it will be so conducted as to cause the least possible scandal. My reasons are these:-- This is in every sense a family quarrel. The principal parties to it are all connected by ties of relationship, and all the parties belong to the Liberal ranks. Sir Henry James, the counsel for Sir Charles, is a Liberal who has achieved a high position; Mr. Inderwick, the counsel for Mr. Crawford, is a Liberal who has three times fought constituencies in the Liberal interest, and who is ambitious to achieve a high position; Mr. Crawford is a Liberal who was to have contested East Lanarkshire in the Liberal interest; and Mr. Eustace Smith is the Liberal Member for Tynemouth. Now Sir Charles Dilke is held by all Liberals to be of absolute necessity to their Party. It is certain, therefore, that superhuman efforts will be made to avoid anything that would fatally discredit him and cause the Liberal Party to lose the service of his undoubted talents. It is equally certain that the greatest pressure will be brought to bear upon everybody here concerned to do anything that can possibly be done to arrange the affair either without scandal at all or with as little scandal as possible; and, finally it is no less certain that everybody concerned will only be too anxious to do anything humanly possible to bring about this result. From the chiefs of the Party downwards all will use their best exertions and even Mr. Crawford himself may be expected to be ready to adopt any action in this direction which will at once save his honour and avoid for his Party what would be regarded as a fatal disaster.''

Later in the same issue Vanity Fair reviewed the main allegations, declining to take a position on them (due perhaps less to Bowles’ innate editorial restraint than fear of another libel case), but taking a stand on the eternal question of the link between private conduct and public office:

''We dismiss therefore wholly any consideration of the truth or untruth of these charges; but what is worthy of attention is the general question of how far charges against the private conduct of a public man should be allowed to weigh in dealing with his public career. It is far too often assumed that the two should be kept entirely separate; that the public man is one entity, and the private man another; and that the one ought to be considered and dealt with wholly apart from the other. Nothing can be more false or more absurd. A man is not two beings; he is one; and if it be proved that he is false, dishonest, cowardly, disloyal, and base in his private capacity, it would be nonsensical to suppose that he could be true, honest, brave, loyal, and noble in his public capacity. All that part therefore of a man’s private doings which comes to public knowledge, fairly may be, and most properly should be, taken into account, so far as it discloses the real character of the man himself, and consequently his fitness or unfitness for the public service. He who is clearly shown to have betrayed private trust may reasonably be held likely to betray also a public trust; he who is clearly shown to be corrupt in private matters will probably also be corrupt in public matters; and if it be that such proof of private misdeeds comes before the public as warrants an evil opinion of the character of a public man, it is not wrong and unnecessary, but eminently right and necessary, that the knowledge thus acquired should be brought to bear upon the claim of the man to public confidence. But if, on the other hand, the facts established only go to show that the man in question is moved by ordinary venial human weaknesses, or has been guilty of ordinary venial indiscretions, then it would be eminently unfair to visit upon him a public penalty for private faults of such a character. The whole question turns upon the character of the acts established. If they be such as affect his character for honesty, honour, and trustworthiness, they are necessary elements in estimating his fitness for public affairs; if they merely affect his discretion or his strength of mind, they are rather to be generously disregarded. A bank manager would be wrong in refusing to take into account proofs that one of his cashiers had cheated a friend; he would be right in refusing to take into account proofs that he had eaten himself into an attack of jaundice.''

''Thus it may well be that a case of the kind alleged against Sir Charles Dilke may prove to be of such a character as may, upon a right judgment, be regarded as irrelevant to his public position, and unnecessary to be taken into account; or, on the other hand, it may prove highly relevant to it, and very necessary to be taken into account. It all depends upon the complexion of the case, and the degree to which it is established, if at all. It is right to bear these considerations in mind, and especially to bear them in mind now, because the matter is now sub judice, and because in all probability it cannot possibly be brought to a decision until after the General Election takes place. Sir Charles is therefore entitled to the benefit of the doubt that hangs over every undecided case, and of his own denial of the charge.''

Mr. Justice Butt heard the case on February 12, 1886. It consisted solely of Crawford’s account of his wife’s confession and the testimony of two witnesses that she had spent certain nights away from home. Mrs. Crawford was not present; Dilke was, but on his lawyers’ advice did not testify. Under the rules of evidence Mrs. Crawford’s confession helped prove Crawford’s case for a divorce, but could not be used against Dilke himself. In addition, Dilke’s lawyers feared that his reputation would suffer more from questions into his private life were he to take the stand (even if overruled as objectionable and thus not requiring an answer), than it would if none were asked. Sir Charles Russell, Dilke’s chief counsel who had also been C.B. Lawes’ in the Belt case, said so to the court, gratuitously noting that “in the life of any man there may be found to have been some indiscretions.” In the end, Justice Butt found the record sufficient to prove Mrs. Crawford’s adultery (Crawford got his divorce) but not to prove Dilke’s (so he was dismissed from the case and awarded his legal costs). To the newspapers, including Vanity Fair (February 20, 1886), this outcome was ridiculous, and proved Mrs. Crawford a fallen but honest and courageous woman, Justice Butt a Liberal patsy who ought to be impeached, and Sir Charles Dilke either dishonest, not a gentleman, or both:

THE SOCIETY VIEW OF THE DILKE CASE.

