text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/52

44 salves beside a variegated stone, near a thick flag-stone, nine fathoms in circumference and seven fathoms wide. These are the efficacious salves, the reliable charmed remedies with which I anoint the sick and heal a person that is hurt.

(c.)

An ointment made of every sort of thing becomes powerful by the ordinance of the Father and Creator, by the permission of God. On the earth there are many sorts of herbs, there are efficacious plants which a helpless man takes, a destitute person plucks to use as salves for the sick, as embrocation for wounds.

Where are ointments prepared, where are honeyed unguents rightly confected to serve as liniment upon a sore, as a remedy for hurts? Ointments are prepared, honeyed unguents are rightly confected above the nine heavens, behind the stars in the sky, near the moon, in a crack in the sun, on the shoulder of the Great Bear. Thence may the ointment trickle down, may a drop of honey drip from under the mouth of gracious God, from under the beard of the Blessed. It is an efficacious salve for every kind of injury, for the fearful traces left by fire, for places wholly burnt by Panu (fire), for frost-bites caused by bitter frost, for places touched by cruel wind; it is a salve to put on the grievous wounds caused by iron, on injuries produced by steel, upon the stabs of Piru's pike, upon the mark left by Keito's spear.

(d.)

A blue 'cloud' looms, a (rain)bow is visible afar off, comes forth from the south, opens up towards [v. from] the north-west. A little girl is upon the 'cloud', a maiden on the bow's edge; she smooths her hair, brushes her locks. From her the milk appears, from her breast it overflows. It flowed down upon the ground upon a


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/53

Rh mead, upon the headland of a honeyed field. From it salves are obtained to serve as ointments for sores, as embrocations for wounds.

(e.)

A girl was born upon a field run wild, a youthful maiden upon a grassy spot. She throve without being nursed, grew up without being suckled. She sank down exhausted to repose upon a nameless meadow, lay down to sleep upon a grassy knoll, fell fast asleep upon a honeyed mead. Unwittingly she slept a long time, sleep deceived her, she expired. Between the furrows a herb grew up, a triangular herb. It contains water and honey, and is a splendid salve to rub upon a wound, to use as a liniment upon hurts.

(f.)

Vuotar, the ointment-maker, concocted salves in summer in the delightful Forest Home (Metsola), at a steadfast mountain's edge. There was delightful honey there, and efficacious water from which she prepares ointment. May it now come to hand to serve as salve for wounds, as liniment for sores.

(g.)

An ox grew up in Karelia [v. Kainuhu], a bull grew fat in Finland; its head roared in Tavastland, its tail wagged in Tormis. For a whole day a swallow was flying from its withers to the end of its tail; for a whole month a squirrel was running the distance between the horns of the ox, though without reaching the end, without reaching the goal.

They searched for someone to strike, made quest for one to slay the ox. A swarthy man rose from the sea, a full-grown man uprose from the wave, a quarter of an ell in height, as tall as a woman's span. Directly he saw his prey, he of a sudden broke its neck, brought the bull upon

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


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Merlin (poem)

MERLIN. This dramatic narrative poem by Edwin Arlington Robinson is among the most distinguished and significant products of recent American literature, and bids fair to take its place beside the best of its very admirable kind. It is entirely modern in its spirit and treatment, with lines like these that mark its date:

In Mr. Robinson's poem King Arthur and his knights are not romantic heroes, as other poets have made them, not “our conception of what knighthood should be”; they are a modern poet's conception of what leaders of men always and universally are, — king, warrior, lover, fool; Arthur, Gawaine, Lancelot, Dagonet. Nor is Mr. Robinson's Merlin like Tennyson's — a magician in his dotage falling a victim to the wiles of a false woman. He is a prophet whose “memories go forward”; he is a man “Who saw himself, A sight no other man has ever seen,” and he follows Vivian, “a woman who is worth a grave,” because Fate wills it so. It is not the age of chivalry but our own time, our own double world of hope and of reality, with its loves, faith, fears, wars and failures that Mr. Robinson revivifies in ‘Merlin.’ The philosophy of the poem, that faith and creative love will someday save the world, is a lustrous background for the story: “The torch of woman, who, together with the light That Galahad found, is yet to light the world.” As a tale Merlin is vivid and compelling, with scenes, like that of Merlin's first meeting with Vivian and his final parting, which rival the best in drama for beauty and intensity.


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/54

46 its knees, made it fall sideways to the ground. From it ointments are obtained, charmed remedies are taken with which sores are besprinkled and injuries are healed.

(h.)

Jesus thither, Jesus hither; may Jesus come into every dwelling, may lovely Jesus be the watcher and the best of healers. The guiltless blood of Jesus and the sweet milk of Mary mingled together as a liniment for sores is the most precious charmed remedy, is the most efficient ointment, one that is of value under all circumstances, and is pleasant in food.

XLIX.—

(a.)

Sharp Frost! of evil race and an evil-mannered son, shall I now mention thy family, shall I announce thy character? I know thy family origin, I know thy bringing up. Sharp Frost was born among willow-trees. Hard Weather in a birch clump of an ever-devastating sire, of a useless mother at the side of a cold heap of stones, in the recess of a lump of ice.

Who suckled Sharp Frost, who nourished Hard Weather, as his mother had no milk? A snake suckled Sharp Frost, Hard Weather nourished him, a snake fed him, a viper suckled him, a worm treated him to milk from a dry breast; the North Wind rocked him to-and-fro. Chill Weather put him to sleep near evil brooks lined with willows, upon unthawed morasses. Hence he grew hard and rough, grew exceeding proud; the boy became evil-mannered and of a destructive disposition.

Up to this the lubberly boy had no name. Afterwards they christened the child, carried him to baptism to a bubbling spring, to the centre of a golden rock. A name


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 36.djvu/86

 related in the 'Chroniques Abregees' (, xvii. 169), coupled with Murimuth's reference to his 'sævitia' at Cadzand, suggests that he could on occasion be cruel.

MANNYNG, ROBERT, or (fl. 1288–1338), poet, was, as he says himself, 'of Brunne wake in Kesteuene' (Handlyng Synne in Dulwich MS. 24); the reading of other manuscripts' Brymwate 'led to the erroneous notion that he was an inmate of an imaginary' Brimwake priory.' But it is abundantly clear that Robert Mannyng—as he calls himself in his chronicle—was a native of Brunne or Bourne in Lincolnshire, and entered the house of the Gilbertine canons at Sempringham, six miles from his native place, in 1288. He says that he wrote 'Handlyng Synne' in 1303, and had then been in the priory fifteen years. It is possible that, as Dr. Furnivail suggests, Mannyng was not a canon, but merely a lay brother. He would seem to have been educated at Cambridge, for he speaks of having been there with Robert de Bruce, the future king of Scotland, and his two brothers, Thomas and Alexander. If so, it is evident, from the way in which Mannyng refers to the Bruces, that this must have been subsequent to his entry at Sempringham, for Robert de Bruce the eldest was born only in 1274. It may be, however, that Mannyng is referring to a casual visit, for the Gilbertines had a house at Cambridge. In 1338, when Mannyng finished his 'Chronicle,' he was resident in the priory of his order at Sixhill, Lincolnshire. The date of his death is unknown, but he must at this time have been about seventy years of age.

Mannyng's works consist of:
 * 1) 'Handlyng Synne,' a translation of the 'Manuel des Fechiez' of William of Wadington, who wrote under Edward I. Tanner wrongly describes the French original as being by Bishop Grossetete. Mannyng made a free use of his original, often curtailing, amplifying, or omitting altogether, and even inserting new matter drawn at times from his own experience. The whole gives an excellent picture of the social life, and forms a keen satire on the vices of his time. The known manuscripts are Harley 1701 (of the end of the fourteenth century), Bodley 415, and Dulwich 24 (incomplete). The first, collated with the Bodley MS., was edited by Dr. Furnivall for the Roxburghe Club in 1862, together with Wadington's French text from Harley MSS. 273 and 4667; a new edition by Dr. Furnivall is promised for the Early English Text Society. Halliwell, in his 'Dictionary of Old English Words and Phrases,' quotes a manuscript in the midland dialect which appears to be lost.
 * 2) The 'Chronicle of England.' Of this there are two manuscripts, Petyt MS. 511, in the Inner Temple Library, and Lambeth MS. 131. The earlier part has been edited by Dr. Furnivall for the Rolls Series. The second part was edited by Hearne, under the title 'Peter of Langtoft's Chronicle, as illustrated and improved by Robert of Brunne, from the Death of Cadwallader to the end of King Edward the First's Reign,' in 1725; a second edition appeared in 1800. The work is throughout unoriginal, Mannyng only claiming to write 'in simple speech for love of simple men.' In its earlier portion it follows for the most part Wace, with occasional insertions from Bede, Geoffrey of Monmouth, and Langtoft. Mannyng would not follow the last writer entirely, because he 'over hopped' too much of Geoffrey's Latin narrative. The last part of Mannyng's chronicle onwards is simply a translation of Langtoft.
 * 3) 'Meditacyuns of þe Soper of our Lorde Ihesus; and also of hys Passyun; and eke of pe peynes of hys swete moder, Mayden Marye, þe whyche made yn Latyn Bonaventure Cardynall.' This work follows the 'Handlyng Synne' in the Harley and Bodley manuscripts, and may be by Mannyng, as Mr. Oliphant and Mr. Cowper, its editor, think; but the ascription is open to doubt. It was edited for the Early English Text Society in 1875.

Mannyng is in no sense to be regarded as


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/55

Rh was given to the wretch, was bestowed upon the rascal. They named him Sharp Frost, Ear-sweller, Nail-smarter, Demander of toes.

(b.)

The swarthy old wife of the North, Raani, the mother of Sharp Frost, seated herself with her breast eastwards, lay with her back windwards. She looks about, turns here and there, glanced due north, and saw how the moon was rising to the circle (of the sky), how the sun was ascending to the vault of heaven. The wind quickened her, the dawn of day made her with child.

What is she carrying within? She carried three boy children. She gave birth to her sons, was confined of her children at the far end of an outhouse in Pohjola, at the end of a hut in Pimentola.

