text:
The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Synge, John Millington

SYNGE, sing, John Millington, Irish dramatist: b. Newtown Little, near Rathfarnham, 1871; d. 24 March 1909. He received his education at Trinity College, Dublin, where he was graduated in 1892. For about seven years he studied music in Germany and languages in Germany, Italy and France. He spent several years in the Latin Quarter of Paris where he gave his attention to the study of decadent French literature, especially to Baudelaire. He accomplished little in Paris but being meanwhile interested in Ireland, in 1899 William Butler Yeats persuaded him to abandon his efforts as a French literary critic and study the social types manners and customs of the inhabitants of the Aran Islands, a people

who still retained their primitive Celtic culture. He finally settled in Dublin where he became one of the literary advisers to the Abbey Theatre and where he produced his dramas. These are remarkable for the angry protests and discussions which they provoked when produced in Ireland and in the United States. His first play was ‘In the Shadow of the Glen’ (1903); followed by ‘Riders to the Sea.’ ‘The Tinker's Wedding,’ although written in 1902, was not produced until 1909. ‘The Will of the Saints,’ a tragic-comedy (1905), was performed in German at Berlin in 1906. In 1907 appeared ‘The Playboy of the Western World,’ about which there arose violent discussion and protest. Some critics hail it as the best comedy in English since Sheridan, while in Ireland it is regarded as a savagely ironical treatment of a situation more frequently found in Baudelaire than in contemporary peasant life in Ireland. These plays have a wonderful diction and set the fashion for that peasant drama which became the most prominent feature of the Abbey Theatre. In design and substance, however, Synge's dramas are of the Gallic decadence. ‘Riders to the Sea,’ perhaps the least objectionable, is, mutato nomine, Pierre Loti's ‘Pêcheurs d'Islande,’ in an Irish setting. The dominant idea of ‘The Well of the Saints’ (1905) is from a play of Clémenceau's. The story of ‘The Shadow of the Glen’ is found in Voltaire's ‘Zadig,’ and the notorious ‘Playboy of the Western World’ is merely a dramatization of a work of Baudelaire. The form and tone of the plays of Synge are no less foreign than the substance; there are frequent sneers at the morals and religious practices of the Irish, and in ‘The Playboy’ are several blasphemous utterances; the characters of the latter are devoid of all semblance of good, and their sole moral motive is “fear of Father Reilly.” In short, Synge is “much Maeterlincked, Baudelaired and Ibsenized, but Gaelicized not at all.” As regards their dramatic and literary value, however, it is admitted that these plays possess a certain beauty. The talk of the Irish peasant is at times shot through with a queer poetic imaginativeness. It abounds in quaint terms, idioms and images unknown to English. These peculiarities Synge has reproduced and accentuated. And it is little wonder that to audiences strangers to the Gaedhaltacht his work should appeal with a sense of delightful freshness and originality. Synge's peasants are viewed through a distorted medium. He himself had admitted in private life that the Connacht peasant whom he put upon the stage was not the peasant as he existed in real life, but the writer's own literary fancies set amid Connacht surroundings. Consult article by D. J. O'Donoghue (in Irish Daily Independent, 21 Aug. 1911) in which he points out the foreign sources of Synge's plots; O'Neill, George (in Irish Catholic, 23 Dec. 1911); America (New York, issues September-October 1911); Yeats, J. B., ‘J. M. Synge and the Ireland of His Time’ (New York 1912). See .
 * ../Playboy of the Western World, The;


text: Author:Grace R. Robinson

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

title: Author:Grace R. Robinson


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Caroline Matilda


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Preston, John (1587-1628)


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/196

 to him the numbers. In small assemblies a show of hands may be substituted for a rising vote.

When the vote is taken by voice or show of hands any member has a right to require a division of the assembly [25] by having the affirmative rise and then the negative, so that all may see how members vote. Either before or after a decision any member may call for, or demand, a count, and, if seconded, the chair must put the question on ordering a count. In organizations where it is desired to allow less than a majority vote to order a count or tellers, a special rule should be adopted specifying the necessary vote. Where no rule has been adopted a majority vote is required to order a count, or that the vote be taken by ballot or by yeas and nays (roll call). Announcing the Vote. When the vote has been taken so that the chair has no doubt as to the result, and no division is called for, or, if so, the assembly has divided, the chair proceeds to announce, or declare the vote thus: "The ayes have it and the resolution is adopted." If he is not very positive, he may say, "The ayes seem to have it," and, if no one says he doubts the vote or calls for a division, after a slight pause he adds, "The ayes have it," etc. If the vote was by show of hands or by rising, it would be announced thus: "The affirmative has it (or, the motion is carried) and the question is laid on the table;"


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/197

 or if there was a count, the vote would be announced thus: "There are 95 votes in the affirmative, and 99 in the negative, so the amendment is lost, and the question is now on the resolution; are you ready for the question?" In announcing a vote the chair should state first whether the motion is carried or lost; second, what is the effect, or result, of the vote; and third, what is the immediately pending question or business, if there is any. If there is none, he should ask, "What is the further pleasure of the assembly?" One of the most prolific causes of confusion in deliberative assemblies is the neglect of the chair to keep the assembly well informed as to what is the pending business. The habit of announcing the vote by simply saying that the "motion is carried" and then sitting down, cannot be too strongly condemned. Many members may not know what is the effect of the vote, and it is the chair's duty to inform the assembly what is the result of the motion's being carried or lost, and what business comes next before the assembly.

When a quorum [64] is present, a majority vote, that is a majority of the votes cast, ignoring blanks, is sufficient for the adoption of any motion that is in order, except those mentioned in 48, which require a two-thirds vote. A plurality never adopts a motion nor elects any one to office, unless by virtue of a special rule previously adopted. On a tie vote the


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/198

 motion is lost, and the chair, if a member of the assembly, may vote to make it a tie unless the vote is by ballot. The chair cannot, however, vote twice, first to make a tie and then give the casting vote. In case of an appeal [21], though the question is, "Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the assembly?" a tie vote, even though his vote made it a tie, sustains the chair, upon the principle that the decision of the chair can be reversed only by a majority, including the chair if a member of the assembly.

It is a general rule that no one can vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest. Yet this does not prevent a member from voting for himself for any office or other position, as voting for a delegate or for a member of a committee; nor from voting when other members are included with him in the motion, even though he has a personal or pecuniary interest in the result, as voting on charges preferred against more than one person at a time, or on a resolution to increase the salaries of all the members. If a member could in no case vote on a question affecting himself, it would be impossible for a society to vote to hold a banquet, or for a legislature to vote salaries to members, or for the majority to prevent a small minority from preferring charges against them and suspending or expelling them. By simply including the names of all the members, except those


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/199

 of their own faction, in a resolution preferring charges against them, the minority could get all the power in their own hands, were it not for the fact that in such a case all the members are entitled to vote regardless of their personal interest. A sense of delicacy usually prevents a member from exercising this right of voting in matters affecting himself except where his vote might affect the result. After charges are preferred against a member, and the assembly has ordered him to appear for trial, he is theoretically under arrest, and is deprived of all rights of membership and therefore cannot vote until his case is disposed of.

A member has the right to change his vote up to the time the vote is finally announced. After that, he can make the change only by permission of the assembly, which may be given by general consent; that is, by no member's objecting when the chair inquires if any one objects. If objection is made, a motion may be made to grant the permission, which motion is undebatable.

While it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on the question to express it by his vote, yet he cannot be compelled to do so. He may prefer to abstain from voting, though he knows the effect is the same as if he voted on the prevailing side. Voting by Ballot. The main object of this form of voting is secrecy, and it is resorted to


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/200

 when the question is of such a nature that some members might hesitate to vote publicly their true sentiments. Its special use is in the reception of members, elections, and trials of members and officers, as well as in the preliminary steps in both cases, and the by-laws should require the vote to be by ballot in such cases. Where the by-laws do not require the vote to be by ballot, it can be so ordered by a majority vote, or by general consent. Such motions are undebatable. Voting by ballot is rarely, if ever, used in legislative bodies, but in ordinary societies, especially secret ones, it is habitually used in connection with elections and trials, and sometimes for the selection of the next place for the meeting of a convention. As the usual object of the ballot is secrecy, where the by-laws require the vote to be taken by ballot any motion is out of order which members cannot oppose without exposing their views on the question to be decided by ballot. Thus, it is out of order to move that one person cast the ballot of the assembly for a certain person when the by-laws require the vote to be by ballot. So, when the ballot is not unanimous it is out of order to move to make the vote unanimous, unless the motion is voted on by ballot so as to allow members to vote against it in secrecy.

