text:
Page:Abraham Lincoln address (1909).djvu/18

And Joseph Medill, of the Chicago Tribune, wrote to Schuyler Colfax in 1862,, saying:

"'Seward must be got out of the cabinet; he is Lincoln's evil genius. He has been President de facto, and has kept a sponge saturated with chloroform to Uncle Abe's nose all the while, except one or two brief spells.' (1 Bancroft's Seward, p—.)"

The "Pennsylvanian" characterized Mr. Lincoln's first inaugural as a "tiger's claw concealed under the fur of Sewardism," and the "Atlas and Argus," of Albany, as "weak, rambling, loose- jointed" and as "inviting civil war." (See 2 Tarbell's Lincoln, p. 13.)

We refer to these last citations especially to show, what we have always maintained, viz: that Mr. Lincoln was dominated by Seward and Stanton, in our opinion, two of the worst men this country has ever produced.

In his speech at Cooper Institute in 1864 Wendell Phillips said:

"'I judge Mr. Lincoln by his acts, his violations of the law, his overthrow of liberty in the Northern States. I judge Mr. Lincoln by his words and deeds, and so judging him, I am unwilling to trust Abraham Lincoln with the future of this country. Mr. Lincoln is a politician; politicians are like the bones of a horse's fore shoulder—not a straight one in it.' (Facts and Falsehoods, p. 17.)"

Mr. Lincoln was asked if he had seen the speech of Wendell Phillips, and he said:

"'I have seen enough to satisfy me that I am a failure, not only in the opinion of the people in rebellion, but of many distinguished politicians of my own party.' (Lamon's Recollections, p. 187.)"

But enough of this; and we have made these citations only for the purpose of showing, first, that the character of Mr. Lincoln, as now presented to the world, is utterly at variance with his character as understood by those who knew him best and were daily brought in contact with him whilst living; and, secondly, to show that if his character was such as is presented to us by those who best knew him in life, that character was in keeping with his conduct towards the people of the South in the great war from '61 to '65.


text:
Page:Abraham Lincoln address (1909).djvu/25

 convents occupied by women of his own religious faith." (See Myer's letter in "Confederate Cause and Conduct," p. 84.)

On the 5th of August, 1864, General Grant wrote to General David Hunter, who preceded Sheridan in command of the Valley:

"'In pushing up the Shenandoah Valley, where it is expected you will have to go first or last, it is desirable that nothing should be left to invite the enemy to return. Take all provisions, forage and stock wanted for the use of your command; such as cannot be consumed, destroy.'"

And it was Grant who suggested to Sheridan the order that Sheridan executed in so desolating the Valley that "a crow flying over it would have to carry his own rations." Sheridan says:

"'I have destroyed over two thousand barns filled with wheat and hay and farming implements; over seventy mills filled with flour and wheat; have driven in front of the army over four thousand head of stock, and have killed and issued to the troops not less than three thousand sheep. This destruction embraces the Luray Valley and Little Fort Valley, as well as the main Valley.'"

Contrast these orders, and this conduct, with General Lee's Chambersburg order of June 27, 1863, when his army invaded Pennsylvania, and the conduct of his army in that hostile country, and you have the difference between barbarous and civilized warfare. "HEADQUARTERS A. N. V.,

"CHAMBERSBURG, PA., June 27, 1863.

"GENERAL ORDERS NO. 73.

"The Commanding General has marked with satisfaction the conduct of the troops on the march and confidently anticipates results commensurate with the high spirit they have manifested. No troops could have displayed greater fortitude or better performed the arduous marches of the first ten days. Their conduct in other respects has, with few exceptions, been in keeping with their character as soldiers, and entitles them to approbation and praise.

