text:
Proof (play)

Proof is a 2000 play by the American playwright David Auburn. Proof was developed at George Street Playhouse in New Brunswick, New Jersey, during the 1999 Next Stage Series of new plays. The play premiered Off-Broadway in May 2000 and transferred to Broadway in October 2000. The play won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for Drama and the Tony Award for Best Play.

Plot
The play focuses on Catherine, the daughter of Robert, a recently deceased mathematical genius in his fifties and professor at the University of Chicago, and her struggle with mathematical genius and mental illness. Catherine had cared for her father through a lengthy mental illness. Upon Robert's death, his ex-graduate student Hal discovers a paradigm-shifting proof about prime numbers in Robert's office. The title refers both to that proof and to the play's central question: Can Catherine prove the proof's authorship? Along with demonstrating the proof's authenticity, Catherine also finds herself in a relationship with Hal. Throughout, the play explores Catherine's fear of following in her father's footsteps, both mathematically and mentally and her desperate attempts to stay in control.

Act I
The play opens with Catherine sitting in the backyard of her large, old house. Robert, her father, reveals a bottle of champagne to help celebrate her 25th birthday. Catherine complains that she hasn't done any worthwhile work in the field of mathematics, at least not to the same level as her father, a well-known math genius. He reassures her that she can still do good work as long as she stops sleeping until noon and wasting time reading magazines. Catherine confesses she is worried about inheriting Robert's inclination towards mental instability. He begins to comfort her but then alludes to a "bad sign" when he points out that he did, in fact, die a week ago. Robert disappears as Catherine dozes off. She awakens when Hal, one of Robert's students, exits the house. He has been studying the hundreds of notebooks Robert left behind after his death, looking for any work that could be published. Catherine assures him that the notebooks are filled with scribbles and nonsense since her father wrote them when he was at his most delusional. Hal, attempting to flirt, invites her to go see his band later that night. Catherine becomes suspicious of him and demands to see what is in his backpack. She roots through it to find nothing but becomes infuriated when a notebook falls out of Hal's jacket. She dials the police while accusing him of trying to steal her father's work and pass it off as his own. He admits that he was sneaking it away but only to give it back to her later as a birthday present. He opens to a page that Robert wrote during a time when he was lucid. In it, Robert writes it is a "good day" and thanks to Catherine for taking care of him and expresses hope for the future. Hal leaves Catherine with the notebook. She begins to cry until she hears police sirens.

The next day Claire, Catherine's sister who just flew in from New York, is setting up brunch for them in the backyard. Catherine enters and Claire tries to goad her into idle chitchat as Catherine quietly seethes. Claire declares she is getting married and invites Catherine to stay with her and her fiance in New York. Catherine assures her she will come in January for the wedding, but Claire keeps pressing her to go earlier. When Catherine demands to know why Claire is inundating her with questions, Claire tells her the police came over earlier to check in on Catherine. Catherine admits to calling the police the previous night and tries to explain her altercation with Hal but only ends up sounding unhinged to the dubious Claire. Hal appears and asks to continue his work sorting the notebooks. Catherine lets him inside and Claire drops a hint for Catherine to try flirting with Hal by offering a bagel. Catherine storms into the house.

Later that night, after the funeral, Claire holds a party in the house for her friends as well as Hal and Robert's students. Catherine escapes to the porch where Hal finds her and offers her a beer. Hal confesses that he is not so sure about his own mathematical abilities since he considers math to be a "young man's game". Catherine tries to reassure him with a quote from Carl Friedrich Gauss. Hal responds by kissing her, much to Catherine's surprise. He apologizes for trying to steal the notebook and she apologizes for calling the police. They kiss again and Hal asks Catherine if she remembers meeting him years earlier. She says she does and recalls she thought he was "not boring". They continue to kiss.

The next morning Catherine sits outside. Hal exits the house and tells her he would like to spend the rest of the day with her. Catherine gives him a key to Robert's desk and tells him to look inside. He goes into the house. A moment later, Claire comes into the backyard, extremely hungover. Catherine, now in a good mood, tries to make nice with Claire. Claire takes the opportunity to continue to push Catherine to moving to New York. Catherine asks why she should move to New York to which Claire confesses that she is selling the house. Catherine becomes enraged at the idea and she accuses Claire of abandoning her to take care of their sick father alone. Claire insists that the reason she did so was to keep working to pay for the house as well as Catherine's education. Catherine reveals that she had to quit school to tend to Robert and then accuses Claire of trying to have her committed. Claire admits that she has researched doctors and facilities for Catherine but insists that she was not planning on having her committed. In the middle of the row, Hal appears clutching a notebook, barely containing his excitement. He tells Claire that Catherine is in possession of one of Robert's notebooks which holds a very important proof. Claire asks Catherine where she found it and Catherine tells them she didn't find it--she wrote it.

Act II
Four years earlier, Robert sits in the backyard. Catherine tells him she thinks he is getting better and he agrees. She blurts out that she has decided to go to college in a couple months, funded by Claire, but promises she will be only a short drive away if he were to need her again. Robert protests and demands to know why she waited so long to tell him. When she points out that he hadn't been well until recently and was, at one point, trying to decode extraterrestrial messages in library books, he becomes upset. Hal interrupts, much to his embarrassment, to present his final dissertation to Robert. Robert assures him they will eventually work out the problem points together, then suddenly realizes he has forgotten Catherine's birthday. He apologizes and offers to take her out to dinner. Catherine invites Hal along but he says he can't go. Catherine shows Hal out and Robert sits down to write a notebook entry, declaring it to be the aforementioned "good day".

Resuming the end of the first act, Catherine declares she was the one who wrote the proof and is met with incredulity by both Hal and her sister. The handwriting is very much like Robert's and Hal questions Catherine's mathematical abilities given that she only had a few months' education at Northwestern. Catherine tells him that her real education was living with Robert. When Hal offers to show it to other math experts to confirm the authenticity of the proof, Catherine refuses. She tells Hal she trusted him and then accuses him of having no talent and being past his prime. Hal storms off and Catherine begins to rip the notebook apart. Claire gets it away from her and Catherine runs into the house.

The next morning, Hal attempts to visit Catherine and apologize for his behavior. Claire stops him to say Catherine won't talk to her, let alone Hal. Claire accuses him of sleeping with Catherine despite her being unstable. Hal argues that he had no bad intentions and insists Catherine is stronger than Claire thinks. He requests to have the notebook to verify its authenticity with fellow mathematicians. Claire gives it to him and tells him she is taking Catherine with her to New York the next day. She expresses concern for Catherine's future mental stability.

Almost four years earlier, Robert sits in the backyard, in the cold and writing furiously. Catherine enters and reprimands him for sitting in the cold with no jacket. Robert tells her it is too hot in the house and that the cold is better for helping him work. Catherine is shocked that he is working again and he assures her that he is sharper than ever. She is ecstatic that his previous mental instability has passed and asks to see his work. He says he would love for her to take a look and asks if she'd like to take time off school to work with him. Before she decides, Robert insists she look at his latest idea and thrusts a notebook into her hands. Catherine glances at it and becomes quiet. She tells him they need to go inside and Robert explodes with fury. He yells at her to read what he has written. She reads aloud, a nonsensical, rambling paragraph mathematically equating winter, books, and the cold. It is obvious that Robert's mind is deteriorating as it had been before. Catherine realizes Robert is descending into confusion and shivering uncontrollably. She tries to take him inside when he asks her not to leave. She promises she won't.

Four years later, Claire is in the backyard. Catherine enters with her suitcase. She asks Claire about life in New York. Claire mentions potential schools or jobs for Catherine, who is quick to mock her by making ridiculous demands for a Freudian psychiatrist who will listen as she blames all her problems on Claire. Claire leaves Catherine's plane ticket before storming off. Hal enters and tells Catherine that the proof checks out and apologizes for not believing her. Catherine tells him there is no proving that she wrote it and he can claim it as his own if he wants. Hal tells her he believes she is the one who wrote it and offers to read through it with her. Catherine admits she knows she is like her father but is terrified of becoming like her father. Hal reassures her that maybe she will be better. Catherine opens the proof and begins to talk through it with Hal.

Characters

 * Catherine – A young woman, 25 years old, who inherited much of her father's mathematical genius and, she fears, his "instability" as well; she gave up her life and schooling to take care of her father until his recent death.
 * Claire – Catherine's older sister, a practical and business-minded woman who has been comfortably successful in her work and relationships. She left Robert and Catherine behind, distancing herself from the run-down family home of her youth.  She left the family to make a new life for herself in New York City.
 * Robert – A recently deceased mathematician praised for his groundbreaking work in his youth, but whose later years were plagued by delusional mental illness; he is seen in Catherine's imagination and in flashbacks.
 * Harold (Hal) Dobbs – One of Robert's last Ph.D. students during the one year his idol and mentor's illness went into remission, at least enabling Robert to teach, if not continue his own creative mathematical work.