In some cases black balls and white ones and a ballot box are provided for voting, where the question can be answered yes or no. The white ball answers yes, and the black one no. But in ordinary deliberative


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/201

 the ballots are strips of paper upon which are printed, or written, yes or no, or the names of the candidates, as the case may be. These ballots are first distributed and are afterwards collected by tellers, either by being dropped into a hat or box by the members, who remain in their seats; or by the members coming to the ballot box and handing their folded ballot to a teller, who deposits it in the ballot box. In the latter case it is necessary for the tellers to see that no member votes twice, which in large societies can be best done by checking off the names from a list of members as the ballots are deposited. The ballots should usually be folded so that if more than one is voted by the same person the tellers will detect it in unfolding the ballot. In satisfying themselves that only one ballot is voted, the vote may be exposed if the ballot is not folded. When every one appears to have voted, the chair inquires. "Have all voted who wish to?" and if there is no response he says, "The polls are closed," whereupon the tellers proceed to count the ballots. If in unfolding the ballots it is found that two have been folded together, both are rejected as fraudulent. A blank piece of paper is not counted as a ballot and would not cause the rejection of the ballot with which it was folded. All blanks are ignored as simply waste paper, and are not reported, the members who do not wish to vote adopting this method of concealing the fact. Small technical errors, like the misspelling of a word, should not be noticed if the meaning of the ballot is clear. For instance, if at the trial of a member a ballot was written "gilty," every one knows what was intended. In all cases where the name on the ballot sounds like the name of one of the candidates it should be so credited. If a ballot is written "John- son," or "Johnston," or "Johnstone," it should be credited to the candidate whose name is one of these: but if there are two candidates with these names and no eligible member with the name on the ballot, it must be rejected as illegal, or reported to the chair, who will at once submit the question to the assembly as to whom the ballot should be credited. If these doubtful ballots will not affect the result, the tellers may make their full report without asking for


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Peirce, James


text:
Page:Robert's Rules of Order - 1915.djvu/202

 in regard to them, placing these doubtful votes opposite the exact name as written on the ballot. Votes for ineligible persons and fraudulent votes should be reported under the heading of "Illegal Votes," after the legal votes. When two or three filled-out ballots are folded together they are counted as one fraudulent vote. The names of the candidates should be arranged in order, the one receiving the highest number of legal votes being first. In reporting the number of votes cast and the number necessary for election, all votes except blanks must be counted. Suppose the tellers find 100 ballot papers, 4 of which are blank. 1 contains two filled-out ones folded together, and 50 are cast for a person who is ineligible because of having held the office as long as permitted by the constitution: the tellers' report should be in this form: Number of votes cast ... 96

Necessary for election ... 49

Mr. A received ... 37

Mr. B received ... 8

Mr. C (ineligible) received ... 50

One ballot containing two for Mr. D, folded together, rejected as fraudulent ... 1 The teller first named, standing, addresses the chair, reads the report and hands it to the chairman, and takes his seat, without saying who is elected. The chairman again reads the report of the tellers and declares who is elected. In the case just given he says there is no election, stating the reason. If no one is elected, it is necessary to ballot again, and to continue balloting until there is an election. The chairman should always vote in case of a ballot. Should he fail to do so before the polls are closed, he cannot then do it without the permission of the assembly. When the tellers report, they should hand the ballots to the secretary, who should retain them until it is certain that the assembly will not order a recount, which is within its power to do by a majority vote.


text:
Page:Englishmen in the French Revolution.djvu/311

 Sir William Codrington's Imprisonment. (See page 148.)

letter, dated January 3, 1795, and received in London February 23, 1795, is confirmed, as to the noisomeness of the Conciergerie and the light-heartedness or apathy of the inmates, by Beugnot and other French prisoners:—

, 14 Nivose, 3 année Républicaine.

You may. think, perhaps, that you have lived long enough to know how to date a letter, but I can show you that the wisest may learn.

You may also learn that I am all alive again; how that comes about I am at a loss to tell you, unless you have faith in predestination; and, after all, that is the best way of accounting for it, that my time was not come; otherwise I presume I should have accompanied many of my companions. However, all is well that ends well; but would it were ended! For though I have escaped one great storm, the weather still seems inclined to be squally. To finish a history of fifteen months


text: The American Journal of Sociology/Volume 01/Number 2/Local Alliances


text: The American Journal of Sociology/Volume 01/Number 2/Christian Sociology: I. Man


text:
Portal:Film/French

 * This page lists all films in French appearing in the English Wikisource.

 * L
 * Le Voyage dans la Lune

title: Portal:Film/French


text: Sherlock Holmes Baffled

title: Sherlock Holmes Baffled


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/531

 Rh Mitha Khan advised him to strike direct at Dera Ghazi Khan, "for", he said, "when they hear that your army is marching on Dera, everyone will hurry away to protect his home and wife and children, and the Nawab's army will melt away. Then turn and fall upon Jampur, and seize it." ’Abdullah Khan said this was good advice, and he would follow it, so he set his face towards Dera, and the Nawab's army went to pieces. Then ’Abdullah Khan attacked Jampur and took it, and remained there for a month.

A certain Mochi (leather-dresser) who lived at Jampur had a very beautiful wife named Samri, and she was taken prisoner by Muhabbat Khan (’Abdullah Khan's son). After the victory, the army went back again to Khorasan, and Muhabbat Khan took away Samri with him, and made her his concubine, and loved her greatly. Samri's husband followed her up, and went to 'Abdullah Khan at Kilat to complain, and begged him, in God's name, to give him Samri back again; but ’Abdullah Khan said: "Muhabbat Khan is that sort of man, that if he hears that Samri's husband has come, he will just kill you; but this I will do for you. Go round all through my country as far as my Khanship extends, and look round till you find a maiden to suit you, and I give you my word I will marry her to you." But the Mochi said, "I care for no other but Samri."

He stayed for a year at Kilat, but at last he was told to go, and he went away, and came down to the plains to the Shrine of Jive Lal, and there he stayed for a year as a petitioner at the shrine, and fetched water for the pilgrims to the shrine. After a year had passed, one night an order came to him from Jive Lai as follows: "In Jampur there live certain eunuchs, and with them is a poor faqīr who takes out their donkeys to graze. Go to


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/532

 520 him ; he will get Samri back for you." So he returned thence, and came to Jampur, and went to look for the faqīr, and saw him grazing the donkeys. The faqīr saw the Mochi, and without waiting for him to speak, he said, "Had not Jive Lai power enough to do it himself, that he must send you to me?" The Mochi said, "He did send me to you." Then the faqīr said, "Now go home, and take your ease at your house, and come to me again on the day of the eunuchs' sports at Jampur. When I am dancing in the middle of them, and am happy, come up and give a pull at the hem of my garment." One day, when the eunuchs had a great dance, and the faqīr was intoxicated, and was dancing in the midst of them, the Mochi came up to him and pulled the hem of his garment. On this the faqīr clapped his hands and cried out, "Samri is come! Samri is come!" Just then a number of people came running up to congratulate the Mochi on Samri's return, and said, "Samri has come back, and is sitting at your house." The Mochi comes home and finds Samri sitting there with moist dough on her hands. They asked her how she had come, and she said, "I was at Kilat, and was kneading the dough for Muhabbat Khan's bread, for he loved me so that he would eat no bread made by the hands of anyone else, but I must bake it for him. As I kneaded, a green fly came flying round in front of my eyes. I closed my eyes and waved my hand to drive it away, and I know nothing more but that I found myself back in my house at Jampur."

And so the Mochi and Samri lived happy together, and Muhabbat Khan was left at Kilat.

XVII.

A king who was childless, and asked for the prayers of holy men, was told by one of them to send his wife to the bank of the river, and let her sit there and pray, and God


text:
Portal:Film/English

 * This page lists all films in English appearing in the English Wikisource.

 * B
 * Bride and Gloom
 * D
 * Daydreams
 * F
 * Feline Follies
 * G
 * Gumbasia
 * H
 * Humorous Phases of Funny Faces
 * S
 * Sherlock Holmes Baffled
 * W
 * The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

title: Portal:Film/English


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Diffraction of Light/3


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/258

 where y is a positive quantity which is small when u is large. Substituting this, we find cot y = U − y, whence $y = \frac{1}{\mathrm{U}} \left(1 + \frac{y}{\mathrm{U}} + \frac{y^2}{\mathrm{U}^2} + \ldots\right) - \frac{y^3}{3} - \frac{2y^{5}}{15} - \frac{17y^{7}}{315}.$|undefined This equation is to be solved by successive approximation. It will readily be found that

In the first quadrant there is no root after zero, since tan u > u, and in the second quadrant there is none because the signs of u and tan u are opposite. The first root after zero is thus in the third quadrant, corresponding to m = 1. Even in this case the series converges sufficiently to give the value of the root with considerable accuracy, while for higher values of m it is all that could be desired. The actual values of u/π (calculated in another manner by F. M. Schwerd) are 1·4303, 2·4590, 3·4709, 4·4747, 5·4818, 6·4844, &c.