She invited the Creator to baptise them, God to give them names. As the Creator never came, she baptised her rascals herself. One she named Tuuletar, another Viimatar, the last, a malignant boy, she named Sharp Frost, who demands (people's) nails, who covets after feet.

(c.)

The Hiisi folk held a wedding, the evil crew a drinking-bout. For the wedding they killed a horse, for their feast a long-maned horse; its blood was sprinkled behind the forge of Hiitola; the fume rose to the sky, the vapour ascended into the air, then scattered into clouds, formed itself into Sharp Frost.

The filly [v. Tapio's daughter], Snow White, suckled Sharp Frost. Sharp Frost, the evil offspring, sucked so that her shoulder split, that her milk ran dry.

The boy got nursed, was christened, was baptised in a silver river [v. in the river Jordan], in a golden ring [v. in an eddy of the holy stream]. The name of Kuljus [v. Kuhjus] was given him, boy Kuljus was the name for


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/56

48 Sharp Frost. Sharp Frost himself is a Kuljus, the rest of his kinsmen are Kuljuses.

The Creator took him to heaven, but Kuljus thought : It is troublesome being in a hot place, a great distress living in the heat. The Creator flung him into a spring, so Kuljus dwelt in the spring, sprawled on his back the whole summer. From the sky the Creator uttered : "Arise now, youth, and get thee hence to flatten a grassy plain." Kuljus issued from the spring, began to dwell near fences, to whirl himself about on gates. He bit trees till they became leafless, grass till they lost their husky scales, human beings till they became bloodless.

L. —

(a.)

A stone is the son of Kimmo Kammo, is an egg of the earth, a clod of a ploughed field, is the offspring of Kimmahatar [v. Huorahatar], the production of Vuolahatar, the heart's core of Syöjätär, a slice of Mammotar's liver, a growth of Äijötär, the small spleen of Joukahainen.

(b.) Who knew a stone to be a stone when it was like a barleycorn, when it rose as a strawberry from the earth, as a bilberry from the side [v. root] of a tree, or when it dangled in a fleecy cloud, hid itself within the clouds, came to the earth from the sky, fell as a scarlet ball of thread, came wobbling like an oaten ball, came rolling like a wheaten lump through banks of cloud, through red (rain)bows? A fool terms it a stone, names it an earth-egg.

LI. — (a.) The origin of water is known as well as the genesis of


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/57

Rh dew. Water came from the sky, from the clouds in small drops ; then it appeared in a mountain, grew in the crevice of a rock. Vesi-viitta (Water-cloak), Vaitta's son, Suoviitta (Swamp-cloak), the son of Kaleva, dug water from a rock, let water gush from a mountain by means of his gold stick, his copper staff.

When it had gushed from the mountain, had issued from the cliff, the water wavered like a spring, ran off in little rills. Afterwards it increased in size, began to flow as a river, to dash noisily along as a stream, to thunder like rapids into the huge sea, into the open main.

(b.)

Fire's genesis is from the sky, iron's origin is from iron ore (in Finnish, rust), water's origin is from the clouds. Water is the eldest of the brothers, fire the youngest of the daughters, iron is intermediate. This water is from the Jordan, is drawn from the river Jordan, from a rushing noisy stream, from roaring rapids. With it Christ was christened, the Almighty was baptized.

(c.)

Water is the son of Vuolamoinen, the offspring of Vuolamotar, is the washing-water of Jesus, the tears of the son of God which the Virgin Mary, the dear mother, the holy little maid, brought from the river Jordan, from an eddy of the holy stream.

.


text: Author:Edith Juliet Rich Isaacs

title: Author:Edith Juliet Rich Isaacs


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/530

 BALOCHI TALES.

XVI. [ was the Brahoi Chief or Khan of Kilat at the end of the last century. His dominions extended into the Indus Valley, and included a tract known as Harrand-Dajil, which adjoined the territory under the Mirrani Nawab of Dera Ghazi Khan, all nominally forming part of the kingdom of the Durannis. Jampur is the chief place in the Nawab's dominions, near the boundary of what was then the Khan of Kilat's country. ’Abdullah Khan invaded the Nawab's country, and during this invasion the adventure of Samri is supposed to have occurred.]

HEN ’Abdullah Khan was Khan of Kilat, he went to war with the Nawab of Dera Ghazi Khan. He assembled an army, and came down by the way of Syahaf At that time the chief of the Mazari tribe was Mitha Khan. ’Abdullah Khan sent for him, and told him to bring his armed followers also, and Mitha Khan joined the Khan with a hundred horsemen. All the Balochistan chiefs and feudatories, Highlanders and Lowlanders (Sarawan and Jahlawan), were with him, but the Gorchanis and Drishaks, and other tribes of the Indus Valley, did not join him. He marched by the Syah-Tankh Pass, by the Sham plain, and by the Chachar Pass, and came out into the plains at Harrand. There he heard that the Nawab had fixed on Jampur as the place at which his army was to assemble, so he gathered together all his Amirs for a consultation.


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Van Zorn

VAN ZORN. This comedy of New York artist life (1914), is one of two published plays by Edwin Arlington Robinson, the other being a tragedy of modern New England, called ‘The Porcupine,’ published at about the same time and just before the volume of poems

called ‘The Man Against the Sky.’ Although ‘Van Zorn’ has had no public performances except a series given in a hall in Brooklyn by a semi-professional company in 1917, it is not, like so many poets' plays, a chamber-drama. It is distinctly a play for the theatre, a play of ideas such as would have found a ready welcome all over the continent. It is one of a limited number of good acting plays, which are literary as well, written by Americans. ‘Van Zorn’ is a comedy of character, the story of a fatalist who, in an attempt to play the part of destiny in a love-affair, runs counter to a man with a destiny better than his own. The theme and the treatment are both unusual, the dialogue is brilliant and the characters, especially the men, are not theatrical types but thoroughly real people. Anyone familiar with Mr. Robinson's poetry would recognize in ‘Van Zorn’ the author of ‘Richard Cory’ and ‘Flammonde,’ his philosophy and his technique — especially his bold elisions — but no more disturbingly than he would recognise the dramatist in ‘Merlin’ or ‘Ben Jonson Entertains a Man From Stratford.’ ‘Van Zorn’ may be classed among important American plays even if it remains a play without a stage history.


text: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 13

title: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 13


text:
Page:Best Russian Short Stories.djvu/210

190 in his pocket, rammed his silk hat sorrowfully on his head and set off for the captain's house. He found Mrs. Zarubkin pacing the room excitedly, greeted her, but carefully avoided meeting her eyes.

"Well, what did you find out?"

"Nothing, Mrs. Zarubkin," said Abramka dejectedly. "Unfortunately I couldn't find out a thing."

"Idiot! I have no patience with you. Where are the fashion plates?"

"Here, Mrs. Zarubkin."

She turned the pages, looked at one picture after the other, and suddenly her eyes shone and her cheeks reddened.

"Oh, Empire! The very thing. Empire is the very latest. Make this one for me," she cried commandingly.

Abramka turned pale.

"Ampeer, Mrs. Zarubkin? I can't make that Ampeer dress for you," he murmured.

"Why not?" asked the captain's wife, giving him a searching look.

"Because—because—I can't."

"Oh—h—h, you can't? You know why you can't. Because that is the style of Mrs. Shaldin's dress. So that is the reliability you boast so about? Great!"

"Mrs. Zarubkin, I will make any other dress you choose, but it is absolutely impossible for me to make this one."

"I don't need your fashion plates, do you hear me? Get out of here, and don't ever show your face again."

"Mrs. Zarubkin, I"

"Get out of here," repeated the captain's wife, quite beside herself.

The poor tailor stuck his yard measure, which he had already taken out, back into his pocket and left.

Half an hour later the captain's wife was entering a train for Kiev, carrying a large package which contained material for a dress. The captain had accompanied her to the station with a pucker in his forehead. That was five days before the ball.

At the ball two expensive Empire gowns stood out


text: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 14

title: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 14


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Riders to the Sea

RIDERS TO THE SEA, by John Millington Synge, is the most nearly perfect tragedy in one act in modern literature. The very simple plot is based not on the traditional conflict of human wills but on the hopeless struggle of man against the impersonal but relentless cruelty of the sea. It has taken from Maurya four of her six sons, their father, and their father's father. The fifth son is missing and her daughters get proof that he too has been drowned while Maurya is entreating Bartley, the last of them all, not to ride his horses down to the boat for the Connemara fair. “If it was a hundred horses, or a thousand horses you had itself, what is the price of a thousand horses against a son, where there is one son only?” But Bartley will not listen, and when the sea swallows him too, the tragedy of the mother's previous revolt pales before the utter tragedy of her resignation. “They're all gone now and there isn't anything more the sea can do to me. . . . I won't care what way the sea is when the other women are keening.” In all of Synge's plays except ‘Deirdre of the Sorrows,’ one can trace his inspiration to his stay in the Aran Islands, — usually to a story he has heard on the road or by the turf fire — but in 'Riders to the Sea' we have the most direct transcript of his own sympathetic knowledge of the people and conditions of those wind-swept, sea-swept isles where life seems only the sweeter for being purchased by daily struggle with barren soil and warring elements. In this struggle it is inevitably the mothers who lose out. “The maternal feeling is so strong in these islands,” Synge writes, “that it gives a life of torment to the women.” The contrast between ‘Riders to the Sea’ and ‘The Playboy of the Western World’ indicates the gamut of Synge's genius. The former is as remarkable for the exquisite consistency of its theme, treatment and atmosphere as the latter is for its variety and its piquant contradictions; the one almost defies criticism, the other challenges it. ‘Riders to the Sea’ was first produced by the Irish National Theatre Society at Molesworth Hall in Dublin on 25 Feb. 1904. It was in the repertory of the Irish Players on tour in the United States in 1912-13. Consult Synge, J. M., ‘The Aran Islands’; id., prefaces to ‘The Playboy of the Western World’ and ‘The Tinker's Wedding’; Bickley, Francis, ‘John Millington Synge’; Boyd, Ernest, ‘Contemporary Drama in Ireland’; Howe, P. P., ‘John Millington Synge’; Weygandt, Cornelius, ‘Irish Plays and Playwrights.’