"There have, however, been instances of forgetfulness on the part of some, that they have in keeping the yet unsullied reputation of the army, and the duties exacted of us by Civilization and Christianity, are not less obligatory in the country of the enemy than in our own. The Commanding General considers that no greater disgrace could befall the army, and through it our whole people, than the perpetration of the barbarous outrages upon the innocent and defenceless and the wanton destruction of private property that have marked the course of the enemy in our own country. Such proceedings not only disgrace the perpetrators and all connected with them, but are subversive of the discipline and efficiency of the army and destructive of the ends of our present movements. It must be remembered that we make war only on armed men, and that we cannot take vengeance for the wrongs our people have suffered without lowering ourselves in the eyes of all whose abhorrence has been excited by the atrocities of our enemy, and offending against Him to whom vengeance belongeth, without whose favor and support our efforts must all prove in vain. The Commanding General therefore earnestly exhorts the troops to abstain, with most scrupulous care, from unnecessary or wanton injury to private property; and to enjoin upon all officers to arrest and bring to summary punishment all who shall in any way offend against the orders on this subject.

"R. E. LEE, General." General Lee's order was approved by President Davis;

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


text:
Page:Abraham Lincoln address (1909).djvu/26

 Grant's, Sherman's, Sheridan's and others by President Lincoln. To which of these two will you men and women of the South render the meed of your reverence, honor and respect? I know your answer, because I know and honor you.

But this is, by no means, all. Judge Jeremiah S. Black, of Pennsylvania, writing to Mr. Charles Francis Adams, said:

"'I will not pain you by a recital of the wanton cruelties they (the Lincoln administration) inflicted upon unoffending citizens. I have neither space, nor skill, nor time, to paint them. A life-sized picture of them would cover more canvas than there is on the earth. * * * Since the fall of Robespierre, nothing has occurred to cast so much disrepute on republican institutions.' (See Black's Essays, p. 153.)"

Verily, "He left a Corsair's name to other times Linked with one virtue and a thousand crimes."

In the address issued by General Lee to the people of Maryland when his army first entered that State, in September, 1862, he said:

"'It is right that you should know the purpose that brought the army under my command within the limits of your State,"


text:
Page:Abraham Lincoln address (1909).djvu/29

 army of the Confederacy"; that "hospitals for prisoners of war are placed on the same footing as other Confederate States' hospitals in all respects, and will be managed accordingly." And General Lee says, "The orders always were that the whole field should be treated alike; parties were sent out to take the Federal wounded as well as Confederate, and the surgeons were told to treat the one as they did the other. These orders given by me were respected on very field."

At the very beginning of hostilities, the Confederate authorities were likewise most anxious to establish a cartel for the exchange of prisoners. The Federals refused to do this until July 22, 1862, and almost directly after this cartel was established it was violated and annulled by the Federal authorities with Mr. Lincoln at their head. On the 6th of July, 1861, Mr. Davis wrote to Mr. Lincoln, saying:

"'It is the desire of this government so to conduct the war now existing as to mitigate its horrors as far as may be possible, and with this intent its treatment of the prisoners captured by its forces has been marked by the greatest humanity and leniency consistent with public obligation.'"

This letter was sent to Washington by a special messenger (Colonel Taylor), but he was refused even an audience with Mr. Lincoln, and although a reply was promised, no reply to it was ever made.

On the 2d of July, 1863, Mr. Davis addressed another letter to Mr. Lincoln and tried to send it to him by the hands of Vice-President Stephens, saying:

"'I believe I have just grounds of complaint against the officers and forces under your command for breach of the cartel; and being myself ready to execute it at all times, and in good faith, I am not justified in doubting the existence of the same disposition on your part. In addition to this matter, I have to complain of the conduct of your officers and troops in many parts of the country, who violate all the rules of war by carrying on hostilities not only against armed foes, but against non-combatants, aged men, women and children, while others not only seize such property as is required for the use of your troops, but destroy all private property within their reach,' etc."

And he implored Mr. Lincoln to take steps "to prevent further misunderstanding as to the terms of the cartel, and to enter into such arrangement and understanding about the mode of carrying on


text:
Page:Abraham Lincoln address (1909).djvu/30

 hostilities between the belligerents as shall confine the severities of the war within such limits as are rightfully imposed, not only by modern civilization,, but by our common Christianity."

And yet Mr. Stephens, with a letter of this import, was not even permitted to go through the lines to carry it.

Mr. Charles A. Dana, the Assistant Federal Secretary of War, the same man who permitted the shackles to be placed upon Mr. Davis, says:

"'The evidence must be taken as conclusive: It proves that it was not the Confederate authorities who insisted on keeping our prisoners in distress, want and disease, but the commander of our armies.'"

