text:
The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite/Letters/Letter IX

To Titus, Hierarch, asking by letter what is the house of wisdom, what the bowl, and what are its meats and drinks?

Section I
I do not know, O excellent Titus, whether the holy Timothy departed, deaf to some of the theological symbols which were explained by me. But, in the Symbolic Theology, we have thoroughly investigated for him all the expressions of the Oracles concerning God, which appear to the multitude to be monstrous. For they give a colour of incongruity dreadful to the uninitiated souls, when the Fathers of the unutterable wisdom explain the Divine and Mystical Truth, unapproachable by the profane, through certain, certainly hidden and daring enigmas. Wherefore also, the many discredit the expressions concerning the Divine Mysteries. For, we contemplate them only through the sensible symbols that have grown upon them. We must then strip them, and view them by themselves in their naked purity. For, thus contemplating them, we should reverence a fountain of Life flowing into Itself—viewing It even standing by Itself, and as a kind of single power, simple, self-moved, and self-worked, not abandoning Itself, but a knowledge surpassing every kind of knowledge, and always contemplating Itself, through Itself. We thought it necessary then, both for him and for others, that we should, as far as possible, unfold the varied forms of the Divine” representations of God in symbols. For, with what incredible and simulated monstrosities are its external, forms filled? For instance, with regard to the superessential Divine generation, representing a body of God corporally generating God; and describing a word flowing out into air from a man’s heart, which eructates it, and a breath, breathed forth from a mouth; and celebrating God-bearing bosoms embracing a son of God, bodily; or representing these things after the manner of plants, and producing certain trees, and branches, and flowers and roots, as examples; or fountains of waters y, bubbling forth; or seductive light productions of reflected splendours; or certain other sacred representations which explain superessential descriptions of God; but with regard to the intelligible providences of Almighty God, either gifts, manifestations, or powers, or properties, or repose, or abidings, or progressions, or distinctions, or unions, clothing Almighty God in human form, and in the varied shape of wild beasts and other living creatures, and plants, and stones; and attributing to Him ornaments of women, or weapons of savages; and assigning working in clay, and in a furnace, as it were to a sort of artisan; and placing under Him, horses and chariots and thrones; and spreading before Him certain dainty meats delicately cooked; and representing Him as drinking, and drunken, and sleeping, and suffering from excess. What would any one say concerning the angers, the griefs, the various oaths, the repentances, the curses, the revenges, the manifold and dubious excuses for the failure of promises, the battle of giants in Genesis, during which He is said to scheme against those powerful and great men, and this when they were contriving the building, not with a view to injustice towards other people, but on behalf of their own safety? And that counsel devised in heaven to deceive and mislead Achab; and those mundane and meritricious passions of the Canticles; and all the other sacred compositions which appear in the description of God, which stick at nothing, as projections, and multiplications of hidden things, and divisions of things one and undivided, and formative and manifold forms of the shapeless and unformed; of which, if any one were able to see their inner hidden beauty, he will find every one of them mystical and Godlike, and filled with abundant theological light. For let us not think, that the appearances of the compositions have been formed for their own sake, but that they shield the science unutterable and invisible to the multitude, since things all-holy are not within the reach of the profane, but are manifested to those only who are genuine lovers of piety, who reject all childish fancy respecting the holy symbols, and are capable to pass with simplicity of mind, and aptitude of contemplative faculty, to the simple and supernatural and elevated truth of the symbols. Besides, we must also consider this, that the teaching, handed down by the Theologians is two-fold—one, secret and mystical—the other, open and better known—one, symbolical and initiative—the other, philosophic and demonstrative;—and the unspoken is intertwined with the spoken. The one persuades, and desiderates the truth of the things expressed, the other acts and implants in Almighty God, by instructions in mysteries not learnt by teaching. And certainly, neither our holy instructors, nor those of the law, abstain from the God-befitting symbols, throughout the celebrations of the most holy mysteries. Yea, we see even the most holy Angels, mystically advancing things Divine through enigmas; and Jesus Himself, speaking the word of God in parables, and transmitting the divinely wrought mysteries, through a typical spreading of a table. For, it was seemly, not only that the Holy of holies should be preserved undefiled by the multitude, but also that the Divine knowledge should illuminate the human life, which is at once indivisible and divisible, in a manner suitable to itself; and to limit the passionless part of the soul to the simple, and most inward visions of the most godlike images; but that its impassioned part should wait upon, and, at the same time, strive after, the most Divine coverings, through the pre-arranged representations of the typical symbols, as such (coverings) are, by nature, congenial to it. And all those who are hearers of a distinct theology without symbols, weave in themselves a sort of type, which conducts them to the conception of the aforesaid theology.

Section II
But also the very order of the visible universe sets forth the invisible things of Almighty God, as says both Paul and the infallible Word. Wherefore, also, the Theologians view some things politically and legally, but other things, purely and without flaw; and some things humanly, and mediately, but other things supermundanely and perfectly; at one time indeed, from the laws which are manifest, and at another, from the institutions which are unmanifest, as befits the holy writings and minds and souls under consideration. For the whole statement lying before them, and all its details, does not contain a bare history, but a vivifying perfection. We must then, in opposition to the vulgar conception concerning them, reverently enter within the sacred symbols, and not dishonour them, being as they are, products and moulds of the Divine characteristics, and manifest images of the unutterable and supernatural visions. For, not only are the superessential lights, and things intelligible, and, in one word, things Divine, represented in various forms through the typical symbols, as the superessential God, spoken of as fire, and the intelligible Oracles of Almighty God, as flames of fire; but further, even the godlike orders of the angels, both contemplated and contemplating, are described under varied forms, and manifold likenesses, and empyrean shapes. And differently must we take the same likeness of fire, when spoken with regard to the inconceivable God; and differently with regard to His intelligible providences or words; and differently respecting the Angels. The, one as causal, but the other as originated, and the third as participative, and different things differently, as their contemplation, and scientific arrangements suggest.

And never must we confuse the sacred symbols haphazard, but we must unfold them suitably to the causes, or the origins, or the powers, or the orders, or the dignities of which they are explanatory tokens. And, in order that I may not extend my letter beyond the bounds of propriety, let us come at once to the very question propounded by you; and we affirm that every nourishment is perfective of those nourished, filling up their imperfection and their lack, and tending the weak, and guarding their lives, making to sprout, and renewing and bequeathing to them a vivifying wellbeing; and in one word, urging the slackening and imperfect, and contributing towards their comfort and perfection.

Section III
Beautifully then, the super-wise and Good Wisdom is celebrated by the Oracles, as placing a mystical bowl, and pouring forth its sacred drink, but first setting forth the solid meats, and with a loud voice Itself benignly soliciting those who seek It. The Divine Wisdom, then, sets forth the two-fold food; one indeed, solid and fixed, but the other liquid and flowing forth; and in a bowl furnishes Its own providential generosities. Now the bowl, being spherical and open, let it be a symbol of the Providence over the whole, which at once expands Itself and encircles all, without beginning and without end. But since, even while going forth to all, It remains in Itself, and stands fixed in unmoved sameness; and never departing from Itself, the bowl also itself stands fixedly and unmovably. But Wisdom is also said to build a house for itself, and in it to set forth the solid meats and drinks, and the bowl, so that it may be evident to those who understand things Divine in a manner becoming God, that the Author of the being, and of the well being, of all things, is both an all-perfect providence, and advances to all, and comes into being in everything, and embraces them all; and on the other hand, He, the same, in the same, par excellence, is nothing in anything at all, but overtops the whole, Himself being in Himself, identically and always; and standing, and remaining, and resting, and ever being in the same condition and in the same way, and never becoming outside Himself, nor falling from His own session, and unmoved abiding, and shrine,—yea even, in it, benevolently exercising His complete and all-perfect providences, and whilst going forth to all, remaining by Himself alone, and standing always, and moving Himself; and neither standing, nor moving Himself, but, as one might say, both connaturally and supernaturally, having His providential energies, in His steadfastness, and His steadiness in His Providence.

Section IV
But what is the solid food and what the liquid? For the Good Wisdom is celebrated as at once bestowing and providing these. I suppose then, that the solid food is suggestive of the intellectual and abiding perfection and sameness, within which, things Divine are participated as a stable, and strong, and unifying, and indivisible knowledge, by those contemplating organs of sense, by which the most Divine Paul, after partaking of wisdom, imparts his really solid nourishment; but that the liquid is suggestive of the stream, at once flowing through and to all; eager to advance, and further conducting those who are properly nourished as to goodness, through things variegated and many and divided, to the simple and invariable knowledge of God. Wherefore the divine and spiritually perceived Oracles are likened to dew, and water, and to milk, and wine, and honey; on account of their life-producing power, as in water; and growth-giving, as in milk; and reviving, as in wine; and both purifying and preserving, as in honey. For these things, the Divine Wisdom gives to those approaching it, and furnishes and fills to overflowing, a stream of ungrudging and unfailing good cheer. This, then, is the veritable good cheer; and, on this account, it is celebrated, as at once life-giving and nourishing and perfecting.