text: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 15

title: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 15


text: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 16

title: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 16


text:
Page:Englishmen in the French Revolution.djvu/192

172 their career in France would of itself fill a chapter, but I have already given a summary of this in the "Dictionary of National Biography." It is enough here to say that General Dillon's uncle, Archbishop of Narbonne and virtual viceroy of Languedoc, a man of much ability and of liberal views, who in June 1789 became bankrupt for two million francs, was an émigré, and died in London in 1806. Arthur Dillon was born in Berkshire in 1750, entered the Franco-Irish regiment which bore the name of his family, and in 1767 became its colonel. After service in the West Indies, and acting as Governor of St. Kitt's, he was nominated brigadier-general in 1784, with a pension of 1000 francs. He was for three years Governor of Tobago. Martinique elected him as its deputy to the National Assembly, and he made numerous speeches on colonial subjects. When the Assembly, in May 1791, conferred the franchise on freeborn negroes, Dillon with the other colonial deputies ceased to attend, and the colonies were not represented in the Convention. He was appointed in June 1792 to the command of the army of the Ardennes. On hearing of the storming of the Tuileries, he issued a general order pledging himself and his troops to uphold the monarchy. He ordered Dumouriez, his subordinate, to issue a


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Robins, Margaret Dreier

ROBINS, Margaret Dreier, American social economist: b. Brooklyn, N. Y., 19th century. She was privately educated and was married to Raymond Robins (q.v.) 21 June 1905. She was a founder of the Women's Municipal League, New York; was president of the New York Women's Trade Union League in 1905, of the Chicago Women's Trade Union League in 1907-14, and has been president of the national organization since 1907. She has served on the executive board of the Chicago Federation of Labor since 1908, and in 1915 was appointed to the unemployment commission by the governor of Illinois.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 36.djvu/232

 Marshal  with disdain, and when at length his accusers for a time prevailed, endured his master's wrath in dignified silence. A brief reconciliation and a fresh quarrel followed, and the affair was then brought before Henry II when he kept Christmas at Caen in 1182. Marshal defied his accusers to meet him in single combat, but the king refused permission, and Marshal left the court apparently in disgrace. His fame as a soldier brought him tempting offers from many French nobles, but Marshal refused them all, and after taking part in a tournament near Gournai in January 1183, went on a pilgrimage to Cologne. He then stayed some time in France, until, during the war in Poitou, the young Henry, by the advice of Geoffrey de Lusignan, recalled his trusty friend and adviser. Soon afterwards Henry fell ill and died at Martel on 11 June 1183. On his deathbed he charged Marshal to bear his cross to the Holy Sepulchre. Henry II granted the needful permission, and furnished Marshal with money for the journey. So after a short visit to England Marshal departed to Syria, where in two years he achieved such exploits as no one else would have done in seven, so that King Guy and the Templars and Hospitallers were very loth to let him go.

Marshal appears to have returned in the autumn of 1187, and found the king at Liuns —probably Lions la Forêt in Normandy (ib. l. 7302). Henry at once took him into high favour, and made him a member of his household, but the first definite mention of Marshal is as witness to a charter at Geddington, Northamptonshire, in February 1188(, Itinerary of Henry II, p. 285). When Philip Augustus commenced hostilities, Marshal returned with the king to France in July, and was present at the conference at Gisors, 16-18 Aug. A proposal was made to decide the quarrel by a contest of four chosen champions on either side. Marshal supported the idea, and volunteered to be one of the English champions, and with Henry's assent was despatched to convey the proposition to Philip. This is the story in the ‘Histoire,’ which is in part confirmed by the ‘Gesta Henrici,’ from which we learn that Marshal made one of an embassy to the French king about this time. The proposal was, however, rejected, and after some fighting before Gisors, Henry by Marshal's advice made a raid towards Mantes and Ivry. Then the king fell sick at Chinon, and Marshal obtained leave for a foray, which culminated in a fierce attack on Montmirail (Histoire, ll. 7880-8050). This was before the conference between Bonmoulins and Soligny, on 18 Nov., which led to the open alliance of Philip and Richard (, Itinerary, p. 292). Marshal made a vain endeavour to recall Richard to loyalty, and then rejoined the king, who now rewarded his services by promising him the hand of the heiress of Pembroke and Striguil (Histoire, l. 8304). About April 1189 Marshal was sent with Ralph, archdeacon of Hereford, to try and arrange terms with Philip at Paris. But their endeavours were defeated by William Longchamp [q. v.], acting on behalf of Richard. After the abortive conference at La Ferté on 4 June, Marshal joined with Geoffrey de Bruillon in a reconnaissance across the Sarthe, and valiantly endeavoured to stop the French advance on Mans. But Henry had to withdraw in haste to Fresnai-sur-Sarthe, Marshal guarding his retreat. As Marshal turned on their pursuers he found himself face to face with Richard. ‘God's feet, Marshal!’ cried he, ‘slay me not.’ ‘The devil slay you, for I will not,’ retorted Marshal, as he plunged his spear into Richard's horse. Thus the pursuit was stayed, and Henry, reaching Fresnai in safety, made his way to Chinon about the end of June. It was by Marshal's advice, and under his care, that Henry went out to meet the French king at Colombières on 4 July, and returned to die at Chinon two days later. The king's son, Geoffrey, and Marshal were the chief of the few faithful friends who remained with Henry to the last. It was Marshal who now took command of the little party at Chinon, made such provision as he could for his master's fitting burial, and escorted the body to Fontevrault. Marshal's companions feared how he might fare after his late encounter with the new king, but Marshal himself declared that he did not repent of what he had done, and trusted in God, ‘who has helped me ever since I was made knight.’ When Richard came, Marshal preserved the same bold demeanour, and told him to his face, ‘I had it in my power to slay you; I only slew your horse.’ Richard, with characteristic generosity, recognised his true spirit of loyalty, and granted him immediate pardon.

Marshal at once transferred to the new king the same steadfast loyalty which he had shown to Henry. Richard sent him over to England to take charge for him, but first, at the request of Geoffrey, his father's chancellor, confirmed the grant of the heiress of Pembroke. Marshal's first task in England was to release Queen Eleanor from her prison at Winchester. Thence he went on to London, and at once married his bride Isabella, daughter of Richard de Clare, earl of Pembroke and Striguil. Thus Marshal, who till now had been ‘a landless man, with


text:
Page:Englishmen in the French Revolution.djvu/193

Rh similar order, but Dumouriez refused. On the arrival of commissioners from Paris a few days afterwards, Dillon made profuse apologies for his manifesto, as being due to misinformation, and accepted the Republic. The command-in-chief was, however, transferred to Dumouriez, Dillon serving under him. He claimed a large share of the credit for the successes in the Argonnes passes, but according to General Money, who was with him, he was careless and indolent, lying in bed till noon. A letter written by him to the Landgrave of Hesse, offering him an unmolested retreat, was disapproved by the Convention, which declared that he had lost its confidence, and he was imprisoned for six weeks at St. Pélagie. The Convention, however, rescinded its declaration, and he was released. He attended the British dinner mentioned in a previous chapter, and gave a toast—"The people of Ireland, and may Government profit by the example of France, and Reform prevent Revolution."

Camille Desmoulins about this time formed a friendship with Dillon, who seems to have been a fascinating talker, and to have given luxurious dinners. Desmoulins fancied him to be a great strategist, and the only man who could repel the invader. Attacked in the Convention by Bréard, who taunted him with his intimacy with an aristocrat like Dillon, Desmoulins replied that six months previously Dillon had predicted to him the military


text:
Matthew Arnold

 * Matthew Arnold, 1896 book by Frederic Harrison

 * "Matthew Arnold", 1894 article by Florence Earle Coates, published in The Century Magazine (Apr 1894)
 * "Matthew Arnold", 1909 article by Florence Earle Coates, published in Lippincott's Monthly (Dec 1909)

title: Matthew Arnold


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 36.djvu/233

 Marshal nought but his knighthood,’ acquired a great position and wide lands in four countries. At Richard's coronation, on 3 Sept. 1189, Marshal bore the gold sceptre, while his elder brother, John, carried the spurs, the two thus sharing the office of marshal. By Richard's orders Marshal obtained seisin of his wife's Irish lands from Earl John, and sent his bailiff to take possession. Marshal himself remained with Richard in England. In October he swore at Westminster on Richard's behalf that the English king would meet Philip at Vezelay next year. On 1 Dec. he was with the king at Canterbury (Epistolæ Cantuarienses, p. 323, Rolls Ser.), and probably accompanied him to France on 11 Dec., for he was still with Richard at Rouen on 20 March 1190 (ib. p. 324). Richard had appointed Marshal to be one of the subordinate justiciars under Longchamp, and this appointment was renewed before the king started on the crusade. But when Longchamp would not accept the advice of his subordinates, Marshal joined in the opposition. If we may trust Hoveden, Marshal must in the autumn have gone to Richard at Messina, for that writer distinctly says (iii. 96) that in February 1191 the earl was sent home, in company of Walter de Coutances, with power to arrange the quarrel. This, however, is very improbable, but Marshal was specially associated with Walter, and under the truce of Winchester in July he received Nottingham Castle from John to hold for the king. At the council of St. Paul's on 8 Oct. Walter exhibited his secret commission superseding Longchamp, and appointing himself as justiciar, with Marshal as his chief subordinate. Marshal was included by Longchamp in the sentence of excommunication which he launched against his opponents in December 1191. But Richard would not believe Longchamp's complaint against Marshal, who he declared had been ever the most loyal knight in all his land (Histoire, ll. 9843-58). The year 1192 passed quietly under the rule of Walter de Coutances, but at the beginning of 1193 came the news of Richard's captivity. Earl John, abetted by Philip of France, raised a revolt, and seized Windsor. The justiciar appealed for aid to Marshal, who brought up his Welshmen and laid siege to Windsor in March, while others of Richard's supporters prosecuted the war elsewhere. John had been driven to extremities, when suddenly it was announced that Richard was released.

