text:
Speaker of the House of Commons (Canada)

The speaker of the House of Commons (président de la Chambre des communes) is the presiding officer of the lower house of the Parliament of Canada. A member of Parliament (MP), they are elected at the beginning of each new parliament by fellow MPs. The speaker's role in presiding over Canada's House of Commons is similar to that of speakers elsewhere in other countries that use the Westminster system.

The 38th Speaker of the House of Commons is Greg Fergus, who assumed the role on October 3, 2023, following the resignation of the 37th speaker, Anthony Rota. He is the first person of colour to be elected speaker. The speaker with the longest tenure is Peter Milliken who was elected for four consecutive terms lasting 10 years, 124 days.

Role
In Canada it is the speaker's responsibility to manage the House of Commons and supervise its staff. It is also the speaker's duty to act as a liaison with the Senate and the Crown. They are to rule over the house and have the government answer questions during the question period as well as keep decorum with the house. The speaker receives a salary of CA$274,500 ($185,800 as an MP in addition to $88,700 as speaker) and has use of a small apartment, in the House of Commons, and an official residence, The Farm, an estate located at Kingsmere in Gatineau Park, Quebec, across the river from Ottawa. In 2015 the speaker managed a budget of $414 million.

Along with the Senate speaker, the speaker of the House is responsible for the Parliamentary Protective Service, which provides security to Parliament Hill with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP).

The term "speaker" originates from the British parliamentary tradition. The French term now used in Canada is président (president, chairperson, or presiding officer); the term orateur, a calque (literal translation) of "speaker" and formerly the term used in France for the Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, was used until the early 1980s.

The speaker and their deputies preside over debates of the House of Commons, invite particular members to speak, maintain order and decorum (including reproving members who misbehave), and make rulings on points of order and points of privilege. By parliamentary rule and tradition, all statements in the House are addressed to the speaker, never to another member. For example, one does not say, "Prime Minister, will you explain to this House...", or "Thank you for the question." Instead, one would say, "Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister explain to this House..." or "Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for her question." Members are not allowed to speak while the speaker is speaking, and must sit down when the speaker rises to speak.

By convention, speakers are normally addressed in Parliament as "Mr. Speaker" (monsieur le président) for a man, and "Madam Speaker" (madame la présidente) for a woman; the speaker has also been addressed using the Inuktitut term ᐅᖃᖅᑎᑦᑎᔨ (Uqaqtittiji). Deputies of the speaker who are presiding at a given time are also addressed as "Mr./Madam Speaker."

Election
Although the Constitution requires that the speaker be elected by the House of Commons, traditionally this amounted to the rubber-stamp approval of an MP nominated by the prime minister. However, in 1986 this was changed and they are now selected by secret ballot. The speaker remains a sitting MP, but only votes on matters in the case of a tie.

All MPs except for Cabinet ministers and party leaders are eligible to run for speaker. Any MP who does not wish to put their name forward must issue a letter withdrawing from the ballot by the day before the vote. All MPs who do not remove their name from the ballot as of 6pm the day before the election are listed as candidates on the ballot and are allowed a five-minute speech to persuade their colleagues as to why they should be elected.

The dean of the House supervises the election of the speaker. The current dean is Louis Plamondon, who is also the longest continuously serving MP who is not in Cabinet.

All candidates who receive less than 5% of the vote are removed from the ballot. If no candidate received less than 5% of the vote then the MP with the fewest vote drops off. This continues, with a one-hour break between ballots, until one candidate receives more than 50% of the vote. In the event of a tie on the final ballot, the ballot is taken again. This happened once, in 1993, when Gilbert Parent won over Jean-Robert Gauthier.

The winner is escorted to the speaker's chair by the prime minister and leader of the Official Opposition. The newly elected speaker, by tradition, feigns reluctance as they are "dragged" to the chair in a practice dating from the days when British speakers risked execution if the news they reported to the king was displeasing.

On June 2, 2011, Conservative Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle) was elected speaker, defeating the following MPs over the course of six ballots: New Democrat Denise Savoie (Victoria) and Conservatives Dean Allison (Niagara West—Glanbrook), Barry Devolin (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock), Ed Holder (London West), Lee Richardson (Calgary Centre), Bruce Stanton (Simcoe North), and Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris). At the age of, Scheer was the youngest Speaker in Canadian history.

On December 2, 2015, Liberal Geoff Regan was elected speaker by members of the 42nd Parliament over fellow Liberal candidates Denis Paradis, Yasmin Ratansi and Conservative Bruce Stanton. He was the first speaker from Atlantic Canada or Nova Scotia in nearly a hundred years since Edgar Nelson Rhodes in 1922.

Anthony Rota was elected as 37th speaker on December 5, 2019, by winning a ranked ballot between himself, Joël Godin, Carol Hughes, Geoff Regan (the speaker during the previous Parliament), and Bruce Stanton. Following Rota's win, the Conservatives said that he had them to thank for his new election, after they decided in a Conservative caucus meeting to unseat Regan as a show of strength to the Liberal minority government that had obtained from the election that October 21. They did so by ranking Regan lower on the ranked ballot.

Opposition speakers
The speaker usually comes from among MPs of the governing party. But because they cannot vote unless their vote would break a tie and by convention must vote to maintain the status quo (which includes voting confidence in the government), a minority government can slightly weaken the opposition's power by electing an opposition speaker.

Speakers have been elected from opposition parties during the 1926 tenure of Arthur Meighen's Conservative ministry, the 1979 ministry of Progressive Conservative Joe Clark, and Stephen Harper's Conservative Ministry from 2006 to 2011. In the 39th Parliament, opposition members Peter Milliken, Diane Marleau, and Marcel Proulx ran for speaker. In 1957, when John Diefenbaker took power with a minority Progressive Conservative government, he offered the speaker's chair to Stanley Knowles of the opposition Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (the precursor to the New Democratic Party, or NDP) who declined. So far, every speaker from an opposition party has been a Liberal. Louis Plamondon, who became interim speaker on September 28, 2023 following the resignation of Anthony Rota and will serve until the election of a new speaker in early October, is a member of the Bloc Québécois.

Impartiality
The speaker is required to perform their office impartially, but does not resign from their party membership upon taking office, as is done in the United Kingdom. Speaker Lucien Lamoureux, the 27th holder, decided to follow the custom of the Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom and ran in the 1968 election as an independent. Both the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party agreed not to run candidates against him. The New Democratic Party, however, declined to withdraw their candidate. Lamoureux was re-elected and continued to serve as speaker. However, in the 1972 election, the opposition parties did not come to an agreement and ran candidates against him. Lamoureux was again returned but no subsequent speakers have repeated his attempt to run as an independent. The opposition parties may have chosen not to follow the 1968 precedent because of how close the election was: it produced a Liberal minority government with just two more seats than the Conservatives.

Tie-breaking votes
On May 19, 2005, Speaker Peter Milliken was required to cast the tie-breaking vote during a confidence measure for the first time in Canadian history. Faced with the defeat of Paul Martin's minority government, Milliken voted in favour of the NDP budget amendment. Despite popular belief that the speaker, as a Liberal MP, would automatically support the government, his vote was pre-determined by other factors. As speaker, Milliken's vote must be cast to allow the continuation of debate, or to maintain the status quo, a reflection of Speaker Denison's rule practiced in the British House of Commons. Thus, the speaker voted in favour of second reading, "to allow the House time for further debate so that it can make its own decision at some future time." The bill would later pass third reading without the need for Milliken's vote.

Speakers have only needed to vote in order to break a tie 11 times in Canadian parliamentary history. Milliken did so on five occasions, almost more than all previous speakers combined.

Deputy speaker
In addition to the speaker, a deputy speaker, also known as the Chair of Committees (of the whole), is elected at the beginning of each parliament to act in place of the speaker when the latter is unavailable. Under the Standing Orders, the speaker, after consulting with each of the party leaders, nominates a candidate for deputy speaker to the House, which then votes on that nomination. The deputy speaker presides over daily sessions of the House when the speaker is not in the chair. The deputy speaker also chairs the House when it sits as a Committee of the Whole. Other presiding officers, the deputy chair of committees and the assistant deputy chair of committees, are chosen each session to occupy the chair when the speaker and deputy speaker are not available. The deputy speaker and the other presiding officers are members of the Panel of Chairs, and can therefore be selected by the speaker to chair legislative committees. Like the speaker, the deputy speaker has a role in administering the House.

The deputy speaker of the 44th Canadian Parliament was Chris d'Entremont (Conservative); and the assistant deputy speaker was Carol Hughes (NDP).

The Chair of Committees is vested by Subsection 43(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act with full and adequate authority to address matters in the titular Speaker's absence: "Whenever the House of Commons is informed of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker thereof by the Clerk at the table, the Chairman of Committees, if present, shall take the chair and perform the duties and exercise the authority of Speaker in relation to all the proceedings of the House, as Deputy Speaker."

Retirement
Most former speakers retire from Parliament after their tenure as speaker, sometimes after returning to the backbench for a period. Several have been appointed to diplomatic positions, summoned to the Senate, or appointed to a vice-regal position such as lieutenant-governor of a province or, in two cases, governor general of Canada (Roland Michener and Jeanne Sauvé). While several former Cabinet ministers have served as speaker or stood for the position, no former speakers have subsequently been appointed to Cabinet. One speaker, Andrew Scheer, has gone on to assume a front bench position in the House of Commons: Scheer became leader of the Conservative Party of Canada in 2017 and served as leader of the Opposition from 2017 to 2020.

Interim speaker
The resignation of Speaker Anthony Rota on September 27, 2023, led to an unprecedented situation in which there was no Speaker while the House had several sitting days already planned. To give time for the election of a new Speaker to be organized, the House moved on September 27 to name Louis Plamondon of the Bloc Québécois as interim Speaker until the election. He was chosen as interim speaker by virtue of his status as Dean of the House, the longest-serving MP who is not a cabinet member or party leader; the Dean of the House is in any event in charge of presiding over the election of a Speaker at the beginning of a new Parliament.

Honorary Speaker
On March 9, 2016 Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger served as honorary speaker for about an hour to honour his years of service. Speaker Regan resumed his duties for the remainder of the sitting of the House.

Mauril Bélanger had initially been considered a front runner for the post of Speaker the previous year, but had withdrawn due to his being diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Bélanger died on August 15, 2016, five months after being named honorary speaker.

Counterparts
The speaker's counterpart in the upper house is the speaker of the Senate of Canada. Canadian provincial and territorial legislatures also have speakers with much the same roles. The position was preceded by the speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada.

List of speakers of the House of Commons
Key:

{{legend||Liberal Party of Canada|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||Historical conservative parties: Liberal-Conservative, Conservative, Unionist, National Liberal and Conservative, Progressive Conservative|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||Conservative Party of Canada|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}} {{legend||Bloc Québécois|border=1px solid #AAAAAA}}


text:
Los Jairas

Los Jairas was a Bolivian folk music group that was active in the 1960s. Their work features the charango, a stringed instrument from Bolivia.