Production history
Originally produced by the Manhattan Theatre Club, opening on May 23, 2000, the play transferred to Broadway at the Walter Kerr Theatre on October 24, 2000. Directed by Daniel J. Sullivan, the production starred Mary-Louise Parker as Catherine, Johanna Day as Claire, Larry Bryggman as Robert, and Ben Shenkman as Hal. Later during the Broadway run, Jennifer Jason Leigh (September 13, 2001 to June 30, 2002) and Anne Heche (July 2, 2002 – January 5, 2003) took over the lead role. Josh Hamilton and Neil Patrick Harris subsequently played the role of Hal. Mary-Louise Parker won the Tony Award for her performance, and Daniel Sullivan won the Tony Award, Best Direction of a Play. The play closed on January 5, 2003, after 917 performances, making it the longest-running Broadway play of the 21st century.

Proof premiered in the West End at the Donmar Warehouse in May 2002, to June 15, 2002. Directed by John Madden, the cast starred Gwyneth Paltrow as Catherine, with Ronald Pickup as Robert, Sara Stewart as Claire, and Richard Coyle as Hal.

Proof premiered in Australia at the Sydney Opera House in 2003, starring Jacqueline Mckenzie as Catherine, Christina Eliason as Claire, Barry Otto as Robert, and Jonny Pasvolsky as Hal. It was directed by George Ogilvie as a Sydney Theatre Company production. The popular, sold-out run broke box office records and was extended.

London's Menier Chocolate Factory produced the play from March 13, 2013, to April 27, 2013. It featured Mariah Gale in the role of Catherine, and Polly Findlay directed.

In April and May 2013, a new production by the Whitmore Eclectic Theater Group opened in Los Angeles at the Hayworth Theatre for a limited run. James Whitmore Jr., son of the award-winning iconic actor James Whitmore, starred; and his daughter Aliah Whitmore directed.

A production in May 2013 opened at Carolina Actors Studio Theatre in Charlotte, North Carolina.

In September to October 2013, Proof was directed by Emily Mann at the McCarter Theatre in Princeton, New Jersey.

London's Tabard Theatre produced the play from 29 September to 24 October 2015, directed by Sebastien Blanc (son of Raymond Blanc). It featured Tim Hardy (Royal Shakespeare Company Marat/Sade) as Robert, Julia Papp as Catherine, Mary-Ann Cafferkey as Claire and Ian Charleson Awards nominee Kim Hardy as Hal.

A Seattle production opened in January 2017 at Strawberry Theatre Workshop with three TPS Gregory Award-winning actors, Anastasia Higham, Charles Leggett, and Allison Standley in principal roles. Proof was directed by Greg Carter on the Mainstage at 12th Ave Arts. It was the first professional production in Seattle since 2004.

Spring Green, Wisconsin’s American Players Theater produced the play from 26 October to 19 November, 2023, directed by APT Artistic Director Brenda DeVita (wife of actor and director James DeVita). It featured Kelsey Brennan as Catherine, David Daniel as Robert, Nate Burger as Hal, and Laura Rook as Claire.

Film adaptation
A 2005 film adaptation was directed by John Madden, starring Gwyneth Paltrow as Catherine, along with Anthony Hopkins, Hope Davis, and Jake Gyllenhaal. Adapted by Rebecca Miller, the film version added more characters (in minor supporting roles), whereas the play has only four.

Awards and nominations

 * Awards
 * 2001 Drama Desk Award for Best New Play
 * 2001 Drama Desk Award, Outstanding Actress in a Play, Mary Louise Parker
 * 2001 Lucille Lortel Award for Outstanding Play
 * 2001 New York Drama Critics' Circle Best Play
 * 2001 Pulitzer Prize for Drama
 * 2001 Tony Award for Best Play
 * 2001 Tony Award for Best Actress in a Play, Mary Louise Parker
 * 2001 Tony Award for Best Direction of a Play, Daniel Sullivan

title: Proof (play)


text:
Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 1

I removed the following section - largely added by 159.134.168.54, who seems to be somewhat unaccountable. Im surprised by the fact that you guys let this biased material stay unchecked for this long. All it seems to be is a rant against liberal 'charities' as being a 'disaster', and disputes estimated of the number of dead, which is qualified as an estimate, anyway. eyes open, people. forget the star wars action figures bullshit and get on the real material. --Sv ps. im currently in the process of mining the below for factual material, and will repost what is relevant shortly.

=
===

I presume the above editing was done by some two year old who is playing with a computer. It certainly wasn't done by anyone with an elementary grasp of history. If they wrote the nonsense they placed in the page on a history exam, they'd be laughed out of the exam hall and told to try reading a book on history sometime. The laughable garbage has been removed and the correct factual stuff re-instated. JTD 19:27 Jan 4, 2003 (UTC)

I have a problem with this sentence:
 * That in itself was a result of the tradition of sub-division of each farm equally among all male children, leaving holdings by the 1840s so small that the only crop that could be grown in sufficient quantities on such small holdings to feed a family was potatoes.

This sentence currently carries the burden of an ultimate cause in the article. As such it is woefully inadequate and misleading. The use of the word "tradition" is misleading since it suggests some primordial practice. In fact there is a complex history of changing land-ownership and use in Ireland as a consequence of English colonialism. This article needs to provide at least some of this history. Slrubenstein

Your lack of understanding of the complexities of Irish history is mind-blowing. Where did you learn this 'version' of history that would be laughed out of any school in Ireland? Re sub-division it was there in large measure WAS social tradition. Whereas english law and culture tended to act on the principle of primogeniture, with property being inherited by the oldest legitimate son, Irish cultural traditions, dating back to the Brehon Laws that pre-dated English/British rule, did not recognise the oldest son as superior, accepted the property rights of all men equally (and women sometimes). (This fact was shown, for example, in the inheritance of Irish thrones, where the first legitimate son did not automatically inherit the throne, but in fact an election took place involving all male relatives within five generations of the monarch to elect a new king!) Furthermore, whereas english cultural traditions recognised only the 'legitimate' family, Irish cultural traditions dating back millenia recognised the position of all children, irrespective of legitimacy or bastardy. This socio-economic and cultural relationships were further complicated by the Penal Laws which discriminated against all religions with the exception of the established Church of Ireland. These complicated issues such as tenancy, inheritance and the enforcement of the millenium-old tradition of equality among children. Such laws were inforced in different ways, rigidly or otherwise, against different classes and religions, prior to the period in question.

A combination of all of this produced the phenomenon of sub-division, which as family sizes increased in the early 19th century, led to an ever increased scale of sub division. A twenty acre tenancy within one generation could become ten two acre tenancies. The smaller they became the more reliant they became on the one foodstuff that could be grown in sufficient bulk to feed a family on a small tenant farm, potatoes. That is why the famine hit so severely, as indeed it did in other states where people were heavily reliant on one primary foodstuff.

---

Stevertigo, why did:
 * The Irish had overbred and there wasn't enough food to feed them all given the crop failure. However, as Frank O'Connor once observed, "'Famine is a useful word when you do not wish to use words like 'genocide' and 'extermination.'"

Replace:
 * The fact that only four types of potato were brought from America was at the root of the famine. In fact the lack of genetic diversity in the food made it possible for a single fungus-relative to have those devastating consequences.

I'm a microbiologist who is deeply interested in history (esp. the history of microbiology) and can tell you that the removed text above is factually correct from at least a microbiologist's point of view. Decreasing genetic diversity in a crop makes it much easier for a pest species to adapt to the population and infect a majority of individuals. Its kinda like having only four car keys in a whole city. All an organized crime syndicate has to do is to figure out the drum settings of four locks and then all the cars of the city are theirs for the taking.

However, the fact that the Irish were so poor as to need to depend on such a cheap and dense food source is also a major reason why the famine happened. Why they were in such a precarious position can be debated but there is no reason to delete useful content. BTW, modern crops have failed for similar reasons: in the 1970s there was a major crop failure of maize in the US due to a pest species adapting to the a few different hybrid maize varieties. Luckily, Americans had a very diversified food basket and were able to import maize from other nations to minimize the shortage. The Irish were not in such a privileged position.

The other text that was removed IMO was factually correct with a slight and easily removed bias. So why then was all the text removed instead of simply NPOVd? I've seen some really badly POV material placed in articles but this doesn't even come close to being so bad that it has to be deleted outright. In fact, with some copyediting and minor NPOVing I think this could become brilliant prose. We really frown on the deletion of large chucks of text like this. Please see Most common Wikipedia faux pas #4

Jtdirl, it is counter-productive to say:
 * Your lack of understanding of the complexities of Irish history is mind-blowing.

to any contributor. The only thing that is accomplished by saying things like that is the alienation of yourself and by extention your argument. When emotions are evoked and feelings hurt it doesn't matter how logical or correct your arguments are - the other person's emotions of anger and harmed pride will prevent them from agreeing with you. --mav

 * Mav, I appreciate your sentiment (and respect your opinion) but in this particular case, Jtdirl's melodramatic, patronizing, and aggresive stance doesn't bother me -- and while it does reveal something about his/her quality of intellectual engagement, it doesn't prevent me from agreeing if there is something to agree about. I have no doubt that local practices concerning inheritance were one, important, factor in the famine.  I maintain that it was not the only factor, and that English colonialism is another factor (which is all that I wrote).  It seems strange that someone would think that the claim that there was more than one factor suggests that I don't appreciate the "complexities" of Irish history -- and strange that someone would think that a monocausal model somehow does provide an appreciation of the "complexities."  In a similar vein, I want to add to Mav's advice to J and S: do not get into a reversion war, or delete one another's contributions wholesale.  Engage, and build.  J, do not delete what S adds if you disagree with it, and do not dismiss the contribution with a hollow and patronizing insult; explain what is wrong with it and give S a chance to respond.  S, do not delete all of J's contributions, ad to it to provide needed balance and complexity, and explain your additions here. Slrubenstein\

--- Hello, everyone. this is no doubt, a topic of much contention, and as such will find some disagreement. I am bothered by the insults, and have learned over my few years that they dont serve any cause. Ive learned to be civil here on the WP especially, since most people ive 'met' through WP are respectful and intelligent, though they may disagree.