Richard reached England on 13 March 1194. Marshal was prevented from meeting him at once by the death of his brother John, by which event he became marshal of England. But soon afterwards he joined the king at Huntingdon, and accompanied him to the siege of Nottingham on 25-7 March. On 28 March his old enemy Longchamp urged the king to require from Marshal the same homage for his Irish lands as Walter de Lacy, sixth baron Lacy [q. v.], had just rendered. But when Marshal pleaded that he owed fealty for them only to John, the king, much to his chancellor's disgust, readily assented (ib. ll. 10012-340). Richard had more than once thanked the earl for his loyal service, but perhaps he felt that he could not entirely overlook the opposition to Longchamp, and this may explain Marshal's transfer from the shrievalty of Lincoln, which he had held since 1190, to that of Sussex, which he held for the remainder of the reign. Richard went back to Normandy in May, but Marshal perhaps remained in England, for in this year he was one of the justices before whom fines were levied, as again in 1198(, Fines,lxiii.) Marshal must in any case have come over with the reinforcements soon after (Histoire, l. 10561), for he was with the king when the French baggage train was plundered near Blois, and by Richard's desire guarded the English rear from attack (ib. ll. 10597-676). Marshal accompanied Richard on his siege of Vierzon in June 1196, and next year was sent on an embassy to the Counts Reginald of Boulogne and Baldwin of Flanders. The earl was successful in arranging a treaty, to which he was one of the witnesses, as also to the document by which Baldwin pledged himself to Earl John, on 8 Sept. at Rouen, not to make peace with Philip in case of Richard's death (Recueil des Historiens de la France, xviii. 549; Fœdera, i. 67). In 1198 Marshal seems to have been aiding Baldwin, and by his advice Philip was forced to retreat from before Arras (Histoire, ll. 10773-900). Afterwards Marshal went to Rouen, where in September he met St. Hugh of Lincoln on his way to Richard. In conjunction with William of Albemarle, Marshal offered to intercede on the bishop's behalf with the king. Hugh, though grateful for their goodwill, declined, lest they should fall into disfavour at a time when their services were so necessary to Richard (Vita S. Hugonis, p. 257, Rolls Ser.) Marshal fought valiantly for Richard at the siege of Milli in the autumn (Histoire, ll. 11168-264), and was with the king when the truce with Philip was concluded by the intervention of the papal legate, Peter of Capua, in January 1199 (ib. l. 11665). Richard was mortally wounded on 20 March. One of his last acts was to send to Marshal, who was at Vaudreuil, appointing him


text:
Page:Englishmen in the French Revolution.djvu/194

174 reverses which had just happened, and which had his advice been taken would have been prevented. "Dillon," he added, "is neither royalist, nor aristocrat, nor republican," and he had drawn out a plan of campaign which filled generals with admiration. The very next day (July 11th, 1793), Dillon was rearrested, charged with a plot for liberating the Dauphin and proclaiming him king. Desmoulins in the Convention denounced this as a ridiculous fable, but was refused a hearing. Dillon was kept in solitary confinement at the Madelonnettes, and repeatedly interrogated. He vainly asked to see his friends or to be confronted with his accusers. In a letter to Desmoulins he protested his innocence, and complained of incarceration in a heated cell without air. Desmoulins replied in a letter, which he published as a pamphlet of thirty-eight pages, sharply attacking the Committee of Public Safety. It was pretended that the note-book of an English spy had been picked up at Lille, and Dillon was mentioned in it as in Pitt's pay. Dillon denounced it as a forgery, which it evidently was. Desmoulins, on admission into the Jacobin Club in November 1793, had, however, to repudiate Dillon, and to confess he had been mistaken in him, as in Mirabeau. Robespierre warned him to be more cautious thenceforth in his friendships.

Dillon, meanwhile, had been transferred to the Luxembourg, where he had comparative liberty.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 36.djvu/234

 Marshal  of Rouen and the royal treasure there (ib. ll. 11776-815 ; cf., Rot. Normanniæ, ii. xxxv). On receiving the news of Richard's death on 10 April, Marshal at once went to Rouen. The archbishop (probably Hubert Walter is meant, though M. Meyer thinks it is Walter de Coutances) favoured the claims of Arthur, but Marshal declared decisively for John, and won over the archbishop to his views (Histoire, ll. 11836-908).

John at once despatched Marshal and Hubert to secure his peaceful succession in England. Signs of discontent had already appeared, but John's representatives called a council at Northampton, where, by solemn promises on the new king's behalf, they secured the adhesion of the barons and the peace of the kingdom till John's own arrival (ib. ll. 11908-20;, iv. 86-8). John was crowned on 27 May, and on the same day confirmed Marshal in his earldom; for previously, though he held the earldom, he had not had ‘the full peace and name of earl’ (Ann. Mon. i. 72), and it was only now that he received formal investiture with the sword. Marshal was made sheriff of Gloucestershire in the first year of John's reign, and held the office till 1207; he also retained the shrievalty of Sussex till 1205. Marshal probably went over to France with the king in June, for he was with him at Andelys on 18 Aug. and at Rouen on 6 Sept. (, i. 94). On 20 April 1200 the office of marshal was confirmed to him (Cal. Rot. Chart. 46 b), and in May he was one of the sureties for the peace with France. In July he accompanied John into Gascony (Histoire, ll. 11963-82). After a visit to England Marshal was sent over to Normandy in May 1201 with Roger de Lacy [q. v.] and in command of one hundred knights to oppose the French advance (Ann. Mon. i. 208). During the next three years his name appears as present with the king at various places (cf. Cal. Rot. Pat. pp. 1-40). On 22 April 1202 he received charge of the castle of Lillebonne (ib. p. 9). Early in August Marshal was with the Earls of Salisbury and Warenne at ‘Englesquevile’ when news was brought to them of John's victory over Arthur at Mirebeau. The intelligence made Philip Augustus at once raise the siege of Arques and commence a retreat, in which he was hotly pursued by the three earls. On his return Marshal was received by the citizens of Rouen at a great banquet (Histoire, ll. 12117-404). When Philip Augustus invaded Normandy in 1203, the writer of the ‘Histoire’ says that Marshal was sent to him at Conches to endeavour to make peace, but in vain. Marshal then rejoined John at Falaise, and went with him to Rouen, where he expostulated with the king on his reckless policy, but to no purpose (ib. ll. 12673-742). In the autumn Philip laid siege to Roger de Lacy in Château Gaillard. John assembled, a large force for the relief of the castle, and entrusted the command to Marshal, who was to be assisted by a flotilla on the Seine. Marshal was partially successful in his attempt at a surprise, but the failure of the ships to arrive at the critical moment ruined his enterprise (.Philipp. vii. 144-253). After the fall of Château Gaillard on 6 March 1204, John, who had returned to England in November, bade his representatives in Normandy to act as they thought good for their own interest. Soon after he sent Marshal with Hubert Walter and Robert, earl of Leicester, on another fruitless errand to Philip (, p. 144). The two earls, however, obtained from Philip a period of one year within which they might do him homage for their Norman lands. They then crossed over to England about May (Histoire, ll. 12839-900). Marshal was with the king at Gillingham on 26 June, and on 29 July was directed to conduct Llywelyn of North Wales to John at Worcester (Cal. Rot. Pat. pp. 43 b, 44). While in England he invaded Wales and took Kilgaran (Brut y Tywysoyian, p. 260). Finding there was no hope of action, he obtained leave from John to do Philip homage, and with this purpose went back to Normandy, and meeting Philip at Compiègne, after some delay rendered the required homage (Histoire, ll. 12921-13038). On Marshal's return to England in 1205 John, who had heard of his doing homage, reproached him for thus acting to his hurt, and though Marshal could appeal to John's own leave, this was the beginning of a prolonged estrangement. In June the king proposed to go over to Poitou; Marshal when summoned to go with him pleaded his oath to Philip. John in vain taunted him with cowardice and disloyalty, but Marshal stood firm that he would not go. Hubert Walter also opposed the expedition, and John was compelled at last to give way (ib. ll. 13039-13278;, pp. 152-3, where the opposition of the earl and the archbishop is represented as due to prudential motives only). Marshal had to give his eldest son as a hostage, but John did not venture to quarrel openly. In the winter the earl was employed to conduct William of Scotland to a meeting with the king at York (Cal. Rot. Pat. p. 56), and when next summer the king went over to Poitou, Marshal was entrusted with the military care of England.


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/273

 subdivided by agitation, the molecular constitution of the different portions remains unchanged. The ultimate process by which the individual molecules of two different substances become mixed, producing finally a homogeneous mixture, is in every case diffusion. In other words, diffusion is that relative motion of the molecules of two different substances by which the proportions of the molecules in any region containing a finite number of molecules are changed.

2 Quantitative Methods of observing Diffusion.—The simplest plan of determining the progress of diffusion between two liquids would be to draw off and examine portions from different strata at some stage in the process; the disturbance produced would, however, interfere with the subsequent process of diffusion, and the observations could not be continued. By placing in the liquid column hollow glass beads of different average densities, and observing at what height they remain suspended, it is possible to trace the variations of density of the liquid column at different depths, and different times. In this method, which was originally introduced by Lord Kelvin, difficulties were caused by the adherence of small air bubbles to the beads.

In general, optical methods are the most capable of giving exact results, and the following may be distinguished, (a) By refraction in a horizontal plane. If the containing vessel is in the form of a prism, the deviation of a horizontal ray of light in passing through the prism determines the index of refraction, and consequently the density of the stratum through which the ray passes, (b) By refraction in a vertical plane. Owing to the density varying with the depth, a horizontal ray entering the liquid also undergoes a small vertical deviation, being bent downwards towards the layers of greater density. The observation of this vertical deviation determines not the actual density, but its rate of variation with the depth, i.e. the “density gradient” at any point, (c) By the saccharimeter. In the cases of solutions of sugar, which cause rotation of the plane of polarized light, the density of the sugar at any depth may be determined by observing the corresponding angle of rotation, this was done originally by W. Voigt.

3. Elementary Definitions of Coefficient of Diffusion.—The simplest case of diffusion is that of a substance, say a gas, diffusing in the interior of a homogeneous solid medium, which remains at rest, when no external forces act on the system. We may regard it as the result of experience that: (1) if the density of the diffusing substance is everywhere the same no diffusion takes place, and (2) if the density of the diffusing substance is different at different points, diffusion will take place from places of greater to those of lesser density, and will not cease until the density is everywhere the same. It follows that the rate of flow of the diffusing substance at any point in any direction must depend on the density gradient at that point in that direction, i.e. on the rate at which the density of the diffusing substance decreases as we move in that direction. We may define the coefficient of diffusion as the ratio of the total mass per unit area which flows across any small section, to the rate of decrease of the density per unit distance in a direction perpendicular to that section.