World Music wrote that "In Bolivia innumerable groups have followed the Los Jairas model. Among the more prominent — through tours or recordings — are Los K'jarkas, Savia Andina, Khanata, Los Quipus, Wara, Los Yuras, Grupo Aymara and Paja Brava."

Los Jairas formed in 1965 by Edgar 'Yayo' Jofré, who brought the group together to play at Pena Naira.

One of the early members was Gilbert Favre, founder of the folklore cabaret La Pena Naira in La Paz.

Members of the band:
 * Ernesto Cavour - charango
 * Edgar Joffré - voice, drums, zampoña (also called sicu)
 * Julio Godoy
 * Gilbert Favre - quena (kena)

Favre was a Swiss jazz player who played the quena with great skill and sensitivity.

On several of their albums, they featured Alfredo Dominguez, one of the finest Bolivian guitar players who wrote and composed many songs. His appearance on the album Grito de Bolivia was the highlights of Los Jairas' research into neo-folklore.

Michelle Bigenho wrote in Intimate Distance that "Los Jairas, an ensemble founded in the mid-1960s... completely transformed the performance styles of Bolivian music. Its practical size—four members—facilitated international touring, and the attention brought to it by foreigners finally made Bolivians take serious notice of what could be played on those instruments that were considered previously as just "cosas de indios" (indian things). When Los Jairas appeared on the Bolivian music scene, they built on the ongoing process of folklorizing indigenous musical expressions, developing virtuosity on the iconic "Andean" instruments of quena, zampoña, and charango. They were one of the first nationally and internationally successful small Bolivian bands that performed what has been called the "Pan-Andean" style."

Gilka Cespedes wrote that Los Jairas "was formed by Ernesto Cavour, an extraordinary charango player; Edgar Jofre, singer and percussionist; J. Godoy, guitarist; and the French/Swiss Gilbert Favre, the kena player of the group. Later, they were joined by Alfredo Dominguez, an equally extraordinary guitar player and composer. The standard ensemble consisted of kena, guitar, charango, and bombo.

Cavour and Dominguez... created a vast repertoire that provided a new orientation and model for the many groups of imitators who followed Los Jairas. The floodgates of a new idiom had been opened, although in the case of Los Jairas it limited itself to the arranging of items in which Favre's and Cavour's brilliance could be displayed. They played pieces of the traditional repertoire, and the emphasis was strongly placed on the kena. Vocal melodies would be entrusted solely to the kena, which played either solo or in thirds with a second kena... Favre's technique included a vibrato, a voluminous sound with a wide range of dynamic changes, a ubiquitous glissando between intervals a third or more apart, a distinctive phrasing, and a personal "signature," which was the raising of the last note of a phrase by a minimal pitch, thus creating a "tail," as it were. Planned or accidental, this feature was imitated by other groups. Los Jairas also reinterpreted pieces of indigenous origin such as sicureadas, by re-elaborating the panpipe melody into a single kena solo, followed at the second turn by another kena a third apart, thus altering considerably the very essence of sicu music. The charango as a virtuoso instrument was emphasized as well, and Cavour composed many pieces in which the different timbres of the instrument receive special attention. Los Jairas created songs that are now classics, such as "El llanto de mi madre," "Alborozo kolla," and others popularized abroad, such as "El condor pasa.""

Fernando Rios wrote that "Los Jairas... highlighted the kena more than the charango. This probably had been Favre's idea... Favre, formerly a Dixieland jazz clarinetist, took up the kena in the early 1960s when he was living in Europe (he moved to Bolivia in 1966), where he heard the sound of the instrument for the first time through the playing of the Paris-based Argentine soloists Carlos Ben-Pott, Ricardo Galeazzi, and Alfredo de Robertis. In France's Andean music milieu of the 1960s, a scene dominated by the Argentine-led conjuntos Los Incas and Los Calchakis, the kenistas normally occupied the main soloist role... an approach that Bolivia's Los Jairas adopted."

World Music wrote that "Around 1965 an influential - and indeed definitive - musical model for the Andes emerged with Los Jairas.... The idea was to form a quartet of charango (Bolivian mandolin), guitar, quena and bombo (drum): instruments that had never been played together before, having had their own seasons in the mountain villages. The quartet arranged the music to show off each of the instruments' solo and group possibilities.... they forged a new melodic and rhythmic style..."

Partial discography

 * Los Jairas
 * Edgar Joffre - Los Jairas
 * Grito de Bolivia- Los Jairas (1967)
 * Sempre con...Los Jairas (1969)
 * Edgar "Yayo" Joffre y Los Jairas (1969)
 * La Flute Des Andes (1970)
 * Lo Mejor de los Jairas (1974)
 * Los Jairas en vivo (1976)
 * Canto a la viva (1978)
 * Al Pueblo de mis Ancestros (1992)

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

title: Los Jairas


text:
Right Now

Right Now may refer to:

 * Present, the time associated with events perceived directly

Albums

 * Right Now (Atomic Kitten album) or the title song (see below), 2000
 * Right Now (Fabrizio Sotti Album) or the title song, 2013
 * Right Now (Grandmaster Mele-Mel & Scorpio album) or the title song, 1997
 * Right Now (Herbie Mann album) or the title song (see below), 1962
 * Right Now! (Howard Johnson album), 1997
 * Right Now! (Jackie McLean album) or the title song, 1966
 * Right Now (Leon Jackson album) or the title song, a cover of the Herbie Mann song (see below), 2008
 * Right Now! (Little Richard album), 1974
 * Right Now! (Mel Tormé album) or the title song, a cover of the Herbie Mann song (see below), 1966
 * Right Now! (Pussy Galore album), 1987
 * Right Now (Rushlow album) or the title song, 2003
 * Right Now (Wizz Jones album) or the title song, 1972
 * Right Now: Live at the Jazz Workshop, by Charles Mingus, 1966

Songs

 * "Right Now" (Al B. Sure! song), 1992
 * "Right Now" (Allday song), 2014
 * "Right Now" (Asian Kung-Fu Generation song), 2016
 * "Right Now" (Atomic Kitten song), 1999
 * "Right Now" (Futurasound song), 2003
 * "Right Now" (Gene Vincent song), 1959; covered by Mary Chapin Carpenter, 1991
 * "Right Now" (Herbie Mann song), 1962; covered by Mel Tormé, Siouxsie/The Creatures, The Pussycat Dolls, and others
 * "Right Now" (Korn song), 2003
 * "Right Now" (Mary J. Blige song), 2014
 * "Right Now" (Nick Jonas and Robin Schulz song), 2018
 * "Right Now" (Psy song), 2010
 * "Right Now" (Rihanna song), 2013
 * "Right Now" (SR-71 song), 2000
 * "Right Now" (Van Halen song), 1992
 * "Right Now (Na Na Na)", by Akon, 2008
 * "Right Now", by Billy Preston from Encouraging Words, 1970
 * "Right Now", by Coogie featuring Crush, 2023
 * "Right Now", by Chris Gaines, a reworking of the 1970 Youngbloods song "Get Together", 1999
 * "Right Now", by Danity Kane from Danity Kane, 2006
 * "Right Now", by Emeli Sandé from Long Live the Angels, 2016
 * "Right Now", by the Flaming Lips from Telepathic Surgery, 1989
 * "Right Now", by Fort Minor from The Rising Tied, 2005
 * "Right Now", by Haim from Something to Tell You, 2017
 * "Right Now", by Jeanette from Rock My Life, 2002
 * "Right Now", by John Cena from You Can't See Me, 2005
 * "Right Now", by Lil Baby from Harder Than Ever, 2018
 * "Right Now", by Lil' Kim from The Notorious K.I.M., 2000
 * "Right Now", by Lil Uzi Vert from Luv Is Rage, 2015
 * "Right Now", by NewJeans, B-side of the single "Supernatural", 2024
 * "Right Now", by One Direction from Midnight Memories, 2013
 * "Right Now", by Sabrina Carpenter from Eyes Wide Open, 2015
 * "Right Now", by Sara Groves from Invisible Empires, 2011
 * "Right Now", by Snakehips, 2017
 * "Right Now", by Sophie and the Giants, 2021
 * "Right Now", by the Vamps, 2019

Other media

 * Aziz Ansari: Right Now, a 2019 stand-up comedy special by Aziz Ansari
 * Right Now (book), a 2010 book by Michael Steele
 * Right Now (film), a 2004 French film
 * Right Now! (magazine), a British political magazine 1993–2006
 * RightNow Technologies, a defunct software company acquired by Oracle

title: Right Now


text:
Robert Purvis

Robert Purvis (August 4, 1810 – April 15, 1898) was an American abolitionist in the United States. He was born in Charleston, South Carolina, and was likely educated at Amherst Academy, a secondary school in Amherst, Massachusetts. He spent most of his life in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In 1833 he helped found the American Anti-Slavery Society and the Library Company of Colored People. From 1845 to 1850 he served as president of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society and also traveled to Britain to gain support for the movement.

Of mixed race, Purvis and his brothers inherited considerable wealth from their native British father after his death in 1826. Purvis's parents had lived in a common law marriage, prevented from marrying because his mother was a mixed race free woman of color, of Sub-Saharan African and Jewish descent. The sons chose to identify with the black community and used their education and wealth to support abolition of slavery and anti-slavery activities, as well as projects in education to help the advance of African Americans.

Early life
Purvis was born in 1810 in Charleston, South Carolina. His maternal grandparents were Dido Badaraka, a former enslaved woman, and Baron Judah, a Jewish American native of Charleston. His mother Harriet Judah was born a free woman of color. Purvis's father was an immigrant from Great Britain.

As an adult, Purvis told a reporter about his family. His maternal grandmother, Badaraka, was kidnapped at age 12 from Morocco where she was already a slave, she was then transported to South Carolina on a slave ship, and sold as a slave in India. He described her as dark-skinned with tightly curled hair, she was most likely of Sub-Saharan African descent as evidenced by her name and her physical description. She was freed at age 19 by her master's will. Harriet's father was Baron Judah, born in Charleston of Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jewish descent. Baron was the third of ten children born to Hillel Judah, a Jewish immigrant from Germany, and Charleston native Abigail Seixas, his Spanish-Portuguese Jewish wife.

Purvis told the reporter that his grandparents Badaraka and Judah had married. This claim has been questioned by 21st-century biographers, given the social prominence of the Judah family in Charleston. Judah's parents owned slaves. In any case, Badaraka and Judah had a relationship for several years, and had two children together, Harriet and her brother. In 1790, Judah broke off his relationship with Badaraka when he moved with his parents from Charleston to Savannah, Georgia. In 1791 he moved to Richmond, Virginia. There he married a Jewish woman and had four children with her.

William Purvis was from Northumberland. His father died while he was a child, and his mother moved to Edinburgh for her sons' education. He immigrated to the United States as a young man with some of his brothers to make their fortunes. William became a wealthy cotton salesman in Charleston and was a naturalized United States citizen.