Section V
According to this sacred explanation of good cheer, even Almighty God, Himself the Author of all good things, is said to be inebriated, by reason of the super-full, and beyond conception, and ineffable, immeasurableness, of the good cheer, or to speak more properly, good condition of Almighty God. For, as regards us, in the worst sense, drunkenness is both an immoderate repletion, and being out of mind and wits; so, in the best sense, respecting God, we ought not to imagine drunkenness as anything else beyond the super-full immeasurableness of all good things pre-existing in Him as Cause. But, even in respect to being out of wits, which follows upon drunkenness, we must consider the pre-eminence of Almighty God, which is above conception, in which He overtops our conception, as being above conception and above being conceived, and above being itself; and in short, Almighty God is inebriated with, and outside of, all good things whatever, as being at once a super-full hyperbole of every immeasurableness of them all; and again, as dwelling outside and beyond the whole. Starting then from these, we will take in the same fashion even the feasting of the pious, in the Kingdom of Almighty God. For He says, the King Himself will come and make them recline, and will Himself minister to them. Now these things manifest a common and concordant communion of the holy, upon the good things of God, and a church of the first born, whose names are written in heavens; and spirits of just men made perfect by all good things, and replete with all good things; and the reclining, we imagine, a cessation from their many labours, and a life without pain; and a godly citizenship in light and place of living souls, replete with every holy bliss, and an ungrudging provision of every sort of blessed goods; within which they are filled with every delight; whilst Jesus both makes them recline, and ministers to them, and furnishes this delight; and Himself bequeaths their everlasting rest; and at once distributes and pours forth the fulness of good things.

Section VI
But, I well know you will further ask that the propitious sleep of Almighty God, and His awakening, should be explained. And, when we have said, that the superiority of Almighty God, and His incommunicability with the objects of His Providence is a Divine sleep, and that the attention to His Providential cares of those who need His discipline, or His preservation, is an awakening, you will pass to other symbols of the Word of God. Wherefore, thinking it superfluous that by running through the same things to the same. persons, we should seem to say different things, and, at the same time, conscious that you assent to things that are good, we finish this letter at what we have said, having set forth, as I think, more than the things solicited in your letters. Further, we send the whole of our Symbolical Theology, within which you will find, together with the house of wisdom, also the seven pillars investigated, and its solid food divided into sacrifices and breads. And what is the mingling of the wine; and again, What is the sickness arising from the inebriety of Almighty God? and in fact, the things now spoken of are explained in it more explicitly. And it is, in my judgment, a correct enquiry into all the symbols of the Word of God, and agreeable to the sacred traditions and truths of the Oracles.


text:
Page:Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile - In the Years 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, and 1773 volume 2.djvu/394

 and rash in battle than could have been expected from a man of such mild manners.

happened at this time another novelty. The king brought the patriarch from Gorgora to Dancaz this year, at Easter, to hear that feast celebrated, with the Ethiopic service amended, of which we have already spoken abundantly. This countenance, so unnecessarily given to an innovation that produced every day such very bad effects to the Catholic interest, joined to many other circumstances, seemed clearly to indicate a change in that prince's mind.

patriarch having made but a short stay at Dancaz, it was currently reported a disagreement had happened, and that the king had sent him prisoner to Gorgora; and this false report affected greatly the weight the Catholics were supposed before to have had at court. But the transaction that followed was of a nature to promise much more consequences.

had a daughter called Ozoro Wengelawit, which means the Evangelical, a name she certainly deserved not from her manners. This lady was first married to Bela Christos, a man of rank at court, from whom she had been divorced. She was next married to another, and then (her two former husbands being still alive) to Tecla Georgis, who had before married her sister, another of the king's daughters. During this marriage she had openly lived in adultery with Za Christos, who had been married to her lifter, a third daughter of the king. Za Christos had been happy enough in preserving this lady's esteem longer than any other of her husbands, and nothing would content her now but a

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


text:
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

 * Series I
 * Series II

title: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers


text:
The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite/Letters/Letter X

To John, Theologos, Apostle and Evangelist, imprisoned in the Isle of Patmos.

I salute thee, the holy soul! O beloved one! and this for me is more appropriate than for most. Hail! O truly beloved! And to the truly Loveable and Desired, very beloved! Why should it be a marvel, if Christ speaks truly, and the unjust banish His disciples from their cities, themselves bringing upon themselves their due, and the accursed severing themselves, and departing from the holy. Truly things seen are manifest images of things unseen. For, neither in the ages which are approaching, will Almighty God be Cause of the just separations from Himself, but they by having separated themselves entirely from Almighty God; even as we observe the others, becoming here already with Almighty God, since being lovers of truth, they depart from the proclivities of things material, and love peace in a complete freedom from all things evil, and a Divine love of all things good; and start their purification, even from the present life, by living, in the midst of mankind, the life which is to come, in a manner suitable to angels, with complete cessation of passion, and deification and goodness, and the other good attributes. As for you then, I would never be so crazy as to imagine that you feel any suffering; but I am persuaded that you ate sensible of the bodily sufferings merely to appraise them. But, as for those who are unjustly treating you, and fancying to imprison, not correctly, the sun of the Gospel, whilst fairly blaming them, I pray that by separating themselves from those things which they are bringing upon themselves they may be turned to the good, and may draw you to themselves, and may participate in the light. But for ourselves, the contrary will not deprive us of the all-luminous ray of John, who are even now about to read the record, and the renewal of this, thy true theology: but shortly after (for I will say it, even though it be rash), about to be united to you yourself. For, I am altogether trustworthy, from having learned, and reading the things made foreknown to you by God, that you will both be liberated from your imprisonment in Patmos, and will return to the Asiatic coast, and will perform there imitations of the good God, and will transmit them to those after you.


text:
Page:Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile - In the Years 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, and 1773 volume 2.djvu/509

 his ordering the last Jesuit Bernard Nogueyra, to be publicly hanged. Now Gondar was not built till the end of the reign of Hannes I. who was grandson to Socinios, that is about the year 1680. Unless, then, these holy Jesuits, who, if we believe the missionaries, had all of them a sight into futurity before their martyrdom, had, from these their last visions, described Gondar as capital of Abyssinia, it does not occur to me how they should be historians of a fact that had not existence till 50 years after they were dead.

, Poncet speaks of towns and villages in Ethiopia; whereas it is known there are no towns, villages, or cities, but Axum. — I believe that if the Abyssinians, who built the large and magnificent city of Axum, never had other cities, towns, and villages, they were in this the most singular people upon earth; or, if places where 6000 inhabitants live together in contiguous houses, separated with broad streets where there are churches and markets, be not towns and villages, I do not know the meaning of the term; but if these are towns, Poncet hath said truth; and many more such towns, which he never did see nor describe, are in Abyssinia at this day.

, The Abyssinians live, and always have lived, in tents, not in houses. — It would have been a very extraordinary idea in people living in tents to have built such a city as Axum, whose ruins are as large as those of Alexandria; and it would be still more extraordinary, that people, in such a climate as Abyssinia, in the whole of which there is scorching weather for six months, deluges of rain, storms of wind, thunder, lightning, and hurricanes, such as are unknown in Europe, for the other six, should choose to live in tents, after


text:
The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite/Letters/Letter XI

Dionysius to Apollophanes, Philosopher.