In the case of steady diffusion parallel to the axis of x, if be the density of the diffusing substance, and q the mass which flows across a unit of area in a plane perpendicular to the axis of x, then the density gradient is −d/dx and the ratio of q to this is called the “coefficient of diffusion.” By what has been said this ratio remains finite, however small the actual gradient and flow may be., and it is natural to assume, at any rate as a first approximation, that it is constant as far as the quantities in question are concerned. Thus if the coefficient of diffusion be denoted by K we have q= −K(d/dx).

Further, the rate at which the quantity of substance is increasing in an element between the distances x and x+dx is equal to the difference of the rates of flow in and out of the two faces, whence as in hydrodynamics, we have d/dt =−dq/dx.

It follows that the equation of diffusion in this case assumes the form

$$\textstyle\frac{d\rho}{dt} = \frac{d}{dx}\left(\mathrm{K}\frac{d\rho}{dx}\right), $$

which is identical with the equations representing conduction of heat, flow of electricity and other physical phenomena. For motion in three dimensions we have in like manner

$$\textstyle\frac{d\rho}{dt} = \frac{d}{dx}\left(\mathrm{K}\frac{d\rho}{dx}\right) + \frac{d}{dy}\big(\mathrm{K}\frac{d\rho}{dy}\big) + \frac{d}{dz}\left(\mathrm{K}\frac{d\rho}{dz}\right); $$

and the corresponding equations in electricity and heat for anisotropic substances would be available to account for any parallel phenomena, which may arise, or might be conceived, to exist in connexion with diffusion through a crystalline solid.

In the case of a very dilute solution, the coefficient of diffusion of the dissolved substance can be defined in the same way as when the diffusion takes place in a solid, because the effects of diffusion will not have any perceptible influence on the solvent, and the latter may therefore be regarded as remaining practically at rest. But in most cases of diffusion between two fluids, both of the fluids are in motion, and hence there is far greater difficulty in determining the motion, and even in defining the coefficient of diffusion. It is important to notice in the first instance, that it is only the relative motion of the two substances which constitutes diffusion. Thus when a current of air is blowing, under ordinary circumstances the changes which take place are purely mechanical, and do not depend on the separate diffusions of the oxygen and nitrogen of which the air is mainly composed. It is only when two gases are flowing with unequal velocity, that is, when they have a relative motion, that these changes of relative distribution, which are called diffusion, take place. The best way out of the difficulty is to investigate the separate motions of the two fluids, taking account of the mechanical actions exerted on them, and supposing that the mutual action of the fluids causes either fluid to resist the relative motion of the other.

4. The Coefficient of Resistance.—Let us call the two diffusing fluids A and B. If B were absent, the motion of the fluid A would be determined entirely by the variations of pressure of the fluid A, and by the external forces, such as that due to gravity acting on A. Similarly if A were absent, the motion of B would be determined entirely by the variations of pressure due to the fluid B, and by the external forces acting on B. When both fluids are mixed together, each fluid tends to resist the relative motion of the other, and by the law of equality of action and reaction, the resistance which A experiences from B is everywhere equal and opposite to the resistance which B experiences from A. If the amount of this resistance per unit volume be divided by the relative velocity of the two fluids, and also by the product of their densities, the quotient is called the “coefficient of resistance.” If then 1, 2 are the densities of the two fluids, u1, u2 their velocities, C the coefficient of resistance, then the portion of the fluid A contained in a small element of volume v will experience from the fluid B a resistance C12v(u1 − u2), and the fluid B contained in the same volume element will experience from the fluid A an equal and opposite resistance, C12v(u2 − u1).

This definition implies the following laws of resistance to diffusion, which must be regarded as based on experience, and not as self-evident truths: (1) each fluid tends to assume, so far as diffusion is concerned, the same equilibrium distribution that it would assume if its motion were unresisted by the presence of the other fluid. (Of course, the mutual attraction of gravitation of the two fluids might affect the final distribution, but this is practically negligible. Leaving such actions as this out of

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/273


text: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 17

title: A Book of Dartmoor/Chapter 17


text:
Page:Best Russian Short Stories.djvu/211

Rh from among the more or less elegant gowns which had been finished in the shop of Abramka Stiftik, Ladies' Tailor. The one gown adorned Mrs. Shaldin's figure, the other the figure of the captain's wife.

Mrs. Zarubkin had bought her gown ready made at Kiev, and had returned only two hours before the beginning of the ball. She had scarcely had time to dress. Perhaps it would have been better had she not appeared at this one of the annual balls, had she not taken that fateful trip to Kiev. For in comparison with the make and style of Mrs. Shaldin's dress, which had been brought abroad, hers was like the botched imitation of an amateur.

That was evident to everybody, though the captain's wife had her little group of partisans, who maintained with exaggerated eagerness that she looked extraordinarily fascinating in her dress and Mrs. Shaldin still could not rival her. But there was no mistaking it, there was little justice in this contention. Everybody knew better; what was worst of all, Mrs. Zarubkin herself knew better. Mrs. Shaldin's triumph was complete.

The two ladies gave each other the same friendly smiles as always, but one of them was experiencing the fine disdain and the derision of the conqueror, while the other was burning inside with the furious resentment of a dethroned goddess—goddess of the annual ball.

From that time on Abramka cautiously avoided passing the captain's house.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 36.djvu/235

 Marshal On John's return Marshal asked leave to go over to Ireland, which had been often previously refused. On 19 Feb. 1207 he obtained protection for his lands during his absence (, i. 313), and must soon after have crossed over to pay his first visit to his wife's vast inheritance of Leinster; before going he had to give his son Richard as a further hostage (Histoire, ll. 13376-13377). Marshal's coming was very unwelcome to Meiler FitzHenry the justiciar [q. v.], who was his own liegeman. Meiler contrived to secure Marshal's recall to England in September, and coming over himself prevailed on John to let him wage active war against the earl's wife and representatives in Ireland. Meiler's warfare met with ill success, but John maliciously told the earl false news, until the truth could no longer be concealed (ib. 11. 13429-930). This narrative probably explains the letter in which John on 7 March 1208 informs Meiler that Marshal had come to him at Bristol, and that as he was sufficiently submissive the justiciar was to abstain from harassing his lands and men (, i. 375). On 21 March John directed that Marshal should have seisin of Offaly, and a little later confirmed him in possession of Leinster at the service of one hundred knights (ib. i. 377, 378, 381). Marshal then obtained leave to go back to Ireland, where all his vassals welcomed him. But Meiler still held aloof until his removal from the justiciarship (probably at the end of 1208), when he found it expedient to make his peace. At the close of 1208 William de Braose [q. v.] fled to Ireland, and landing at Wicklow was well received by Marshal, who, despite the new justiciar, John de Grey [q. v.], escorted him in safety to Walter de Lacy. Marshal had already been acting in conjunction with the De Lacys (Four Masters, iii. 155), and this harbouring of William de Braose led to John's Irish expedition in June 1210 (, i. 408). Marshal had come over to England earlier in the year at John's bidding, and apparently recrossed with the king. After the defeat of the Lacys, John accused Marshal of having aided William de Braose in his flight; the earl boldly defended his conduct, declaring that he had no reason to believe Braose was the king's enemy. However, Marshal had to give further hostages, including his faithful squire, John of Early, or d'Erlegh, and also to surrender the castle of Dumas. John could not venture on more extreme measures with so powerful a noble, but he was probably glad that Marshal should be out of his way. The earl therefore remained in Ireland for the next two years; he seems to have been engaged in active warfare with the Irish, for Matthew Paris calls him ‘Hibernicis nocivus edomitor,’ but the only incident preserved is a quarrel with the Bishop of Ferns (iii. 43, iv. 493-4). Marshal, though resenting the king's treatment, did not abandon his attitude of loyalty, and in 1212 he joined with other Irish nobles in expressing his resentment at the pope's conduct as an encroachment on the liberties of the realm (, i. 448). As John's difficulties increased he turned once more for aid to Marshal. According to the ‘Histoire,’ the earl came over to England to take part in the war with Llywelyn ab Iorwerth [q. v.] in 1212, and then had most of his hostages restored. After this he went back again to Ireland (Histoire, ll. 14473-90). In July John summoned Marshal to meet him at Chester on 19 Aug. with John de Grey and his Irish subjects. But this order was countermanded in another letter (dated October 1212 by, but from the Histoire it would seem to belong to 1213), in which he ‘thanked the earl for his good services in Ireland and loyal attitude, but begged him to remain, as his assistance was needed by the justiciar. There was no truth in the report that it had been contemplated to send his son to Poitou, the boy should be put in charge of John d'Erlegh’ (, 1. 435, 443, 444). The latter incident is explained by the ‘Histoire,’ which shows that the young Marshals were now released as a means of conciliating their father (ll. 14491-14598).

Marshal came over to England in April 1213, and from this time is foremost among John's advisers; on 15 May he witnessed the king's charter of resignation to the pope at Dover (, ii. 546). Soon afterwards he received the castle of Haverfordwest, and in January 1214 those of Carmarthen, Cardigan, and Gower; Dumas was not restored till August 1215 (Cal. Rot. Pat. pp. 105, 109 b, 153 b). John also entrusted his eldest son to Marshal's charge (Hist. des Ducs de Normandie, p. 180). Marshal advised the king's expedition to Poitou in 1214; he himself was left behind in charge of England (Histoire, ll. 14672-99). He thus acted with the papal legate Nicholas of Tusculum at the council of St. Paul's to determine the payments for ecclesiastical property confiscated during the interdict. In June he sat as one of the justices at Bury St. Edmunds to decide the disputed election of Abbot Hugh (Memorials of St. Edmund's Abbey, ii. 75-9, Rolls Ser.)