Since the maxima occur when u = (m + )π nearly, the successive values are not very different from $\frac{4}{9\pi^2}, \frac{4}{25\pi^2}, \frac{4}{49\pi^2},$ &c.

The application of these results to (3) shows that the field is brightest at the centre ξ = 0, η = 0, viz. at the geometrical image of the radiant point. It is traversed by dark lines whose equations are ξ＝mfλ / a, η＝mfλ / b. Within the rectangle formed by pairs of consecutive dark lines, and not far from its centre, the brightness rises to a maximum; but these subsequent maxima are in all cases much inferior to the brightness at the centre of the entire pattern (ξ = 0, η = 0).

By the principle of energy the illumination over the entire focal plane must be equal to that over the diffracting area; and thus, in accordance with the suppositions by which (3) was obtained, its value when integrated from ξ = ∞ to ξ = +∞, and from η = −∞ to η = +∞ should be equal to ab. This integration, employed originally by P. Kelland (Edin. Trans. 15, p. 315) to determine the absolute intensity of a secondary wave, may be at once effected by means of the known formula $\int^{+\infty }_{- \infty }\frac{\sin^2u}{u^2}du = \int^{+\infty }_{- \infty }\frac{\sin u}{u}du = \pi.$ It will be observed that, while the total intensity is proportional to ab, the intensity at the focal point is proportional to a2b2. If the aperture be increased, not only is the total brightness over the focal plane increased with it, but there is also a concentration of the diffraction pattern. The form of (3) shows immediately that, if a and b be altered, the co-ordinates of any characteristic point in the pattern vary as a−1 and b−1.

The contraction of the diffraction pattern with increase of aperture is of fundamental importance in connexion with the resolving power of optical instruments. According to common optics, where images are absolute, the diffraction pattern is supposed to be infinitely small, and two radiant points, however near together, form separated images. This is tantamount to an assumption that λ is infinitely small. The actual finiteness of λ imposes a limit upon the separating or resolving power of an optical instrument.

This indefiniteness of images is sometimes said to be due to diffraction by the edge of the aperture, and proposals have even been made for curing it by causing the transition between the interrupted and transmitted parts of the primary wave to be less abrupt. Such a view of the matter is altogether misleading. What requires explanation is not the imperfection of actual images so much as the possibility of their being as good as we find them.

At the focal point (ξ = 0, η = 0) all the secondary waves agree in phase, and the intensity is easily expressed, whatever be the form of the aperture. From the general formula (2), if A be the area of aperture,

The formation of a sharp image of the radiant point requires that the illumination become insignificant when ξ, η attain small values, and this insignificance can only arise as a consequence of discrepancies of phase among the secondary waves from various parts of the aperture. So long as there is no sensible discrepancy of phase there can be no sensible diminution of brightness as compared with that to be found at the focal point itself. We may go further, and lay it down that there can be no considerable loss of brightness until the difference of phase of the waves proceeding from the nearest and farthest parts of the aperture amounts to λ.

When the difference of phase amounts to λ, we may expect the resultant illumination to be very much reduced. In the particular case of a rectangular aperture the course of things can be readily followed, especially if we conceive ƒ to be infinite. In the direction (suppose horizontal) for which η = 0, ξ/ƒ = sin θ, the phases of the secondary waves range over a complete period when sin θ = λ/a, and, since all parts of the horizontal aperture are equally effective, there is in this direction a complete compensation and consequent absence of illumination. When sin θ = 3⁄2λ/a, the phases range one and a half periods, and there is revival of illumination. We may compare the brightness with that in the direction θ = 0. The phase of the resultant amplitude is the same as that due to the central secondary wave, and the discrepancies of phase among the components reduce the amplitude in the proportion $\frac{1}{3\pi}\int^{+\frac{3}{2}\pi}_{-\frac{3}{2}\pi}\cos \phi d\phi : 1$ or -2⁄3π : 1; so that the brightness in this direction is 4⁄9π2 of the maximum at θ = 0. In like manner we may find the illumination in any other direction, and it is obvious that it vanishes when sin θ is any multiple of λ/a.

The reason of the augmentation of resolving power with aperture will now be evident. The larger the aperture the smaller are the angles through which it is necessary to deviate from the principal direction in order to bring in specified discrepancies of phase—the more concentrated is the image.

In many cases the subject of examination is a luminous line of uniform intensity, the various points of which are to be treated as independent sources of light. If the image of the line be ξ = 0, the intensity at any point ξ, η of the diffraction pattern may be represented by

the same law as obtains for a luminous point when horizontal directions are alone considered. The definition of a fine vertical line, and consequently the resolving power for contiguous vertical lines, is thus independent of the vertical aperture of the instrument, a law of great importance in the theory of the spectroscope.

The distribution of illumination in the image of a luminous line is shown by the curve ABC (fig. 3), representing the value of the function sin2u/u2 from u = 0 to u = 2π. The part corresponding to negative values of u is similar, OA being a line of symmetry.

Let us now consider the distribution of brightness in the image of a double line whose components are of equal strength, and at such an angular interval that the central line in the image of one coincides with the first zero of brightness in the image of the other. In fig. 3 the curve of brightness for one component is ABC, and for the other OA′C′; and the curve representing half the combined brightnesses is E′BE. The brightness (corresponding to B) midway between the two central points AA’ is ·8106 of the brightness at the central points themselves. We may consider this to be about the limit of closeness at which there could be any decided appearance of resolution, though doubtless an observer accustomed to his instrument would recognize the duplicity with certainty. The obliquity, corresponding to u = π, is such that the phases of the secondary waves range over a complete period, i.e. such that the projection of the horizontal aperture upon this direction is one wave-length. We conclude that a double line cannot be fairly resolved unless its components subtend an angle exceeding that subtended by the wave-length of light at a distance equal to the horizontal aperture. This rule is convenient on account of its simplicity; and it is sufficiently accurate in view of the necessary uncertainty as to what exactly is meant by resolution.

If the angular interval between the components of a double line be half as great again as that supposed in the figure, the brightness midway between is ·1802 as against 1·0450 at the central lines of each image. Such a falling off in the middle must be more than sufficient for resolution. If the angle subtended by the components of a double line be twice that subtended by the wave-length at a distance equal to the horizontal aperture, the central bands are just clear of one another, and there is a line of absolute blackness in the middle of the combined images.

The resolving power of a telescope with circular or rectangular aperture is easily investigated experimentally. The best object for examination is a grating of fine wires, about fifty to the inch, backed by a sodium flame. The object-glass is provided with diaphragms pierced with round holes or slits. One of these, of width equal, say, to one-tenth of an inch, is inserted in front of the object-glass, and the telescope, carefully focused all the while, is drawn gradually back from the grating until the lines are no longer seen. From a measurement of the maximum distance the least angle between consecutive lines consistent with resolution may be deduced, and a comparison made with the rule stated above.

Merely to show the dependence of resolving power on aperture it is not necessary to use a telescope at all. It is sufficient to look at wire gauze backed by the sky or by a flame, through a piece of blackened cardboard, pierced by a needle and held close to the eye. By varying the distance the point is easily found at which resolution ceases; and the observation is as sharp as with a telescope. The

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/258


text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/324

302 presented by the Indo-European languages, a distinction originally euphonic, and afterwards made significant. We can point out the influences which have made men the plural of man, led the preterit of lead; we can trace back set and sang to forms in which their distinction from sit and sing was conveyed by formative elements added from without to the root; but no historical researches bring the Semitic scholar to, or even perceptibly toward, any such explanation of the forms he is studying. Now and then a kind of symbolism is pretty distinctly traceable: the weaker vowels i and u sometimes convey by their use an intimation of less active or transitive meaning, as compared with the strong full a: thus, the act of 'killing' is expressed by qatala, but the conditions of 'being sorry,' of 'being beautiful,' by ' hazina, ' hasuna; and especially, every active verb, like qatala, has its corresponding passive qutila. But such considerations can explain only a small portion of the derivatives from Semitic roots; the genesis of the rest is an unsolved problem, of extremest difficulty. The triplicity of radical consonants is an equally primitive characteristic of all the Semitic tongues, yet there are not wanting certain apparent indications that it is the result of historical development. To make out the required number of three, some roots contain the same consonant doubled; in others, one of the three is a weak or servile letter, hardly more than a hiatus, or it is a semivowel which seems to have been developed out of an original vowel; further, there are groups of roots of somewhat kindred signification which agree in two of their consonants, so that the third is plausibly conjectured to be an introduced letter, having the effect to differentiate a general meaning once conveyed by the other two alone. Guided by such signs, and urged on by the presumed necessity in theory for regarding triliterality as not absolutely original, scholars have repeatedly made the attempt to reduce these roots to an earlier and simpler condition, out of which they should be accounted a historic growth—but hitherto with only indifferent success; we are yet far from attaining any satisfactory understanding of the beginnings of Semitic speech. It is suggested with much plausibility that the universality of the


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/259

 function of the telescope is in fact to allow the use of a wider, and therefore more easily measurable, aperture. An interesting modification of the experiment may be made by using light of various wave-lengths.