And that commander-in-chief of their armies, the one who had absolute control of the whole matter, was Abraham Lincoln. We know that President Davis even went so far when the prisoners at Andersonville were suffering from disease and want, which the Confederate Government could not relieve or prevent, as to send a delegation of these prisoners to Mr. Lincoln to beg him to renew the cartel for their exchange, and Mr. Lincoln sent these men back to die; and, further, that when Mr. Davis offered to send home from ten to fifteen thousand of these prisoners at one time, without demanding any equivalent in exchange, this humane offer was indignantly rejected; that medicines were declared "contraband of war," and the Federal Government not only refused to furnish these for their own prisoners, to be administered by its own doctors, but refused to allow the Confederates the means to procure them when they were informed that these prisoners were dying on account of the need of these medicines. Hence we say that Mr. Lincoln, as the head of the Federal Government and the Commander-in-chief of its armies, is directly responsible for all this misconduct and cruelty on the part of his subordinates, and for the deaths, sufferings and sorrows which ensued in consequence of that misconduct and cruelty.

But it is often said that, notwithstanding all these things, Mr. Lincoln was a friend of the Southern people, and that his death was a great misfortune to the South, since he would have been able to prevent the outrages, severities and cruelties of "Reconstruction."


text:
Page:Abraham Lincoln address (1909).djvu/32

 to Mr. Stephens, for reasons which he attempts to explain. (See Lincoln and Men of War Times, p. 92.)

But again it is claimed that Mr. Lincoln would have been most lenient and kind in his treatment of the people of the South after the termination of the war, and that hence his death was a great calamity to the South. The sole basis of this claim seems to be that when Mr. Lincoln came to Richmond on the 5th of April, 1865, two days after the evacuation by the Confederates, he had a conference with Judge Campbell, Assistant Secretary of War of the Confederacy, and Mr. Gustavus A. Myers, then a member of the Legislature from Richmond, and suggested to them to have the Virginia Legislature re-assemble for the purpose of restoring Virginia to the Union. In a statement published in Vol. 36, page 252, of the "Southern Historical Society Papers," Judge Campbell gives an interesting account of this interview with Mr. Lincoln, and says, among other things:

"'Mr. Lincoln desired the Legislature of Virginia to be called together to ascertain and test its disposition to co-operate with him in terminating the war. He desired it to recall the troops of Virginia from the Confederate service, and to attorn to the United States and to submit to the national authority.'"

Judge Campbell further says that whilst he (Campbell) expressed the opinion that General Lee's army was in such a condition that it could not be held together for many days, "Mr. Lincoln did not fully credit the judgment that was expressed as to the condition of General Lee's army. He could not realize the fact that its dissolution was certain in any event, and that its day was spent. He knew that if the 'very Legislature' that had been sitting in Richmond were convened and did vote as he desired, that it would disorganize and discourage the Confederate army and government."

In our opinion, this was the true and only reason why Mr. Lincoln wanted the Legislature recalled. It was that it might order the withdrawal of the Virginia troops, with General Lee at their head, from the Army of Northern Virginia, and in that way destroy the efficiency of that army.

But whatever may have been Mr. Lincoln's motives and purposes at that time, we know that as soon as he knew that the Army of Northern Virginia had surrendered, and only two days before his


text:
Page:Abraham Lincoln address (1909).djvu/36

 "took command. Long strain had greatly weakened and exhausted the resources of the South.' (Lamon's Recollections, p. 199.)"

(10) And Lamon says of him at the time of his election:

"'Few men believed that Mr. Lincoln possessed a single qualification for his great office.' *** 'They said he was good and honest and well meaning, but they took care not to pretend that he was great. He was thoroughly convinced that there was too much truth in this view of his character. He felt deeply and keenly his lack of experience in the conduct of public affairs. He spoke then and afterwards about the duties of the presidency with much diffidence, and said with a story about a justice of the peace in Illinois, that they constituted his 'great first case misunderstood.'' (Lamon, p. 468.)"