At length I send a word to thee, O Love of my heart, and recall to thy memory the many anxieties and solicitudes, which I have formerly undergone on thy account.” For thou rememberest with what a mild and benevolent disposition I have been accustomed to rebuke thy obstinacy in error, although with scant reason, in order that I might uproot those vain opinions with which thou wast deceived. But now, adoring the supreme toleration of the Divine long-suffering towards thee, I offer thee my congratulations, O part of my soul, now that you are turning your eyes to your soul’s health. For, even the very things which formerly you delighted to spurn, you now delight to affirm; and the things that you used to reject with scorn, you now delight to enforce. For, often have I set before you, and that with great precision, what even Moses committed to writing, that man was first made by God, from mud, and the sins of the world were punished by the flood, and in process of time, that the same Moses, united in friendship with God, - performed many wonders, both in Egypt and the exodus from Egypt, by the power and action of the same God. Nor Moses only, but other divine prophets subsequently, published similar things, not infrequently, who long before foretold that God should take the nature of man from a Virgin. To which statement of mine, not once, but often, you replied, that you did not know whether these things were true, and that you were entirely ignorant, even who that Moses was, and whether he was white or black. Further, that you rejected with scorn the Gospel of Jesus Christ, Who is God of all Majesty—which you used to call mine. Further, that Paul, the globe trotter, and a scatterer of words, who was calling people from things terrestrial to things celestial, you were unwilling to receive. Lastly, you reproach me, as a turncoat, who had left the customs of my country’s religion, and was leading people to iniquitous sacrilege, and urged me to unlearn the things in which I was placing my trust; or, at least, that I should put away other people’s things, and deem it sufficient to keep what was my own, lest I should be found to detract from the honour due to divine deities, and the institutions of my fathers. But, after the supernal light of the paternal glory of His own will sent the rays of His own splendour upon the darkness of your mind, at once He put into my inmost heart, that I should recall to your mind the whole counsel of God. How, for instance, when we were staying in Heliopolis (I was then about twenty-five, and your age was nearly the same as mine), on a certain sixth day, and about the sixth hour, the sun, to our great surprise, became obscured, through the moon passing over it, not because it is a god, but because a creature of God, when its very true light was setting, could not bear to shine. Then I earnestly asked thee, what thou, O man most wise, thought of it. Thou, then, gave such an answer as remained fixed in my mind, and that no oblivion, not even that of the image of death, ever allowed to escape. For, when the whole orb had been throughout darkened, by a black mist of darkness, and the sun’s disk had begun again to be purged and to shine anew, then taking the table of Philip Aridaeus, and contemplating the orbs of heaven, we learned, what was otherwise well known, that an eclipse of the sun could not, at that time, occur. Next, we observed that the moon approached the sun from the east, and intercepted its rays, until it covered the whole; whereas, at other times, it used to approach from the west. Further also, we noted that when it had reached the extreme edge of the sun, and had covered the whole orb, that it then went back towards the east, although that was a time which called neither for the presence of the moon, nor for the conjunction of the sun. I therefore, O treasury of manifold learning, since I was incapable of understanding so great a mystery, thus addressed thee—“What thinkest thou of this thing, O Apollophanes, mirror of learning?" “Of what mysteries do these unaccustomed portents appear to you to be indications?” Thou then, with inspired lips, rather than with speech of human voice, “These are, O excellent Dionysius,” thou saidst, “changes of things divine.” At last, when I had taken note of the day and year, and had perceived that, that time, by its testifying signs, agreed with that which Paul announced to me, once when I was hanging upon his lips, then I gave my hand to the truth, and extricated my feet from the meshes of error. Which truth, henceforth, I, with admiration, both preach and urge upon thee—which is life and way, and true light,—which lighteth every man coming into this world,—to which even thou at last, as truly wise, hast yielded. For thou yieldedst to life when thou renounced death. And surely thou hast, at length, acted in the best possible manner, if thou shalt adhere henceforth to the same truth, so as to associate with us more closely. For those lips will henceforth be on our side, by the splendour of whose words, as blunting the edge of my mind, thou hast been accustomed by pretexts brought from various quarters, and by a gorgeous glow of eloquence, to vex the innermost recesses of our breast;—yea, even sometimes to probe us sharply by occasional stings of malice. Wherefore as formerly, as thou thyself used to say, the knowledge of Christian doctrine, although savoury, was not savoury to thee, but when you had brought yourself to it, merely to taste, it shrank from your mental palate, and as it were, disdained to find a resting-place in your stomach; so now, after you have acquired a heart, intelligent and provident, elevate thyself to things supernal, and do not surrender, for things that are not, things which really are. Therefore in future, be so much more obstinate against those who have urged you to the false, as you showed yourself perverse towards us, when we invited you, with all our force, to the truth. For thus, I, in the Lord Jesus, Whose Presence is my being and my life, will henceforth die joyful, since thou also livest in Him.

End of Dionysius the Areopagite. May his prayer be with us!


text:
Neal v. Delaware/Dissent Waite

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE.

I am unable to concur in this judgment. We said in Virginia v. Rives (100 U.S. 313), that the mere fact that no person of color had been allowed to serve on juries where colored men were interested, was not enough to show that they had been discriminated against because of their race. That is all that was shown in this case on the motions to quash, except that the accused declared in his affidavit that the exclusion of colored men from juries in Delaware had been because of their race. I cannot believe that the refusal of the court, on such an affidavit unsupported by any evidence, to quash the indictment and the panel of jurors because he had been discriminated against on account of his race, was such an error in law as to justify a reversal of the judgment. As the motions had once been submitted on his affidavit alone and decided, it rested in the discretion of the court to allow a rehearing and permit further evidence to be introduced. The refusal of the court to do so cannot, as I think, be assigned for error here.

title: Neal v. Delaware/Dissent Waite


text:
Neal v. Delaware/Dissent Field

MR. JUSTICE FIELD.

I am unable to concur with the majority of the court in the decision in this case. It proceeds upon two assumptions, both of which, in my judgment, are erroneous: one, that on motions to the court the averments of a party as to matters not resting within his personal knowledge, if not specially contradicted, are to be taken as true; the other, that the clause in the [[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|Fourteenth Amendment]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] to the Constitution, prohibiting the States from denying to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws requires them, in cases affecting the rights and interests of persons of the colored race, to summon persons of that race for jury service.

The defendant, who is a colored man, was indicted in May, 1880, in the court of general sessions for the county of New Castle, in the State of Delaware, for a rape upon a white woman, a crime punishable in that State with death. On motion of the attorney-general of the State, the indictment was removed for trial to the Court of Oyer and Terminer of the county. The defendant then presented a petition, praying for its removal to the Circuit Court of the United States, setting forth as grounds for the application, that he was a citizen of the United States and of the State of Delaware, of African race and descent; that by the statutes of the State all persons qualified to vote at its general elections were liable to serve as jurors, with certain exceptions, not important to be here mentioned; but that, by the Constitution of the State, the right of an elector was enjoyed only by free white male citizens over the age of twenty-one years; that the Levy Court of New Castle County was required, at its annual session in March, to select from the list of the taxable citizens of the county the names of one hundred sober and judicious persons to serve, if summoned, as grand jurors at the several courts to be held that year; and also the names of one hundred and fifty other sober and judicious persons to serve, it summoned, as petit jurors in such courts; that the Levy Court, at its session in March, 1880, in thus selecting persons to serve, if summoned, as grand and petit jurors in those courts, including that of the general sessions and that of Oyer and Terminer, had selected no persons of color or African race, but, on the contrary, had excluded them because of their race and color; that the prothonotary and clerk of the peace of the county had drawn from the list of those thus selected the grand jurors by whom the indictment against the petitioner was found, and the petit jurors by whom he was to be tried, and that persons of color and of African race, though otherwise qualified, had always been excluded from serving on juries, in the county and State, because of their race and color; that by reason thereof, the petitioner, in the finding of the indictment had been, and in the trial thereof would be, denied the equal protection of the laws; and further, that by the exclusion of all persons of color and African race from the grand and petit juries of the State, by force of its Constitution and laws, the petitioner was denied, and could not enforce in its judicial tribunals, the right secured to him by the act of Congress providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States.

The Constitution of Delaware was adopted in 1831; and the counsel for the defendant, in presenting the petition, assumed that its limitation of the right of suffrage to white male citizens was still operative, notwithstanding the [[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|Fifteenth Amendment]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]], and that as white persons are there named as electors, only such were allowed to serve as jurors. But this view is clearly untenable. The [[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|Fifteenth Amendment]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] took effect upon its adoption, and operated to strike out the word 'white' from the Constitution of Delaware; and such has been the uniform ruling of the courts of that State. The Court of Oyer and Terminer, accordingly, held that there was no law of the State forbidding the Levy Court to select persons of African race and color as jurors because of their race and color, if otherwise qualified; and further, that it did not appear that the grand and petit juries, though composed entirely of white persons, were so made up by the exclusion of colored persons on the ground of their race and color, or that the defendant was denied any right secured to him as a citizen of the United States through the selection of those panels. The application for a removal of the indictment to the United States Circuit Court was, therefore, denied. It is not necessary to justify this ruling by any extended argument, for it is held by a majority of this court that the removal was properly refused.

The defendant then moved to quash the indictment and the panel of grand jurors by which it was found, and the panel of petit jurors summoned for its trial, giving as reasons for the motion the action of the Levy Court in selecting persons to serve, if summoned, as grand and petit jurors, and the action of the prothonotary and clerk of the peace of the county in drawing the jurors from the list of those selected, and the consequent deprivation of the petitioner's rights, all of which are stated in the petition for the removal of the case. No additional affidavit was filed; but the attorney-general of the State waived this omission, and consented that the statements in that petition should be taken and treated as of the same force and effect in the consideration of the motion to quash as if presented by a separate affidavit. The motion was then heard, and after being retained under advisement for some days was denied, because, although in fact no persons of African race or color were on the panel either of the grand or petit jury, no evidence had been produced or offered by the defendant to prove his statement that the exclusion was by reason of their color or race, and the court could not accept such fact as established from the circumstance that no such persons were on either list or panel, nor from the unaided affidavit of the defendant; but held, that it should have been proved affirmatively by competent testimony outside of his own affidavit. This ruling constitutes, in the opinion of the majority of the court, reversible error.

It is obvious that the mere fact that no persons of the colored race were selected as jurors is not evidence that such persons were excluded on account of their race or color. The law only required one hundred 'sober and judicious' persons to be selected to serve as grand jurors, and one hundred and fifty such persons as petit jurors, out of the whole body of the county, and these numbers may have been selected without any other consideration than their merit and fitness to perform jury duty. There is no suggestion that the grand jurors by whom the indictment was found, or the petit jurors summoned for the trial, had not the prescribed qualifications, and were not 'sober and judicious' men. It would seem, when the law has been obeyed, as in this case, that something more than the mere absence of colored persons from the panels should be shown before they can be set aside. And the fact that colored persons had never, since the act of Congress of May 1, 1875, been selected as jurors may be attributed to other causes than those of race and color.