Since the limitation of the width of the central band in the image of a luminous line depends upon discrepancies of phase among the secondary waves, and since the discrepancy is greatest for the waves which come from the edges of the aperture, the question arises how far the operation of the central parts of the aperture is advantageous. If we imagine the aperture reduced to two equal narrow slits bordering its edges, compensation will evidently be complete when the projection on an oblique direction is equal to ½λ, instead of λ as for the complete aperture. By this procedure the width of the central band in the diffraction pattern is halved, and so far an advantage is attained. But, as will be evident, the bright bands bordering the central band are now not inferior to it in brightness; in fact, a band similar to the central band is reproduced an indefinite number of times, so long as there is no sensible discrepancy of phase in the secondary waves proceeding from the various parts of the same slit. Under these circumstances the narrowing of the band is paid for at a ruinous price, and the arrangement must be condemned altogether.

A more moderate suppression of the central parts is, however, sometimes advantageous. Theory and experiment alike prove that a double line, of which the components are equally strong, is better resolved when, for example, one-sixth of the horizontal aperture is blocked off by a central screen; or the rays quite at the centre may be allowed to pass, while others a little farther removed are blocked off. Stops, each occupying one-eighth of the width, and with centres situated at the points of trisection, answer well the required purpose.

It has already been suggested that the principle of energy requires that the general expression for I² in (2) when integrated over the whole of the plane ξ, η should be equal to A, where A is the area of the aperture. A general analytical verification has been given by Sir G. G. Stokes (Edin. Trans., 1853, 20, p. 317). Analytically expressed—

We have seen that I0² (the intensity at the focal point) was equal to A²/λ²f². If A′ be the area over which the intensity must be I0² in order to give the actual total intensity in accordance with $\mathrm{A}^\prime \mathrm{I}_{0}^2 = \iint^{+\infty}_{- \infty}\mathrm{I}^2 d\xi d\eta,$ the relation between A and A′ is AA′ = λ²f². Since A′ is in some sense the area of the diffraction pattern, it may be considered to be a rough criterion of the definition, and we infer that the definition of a point depends principally upon the area of the aperture, and only in a very secondary degree upon the shape when the area is maintained constant.

 4. Theory of Circular Aperture.—We will now consider the important case where the form of the aperture is circular.

Writing for brevity

we have for the general expression (§ 11) of the intensity

where

When, as in the application to rectangular or circular apertures, the form is symmetrical with respect to the axes both of x and y, S = 0, and C reduces to

In the case of the circular aperture the distribution of light is of course symmetrical with respect to the focal point p = 0, q = 0; and C is a function of p and q only through √(p² + q²). It is thus sufficient to determine the intensity along the axis of p. Putting q = 0, we get $\mathrm{C} = \iint \cos px dx dy = 2 \int^{+\mathrm{R}}_{- \mathrm{R}}\cos px \sqrt(\mathrm{R}^2 - x^2) dx,$|undefined R being the radius of the aperture. This integral is the Bessel’s function of order unity, defined by

Thus, if x = R cos φ,

and the illumination at distance r from the focal point is

The ascending series for J1(z), used by Sir G. B. Airy (Camb. Trans., 1834) in his original investigation of the diffraction of a circular object-glass, and readily obtained from (6), is

When z is great, we may employ the semi-convergent series {{center|$$\mathrm{J}_{1}(z) = \sqrt{\bigg.}\left(\frac{2}{\pi z}\right)\sin (z - \tfrac{1}{4}\pi )\left\{ 1 + \frac{3\cdot5\cdot1}{8\cdot16}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)^2\right.$$

$$\left. -\frac{3\cdot5\cdot7\cdot9\cdot1\cdot3\cdot5}{8\cdot16\cdot24\cdot32}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)^4 + \ldots \right\}$$

$$+ \sqrt{\bigg.} \left(\frac{2}{\pi z}\right)\cos (z - \tfrac{1}{4}\pi ) \left\{\frac{3}{8} \cdot \frac{1}{z} - \frac{3\cdot5\cdot7\cdot1\cdot3}{8\cdot16\cdot24}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)^3\right.$$}}

{{MathForm2|(10).|$$\left. + \frac{3\cdot5\cdot7\cdot9\cdot11\cdot1\cdot3\cdot5\cdot7}{8\cdot16\cdot24\cdot32\cdot40}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)^{5} - \ldots \right\}.$$}} A table of the values of 2z-1J1(z) has been given by E. C. J. Lommel (Schlömilch, 1870, 15, p. 166), to whom is due the first systematic application of Bessel’s functions to the diffraction integrals.

The illumination vanishes in correspondence with the roots of the equation J1(z) = 0. If these be called z1 z2, z3, ... the radii of the dark rings in the diffraction pattern are $\frac{f\lambda z_{1}}{2\pi \mathrm{R}}, \frac{f\lambda z_{2}}{2\pi \mathrm{R}}, \ldots$|undefined being thus inversely proportional to R.

The integrations may also be effected by means of polar co-ordinates, taking first the integration with respect to φ so as to obtain the result for an infinitely thin annular aperture. Thus, if x＝ρ cos φ, y＝ρ sin φ, $\mathrm{C} = \iint \cos px dx dy = \int^{\mathrm{R}}_{0}\int^{2\pi}_{0}\cos (p\rho \cos \theta ) \rho d\rho d\theta.$|undefined Now by definition

The value of C for an annular aperture of radius r and width dr is thus

For the complete circle,

In these expressions we are to replace p by kξ/f, or rather, since the diffraction pattern is symmetrical, by kr/f, where r is the distance of any point in the focal plane from the centre of the system.

The roots of J0(z) after the first may be found from

and those of J1(z) from

formulae derived by Stokes (Camb. Trans., 1850, vol. ix.) from the descending series. The following table gives the actual values:—

In both cases the image of a mathematical point is thus a symmetrical ring system. The greatest brightness is at the centre, where dC＝2πρ dρ, C＝π R². For a certain distance outwards this remains sensibly unimpaired and then gradually diminishes to zero, as the secondary waves become discrepant in phase. The subsequent revivals of brightness forming the bright rings are necessarily of inferior brilliancy as compared with the central disk.

The first dark ring in the diffraction pattern of the complete circular aperture occurs when

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu/259


text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/325

VIII.] three root-letters may be due to the inorganic and arbitrary extension of an analogy which had by some means become a dominant one; and that, in attaining their present form, the roots have prevailingly passed through the condition of derivative nouns. The Semitic verbal forms show many signs of a more immediate and proximate development out of forms of nouns than is to be traced in the structure of the Indo-European verb.

In no small part of its structure, the Semitic verb differs very strikingly from the Indo-European. It distinguishes, indeed, the same three numbers, singular, dual, and plural, and the same persons, first, second, and third, and its personal endings are to a considerable extent formed in the same manner, by adding pronominal elements to the verbal root. But in the second and third persons it makes a farther distinction of the gender of the subject: thus, qatalat, 'she killed,' is different from qatala, 'he killed.' What is of much more consequence is that its representation of the important element of time is quite diverse from ours. The antithesis of past, present, and future, which seems to us so fundamental and necessary, the Semitic mind has ignored, setting up but two tenses, whose separate uses are to no small extent interchangeable and difficult of distinct definition, but whereof the one denotes chiefly completed action, the other incomplete; each of them admitting of employment, in different circumstances, as past, present, or future. The perfect or preterit is the more original, and its persons are formed by appended pronominal endings; the imperfect (sometimes called future) has the terminations of number belonging to a noun, and indicates person and gender by prefixes: thus, the three masculine persons in the singular are aqtulu, taqtulu, and yaqtulu; the third, masculine and feminine, dual, are yaqtulāni and taqtulāni; plural, yaqtulūna and yaqtulna. To the imperfect belongs a subjunctive and imperative, and one or two other less common quasi-modal forms. But of the wealth of modal expression into which our owh verb has always tended to develop, in a


text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/326

304 synthetic or an analytic way, that of the Semites has generated very little; its proneness is rather to the multiplication of such distinctions as are called conjugational, to the characterizing of the verbal action as in its nature transitive, causal, intensive, iterative, conative, reflexive, or the like: thus, qatala meaning 'he killed,' qattala means 'he killed with violence, massacred;' qātala, 'he tried to kill;' aqtala, 'he caused to kill;' inqatala, 'he killed himself;' and so on. Each Arabic verb has theoretically fifteen such conjugations; and near a dozen of them, each with its own passive, are in tolerably frequent and familiar use; in the other dialects, the scheme is less completely filled out. Verbal nouns and adjectives, or infinitives and participles, belong likewise to every conjugation.