William Purvis and Harriet Judah lived together as husband and wife, but racial law prevented their marriage. The couple had three sons: William, born in 1806; Robert, born in 1810; and Joseph, born in 1812. In 1819 the family moved north to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where the boys attended the Pennsylvania Abolitionist Society's Clarkson School. William intended to consolidate his business affairs and return with his family to Britain, where he thought his sons would have better opportunities. He died in 1826 before they could move.

William Purvis had intended his sons to be educated as gentlemen, and Robert and Joseph Purvis likely attended Amherst Academy, a secondary school in Amherst, Massachusetts. There is no evidence that either Robert or Joseph Purvis attended Amherst College, a common misconception. (Amherst College catalogs from the 1820s do not list them as enrolled.) The brothers returned to Philadelphia, where their family was among the black elite. After their father died, Purvis and his two brothers were to share an estate worth $250,000. In 1828 the oldest brother William died of tuberculosis. Robert and Joseph inherited increased shares of the estate; they used their wealth to support their political activism and public service.

Marriage and family
In 1832, Purvis married Harriet Davy Forten, a woman of color and the daughter of wealthy sailmaker James Forten and his wife Charlotte, both prominent abolitionists and leaders in Philadelphia. Like her parents and siblings, Harriet Forten Purvis was active in anti-slavery groups in the city, including the interracial Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society.

The Purvises had eight children, including son Charles Burleigh Purvis (1841-1926). He became a surgeon and professor for 30 years in the medical school at Howard University. In addition, the couple raised Harriet's niece, Charlotte Forten Grimké, after her mother died. In her later life, Harriet Forten Purvis lectured publicly against segregation and for expanded suffrage for all citizens.

After Harriet died, Purvis married Tacie Townsend, who was of European descent. She was from Byberry Township (now Northeast Philadelphia), where Purvis had moved after the 3-day riots threatened his safety. As a public figure, he was criticized for this marriage by both whites and blacks who cared about the color line.

Political life
In 1833, Purvis helped abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison establish the American Anti-Slavery Society in Philadelphia and signed its "Declaration of Sentiments". Living for nearly the rest of the 19th century, Purvis was the last surviving member of the society. That same year, he helped establish the Library Company of Colored People, modeled after the Library Company of Philadelphia, a subscription organization. With Garrison's support, in 1834, Purvis traveled to Britain to meet leading abolitionists.

In 1838, he drafted the "Appeal of Forty Thousand Citizens Threatened with Disfranchisement", which urged the repeal of a new state constitutional amendment disfranchising free African Americans. There were widespread tensions and fears among whites following Nat Turner's slave rebellion of 1831 in Virginia. Although Pennsylvania was a free state that had abolished slavery, state legislators persisted in passing this amendment to restrict free blacks' political rights. Free men of color in Pennsylvania did not regain suffrage until after the ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870, following the Civil War.

From 1845 to 1850, Purvis served as president of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society, a biracial organization. As a supporter of the Underground Railroad, Purvis served as chairman of the General Vigilance Committee from 1852 to 1857, which gave direct aid to fugitive slaves. According to his records, Purvis estimated that from 1831 to 1861, he helped one slave per day achieve freedom, aiding a total of more than 9,000 slaves to escape to the North. He used his own house, then located outside the city, in Byberry Township, as a station on the Underground Railroad. One of these slaves was Madison Washington, who Purvis harboured during his escape to Canada. Purvis built Byberry Hall on the edge of the Quaker-owned, Byberry Friends Meeting campus. Byberry Hall, which still stands today, hosted anti-slavery speakers and was across the street from Purvis's home. Among the enslaved Africans he assisted was Thomas J. Dorsey, who became one of three of the top caterers in Philadelphia in the 19th century. Purvis was a friend of both Thomas and his son William Henry Dorsey, who was an artist and collector of Black history. William compiled hundreds of scrapbooks of Black history during the 19th century and built a collection that he laid out in his home in Philadelphia.

Purvis supported many progressive causes in addition to abolition. With Lucretia Mott, he supported women's rights and suffrage. He was a member of the American Equal Rights Association while Mott was president. Purvis also attended the founding meeting of the Pennsylvania Woman Suffrage Association.

He supported temperance and similar social issues. He believed in integrated groups working for greater progress for all. By the end of the Civil War, which gained the emancipation of slaves and suffrage for black men, Purvis had reached his late 50s and became less active in political affairs.

Lombard Street riot
Irish Catholics, often competitors for the lowest-paying, unskilled and menial jobs, perceived successful African-American residents in the city as flaunting their success. Immigrants expressed their frustrations and jealousy in various attacks on blacks.

A three-day race riot began on August 1, 1842. The mostly Irish rioters set fires and attacked firefighters and police as they went, heading for Purvis's home, where they protested outside for forty hours. Purvis and his home were reportedly saved from the Irish mob solely by a Catholic priest's intervention.

Death and legacy
Neither of Purvis's elder sons survived the American Civil War. Both William P. Purvis (1832–1857) and Robert Purvis (1834–1862) were buried in the Byberry burial ground in northeast Philadelphia. When the burial ground of St. Thomas African Episcopal Church was closed, where his mother had been buried in central Philadelphia, Purvis had her remains transferred to Fair Hill Burial Ground in Philadelphia's Fairhill neighborhood. His wife (1810-1875) and daughter Georgianna (1848-1877) who had died of consumption were buried here, as he was in 1898.

His abolitionist efforts are memorialized by the state of Pennsylvania and by the National Park Service.

title: Robert Purvis


text:
Livery company

A livery company is a type of guild or professional association that originated in medieval times in London, England. Livery companies comprise London's ancient and modern trade associations and guilds, almost all of which are styled the "Worshipful Company of" their respective craft, trade or profession. There are 111 livery companies in total. They play a significant part in the life of the City of London (i.e. the financial district and historic heart of the capital), not least by providing charitable-giving and networking opportunities. Liverymen retain voting rights for the senior civic offices, such as the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs and Common Council of the City Corporation, London's ancient municipal authority with extensive local government powers.

The term livery originated in the designed form of dress worn by retainers of a nobleman and then by extension to special dress to denote status of belonging to a trade. Livery companies evolved from London's medieval guilds, becoming corporations by royal charter responsible for training in their respective trades, as well as for the regulation of aspects such as wage control, labour conditions and industry standards. Early guilds often grew out of parish fraternal organizations, where numerous members of the same trade lived in close proximity often congregating at the same church. Like most organisations during the Middle Ages, these livery companies had close ties with the Roman Catholic Church (before the Protestant Reformation), endowing religious establishments such as chantry chapels and churches, observing religious festivals and hosting ceremonies as well as well-known mystery plays. Most livery companies retain their historical religious associations, although nowadays members are free to follow any faith or none.

Livery companies invariably established a guild or meeting hall, and though these halls faced destruction in the Great London Fire of 1666 and during the Blitz of World War II, over forty companies still own or share ownership of livery halls, some elaborate and historic, others modern replacements for halls destroyed or redeveloped. Most of these halls are made available for use by other companies not having a livery hall of their own.

Most ancient livery companies maintain contact with their original trade or craft. In some cases, livery companies have chosen to support a replacement industry fulfilling a similar purpose today, e.g. plastics replacing use of horn or ivory in the case of the Horners' Company and fashion for the Haberdashers' Company. Modern companies are mainly represented by today's professions and industry and operate in close association with these. Many ancient crafts remain as relevant today as when their guilds were originally established. Some still exercise powers of regulation, inspection and enforcement, e.g. the Goldsmiths' Company Assay Office, while others are awarding bodies for professional qualifications. The Scriveners' Company admits senior members of legal and associated professions, the Apothecaries' Society awards post-graduate qualifications in some medical specialities, and the Hackney Carriage Drivers' Company comprises licensed taxi drivers who have passed the "Knowledge of London" test. Several companies restrict membership to those holding relevant professional qualifications, e.g. the City of London Solicitors' Company and the Worshipful Company of Engineers. Other companies whose trade died out long ago, such as the Bowyers' Company, have evolved into being primarily charitable foundations. Some companies, such as the Pinmakers, disappeared entirely in the Victorian era.

After the Carmen's Company received City livery status in 1848 no new companies were established for 80 years until the Honourable Company of Master Mariners in 1926 (granted livery in 1932). Post-1926 creations are known as modern livery companies. The Nurses' Company, the newest, was granted livery status in 2023, making it the 111th City livery company in order of precedence. The Honourable Company of Air Pilots is exceptional among London's livery companies in having active overseas committees in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand and North America.

Training and industry
Livery companies were originally formed, starting in the 12th century, to guarantee that a member was trustworthy and fully qualified, and that the goods they produced were of reputable quality, the two-fold aim being to protect the public and to protect members from charlatans. After the Middle Ages, they continued to be established until the 17th century, when political upheaval in England, the growth of London outwards from the City rendered many such livery companies, which only controlled trade within the Square Mile, less competitive. The City adapted with Britain's role in the expansion of global trade by establishing exchanges which later became guardians of business conduct.

From the 1870s however, there was a revival, with livery companies extending their original educational purpose to technical education, supporting new industries and providing the necessary training, most notably through the City and Guilds of London Institute.

Charity and education
From their inception, livery companies cared for their members in sickness and old age by the giving of alms. Today, they continue to support both their members, and wider charitable aims and activities such as education and training.

Numerous educational establishments in England were founded by and retain association with livery companies, among the best-known being the Haberdashers', Merchant Taylors' and Skinners' schools.

Support for the Armed Forces
Most livery companies maintain proud affiliations with regular and reserve units of the British Armed Forces, providing links between civilian and military life.

City of London governance
The livery companies have always been a constituent part of the governance of the City of London. The senior members of the livery companies, i.e. liverymen, elect the City's Sheriffs, Bridge Masters, Ale Conners, Auditors, members of the City Livery Committee, and approve the aldermanic candidates for election to the office of Lord Mayor of London.

Entry
Entry to a livery company may be by one of four routes:
 * By invitation to become an Honorary Freeman/Liveryman/Assistant. This is rare, and is considered a great honour.
 * By apprenticeship or servitude. This is nowadays less common. In earlier days, someone wishing to enter a trade would bind himself as apprentice to a member of his chosen trade. As such, he was required to do as he was instructed, and in return for strict adherence to the master's rules the apprentice learned his trade, while his master was required to provide such training that, at the end of the apprenticeship (usually seven years) the apprentice would be sufficiently knowledgeable to become a member – and a Freeman of the City of London – free of the obligations of apprenticeship.
 * By patrimony. Generally, a member's son/grandson (or now also a daughter/granddaughter) who was born after the parent became a member of a company are entitled to become a member by patrimony.
 * By redemption. Redemption is the path to the freedom for all others who do not qualify for apprenticeship, patrimony or by invitation and requires the payment of a fine (fee) as well as an interview or other admission procedure.

Regardless of method of entry, membership carries the same duties, responsibilities and privileges. Membership of a livery company may combine with the freedom of the City of London, now an essential formality, though in the past the Freedom carried benefits, such as being able to drive a flock of sheep across London Bridge at no charge.