In January 1215, when the barons


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Robins, Raymond

ROBINS, Raymond, American social economist: b. Staten Island, N. Y., 17 Sept. 1873. He was graduated at Columbian (now George Washington) University in 1896, and was engaged in settlement work in Chicago in 1902-05. He was a member of the Chicago board of education in 1906-09, and was social service expert for the Men and Religion Forward Movement in 1911-12, making a world tour in its interests in 1913. He was the Progressive candidate for United States senator from Illinois in 1914, and was leader of the National Christian Social Evangelistic campaign in 1915. He is an eloquent and forcible speaker and an advocate of organized labor and land value taxation.


text: Best Russian Short Stories/Dethroned

title: Best Russian Short Stories/Dethroned


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 36.djvu/236

 Marshal  the confirmation of the ancient charters, Marshal was one of the three sureties that the king would satisfy their demands before Easter. In April Marshal and Stephen Langton, the archbishop, were John's envoys to the barons at Brackley, and endeavoured in vain to effect an agreement. When John found that he must at least simulate a readiness to yield, Marshal conveyed to the barons the overtures which led to the meeting at Runnymede (15 June). On this famous occasion Marshal was present as one of the royal representatives, and his name appears as one of the counsellors of Magna Carta, and as one of those who swore to observe its provisions. But he still continued faithful in his attendance on the king, and during the winter was sent to France to try and avert the threatened invasion by Louis (, p. 180). The embassy failed, and when, in the following May, Louis entered England, it was by Marshal's advice that John retreated before him. Marshal's eldest son sided with Louis, for whom he captured Worcester in July; the earl is said to have given his son timely warning of the approach of the Earl of Chester. But his paternal affection did not interfere further with his general attitude of loyalty, and when John died, on 19 Oct. 1216, Marshal was one of the executors of the king's will.

Marshal was present when the young king Henry was crowned at Gloucester on 28 0ct., and, as there was no royal seal, issued the necessary letters under his own seal. A council of the principal members of the royalist party was held at BristolGloucester [sic] on 11 Nov., when Marshal was formally chosen by the common consent to be ‘rector regis et regni,’ an office for which his age and position clearly marked him out. A later writer represents the earl as presenting the little king to the assembled barons, and pleading with them not to visit the sins of the father on the son, but to lend him their aid for the expulsion of Louis (, i. 257, Engl. Hist. Soc.) In point of fact Marshal seems to have accepted the office of regent with some reluctance, on the score of his own great age (Histoire, l. 15510), but once he had taken the duty upon him he discharged it with his wonted fidelity. Peter des Roches, bishop of Winchester, and Walo the legate were associated with him in the government, while Hubert de Burgh retained the office of justiciar. The latter title is sometimes claimed for Marshal, and he is actually so styled in a charter dated 13 Nov. 1216 (Cal. Rot Claus. i. 295); the designation may, however, be due to error. The first act of Marshal's government was to republish the Great Charter on 12 Nov. Under the circumstances of the new reign the constitutional clauses respecting taxation and the great council were wisely omitted, and some minor matters held in suspense. After Christmas a truce was made with Louis, and about the middle of January a council of Henry's supporters was held at Oxford. The truce was prolonged till 23 April, and during its continuance many of Louis' supporters, and among them the regent's son, returned to their allegiance. On the conclusion of the truce Marshal sent the Earl of Chester to besiege Mountsorrel, Leicestershire, while he himself assembled an army for the relief of Lincoln Castle, which was besieged by the French and insurgent barons. The host mustered on 15 May at Newark, whence, two days later, they advanced towards Lincoln. On 20 May, while Marshal with his knights attacked the north gate, Falkes de Breauté obtained entrance to the castle. Then the earl forced his way into the town, and the barons, taken in front and in rear, were forced to surrender. But the French, under the Count of Perche, would not yield until Marshal had slain their leader with his own hand. Without waiting to refresh himself after the fight, the earl rode back to the king at Newark with the news of his victory (Ann. Mon. iv. 25). After sending his nephew, John Marshal [q. v.], to take measures for the interception of the French fleet that was coming to Louis' aid, Marshal marched south to blockade London. Hubert's naval victory over Eustace the Monk on 24 Aug. inclined Louis to peace. So the French prince sent Robert de Dreux on 28 Aug. to the regent at Rochester. An interview between Louis and Marshal was held at Kingston, which, after some negotiation, resulted in the treaty of Lambeth on 11 Sept. (Hist. des Ducs de Normandie, pp. 202-4; Fœdera, i. 148). In the conclusion of this treaty Marshal displayed a wise forbearance towards his English opponents, and made himself personally responsible to Louis for the payment of ten thousand marks (cf., i. 7; Cal. Rot. Claus. i. 369 b, 384). The peace was followed on 6 Nov. by a reissue of the Great Charter, which now assumed its final form; at the same time the charter of the forests was first published. There were still some recalcitrant barons from whom homage had to be exacted, and early in 1218 Marshal himself besieged one of them, Robert de Gaugirecalcitrants. In the autumn Marshal had to fight with Morgan Caerleon, and in early 1218 he beseiged Robert de Gaugi [sic], at Newark. But as a whole the kingdom was settling down into good order under Marshal's strong rule, while the position of the young king was secured by a provision that no deed which implied


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Robins, Thomas

ROBINS, Thomas, American inventor and manufacturer: b. West Point, N. Y., 1 Sept. 1868. He was educated at Princeton University and in 1892 began a series of inventions which led to the perfection of his ‘belt conveyor’ used for carrying coal, ores and other products. The invention received the grand prize at the Paris Exposition in 1900, and first prizes at the Buffalo and Saint Louis Expositions. He is president of the Robins Conveying Belt Company and of the Robins New Conveyor Company. In 1915 he was appointed to the United States Naval Advisory Board.


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 36.djvu/237

 Marshal should be issued till he was of full age. On 14 May 1219 Marshal died at Caversham, near Reading. Shortly before his death he had assumed the habit of a Templar (Hist. des Ducs de Normandie, p. 207; Histoire, 18119-982), and by his own directions he was buried in the Temple Church at London, where his recumbent effigy is still preserved. Camden quotes one line of his epitaph thus: Miles eram Martis, Mars omnes vicerat armis. Marshal's biographer refers constantly to his master with manifest pride as one Qui tant esteit proc & leials, and elsewhere makes Richard say of him, li Mar. Ne fu unques malveis ne fals. (Hist. l. 9857.) Uncompromising fidelity appears, indeed, to have been the most marked feature of Marshal's character. For fifty years he served Henry II, his three sons, and his grandson, and to each in the hour of his bitterest need proved himself the most faithful of friends. In his youth and to his contemporaries he was the most perfect type of chivalry; in his old age and in history he appears as one of the noblest of medieval soldier-statesmen. From the time that he acquired his earldom he filled the foremost place in England and Ireland, but while he never faltered in his loyalty he never, even in the worst days of John, compromised his honour. His regency was the worthy finish of his long life. In the attainment of the Great Charter he did not play a specially prominent part, for though he wisely recognised its need, he belonged by training and sympathy more to the age that was past than to that which was just beginning. His great and special work was the pacification of the realm after the period of disorder. This task he accomplished by the firm but conciliatory policy of his three short years of rule, and it is because he thus made possible the realisation of the charters that he deserves an honourable place among the founders of English liberty.

In person Marshal was tall and well made, with comely features and brown hair; so dignified in carriage that he might have been emperor of Rome (ib. ll. 715-36). One chronicler calls him ‘a most valiant soldier of world-wide renown’ (Ann. Mon. iv. 61). Matthew Paris (iii. 43; iv. 493) quotes two lines from some verses by one Gervase de Melkely:

Sum, quem Saturnum sibi sensit Hibernia, Solem Anglia, Mercurium Normannia, Gallia Martem.

Matthew Paris also refers to an epitaph by Henry of Avranches, which is now lost. Marshal's fame was hardly less great in France than at home, and on his death Philip Augustus said of him: mes li Mar.       Fui, al mein dit, li plus leials, Veir, que jeo unques connuisse En nul lui ou je unques fuisse. (Hist. ll. 19149-52.) By the death of his elder brother in 1194 Marshal had acquired the lands of his family, chiefly in Berkshire and Wiltshire. They were not, however, to be compared with the vast inheritance of his wife, which comprised in Ireland almost the whole of Leinster, great estates in South Wales and in the Welsh marches, and the lands of Orbec and Longueville in Normandy. From the last he seems to have held the title of Count of Longueville (Recueil des Historiens de la France, xxiii. 435). His only important foundation was the priory of Cartmel, which he established for the souls of Henry II and King Henry the younger ‘his lord,’ and also for those of King Richard, his ancestors, and his wife. He also founded Graiguenamanagh or Duisk, in co. Kilkenny, for Cistercians, in 1212; an abbey at Bannow Bay, Wexford, which was called Tintern, and commemorated his deliverance from a storm by seasea in 1200 [sic]; the priory of St. Augustine at Kilkenny; and a house for the Hospitallers at Lough Garmon. To many other houses he made lesser benefactions.

Marshal married in August 1189 Isabella or Eva, daughter of Richard de Clare, earl of Pembroke and Striguil (d. 1176), by Eva, daughter of Dermot, king of Leinster. Isabella was born in 1173, and, dying in 1220, was buried at Tintern, Monmouthshire (Chart. St. Mary, Dublin, ii. 142). By her Marshal had five sons and five daughters. Of the former, who were all successively earls of Pembroke and marshals of England, the two elder, William, second earl, and Richard, third earl, are noticed separately.

, fourth and  (d. 1241), the third son, was of weakly constitution, and originally intended for an ecclesiastical career. He took minor orders, and received the livings of Orford, Suffolk, 30 May 1225, and Wingham, Kent, 19 Sept. 1228 (cf. Histoire, ll. 14889-14892). He joined his brother Richard in his opposition to the king's foreign advisers in 1233, and acted for his brother in Ireland, where he won over all except the Lacys and their followers to his side. After his brother's death he passed over to Wales (Ann. Mon. iv. 80;, i. 2109), and through the


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/223

 Rh mutually nullifying. The timorous man, when brought to bay, may in desperation become "truculent," but that is not his normal and characteristic state. Can it be that our correspondent was betrayed into confounding the "truculent" man with the truckler? If so, his lameness in etymology comports well with his obliqueness of vision in economics and sociology.