In their nouns, the Semites distinguish only two genders, masculine and feminine. They have, of course, the same three numbers here as in the verb. Distinctions of case, however, are almost entirely deficient; only the Arabic makes a scanty separation of nominative and accusative, or of nominative, genitive, and accusative; and opinions still differ as to whether this is to be regarded as a separate acquisition made by the Arabic alone, or as an original possession of the whole family, lost by the other branches: the latter is probably the correcter view.

The simple copula, the verb to be, is generally wanting in the Semitic languages: for "the man is good" they say, "the man good" (often with a form of the adjective which indicates that it is used predicatively, rather than attributively), or "the man, he good." They are poor in connectives and particles; and this, with the deficiency of modal forms in the verb, gives to their syntax a peculiar character of simplicity and baldness: the Semite strings his assertions together, just putting one after the other, with an and or a but interposed, where the Indo-European twines his into a harmoniously proportioned and many-membered period. The same stiffness and rigidity which these languages show in respect to word-development appears also in their development of signification. While it is characteristic of our mode of speech that we use such words as comprehend,


text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/327

VIII.] , forgive, as if they originally and always meant just what we employ them to express—not giving a thought to the metaphor, often striking, or even startling, which they contain—in the Semitic, the metaphor usually shows plainly through, and cannot be lost sight of. The language of the Semite, then, is rather pictorial, forcible, vivid, than adapted to calm and reasoning philosophy.

The various dialects of this family stand in a very close relationship with one another, hardly presenting such differences even as are found within the limits of a single branch of the Indo-European family: they are to one another like German, Dutch, and Swedish, for example, rather than like German, Welsh, and Persian. This fact, however, does not at all prove their separation to have taken place at a later period than that of the Indo-European branches; for, during its whole recorded history, Semitic speech has shown itself far less variable, less liable to phonetic change and corruption, less fertile of new words and forms, of new themes and apparent roots, than our own. And the reasons, at least in part, are not difficult to discover. Each Semitic word, as a general rule, presents distinctly to the consciousness of him who employs it its three radical consonants, with its complement of vowels, each one of which has a recognized part to play in determining the significance of the word, and cannot be altered, or exchanged for another, without violating a governing analogy, without defacing its intelligibility. The genesis of new forms, moreover, is rendered well-nigh impossible by the fact that such a thing as a Semitic compound is almost totally unknown: the habit of the language, from its earliest period, has forbidden that combination of independent elements which is the first step toward their fusion into a form. Hence everything in Semitic speech wears an aspect of peculiar rigidity and persistence. In its primitive development—as development we cannot but believe it to have been, however little comprehensible by us—it assumed so marked and individual a type that it has since been comparatively exempt from variation. In no other family of human speech would it be possible that the most antique and original of its dialects, the fullest in its forms, the most


text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/328

306 uncorrupted in its phonetic structure, the most faithful representative of the ideal type inherent in them all, should be the youngest of their number. But such is the character of the classical Arabic, whose earliest literary monuments are from fifteen to twenty centuries later than those of the Hebrew and Assyrian. There is reason, however, it should be remarked, to suspect that the Hebrew as we have it does not in all points truly represent the language of the earliest period of Hebrew history, that it has both partaken of the modernization of the popular tongue, and suffered some distortion in the hands of the grammarians from whom we receive it. The spoken vernaculars of the present day, while they exhibit something of the same character as the modern Indo-European dialects, in the abbreviation of words, the loss of inflectional forms, and the obscuration of etymological relations, yet do so in a much less degree. The modern Syriac of Orumiah has decidedly more of the aspect of a European analytic language than any other existing dialect of its family, and even more than, a few years ago, Semitic scholars were willing to believe possible. But its predecessor, the ancient Syriac, had been itself distinguished by like peculiarities among the contemporaneous and older dialects; having felt, perhaps, the modifying influence of the strange peoples and cultures by which Syria was shut in, invaded, and more than once subdued.

It may be hoped that wider and deeper study will succeed one day in casting additional light upon the difficulties of Semitic linguistic history. The dialect which is now in process of construction out of the recently discovered cuneiform monuments is claimed to possess some peculiar characteristics, yet it appears to be too decidedly accordant with the rest in its general structure to play other than a subordinate part, by farther illustrating that part of the course of development with which we are already more or less familiar. lt is confidently claimed, however, by some linguistic scholars (although as confidently denied by others), that the ancient tongue of Egypt, and a considerable group of the languages of northern Africa, have traces, still distinctly visible, of a far remoter connection with this family,


text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/329

VIII.] a connection anterior to the full elaboration of the fundamental peculiarities of Semitic language which we have been considering. If this claim shall be established by maturer investigation, there will be reason to look for important revelations as the result of comparisons made between the two classes. The often-asserted relationship between the beginnings of Indo-European and of Semitic speech does not at present offer any appreciable promise of valuable light to be thrown upon their joint and respective history. It must be evident, I think, from the foregoing exposition, that the whole fabric and style of these two families of language is so discordant, that any theory which assumes their joint development out of the radical stage, the common growth of their grammatical systems, is wholly excluded. If correspondence there be between them, it must lie in their roots, and it must have existed before the special working-over of the Semitic roots into their present form. It will be time, then, to talk of the signs of Indo-European and Semitic unity when the earliest process of Semitic growth is better understood, its effects distinguished from the yet earlier material upon which they were wrought. Against so deep and pervading a discordance, the surface analogies hitherto brought to light have no convincing weight. The identification is a very alluring theme: the near agreement of the peoples speaking these two classes of languages in respect to physical structure and mental capacity, their position as the two great white races, joint leaders in the world's history, taken in connection with their geographical neighbourhood and an apparent agreement between the traditions held by some nations of each touching their earliest homes and fates, are inducements which have spurred on many a linguist to search for verbal and radical coincidences in the tongues of both, and to regard with a degree of credence such as he appeared to find—while, nevertheless, if the same coincidences were found to exist, along with the same differences, between our languages and those of some congeries of Polynesian or African tribes, they would at once be dismissed as of no value or account. To claim, then, that the common descent of Indo-European and Semitic races has been proved