In Virginia v. Rives, which was before us at the last term, it was urged for the removal of the indictment against persons of the colored race from the State to the Federal court, that the grand jury by which they were indicted, and the jury by which they were to be tried, were composed wholly of persons of the white race, and that none of their race had ever been allowed to serve as jurors in the county of Patrick (where the indictment was found, and the trial was to take place), in any case in which a colored man was interested; but the court, speaking through Mr. Justice Strong, said that this statement fell 'short of showing that any civil right was denied, or that there had been any discrimination against the defendants because of their color or race. The facts may have been as stated, and yet the jury which indicted them, and the panel summoned to try them, may have been impartially selected.' 100 U.S. 313, 322. Upon this subject the court below said:--

'That none but white men were selected is in nowise remarkable in view of the fact-too notorious to be ignored-that the great body of black men residing in this State are utterly unqualified by want of intelligence, experience, or moral integrity to sit on juries. Exceptions there are, unquestionably, but they are rare, and so much so, that it is not often that more than one colored man appears upon a panel in the United States courts which have a whole State to select from; whereas in this case the selection was confined to a single county. And in support of the suggestion of unfitness, we have the fact that though the constitutional amendment and the legislation 'appropriate' to carry it into effect have been in force, the former for about fifteen years and the latter over five years, yet no instance has yet occurred where parties to a proceeding-and they are very often colored mem-have ever selected a man of African descent as a referee. This fact is not to be disregarded in assigning a cause for the exclusion of negroes from juries, if such exclusion could be shown to have been made. With our knowledge, as men of the State, of the African race in Delaware, and of the circumstance just referred to, it would be wholly unwarranted in us to infer exclusion for the mere reason of color, because our juries are, in point of fact, composed of white men alone; or to entertain a suspicion of such cause unless it had better support than the wholly unsupported affidavit of the defendant. To impute to the levy court a purpose to do otherwise than perform their duty by the selection of 'sober and judicious' persons to serve upon the juries, as the law requires, would be a wrong on our part upon the well-known principle that, in the absence of proof to the contrary, a public officer, discharging an official obligation or function, is to be presumed to have done it faithfully according to law.'

It also seems to me plain that the court below properly refused to accept as true the statements in the defendant's affidavit. If the unsupported statements of a party thus made could be taken as true, on a motion to quash, very few indictments would stand before the affidavits which would be offered. Here the affidavit was as to matters which could not possibly have been within the knowledge of the petitioner. However positive his averments, they must, therefore, be taken, like the averments as to the law of the State, as made upon information and belief only. It also imputed grave offenses to the officers of the Levy Court, if the act of Congress on the subject of jurors in State courts is valid. Under these circumstances, to accept as conclusive his statements would be-as was well observed by counsel-to reverse all the rules of evidence, overturn all orderly procedure in courts of justice, and contradict the settled maxims of ordinary human experience. It would be giving to his expression of opinion and belief, as to the criminal conduct of public officers, the force of positive proof.

After the decision of the motion the defendant applied for leave to produce the commissioners and the clerk and bailiff of the Levy Court as witnesses to establish his statements, and that subpoenas be issued for them. This application was denied on the ground that sufficient time had existed to produce such witnesses before the motion was heard, the court observing that 'application for leave to summon witnesses to support a motion which had been argued and refused because of want of proof, when sufficient time had existed for its production, was without precedent in the Court of Oyer and Terminer of the State, and, therefore, in this case, the motion must be treated as coming too late.' I may add to what is thus stated, that, so far as my knowledge extends, the application is without precedent in any court. Applications may be heard for a rehearing; but until a rehearing is had it is not permissible to call witnesses for the motion already decided. Besides this consideration, there was no affidavit, nor suggestion, by the defendant that the officers named would support his statement. His motion was simply for permission to make the experiment by calling them to the stand. The prothonotary and clerk of the peace were not shown to have had any knowledge on the subject; and the commissioners of the Levy Court could not have been required to answer as to the asserted fact that persons were excluded by them from the jury list on account of their race or color. If the law of Congress prohibiting such exclusion be valid, the commissioners by such action would have subjected themselves to penalties. And, whilst it is true that a witness may not claim exemption from answering questions where the answer might subject him to a criminal prosecution, yet it would be an unusual thing to require parties to be summoned upon a suggestion that they might be willing to criminate themselves and thus furnish support to a motion. The refusal to allow the defendant to make such an experiment with the commissioners, and to enter on an exploring expedition with the others named, does not appear to be a harsh ruling meriting animadversion, but one perfectly just and proper. And in this connection the statement of counsel of the defendant in their printed brief is not to be overlooked, that it was not in his power 'to produce any evidence of the intent with which the Levy Court excluded men of his race and color from the jury lists, other than the presumptive evidence already discussed,'-that is, such as arose from the fact that they had always been excluded from jury service; a statement which is equivalent to an admission that the right for which counsel now contend, had it been allowed to the defendant, would have been of no avail to him.

But erroneous as I deem the ruling of the majority of this court in the weight accorded to the unsupported averments of the defendant, as to matters not within his personal knowledge, the meaning given to the concluding clause of the [[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|Fourteenth Amendment]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] presents a matter for consideration of far greater importance. True, the opinion only reaffirms the doctrine in the cases from Virginia decided at the last term. I thought the doctrine erroneous then, and with great deference to my associates, I must say, that after a careful and repeated perusal of their opinion, my conviction remains unchanged. The legislation of Congress, which requires persons of the colored race to be admitted to serve as jurors in State courts, is contained in the fourth section of the act of March 1, 1875, c. 114, 'to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights,' which declares: 'That no citizen possessing all other qualifications, which are or may be prescribed by law, shall be disqualified for service as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States, or of any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and any officer or other person charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors, who shall exclude or fail to summon any citizen for the cause aforesaid, shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined not more than five thousand dollars.'

Before the adoption of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and [[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|Fifteenth Amendment]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]s to the Constitution, no one would have pretended that Congress possessed any power to legislate with respect to jurors-grand or petit-in the State courts. Upon no one subject would there have been a more general concurrence of opinion than that their selection was a matter entirely of State regulation; that it was for the States exclusively to determine who should be liable to serve as jurors in their courts, what qualifications they should possess, and in what manner they should be selected. Indeed, it was competent for the States to dispense completely with juries, and to require all suits, civil and criminal, to be determined without their aid.

Of the three amendments, it is plain that the Thirteenth and Fifteenth have no bearing upon the selection of jurors. The Thirteenth prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude, except in punishment for crime, within the United States, or in any other place subject to their jurisdiction. It makes every one within all our broad domain, and wherever our jurisdiction extends, on land or sea, a freeman, with the same right to pursue his happiness as all others, and on like conditions. But it does not undertake to do anything more; it does not confer any political rights; it leaves the States with all their previous powers to determine who shall fill their offices and be intrusted with the administration of their laws. A similar provision was found in the constitutions of all the Free States, and it was never supposed that it impaired in any respect the sovereign right and power of the people of every State to determine to whom they would confide the trusts of government.

The [[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XV|Fifteenth Amendment]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] only prohibits the denial or abridgment of the elective franchise to citizens by reason of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude. It excludes from the power of the State one ground of limitation upon the qualification of voters; it relates to no other subject. It is, then, to the [[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|Fourteenth Amendment]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] that the advocates of the congressional act must resort to find authority for its enactment, and to the first section of that amendment, which is as follows: 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

In the first clause of this section, declaring who are citizens of the United States, there is nothing which touches the subject under consideration. The second clause, declaring that 'no State shall make or enforce any law which will abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,' is limited, according to the decision of this court in Slaughter-House Cases, to such privileges and immunities as belong to citizens of the United States, as distinguished from those of citizens of the State. If this construction be sound, and, restricted as it is, it has not been overruled by those who approve of a loose and latitudinarian construction of another clause of the same section,-it will not be contended that the privilege of persons to act as jurors is covered by the inhibition. But if a broader construction be given to the clause, such as was advocated by the dissenting judges in Slaughter-House Cases, the inhibition can have no application. The Constitution, previous to this amendment, declared that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States,' and it was never supposed or contended that jury duty or jury service was included among those privileges and immunities. The third clause, which declares that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, has no reference to this subject. That is a provision found in all our State constitutions from the origin of the government, and is intended to protect life, liberty, and property from arbitrary legislation. It is upon the last clause of the section that the majority of the court are compelled to rely to sustain the act of Congress. 'No State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' What, then, is meant by this provision, 'equal protection of the laws'? All persons within the jurisdiction of the State, whether citizens or foreigners, male or female, old or young, are embraced in its comprehensive terms. If to give equal protection to them requires that persons of the classes to which they severally belong shall have the privilege or be subject to the duty-whichever it may be-of acting as jurors in the courts in cases affecting their interests, the mandate of the Constitution will produce a most extraordinary change in the administration of the laws of the States; it will abolish the distinctions made in the selection of jurors between citizens and foreigners, and between those of our race and those of the Mongolian, Indian, and other races, who may be at the time within their jurisdiction. A Chinaman may insist that people of his race shall be summoned as jurors in cases affecting his interests, and that the exclusion is a denial to him of the equal protection of the laws. Any foreigner, sojourning in the country, may make a similar claim for jurors of his nation. It is obvious that no such claim would be respected, and yet I am unable to see why it should not be sustained, if the construction placed upon the amendment by the majority of the court in this case be sound.