Governance
Livery companies are governed by a Master (alternatively styled Prime Warden in some companies, or Upper Bailiff of the Weavers' Company), a number of Wardens (holding various titles such as the Upper, Middle, Lower, or Renter Wardens), and a court of Assistants (board of directors), responsible for company business and electing its Master and Wardens. The "Clerk to the Company" is the most senior permanent member of staff, who as chief executive officer runs its day-to-day activities.

The livery companies elect a majority of the members of the Livery Committee, a body administered at Guildhall. The committee oversees the elections of Sheriffs and the Lord Mayor, educates liverymen regarding the City Corporation's activities and represents the livery companies in communications with the City.

Membership generally falls into two categories: freemen and liverymen.

Freemen
One may become a freeman, or be admitted to the "freedom of the company", upon fulfilling certain criteria: traditionally, by "patrimony", if either parent/grandparent were a liveryman of the company; by "servitude", if one has served a requisite number of years as an apprentice to a senior company member; or by "redemption", upon paying a fee. Most livery companies reserve the right to admit distinguished people, particularly in their sphere of influence, as Honorary Freeman/Liveryman/Assistant. Freemen may advance to become liverymen, after obtaining the Freedom of the City of London, and with their court of Assistants' approval. Only liverymen are eligible to vote in the annual election of the Lord Mayor of London, the Sheriffs and various other City civic offices, including the Ale Conners and Bridge Masters.

Liverymen
A liveryman is a full member of his/her respective company.

When a freeman is promoted liveryman, the candidate is said to be 'clothed in the livery': indeed, a livery gown is placed on him at the Court meeting which he wears to the subsequent formal or social occasion. Thereafter only the Master, Wardens and Assistants wear livery gowns at company functions. Masters wear them at the City's formal events, e.g. the two Common Halls and the United Guilds Service, and Lord Mayor's Show, wherever they may participate. Ordinarily, liverymen wear ties or brooches at formal functions and each company differs by allowing men/women to wear distinct items subject to the occasion, such as a tie, scarf, badge or brooch.

Freemen are expected to advance to become liverymen by a vote of the court of each company. Liverymen no longer have any local government franchise in the City, but retain the exclusive right of voting in the election of the Lord Mayor (Michaelmas 'Common Hall' 29 September) and for the Sheriffs (Mid-Summer 'Common Hall' 24 June) held at Guildhall as a ceremonial occasion. The votes are made by 'acclamation' subject to a challenge/demand from the floor for a ballot which would be held a week later. Any two liverymen may nominate a candidate for the freedom of the City.

Former parliamentary election rights
Before the Reform Act 1832 the liverymen had the exclusive right to elect the four Members of Parliament (MPs) representing the City. Between 1832 and 1918 being a liveryman was one of a number of possible franchises which could qualify a parliamentary elector in the City of London constituency, as it was a preserved ancient borough franchise under the terms of the 1832 Act.

Livery halls
Today 39 out of 111 City livery companies own premises in London, as well as the Watermen and Lightermen which although not strictly a livery company, retains headquarters still in regular use. Among the earliest companies known to have had halls are the Merchant Taylors and Goldsmiths in the 14th century, and, uniquely, the kitchen and the crypt of Merchant Taylors' Hall survived both the Great Fire of London and the Blitz, the kitchen now having been in uninterrupted use for over 600 years.

Besides part of Merchant Taylors' Hall kitchens, the oldest interiors extant of a livery hall proper are those of the Apothecaries' Society, most rooms of which date from 1668 to 1671; significant portions of the fabric of this building are also medieval, from the 13th-century priory, part of which became Apothecaries' Hall. Several companies that do not have a hall of their own share office premises within the hall of another company on a semi-permanent basis, examples being the Spectacle Makers' Company, which uses part of Apothecaries' Hall, and the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights, which co-habits with the Ironmongers. Many livery halls can be hired for business and social functions, and are popular for weddings, commercial and society meetings, luncheons and dinners.

Three livery companies (the Glaziers and Painters of Glass, Launderers and Scientific Instrument Makers) share a hall in Southwark, just south of and outside the City of London, while the Worshipful Company of Gunmakers has long been based at Proof House in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Companies without halls customarily book use of another livery hall for their formal gatherings, giving members and guests the opportunity to visit and enjoy different City livery halls by rotation.

Blue plaques throughout the City of London indicate where companies formerly had halls. Whilst several livery companies may aspire to owning or regaining their own hall it is appreciated that any increase in the overall number of livery halls would inevitably lead to some dilution of use of the existing halls. There is also attraction in belonging to a company which is peripatetic.

Precedence
In 1515, the Court of Aldermen of the City of London settled an order of precedence for the 48 livery companies then in existence, based on those companies' contemporary economic or political power. The 12 highest-ranked companies remain known as the Great Twelve City Livery Companies. Presently, there are 111 City livery companies, all post-1515 companies being ranked by seniority of creation.

The Merchant Taylors and the Skinners have long disputed their precedence, so once a year (at Easter) they swap between sixth and seventh places. This mix-up is a favourite theory for the origin of the phrase "at sixes and sevens", as has been pointed out by at least one Master Merchant Taylor; however, it is possible that the phrase may have been coined before the dispute arose, as it comes from the companies both receiving their Charters in 1327 with no proof surviving as to which was granted first.

List of companies in order of precedence

 * 1) Worshipful Company of Mercers (general merchants)
 * 2) Worshipful Company of Grocers (spice merchants)
 * 3) Worshipful Company of Drapers (wool and cloth merchants)
 * 4) Worshipful Company of Fishmongers (fish and seafood merchants)
 * 5) Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths (bullion dealers)
 * 6) Worshipful Company of Skinners (fur traders)
 * 7) Worshipful Company of Merchant Taylors (tailors)
 * 8) Worshipful Company of Haberdashers (silk merchants and clothiers in sewn and fine materials, e.g. velvet)
 * 9) Worshipful Company of Salters (salt and chemical traders)
 * 10) Worshipful Company of Ironmongers
 * 11) Worshipful Company of Vintners (wine merchants)
 * 12) Worshipful Company of Clothworkers
 * 13) Worshipful Company of Dyers
 * 14) Worshipful Company of Brewers
 * 15) Worshipful Company of Leathersellers
 * 16) Worshipful Company of Pewterers (pewter and metal manufacturers)
 * 17) Worshipful Company of Barbers (surgeons and dentists)
 * 18) Worshipful Company of Cutlers (knife, sword and utensil makers)
 * 19) Worshipful Company of Bakers
 * 20) Worshipful Company of Wax Chandlers (wax candle-makers)
 * 21) Worshipful Company of Tallow Chandlers (tallow candle-makers)
 * 22) Worshipful Company of Armourers and Brasiers (armour makers and brass workers)
 * 23) Worshipful Company of Girdlers (belt and girdle makers)
 * 24) Worshipful Company of Butchers
 * 25) Worshipful Company of Saddlers
 * 26) Worshipful Company of Carpenters
 * 27) Worshipful Company of Cordwainers (fine leather workers and shoemakers)
 * 28) Worshipful Company of Painter-Stainers (artists)
 * 29) Worshipful Company of Curriers (leather dressers and tanners)
 * 30) Worshipful Company of Masons (stonemasons)
 * 31) Worshipful Company of Plumbers
 * 32) Worshipful Company of Innholders (tavern keepers)
 * 33) Worshipful Company of Founders (metal casters and melters)
 * 34) Worshipful Company of Poulters (poulterers)
 * 35) Worshipful Company of Cooks
 * 36) Worshipful Company of Coopers (barrel and cask makers)
 * 37) Worshipful Company of Tylers and Bricklayers (builders)
 * 38) Worshipful Company of Bowyers (long-bow makers)
 * 39) Worshipful Company of Fletchers (arrow makers)
 * 40) Worshipful Company of Blacksmiths
 * 41) Worshipful Company of Joiners and Ceilers (wood craftsmen)
 * 42) Worshipful Company of Weavers
 * 43) Worshipful Company of Woolmen
 * 44) Worshipful Company of Scriveners (court scribes and notaries public)
 * 45) Worshipful Company of Fruiterers
 * 46) Worshipful Company of Plaisterers (plasterers)
 * 47) Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers (journalists and publishers)
 * 48) Worshipful Company of Broderers (embroiderers)
 * 49) Worshipful Company of Upholders (upholsterers)
 * 50) Worshipful Company of Musicians
 * 51) Worshipful Company of Turners (lathe operators)
 * 52) Worshipful Company of Basketmakers
 * 53) Worshipful Company of Glaziers and Painters of Glass
 * 54) Worshipful Company of Horners (horn workers and plasticians)
 * 55) Worshipful Company of Farriers (horseshoe makers and equine veterinarians)
 * 56) Worshipful Company of Paviors (road and highway pavers)
 * 57) Worshipful Company of Loriners (equestrian bit, bridle and spur suppliers)
 * 58) Worshipful Society of Apothecaries (physicians and pharmacists)
 * 59) Worshipful Company of Shipwrights (shipowners and maritime professionals)
 * 60) Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers
 * 61) Worshipful Company of Clockmakers
 * 62) Worshipful Company of Glovers
 * 63) Worshipful Company of Feltmakers (hat makers)
 * 64) Worshipful Company of Framework Knitters
 * 65) Worshipful Company of Needlemakers
 * 66) Worshipful Company of Gardeners
 * 67) Worshipful Company of Tin Plate Workers alias Wire Workers
 * 68) Worshipful Company of Wheelwrights
 * 69) Worshipful Company of Distillers
 * 70) Worshipful Company of Pattenmakers (wooden-shoe makers)
 * 71) Worshipful Company of Glass Sellers
 * 72) Worshipful Company of Coachmakers and Coach Harness Makers
 * 73) Worshipful Company of Gunmakers
 * 74) Worshipful Company of Gold and Silver Wyre Drawers (threadmakers for military and society clothing)
 * 75) Worshipful Company of Makers of Playing Cards
 * 76) Worshipful Company of Fan Makers
 * 77) Worshipful Company of Carmen (vehicle drivers)
 * 78) Honourable Company of Master Mariners
 * 79) City of London Solicitors' Company (lawyers)
 * 80) Worshipful Company of Farmers
 * 81) Honourable Company of Air Pilots
 * 82) Worshipful Company of Tobacco Pipe Makers and Tobacco Blenders
 * 83) Worshipful Company of Furniture Makers
 * 84) Worshipful Company of Scientific Instrument Makers
 * 85) Worshipful Company of Chartered Surveyors
 * 86) Worshipful Company of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales
 * 87) Worshipful Company of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators
 * 88) Worshipful Company of Builders' Merchants
 * 89) Worshipful Company of Launderers
 * 90) Worshipful Company of Marketors
 * 91) Worshipful Company of Actuaries
 * 92) Worshipful Company of Insurers
 * 93) Worshipful Company of Arbitrators
 * 94) Worshipful Company of Engineers
 * 95) Worshipful Company of Fuellers (energy traders)
 * 96) Worshipful Company of Lightmongers (electric lighting suppliers and installers)
 * 97) Worshipful Company of Environmental Cleaners
 * 98) Worshipful Company of Chartered Architects
 * 99) Worshipful Company of Constructors
 * 100) Worshipful Company of Information Technologists
 * 101) Worshipful Company of World Traders
 * 102) Worshipful Company of Water Conservators
 * 103) Worshipful Company of Firefighters
 * 104) Worshipful Company of Hackney Carriage Drivers (licensed taxicab drivers)
 * 105) Worshipful Company of Management Consultants
 * 106) Worshipful Company of International Bankers
 * 107) Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers
 * 108) Worshipful Company of Security Professionals
 * 109) Worshipful Company of Educators
 * 110) Worshipful Company of Arts Scholars
 * 111) Worshipful Company of Nurses

City companies without grant of livery
Company without Livery is a status which applies during the period between when a guild is recognised by the Court of Aldermen and when it is granted the rights of a livery. A guild initially applies to be a London Guild, and may later apply to the Court to become a Company of the City of London. After an indefinite period, such a Company of the City of London can apply to the Aldermen for livery status; if granted, they can thereafter use the honorific prefix Worshipful Company.