text:
Page:Texas Constitution and Secession.djvu/61

 {|style="margin:0 auto 0 auto;"
 * THOMAS C. FROST, ||THOMAS M. McCRAW,
 * AMOS P. GALLOWAY, ||WM. GOODLOE MILLER,
 * CHARLES GANAHL, ||ALBERT N. MILLS,
 * ROBERT S. GOULD, ||THOMAS MOORE,
 * ROBERT GRAHAM, ||THOS. C. MOORE,
 * MALCOM D. GRAHAM, ||CHARLES de MONTEL,
 * PETER W. GRAY, ||B. F. MOSS,
 * JNO. A. GREEN, ||JOHN MULLER,
 * JOHN GREGG, ||THOS. J. NASH,
 * WM. P. HARDEMAN, ||A. NAUENDORF
 * JOHN R. HAYES, ||T. C. NEEI
 * PHILEMON T. HERBERT ||ALLISON NELSON,
 * A. W. O. HICKS, ||JAMES F. NEWSOM,
 * THOS. B. J. HILL, ||W. M. NEYLAND,
 * ALFRED M. HOBBY, ||E. B. NICHOLS,
 * JOS. L. HOGG, ||A. J. NICHOLSON,
 * J. J. HOLT, ||E. P. NICHOLSON,
 * JAMES HOOKER, ||JAMES M. NORRIS,
 * EDWARD R. HORD, ||ALFRED T. OBENCHAIN,
 * RUSSELL HOWARD, ||W. B. OCHILTREE,
 * A. CLARK HOYL, ||W. S. OLDHAM,
 * THOS. P. HUGHES, ||R. J. PALMER,
 * J. W. HUTCHESON, ||W. M. PAYNE,
 * JNO. IRELAND, ||W. K. PAYNE,
 * THOS. J. JENNINGS, ||WILLIAM M. PECK,
 * F. JONES, ||W. R. POAG,
 * W. C. KELLY, ||ALEXANDER POPE,
 * T. KOESTER, ||DAVID Y. PORTIS,
 * C. M. LESUEUR, ||D. M. PRENDERGAST,
 * F. W. LATHAM, ||WALTER F. PRESTON,
 * PRYOR LEA, ||F. P. PRICE,
 * JAMES S. LESTER, ||A. T. RAINEY,
 * JOHN LITTLETON, ||JOHN H. REAGAN,
 * M. F LOCKE, ||C. RECTOR,
 * OLIVER LOFTIN, ||P. G. RHOME,
 * THOS. S. LUBBOCK, ||E. S. C. RORFRTSON,
 * P. N. LUCKETT, ||J. C. ROBERTSON,
 * HENRY A. MALTBY, ||J. B. ROBERTSON,
 * JESSE MARSHALL, ||WILLIAM P. ROGERS,
 * JAMES M. MAXEY, ||JAMES H. ROGERS,
 * LEWIS W. MOORE, ||EDWARD M. ROSS,
 * WM. McCRAVEN, ||JNO. RUGELEY,
 * WM. McINTOSH, ||H. R. RUNNELS,
 * GILCHRIST McKAY, ||E. B. SCARBOROUGH,
 * }
 * J. W. HUTCHESON, ||W. M. PAYNE,
 * JNO. IRELAND, ||W. K. PAYNE,
 * THOS. J. JENNINGS, ||WILLIAM M. PECK,
 * F. JONES, ||W. R. POAG,
 * W. C. KELLY, ||ALEXANDER POPE,
 * T. KOESTER, ||DAVID Y. PORTIS,
 * C. M. LESUEUR, ||D. M. PRENDERGAST,
 * F. W. LATHAM, ||WALTER F. PRESTON,
 * PRYOR LEA, ||F. P. PRICE,
 * JAMES S. LESTER, ||A. T. RAINEY,
 * JOHN LITTLETON, ||JOHN H. REAGAN,
 * M. F LOCKE, ||C. RECTOR,
 * OLIVER LOFTIN, ||P. G. RHOME,
 * THOS. S. LUBBOCK, ||E. S. C. RORFRTSON,
 * P. N. LUCKETT, ||J. C. ROBERTSON,
 * HENRY A. MALTBY, ||J. B. ROBERTSON,
 * JESSE MARSHALL, ||WILLIAM P. ROGERS,
 * JAMES M. MAXEY, ||JAMES H. ROGERS,
 * LEWIS W. MOORE, ||EDWARD M. ROSS,
 * WM. McCRAVEN, ||JNO. RUGELEY,
 * WM. McINTOSH, ||H. R. RUNNELS,
 * GILCHRIST McKAY, ||E. B. SCARBOROUGH,
 * }
 * OLIVER LOFTIN, ||P. G. RHOME,
 * THOS. S. LUBBOCK, ||E. S. C. RORFRTSON,
 * P. N. LUCKETT, ||J. C. ROBERTSON,
 * HENRY A. MALTBY, ||J. B. ROBERTSON,
 * JESSE MARSHALL, ||WILLIAM P. ROGERS,
 * JAMES M. MAXEY, ||JAMES H. ROGERS,
 * LEWIS W. MOORE, ||EDWARD M. ROSS,
 * WM. McCRAVEN, ||JNO. RUGELEY,
 * WM. McINTOSH, ||H. R. RUNNELS,
 * GILCHRIST McKAY, ||E. B. SCARBOROUGH,
 * }
 * JAMES M. MAXEY, ||JAMES H. ROGERS,
 * LEWIS W. MOORE, ||EDWARD M. ROSS,
 * WM. McCRAVEN, ||JNO. RUGELEY,
 * WM. McINTOSH, ||H. R. RUNNELS,
 * GILCHRIST McKAY, ||E. B. SCARBOROUGH,
 * }
 * WM. McINTOSH, ||H. R. RUNNELS,
 * GILCHRIST McKAY, ||E. B. SCARBOROUGH,
 * }
 * }


text:
Page:Language and the Study of Language.djvu/330

308 by the evidence of their speech is totally unjustifiable; the utmost which can be asserted is that language affords certain indications, of doubtful value, which, taken along with certain other ethnological considerations, also of questionable pertinency, furnish ground for suspecting an ultimate relationship. The question, in short, is not yet ripe for settlement. Whether the better comprehension of the history of Semitic speech which further research may give will enable us to determine it with confidence, need not here be considered: while such a result is certainly not to be expected with confidence, it may perhaps be looked for with hope.

To discuss the Semitic character, and to show how in its striking features it accords with Semitic speech, would be a most interesting task, but lies aside from the proper course of our inquiries. Through the might of their religious ideas, this people have governed, and will continue to govern, the civilized world; but in other respects, in that gradual working-out of ethnic endowment and capacity which constitutes the history of a race, they have shown themselves decidedly inferior to the other great ruling family, and their forms of speech undeniably partake of this inferiority. The time is long past when reverence for the Hebrew Scriptures as the Book of books could carry with it the corollary that the Hebrew tongue was the most perfect and the oldest of all known languages, and even the mother of the rest: it is now fully recognized as merely one in a contracted and very peculiar group of sister dialects, crowded together in a corner of Asia and the adjacent parts of Africa, possessing striking excellences, but also marked with striking defects, and not yet proved genetically connected with any other existing group.

The family of languages to which we have next to direct our attention is one of much wider geographical range, and more varied linguistic character. As usually constructed, it covers with its branches the whole northern portion of the eastern continent, through both Europe and Asia, together with the greater part of central Asia, and portions of Asiatic and European territory lying still further south. It is


text:
The Presidents of the United States, 1789-1914/Andrew Johnson

, seventeenth president of the United States, born in Raleigh, N. C., December 29, 1808; died near Carter's Station, Tenn., July 31, 1875. His parents were very poor, and when he was four years old his father died of injuries received in saving another from drowning. At the age of ten Andrew was apprenticed to a tailor. A natural craving to learn was fostered by hearing a gentleman read from “The American Speaker.” The boy was taught the alphabet by fellow-workmen, borrowed the book and learned to read. In 1824 he removed to Laurens Court-House, S. C., where he worked as a journeyman tailor. The small shop in which he pursued the calling that is announced on the sign over the door is still to be seen. In May, 1826, he returned to Raleigh, and in September, with his mother and stepfather, he set out in a two-wheeled cart, drawn by a blind pony, for Greenville, Tenn. Here he married Eliza McCardle, a woman of refinement, who taught him to write, and read to him while he was at work during the day. It was not until he had been in congress that he learned to write with ease.

From Greenville he went to the west, but returned after the lapse of a year. In those days Tennessee was controlled by landholders, whose interests were fostered by the state constitution, and Greenville was ruled by what was called an “aristocratic coterie of the quality.” Johnson resisted their supremacy, and made himself a leader of the opposition. In 1828 he was elected alderman, in 1829 and 1830 was re-elected and in 1830 was advanced to the mayoralty, which office he held for three years. In 1831 the county court appointed him a trustee of Rhea academy, and about this time he took part in the debates of a society at Greenville college. In 1834 he advocated the adoption of the new state constitution, by which the influence of the large landholders was abridged. In 1835 he represented Greene and Washington counties in the legislature. He resisted the popular mania for internal improvements, which caused his defeat in 1837, but the reaction justified his foresight, strengthened his influence, and restored his popularity. In 1839 he was returned. In 1836 he supported Hugh L. White for the presidency, and was a Bell man in the warm personal and political altercations between John Bell and James K. Polk, which distracted Tennessee at this time. Johnson was the only ardent follower of Bell that failed to go over to the Whig party. In 1840 he was an elector for the state-at-large on Van Buren's ticket,

and made a state reputation by the force of his oratory. In 1841 he was elected to the state senate from Greene and Hawkins counties, and while in that body he was one of the “immortal 13” Democrats who, having it in their power to prevent the election of a Whig senator, did so by refusing to meet the house in joint convention. He also proposed that the basis of representation should rest upon the white votes, without regard to the ownership of slaves.

Photograph by Brady, Washington, D. C

In 1843 he was elected to congress over John A. Asken, a U. S. bank Democrat, who was supported by the Whigs. His first speech was in support of the resolution to restore to Gen. Jackson the fine imposed upon him at New Orleans. He supported the annexation of Texas. In 1845 he was re-elected, and sustained Polk's administration. He opposed all expenditures for internal improvements that were not general, and resisted and defeated the proposed contingent tax of ten per cent, on tea and coffee. He was regularly re-elected until 1853. During this period he made his celebrated defence of the veto power, and urged the adoption of the homestead law, which was obnoxious to the slave-holding power of the south. He supported the compromise measures of 1850 as a matter of expediency, but opposed compromises in general as a sacrifice of principle. In 1853 the district lines were so “gerrymandered” as to throw

him into a district in which the Whigs had an overwhelming majority. Johnson at once announced himself a candidate for the governorship, and was elected by a fair majority. In his message to the legislature he dwelt upon the homestead law and other measures for the benefit of the working-classes, and earned the title of the “mechanic governor.” He opposed the Know-nothing movement with characteristic vehemence. In 1855 he was opposed by Meredith P. Gentry, the Whig candidate, and defeated him after a canvass remarkable for the feeling displayed. Mr. Johnson earnestly supported the Kansas-Nebraska bill.