That he had no just appreciation of the gravity of the situation, or of the duties of the office he was about to assume, is best evinced by the character of the speeches made by him en route to Washington to be inaugurated. Of these speeches, the Northern historian, Rhodes. (3 Rhodes, 303), thus writes:

"'In his speeches the commonplace abounds, and though he had a keen sense of humor, his sallies of wit grated on earnest men, who read in quiet his daily utterances. The ridiculous, which lies so near the sublime, was reached when this man, proceeding to grave duties, and the great fame that falls to few in the whole world, asked at the town of Westfield, for a little girl correspondent of his, at whose suggestion he had made a change in his personal appearance, and when she came, he kissed her and said, 'You see I have let these whiskers grow for you, Grace.''"

But let us ask, can statesmanship be predicated of any American, who expressed the opinion, as Mr. Lincoln did, that the relations of the States to the Union were the same as those of the counties to the States of which they severally formed a part? Surely comment is unnecessary.

Mr. Lincoln had in his cabinet five of the ablest men then in the country, and we think it fair to assume that these men are entitled to much, if not most, of the credit (if it can be so called) now so recklessly and unsparingly ascribed to him. But did it require genius or ability in any man, or set of men, to wear out, as by "attrition," six hundred thousand half -starved and


text:
Page:Abraham Lincoln address (1909).djvu/31

 As some evidence of this, it is claimed, first, that in the so-called "Peace Conference" held in Hampton Roads in February, 1865, Mr. Lincoln offered, if the South would return to the Union, that the Federal Government would pay for the slaves by making an appropriation of four hundred millions of dollars for that purpose. Indeed, it is claimed that he said to Mr. Stephens:

"'Let me write 'Union' at the top of this page, and you may then write any other terms of settlement you may deem proper.'"

We undertake to say, after a careful reading of the joint and several reports of our commissioners (Messrs. Stephens, Hunter and Campbell), and after reading the message sent by Mr. Lincoln to Congress after his return from that conference, that there is no just foundation for any such claim.

Mr. Lincoln himself says:

"'No papers were exchanged or produced, and it was in advance agreed that the conversation was to be informal and verbal merely. On our part, the whole substance of the instructions to the Secretary of State hereinbefore recited was stated and insisted upon, and nothing was said inconsistent therewith.'"

The instructions to the Secretary here referred to in reference to slavery were:

"'No receding by the Executive of the United States on the slavery question from the position assumed thereon in the annual message to Congress and in preceding documents.'"

And the terms here referred to in the annual message to Congress were:

"'I retract nothing heretofore said as to slavery. I repeat the declaration made a year ago, that while I remain in my present position I will not attempt to retract or modify the Emancipation Proclamation.'"

Certainly there was nothing in the Emancipation Proclamation which indicated any intention or desire on his part to make any compensation for the slaves of the Southern people.

And Colonel McClure, who, as before stated, is a partizan of Mr. Lincoln, and claims everything for him that could possibly be claimed, says this matter was not even suggested by Mr. Lincoln


text:
Page:Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922.djvu/19

Rh he uses is $$(\bar p,\bar \xi,\bar N(\bar \xi))$$. The following is the explanation of this symbol:
 * $$\bar p$$ stands for all atomic propositions,
 * $$\bar \xi$$ stands for any set of propositions.
 * $$\bar N(\bar \xi)$$ stands for the negation of all the propositions making up $$\bar \xi$$.

The whole symbol $$(\bar p,\bar \xi,\bar N(\bar \xi))$$ means whatever can be obtained by taking any selection of atomic propositions, negating them all, then taking any selection of the set of propositions now obtained, together with any of the originals—and so on indefinitely. This is, he says, the general truth-function and also the general form of proposition. What is meant is somewhat less complicated than it sounds. The symbol is intended to describe a process by the help of which, given the atomic propositions, all others can be manufactured. The process depends upon:

(a) Sheffer's proof that all truth-functions can be obtained out of simultaneous negation, i.e., out of "not-p and not-q";

(b) Mr Wittgenstein's theory of the derivation of general propositions from conjunctions and disjunctions;

(c) The assertion that a proposition can only occur in another proposition as argument to a truth-function. Given these three foundations, it follows that all propositions which are not atomic can be derived from such as are, by a uniform process, and it is this process which is indicated by Mr Wittgenstein's symbol.