This is what Society says:--

''Society is far from being censorious or over-severe in cases of what Mr. Attorney-General Charles Russell very prettily calls “indiscretions.” It is, on the contrary, most long-suffering and indulgent with regard to them, as many a man and woman now in Society, who otherwise would not be there, can testify. Neither is Society at all disinclined to allow a man -- so long as he “behaves like a gentleman” -- to escape on a flaw in the indictment. There was, not so long ago, a general rejoicing in Society over a case in which it was held that a certain person had “rushed old Hannen,” and avoided, together with the lady, punishment for an offence which all Society nevertheless thought most likely to have been committed.''

''But Society draws the line nevertheless somewhere, even in cases of this description. Nobody in Society can be found to defend the conduct of a man who debauches a child of eighteen to whom he has access by virtue of his kinship and of his intimate relations with her parents. Society condemns that as being beyond the limits of the fair “indiscretion” at which it may fairly wink. And it condemns such conduct still more uncompromisingly if the man has added to the offence by debasing the child’s mind and by initiating her into the obscene practices of French refinement. All this however, and no less, is what is charged against Sir Charles Dilke by Mrs. Crawford’s confession. The Judge believed that confession and Society believes it too, and (whether rightly or wrongly) treats the matter as though there were no doubt remaining whatever about any part of the confession.''

''How the confession arose Society holds that it knows exactly. And the belief in Society is this: That Mrs. Crawford, having given up her “indiscretion” with Sir Charles Dilke -- having, in fact, been abandoned by him -- for eleven months, was living, and intending to live, as many another has done, happy ever afterwards with her husband in domestic felicity and forgetfulness. But when that last fatal anonymous letter arrived, she saw it and reflected. She saw that she was pursued by a pitiless, unrelenting enemy, whom she believed to be no other than her mother. She felt that if, after so long as a whole year of good conduct and desire to atone for the past, she was not left alone by her enemy, she never would be left alone. She might indeed destroy this letter before her husband saw it -- but others would reach him (as others had) at his Club or his office. It was clear that there was no peace or truce for her. What should she do? She would do this. She would make a clean breast of it, and would thus at once bring to an end the strain she could no longer bear, and at the same time be avenged both on the man who had debauched and deserted her, and also upon her mother who was so evidently determined to hunt her to despair and ruin. And so it was that she told her story -- and told it, not merely in bare outline, but with all the horrible details which take it outside any common story of debauchery and desertion.''

''And now, with regard to Sir Charles Dilke, what Society blames is, not his “indiscretion,” nor even so much the fact that this indiscretion was so great and exceptional as to take it beyond the time of all possible toleration; but rather that, when he was brought to book, his conduct was not what Society holds it should have been, but quite otherwise. “Voyou tant que tu voudras -- mauvais genre jamais” is the principle that Society lays down, and it holds that, under the most trying circumstances, a man must behave “like a gentleman.” And Society holds that Sir Charles Dilke has behaved like one who has taken and acted upon the advice of a sharp attorney with an eye to virtuous dissenters; there is nothing about his conduct either of the magnificent impudence or of the generous assumption of blame which in these matters Society expects a gentleman to show.''

''Suppose the charge to be false -- the mere false invention of an hysterical woman. In that case Sir Charles’s duty, as a gentleman, was to go into the box and deny it all, to prove that the lady was hysterical and deluded, and thus to save her as well as himself -- but her above all. As a gentleman it was his duty to do this -- his duty for his own sake; his duty for her sake; his duty for the sake of her mother, whose name had been so terribly handled in the affair.''

''Or, again, suppose the charge to be true. Suppose it to be so thoroughly and completely true that Sir Charles could not dare to go into the witness-box to deny it and to expose himself to having brought against him the proofs which in that case would have been easily accessible. Here would be a situation in which his testimony could not avail either to save the lady or to save himself, and in which therefore he could not go into the witness-box at all. But in that case the only course for a gentleman to take was to stand wholly aside; neither to enter an appearance nor to make a defence, but to let the case go by default, and to suffer in silence any penalty that the Court might impose upon him.''