 * Company of Entrepreneurs (recognised as a City Company in 2020)
 * Company of Communicators (recognised as a City Company in 2022)

Guilds and companies aiming to obtain the grant of Livery

 * Guild of Human Resource Professionals
 * Guild of Investment Managers

Other companies and organisations

 * Worshipful Company of Parish Clerks
 * Company of Watermen and Lightermen

Neither the Company of Parish Clerks nor the Company of Watermen have applied or intend to apply for livery status, which remains a long-standing City tradition. This is granted by the City Corporation in effect to control a company. The Watermen and Parish Clerks are governed by statutes and royal charters with responsibilities outside the City. The Company of Watermen and Lightermen was established by Act of Parliament in 1555 to regulate the watermen on the River Thames responsible for the movement of goods and passengers and remains the only ancient City guild to be formed and governed by Act of Parliament. They are then strictly not 'companies without livery' at all but simply 'companies'.

The Ward Beadles of the City of London are the elected officials, not representatives, of the City Wards so have constitutional standing. They are associated together for mainly communications and social activities; they are a corps rather than a guild.

City Livery Club, founded in 1914, is a livery-oriented organisation of over 1000 members based at Bell Wharf Lane near Southwark Bridge. The club's motto is uniting the livery, promoting fellowship.

The Guild of Young Freemen and the Guild of Freemen of the City of London, whilst not being livery companies, are popular associations amongst the freemen of the City.

The Honourable Company of Freemen of the City of London of North America (headquartered in Toronto, Ontario, Canada) represents Freemen and Liverymen of the City of London living in North America.

The Southwark Manors
The City Corporation of London retains the lordship of three manors in Southwark (Guildable, King's and Great Liberty).

Now membership organisations, members are eligible to serve as ceremonial officers or jurors in their relevant manorial jurisdiction. These courts retain legal-standing under the Administration of Justice Act 1977, being in no way guilds never having been related to trading and occupational activities.

title: Livery company


text:
Mass in C minor

Mass in C minor may refer to:

 * Great Mass in C minor, No. 17, K. 427, by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
 * Missa solemnis in C minor, "Waisenhaus", No. 4, K. 139, also by Mozart
 * Mass in C minor, Op. 147, by Robert Schumann

title: Mass in C minor


text:
Sphere packing

In geometry, a sphere packing is an arrangement of non-overlapping spheres within a containing space. The spheres considered are usually all of identical size, and the space is usually three-dimensional Euclidean space. However, sphere packing problems can be generalised to consider unequal spheres, spaces of other dimensions (where the problem becomes circle packing in two dimensions, or hypersphere packing in higher dimensions) or to non-Euclidean spaces such as hyperbolic space.

A typical sphere packing problem is to find an arrangement in which the spheres fill as much of the space as possible. The proportion of space filled by the spheres is called the packing density of the arrangement. As the local density of a packing in an infinite space can vary depending on the volume over which it is measured, the problem is usually to maximise the average or asymptotic density, measured over a large enough volume.

For equal spheres in three dimensions, the densest packing uses approximately 74% of the volume. A random packing of equal spheres generally has a density around 63.5%.

Classification and terminology
A lattice arrangement (commonly called a regular arrangement) is one in which the centers of the spheres form a very symmetric pattern which needs only n vectors to be uniquely defined (in n-dimensional Euclidean space). Lattice arrangements are periodic. Arrangements in which the spheres do not form a lattice (often referred to as irregular) can still be periodic, but also aperiodic (properly speaking non-periodic) or random. Because of their high degree of symmetry, lattice packings are easier to classify than non-lattice ones. Periodic lattices always have well-defined densities.

Regular packing

Dense packing
In three-dimensional Euclidean space, the densest packing of equal spheres is achieved by a family of structures called close-packed structures. One method for generating such a structure is as follows. Consider a plane with a compact arrangement of spheres on it. Call it A. For any three neighbouring spheres, a fourth sphere can be placed on top in the hollow between the three bottom spheres. If we do this for half of the holes in a second plane above the first, we create a new compact layer. There are two possible choices for doing this, call them B and C. Suppose that we chose B. Then one half of the hollows of B lies above the centers of the balls in A and one half lies above the hollows of A which were not used for B. Thus the balls of a third layer can be placed either directly above the balls of the first one, yielding a layer of type A, or above the holes of the first layer which were not occupied by the second layer, yielding a layer of type C. Combining layers of types A, B, and C produces various close-packed structures.

Two simple arrangements within the close-packed family correspond to regular lattices. One is called cubic close packing (or face-centred cubic, "FCC")—where the layers are alternated in the ABCABC... sequence. The other is called hexagonal close packing ("HCP"), where the layers are alternated in the ABAB... sequence. But many layer stacking sequences are possible (ABAC, ABCBA, ABCBAC, etc.), and still generate a close-packed structure. In all of these arrangements each sphere touches 12 neighboring spheres, and the average density is
 * $$\frac{\pi}{3\sqrt{2}} \simeq 0.74048.$$

In 1611, Johannes Kepler conjectured that this is the maximum possible density amongst both regular and irregular arrangements—this became known as the Kepler conjecture. Carl Friedrich Gauss proved in 1831 that these packings have the highest density amongst all possible lattice packings. In 1998, Thomas Callister Hales, following the approach suggested by László Fejes Tóth in 1953, announced a proof of the Kepler conjecture. Hales' proof is a proof by exhaustion involving checking of many individual cases using complex computer calculations. Referees said that they were "99% certain" of the correctness of Hales' proof. On 10 August 2014, Hales announced the completion of a formal proof using automated proof checking, removing any doubt.

Other common lattice packings
Some other lattice packings are often found in physical systems. These include the cubic lattice with a density of $$ \frac{\pi}{6} \approx 0.5236$$, the hexagonal lattice with a density of $$\frac{\pi}{3\sqrt{3}}\approx 0.6046$$ and the tetrahedral lattice with a density of $$\frac{\pi\sqrt{3}}{16}\approx 0.3401$$.

Jammed packings with a low density
Packings where all spheres are constrained by their neighbours to stay in one location are called rigid or jammed. The strictly jammed (mechanically stable even as a finite system) regular sphere packing with the lowest known density is a diluted ("tunneled") fcc crystal with a density of only $π√2/9 ≈ 0.49365$. The loosest known regular jammed packing has a density of approximately 0.0555.

Irregular packing
If we attempt to build a densely packed collection of spheres, we will be tempted to always place the next sphere in a hollow between three packed spheres. If five spheres are assembled in this way, they will be consistent with one of the regularly packed arrangements described above. However, the sixth sphere placed in this way will render the structure inconsistent with any regular arrangement. This results in the possibility of a random close packing of spheres which is stable against compression. Vibration of a random loose packing can result in the arrangement of spherical particles into regular packings, a process known as granular crystallisation. Such processes depend on the geometry of the container holding the spherical grains.

When spheres are randomly added to a container and then compressed, they will generally form what is known as an "irregular" or "jammed" packing configuration when they can be compressed no more. This irregular packing will generally have a density of about 64%. Recent research predicts analytically that it cannot exceed a density limit of 63.4% This situation is unlike the case of one or two dimensions, where compressing a collection of 1-dimensional or 2-dimensional spheres (that is, line segments or circles) will yield a regular packing.

Hypersphere packing
The sphere packing problem is the three-dimensional version of a class of ball-packing problems in arbitrary dimensions. In two dimensions, the equivalent problem is packing circles on a plane. In one dimension it is packing line segments into a linear universe.

In dimensions higher than three, the densest lattice packings of hyperspheres are known up to 8 dimensions. Very little is known about irregular hypersphere packings; it is possible that in some dimensions the densest packing may be irregular. Some support for this conjecture comes from the fact that in certain dimensions (e.g. 10) the densest known irregular packing is denser than the densest known regular packing.

In 2016, Maryna Viazovska announced a proof that the E8 lattice provides the optimal packing (regardless of regularity) in eight-dimensional space, and soon afterwards she and a group of collaborators announced a similar proof that the Leech lattice is optimal in 24 dimensions. This result built on and improved previous methods which showed that these two lattices are very close to optimal. The new proofs involve using the Laplace transform of a carefully chosen modular function to construct a radially symmetric function $f$ such that $f$ and its Fourier transform $f̂$ both equal 1 at the origin, and both vanish at all other points of the optimal lattice, with $f$ negative outside the central sphere of the packing and $f̂$ positive. Then, the Poisson summation formula for $f$ is used to compare the density of the optimal lattice with that of any other packing. Before the proof had been formally refereed and published, mathematician Peter Sarnak called the proof "stunningly simple" and wrote that "You just start reading the paper and you know this is correct."

Another line of research in high dimensions is trying to find asymptotic bounds for the density of the densest packings. It is known that for large $n$, the densest lattice in dimension $n$ has density $$\theta(n)$$ between $cn ⋅ 2^{−n}$ (for some constant $c$) and $2^{−(0.599+o(1))n}$. Conjectural bounds lie in between. In a 2023 preprint, Marcelo Campos, Matthew Jenssen, Marcus Michelen and Julian Sahasrabudhe improved the lower bound of the maximal density to $$\theta(n)\geq (1-o(1))\frac{n\ln n}{2^{n+1}}$$, among their techniques they make use of the Rödl nibble.

Unequal sphere packing
Many problems in the chemical and physical sciences can be related to packing problems where more than one size of sphere is available. Here there is a choice between separating the spheres into regions of close-packed equal spheres, or combining the multiple sizes of spheres into a compound or interstitial packing. When many sizes of spheres (or a distribution) are available, the problem quickly becomes intractable, but some studies of binary hard spheres (two sizes) are available.