From this uniform method of construction we arrive at an amazing simplification of the theory of inference, as well as a definition of the sort of propositions that belong to logic. The method of generation which has just been described, enables Wittgenstein to say that all propositions can be constructed in the above manner from atomic propositions, and in this way the totality of propositions is defined. (The apparent exceptions which we mentioned above are dealt with in a manner which we Rh


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Finland

FINLAND (see ). — The remarkable development of Finnish nationalism in the closing decades of the 19th century was primarily directed against the Swedish language and Finno-Swedish cultural domination. Through the revival of their own singularly rich and beautiful tongue, the Finns of Finland had learnt to think of their country as “Suomi,” as utterly distinct from Sweden and Russia, as possessing thought and literature of its own. Though open to European influences, specially in their art, and taking their political ideas from Scandinavia and Germany, the “Fennomans” (Finnish Finns) climbed “unto a language island” and, developing along extremely democratic lines, took no part at all in Russian affairs and showed little interest in those of Scandinavia. There was no sympathy even with the Russian proletariat in its early struggles, while the revolutionaries were cold-shouldered.

Second Period of Russification 1908-14. — The successive governors of Russia, however, regarded the “Suomilaiset” (or the people of the fens) as a strange and totally different nationality from themselves, although the Finno-Ugrian race blended with the Slav is to be found all over northern Russia; they could not forget that the “country of the thousand lakes” had been under Swedish rule for 600 years, and cherished a civilization wholly alien to their own. This so obviously democratic, almost self-governing grand duchy of Finland was a thorn in the side of the vast autocratic Russian State conception. Out of this train of thought arose Russia's first attack upon the liberties of Finland during the dark years 1899-1906.

Effects of the World War, 1914-8. — In these circumstances supervened the World War of 1914, and it was left to Lt.-Gen. F. Seyn, the governor-general, to supervise the stringent censorship and the harassing restrictions of personal liberty which an unprecedented situation called for in all the countries of Europe. Though Finland escaped the horrors of foreign war upon its own soil, a descent of the German armies upon the coast was a military eventuality which had to be taken into account. Accordingly two lines of trench covering the chief railway lines were constructed across Finland, one system of fortified lines running from Tornea to Helsingfors, the other from Kajana to Kotka. Besides, the long sea border of the grand duchy was exposed to enemy action from the sea; and some 40,000 tons of the Finnish mercantile marine, which sailed under the Russian flag, exposed to destruction in the open waters of the Baltic Sea, remained locked in the harbours of the Bothnian gulf. This heavy loss to seaborne commerce was balanced by the extraordinary advantages which Finnish industries derived from the war partly by reason of the low tariff prevailing, partly through the influx of Russian labour. Industries connected directly with military supply, as also the iron, leather, glass, drugs and polishes trades and paper-manufacturing concerns, attained unexampled prosperity. The Russians, who were well aware that the Finnish people at the end of a 15 years' constitutional struggle did not love them, strongly garrisoned the country, but, the discipline in the Tsarist armies being maintained at a high standard,

collisions between the military and the civil population were few. The Russian authorities, impulsive as was their wont and inconsequent in their application of the law, suffered from divided councils, and were alternately bent on reconciliation and repression. There being no means as in Sweden and Denmark to take advantage of leaks in the Allied blockade, the price of living gradually rose, railway fares and telephone costs being raised by 25%. But the country was relieved of the burden of the annual military indemnity, and the Russians, in their sporadic anxiety to please, were strangely negligent of such essential precautions as the surveillance of telephonic communications. There was, however, a special 5% tax on property and mortgage.

Events in 1919 and 1920. — The year 1919 witnessed the growth of the Republic of Finland out of the ashes of a country laid waste by civil war. Mannerheim organized the “Skyddskorps” or Protective Guards, a body of over 100,000 men, whose loyalty to the existing order of society could be relied upon.

The general election of March 1 1919 showed the following division of parties: Social Democrats 80, Agrarians 42, Coalitionists 28, Progressives 26, Swedish 22, Christian Labour two. The Social Democrats had thus diminished by 12 since the 1917 elections. This was largely attributable to the disfranchisement of over 40,000 voters for participation in the Red revolt. The tendency towards a republican form of government was outlined by the Agrarian party, composed of small landowners hostile to the claims of the Swedish-speaking Monarchist section.