I agree with mav that the microbiology material is valid, and removing it is a hack. - Overall the rule seems, cut out what is invalid, only, and i broke that rule. however, i didnt have time to completely reword all of the implications in the J's sections. 'Catholic overpopulation', 'tradition of splitting farms'. he weaves them all cleverly into an agenda, that can no doubt be seen as defencist of British policy (or lack of it) in dealing with its starving irish subjects at the time.

I would suggest, again, that my version is more in the news style, has more of the relevant material in a more relevant order, and additional theories about how catholics tendencies to overbreed go down lower, perhaps in the trash, if nothing can be salvaged from them.---Sv

- Sorry, Mav. I suppose I take my contributions to Wiki too seriously sometimes! Apologies. But the garbled analysis that keeps being added in here here infuriates Irish historians, because such ill-informed propagandistic nonsense is one thing we have had to put with for so long. And simplistic claims of genocide are seen as Irish propagandistic parallels to holocoust denial; ie, twisting facts in a manner that does history no service, and damages the credibility of the publication that publishes such facts. I stand over my article and have been told by other serious historians who read it that it was a accurate, rounded, non-propagandistic account of a serious event in Irish history. What it keeps being replaced by reads more like something from the 'X Files' than serious historical analysis.

Yes, S is right that colonialism had an overall impact on mid 19th century Irish society, but to talk of the famine as genocide is dismissed by all historians as poppycock. The central issue in the famine was (a) the disastrous impact of blight, (b) the reason (principally subdivision) why Irish tenant farmers in the 1840s were dependent on potatoes, the (c) failure of the Government to respond, which was to a significant measure due to the prevailing economic policy of laissez faire, which was the economic analysis believed in passionately by the Russell Government. Other issues did enter into the equation, but a full analysis would take up five or six times the space this already long article on Wiki does. But genocide is plain wrong and seen as such by all modern analysis. It is seen as the Irish historical equivalent of holocaust denial, the deliberate mischevious and propagandistic mis-representation of historical events which cannot be allowed to stand or given any serious credibility; all it amounts to is the disneyfying of history. If written in a history exam in Ireland, it would get a 'F' grade. JTD 03:49 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

 * I have to agree with points a, b and c. These points seem correct from everything I have read and have been taught about the famine. The genocide stuff is new to me but can and should be mentioned in the article so long as this is at least a sizable minority viewpoint. All we would need to do is say something like "such and such group thinks this, even though most historians disagree." I suggest the longer version be restored and any valid content in the shorter version not already in the longer one be merged into it. Then we can start the give and take of neutralizing any still-present POV in the longer merged version via the WikiWay. --mav

--- whoah, i got bumped! - this is a ps: P.s. Im soliciting some sources for use of their photos to augment this article. Im considering a photo of British constables evicting Irish tenants, as my primary choice. Perhaps a photo of the fungus should be included in the article? ;|=== ---Sv

Response to Jtd: Genocide is aslo "debatable" as to whether or not it is "wrong." Dont many historians commonly view the killing of say women and children, during ancient times, as 'common practice and a part of warfare at the time.' The point isnt to moralise the argument- the point is to explain the facts. among these facts is how these topics are seen by different people. genocide is a strong word though, where "ignorance" and 'lack of consideration' may fit better. nevertheless nearly a million people died, as best can be told, and thats a lot of 'inconsideration.'--Sv

I am very glad to see that the two main contributors are expressing themselves in more reasonable and constructive (and perhaps transparent) tones -- I am sincere, as a non-expert I learn more from reading this kind of explanation than from rounds of insults. I want to make an observation and a suggestion. Observation: whever killing "civilians" during wartime is common or not, the word genocide is inflamatory (see the article and the talk pages that accompany it) and I do not think the word should be used casually. I am not saying it has no place in this article, but it can't just be thrown in; it has to be discussed in a nuanced way. Suggestion: can the two of you discuss the general structure of the article, and then work on it? For example, how about starting with a basic chronology, then a discussion of the causes (and please acknowledge how historians and politicians may have presented different explanations, how peoples explanations may have changed over time, and current debates among historians over explanations), and then a discussion of the larger debates over the meaning of the famine (not just for Irish identity or politics, but for how we view the 19th century, how we view colonialism, whatever)? Just a suggestion -- but I am trying to make clear what I think are some important distinctions (for example, one can cite British colonialism as one cause of the famine without accusing the British of genocide) (and, of course, the distinction between form and content. It is hard to argue over both at the same time; perhaps if we could agree to one, arguments over the other would be more easily resolved). Slrubenstein

Genocide is the deliberate mass murder of people. People in Ireland were NOT deliberately killed. They died largely from disease and hunger. A significant contributary factor was the failure of the policies of the Russell ministry to deal with the crisis. But no-one in Whitehall said 'lets let a million people starve' or 'lets kill off a million Irish people'. Some had theories that claimed Ireland was over-populated; it wasn't but the land structure, the existence of many large (frequently all but bankrupt) estates and an improverished tenantry on increasingly small land-holdings made it difficult without major reform (which did begin with the Encumbered Estates Act and was followed through with the Land Acts) to cope with a crisis if one did come. And unfortunately one did, in the form of a potato blight. That's not propaganda or making excuses for the British. It is explaining, FACTUALLY what happened, how and what the long-term results were JTD 04:10 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

 * By the way, when I first mentioned English colonialism I think I was under the impression that the division of farmland in Ireland into large and small estates, as well as shifts in crops under cultivation (and what was cultivated for local consumption versus export) were products of policies of the Crown or Parliament -- if I am wrong, I apologize. In any event, I hope the article would spell these factors out in depth.  As for genocide -- there is some debate over what genocide is (your definition is not isomorphic with the definition of International Law).  But my point above was to encourage more nuanced discussion, not a black or white distinction.  Okay, no historian labels what happened as genocide.  My question is, does anyone (I mean, besides Stevertigo)?  Did any British or Irish politicians or journalists ever cry "genocide?"  If so, the article needs to discuss this in a dispassionate way -- someplace (if not, of course, it doesn't need to.  Like I said, I come here to learn; my suggestions are meant to be constructive in producing an article that will be more informative to non-Irish-historians, which I think is the point). Slrubenstein

Ok, im going to be inflammatory here and get it out of my system ;). +  -   +  - The above argument by you, JTD, seems similar to the arguments given by Holcaust revisionists. (not always does the history go to the victors).  +  - Revisionists have been in a debate in recent years as to the degree to which Hitler knew about the 'genocidal' acts by his Nazi officials.  +  -   +  - Of course continuing along this line, with the IPF as the subject, we then get to the Queen, and her role in non-response. Deparaging the sweet queen is not something we do much even in this day. Also, technology, and the ability of the british to know about the famine, is an issue - (maybe they just didnt know??) the truth lies in the grey areas, like with anything else. The queen couldnt act without the consent of parliament. parliament was locked politically in inaction due to infighting between responsible human beings, and selfish landholding bastards. give or take a few details.

Were not trying to impose a 21st century morality upon the acts of a British imperialist system that was quite humane for its time. We are however, saying things as they are, with a vocabulary that has much developed in the time since. be well. - Sv

for SR, here are some links: http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=irish+potato+famine pick one.

 * Thanks. I just want to add, for J, please look at the Genocide article; would the famine count as genocide according to the UN resolution?  Remember, the Nuremburg trials worked retroactively too.  Historians have one perspective, international lawyers have another, and both can be represented in this article as long as the different points of view are clearly explained. Slrubenstein

As to the claim that I am making excuses for British policy, that is blatently absurd rubbish, but it does reveal S's agenda, which is to use the Famine as part of a wholescale argument on colonisation, in a bout of Brit-bashing. There are plenty of things about Britain's colonisation policies that need criticising (not bashing, that's hardly NPOV). But twisting the famine through emotive phrases like 'genocide' that no historian in Ireland uses, and all of which condemn as unwelcome, unhelpful and deliberately provocative, is unacceptable.