When the second sphere is much smaller than the first, it is possible to arrange the large spheres in a close-packed arrangement, and then arrange the small spheres within the octahedral and tetrahedral gaps. The density of this interstitial packing depends sensitively on the radius ratio, but in the limit of extreme size ratios, the smaller spheres can fill the gaps with the same density as the larger spheres filled space. Even if the large spheres are not in a close-packed arrangement, it is always possible to insert some smaller spheres of up to 0.29099 of the radius of the larger sphere.

When the smaller sphere has a radius greater than 0.41421 of the radius of the larger sphere, it is no longer possible to fit into even the octahedral holes of the close-packed structure. Thus, beyond this point, either the host structure must expand to accommodate the interstitials (which compromises the overall density), or rearrange into a more complex crystalline compound structure. Structures are known which exceed the close packing density for radius ratios up to 0.659786.

Upper bounds for the density that can be obtained in such binary packings have also been obtained.

In many chemical situations such as ionic crystals, the stoichiometry is constrained by the charges of the constituent ions. This additional constraint on the packing, together with the need to minimize the Coulomb energy of interacting charges leads to a diversity of optimal packing arrangements.

The upper bound for the density of a strictly jammed sphere packing with any set of radii is 1 – an example of such a packing of spheres is the Apollonian sphere packing. The lower bound for such a sphere packing is 0 – an example is the Dionysian sphere packing.

Hyperbolic space
Although the concept of circles and spheres can be extended to hyperbolic space, finding the densest packing becomes much more difficult. In a hyperbolic space there is no limit to the number of spheres that can surround another sphere (for example, Ford circles can be thought of as an arrangement of identical hyperbolic circles in which each circle is surrounded by an infinite number of other circles). The concept of average density also becomes much more difficult to define accurately. The densest packings in any hyperbolic space are almost always irregular.

Despite this difficulty, K. Böröczky gives a universal upper bound for the density of sphere packings of hyperbolic n-space where n ≥ 2. In three dimensions the Böröczky bound is approximately 85.327613%, and is realized by the horosphere packing of the order-6 tetrahedral honeycomb with Schläfli symbol {3,3,6}. In addition to this configuration at least three other horosphere packings are known to exist in hyperbolic 3-space that realize the density upper bound.

Touching pairs, triplets, and quadruples
The contact graph of an arbitrary finite packing of unit balls is the graph whose vertices correspond to the packing elements and whose two vertices are connected by an edge if the corresponding two packing elements touch each other. The cardinality of the edge set of the contact graph gives the number of touching pairs, the number of 3-cycles in the contact graph gives the number of touching triplets, and the number of tetrahedrons in the contact graph gives the number of touching quadruples (in general for a contact graph associated with a sphere packing in n dimensions that the cardinality of the set of n-simplices in the contact graph gives the number of touching (n + 1)-tuples in the sphere packing). In the case of 3-dimensional Euclidean space, non-trivial upper bounds on the number of touching pairs, triplets, and quadruples were proved by Karoly Bezdek and Samuel Reid at the University of Calgary.

The problem of finding the arrangement of n identical spheres that maximizes the number of contact points between the spheres is known as the "sticky-sphere problem". The maximum is known for n ≤ 11, and only conjectural values are known for larger n.

Other spaces
Sphere packing on the corners of a hypercube (with the spheres defined by Hamming distance) corresponds to designing error-correcting codes: if the spheres have radius t, then their centers are codewords of a (2t + 1)-error-correcting code. Lattice packings correspond to linear codes. There are other, subtler relationships between Euclidean sphere packing and error-correcting codes. For example, the binary Golay code is closely related to the 24-dimensional Leech lattice.

For further details on these connections, see the book Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups by Conway and Sloane.

title: Sphere packing


text:
Bahadur Shah Zafar

Bahadur Shah II (born Mirza Abu Zafar Siraj-ud-din Muhammad (24 October 1775 – 7 November 1862), usually referred to by his poetic title Bahadur Shah Zafar (Zafar lit. 'Victory'), was the twentieth and last Mughal emperor and a Hindustani poet. He was the second son and the successor to his father, Akbar II, who died in 1837. He was a titular Emperor, as the Mughal Empire existed in name only and his authority was limited only to the walled city of Old Delhi (Shahjahanbad). Following his involvement in the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the British deposed him and exiled him to Rangoon in British-controlled Burma in late 1858, after convicting him on several charges. The title of Empress of India was subsequently assumed by Queen Victoria.

Bahadur Shah Zafar's father, Akbar II, had been imprisoned by the British and he was not his father's preferred choice as his successor. One of Akbar Shah's queens pressured him to declare her son, Mirza Jahangir, as his successor. However, the East India Company exiled Jahangir after he attacked their resident in the Red Fort, paving the way for Bahadur Shah to assume the throne.

Reign
Bahadur Shah Zafar ruled over a Mughal Empire that had by the early 19th century been reduced to only the city of Delhi and the surrounding territory as far as Palam. The Maratha Empire had brought an end to the Mughal Empire in the Deccan during the 18th century and the regions of India formerly under Mughal rule had either been absorbed by the Marathas or had declared independence and become smaller kingdoms. The Marathas installed Shah Alam II in the throne in 1772, under the protection of the Maratha general Mahadaji Shinde and maintained suzerainty over Mughal affairs in Delhi. The East India Company became the dominant political and military power in mid-nineteenth century India. Outside the region controlled by the company, hundreds of kingdoms and principalities fragmented their land. The emperor was respected by the company, who provided him with a pension. The emperor permitted the company to collect taxes from Delhi and maintain a military force in it. Zafar never had any interest in statecraft or had any "imperial ambition". After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the British exiled him from Delhi.

Bahadur Shah Zafar was a noted Urdu poet, having written a number of Urdu ghazals. While some part of his opus was lost or destroyed during the Indian Rebellion of 1857, a large collection did survive, and was compiled into the Kulliyyat-i-Zafar. The court that he maintained was home to several renowned Urdu scholars, poets and writers including Mirza Ghalib, Daagh Dehlvi, Momin Khan Momin, and Mohammad Ibrahim Zauq (who was also Bahadur Shah Zafar's mentor).

After Zafar's defeat, he said:

Ghāzīyoñ meñ bū rahe gī jab talak īmān kī As long as there remains the scent of Iman in the hearts of our Ghazis,

Takht-i-Landan tak chale gī tegh Hindostān kī. So long shall the sword of Hindustan flash before the throne of London.

1857 Rebellion
As the Indian Rebellion of 1857 spread, Sepoy regiments reached the Mughal Court at Delhi. Because of Zafar's neutral views on religions, many Indian kings and regiments accepted and declared him as the Emperor of India.

On 12 May 1857, Zafar held his first formal audience in several years. It was attended by several sepoys who were described as treating him "familiarly or disrespectfully". When the sepoys first arrived at Bahadur Shah Zafar's court, he asked them why they had come to him, because he had no means of maintaining them. Bahadur Shah Zafar's conduct was indecisive. However, he yielded to the demands of the sepoys when he was told that they would not be able to win against the East India Company without him.

On 16 May, sepoys and palace servants killed fifty-two Europeans who were prisoners of the palace and who were discovered hiding in the city. The executions took place under a peepul tree in front of the palace, despite Zafar's protests. The aim of the executioners who were not the supporters of Zafar was to implicate him in the killings. Once he had joined them, Bahadur Shah II took ownership for all the actions of the mutineers. Though dismayed by the looting and disorder, he gave his public support to the rebellion. It was later believed that Bahadur Shah was not directly responsible for the massacre, but that he may have been able to prevent it, and he was therefore considered a consenting party during his trial.

The administration of the city and its new occupying army was described as "chaotic and troublesome", which functioned "haphazardly". The Emperor nominated his eldest son, Mirza Mughal, as the commander in chief of his forces. However, Mirza Mughal had little military experience and was rejected by the sepoys. The sepoys did not have any commander since each regiment refused to accept orders from someone other than their own officers. Mirza Mughal's administration extended no further than the city. Outside Gujjar herders began levying their own tolls on traffic, and it became increasingly difficult to feed the city.

During the Siege of Delhi when the victory of the British became certain, Zafar took refuge at Humayun's Tomb, in an area that was then at the outskirts of Delhi. Company forces led by Major William Hodson surrounded the tomb and Zafar was captured on 20 September 1857. The next day, Hodson shot his sons Mirza Mughal and Mirza Khizr Sultan, and grandson Mirza Abu Bakht under his own authority at the Khooni Darwaza, near the Delhi Gate and declared Delhi to be captured. Bahadur Shah himself was taken to his wife's haveli, where he was treated disrespectfully by his captors. When brought news of the executions of his sons and grandson, the former emperor was described as being so shocked and depressed that he was unable to react.

Trial
The trial was a consequence of the Sepoy Mutiny and lasted for 21 days, had 19 hearings, 21 witnesses and over a hundred documents in Persian and Urdu, with their English translations, were produced in the court. At first the trial was suggested to be held at Calcutta, the place where Directors of East India company used to their sittings in connection with their commercial pursuits. But instead, the Red Fort in Delhi was selected for the trial. It was the first case to be tried at the Red Fort.

Zafar was tried and charged on four counts: "# Aiding and abetting the mutinies of the troops
 * 1) Encouraging and assisting divers persons in waging war against the British Government
 * 2) Assuming the sovereignty of Hindostan
 * 3) Causing and being accessory to the murder of the Christians."

On the 20th day of the trial Bahadur Shah II defended himself against these charges. Bahadur Shah, in his defense, stated his complete haplessness before the will of the sepoys. The sepoys apparently used to affix his seal on empty envelopes, the contents of which he was absolutely unaware. While the emperor may have been overstating his impotence before the sepoys, the fact remains that the sepoys had felt powerful enough to dictate terms to anybody. The eighty-two-year old poet-king was harassed by the mutineers and was neither inclined to nor capable of providing any real leadership. Despite this, he was the primary accused in the trial for the rebellion.

Hakim Ahsanullah Khan, Zafar's most trusted confidant and both his Prime Minister and personal physician, had insisted that Zafar did not involve himself in the rebellion and had surrendered himself to the British. But when Zafar ultimately did this, Hakim Ahsanullah Khan betrayed him by providing evidence against him at the trial in return for a pardon for himself.

Respecting Hodson's guarantee on his surrender, Zafar was not sentenced to death but exiled to Rangoon, Burma. His wife Zeenat Mahal and some of the remaining members of the family accompanied him. At 4 am on 7 October 1858, Zafar along with his wives, two remaining sons began his journey towards Rangoon in bullock carts escorted by 9th Lancers under command of Lieutenant Ommaney.

Death
In 1862, at the age of 87, he reportedly acquired an illness. In October, his condition deteriorated. He was "spoon-fed on broth" but he found that difficult too by 3 November. On 6 November, the British Commissioner H.N. Davies recorded that Zafar "is evidently sinking from pure desuetude and paralysis in the region of his throat". To prepare for his death Davies commanded for the collection of lime and bricks and a spot was selected at the "back of Zafar's enclosure" for his burial. Zafar died on Friday, 7 November 1862 at 5 am. Zafar was buried at 4 pm near the Shwedagon Pagoda at 6 Ziwaka Road, near the intersection with Shwedagon Pagoda road, Yangon. The shrine of Bahadur Shah Zafar Dargah was built there after recovery of his tomb on 16 February 1991. Davies commenting on Zafar, described his life to be "very uncertain".