Our friend illustrates the facility with which many men zealous for social weal assume their facts and extemporize their conclusions. One of the most constant aims of this Journal will be to assist in reforming this vice. In three chief particulars the letter cited exemplifies familiar faults of lapse from scientific method in thinking. First, in the truly truculent epithet "arch-robber of America." We do not believe that this classification is correct. With due regard for recognized canons of induction it would be competent to make the phrase the working hypothesis in further investigation of the character of the man so disposed of. The presumption is of course scientifically admissible that he is personally, and as an industrial factor, the evil agent alleged. The evidence in our possession leads us to adopt a different presumption. Meanwhile for us to volunteer a vindication of his character would perhaps be a degree more impertinent than for us to assail his motives or his acts.

Waiving personalities then, we take this opportunity to remark that it is possible to serve the cause of justice and to promote the common weal without begging social questions, and without joining in vulgar denunciations of social factors which after all may prove to be social blessings. Great organizers of industry control power to do great injustice, and in many cases they have flagrantly misused that power. Whenever this is done it is more culpable than the sins of men who are less responsible. Wrong is wrong, no matter how many hospitals and churches and colleges are built by the men who commit it. On the other hand it is far from certain that the most confident critics of industrial order are always competent judges of industrial wrongs. They certainly are not if they are incapable of distinguishing between the use and the abuse of organization and of aggregated capital. It is both wrong and stupid for people to provoke each other into spasms of indignation against colossal business organizations in general, or against the managers of vast industrial operations, as such. This will not be equivocal in exposing the usurpations of capitalism, or in explaining principles to which the people must learn to hold


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/225

 Rh opinion on this subject, while some of the newspapers have expressed another. Under such circumstances it would seem that persons soberly in search of truth would decide that, even if they cannot accept the assurances of the University as finalities, suspension of judgment is necessary until demonstrative evidence appears.

Professor Bemis is a contributor to this number of the, and we shall be glad to publish articles from his pen in the future upon any subject which he is competent to discuss. We should be especially pleased to present his own exposition of any doctrines which any person of authority or influence in connection with the University of Chicago has ever called in question. The liberty assured to him here is in no respect greater than that which every instructor enjoys as a matter of course at Chicago. In other words, as representatives of the University have repeatedly testified, and as we personally know to be the fact, freedom of thought and freedom of instruction is in no way involved in Professor Bemis' relations with the University. "A determination to throttle free investigation" has never in any way made its appearance in this or any other case within the University, except in the imagination of interested parties.

We reiterate this oft-repeated statement not because the affairs of the University of Chicago deserve special prominence in this, but to show the irrelevance of our correspondent's allusion, and the inconsequence of his reasoning. Even if these assertions are of no more intrinsic weight than those of editors and reporters who make contradictory representations, they are certainly of sufficient significance to raise doubts in a scientific mind about the validity of the inference concerning this. In the third place, the letter exemplifies one of the most vicious forms of a priori reasoning. Its circle of fallacy is: first, all institutions founded by private wealth are the tools of private interest; second, because The University of Chicago is a tool of private interest, therefore no good thing can come from it in the way of social science. Argument of this sort proves nothing except the unscientific attitude of the minds which it satisfies. The foundation of the University of Chicago was hardly announced when the same kind of dogmatism settled the character of the religious influence which it would exert. "An institution founded by a single religious denomination must be narrow and bigoted; ergo, etc." Facts, with their traditional stubbornness, have already estopped that line of attack, but now an


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/227

 Rh before me. A religious newspaper of good standing gets a professor of sociology (in a theological seminary, it is true, rather than from a university) and an able doctor of divinity to write articles on 'the present sociological movement.' They assume, and rightly in all probability, that they are desired to discuss the present social movement, and not the progress in the science of sociology, which alone is the sociological movement. Yet the reader finds in both these writers only an occasional approach in all their articles to any appreciation of the fact that 'social' and 'sociological' are words having very distinct meanings, and he will quickly see that their articles would be helpful just in proportion to their careful observance of the difference between them."

CHRISTIAN SOCIOLOGY. the other topic Dr. Dike says, with equal precision: "Christian Sociology is a term that may have a certain but limited scientific value. For the Bible, Christianity, and the church have a great deal to do with social problems or with 'the social problem,' as the rather vague popular generalization puts it. But their relation to social problems or subjects is one thing, and their relation to the problems of sociology as a science is quite another. The one is chiefly within the field of practical religion; the other comes mainly within the realm of science, where the Bible is silent so far as any positive teaching goes.

"Christianity is found in the very warp and woof of human social life. Its institutions are part of the material of human society. Christianity is a tremendous social force, and its sacred books are a mine of rich sociological material, which has been hardly opened by the sociologist as it should be. These resources are therefore indispensable to the sociologist. They are so great and important that he may well treat them under the appropriately scientific title of Christian Sociology. But when he does this he will mean by the phrase something like that which is meant when the scientific men speak of Australian Botany, or the Botany of the United States or of Massachusetts. Yet this does not imply that we are to have a Christian science of society, but rather that our science has taken Christianity into its field, and as one great section of it, as it should do. To go to work determining the title, principles and methods of the science by the


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/224

 212 corporations accountable. We believe that what we shall have to say on these subjects will have the more weight if our policy is obviously controlled by judgment in which a measure of intelligence is apparent about the function of aggregated capital.

The fact is that our era is a period of experimentation with almost untried possibilities of industrial combination. It is quite possible that the organization of production and circulation and distribution toward which we are tending will be so different from present arrangements that all attempts to imagine it are at fault. This being the case, we oppose to the assumption that industrial combination is robbery, the counter assumption that industrial combination is progress. The final truth doubtless lies somewhere between these two extremes; viz., perfected combination, restrained and controlled by just principles, and operated in all its departments by just men, will signalize an advanced social condition. The substitution of more for less effective industrial organization may necessarily, as in the substitution of machinery for hand labor, involve enormous hardship to individuals. The men who are devising and testing new powers of organization may nevertheless, like the great mechanical inventors, turn out to have done more for the human race in applying their talents to industrial administration, than through the sum of their acknowledged benefactions, by which ignorant people assume that rich men alone justify their existence.

Our correspondent exemplifies a defective method of thought, second, in his allusion to Professor Bemis. Certain newspapers, for reasons about which it is needless to speculate, have labored to create the impression that the relations of Professor Bemis to the University of Chicago are of public interest, because he is the victim of gag-rule in that institution. The only persons who know the facts have repeatedly assured representatives of the press that nothing in the case is of any interest to the public, because no principle in which the public is concerned is in any way involved. The reference above nevertheless presupposes the right to believe anonymous newspaper writers, and to reject the statements of responsible University officials.

When the veracity of persons in a quasi public position has thus been challenged by the newspapers, there is room for difference of opinion about the wisdom of further utterances in support of previous denials. Thus far, and in our judgment for good and sufficient reasons, the authorities of The University of Chicago have adopted one


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/226

 214 in the indictment and a change of venue is the signal for more volleys of the same blank logic.

We wonder how people can take themselves seriously, who think they are prepared for social science, while they prefer to evolve their knowledge from prejudice and hearsay, rather than to await the demonstration of fact. This asks no favor, and it expects no mercy. It proposes, however, to deserve respect. We believe that it will commend itself to the large number of Americans who wish to study society candidly and are capable of judging scientific work upon its merits.

SOCIAL VS. SOCIOLOGICAL. an article entitled What is Sociology? Dr. Samuel W. Dike speaks with his usual wisdom upon two topics of interest to our readers. We quote his words upon the first subject the more readily because we appropriated, without criticism, in our first issue, a part of the symposium to which Dr. Dike quite justly refers. He says:

"Another point is the service which popular writers and speakers may render by a careful use of the words sociological and social, as well as of the word sociology itself. Suppose we all follow the lead of the scientific men and of the best writers, and make the proper distinction between the words social and sociological that we are all accustomed to make between the terms religious and theological. No intelligent clergyman would think of speaking of a religious problem as a theological problem, unless he wished to call attention directly to its theological, in the sense of scientific aspects rather than to its practical character. A mistake of this sort would betray ignorance or gross heedlessness in writing and speaking. Now, if writers, and especially editors, professors of social ethics in our theological seminaries, and preachers, will say simply 'social' when that is all they mean, and talk of social rather than of sociological problems when all they have in mind is the practical or generally intelligent treatment of social topics, and not be constantly confusing their readers and themselves by an indiscriminate use of the word 'sociological' in both senses, they will do the science and the people a great service. The practice would clear up a good deal of fog.

"An aggravating case of the need of this discrimination is now


text:
Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 1.djvu/228

 216 of the Christian religion is as foolish as were the old attempts to adjust astronomy and geology to the Bible. The time for that sort of work is gone by, just as chairs in theological seminaries for the adjustment of the relations between science and revealed religion are going out of favor. A robust Christianity has little use for such props.

"It is in the practical work of social improvement that we must draw most heavily on the resources of Christianity. Social science will bring us material, put it in its order, and help us to a sound understanding of it, and we shall use it more than ever before. From Christianity, on the other hand, we shall get the highest scientific incentive, inspiration to the love of truth, to docility, and to the diligent use of scientific resources, just as we do in any of the other sciences, but to a greater amount, because of the dominance of the social elements in the field of religion.

"Christian sociology as a popular catchword for the science, or as a phrase for those who have lent their minds to certain preconceived theories beyond recovery, will have its run. But unless I greatly mistake the trend of thought, its course among educated people is nearly at an end. And if those who stand nearest the people in the pulpit, press, and on the platform, will be careful in their use of terms, the better thought and usage will soon prevail."

OUR CORRESPONDENCE DEPARTMENT.

We desire to make the supply the place of a teacher, so far as possible, in the case of all classes of students who are unable to get into direct contact with living instructors. Our department "" is intended for answers to correspondents on all subjects which naturally arise when the attempt is made to pursue the study of society independently. We wish to afford the same kind of help to our readers that seminar students receive from their director. We do not mean to encourage the supposition that the living teacher, and the environment of scholarship and research are luxuries for which there are cheap substitutes. We wish however to make the a means of partially offsetting the disadvantage of never having had instruction in the subjects with which we deal, and also of promoting the continuance of social studies that were begun in college or university.