Mannerheim's popularity being immense with the parties of the Right and the army, the temptation of exploiting the military impotence of Soviet Russia was very great. In 1919 continued the Entente intervention on the Murmansk and Archangel fronts, and when the 237th Brigade (Gen. Price), which formed part of the expeditionary force under the English Maj.-Gen. Maynard, at the end of May reached Medvyejva Gora at the head of Lake Onega, the Finnish Government offered coöperation in return for the possession of Petrozavodsk. The offer being declined, a Finnish volunteer force nevertheless assaulted the town independently, but without success. Again, at the close of the year, when the White-Russian Gen. Judenitch was marching on Petrograd, Mannerheim went so far as to sound the Allies as to their views on the proposed Finnish intervention. But he received no encouragement from Paris or London, nor from the Moderates at home.

Already on July 17 of that year the Finnish Diet had resolved to establish a republic, with a president to be elected every six

years, and, on July 25, Prof. Kaarlo Juho Ståhlberg was chosen as the first president by 143 votes against 50 recorded for Mannerheim. It was then that the Vennola Government, which was a coalition of the Progressive and Agrarian parties, came into power. Though it commanded only 64 out of 200 seats in the Diet, it marked a great administrative improvement from a democratic point of view. It introduced the Amnesty bill, which after a chequered career was passed by the Diet on Dec. 18 by 165 votes to 68. Its adoption synchronized with the abandonment of the Communists by the extreme Left. The de jure recognition of the republic was accorded by Great Britain soon after the instalment of Ståhlberg.

The outstanding event of the year 1920 was the signing of a peace treaty with Soviet Russia, which after long negotiations was signed at Dorpat on Oct. 14, the military defeat of the Bolsheviks by the Poles being a contributory factor. Pechenga was ceded to Finland, which thus obtained the much-desired outlet on the Arctic Ocean, while Russia retained eastern Karelia, where, after the collapse of Gen. Skobelzine's White-Russian front in Feb., fighting had occurred with Bolshevik troops with results satisfactory to Finnish arms. The treaty was approved on Dec. 1 by the Diet with only 27 dissentient voices and ratified on Dec. 11 by the President. Finland soon after was admitted as a member of the League of Nations.

Åland Islands Dispute. — The question of the Åland Is. was, in its simplest form, whether the group of islands adjacent to Finland and inhabited by a few thousand people of Swedish extraction should belong to Sweden or to Finland. In its wider aspect, however, the whole network of islands which form the archipelago of Åbo and that of the Åland Is. constituted the key of the defence of the coast of Finland and of the gulfs of Bothnia and Finland against attack from the west. In 1920, as in previous years, sovereignty was claimed over these islands by Finland on the ground that it was for her a question of existence, though autonomy was given to the Ålanders and for the safety of Sweden the absolute demilitarization of the islands was conceded. Under such circumstances the question was referred on June 19 1920 to the League of Nations, and in June 1921 (see ) its decision was given in favour of Finland.

(W. L. B.)

title: 1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Finland


text:
Page:Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922.djvu/20

Rh shall consider later.) Wittgenstein is enabled to assert that propositions are all that follows from the totality of atomic propositions (together with the fact that it is the totality of them); that a proposition is always a truthfunction of atomic propositions; and that if p follows from q the meaning of p is contained in the meaning of q from which of course it results that nothing can be deduced from an atomic proposition. All the propositions of logic, he maintains, are tautologies, such, for example, as "p or not p."

The fact that nothing can be deduced from an atomic proposition has interesting applications, for example, to causality. There cannot, in Wittgenstein's logic, be any such thing as a causal nexus. "The events of the future," he says, "cannot be inferred from those of the present. Superstition is the belief in the causal nexus." That the sun will rise to-morrow is a hypothesis. We do not in fact know whether it will rise, since there is no compulsion according to which one thing must happen because another happens.