 * The views of historians are central to this article and should be presented clearly. But no academic discipline can monopolize discussion of an issue.  If non-historians have raised issues that historians consider unacceptable, the article can make clear that historians find these views unacceptable (and explain why) but the article itself should nonetheless describe these views, specify who holds them, and why, as well. Slrubenstein

As to S's desire to use pictures of Irish constables (they were Irish by the way, S, and catholic, not British) evicting tenants shows the scale of his ignorance of the history of the time. There ARE NO photographs of the famine. Historians wish there were, so we could use them in books, but there are none. All there are are line-drawings. By all means use them. provided you actually contextualise them, not turn them into a simplistic disneyfied Brit-bashing rant. And using terms like 'British imperialistic system' and 'selfish landlording bastards' doesn't give much evidence of S' objectivity, simply S's agenda. JTD

 * Jtdirl, I thought that during the 19th century many British leaders (maybe not Gladstone, but certainly Disraeli) embraced the notion of "imperialism." Am I wrong? Slrubenstein

I think were getting somewhere. And I apoplogise JTD, if i hacked your work. I know I dont like it when people do it to me. But its all, assumed to be in the interest of the wikipedia- to tug and pull and generate a good article, and that that improvement should be continuous. I will agree to disagree with you JTD on many of these issues. perhaps you might take the time to rewrite the article yourself, as your project. We of other persuasions will eagerly await your improvements, and the inclusion of varied persectives in this article. I might suggest you read my news style article as a primer. there is no time limit, though someone may feel the impetus to engage this article before youve had time to, so i suggest sooner rather than later. I for one, am tired of this page today, and am going to have a gourd of mate. ---thank you everyone, ---Sv

---Sv

 * When did I ever hack your work? I have only converted your hacks into something resembling encyclopedia articles (with a great deal of effort on at least on occasion). BTW, the quality of your work here speaks for itself. --mav 01:11 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

Not at all, Sirub, but their concept of imperialism as understood by them is different to our analysis, given that
 * many contemporary leaders in the UK, US and elsewhere in the nineteenth century and beyond believed they were 'bringing civilisation' to the 'inferior natives'. (Our analysis rightly regards that idea is offensive and rascist;)
 * Disraeli and Gladstone's periods in power occured in the decades after the Great Famine, and so the concept of how Ireland was perceived by Britain in the 1840s is different to Disraelian and Gladstonian definitions later;
 * British Imperialism means different things, depending on whether one is taking it from a politicised 21st century perspective, a late twentieth century perspective, a marxist analysis, a right wing analysis, a neo-colonial analysis, etc.

As a result terms like 'british imperialism' are seen as too agenda loaded by many modern historians, certainly in the Irish context, to be used. That does not mean that British colonial policy cannot be criticised in depth, merely that the terminology used, should be, as Wiki would put it, NPOV, thus capable of analysing facts, not simply using catchphrases to sum up emotional reactions that may not in a specific context do history justice. For example, in Ireland, the only people who use the phrase British imperialism are small ideological parties on the left, namely Sinn Féin, the Socialist Workers Party and the Communist Party of Ireland. No-one else will touch the phrase because it is seen as too agenda-driven. Irish Americans, in contrast, do tend to have an overall analysis of Irish history that is usually a generation or more behind analysis in Ireland, which is one problem on Wiki, where ideas discarded as factually inaccurate or propagandistic in Ireland still are taken as correct or accurate among Irish Americans. Irish governments and academics have striven in recent times to try to explain a different analysis of Ireland to the greater Irish and Irish American diaspora, with some success. (Some Irish universities have their students contribute to Wiki to correct simplistic Irish American analyses on it) JTD 04:53 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

 * Thank you for the clarification -- perhaps some of this can/should be worked into the article itself? I mean, both your account of the differences betwen debates among historians and debates among certain Irish political parties/movements, and your account of the differences between forms of Imperialism.  Of course, I understand too that English "colonialism" in Ireland will of course be different from the form it took in N. America or India -- what I mean is, a discussion of this broader context, where British policy in Ireland fitted in with/diverged from earler and later examples elsewhere, might be very helpful. Slrubenstein

 * Yeah, I think it is a good idea. I certainly never meant the famine page to be seen as excusing British policy in Ireland, merely to point out that contemporary Irish historical analysis doesn't follow the traditional 'Irish = good, Brits = bad' senario which was commonplace in Irish historical analysis in the early-mid 20C and still exists a lot in Irish America. I did a substantial re-write on the page on Irish history to show the full complexity of our history. (Some conservative historians would see MY contributions are Brit-bashing!!!) The Irish Famine was not a simple case of Irish-hating Brits committing genocide, but a product of ignorant government following a disastrously misplaced economic theory, population growth in a rural economy of ever decreasing small farm units that made survival dangerously reliant on one food stuff, a famine of that foodstuff, and a whole land-holding system in need of wholescale reform, reforms which did occur over the following 70 years. Its very complexity was not even hinted at in S's contribution, which in tone and context read like the sort of history that contemporary Irish historians, academics and the entire society had ditched decades ago (though still repeated in Irish-America) and which when re-appearing is like a red rag to a bull for Irish historians. . And now, finally to bed (at 5.36am here in Dublin!) JTD 05:34 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)

--

this was very unuseful for me. i did not provide eneough information for my report. thanks a lot.

_____

It is a little known fact when it comes to any discussion regarding An Gorta Mor that the British government, not only did not aid the Irish when the famine struck, but were also guilty of exporting foodstuffs during the course of the famine. Blame for this disaster should not be placed entirely on the failure of the crop, there is also blame to be shared by those who were alleged to be governing the country. of course, this action on their part, I suspect played into larger agenda of continuing their persecution of the Irish people. Tony Blair, in fairness to him did issue an apology to the Irish people several years ago regarding the inaction of the British government

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

title: Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)/Archive 1


text:
Asclepias tuberosa

Asclepias tuberosa, commonly known as butterfly weed, is a species of milkweed native to eastern and southwestern North America. It is commonly known as butterfly weed because of the butterflies that are attracted to the plant by its color and its copious production of nectar.

Description
It is a perennial plant growing to 0.3-1 m tall. The leaves are spirally arranged, lanceolate, 3–12 cm long, and 2–3 cm broad.

From April to September, in the upper axils, 7.5 cm–wide umbels of orange, yellow or red flowers 1.5 cm wide appear. They each have five petals and five sepals. It is uncertain if reddish flowers are due to soil mineral content, ecotype genetic differentiation, or both. A cultivar named 'Hello Yellow' typically has more yellowish flowers than ordinary examples of this plant.

The fruit pod is 7.5-15 cm long, containing many long-haired seeds.

Similar species
The plant looks similar to the lanceolate milkweed (Asclepias lanceolata), but is uniquely identified by the larger number of flowers, and the hairy stems that are not milky when broken. It is most commonly found in fields with dry soil.

Subspecies

 * Asclepias tuberosa subsp. interior – (Central United States, Ontario and Quebec )
 * Asclepias tuberosa subsp. rolfsii – Rolfs milkweed (Southeastern United States)
 * Asclepias tuberosa subsp. tuberosa – (Eastern United States)

Common names
Common names include butterfly weed, Canada root, chieger flower, chiggerflower, fluxroot, Indian paintbrush, Indian posy, orange milkweed, orange root, orange Swallow-wort, pleurisy root, silky swallow-wort, tuber root, yellow milkweed, white-root, windroot, butterfly love, butterflyweed, and butterfly milkweed.

Distribution and habitat
The species can be found from South Dakota south to Texas and Mexico, west to Utah and Arizona, as well as many other areas further east.

This plant favors dry, sand or gravel soil, but has also been reported on stream margins. It requires full sun.

Ecology
Most easily propagated by seed. The primary pollinators are bees and wasps, rather than butterflies. Sown outdoors after frost, a plant will flower and produce seed in the third year. It is difficult to transplant once established, as it has a deep, woody taproot.

A. tuberosa is a larval food plant of the queen and monarch butterflies, as well as the dogbane tiger moth, milkweed tussock moth, and the unexpected cycnia. Because of its rough leaves and trichomes, it is not a preferred host plant of the monarch butterfly but caterpillars can be reared on it successfully. Further, it is one of the very lowest Asclepias species in cardenolide content, making it a poor source of protection from bird predation and parasite virulence and perhaps contributing to its lack of attractiveness to egg-laying monarchs. (1) (2) . (3) . (4) (5) (6)

Cultivation
Butterfly weed is frequently grown in gardens for its showy orange flowers which are especially attractive to bees, though also visited by hummingbirds, moths, and butterflies. It is easily grown from seeds and is difficult to transplant due to the size of its roots. Grown from seed plants will take about two to three years to reach flowering size in average conditions. The seeds do not require stratification and can be immediately planted, though in commercial growing they are generally moist stratified at 5 °C for 30–60 days because this increases the germination rate. For other milkweeds a thin layer of mulch a layer 1–2 cm thick increases the germination rate, though specific research on butterfly weed is lacking.

Butterfly weed has few serious pest or disease problems. It is susceptible to crown rot if planted in poorly drained or too constantly moist locations. It is hardy in USDA zones 3–9.

Toxicity
The plant contains toxic glycosides, alkaloids and resinoids. These can cause weakness, seizures and corneal injuries. Multiple sources:
 * Use of the plant is contraindicated in pregnancy, during lactation or with infants due to its toxins, which include resinoids and pregnanes. Multiple sources:
 * "Warning: POISONOUS PARTS: Roots, plant sap from all parts. Not edible. Toxic only if eaten in large quantities. Symptoms include vomiting, stupor, weakness, spasms. Toxic Principle: Resinoid, cardiac glycoside".
 * Use of the plant is contraindicated in pregnancy, during lactation or with infants due to its toxins, which include resinoids and pregnanes. Multiple sources:
 * "Warning: POISONOUS PARTS: Roots, plant sap from all parts. Not edible. Toxic only if eaten in large quantities. Symptoms include vomiting, stupor, weakness, spasms. Toxic Principle: Resinoid, cardiac glycoside".