It seems to me that the universality of the protection contemplated by the clause in question renders the position of the majority of the court untenable. No one can truly affirm that women, the aged, and the resident foreigner, whether Caucasian or Mongolian, though excluded from acting as jurors, are not as equally protected by the laws of the State as those who are allowed or required to serve in that capacity. To afford equality of protection to all persons by its laws does not require the State to permit all persons to participate equally in the administration of those laws, or to hold its offices, or to discharge the trusts of government. Equal protection of the laws of a State is extended to persons within its jurisdiction, within the meaning of the amendment, when its courts are open to them on the same terms as to others, with like rules of evidence and modes of procedure, for the security of their persons and property, the prevention and redress of wrongs, and the enforcement of contracts; when they are subjected to no restrictions in the acquisition of property, the enjoyment of personal liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which do not equally affect others; when they are liable to no other nor greater burdens or charges than such as are laid upon others, and when no different nor greater punishment is enforced against them for a violation of the laws. When this condition of things exists in a State, there is that equality before the law which is guaranteed to all persons within its jurisdiction. The amendment, as I said in Ex parte Virginia, 'secures to all persons their civil rights upon the same terms; but it leaves political rights, or such as arise from the form of government and its administration, as they stood previous to its adoption. It has no more reference to them than it has to social rights and duties, which do not rest upon any positive law, though they are more potential in controlling the intercourse of individuals. . . . This is manifest from the fact that when it was desired to confer political power upon the newly made citizens of the States, as was done by inhibiting the denial to them of the suffrage on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, a new amendment was required.' 100 U.S. 339, 368.

The position that in cases where the rights of colored persons are concerned it is essential for their protection that individuals of their race should be summoned as jurors, is founded upon the assumption that in such cases white persons will be prejudiced jurors. 'If this position,' as I said in the case cited, 'be correct, there ought not to be any white persons on the jury when the interests of colored persons only are involved. That jury would not be an honest or fair one, of which any of its members should be governed in his judgment by other considerations than the law and the evidence; and that decision would hardly be considered just which should be reached by a sort of compromise, in which the prejudices of one race were set off against the prejudices of the other.' Id. 369.

As I am unable to find any warrant in the [[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|[[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|Fourteenth Amendment]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] for the legislation of Congress interfering with the selection of jurors in the State courts, or to perceive, even if that legislation be deemed valid, any error in the ruling of the court of Delaware I am of opinion that its judgment should be affirmed.

title: Neal v. Delaware/Dissent Field


text:
Page:Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile - In the Years 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, and 1773 volume 2.djvu/491

 ences of near fifty observations, made with a three-feet brass quadrant, in the course of several months I staid in that town, is lat 13° 34' 36" north.

I have to say further concerning Sennaar will come more naturally in my own travels; and I shall only so far confider the rest of Poncet's route, as to explain and clear it from mistakes, Sennaar being the only point in which our two trails unite.

beg the reader to remark, that, from the time of Poncet's setting out of Egypt till his arrival at Sennaar, so far was he from being ill looked upon, or any bad construction being put upon his errand, that he was, on the contrary, respected everywhere, as going to the king of Abyssinia. It never was then imagined he was to dry up the Nile, nor that he was a conjurer to change its course, nor that he was to teach the Abyssinians to cast cannon and make war, nor that he was loaded with immense sums of money. These were all pier fraudes lies invented by the priests and friars to incite these ignorant barbarians to a crime which, though it passed unrevenged, will justly make these brethren in iniquity the devestation of men of every religion in all ages.

left Sennaar the 12th of May 1699, and crossed the Nile at Basboch, about four miles above the town, where he stopped for three days. This he calls a fair village; but it is a very miserable one, confiding of scarce 100 huts, built of mud and reeds.


text:
Page:Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile - In the Years 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, and 1773 volume 2.djvu/519

 consul had persuaded du Roule, that the proper presents he should take with him to Sennaar were prints of the king and queen of France, with crowns upon their heads; mirrors, magnifying and multiplying objects, and deforming them; when brocade, sattin, and trinkets of gold or silver, iron or steel, would have been infinitely more acceptable.

, an Armenian, a confidential servant of the French nation, was first sent by way of the Red Sea into Abyssinia by Masuah, to proceed to Gondar, and prepare Yasous for the reception of that ambassador, to whom he, Elias, was to be the interpreter. So far it was well concerted; but, in preparing for the end, the middle was neglected. A number of friars were already at Sennaar, and had poisoned the minds of that people, naturally barbarous, brutal, and jealous. Money, in presents, had gained the great; while lies, calculated to terrify and enrage the lower class of people, had been told so openly and avowedly, and gained such root, that the ambassador, when he arrived at Sennaar, found it, in the first place, necessary to make a procez verbal, or what we call a precognition, in which the names of the authors, and substance of these reports, were mentioned, and of this he gave advice to M. de Maillet, but the names and these papers perished with him.

was on the 9th of July 1704 that M. du Roule set out from Cairo; attended by a number of people who, with tears in their eyes, foresaw the pit into which he was tailing. He embarked on the Nile; and, in his passage to Siout, he found at every halting place some new and


text:
User:Wikitanvir/common.js

mw.loader.load('http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wikitanvir/global.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

title: User:Wikitanvir/common.js


text:
Wikisource:Books/The Life of Michael Angelo

The Life of Michael Angelo

 * Preface
 * Introduction

 * PART I—THE STRUGGLE
 * I: Strength
 * II: Shattered Strength
 * III: Despair

 * PART II—ABDICATION
 * I: Love
 * II: Faith
 * III: Solitude

 * EPILOGUE
 * Death

 * APPENDIX
 * Part I: Poems by Michael Angelo
 * Part II: Bibliography
 * Index


text:
User:Wikitanvir/common.css

@import "http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wikitanvir/global.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css";

title: User:Wikitanvir/common.css


text:
Page:Chesterton - A Short History of England.djvu/235

only way to write a popular history, as we have already remarked, would be to write it backwards. It would be to take common objects of our own street and tell the tale of how each of them came to be in the street at all. And for my immediate purpose it is really convenient to take two objects we have known all our lives, as features of fashion or respectability. One, which has grown rarer recently, is what we call a top-hat; the other, which is still a customary formality, is a pair of trousers. The history of these humorous objects really does give a clue to what has happened in England for the last hundred years. It is not necessary to be an æsthete in order to regard both objects as the reverse of beautiful, as tested by what may be called the rational side of beauty. The lines of human limbs can be beautiful, and so can the lines of loose drapery, but not cylinders too loose to be the first and too tight to be the second. Nor is a subtle sense of harmony needed to see that while there are hundreds of differently proportioned hats, a hat that actually grows larger towards


text:
Page:Chesterton - A Short History of England.djvu/236

Rh the top is somewhat top-heavy. But what is largely forgotten is this, that these two fantastic objects, which now strike the eye as unconscious freaks, were originally conscious freaks. Our ancestors, to do them justice, did not think them casual or commonplace; they thought them, if not ridiculous, at least rococo. The top-hat was the topmost point of a riot of Regency dandyism, and bucks wore trousers while business men were still wearing knee-breeches. It will not be fanciful to see a certain oriental touch in trousers, which the later Romans also regarded as effeminately oriental; it was an oriental touch found in many florid things of the time in Byron's poems or Brighton Pavilion. Now, the interesting point is that for a whole serious century these instantaneous fantasies have remained like fossils. In the carnival of the Regency a few fools got into fancy dress, and we have all remained in fancy dress. At least, we have remained in the dress, though we have lost the fancy.

I say this is typical of the most important thing that happened in the Victorian time. For the most important thing was that nothing happened. The very fuss that was made about minor modifications brings into relief the rigidity with which the main lines of social life were left as they were at the French Revolution. We talk of the French Revolution as something that changed the world; but its most important relation to England is that it did not change England. A student of our history is concerned rather with Rh


text:
Page:Chesterton - A Short History of England.djvu/237

Rh the effect it did not have than the effect it did. If it be a splendid fate to have survived the Flood, the English oligarchy had that added splendour. But even for the countries in which the Revolution was a convulsion, it was the last convulsion—until that which shakes the world to-day. It gave their character to all the commonwealths, which all talked about progress, and were occupied in marking time. Frenchmen, under all superficial reactions, remained republican in spirit, as they had been when they first wore top-hats. Englishmen, under all superficial reforms, remained oligarchical in spirit, as they had been when they first wore trousers. Only one power might be said to be growing, and that in a plodding and prosaic fashion—the power in the North-East whose name was Prussia. And the English were more and more learning that this growth need cause them no alarm, since the North Germans were their cousins in blood and their brothers in spirit.