In 1857 he was elected to the U. S. senate, where he urged the passage of the homestead bill, and on May 20, 1858, made his greatest speech on this subject. Finally, in 1860, he had the momentary gratification of seeing his favorite bill pass both houses of congress, but President Buchanan vetoed it, and the veto was sustained. Johnson revived it at the next session, and also introduced a resolution looking to a retrenchment in the expenditures of the government, and on constitutional grounds opposed the grant of aid for the construction of a Pacific railroad. He was prominent in debate, and frequently clashed with southern supporters of the administration. His pronounced Unionism estranged him from the slave-holders on the one side, while his acceptance of slavery as an institution guaranteed by the constitution caused him to hold aloof from the Republicans on the other. This intermediate position suggested his avail ability as a popular candidate for the presidency; but in the Democratic convention he received only the vote of Tennessee, and when the convention reassembled in Baltimore he withdrew his name. In the canvass that followed, he supported the extreme pro-slavery candidate, Breckinridge. Johnson had never believed it possible that any organized attempt to dissolve the Union could be made; but the events preceding the session of congress beginning in December, 1860, convinced him of his error.

When congress met, he took decided and unequivocal grounds in opposition to secession, and on December 13 introduced a joint resolution, proposing to amend the constitution so as to elect the president and vice-president by district votes, to elect senators by a direct popular vote, and to limit the terms of Federal judges to twenty years, half of them to be from slave-holding and half from non-slave-holding states. In his speech on this resolution, December 18 and 19, he declared his unyielding opposition to secession and announced his intention to stand by and act in and under the constitution. The southern states were then in the act of seceding, and every word uttered in congress was read and discussed with eagerness by thirty

millions of people. Johnson's speech, coming from a southern man, thrilled the popular heart; but his popularity in the north was offset by the virulence with which he was assailed in the south. In a speech delivered March 2, 1861, he said, referring to the secessionists: “I would have them arrested and tried for treason, and, if convicted, by the eternal God, they should suffer the penalty of the law at the hands of the executioner.” Returning to Tennessee from Washington, he was attacked at Liberty, Va., by a mob, but drove them back with his pistol. At Lynchburg he was hooted and hissed, and at various places burned in effigy. He attended the East Tennessee union convention, in Cincinnati, May 30, and again on June 19 he visited the same place and was received with enthusiasm. Here he declared for a vigorous prosecution of the war.

BIRTHPLACE OF ANDREW JOHNSON, RALEIGH, N. C.

He retained his seat in the senate until appointed by President Lincoln military governor of Tennessee, March 4, 1862. On March 12 he reached Nashville, and organized a provisional government for the state. On March 18 he issued a proclamation, in which he appealed to the people to return to their allegiance, to uphold the law, and to accept “a full and competent amnesty for all past acts and declarations.” He required the city council to take the oath of allegiance to the United States. They refused, and he removed them and appointed

others. He urged the holding of Union meetings throughout the state, and frequently attended them in person. It was chiefly due to his courage that Nashville was held against a Confederate force. He completed the railroad from Nashville to Tennessee river, and raised 25 regiments for service in the state. On December 8, 1862, he issued a proclamation ordering congressional elections, and on the 15th levied an assessment upon the richer southern sympathizers, “in behalf of the many helpless widows, wives, and children in the city of Nashville who have been reduced to poverty and wretchedness in consequence of their husbands, sons, and, fathers having been forced into the armies of this unholy and nefarious rebellion.” On February 20, 1863, Gov. Johnson issued a proclamation warning the agents of all “traitors” to retain their collections until some person should be appointed to receive them for the United States. During the term of his service, Gov. Johnson exercised absolute and autocratic powers, but with singular moderation and discretion, and his course strengthened the Union cause in Tennessee.

The Republican convention assembled in Baltimore, June 6, 1864, and renominated Mr. Lincoln for the presidency by acclamation. There was a strong sentiment in favor of recognizing the political sacrifices made for the cause of the Union by the war Democrats, and it was generally conceded

that New York should decide who was to be the individual. Daniel S. Dickinson, of that state, was most prominent in this connection; but internal factional divisions made it impossible for him to obtain the solid vote of that state, and Sec. Seward's friends feared this nomination would force him from the cabinet. Henry J. Raymond urged the name of Andrew Johnson, and he was accordingly selected. Johnson, in his letter of acceptance, virtually disclaimed any departure from his principles as a Democrat, but placed his acceptance upon the ground of “the higher duty of first preserving the government.” He accepted the emancipation proclamation as a war measure, to be subsequently ratified by constitutional amendment. In his inaugural address as vice-president, March 4, 1865, a lack of dignity in his bearing and an incoherency in his speech were attributed to the influence of strong drink. As a matter of fact, the vice-president was much worn by disease, and had taken a little stimulant to aid him in the ordeal of inauguration, and in his weakened condition the effect was much more decided than he anticipated. This explanation was very generally accepted by the country.

On April 14, 1865, President Lincoln was assassinated, and Mr. Johnson was at once sworn in as president, at his rooms in the Kirkwood house, by Chief-Justice Chase. In his remarks to those present Mr. Johnson said: “As to an indication of any policy which may be pursued by me in the administration of the government, I have to say that that must be left for development as the administration progresses. The message or declaration must be made by the acts as they transpire. The only assurance I can now give of the future is reference to the past.” In his addresses to various delegations that called upon him, he emphasized the fact that he advocated a course of forbearance toward the mass of the southern people, but demanded punishment for those who had been leaders. “Treason is a crime,” he said to the Illinois delegation, “and must be punished.” At the time it was generally supposed that Johnson, who was known to be personally embittered against the dominant classes in the south, would inaugurate a reign of terror and decimate those who had taken up arms against the national authority. His protest against the terms of surrender granted to Gen. Lee by Gen. Grant, and utterances in private conversation, strengthened the fear that he would be too bloody and vindictive. He was supposed not to have been in accord with the humane policy that Lincoln had foreshadowed, and his silence in reference to Lincoln's policy, which amounted to ignoring it, was accepted as a proof that he did not intend to follow this course. On one occasion he said: “In regard to my future course. I will now make no professions, no pledges.” And again: “My past life, especially my course during the present unholy rebellion, is before you. I have no principles to retract. I defy any one to point to any of my public acts at variance with the fixed principles which have guided me through life.”

It was evident that the difference in views of public policy, which were kept in abeyance during the war, would now come to the surface. The surrender of Gen. Joseph E. Johnston's army, April 26, 1865, was practically the end of the war (although August 20, 1866, was officially fixed as the close of the civil war by the second section of the act of March 2, 1867), and on April 29 President Johnson issued a proclamation for the removal of trade restrictions in most of the insurrectionary states, which, being in contravention of an act of congress, was subsequently modified. On May 9, 1865, he issued a proclamation restoring Virginia to the Union, and on May 22 all ports except four in Texas were opened to foreign commerce. On May 29 a general amnesty was declared to all except fourteen specified classes of citizens. Among the number excepted were “all participants in the rebellion the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars.” This exception was undoubtedly the result of personal feeling on the part of the president. It began to be perceived that a change was

taking place in his sentiments, and this was attributed to the influence of Sec. Seward, who was popularly supposed to perpetuate the humane spirit of the dead president. Those who had fears of too great severity now anticipated too great leniency. After the amnesty proclamation, the fundamental and irreconcilable difference between President Johnson and the party that had elevated him to power became more apparent. The constitution made no provision for the readmission of a state that had withdrawn from the Union, and Mr. Johnson, as a state-rights Democrat, held that the southern states had never been out of the Union; that the leaders were solely responsible; that as soon as the seceded states applied for readmission under such a form of government as complied with the requirements of the constitution, the Federal government had no power to refuse them admission, or to make any conditions upon subjects over which the constitution had not expressly given congress jurisdiction.

The Republican leaders held that the action of the seceded states had deprived them of their rights as members of the Union; that in any event they were conquered, and as such at the mercy of the conqueror; and that, at best, they stood in the category of territories seeking admission to the Union, in which case congress could admit or reject them at will. The particular question that brought on

a clash between these principles was the civil status of the negro. The 13th amendment became a law December 18, 1865, with Johnson's concurrence. The Republicans held that slavery had been the cause of the war; that only by giving the freedman the right to vote could he be protected, and the results of the war secured; and that no state should be admitted until it had granted the right of suffrage to the negroes within its borders. Johnson held this to be a matter of internal regulation, beyond the control of congress. From May 9 till July 13 he appointed provisional governors for seven states, whose duties were to reorganize the governments. The state governments were organized, but passed such stringent laws in reference to the negroes that the Republicans declared it was a worse form of slavery than the old. When congress met in December, 1865, it was overwhelmingly Republican and firmly determined to protect the negro against outrage and oppression. The first breach between the president and the party in power was the veto of the freedman's bureau bill in February, 1866, which was designed to protect the negroes. One of the grounds of the veto was that it had been passed by a congress in which the southern states had no representatives. On March 27 the president vetoed the civil rights bill, which made freedmen citizens without the right of suffrage. The chief ground of objection was the

interference with the rights of the states. This bill was passed over the veto.