Let us now take up another subject — that of names. In Wittgenstein's theoretical logical language, names are only given to simples. We do not give two names to one thing, or one name to two things. There is no way whatever, according to him, by which we can describe the totality of things that can be named, in other words, the totality of what there is in the world. In order to be able to do this we should have to know of some property which must belong to every thing by a logical necessity. It has been sought to find such a property in self-identity, but the conception of identity is subjected by Wittgenstein to a destructive criticism from which there seems no escape. The definition of identity by means of the identity of indiscernibles is rejected, because the identity of indiscernibles appears to be not a logically necessary principle. According to this principle x is identical with y if every property of x is a property of y, but it would, after all, be logically possible for two things to have exactly the same properties. Rh


text:
Page:Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922.djvu/21

Rh If this does not in fact happen that is an accidental characteristic of the world, not a logically necessary characteristic, and accidental characteristics of the world must, of course, not be admitted into the structure of logic. Mr Wittgenstein accordingly banishes identity and adopts the convention that different letters are to mean different things. In practice, identity is needed as between a name and a description or between two descriptions. It is needed for such propositions as "Socrates is the philosopher who drank the hemlock," or "The even prime is the next number after i." For such uses of identity it is easy to provide on Wittgenstein's system.

The rejection of identity removes one method of speaking of the totality of things, and it will be found that any other method that may be suggested is equally fallacious: so, at least, Wittgenstein contends and, I think, rightly. This amounts to saying that "object" is a pseudo-concept. To say "x is an object" is to say nothing. It follows from this that we cannot make such statements as ** there are more than three objects in the world," or "there are an infinite number of objects in the world." Objects can only be mentioned in connexion with some definite property. We can say "there are more than three objects which are human," or "there are more than three objects which are red," for in these statements the word object can be replaced by a variable in the language of logic, the variable being one which satisfies in the first case the function "x is human "; in the second the function "x is red." But when we attempt to say "there are more than three objects," this substitution of the variable for the word "object" becomes impossible, and the proposition is therefore seen to be meaningless.

We here touch one instance of Wittgenstein's fundamental thesis, that it is impossible to say anything about the world as a whole, and that whatever can be said has to be about bounded portions of the world. This view may have been originally suggested by notation, and if so, that is much in its favour, for a good notation has Rh


text:
Page:Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922.djvu/22

Rh a subtlety and suggestiveness which at times make it seem almost like a live teacher. Notational irregularities are often the first sign of philosophical errors, and a perfect notation would be a substitute for thought. But although notation may have first suggested to Mr Wittgenstein the limitation of logic to things within the world as opposed to the world as a whole, yet the view, once suggested, is seen to have much else to recommend it. Whether it is ultimately true I do not, for my part, profess to know. In this Introduction I am concerned to expound it, not to pronounce upon it. According to this view we could only say things about the world as a whole if we could get outside the world, if, that is to say, it ceased to be for us the whole world. Our world may be bounded for some superior being who can survey it from above, but for us, however finite it may be, it cannot have a boundary, since it has nothing outside it. Wittgenstein uses, as an analogy, the field of vision. Our field of vision does not, for us, have a visual boundary, just because there is nothing outside it, and in like manner our logical world has no logical boundary because our logic knows of nothing outside it. These considerations lead him to a somewhat curious discussion of Solipsism. Logic, he says, fills the world. The boundaries of the world are also its boundaries. In logic, therefore, we cannot say, there is this and this in the world, but not that, for to say so would apparently presuppose that we exclude certain possibilities, and this cannot be the case, since it would require that logic should go beyond the boundaries of the world as if it could contemplate these boundaries from the other side also. What we cannot think we cannot think, therefore we also cannot say what we cannot think.

This, he says, gives the key to Solipsism. What Solipsism intends is quite correct, but this cannot be said, it can only be shown. That the world is my world appears in the fact that the boundaries of language (the only language I understand) indicate the boundaries of Rh