Uses
Native Americans and European pioneers used the boiled roots to treat diarrhea and respiratory illnesses. The young seed pods were used as food after being boiled in several changes of water. The seed pod down was spun and used to make candle wicks.

The root was once used to treat pleurisy.

title: Asclepias tuberosa


text:
Charles Brown (musician)

Tony Russell "Charles" Brown (September 13, 1922 – January 21, 1999) was an American singer and pianist whose soft-toned, slow-paced nightclub style influenced West Coast blues in the 1940s and 1950s. Between 1949 and 1952, Brown had seven Top 10 hits in the U.S. Billboard R&B chart. His best-selling recordings included "Driftin' Blues" and "Merry Christmas Baby".

Early life
Brown was born in Texas City, Texas. As a child he loved music and received classical music training on the piano. He graduated from Central High School in Galveston, Texas, in 1939 and Prairie View A&M College in 1942 with a degree in chemistry. He then became a chemistry teacher at George Washington Carver High School in Baytown, Texas, a mustard gas worker at the Pine Bluff Arsenal at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and an apprentice electrician at a shipyard in Richmond, California, before settling in Los Angeles in 1943.

Early success with Johnny Moore
In Los Angeles, an influx of African Americans from the South during World War II created an integrated nightclub scene in which black performers tended to minimize the rougher blues elements of their style. The blues-club style of a light rhythm bass and right-hand tinkling of the piano and smooth vocals became popular, epitomized by the jazz piano of Nat King Cole. When Cole left Los Angeles to perform nationally, his place was taken by Johnny Moore's Three Blazers, featuring Brown's gentle piano and vocals.

The Three Blazers signed with Exclusive Records, and their 1945 recording of "Drifting Blues", with Brown on piano and vocals, stayed on the U.S. Billboard R&B chart for six months, putting Brown at the forefront of a musical evolution that changed American musical performance. Brown led the group in a series of further hits for Aladdin over the next three years, including "New Orleans Blues" and the original version of "Merry Christmas Baby" (both in 1947) and "More Than You Know" (1948). Brown's style dominated the influential Southern California club scene on Central Avenue, in Los Angeles, during that period. He influenced such performers as Floyd Dixon, Cecil Gant, Ivory Joe Hunter, Percy Mayfield, Johnny Ace and Ray Charles.

Solo success
In the late 1940s, a rising demand for blues was driven by a growing audience among white teenagers in the South, which quickly spread north and west. Blues singers such as Louis Jordan, Wynonie Harris and Roy Brown were getting much of the attention, but what writer Charles Keil dubs "the postwar Texas clean-up movement in blues" was also beginning to have an influence, driven by blues artists such as T-Bone Walker, Amos Milburn and Brown. Their singing was lighter and more relaxed, and they worked with bands and combos that had saxophone sections and played from arrangements.

Brown left the Three Blazers in 1948 and formed his own trio with Eddie Williams (bass) and Charles Norris (guitar). He signed with Aladdin Records and had immediate success with "Get Yourself Another Fool" and then had one of his biggest hits, "Trouble Blues", in 1949, which stayed at number one on the Billboard R&B chart for 15 weeks in the summer of that year. He followed with "In the Evening When the Sun Goes Down", "Homesick Blues", and "My Baby's Gone", before having another R&B chart-topping hit with "Black Night", which stayed at number one for 14 weeks from March to June 1951.

His final hit for several years was "Hard Times" in 1951. Brown's approach was too mellow to survive the transition to the harsher rhythms of rock and roll, despite his recording in Cosimo Matassa's New Orleans studio in 1956, and he faded from national attention. Though he was unable to compete with the more aggressive sound that was increasing in popularity, he had a small, devoted audience, and his songs were covered by the likes of John Lee Hooker and Lowell Fulson.

His "Please Come Home for Christmas", a hit for King Records in 1960, remained seasonally popular. "Please Come Home for Christmas" had sold over one million copies by 1968 and was awarded a gold disc in that year.

In the 1960s Brown recorded two albums for Mainstream Records.

Later career
In the 1980s Brown made a series of appearances at the New York City nightclub Tramps. As a result of these appearances he signed a recording contract with Blue Side Records and recorded One More for the Road in three days. Blue Side Records closed soon after, but distribution of its records was picked up by Alligator Records. Soon after the success of One More for the Road, Bonnie Raitt helped usher in a comeback tour for Brown.

He began a recording and performing career again, under the musical direction of the guitarist Danny Caron, to greater success than he had achieved since the 1950s. Other members of Charles's touring ensemble included Clifford Solomon on tenor saxophone, Ruth Davies on bass and Gaylord Birch on drums. Several records received Grammy Award nominations. In the 1980s Brown toured widely as the opening act for Raitt.

Tributes and awards
Brown was inducted into the Blues Hall of Fame in 1996 and was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1999. He was a recipient of a 1997 National Heritage Fellowship awarded by the National Endowment for the Arts, which is the highest honor in the folk and traditional arts in the United States.

Brown was nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Traditional Blues Album three times: in 1991 for All My Life, 1992 for Someone To Love and 1995 for Charles Brown's Cool Christmas Blues. Between 1987 and 2005, he was nominated for seventeen Blues Music Awards (formerly known as the W. C. Handy Awards) in multiple categories, with a win in the Blues Instrumentalist: Piano/Keyboard category in 1991, and wins in the Male Blues Vocalist category in 1993 and 1995.

Death
Brown died of congestive heart failure in 1999 in Oakland, California, and was interred at Inglewood Park Cemetery, in Inglewood, California.

Discography
Releases by Brown with Johnny Moore's Three Blazers are located in that discography.

As leader

 * Drifting Blues (Score, 1957)
 * Sings Christmas Songs (King, 1961)
 * The Great Charles Brown That Will Grip Your Heart (King, 1963)
 * Boss of the Blues (Mainstream, 1964)
 * Ballads My Way (Mainstream, 1965)
 * Legend! (Bluesway, 1970)
 * Blues 'n' Brown (Jewel, 1972)
 * Great Rhythm & Blues Oldies Vol. 2 Charles Brown Blues (Spectrum, 1974)
 * Merry Christmas Baby (Big Town, 1977)
 * Music, Maestro, Please (Big Town, 1978)
 * Please Come Home for Christmas (Gusto, 1978)
 * One More for the Road (Blue Side, 1986)
 * All My Life (Bullseye Blues, 1990)
 * Someone to Love (Bullseye Blues, 1992)
 * Blues and Other Love Songs (Muse, 1992)
 * These Blues (Gitanes/Verve, 1994)
 * Just a Lucky So and So (Bullseye Blues, 1994)
 * Charles Brown's Cool Christmas Blues (Bullseye Blues, 1994)
 * Live (Charly Blues, 1995)
 * Honey Dripper (Gitanes/Verve, 1996)
 * So Goes Love (Verve, 1998)
 * In a Grand Style (Bullseye Blues, 1999)