Family and descendants

Bahadur Shah Zafar had four wives and numerous concubines. His wives were:

 * Begum Ashraf Mahal
 * Begum Akhtar Mahal
 * Begum Zeenat Mahal
 * Begum Taj Mahal

He had twenty two sons including:

He had at least thirty-two daughters including:
 * Mirza Dara Bakht Miran Shah (1790–1841)
 * Mirza Muhammed Shahrukh Bahadur
 * Mirza Kayumar Bahadur
 * Mirza Fath-ul-Mulk Bahadur (alias Mirza Fakhru) (1816–1856)
 * Mirza Muhammad Quwaish Bahadur
 * Mirza Mughal (1817–1857)
 * Mirza Quraish Shikoh (1820–c. 1889)
 * Mirza Farkhanda Shah Bahadur
 * Mirza Khizr Sultan (1834–1857)
 * Mirza Bakhtavar Shah Bahadur
 * Mirza Sohrab Hindi Bahadur
 * Mirza Abu Nasr
 * Mirza Muhammad Bahadur
 * Mirza Abdullah
 * Mirza Kuchak Sultan
 * Mirza Abu Bakr (1837–1857)
 * Mirza Jawan Bakht (1841–1884)
 * Mirza Shah Abbas (1845–1910)

 * Rabeya Begum
 * Begum Fatima Sultan
 * Kulsum Zamani Begum
 * Raunaq Zamani Begum (possibly a granddaughter, d. 1930)

Many individuals claim to be descendants of Bahadur Shah Zafar, living in places throughout India, such as Hyderabad, Aurangabad, Delhi, Bhopal, Kolkata, Bihar, and Bangalore. However, the claims are often disputed.

Religious beliefs

Bahadur Shah Zafar was a devout Sufi. He was regarded as a Sufi Pir and used to accept murids or pupils. The newspaper Delhi Urdu Akhbaar described him as "one of the leading saints of the age, approved of by the divine court." Before his accession, he lived like "a poor scholar and dervish", differing from his three royal brothers, Mirza Jahangir, Salim and Babur. In 1828, a decade before he succeeded the throne, Major Archer said that "Zafar is a man of spare figure and stature, plainly apparelled, almost approaching to meanness." His appearance is that of an indigent munshi or teacher of languages".

As a poet, Zafar imbibed the highest subtleties of mystical Sufi teachings. He was also a believer of the magical and superstitious side of the Orthodox Sufism. Like many of his followers, he believed that his position as both a Sufi pir and emperor gave him spiritual powers. In an incident in which one of his followers was bitten by a snake, Zafar tried to cure him by giving a "seal of Bezoar" (a stone antidote to poison) and some water on which he had breathed to the man to drink.

The emperor had a staunch belief in ta'aviz or charms, especially as a palliative for his constant complaint of piles, or to ward off evil spells. During a period of illness, he told a group of Sufi pirs that several of his wives suspected that someone had cast a spell over him. He requested them to take some steps to remove all apprehension on this account. The group wrote some charms and asked the emperor to mix them in water and drink it, which would protect him from the evil. A coterie of pirs, miracle workers and Hindu astrologers were always in touch with the emperor. On their advice, he would sacrifice buffaloes and camels, buried eggs and arrested alleged black magicians, and wore a ring that they told him would cure his indigestion. He also donated cows to the poor, elephants to the Sufi shrines and horses to the khadims or clergy of Jama Masjid.

In one of his verses, Zafar explicitly stated that both Hinduism and Islam shared the same essence. This philosophy was implemented by his court which embodied a multicultural composite Hindu-Islamic Mughal culture. He celebrated many Hindu festivals like Rakhi, Holi, Diwali etc in the court. Zafar was also tolerant of Shia Muslims who regained their lost influence at the Mughal court under him.

Epitaph
He was a prolific Urdu poet and calligrapher. He wrote the following Ghazal as his own epitaph. In his book, The Last Mughal, William Dalrymple states that, according to Lahore scholar Imran Khan, the beginning of the verse, umr-e-darāz māṅg ke ("I asked for a long life") was not written by Zafar, and does not appear in any of the works published during Zafar's lifetime. The verse was allegedly written by Simab Akbarabadi.

In popular culture
Zafar was portrayed in the play 1857: Ek Safarnama set during the Indian Rebellion of 1857 by Javed Siddiqui. It was staged at Purana Qila, Delhi ramparts by Nadira Babbar and the National School of Drama repertory company in 2008. A Hindi-Urdu black-and-white movie, Lal Quila (1960), directed by Nanabhai Bhatt, showcased Bahadur Shah Zafar extensively.

TV Serials and Films
A television show Bahadur Shah Zafar aired on Doordarshan in 1986. Ashok Kumar played the lead role in it.

In the 2001 Hindi historical drama series 1857 Kranti, on DD National, the character of Bahadur Shah Zafar was played by S. M. Zaheer.

In the 2005 Hindi Movie Mangal Pandey: The Rising, directed by Ketan Mehta, the character of Bahadur Shah Zafar was played by Habib Tanveer.

title: Bahadur Shah Zafar


text:
Missa solemnis

is Latin for Solemn Mass. and is a genre of musical settings of the Mass Ordinary, which are festively scored and render the Latin text extensively, opposed to the more modest Missa brevis. In French, the genre is "Messe solennelle". The terms came into use in the classical period.

When "Missa solemnis" is used as a name, without referring to a composer, Beethoven's work is generally implied. Some of the greatest compositions in the genre have unique common names other than "Missa solemnis"—namely, Bach's Mass in B minor and Mozart's Great Mass in C minor. Some works are solemn settings in proportion and scoring, but are not called a "Missa solemnis", for example several late settings of both Haydn and Schubert, and three settings by Anton Bruckner.

A solemn mass has been written by well-known composers including:
 * Bach: Mass in B minor (1733/1749)
 * Beethoven: Missa solemnis in D major (1823)
 * Berlioz: Messe solennelle (1824)
 * Bruckner: Missa solemnis in B flat minor (1854)
 * Cherubini: Messa solenne "Per il Principe Esterházy" (1811)
 * Haydn: Missa in tempore belli (Mass in the Time of War) in C major, (1796)
 * Hummel: Missa solemnis in C major (1806)
 * Liszt: Missa solennis zur Einweihung der Basilika in Gran (Gran Mass) (first version 1855, second version 1857–58)
 * Mozart: Mass in C minor, K. 139 "Waisenhaus" (1768)
 * Mozart: Mass in C major, K. 337 "Solemnis" (1780)
 * Mozart: Great Mass in C minor, K. 427 (1782/1783)
 * Rossini: Petite messe solennelle (1863)
 * Schubert: Mass No. 1, Mass No. 4, Mass No. 5, Mass No. 6
 * Vierne: Messe solennelle
 * Weber: Missa solemnis No. 2 (1818–1819) "Messe du Freischutz"

Other composers who wrote works titled "Missa solemnis" have included France Ačko (1941), Hendrik Andriessen (1946), Marco Betta, František Brixi, Antonio Buonomo (1983), Alfredo Casella (1944), Paul Creston, Georg Druschetzky (1804), Bohumil Fidler (1901), Joseph-Hector Fiocco, Konstanty Gorski, Michael Haydn (1772), Václav Emanuel Horák, Sigurd Islandsmoen (1954), Friedrich Kiel, Karel Blažej Kopřiva, Jean Langlais, Josef Lammerz (1990), Colin Mawby, Boleslaw Ocias, Antonio Sacchini, Johann Nepomuk Schelble, Wolfgang Seifen, Johann Baptist Wanhal (1778), and Bedřich Antonín Wiedermann (1848).

Festive mass settings in other languages include Jakub Jan Ryba's Czech Christmas Mass.

title: Missa solemnis


text:
Jahandar Shah

Mirza Mu'izz-ud-Din Beg Muhammad Khan (10 May 1661 – 11 February 1713), better known by his title Jahandar Shah (lit. 'The Owner of the World', ), was briefly the ninth Mughal emperor from 1712 to 1713. He was the son of emperor Bahadur Shah I, and the grandson of emperor Aurangzeb.

Jahandar Shah was the first puppet ruler of the Mughal dynasty, having been placed on the throne by powerful noble Zulfiqar Khan. His reign was short and turbulent, lasting less than a year. He was deposed by the Sayyid brothers and succeeded by his nephew Farrukhsiyar.

Early life
Prince Mu'izz-ud-din was born on 10 May 1661 in Deccan Subah to Prince Mu'azzam. His mother Nizam Bai, the daughter of Fatehyawar Jang, was a noble from Hyderabad. He was Muazzam's eldest son, and eldest grandson of reigning emperor Aurangzeb. Following Mughal tradition, his birth was grandly celebrated by the Mughal court.

During Aurangzeb's reign, he participated in military campaigning in the Deccan for three years, after which he was permanently shifted to northern India.

After Aurangzeb's death, Prince Mu'azzam won the ensuing succession struggle and in June 1707, ascended the throne as Bahadur Shah. Upon his father's accession, Mu'izz-ud-din was awarded the title Jahandar Shah, and made governor of Thatta and Multan. Through the course of Bahadur Shah's reign, Jahandar Shah would stay at the imperial court, like the other sons of Bahadur Shah, because the emperor had ascended the throne at an old age, and the princes wanted to be within close reach of the throne in case of his demise.

War of succession
A war of succession began as Bahadur Shah lay on his deathbed in 1712. The most powerful prince at the time of his death was his second son Azim-us-Shan, who had amassed significant resources as the subahdar of Bengal. Jahandar Shah was the weakest, with little-to-no military power or funds.

Unlike previous Mughal wars of succession, the outcome of this war was engineered by a noble, Zulfiqar Khan, the mir bakhshi and one of the most powerful figures in the Mughal empire. He built an alliance between Jahandar Shah, and his younger brothers Rafi-us-Shan and Jahan Shah, proposing to them that they could divide the empire between them upon victory (with Zulfiqar Khan serving as their common mir bakhshi). Azim-us-Shan was defeated and killed, following which Jahandar Shah broke the alliance and turned on his brothers, defeating them and killing them with the help of Zulfiqar Khan, emerging as the victor of the succession struggle.

Reign
Jahandar Shah was crowned on 29 March, 1712. His accession was not well-supported in the empire, and he was viewed as an illegitimate ruler. Hence, upon his coronation, Jahandar Shah moved to consolidate his authority by rewarding and promoting his supporters. He departed from previous Mughal succession practices by severely punishing the nobles who had supported his brothers in the succession, with several of them being executed. He also let the bodies of the defeated princes rot in the open for several days before their entombment, unlike previous emperors who had insisted on a proper burial.