We therefore invite all our readers to propose by mail any questions about methods of study, sources of information, bibliography, etc.,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 36.djvu/238

 Marshal mediation of Archbishop Edmund was soon fully pardoned, together with his two younger brothers (, i. 438-9;, i. 2120, 2151, 2175). On 11 June, at Worcester, the king knighted him, and invested him with his earldom and marshalry (Ann. Mon. iii. 137). Though nominally taken into full favour, Gilbert seems to have meditated an appeal to the pope (, i. 2284). He was very friendly with his brother-in-law, Richard, earl of Cornwall, whom he supported in his opposition to the court favourites and in his open rising in 1238 (, iii. 476). As a result he fell once more into disfavour. On 12 Nov. 1239 he took the cross with Earl Richard at Northampton, on condition that he was reconciled to the king, which Richard promised to effect. When, in July 1240, he was on the point of leaving England Henry recalled him, and took him into favour. On 27 June 1241, while taking part in a tournament at Ware, he was thrown from his horse and dragged. His injuries caused his death the same day, and he was buried by his father in the Temple at London; an effigy supposed to be his is still preserved. Gilbert Marshal married, first, in September 1230, Margaret de Lanvallei (Excerpta e Rot. Fin. i. 202); secondly, in August 1235, Margaret, sister of Alexander II of Scotland, with whom he received a large dower (Ann. Mon. iii. 143), but left no children. A portrait, drawn by Matthew Paris, who depicts him falling from his horse, is engraved in Doyle's ‘Official Baronage.’

, fifth (d. 1245), the fourth son, was not yet a knight in 1225 (Histoire, l. 14895). He was with his brother Richard in Ireland in 1234, and at the Curragh of Kildare, when his brother sent him away from the battle. He was pardoned at the same time as Gilbert. In May 1240 he was sent into Wales with an army to restore Cardigan Castle. After Gilbert's death Henry, in anger at the holding of the tournament, which had been prohibited, withheld investiture from Walter till October 1241. Walter accompanied the king to Gascony in 1242. On 6 Jan. 1242 he married Margery, widow of John de Lacy, earl of Lincoln [q. v.], but died without issue, at Goodrich Castle, in 1245, apparently on 24 Nov. ( iv. 491 ;, i. 2798), and was buried at Tintern.

(d. 1245), the fifth son, then succeeded as sixth earl, but before he could receive investiture died at Striguil (or Chepstow) on 23 Dec. 1245, and was buried by his brother. His wife was Maud, daughter of Humphrey de Bohun, second earl of Hereford. Thus the five sons of the great marshal had all been earls of one earldom and died without issue, as their mother is said to have prophesied. Another story ascribed the failure of the family to the curse of the Bishop of Ferns (, iv. 492-3; cf., i. 823, 825).

Marshal's daughters were: 1. Matilda (d. 1248), who married in 1206 Hugh Bigod, third earl of Norfolk (Histoire, l. 13338), by whom she had a son Roger, who became in her right Earl Marshal. Hugh Bigod died in 1225, and Matilda then married William, earl of Warenne (d. 1240). 2. Isabella, who married first, on 9 Oct. 1217, Gilbert de Clare, seventh earl of Clare [q. v.], and had six children; secondly, in 1231, Richard, earl of Cornwall. 3. Sibilla, married William, earl of Ferrers or Derby, and had seven daughters. 4. Eva, married William, son of Reginald de Braose, by whom she had a daughter, Matilda, who married Roger Mortimer (d. 1282). 5. Johanna, who, after her father's death, married Warin de Munchensi, and had two children, John and Johanna; the latter married William de Valence [q. v.], who was created Earl of Pembroke, and from whom the earls of the Hastings line descended (Histoire, ll. 14915-56; Chart. St. Mary, Dublin, ii. 144, 313). The vast lands of William Marshal were divided among the numerous representatives of his daughters. The office of marshal passed through his eldest daughter to the Bigods, earls of Norfolk, and through them to the Mowbrays, and eventually to the Howards. As their representative the present Duke of Norfolk is earl-marshal of England.

John Marshal, first baron Marshal of Hingham [q. v.], was a nephew. Two other nephews were Anselm Le Gras, who was treasurer of Exeter in 1205, and bishop of St. Davids from 1230 to 1247 (,Fasti,i. 291, 414;Ann. Mon. iv. 422), and William Le Gras or Grace, who fought under the younger William Marshal in Ireland.


text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Robinson, Edward (scholar)

ROBINSON, Edward, American Biblical scholar: b. Southington, Conn., 10 April 1794; d. New York, 27 Jan. 1863. He was graduated at Hamilton College in 1816 and went in 1821 to Andover to publish his edition of books i-ix,

xviii and xix of the ‘Iliad’. There he aided Moses Stuart (q.v.) in the preparation of the second edition (1823) of the latter's ‘Hebrew Grammar,’ and rendered into English (1825) Wahl's ‘ Clavis Philologica Novi Testamenti.’ After European study, largely in Halle and Berlin (1826-30), he was professor extraordinary of sacred literature in the Andover Theological Seminary in 1830-33, and professor of Biblical literature in Union Theological Seminary from 1837 until his death. In 1838 and 1852 he visited Palestine with the scholarly missionary, Eli Smith, and there made careful surveys and investigations. His chief work, ‘Biblical Researches’ (1841; 3 vols. compressed into 2, with a 3d 1856), which obtained for him the Royal Geographical Society's gold medal, was based on these studies. He was a leading member of the American ethnological, geographical and Oriental societies, and edited in 1831-34 the ‘Biblical Repository,’ in 1843 the ‘Bibliotheca Sacra,’ with which the ‘Repository’ was incorporated, and for which he continued to write until 1855. Among his other publications are ‘A Dictionary of the Bible’ (1883); editions of Buttmann's ‘Greek Grammar’ (1833; 3d ed., 1851) and Gensenius' ‘Hebrew Lexicon’ (1836; 5th ed. 1854), and Greek (1845; 2d ed., 1851) and English (1846) ‘Harmonies of the Gospels.’ Consult Hitchcock, ‘Life, Writings and Character of Edward Robinson’ (1863).


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 36.djvu/239

 Marshal   MARSHAL, WILLIAM, second and  (d. 1231), was eldest son of William Marshal, first earl of Pembroke [q. v.], by Isabella, daughter of Richard de Clare. The first mention of him occurs on 6 Nov. 1203, when it was arranged that he should marry Alice, daughter of Baldwin de Bethune (Charter Rolls, pp. 112b-13). After his father fell into suspicion on account of his homage to Philip Augustus in 1205, the young William was given as a hostage to the king (Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal, ll. 13272-3). Previously to August 1212 he was in charge of Robert FitzRoger(Cal. Rot. Pat. p. 94b), but soon afterwards he was released and put under the care of his father's squire, John d'Erlegh. The king wrote to the earl that his son was in need of horses and clothes, and offered to provide for him, at the same time he denied that it was intended to send the young William out of England (Cal. Rot. Claus. i. 133; cf. Histoire, ll. 14533-64). In 1214 Marshal married his bride, but the marriage does not seem to have been of long duration, though Alice was alive in September 1215 (ib. 11.14990-15015; Cal. Rot. Pat. p. 156). On coming to manhood Marshal at once joined the baronial party, and was present at the meeting at Stamford in February 1215. In June he was one of the twenty-five executors of Magna Carta, and was in consequence excommunicated by Innocent III on 11 Dec. On 9 April 1216 Marshal, being still in opposition to the king, had letters of safe-conduct to come to his father (ib. p. 175b). He did not, however, return to his loyalty, and when Louis of France landed in May, Marshal was one of those who rendered him homage. When the French prince made Adam de Beaumont marshal of his host, William complained that this office was his by hereditary right, and though his claim was conceded a feeling of bitterness perhaps remained (Hist. des Ducs de Normandie, p. 174). Nevertheless in July Marshal seized Worcester for Louis; but when Randulph earl of Chester came up on 17 July Marshal, forewarned as it is said by his father, took flight. Like others of his party the young Marshal resented the pride of the French nobles; he himself had a particular ground of complaint, because Marlborough, with which his family had been so long connected, was granted to Robert de Dreux. In consequence he abandoned Louis in the autumn of 1216, and retired to Wales, though he did not at once join the party of the young king (ib. p. 175). It was perhaps he and not his father who during 1217But in February 1217 [sic] captured Caerleon(Bruty Tywysogion, p. 303). In March 1217 Marshal, aided by William Longsword [q. v.], rose against Louis at Rye, and formally joined the royal party (Chron. de Mailros, p. 130, Bannatyne Club). From this time he supported his father actively, and fought with himIn the following month he took part with his father in operations against Louis in Surrey and Hampshire and played a foremost part in the fight [sic] at Lincoln on 20 May. He was put in charge of the lands of various members of the opposite party; so early as March 1217 he had received those of Earls Saher of Winchester and David of Huntingdon (Cal. Doc. Scotland, i. 666). He also held the castles of Marlborough and Ludgershall, Wiltshire, but his attitude seems to have caused the young king's advisers some anxiety. His wife was dead and he was proposing to marry a daughter of Robert de Bruce. As it was desirable to detach him from the northern lords and from the French, to whom his brother Richard's position in Normandy inclined him, he was promised the hand of the king's sister Eleanor (, i. 244).

Marshal was with his father at the time of his death in May 1219, and at once entered peacefully on his vast inheritance and earldom. The Norman lands also came nominally to him, but he surrendered them formally to his brother Richard by charter dated 20 June 1220 (, Rot. Normanniæ, II. cxxxviii). In the summer of 1220 Llywelyn attacked Marshal's land in Pembroke, and wrought such mischief that the raid is said to have been more costly than Richard's ransom (Ann. Mon. iii. 61). The earl complained to the king, but for the time abstained from active warfare (, i. 143-4,150). However, two years later, when Marshal was absent in Ireland, Llywelyn took advantage to renew the war, and captured the earl's castles of Abertavy and Carmarthen. At this news Marshal returned from Ireland with a large host, landing at St. Davids on Palm Sunday, 9 April 1223. Abertavy was