Aladdin releases

 * 3020 "Get Yourself Another Fool" (RR609) b/w "Ooh! Ooh! Sugar" (RR608), 1948, released 1949 (Billboard R&B chart #4)
 * 3021 "A Long Time" (RR617) (Billboard R&B chart #9) b/w "It's Nothing" (RR612), 1949 (Billboard R&B chart #13)
 * 3024 "Trouble Blues" (RR613) b/w "Honey Keep Your Mind on Me" (RR600), 1949 (Billboard R&B chart #1, 15 weeks)
 * 3030 "In the Evening When the Sun Goes Down" (RR611) b/w "Please Be Kind" (RR616), 1949 (Billboard R&B chart #4)
 * 3039 "Homesick Blues" (RR603) b/w "Let's Have a Ball" (RR677), 1949 (billed as Charles Brown & His Smarties) (Billboard R&B chart #5)
 * 3044 "Tormented" (RR673) b/w "Did You Ever Love a Woman" (RR679), 1949, released 1950
 * 3051 "My Baby's Gone" (RR1521) b/w "I Wonder When My Baby's Coming Home" (RR604), 1950 (Billboard R&B chart #6)
 * 3060 "Repentance Blues" (RR1522) b/w "I've Got That Old Feeling" (RR1529), 1950
 * 3066 "I've Made Up My Mind" (RR1528) b/w "Again" (RR1520), 1950
 * 3071 "Texas Blues" (RR1525) b/w "How High the Moon" (RR607), 1950
 * 3076 "Black Night" (RR1619) b/w "Once There Lived a Fool" (RR1623), 1950, released 1951 (Billboard R&B chart #1, 14 weeks)
 * 3091 "I'll Always Be in Love with You" (RR1621) b/w "The Message" (RR1648), 1950, released 1951 (Billboard R&B chart #7)
 * 3092 "Seven Long Days" (RR1620) b/w "Don't Fool with My Heart" (RR1527), 1950, released 1951 (Billboard R&B chart #2)
 * 3116 "Hard Times" (RR1752) b/w "Tender Heart" (RR1750), 1951, released 1952 (Billboard R&B chart #7)
 * 3120 "Still Water" (RR1751) b/w "My Last Affair" (RR602), 1951, released 1952
 * 3138 "Gee" (RR1523) b/w "Without Your Love (RR1531), 1950, released 1952
 * 3157 "Rollin' Like a Pebble in the Sand" (RR2018) b/w "Alley Batting" (RR674), 1952
 * 3163 "Evening Shadows" (RR2017) b/w "Moonrise" (RR1650), 1952
 * 3176 "Rising Sun" (RR2019) b/w "Take Me" (RR676), 1952, released 1953
 * 3191 "I Lost Everything" (UN2125) b/w "Lonesome Feeling" (UN2127), 1953
 * 3200 "Don't Leave Poor Me" (UN2126) b/w "All My Life" (RR1649), not released
 * 3209 "Cryin' and Driftin' Blues" (RR2212) b/w "P.S. I Love You" (RR2215), 1953 (billed as Charles Brown with Johnny Moore's Three Blazers)
 * 3220 "Everybody's Got Troubles (RR2254) b/w "I Want to Fool Around with You" (RR2257), 1953, released 1954 (billed as Charles Brown with Johnny Moore's Three Blazers)
 * 3235 "Let's Walk" (RR2253) b/w "Cryin' Mercy" (RR2214), 1953, released 1954 (billed as Charles Brown with Johnny Moore's Three Blazers)
 * 3235 "Let's Walk" (RR2253) b/w "Blazer's Boogie" (111B) (re-release) 1953, released 1954 (billed as Charles Brown with Johnny Moore's Three Blazers)
 * 3254 "My Silent Love (RR2255) b/w "Foolish" (RR601), 1953, released 1954 (billed as Charles Brown with Johnny Moore's Three Blazers)
 * 3272 "Honey Sipper" (RR2328) b/w "By the Bend of the River" (RR2329), 1954
 * 3284 "Nite After Nite" (RR2331) b/w "Walk with Me" (RR2332), 1954, released 1955
 * 3290 "Fool's Paradise" (CAP2486) b/w "Hot Lips and Seven Kisses (Mambo)" (CAP2484), 1955 (billed as Charles Brown with Ernie Freeman's Combo)
 * 3296 "My Heart Is Mended" (CAP2483) b/w "Trees, Trees" (CAP2487), 1955 (billed as Charles Brown with Ernie Freeman's Combo)
 * 3316 "Please Don't Drive Me Away" (CAP2489) b/w "One Minute to One" (CAP2488), 1955, released 1956 (billed as Charles Brown with Ernie Freeman's Combo)
 * 3339 "I'll Always Be in Love with You" (NO2725) (re-recording) b/w "Soothe Me" (NO2726), 1956
 * 3342 "Confidential" (NO2754) b/w "Trouble Blues" (reissue), 1956
 * 3348 "Merry Christmas Baby" (NO2730) (re-recording) b/w "Black Night" (reissue), 1956
 * 3348 "Black Night" (reissue) b/w "Ooh! Ooh! Sugar" (reissue), 1957 (post-Christmas re-release)
 * 3366 "It's a Sin to Tell a Lie" (NO2727) b/w "Please Believe Me" (NO2728), 1956, released 1957
 * 3422 "Hard Times" (reissue) b/w "Ooh! Ooh! Sugar" (reissue), 1958

Imperial releases

 * 5830 "Fool's Paradise" (reissue) b/w "Lonesome Feeling" (reissue), 1962
 * 5902 "Merry Christmas Baby" (reissue) b/w "I Lost Everything" (reissue), 1962
 * 5905 "Drifting Blues" (reissue) b/w "Black Night" (reissue), 1963
 * 5961 "Please Don't Drive Me Away" (reissue) b/w "I'm Savin' My Love for You" (RR2330), 1963

East West (Atlantic subsidiary) release

 * 106 "When Did You Leave Heaven" (EW-2753) b/w "We've Got a Lot in Common" (EW-2755), 1957, released 1958

Ace releases

 * 561 "I Want to Go Home" (with Amos Milburn) (S-253) b/w "Educated Fool" (with Amos Milburn) (S-254), 1959
 * 599 "Sing My Blues Tonight" (S-843) b/w "Love's Like a River" (S-844), 1960

Teem (Ace subsidiary) release

 * 1008 "Merry Christmas Baby" (A-1113-63) b/w "Christmas Finds Me Oh So Sad (Please Come Home for Christmas)" (A-1114-63), 1961, released 1963

King releases

 * 5405 Charles Brown, "Please Come Home for Christmas" (K4912) b/w Amos Milburn, "Christmas Comes but Once a Year" (K4913), 1960
 * 5439 "Baby Oh Baby" (K4992) b/w "Angel Baby" (K4993), 1961
 * 5464 "I Wanna Go Back Home" (with Amos Milburn) (K10607) b/w "My Little Baby" (with Amos Milburn) (K10608), 1961
 * 5523 "This Fool Has Learned" (K10892) b/w "Butterfly" (K10893), 1961
 * 5530 "It's Christmas All Year Round" (K10897) b/w "Christmas in Heaven" (K10947), 1961
 * 5570 "Without a Friend" (K10983) b/w "If You Play with Cats" (K10984), 1961
 * 5722 "I'm Just a Drifter" (K11405) b/w "I Don't Want Your Rambling Letters" (K11406), 1963
 * 5726 "It's Christmas Time" (K10898) b/w "Christmas Finds Me Lonely Wanting You" (K10950), 1961, released 1963
 * 5731 "Christmas Questions" (K10954) b/w "Wrap Yourself in a Christmas Package" (K10956), 1961, released 1963
 * 5802 "If You Don't Believe I'm Crying (Take a Look at My Eyes)" (K11687) b/w "I Wanna Be Close" (K11689), 1964
 * 5825 "Lucky Dreamer" (K11688) b/w "Too Fine for Crying" (K11690), 1964
 * 5852 "Come Home" (K11691) b/w "Blow Out All the Candles (Happy Birthday to You)" (K11692), 1964
 * 5946 "Christmas Blues" (K10948) b/w "My Most Miserable Christmas" (K10955), 1961, released 1964
 * 5947 "Christmas Comes but Once a Year" (K10951) b/w "Bringing In a Brand New Year" (K10949), 1961, released 1964

Mainstream release

 * 607 "Pledging My Love" (R5KM-7389) b/w "Tomorrow Night" (R5KM-7390), 1965

Ace release

 * 775 "Please Come Home for Christmas" (92772-A) (reissue) b/w "Merry Christmas Baby" (92772-1B) (reissue), 1966

King releases

 * 6094 "Regardless" (K12330) b/w "The Plan" (K12331), 1967
 * 6192 "Hang On a Little Longer" (K12723) b/w "Black Night" (K12724) (re-recording), 1968
 * 6194 "Merry Christmas Baby" (K12725) (re-recording) b/w "Let's Make Every Day a Christmas Day" (K10946), 1968
 * 6420 "For the Good Times" (K14276) b/w "Lonesome and Driftin'" (K14277), 1973

title: Charles Brown (musician)


text:
Saadia Gaon

Saʿadia ben Yosef Gaon (882/892 – 942) was a prominent rabbi, gaon, Jewish philosopher, and exegete who was active in the Abbasid Caliphate.

Saadia is the first important rabbinic figure to write extensively in Judeo-Arabic. Known for his works on Hebrew linguistics, halakha, and Jewish philosophy, he was a practitioner of the philosophical school known as the "Jewish Kalam". In this capacity, his philosophical work The Book of Beliefs and Opinions represents the first systematic attempt to integrate Jewish theology with components of ancient Greek philosophy. Saadia was also very active in opposition to Karaite Judaism in defense of Rabbinic Judaism.

Early life
Saadia was born in Dilāẓ in the Faiyum in Middle Egypt in 892. He immigrated to Palestine in 915 at the age of 23, where he studied in Tiberias under the scholar Abu Kathir Yaḥya al-Katib (known as Eli ben Yehudah ha-Nazir in Hebrew), a Jewish mutakallim or theologian mentioned also by ibn Ḥazm. In 926, Saadia settled permanently in Lower Mesopotamia, known to Jews as "Babylonia", where he became a member of Sura Academy.

Saadia, in Sefer ha-Galui, stresses his Jewish lineage, claiming to belong to the noble family of Shelah, son of Judah, and counting among his ancestors Hanina ben Dosa, the famous ascetic of the first century. Expression was given to this claim by Saadia in calling his son Dosa; this son later served as gaon of Sura Academy from 1012–1018. Regarding Joseph, Saadia's father, a statement of Aaron ben Meïr has been preserved saying that he was compelled to leave Egypt and died in Jaffa, probably during Saadia's prolonged residence in the Holy Land.

The usual nisba al-Fayyumi refers to Saadia's native place, the Fayyum, which is located in Middle Egypt; in Hebrew, it is often given as Pitomi, derived from a contemporary identification of Fayum with the Biblical Pithom, an identification found in Saadia's works.

At the age of 20, Saadia began composing his first great work, the Hebrew dictionary which he entitled Agron. At 23, he composed a polemic against the followers of Anan ben David, particularly Solomon ben Yeruham, thus beginning the activity which was to prove important in opposition to Karaite Judaism in defense of Rabbinic Judaism. In the same year, he left Egypt and moved to Palestine.