The first thing to note, then, about the nineteenth century is that Europe remained herself as compared with the Europe of the great war, and that England especially remained herself as compared even with the rest of Europe. Granted this, we may give their proper importance to the cautious internal changes in this country, the small conscious and the large unconscious changes. Most of the conscious ones were much upon the model of an early one, the great Reform Bill of 1832, and can be considered in the light of it. Rh


text:
User:Candalua/common.js

// FUNCTIONS TO ENLARGE/REDUCE THE FONT //default size 100% - range is between 50%-200% var fontSize = 100; function enlargeFont { if (fontSize < 200) { fontSize += 10; $(".textBody").css("font-size", fontSize +"%"); } } function reduceFont { if (fontSize > 50) { fontSize -= 10; $(".textBody").css("font-size", fontSize +"%"); } } if (wgNamespaceNumber == 0) { $(document).ready( function { var d = ' '    + ''    + ''    + ''    + ' ';  $("#headertemplate").after(d); }); }

title: User:Candalua/common.js


text:
User:Candalua/common.css

/* "human" text size in pre boxes */ pre { font-size:0.8pc }

title: User:Candalua/common.css


text:
User talk:142.232.74.81

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * Help pages
 * Style Guide
 * Inclusion policy

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. For one thing, if you continue to edit without a username, your IP address is used to publicly identify you.

In any case, I hope you enjoy donating your time to grow the Wikisource library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click  [ edit] ) and place  before your question. Again, welcome! — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:142.232.74.81


text:
User talk:Asspersorgra

Associació de Persones Sordes de Granollers.
''--Asspersorgra (disc.) 17:42, 21 juny 2011 (CEST)Text en negreta AssPerSorGra''': Creat i som ciutadans què viu a Granollers des de Vallès Oriental. Amb gent i la comunitat sordes i sords a més aliats per, no perdent la cultura, als drets, som capacitat de vida, entitat de la comunitat sordes i sords aquí a Granollers. Un creador va esser senyor Juan Carrera no està sol sino hi havia 7 persones i un germà d'en Juan, m'he comentat va fet 1949 i et negat autorització i et torna't en 1956 hi havia 9 persones, fracàs. Depen d'ajuntament i càrrec municipi de Granollers de falange. En 1978, grup dels sords i sordes, tornar a fer la nova situació de la comunitat sordes i sords. No va tenir fins al 1980, grup del sords i sordes. Va aprova't d'Estatut en 1981, així creat nostra associació amb nom Hogar del Sordos del Valles Oriental i Comarca de Granollers; al primer lloc en situat al Carretó Sant Cristòfol, 49. Poc desprès al Avinguda Enric Prat de la Riba, 84 al primer pis. Mes tard canvi ubicació segons d'ajuntament al Carrer Torras i Bages, 11, per primera vegada li pagarem de lloguer; anys què canvi per molt socis i sòcies. També fan activitat de feina i gracies suport d'ajuntament per primera vegada. Aquí també nom al català Llar dels Sords Vallès Oriental de Granollers. Desprès anys al canvi ubicat d'associació al Carrer del Primer Marques de les Franqueses, 125, on primera vegada tenim pati, tornar creixent socis i sòcies; ultima vegada al Carrer de la Mare de Déu de Montserrat, 47. Als ultims va esser 1998 al tardor i així deixa't un cop abandonat o bé congelat de l'associació. Però, no haver perduts cap tots als documents que hi havia al Tres Torres sino alguns document haver agafat per punt d'ajuntament al retirar trastos. Hi havia calaixos, taula de Ping Pong, altres fustes del recreatiu del joc i concurs. També amb fotos del record ja desaparegut. Quina pena perdent amb records als mens hi ha copies amb socis i sòcies, també algunes copes d'esports algú sord l'ha de portar·lo a casa, dineral poca cosa per guardar-lo. Detalls de factures, caixers i altres com llibres legals, antic estatus. Una nit del inviern del 2004, al desembre d'un divendres parlar una convocatòria emergent per tornar esser. Va esser 2001, anys mes tard cap 2005 tornar intent però no consta cap manera d'ajuntament, tornar i va parlar senyor Batlle no funciona sense acord. Llavorés cap l'any 2009 uns aliats demanar per retorn l'associació, però no tenim segur i capacitat de tornar. Aquí en Granollers hi ha moltes interpret o interpreta ningú suport espero mes davant i fins primera setmana de febrer 2011, algú aliats vol esser càrrec i així un sí, torno la convocatòria al març 2011, en troballa al Plaça de la Porxada en un bar, dos de ells no creu tornar crear la ciutat de Granollers. Un cop fet, altre gent aliats començar mou-re al demanar FESOCA per nova Estatut, i aconseguit un pas i papers per continuant al nom canvi d'associació es la nova es Associació de Persones Sordes de Granollers. Departament de Justícia, parlar convocatòria per primera troballa amb l'interpreta amb dues de la junta i president va esser abril 2011, seguit funciona des de maig 2011 amb contacte polítiques de abans campanya. Més a més continua al referent per la convocatòria propers dies a moure. Abans de la reunió a revisar·lo i objectiu per futur. Us esperem per col·laborar a la nostra comunitat Sordes i Sords a Granollers i rodalies o metropolitana. Gracies.

title: User talk:Asspersorgra


text:
Author:William Haldane Porter

Works

 * (Statistics and Administration)

title: Author:William Haldane Porter


text:
The Times/1922/Public notice/John Brown

BROWN.—On the 16th Jan., at 10, Upper Park-road., Hampstead, the, D.D., Paster Emeritus of the Bunyan Meeting, Bedford, and formerly Chairman of the Congregational Union of England and Wales, in his 92nd year.

title: The Times/1922/Public notice/John Brown


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 62.djvu/412

 Oxford under Peter Sthael from Strasburg. He was admitted F.R.S. on 7 May 1668. Early in 1668, as Balliol College had no statutable master of arts to hold the office of proctor, he entered himself there as a commoner and was elected by the college as proctor. The validity of his election was referred to the king and privy council, but was remitted to the university and given by convocation against him.

Woodroffe was appointed chaplain to the Duke of York in 1669, and served with him when the duke was in command of the Royal Prince in the engagement with the Dutch off Southwold on 28 May 1672. This led to his appointment as chaplain to Charles II in 1674, and to his advancement in the church. He became lecturer to the Temple in November 1672, and through the influence of the Duke of York was installed canon of Christ Church on 17 Dec. 1672. On 14 Jan. 1672–3 he proceeded B.D. and D.D. Through the favour of Theophilus, earl of Huntingdon, a former pupil, he was instituted in 1673 to the vicarage of Piddleton in Dorset, but resigned it in the next year, when he was made subdean of Christ Church. At this time Woodroffe was a frequent preacher at Oxford, but, if the testimony of Humphrey Prideaux can be relied upon, his sermons were the subject of much ridicule (Letters to John Ellis, Camden Soc.) In 1675 he was appointed to the vicarage of Shrivenham, Berkshire, on the nomination of Heneage, earl of Nottingham, to whose three sons he had been tutor at Christ Church; but Prideaux asserts that he got the living through tricking Richard Peers [q. v.]

On 15 Nov. 1676 Woodroffe obtained a license to marry Dorothy Stonehouse of Besselsleigh, Berkshire, a sister of Sir Blewett Stonehouse, with a reputed fortune of 3,000l., and they went to live at Knightsbridge so as to be near the court. He had been appointed to the rectory of St. Bartholomew, near the Royal Exchange, London, on 19 April 1676, and he was collated to a canonry in Lichfield Cathedral on 21 Sept. 1678. These preferments he held with his canonry at Christ Church until his death.

In 1685 Woodroffe was considered a likely person for the bishopric of Oxford, but he did not obtain the appointment. He was nominated dean of Christ Church by James II on 8 Dec. 1688, but was not installed, the deanery being given to Aldrich. Woodroffe was admitted on 15 Aug. 1692 principal of Gloucester Hall, which was in complete decay, and by his interest among the gentry drew to it several students. He began rebuilding it in the hope of drawing to it the Greek youths brought to England by the advocates of reunion with the Greek church. About 1697 he commenced the erection, on part of the adjoining site of the college of Carmelite friars, of a large house to be called the Greek College. It was of flimsy construction, no one would live in it, and it was known as ‘Woodroffe's folly’ till its destruction in 1806. By February 1698–9 five young Greeks had been brought from Smyrna, and the number was afterwards increased to ten. The mismanagement of the college and other defects came under the censure of the Greek ecclesiastics at Constantinople, and the youths were forbidden to study at Oxford. One of them, Franciscos Prossalentes, printed in 1706 the work, which was reproduced in 1862, in the Greek language exposing the paradoxes and sophisms of the principal. Details of the manner in which some of these boys were drawn off to the Roman church, and of the outlay incurred by Woodroffe in maintaining the establishment, are set out in the calendar of treasury papers (1702–7, pp. 42, 207–209, 362, 399–400, 407) and in ‘Notes and Queries’ (2nd ser. ix. 457–8). He received grants from William III and Anne for the Greek college.