''But Sir Charles did none of all this. What he did was to deny, and yet not to make his denial in the only effective, the only useful way. And what is worst of all is that his friends, whom Society believes to be prompted by himself, go, and have gone, industriously about to declare that he is an injured innocent; that he is as pure as the driven snow; that the whole charge has originated in no indiscretion of his, but only in the utterly unfounded imaginings of an hysterical woman; that Sir Charles is a maligned man, and Mrs. Crawford a malignant, mad woman -- that all the faults are hers, and none of them his. Society would be quite ready to believe this if Sir Charles had brought any evidence of it, or if he had successfully sworn it; but to ask Society to believe it in the absence of all evidence whatever, and to persevere in asking it, is to act in a way in which Society holds that no gentleman should act.''

''Moreover, Society does not view with favor any man who, under any circumstances, puts the fault in a case of this kind wholly upon the woman, and refuses to bear any part of it himself. It holds that men and women are alike liable to “indiscretion”; but that if ever such indiscretions are discovered, or alleged, the stronger should shield the weaker vessel, and the man should take upon himself a fair share, and even the major share of the blame. In connection wherewith it remembers the case of Valentine Baker, who, as it holds, did behave like a gentleman.''

Under all these circumstances, Society distinctly holds that Sir Charles Dilke has not come up to the necessary standard, and it reprobates him severely.

The case could have ended there but for Dilke’s decision to instigate a second proceeding in a desperate attempt to reclaim his reputation. The legal vehicle was to have the Queen’s Proctor, who represented the Crown in divorce and probate matters, intervene to attempt to show that Mrs. Crawford had not committed adultery with Dilke. The ensuing trial ran from July 16 to July 23 before Mr. Justice Hannen, Dilke testifying “with a complexion not unlke Mrs. Crawford’s dress -- light olive-green” ( Vanity Fair (July 24, 1886)):

''THE CRAWFORD CASE IN COURT. BY ONE WHO WAS THERE.''

''The original suit of “Crawford versus Crawford and Dilke,” heard last February before Mr. Justice Butt, had a good deal to recommend it to the evening newspapers; but, compared with the present week’s sensation of “Crawford versus Crawford, the Queen’s Proctor showing cause,” it was tame, inconclusive, shadowy, and unsatisfactory. Dramatically, the first trial was deficient. The principal characters -- good, bad, and indifferent -- were not seen; they did not strut the stage or mount the witness-box. They were merely talked about. That, of course, was a grave fault, but it has been set right in the later proceedings, which have kept all London, and indeed all England, on the alert for a full week. Mrs. Crawford has now told her story in open Court. Sir Charles Dilke has been examined and cross-examined. The redoubtable “Sarah” has shown herself to be possessed of a treacherous memory. We have seen the much-talked-of Mrs. Rogerson in the flesh, and heard about her very, very hospitable house. “Fanny,” it is true, has made another of her mysterious disappearances; but her photograph has been handed round from juryman to juryman, the Junior Bar meanwhile craning their necks to get a glimpse of the scrap of cardboard upon which the lineaments of the interesting absentee were imprinted. That “Fanny’s” presence in Court would have given the finishing touch to a very thorough-going sensation is unquestionable; but it is perhaps captious to complain when the whole wretched story has been so fully and nauseously narrated.''

It took the jury of propertied London men fifteen minutes to reject the Proctor’s (and Dilke’s) case and affirm the first decision. Again, Vanity Fair (July 24, 1886):

''The daily newspapers have, during the whole of this week, held a daily orgy of filth and foulness in their reports of the Crawford case, and, as usual, these prints, who are always so extremely virtuous and proper in their leading articles, have been as disgusting as the case would allow them to be throughout the rest of their columns. And now the case has been ended by the inevitable verdict which stamps Mrs. Crawford as the witness of truth and so gravely discredits Sir Charles Dilke, these same daily papers will be lifting up their pious eyes and hands at the wickedness out of which they have been coining money every morning and evening by sending it into every household in the land.''

''It is however too much to suppose that the case is ended with the verdict which merely affirms that Mr. Crawford was rightfully entitled to and shall have his divorce, under circumstances which dismissed Sir Charles Dilke from the case. There are already rumours abroad of prosecutions for perjury, which however I expect will come to nothing. But there will certainly be very strong comments made upon the matter, and it will be a long time, which will probably be marked by startling events, before the excitement is abated.''