In 921, Saadia triumphed over the Palestinian Gaon Aaron ben Meïr over the latter's introduction of a new triennial cycle of Torah reading that also changed the dates of Passover and Rosh Hashanah. Later, one of Saadia's chief disputants was the Karaite by the name of Abu al-Surri ben Zuṭa, who is referred to by Abraham ibn Ezra, in his commentary on Exodus 21:24 and Leviticus 23:15).

In the year 928, at the age of thirty-six (variant: forty-six), David ben Zakkai, the Exilarch or head of Babylonian Jewry, petitioned Saadia to assume the honorary title of gaon, where he was appointed that same year the Gaon of Sura Academy at Mata Mehasya, a position which he held for 14 years until his death.

After only two years of teaching, Saadia recused himself from teaching because of a dispute that had fallen out between him and the Exilarch. During Saadia's absence, his post was occupied by Joseph ben Jacob, the grandson of Natronai ben Hilai. At length, Saadia was reconciled with the Exilarch and returned to serve in his former position, although Joseph ben Jacob also remained serving in his capacity as Gaon.

Dispute with Ben Meir
In 922, six years before Saadia was appointed Gaon of Babylonia, a controversy arose concerning the Hebrew calendar, that threatened the entire Jewish community. Since Hillel II (around 359 CE), the calendar had been based on a series of rules (described more fully in Maimonides' Code ) rather than on observation of the lunar phases. One of these rules required the date of Rosh Hashanah to be postponed if the calculated lunar conjunction occurred at noon or later. Rabbi Aaron ben Meïr, head of the Palestinian Gaonate (then located in Ramla), claimed a tradition according to which the cutoff point was 642/1080 of an hour (approximately 35 minutes) after noon. In that particular year, this change would result in a two-day schism with the major Jewish communities in Babylonia: according to Ben Meir the first day of Passover would be on a Sunday, while according to the generally accepted rule it would be on Tuesday.

Saadia was in Aleppo, on his way from the East, when he learned of Ben Meïr's regulation of the Jewish calendar. Saadia addressed a warning to him, and in Babylon he placed his knowledge and pen at the disposal of the exilarch David ben Zakkai and the scholars of the academy, adding his own letters to those sent by them to the communities of the Jewish diaspora (922). In Babylonia he wrote his Sefer haMo'adim, or "Book of Festivals," in which he refuted the assertions of Ben Meïr regarding the calendar, and helped to avert from the Jewish community the perils of schism.

Appointment as Gaon
His dispute with Ben Meir was an important factor in the call to Sura that he received in 928. The Exilarch insisted on appointing him as Gaon "head of the academy" despite the weight of precedent (no foreigner had ever served as Gaon before) and against the advice of the aged Nissim Nahrwani, a Resh Kallah at Sura, who feared a confrontation between the two strong-willed personalities, Exilarch David and Saadia. Nissim declared, however, that if David was determined to see Saadia in the position, then he would be ready to become the first of Saadia's followers.

Under his leadership, the ancient academy of Sura founded by Abba Arikha entered upon a new period of brilliancy. This renaissance was cut short, though, by a clash between Saadia and David, much as Nissim had predicted.

In a probate case, Saadia refused to sign a verdict of the exilarch which he thought unjust although the Gaon of Pumbedita had subscribed to it. When the son of the exilarch threatened Saadia with violence to secure his compliance and was roughly handled by Saadia's servant, open war broke out between the exilarch and the gaon. Each excommunicated the other, declaring that he deposed his opponent from office. David ben Zakkai appointed Joseph ben Jacob Gaon of Sura and Saadia conferred the exilarchate on David's brother Hasan (Josiah; 930).

Hasan was forced to flee and died in exile in Greater Khorasan, and the strife that divided Babylonian Judaism continued. Saadia was attacked by the exilarch and by his chief adherent, the young but learned Aaron ibn Sargado (later Gaon of Pumbedita, 943-960), in Hebrew pamphlets, fragments of which show a hatred on the part of the exilarch and his partisans that did not shrink from scandal. Saadia did not fail to reply.

Influence
Saadia's influence upon the Jews of Yemen has been exceptionally great, as many of Saadia's extant works were preserved by the community and used extensively by them. The basis for the Yemenite Siddur (Tiklāl) is founded upon the prayer format edited originally by Saadia. The Yemenite Jewish community also adopted thirteen penitential verse written by Saadia for Yom Kippur, as well as the liturgical poems composed by him for Hoshana Rabbah, the seventh day of Sukkot.

Saadia's Judeo-Arabic translation of the Pentateuch, the Tafsir, was copied by the Yemenite Jews in nearly all their handwritten codices, and they originally studied Saadia's major work of philosophy, Beliefs and Opinions, in its original Judeo-Arabic, although by the early 20th-century, only fragments survived.

Method of translation
As much as Saadia's Judeo-Arabic translation of the Torah (Tafsīr) has brought relief and succor to Jews living in Arabic-speaking countries, his identification of places, fauna and flora, and the stones of the priestly breastplate, has found him at variance with some scholars. Abraham ibn Ezra, in his commentary on the Torah, wrote scathing remarks on Saadia's commentary, saying: "He doesn't have an oral tradition […] perhaps he has a vision in a dream, while he has already erred with respect to certain places […]; therefore, we will not rely on his dreams."

However, Saadia assures his readers elsewhere that when he rendered translations for the twenty-odd unclean fowl that mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, (Leviticus 11:13–19; Deuteronomy 14:12–18) his translation was based on an oral tradition received by him. Saadia's method of conveying names for the fowls based on what he had received by way of an oral tradition prompted him to add in his defense: "Every detail about them, had one of them merely come unto us [for identification], we would not have been able to identify it for certain, much less recognize their related kinds."

The question often asked by scholars now is whether Saadia applied this principle in his other translations. Re'em (Heb. ), as in Deut. 33:17, improperly translated as "unicorn" in some English translations, is a word that is now used in Modern Hebrew to represent the "oryx," although Saadia understood the same word to mean "rhinoceros", and writes there the Judeo-Arabic word for the creature. He interprets the zamer (זָֽמֶר) in Deuteronomy 14:5 as giraffe.

In Saadia's translation and commentary on the Book of Psalms (Kitāb al-Tasābiḥ), he has done what no other medieval writer has done before him, bringing down a biblical exegesis and noting where the verse is to be read as a rhetorical question, and where the verse itself derides the question with good humor: "Is the hill of God the hill of Bashan? A hunchback mountain is the hill of Bashan! (Meaning, it is unfit for God's Divine Presence). Why leap ye, ye hunchback mountains? That mountain wherein God desires to dwell (i.e. Mount Moriah in Jerusalem), even the Lord shall dwell [therein] forever more."

Saadia's approach to rabbinic exegesis and midrashic literature was ambivalent. Although he adopted them in his liturgies, he did not recoil from denouncing them in his commentary on the Bible whenever he thought that they broke-away from the plain and ordinary meaning of the text. Saadia adopts in principle the method of the Sages that even the episodic-like parts of the Bible (e.g. story of Abraham and Sarah, the selling of Joseph, etc.) that do not contain commandments have a moral lesson to tell.

In some instances, Saadia's biblical translations reflect his own rationale of difficult Hebrew words based on their lexical root, and he will, at times, reject the earlier Targum for his own understanding. For example, in Psalm 16:4, Saadia retracts from the Targum (translated): "They will multiply their goddesses (עַצְּבוֹתָם); they have hastened after some other thing; I shall not pour out their libations of blood, neither shall I take-up their names upon my lips," writing instead: "They will multiply their revenues (Judeo-Arabic:אכסאבהם); they have hastened after some other thing," etc. Even where a certain explanation is given in the Talmud, such as the Hebrew words in Exo. 30:34 (explained in Taanit 7a as meaning "each spice pounded separately"), Saadia deviates from the rabbinic tradition in his Judeo-Arabic translation of the Pentateuch, in this case explaining its sense as "having them made of equal portions."

In another apparent deviation from Talmudic tradition, where the Talmud (Hullin 63a) names a biblical species of fowl (Leviticus 11:18) known as raḥam (רחם) and says that it is the colorful European bee-eater called the sheraqraq, Saadia in his Judeo-Arabic translation of the Humash writes that raḥam is the Egyptian vulture based on the phonetic similarity of its Arabic name with the Hebrew. The sheraqraq (شقراق) is a bird that harbingers rain in the Levant (around October), for which reason the Talmud says: "When raḥam arrives, mercy (raḥamīm) comes into the world."

Later years
He wrote both in Hebrew and in Arabic a work, now known only from a few fragments, entitled "Sefer ha-Galui" (Arabic title, "Kitab al-Ṭarid"), in which he emphasized with great but justifiable pride the services which he had rendered, especially in his opposition to heresy.

The fourteen years which Saadia spent in Babylonia did not interrupt his literary activity. His principal philosophical work was completed in 933; and four years later, through Ibn Sargado's father-in-law, Bishr ben Aaron, the two enemies were reconciled. Saadia was reinstated in his office; but he held it for only five more years. David b. Zakkai died before him (c. 940), being followed a few months later by the exilarch's son Judah, while David's young grandson was nobly protected by Saadia as by a father. According to a statement made by Abraham ibn Daud and doubtless derived from Saadia's son Dosa, Saadia himself died in Babylonia at Sura in 942, at the age of sixty, of "black gall" (melancholia), repeated illnesses having undermined his health.