Another disappointment in connection with Gloucester Hall befell its principal. Sir Thomas Cookes [q. v.], a Worcestershire baronet, determined in July 1697 upon spending 10,000l. as an endowment for a college at Oxford. Gloucester Hall was the favourite object, though the money was all but diverted elsewhere mainly through Woodroffe inserting in the charter a clause that the king might put in and turn out fellows at his pleasure. This was withdrawn, but Cookes still refused on various grounds to carry out his intention, and Woodroffe preached a sharp sermon on 23 May 1700 at Feckenham before the trustees of the Cookes charity. The baronet died in 1701, and the bill for settling his charity upon Gloucester Hall was defeated in the House of Commons after passing through the House of Lords on 29 April 1702. Three pamphlets were issued by Woodroffe in its support, and an anonymous reply was written by John Baron. The matter was not carried through until the principal's death.

Woodroffe married, as his second wife, Mary Marbury, sister and one of the three coheiresses of William and Richard Marbury. He was ‘proprietor of one of the salt-rocks in Cheshire,’ and he bought the manor of Marbury in 1705 for 19,000l., but could not complete the purchase. Two actions


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 62.djvu/413

 concerning these estates were carried to the House of Lords, and he lost them both. He was for some time confined in the Fleet prison, and his canonry was sequestrated in April 1709. He died in London on 14 Aug. 1711, and was buried on 19 Aug. in his own vault in the church of St. Bartholomew (, Lond. Redivivum, ii. 428). He was a learned man, knowing several languages, including Italian, Portuguese, and ‘some of the Orientals.’ Mr. Ffoulkes mentions a letter by him as ‘in excellent Greek and beautifully written.’ He read in February 1691–2 at the Guildhall chapel ‘the service of the Church of England in the Italian language’ (Hist. MSS. Comm. 5th Rep. App. p. 382). But he wanted judgment, and his temper was unsettled and whimsical. A portrait of him hangs in the provost's lodgings at Worcester College.

Woodroffe's writings consisted, in addition to single sermons and poems in the Oxford collections, of: 1. ‘Somnium Navale,’ 1673. This is a Latin poem on the engagement in Southwold Bay. 2. ‘The Great Question how far Religion is concerned in Policy and Civil Government,’ 1679. 3. ‘The Fall of Babylon: Reflections on the Novelties of Rome by B. W., D.D.,’ 1690. The licenser would not allow its publication in March 1686–7. 4. ‘O Livro da Oração Commun’ (English prayer-book and Psalms translated into Portuguese by Woodroffe and R. Abendana, Judæus), 1695. 5. ‘Examinis et examinantis examen, adversus calumnias F. Foris Otrokocsi,’ 1700. Prefixed is the author's portrait by R. White. 6. ‘Daniel's Seventy Weeks explained,’ 1702. 7. ‘De S. Scripturarum Aὐταρκείᾳ, dialogi duo inter Geo. Aptal et Geo. Marules præside Benj. Woodroffe Græce,’ 1704.

[Union Review, i. 490–500, ii. 650, by E. S. Ffoulkes; George Williams's Orthodox Church in the Eighteenth Century, pp. xviii–xxv; Pearson's Levant Chaplains, pp. 43–5, 66–8; Foster's Alumni Oxon. 1500–1714; Wood's Athenæ, ed. Bliss, iv. 640–2; Wood's Fasti, ed. Bliss, ii. 218, 262, 301, 332–3; Clark's Oxford Colleges, pp. 436–42; Le Neve's Fasti, i. 625, ii. 513–18, iii. 581; Welch's Westm. School, pp. 145–6; Wood's Life and Times, ed. Clark, i. 472, 484, ii. 129, 193, 255, iii. 398, 399, 426; Hearne's Collections, passim; Watt's Bibl. Brit.; Baron's Case of Gloucester Hall; The Case of Dr. Woodroffe (Bodleian); Barker's Life of Busby; Lords' Journals, xvii. 27–95, xviii. 19–100; Commons' Journals, xiii. 843, 863; Daniel and Barker's Hist. of Worcester College.]

WOODROOFFE, ANNE (1766–1830), author, only child of John Cox of Harwich, was born on 14 July 1766. On 27 July 1803 she married at Streatham Nathaniel George Woodrooffe (1766–1851), who was vicar of Somerford Keynes, Wiltshire, from 1803. The Woodrooffe family was of some antiquity, being descended from Thomas Woodrooffe (rector of Chartham, Kent, 1646 to 1660), of the house of Woodroffe of Hope in Derbyshire (cf., Pedigree of Woodrooffe, 1878). Mrs. Woodrooffe devoted herself to teaching, in which she attained great excellence. In 1821 she issued at Cirencester ‘Cottage Dialogues’ (8vo; 2nd edit. 1856), which was written with a view to entertaining and improving the lower classes by a delineation of characters and scenes in rural life. Her most important book, ‘Shades of Character’ (Bath, 1824, 3 vols. 4to), was ‘designed to promote the formation of the female character on the basis of Christian principle,’ and is a system of education for girls set forth in the form of dialogues with a slight thread of story running through them. The fourth edition is dated 1841, and there was a seventh in 1855. The book shows insight into human nature.

Mrs. Woodrooffe died on 24 March 1830, and was buried at Somerford Keynes. She left one daughter—Emma Martha, born on 30 May 1807, who married, on 5 Feb. 1852, Thomas Wood (d. 19 Dec. 1865).

Other works by Mrs. Woodrooffe are: 1. ‘The History of Michael Kemp,’ Bath, 1819, 12mo; 9th ed. 1855. 2. ‘Michael the Married Man,’ a sequel to the last, London, 1827, 12mo; 2nd ed. 1855. 3. ‘First Prayer in Verse,’ new ed. 1855.

[Allibone's Dict. of Engl. Lit.; Bath and Cheltenham Gazette, 30 March 1830; Gent. Mag. 1852, i. 102. In the Brit. Mus. Cat. most of Mrs. Woodrooffe's works are assigned in error to ‘Sarah’ Woodrooffe.]

WOODROW, HENRY (1823–1876), promoter of education in India, born at Norwich on 31 July 1823, was the son of Henry Woodrow, a solicitor in that city. On his mother's side he was descended from the family of Temple of Stowe. After four years' education at Eaton, near Norwich, he entered Rugby in February 1839. He was in the schoolhouse, and was one of the six boys who took supper with Dr. Arnold on the evening before his death. Many of the incidents of Woodrow's school life are recounted in ‘Tom Brown's School Days,’ though Judge Hughes has divided them among different characters. Among his friends were Edward Henry Stanley, fifteenth earl of Derby [q. v.], Sir Richard Temple, and Thomas Hughes. He was admitted to Caius College, Cambridge,


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 62.djvu/414

 on 8 April 1842, and was elected a scholar on 21 March 1843, graduating B.A. in 1846 as fourteenth wrangler and M.A. by royal mandate in 1849. In Michaelmas 1846 he was elected to a junior fellowship which he retained until 1854. In November 1848 he accepted the post of principal of the Martinière College at Calcutta, and in 1854 he was appointed secretary to the council of education, receiving also the charge of the government school book agency. The arrangements in vogue when he accepted office had long been recognised as unsatisfactory. The council was composed of members all of whom had regular official duties of other kinds, and most of the labour of administration fell upon the secretary. Under this system education in Bengal had been declining. The only government vernacular schools were those founded by Lord Hardinge [see, first ], and these had dwindled from 101 to twenty-six. In 1855 a new system was introduced. A separate department, called ‘The Bengal Educational Service,’ was instituted whose sole duty was the management of government education. William Gordon Young was appointed first director of public instruction in Bengal, and Woodrow became inspector of schools in eastern Bengal. At the time of Woodrow's nomination he had only sixteen schools to inspect from Calcutta to Chittagong, among fifteen millions of inhabitants. He threw himself ardently into the work, and, not confining himself to his official duties, stimulated the interest of the natives by frequent lectures on physical science. In 1861 the number of schools had increased to eight hundred, and in 1876 it had risen to more than five thousand. On his first appointment he introduced the system of ‘circle schools,’ under which one superior teacher visited a group of village schools in turn. This plan, though now obsolete owing to the increased number of teachers, was very successful at the time in raising the standard of the elementary schools. Woodrow also introduced practical studies, such as surveying, into the curriculum, in order to demonstrate more forcibly the advantages of government teaching to the people, and on his visits of inspection he erected numerous sundials to supply the lack of clocks. In 1859 Lord Stanley, his former schoolfellow, who was then secretary of state for India, gave Woodrow high praise in his memorable despatch on education, quoting from several of his reports and testifying to the good effects of his system.

Woodrow continued his labours until thirteen years later, when Sir George Campbell, the lieutenant-governor, considering that government education was sufficiently well organised to dispense with a special department, replaced the administration of the schools in the hands of the collectors of districts by a resolution dated 30 Sept. 1872, restricting the educational department to the duties of teaching and reporting.

Although Woodrow did not regard the new system with favour, he accepted quietly the change in his position. In the following year he visited Europe, inspected the schools and colleges at Vienna, studied the Swiss schools at Zurich, and while in England acted as examiner in the government competition examinations under the civil service commissioners.