With Jahandar Shah's accession, Zulfiqar Khan assumed the post of wazir. Due to Jahandar Shah's complete dependence on him, and the circumstances of his accession to the throne, effective power was wielded not by the emperor but by Zulfiqar Khan himself. This was the first occurrence in Mughal history that absolute power over the empire was wielded by an outsider to the dynasty. As the effective ruler during Jahandar Shah's reign, Zulfiqar Khan sought to establish amicable relationships with the Rajputs, Sikhs, and Marathas, and bring back peace in the empire. However, the empire's finances were deteriorating, continuing a trend that had begun with Jahandar Shah's predecessors, which decreased the empire's military effectiveness. The excessive power enjoyed by Zulfiqar Khan caused Jahandar Shah to conspire against him, creating political chaos.

During his reign, Jahandar Shah married tawaif Lal Kunwar, who was considered to be of lowly origins; she became his favoured wife, and subsequently her family gained unprecedent power and status. Jahandar Shah also indulged in feasts and entertainments. Contemporary chroniclers and later historians have pointed out such aspects of the emperor's personal life, and the cruelty meted to his opponents, as reasons behind the turbulence of his reign. However, recent scholars highlight other factors; Munis Faruqui emphasizes his political weakness as a prince, which set him up for failure as a ruler. Abhishek Kaicker notes that nobles had themselves became more self-interested around the time of Jahandar Shah's accession, and that the "cruelty" of his reign was their defense for siding with Farrukhsiyar, who deposed Jahandar Shah.

Deposition
Jahandar Shah's accession invited the challenge of his nephew Farrukhsiyar, the son of Azim-us-Shan, who was based in Bengal. With little independent resources, he unsuccessfully attempted to find backing for his bid. He eventually found powerful support in the Sayyid brothers, Husain Ali Khan and Abdullah Khan, administrators of Azim-us-Shan who had been removed from their postings by Jahandar Shah. With their resources and political connections, Farrukhsiyar assembled a rebel army and advanced on the throne. The underpaid imperial army was defeated in battle near Agra in early 1713.

Death
Upon defeat, Jahandar Shah fled to Delhi and sought refuge at the house of Zulfiqar Khan and his father Asad Khan. However, the two imprisoned him and turned him over to Farrukhsiyar, in hopes of securing his favour. Farrukhsiyar had both Jahandar Shah and Zulfiqar Khan executed, with Jahandar Shah being beaten to death and then beheaded on 11 February, 1713. Jahandar Shah's body was paraded around Delhi in parts, hanging upside down from two elephants. He was buried in Humayun's tomb.

Marriages
Jahandar Shah's first wife was the daughter of Mirza Mukarram Khan Safavi. The marriage took place on 13 October 1676. After her death he married her niece, Sayyid-un-Nisa Begum, the daughter of Rustam Mirza, on 30 August 1684. Qazi Abu Sa'id united them in the presence of Emperor Aurangzeb, and Prince Mu'azzam. The marriage was consummated on 18 September. Sayyid-un-Nisa Begum was presented with jewels worth 67,000 rupees. The celebrations were supervised by Princess Zinat-un-nissa Begum.

His third wife was a Rajput Princess, Anup Bai. She was the mother of Prince Muhammad Aziz-ud-din Mirza, born on 6 June 1699. She died at Delhi on 17 April 1735, nineteen years before her son's accession to the throne as Emperor Alamgir II.

His fourth wife, Lal Kunwar, was the daughter of Khasusiyat Khan. Jahandar Shah was very fond of her, and after his accession to the throne, he gave her the title Imtiyaz Mahal. She was influential in his reign and was famous for guiding the emperor.

Full title
His full title was Shahanshah-i-Ghazi Abu'l Fath Mu'izz-ud-Din Muhammad Jahandar Shah Sahib-i-Qiran Padshah-i-Jahan (Khuld Aramgah).

Coins
Jahandar Shah reintroduced couplets and issued coins in gold, silver, and copper. Two couplets i.e. Abu al-Fateh and Sahab Qiran were used. Copper coins were issued in both weight standard i.e. 20 grams and 14 grams.

title: Jahandar Shah


text:
List of African-American abolitionists

See also Category:African-American abolitionists

A

 * William G. Allen (c. 1820 – 1 May 1888)
 * Osborne Perry Anderson

B

 * Henry Walton Bibb
 * Mary E. Bibb
 * James Bradley
 * Henry Box Brown
 * William Wells Brown

C

 * John Anthony Copeland Jr.
 * Ellen and William Craft
 * Paul Cuffe (January 17, 1759 – September 7, 1817)

D

 * Thomas Dalton
 * Martin Delany
 * Moses Dickson
 * Charles Remond Douglass
 * Frederick Douglass (c. February 1817 – February 20, 1895)
 * Sarah Mapps Douglass
 * Thomas Downing

F

 * James Forten
 * Margaretta Forten

G

 * Eliza Ann Gardner
 * Henry Highland Garnet
 * Mifflin Wistar Gibbs
 * Rev. Samuel Green
 * Shields Green
 * Charlotte Forten Grimké

H

 * Frances Harper
 * Lewis Hayden
 * Felix Holbrook

J

 * Harriet Jacobs
 * John S. Jacobs
 * Thomas James

L

 * Charles Henry Langston
 * John Mercer Langston
 * Lewis Sheridan Leary
 * Jermain Wesley Loguen
 * Mary Sampson Patterson Leary Langston

M

 * Mary Meachum
 * Henry Moxley
 * Anna Murray-Douglass

N

 * William Cooper Nell
 * Dangerfield Newby

P

 * John Parker
 * Susan Paul
 * James W.C. Pennington
 * Gabriel Prosser
 * Harriet Forten Purvis
 * Robert Purvis

R

 * Peter Randolph
 * Charles Bennett Ray
 * Charlotte B. Ray
 * Charles L. Reason
 * Hetty Reckless
 * Charles Lenox Remond
 * John Swett Rock
 * David Ruggles
 * John Brown Russwurm (October 1, 1799 – June 9, 1851)

S

 * Dred Scott (c. 1799 – September 17, 1858)
 * Benjamin "Pap" Singleton
 * James McCune Smith
 * Lucy Stanton
 * Austin Steward (1793 – February 15, 1869)
 * Maria W. Stewart
 * William Still

T

 * Sojourner Truth (c. 1797 – November 26, 1883)
 * Harriet Tubman (c. March 1822 – March 10, 1913)
 * Nat Turner (October 2, 1800 – November 11, 1831)

V

 * George Boyer Vashon
 * Denmark Vesey (c.1767 – July 2, 1822)

W

 * David Walker (September 28, 1796 – August 6, 1830)
 * William Whipper (February 22, 1804 – March 9, 1876)
 * Theodore S. Wright (1797–1847)

title: List of African-American abolitionists


text:
Laurentius Petri

Laurentius Petri Nericius (1499 – 27 October 1573) was a Swedish clergyman and the first Evangelical Lutheran Archbishop of Sweden. He and his brother Olaus Petri are, together with the King Gustav Vasa, regarded as the main Lutheran reformers of Sweden. They are commemorated by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America on 19 April.

Early life
Laurentius was born Lars Persson in Örebro, Närke. Laurentius studied in Germany in 1520, possibly together with his brother. Here they took influence from Lutheranism, among other things they met with Martin Luther himself. On returning home to Stockholm, they got stranded and nearly lost their lives as the boat went ashore on the island of Gotland. They both survived however, and settled on the island, and Laurentius became headmaster at a school while Olaus became assistant to a priest. Not long after, Olaus travelled with the priest to Stockholm and the crowning of King Gustav Vasa. Subsequently, he managed to get on friendly terms with the King, and soon moved to Stockholm where he worked in the vicinity of the King.

Archbishop
At the Uppsala Council of 1531, the Swedish king Gustav Vasa took the final step of breaking with the Roman Catholic Church, by personally appointing Laurentius as the new archbishop. On 22 September that year, Laurentius was consecrated archbishop by the Peder Månsson, Bishop of Västerås. Månsson was ordained bishop in Rome by Bishop Paris de Grassis, and by consecrating Laurentius the apostolic succession was retained in the Church of Sweden, which was considered important. But although the consecration took place according to Catholic ritual, those who officiated at the consecration made a secret declaration that they were acting under pressure.

Later that year Laurentius married Elisabeth Didriksdotter, a daughter of the King's cousin becoming the first Swedish archbishop to be married. His brother Olaus had already become the first priest to marry in 1525.

The king forbade Laurentius to interfere with the reformation plans. Laurentius wisely defended the autonomy of the Church against the various ideas of Gustav, such as his wish to abolish all bishops, while still steady advancing and promoting the ideas of the reformation texts within Sweden. His main contribution were his abundant writings which laid the foundation for the Swedish Church Ordinance established at the Uppsala Council 1571.

He was archbishop for 42 years, unparalleled in Sweden, and during his time he was often in conflicts with the monarchs. In 1539 his brother Olaus was sentenced to death by the King over some arguments, and Laurentius was among those forced to sign the death sentence. It has been disputed whether Laurentius was doing this because of a weak character or if he thought it better to formally obey so that he could continue to spread the reformation ideas. Olaus did eventually get pardoned in 1542, much due to his influential friends, but he was forced to keep a low profile, leaving the role of main reformator solely to Laurentius.

Diplomat
Gustav I of Sweden entrusted Laurentius Petri to head the delegation who negotiated the Treaty of Novgorod (1557), which ended the Russo-Swedish War (1554–1557).

Works
The first complete Swedish translation of the Bible was published in 1541, nicknamed the Vasa Bible after the King. Laurentius was one of the main proponents supervising the project, together with his brother Olaus and the clergyman Laurentius Andreae.

In the 1560s, when the ideas of Calvin gained in influence, Laurentius published several texts where he spoke for Lutheranism. It has been suggested that it was the first time the Swedish Church defined its Lutheran character.

Family
His wife was Elizabeth Diriksdotter daughter of Didrik the Mint Master and Birgitta Kristiernsdotter Vasa (paternal cousin of Gustav I of Sweden). They were betrothed on 23 September 1531, after Laurentius Petri married Gustav I of Sweden to Catherine of Saxe-Lauenburg. Two daughters were born in the marriage: Margaret, who married Laurentius Petri Gothus (They had two daughters) and Magdalene, who married Abraham Angermannus.

Notes and references
The standard reference works in English remain:

- Yelverton, Eric E., An Archbishop of the Reformation: Laurentius Petri Nericus, Archbishop of Uppsala, 1531-73 (Augsburg Publishing House, Minneapolis, MN, 1959),

- Bergendoff, Conrad, Olavus Petri and the Ecclesiastical Transformation in Sweden, 1521-1552 (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, PA, 1965),

- Grell, Ole Peter (editor), The Scandinavian Reformation: From evangelical movement to institutionalisation of reform (Cambridge University Press, 1995).

 * Article Laurentius Petri in Nordisk familjebok (1911)

title: Laurentius Petri


text: User talk:64.12.96.9

title: User talk:64.12.96.9