“Historians who have studied the divorce case in any depth have concluded that Dilke was in all probability innocent of any adulterous relationship with Mrs. Crawford,” David Nicholls concluded in his 1995 biography. Evidence assembled after the second case “leaves no doubt that the divorce court had been misled and had based its verdict upon false information. That Mrs. Crawford wove a net of fabrications in which Dilke became inextricably enmeshed is beyond dispute. . . . [Historians] have therefore been left wondering why she chose him as her victim. Their accounts at this point inevitably enter the realm of speculation.”

title: The Rowers of Vanity Fair/Dilke CW


text:
The Rowers of Vanity Fair/Brassey A

“The Master of the Heythrop” (Spy), March 15, 1906
''Mr. Albert Brassey is Master of the celebrated Heythrop Pack, the servants of which Hunt still sport the Beaufort green plush in compliment to the days when Badminton and Heythrop were closely associated. It is a long reign which connects Mr. Brassey with the Heythrop Hounds -- commencing, indeed, in 1873 -- and public opinion has bestowed upon him the title of “Albert the Good” in recognition of a well-spent life and a strenuous nature, which enables him at the end of three score years both to work and play hard. A man of order, all things with him are orderly, and it may easily be supposed that his nature revolts against the haphazard modes of modern life.''

''He was educated at Eton and University College, Oxford, and rowed in the Eton eight in 1862. Later he joined the 14th Hussars, and while quartered at Cahir in 1870 hunted the Regimental Harriers. About this time he fell a victim to the most pleasing of all maladies that affect the heart, and married the eldest daughter of Lord Clanmorris.''

''Mr. Brassey is a member of the Four-in-Hand and Coaching Clubs, and his bays form a spanking team. He took a fair dose of Parliament, and held his seat in the Conservative interest for ten years. He never caught the Speaker’s eye, but was beloved by the Whips for his regular attendance. He has the right while in town to breakfast at the Oxford and Cambridge, lunch at the Army and Navy, have tea at the Naval and Military, dine at the Carlton, and sup at the Cavalry; and, if none of these suit his palate, he can retire to his own well-regulated establishment in Berkeley Square. That he is a sportsman none has ever gainsaid, and upon his own land and midst the lovely surroundings of his stately home at Heythrop he is recognised as a just and generous landlord, and a bountiful donor to philanthropic schemes.''

''He sees as much of a fox-hunt as most of them, and his good common sense and prudence usually find him well placed at the finish. The kindly manner in which the youthful Oxonian has ever been welcomed with the Heythrop still lives in the memory of a host of full-grown sportsmen who had their first experience of the gentle art of falling with his hounds. Rebuke when deserved is courteously administered, and is reasonably effective, despite the absence of that loud-tongued abuse in which some Masters so greatly delight.''

Albert Brassey (1844-1918) rowed bow to C.B. Lawes’ stroke at Eton in the 1861 School Pulling and in the 1862 Eight. At Oxford, Brassey won the Grand and Ladies’ in 1863, the Visitors’ in 1864, and the Grand, Stewards’, and Visitors’ in 1866.

His portrait is representative of Vanity Fair ’s fox hunters, most of whom appeared after Bowles sold the magazine in 1889.

Blazers
Club uniform -- jerseys, jackets, ties, hats, scarves, etc. -- let an oarsman tell friend from foe at a glance, on and off the water. To wear unsanctioned colors creates social and aquatic chaos, for which W.B. Woodgate pulled no punches in his Henley commentary:

Vanity Fair (July 13, 1893):

''One piece of bad form has, I am glad to see, almost wholly vanished during the last four years -- namely, the display of coloured flannel coats (called “blazers”), pertaining to no recognised aquatic Club, still less to any Club that competes at Henley. Lawn-tennis jackets of an abnormal medley of colours, village cricket Club coats, etc., were for a season or two recently flaunted on the Reach by land-lubbers. Now they are properly scouted, and those who do not belong to contending Clubs wear plain mufti flannel jackets.''

''N.B.-- The old term “blazer” was applied only to a few of the more gorgeous College boating coats -- e.g., Lady Margaret, Magdalene, Balliol, Exeter; more sober jackets like those of Jesus (Cambridge), Trinity Hall, Pembroke Oxon, Dublin, the U.B.C.’s, Black Prince, and University College, each and all time-honoured on the course, were not so styled. When lawn tennis begat “Joseph coats” in every village nook, then the term “blazer” was snapped up and extended to these monstrosities.''

Vanity Fair (July 18, 1895):

''Those vulgarisms of “dongola crews” in punts, four or more young women dressed en suite with as many non-rowing club squires in semi-acrobat, semi-matador costumes, which were in vogue a season or two back, have happily disappeared. I saw but one minor exhibition of this sort in the week.''

Vanity Fair (July 22, 1897):

''The lawn-tennis jackets of gaudy hues which bloomed so furiously about a decade ago on the course, and were laughed to shame off the water, did not appear this season; but there was one acme of bounderism in the shape of a youth in a scarlet golf-jacket. To make the picture complete another year, we ought to see some Hebrew road-rattler who patronises the Queen’s Buckhounds sporting his pink from the stern of a punt. Then there would be arcades ambo.''

title: The Rowers of Vanity Fair/Brassey A