Mention in Sefer Hasidim
An anecdote is reported in Sefer Hasidim about Saadia ben Yosef "the sage," in which he ends a dispute between a servant who claims to be the heir of his deceased master and the man's true son and heir by having them both draw blood into separate vessels. He then took a bone from the deceased man and placed it into each of the cups. The bone in the cup of the true heir absorbed the blood, while the servant's blood was not absorbed in the bone. Using this as genetic proof of the son's true inheritance, Saadia had the servant return the man's property to his son.

Significance
Saadia Gaon was a pioneer in the fields in which he toiled. The foremost object of his work was the Bible; his importance is due primarily to his establishment of a new school of Biblical exegesis characterized by a rational investigation of the contents of the Bible and a scientific knowledge of the language of the holy text.

Saadia's Arabic translation of the Torah is of importance for the history of civilization; itself a product of the Arabization of a large portion of Judaism, it served for centuries as a potent factor in the impregnation of the Jewish spirit with Arabic culture, so that, in this respect, it may take its place beside the Greek Bible-translation of antiquity and the German translation of the Pentateuch by Moses Mendelssohn. As a means of popular religious enlightenment, Saadia's translation presented the Scriptures even to the unlearned in a rational form which aimed at the greatest possible degree of clarity and consistency.

His system of hermeneutics was not limited to the exegesis of individual passages, but treated also each book of the Bible as a whole, and showed the connection of its various portions with one another.

The commentary contained, as is stated in the author's own introduction to his translation of the Pentateuch, not only an exact interpretation of the text, but also a refutation of the cavils which the heretics raised against it. Further, it set forth the bases of the commandments of reason and the characterization of the commandments of revelation; in the case of the former the author appealed to philosophical speculation; of the latter, naturally, to tradition.

The position assigned to Saadia in the oldest list of Hebrew grammarians, which is contained in the introduction to Abraham ibn Ezra's "Moznayim," has not been challenged even by the latest historical investigations. Here, too, he was the first; his grammatical work, now lost, gave an inspiration to further studies, which attained their most brilliant and lasting results in Spain, and he created in part the categories and rules along whose lines was developed the grammatical study of the Hebrew language. His dictionary, primitive and merely practical as it was, became the foundation of Hebrew lexicography; and the name "Agron" (literally, "collection"), which he chose and doubtless created, was long used as a designation for Hebrew lexicons, especially by the Karaites. The very categories of rhetoric, as they were found among the Arabs, were first applied by Saadia to the style of the Bible. He was likewise one of the founders of comparative philology, not only through his brief "Book of Seventy Words," already mentioned, but especially through his explanation of the Hebrew vocabulary by the Arabic, particularly in the case of the favorite translation of Biblical words by Arabic terms having the same sound.

Saadia's works were the inspiration and basis for later Jewish writers, such as Berachyah in his encyclopedic philosophical work Sefer Hahibbur (The Book of Compilation).

Saadia likewise identifies the definitive trait of "a cock girded about the loins" within Proverbs 30:31 (Douay–Rheims Bible) as "the honesty of their behavior and their success", rather than the aesthetic interpretations of so many others, thus identifying a spiritual purpose of a religious vessel within that religious and spiritual instilling schema of purpose and use.

Relations to mysticism
In his commentary on the "Sefer Yetzirah", Saadia sought to render lucid and intelligible the content of this esoteric work by the light of philosophy and scientific knowledge, especially by a system of Hebrew phonology which he himself had founded. He did not permit himself in this commentary to be influenced by the theological speculations of the Kalam, which are so important in his main works. In introducing "Sefer Yetzirah"'s theory of creation he makes a distinction between the Biblical account of creation ex nihilo, in which no process of creation is described, and the process described in "Sefer Yetzirah" (matter formed by speech). The cosmogony of "Sefer Yetzirah" is even omitted from the discussion of creation in his magnum opus "Kitab al-Amanat wal-I'tiḳadat." Concerning the supposed attribution of the book to the patriarch Abraham, he allows that the ideas it contains might be ancient. Nonetheless, he clearly considered the work worthy of deep study and echoes of "Sefer Yetzirah"'s cosmogony do appear in "Kitab al-Amanat wal-I'tiḳadat" when Saadia discusses his theory of prophecy.

Exegesis
Saadia translated the Humash and some of the other books of the Hebrew Bible into Judeo-Arabic, adding a Judeo-Arabic commentary. Saadia translated Megillat Antiochus into Judeo-Arabic and wrote an introduction.
 * Torah
 * Isaiah
 * Megillot
 * Tehillim (Judeo-Arabic translation and commentary, which he called Kitāb al-tasbiḥ [= "the Book of Praise"])
 * Iyyov (Book of Job) (translated to English by Dr. Goodman), and Mishlei
 * Daniel

Hebrew linguistics

 * 1) Agron
 * 2) Kutub al-Lughah, also known as Kitāb faṣīḥ lughat al-‘ibrāniyyīn, “The Book of Eloquent Language of the Hebrews”
 * 3) "Tafsir al-Sab'ina Lafẓah," a list of seventy (properly ninety) Hebrew (and Aramaic) words which occur in the Hebrew Bible only once or very rarely, and which may be explained from traditional literature, especially from the Neo-Hebraisms of the Mishnah. This small work has been frequently reprinted.

Halakhic writings

 * 1) Short monographs in which problems of Jewish law are systematically presented. Of these Arabic treatises, little but the titles and extracts is known, and it is only in the "Kitab al-Mawarith" that fragments of any length have survived.
 * 2) A commentary on the thirteen rules of Rabbi Ishmael, preserved only in a Hebrew translation by Nahum Ma'arabi. An Arabic methodology of the Talmud is also mentioned, by Azulai, as a work of Saadia under the title "Kelale ha-Talmud".
 * 3) Responsa. With few exceptions these exist only in Hebrew, some of them having been probably written in that language.
 * 4) The Siddur of Saadia Gaon (Kitāb jāmiʿ al-ṣalawāt wal-tasābīḥ), containing the texts of the prayers, commentary in Arabic and original synagogal poetry. Of this synagogal poetry the most noteworthy portions are the "Azharot" on the 613 commandments, which give the author's name as "Sa'id b. Joseph", followed by the title "Alluf," thus showing that the poems were written before he became gaon.

Philosophy of religion

 * 1) Emunoth ve-Deoth (Kitāb al-amānāt wa-al-iʿatiqādāt), the Book of Beliefs and Opinions: This work, first compiled in 933 CE, of which several revisions were made until its final redaction, is considered to be the first systematic attempt to synthesize the Jewish tradition with philosophical teachings. Prior to Saadia, the only other Jew to attempt any such  fusion was Philo . Saadia's objective here was to show the parallelism between the truths delivered to the people of Israel by Divine revelation, on the one side, and the necessary conclusions that can also be reached by way of rational observation, on the other. The effect of these ideas expressed in his philosophical books are clearly reflected in Saadia's story of creation, especially when he comes to deal with the theological problems, such as in the verse of Deuteronomy 4:24: “For the LORD your God is a devouring fire,” which constitutes an example of a verse that cannot be understood in its plain context, but should rather be understood in such a way as not to contradict one's definite knowledge that God does not change, nor can anything corporeal be associated with him.
 * 2) Tafsīr Kitāb al-Mabādī, an Arabic translation of and commentary on the Sefer Yetzirah, written while its author was still residing in Egypt (or Israel), and intended to explain in a scientific manner how the universe came into existence. On the linguistic aspect, Saadia combines a debate on the letters and on their attributes (e.g. phonemes), as well as a debate on related linguistic matters.

Polemical writings

 * 1) Refutations of Karaite authors, always designated by the name "Kitab al-Radd," or "Book of Refutation." These three works are known only from scanty references to them in other works; that the third was written after 933 is proved by one of the citations.
 * 2) "Kitab al-Tamyiz" (in Hebrew, "Sefer ha-Hakkarah"), or "Book of Distinction," composed in 926, and Saadia's most extensive polemical work. It was still cited in the twelfth century; and a number of passages from it are given in a Biblical commentary of Japheth ha-Levi.
 * 3) There was perhaps a special polemic of Saadia against Ben Zuta, though the data regarding this controversy between is known only from the gaon's gloss on the Torah.
 * 4) A refutation directed against the rationalistic Biblical critic Hiwi al-Balkhi, whose views were rejected by the Karaites themselves;
 * 5) "Kitab al-Shara'i'," or "Book of the Commandments of Religion."
 * 6) "Kitab al-'Ibbur," or "Book of the Calendar," likewise apparently containing polemics against Karaite Jews;
 * 7) "Sefer ha-Mo'adim," or "Book of Festivals," the Hebrew polemic against Ben Meir which has been mentioned above.
 * 8) "Sefer ha-Galui," also composed in Hebrew and in the same flowery biblical style as the "Sefer ha-Mo'adim," being an autobiographical and apologetic work directed against the Exilarch (rosh galuth), David b. Zakkai, and his chief patron, Aharon ibn Sargado, in which he proved his own uprightness and equity in the matter of controversy between them.

title: Saadia Gaon