On his return to Calcutta in 1875 he endeavoured to induce the university of Calcutta to extend its curriculum in physical sciences and to curtail the study of metaphysics. In the same year he acted for a month as principal of the presidency college at Calcutta, but in September he was appointed to officiate as director of public instruction in Bengal, and he succeeded definitely to the post on the death of William Stephen Atkinson in January 1876. His appointment occasioned great satisfaction to the natives of Bengal, but his tenure of office was short. He died without issue at Dárjéling on 11 Oct. 1876. He married at Calcutta, on 18 Oct. 1854, Elizabeth, daughter of C. Butler, a surgeon of Brentwood in Essex. The natives of India raised 700l. to found a scholarship in Calcutta University and to erect a memorial bust of Woodrow. The bust was executed in marble by Edwin Roscoe Mullins and placed in the university of Calcutta. Another bust of him is in the library of Caius College, and a tablet was placed in Rugby school chapel in 1879 by a few of his friends and schoolfellows. In 1862 Woodrow extricated from the mass of records the minutes of Lord Macaulay when president of the council of education, and published them separately. For this he received the thanks of the governor-general, Lord. He was the author of a pamphlet ‘On the Expediency of the Introduction of Tests for Physical Training into the present System of Competitive Examination for the Army, Navy, and Indian Civil Service,’ London, 1875 (cf. Daily News, 23 Jan. 1875).

[An Indian Career: Memoir of Henry Woodrow, 1878; Laurie's Distinguished Anglo-Indians, 2nd ser. pp. 137–85, 313–37; Rugby School Register, 1881, i. 206; Venn's Biogr. Hist. of Gonville and Caius College, 1898, ii. 257; Journal of the National Indian Association, 1877, pp. 14–17; Record, 23 April 1879.]


text:
Page:The Habitat of the Eurypterida.djvu/11

It has been the custom to consider that all fossils are the remains of marine organisms unless obvious and indisputable evidence of their fluviatile, lacustrine, or terrestrial habitat is available; a fossil found without any other associates has been held to be marine until proved to be otherwise, but never has the suggestion been made that such a fossil was fluviatile until proved to be marine. Yet such a suggestion would be most logical, and, as we shall see, it would be far more natural than the one usually made. The early fish have always been considered normally marine, though recent studies of the character of the sediments in which their remains occur has led many of the former advocates of the marine habitat to concede that the earliest fishes lived in non-marine waters, perhaps lacustrine, but most probably fluviatile. Similarly, limestone faunas were at one time referred without question to a marine origin, but we now know that limestones of purely marine organisms may be formed by eolian deposition, as in the case of the Miliolitic limestone of the Kathiawar Peninsula of Western India (Grabau, 87, 574). There is thus no a priori reason


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 62.djvu/415

 WOODS, JAMES (1672–1759), nonconformist minister. [See .]

WOODS, JOSEPH (1776–1864), architect and botanist, second son of Joseph Woods by his wife Margaret, daughter of Samuel Hoare, was born at Stoke Newington on 24 Aug. 1776. His father, a member of the Society of Friends, engaged in commerce, contributed in English and in Latin, both prose and verse, to the ‘Monthly Ledger.’ Delicate health causing Woods to be removed from school when only thirteen or fourteen years old, he was mainly self-taught, but became proficient in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, French, Italian, and modern Greek. When sixteen he was articled to a business at Dover; but, preferring architecture, he placed himself in the office of Daniel Asher Alexander [q. v.], and afterwards began to practise, but, having no business capacity, was not very successful. He designed Clissold Park House for his uncle Jonathan Hoare, and the Commercial Saleroom, Mincing Lane; but in the latter building, a failure having resulted from his miscalculation of the strength of some iron trestles, he had to make good the loss. In 1806 Woods formed the London Architectural Society, of which he became the first president; and in 1808 he printed, but does not seem to have published, ‘An Essay on Modern Theories of Taste’ (London, 1808, 8vo). Having been entrusted with the editing of the remainder of Stuart's ‘Antiquities of Athens,’ Woods in 1816 issued the fourth volume of that work [see, 1713–1788]. Woods had already devoted considerable attention to geology, and still more to botany, as is proved by the appearance in the ‘Transactions’ of the Linnean Society for 1818 (vol. xii.) of a ‘Synopsis of the British Species of Rosa,’ the first of a series of papers devoted to the more difficult or ‘critical’ genera of flowering plants. In April 1816 he had started on a continental tour through France, Italy, and Greece, the results of which appeared in a paper ‘On the Rocks of Attica’ communicated to the Geological Society in 1824 (Geological Transactions, i. 170–2), and in ‘Letters of an Architect from France, Italy, and Greece’ (London, 1828, 2 vols. 4to); the work has illustrations by the author which are good in drawing but poor in colour and chiaroscuro; the text evinces considerable critical taste and judgment.

On his return to England in 1819 Woods took chambers in Furnival's Inn; but in 1833 he retired from his profession and settled at Lewes, Sussex, devoting himself mainly to botany. He contributed critical papers on ‘Fedia’ to the Linnean ‘Transactions’ for 1835 (vol. xvii.), on ‘Carex’ to the ‘Phytologist’ for 1847, and on ‘Atriplex’ to the same periodical for 1849, and made various excursions in England and abroad while engaged upon the ‘Tourists' Flora,’ the work by which he is best known. Accounts of such excursions to the north of England and to Brittany appear in the ‘Companion to the Botanical Magazine’ for 1835 and 1836, and that of one to Germany in the ‘Phytologist’ for 1844 (vol. i.) In 1850 appeared the ‘Tourists' Flora: a Descriptive Catalogue of the Flowering Plants and Ferns of the British Islands, France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and the Italian Islands’ (London, 1850), a work which has not yet been superseded. With a feeble constitution in a largely developed frame, Woods possessed tireless energy, and, being always a good walker, he continued to make excursions and to study critical plants, with a view to a second edition of his ‘Flora,’ up to the time of his death. Thus there are records in the ‘Phytologist’ of visits to Glamorgan and Monmouth in 1850, to France in 1851, and to the Great Orme's Head and part of Ireland in 1855; and in 1857 he visited the north of Spain (Journal of the Linnean Society, ‘Botany,’ vol. ii. 1858). He studied the genus Salicornia, partly in conjunction with Richard Kippist (1812–1882) [q. v.], also a native of Stoke Newington, who had assisted him with the ‘Tourists' Flora’ (Phytologist, vol. iv. 1851, and Proceedings of the Linnean Society, vol. ii. 1855); but the last series to engage his attention were the Rubi (Phytologist, new ser. vol. i. 1855–6), many of which he sketched. He also amused himself, when over eighty years of age, by finishing up some of his early architectural sketches as presents to his friends; and he was for many years an exceptionally brilliant chess player.

Woods died, unmarried, at his house in Southover Crescent, Lewes, 9 Jan. 1864, and was buried in the Friends' cemetery in the same town. He was a fellow of the Linnean, Geological, and Antiquaries' societies; and, in addition to fifteen papers with which he is credited in the Royal Society's ‘Catalogue’ (vi. 436), he contributed to Smith's ‘English Botany’ descriptions of several species that he had discovered which were new to Britain. Robert Brown (1773–1858) [q. v.] gave the name Woodsia to a rare and beautiful genus of British ferns. There is an engraved portrait of Woods by Cotman, dated 1822, of which there is a copy at the Linnean


text:
Page:The Habitat of the Eurypterida.djvu/12

 for implicitly accepting the marine origin of all those rocks for which it has been claimed, nor for believing that all fossils found in the Palaeozoic rocks, with the exception of freshwater molluscs, plants, and insects, are the remains of marine plants or animals. Just as there is a growing tendency at the present time to recognize the importance of the wind and of rivers as agents of transportation and deposition in the past, so there is noticeable an awakening from the old belief that all fluviatile organisms began their life in the sea, and only after countless ages of evolution in that realm, migrated first into brackish water and then into the rivers.

The present paper deals with the habitat of a class of crustaceous animals widespread in the Palaeozoic and confined to it. The Euryterida belong to the subclass of the Merostomata in the class Acerata of the phylum Arthropoda. Their nearest relatives are the limulids and scorpions with which latter group they have been classed by certain authors.

While it is generally accepted that some eurypterids lived in fresh water, the majority of palaeontologists at the present time still maintain that the early periods of the racial history of these organisms were passed in marine waters and that it was only, indeed, after their acme in development had been reached that these merostomes, becoming at first euryhaline, finally forsook the sea altogether and lived in rivers and in brackish water bodies until they became extinct at the end of the Palaeozoic. The evidence set forth in support of this hypothesis is so plausible that many have been led to think that there is a large and convincing array of facts sufficient to furnish an indisputable proof that the eurypterids lived during at least a part of Palaeozoic time in marine waters. It was with the purpose of showing that such a proof was really non-existent, and that the observed facts can also, and perhaps more rationally be accounted for in another way, that the present paper was undertaken. The author proposes to formulate a few of the principles which must be borne in mind in considering such a problem, and to point out the inconsistency in the lines of argument generally given to prove that the eurypterids were originally marine organisms. After a review of all the evidence available, the attempt will be made to judge it impartially and to determine which interpretation is really called for by the facts. The first chapter contains a record of facts, without comment; they are the data from which deductions are later made and of which interpretations are offered. These facts include: A, the distribution of all