[ Fac-simile of last page of letter from Andrew Johnson to David D. Patterson ]

On June 16 the 14th amendment to the constitution, which contained the principle of the civil rights bill, was proposed, disapproved by the president, but ratified and declared in force, July 28, 1868. Both houses of congress passed a joint resolution that the delegation from a state lately in rebellion should not be received by either the senate or the house until both united in declaring said state a member of the Union. In July the second freedman's bureau bill was passed, vetoed, and passed over the veto. In June, 1866, the Republicans in congress brought forward their plan of reconstruction, which was called the “congressional plan,” in contradistinction to the president's plan, of which he spoke as “my policy.” The chief features of the congressional plan were to give the negroes the right to vote, to protect them in this right, and to prevent the Confederate leaders from voting. Congress met on December 3, 1866. The bill giving negroes the right of suffrage in the District of Columbia was passed over a veto. An attempt was made to impeach the president, but it failed.

In January, 1867, a bill was passed to deprive the president of the power to proclaim general amnesty, which he disregarded. Measures were adopted looking to the meeting of the 40th and all subsequent congresses immediately upon the adjournment of the predecessor. The president was deprived of the command of the army by a “rider” to the army appropriation bill, which provided that his orders should only be given through the general, who was not to be removed without the previous consent of the senate. The bill admitting Nebraska provided that no law should ever be passed in that state denying the right of suffrage to any person because of his color or race. This was vetoed, and passed over the veto. On March 2, 1867, the “bill to provide efficient governments for the insurrectionary states,” which embodied the congressional plan of reconstruction, was passed, vetoed, and passed over the veto. This divided the southern states into military districts, each under a brigadier-general, who was to preserve order and exercise all the functions of government until the citizens had formed a state government, ratified the amendments, and been admitted to the Union. On March 2, 1867, the tenure-of-office bill was passed over the veto. This provided that civil officers should remain in office until the confirmation of their successors; that the members of the cabinet should be removed only with the consent of the senate; and that, when congress was not in session, the president could suspend, but not remove, any official, and, in case the senate at the next session should not ratify the suspension, the suspended official should be reinducted into his office. The elections

of 1866 were uniformly favorable to the Republicans, and gave them a two-thirds majority in both house and senate.

On August 5, 1867, the president requested Edwin M. Stanton to resign his office as secretary of war. Mr. Stanton refused, was suspended, and Gen. Grant was appointed in his place. When congress met, it refused to ratify the suspension. Gen. Grant then resigned, and Mr. Stanton again entered upon the duties of his office. The president removed him, and appointed Lorenzo Thomas, adjutant-general, U. S. army. The senate declared this act illegal, and Mr. Stanton refused to comply, and notified the speaker of the house. On February 24, 1868, the house passed a resolution for the impeachment of the president. The trial began on March 5. The main articles of impeachment were for violating the provisions of the tenure-of-office act, which it was claimed he had done in order to test its constitutionality. After the trial began, the president made a tour through the northwest, which was called “swinging round the circle,” because in his speeches he declared that he had swung around the entire circle of offices, from alderman to president. He made many violent and intemperate speeches to the crowds that assembled to meet him, and denounced the congress then sitting as “no congress,” because of its refusal to admit the representatives and senators

from the south, and on these speeches were based additional articles of impeachment. On May 16 the test vote was had. Thirty-five senators were for conviction and nineteen for acquittal. The change of one vote would have carried conviction. The senate adjourned sine die, and a verdict of acquittal was entered.

After the expiration of his term the president returned to Tennessee. He was a candidate for the U. S. senate, but was defeated. In 1872 he was a candidate for congressman from the state-at-large, and, though defeated, he regained his hold upon the people of the state, and in January, 1875, was elected to the senate, taking his seat at the extra session of 1875. Two weeks after the session began he made a speech which was a skilful but bitter attack upon Gen. Grant. He returned home at the end of the session, and in July visited his daughter, who lived near Carter's station in east Tennessee. There he was stricken with paralysis, July 29, and died the next day. He was buried at Greenville. His “Speeches” were published with a biographical introduction by Frank Moore (Boston, 1865), and his “Life and Times” were written by John Savage (New York, 1866). See also “The Tailor Boy” (Boston, 1865), and “The Trial of Andrew Johnson on Impeachment” (3 vols., Washington, 1868).

His wife,, b. in Leesburg,

Washington County, Tenn., October 4, 1810; d. in Home, Greene County, Tenn., January 15, 1876, was the only daughter of a widow in Greenville, Tenn. On May 27, 1826, she married Andrew Johnson, and devoted herself to his interest and education, contributing effectually toward his future career. She remained in Greenville while he served in the legislature, and in 1861 spent two months in Washington while Mr. Johnson was in the senate. Owing to impaired health she returned to Greenville, and while there received an order, dated April 24, 1862, requiring her to pass beyond the Confederate lines through Nashville in thirty-six hours. This was impossible, owing to her illness, and she therefore remained in Greenville all summer, hearing constantly rumors of Mr. Johnson's murder. In September she applied for permission to cross the line, and, accompanied by her children and Mr. Daniel Stover, she began her journey to Nashville. At Murfreesboro they were met by Gen. Forrest, who detained them until Isham G. Harris and Andrew Ewing obtained permission from the authorities at Richmond for them to pass. Mrs. Johnson joined her husband at Nashville. During her residence in Washington Mrs. Johnson appeared in society as little as possible.

Their daughter,, born in Greenville, Tenn., October 25, 1828, was educated in Georgetown, D. C., and during her school-life was a frequent guest in the White House in President Polk's administration. She returned to east Tennessee in 1851, and on December 13, 1857, married Judge David T. Patterson. She presided at the White House in place of her invalid mother, and, with her sister, assisted in the first reception that was held by President Johnson, January 1, 1866. During the early spring an appropriation of $30,000 was made by congress to refurnish the executive mansion, and Mrs. Patterson superintended the purchase. Another daughter,, born in Greenville, Tenn., May 8, 1832; died in Bluff City, Tenn., April 19, 1883, married Daniel Stover, of Carter county, who died in 1862, and in 1869 she married William R. Brown, of Greenville, Tenn. The president had three sons, Charles (1830-'63), Robert (1834-'69), who was his secretary, and Andrew (1852-'79).


text:
Author:James Phelan

Works

 * History of Tennessee, 1888
 * “Andrew Johnson” in The Presidents of the United States, 1789-1914, 1914.

title: Author:James Phelan


text: Page:EB1911 - Volume 24.djvu/98

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 24.djvu/98


text: Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB/Progress


text:
On Oratory

 * On Oratory (Guthrie) – 1822 translation by William Guthrie
 * De oratore (Sutton–Rackham) – 1942 translation by E. W. Sutton (b. 1871 – d. before 1942) and H. Rackham (1868–1944), for the Loeb Classical Library

title: On Oratory


text:
Page:Folk-lore - A Quarterly Review. Volume 4, 1893.djvu/533

 Rh would grant him a son. So the king said to his wife: "Go and sit for a night on the river-bank; perchance God may grant our desire." The queen went out and sat by the river-side, and as she sat and as she prayed a white-bearded man came forth from the waters of the river, and clapped her on the back with his hand, and said: "Go home and be happy; God will give you a son." The queen went home, and in full time she conceived and bore a son. After several years, the prince grew up, and by day he used to go out to hunt, and in the evening he would take the air in the garden. One day, while wandering round, he heard a splashing sound, as if some one was bathing in the pond. Coming closer up, he saw a Pari who had been bathing, and was putting on her clothes. The prince said, "Who are you?" and she replied, "I am a Pari. My name is Kismat Pari"; and, saying this, she spread her wings and flew away towards the sky. The prince came home and said nothing, but lay down to rest. Some days after the Wazir said to the king, "Why is your son so sad?" The king sent for his son and asked what was the matter with him ; but the prince only said, "Oh, Kismat Pari!" Not another word would he say. Then the king said: "There is a faqīr who lives outside the town; he will tell you about her." The prince went out to where the faqīr lived, and found him with little boys playing all round him. Some were jumping over him, and others pushing him, and others pulling him by the ear. The prince stood there and said nothing. The faqīr said, "Prince, why don't you come and play with me like the others?" But the prince only said, "Oh, show me Kismat Pari." Then the faqīr pointed with his hand and said, "Do you see that town?" The prince looked in that direction, and a town became visible to him. Then the faqīr said, "Go there"; and the prince started off. It was a long way off, though the faqīr, by his magic, had made it appear near; and it took him eight days to


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Wray, John