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Irving, Henry Brodribb

IRVING, HENRY BRODRIBB (1870-1919), English actor, elder son of Sir Henry Irving (see ), was born in London Aug. 5 1870. He was educated at Marlborough and New College, Oxford, and was called to the bar in 1894; but he quickly abandoned this profession for that of the stage, for which his inherited aptitude had always been very marked. At Oxford he had belonged to the O.U.D.S. and had played the leading parts in Browning's Strafford and Shakespeare's King John. His first professional appearance in London was made Sept. 1891 with John Hare at the Garrick theatre in Robertson's School. Three years later he joined Mr. Ben Greet's company, where he met Miss Dorothea Baird, whom he married in 1896 at the time of her great popular success in Du Maurier's play of Trilby. His earliest notable success was in Barrie's The Admirable Crichton in 1903, and he followed it by an interesting impersonation of Hamlet in 1905. His picturesque appearance and strong likeness to his father induced him to repeat many of his father's famous parts; but he did original work of a high order in Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, in Stephen Phillips's The Sin of David, in Walter Hackett's The Barton Mystery, and in other romantic and melodramatic productions, many of them produced at the Savoy theatre, London, of which he was lessee and manager from 1913 until his death. Throughout his life he was a keen student of criminology, and he published a Life of Judge Jeffreys (1898); French Criminals of the 19th Century (1901); A Book of Remarkable Criminals (1918) and other papers on the subject. He died in London Oct. 17 1919.

His younger brother, (1871-1914), English actor, was born in London Dec. 21 1871.

He was educated at Marlborough and abroad, being destined for the diplomatic service; but he joined Frank Benson's Shakespearean company in 1893 and made his first professional appearance in London a year later with J. L. Toole in Barrie's Walker, London. He married the actress Mabel Hackney, and with his wife played in Brieux's The Three Daughters of M. Dupont and The Incubus, as well as in The Unwritten Law — his own adaptation of Dostoievsky's Crime and Punishment — and in Lengyell's Typhoon. In 1912 he acted Iago in Herbert Tree's production of Othello. He wrote Peter the Great, produced by his father in 1898, Bonnie Dundee and Richard Lovelace, as well as a number of translations and adaptations of plays. Both he and his wife lost their lives when the “Empress of Ireland” sank in the St. Lawrence river May 29 1914.


text:
Page:Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922.djvu/23

Rh my world. The metaphysical subject does not belong to the world but is a boundary of the world.

We must take up next the question of molecular propositions which are at first sight not truth-functions, of the propositions that they contain, such, for example as "A believes p."

Wittgenstein introduces this subject in the statement of his position, namely, that all molecular functions are truth-functions. He says (5-54): *' In the general propositional form, propositions occur in a proposition only as bases of truth-operations." At first sight, he goes on to explain, it seems as if a proposition could also occur in other ways, e.g. "A believes p." Here it seems superficially as if the proposition p stood in a sort of relation to the object A. "But it is clear that 'A believes that p,' 'A thinks p,' 'A says p' are of the form p says p; and here we have no co-ordination of a fact and an object, but a co-ordination of facts by means of a co-ordination of their objects" (5.542).

What Mr Wittgenstein says here is said so shortly that its point is not likely to be clear to those who have not in mind the controversies with which he is concerned. The theory with which he is disagreeing will be found in my articles on the nature of truth and falsehood in Philosophical Essays and Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1906-7. The problem at issue is the problem of the logical form of belief, i.e. what is the schema representing what occurs when a man believes. Of course, the problem applies not only to belief, but also to a host of other mental phenomena which may be called propositional attitudes: doubting, considering, desiring, etc. In all these cases it seems natural to express the phenomenon in the form "A doubts p" "A desires p," etc., which makes it appear as though we were dealing with a relation between a person and a proposition. This cannot, of course, be the ultimate analysis, since persons are fictions and so are propositions, except in the sense in which they are facts on their own account. A proposition, considered


text: Category:Deaths by decade

title: Category:Deaths by decade


text: Category:Deaths by year

title: Category:Deaths by year


text:
Category:Births by decade

uk:Категорія:Народжені за десятиліттями

title: Category:Births by decade


text: Category:Births by year

title: Category:Births by year


text: Category:Births by century

title: Category:Births by century


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Isostasy

ISOSTASY, in Geology. — When the Great Trigonometrical Survey of India was initiated, it was found that the deflection of the plumb-line by the Himalayas was much less than the calculated amount due to the theoretical attraction of the visible mass of the mountains. Sir G. B. Airy suggested that this might be caused by the presence of a mass of matter, of less than the average density, under the mountains; this explanation was further investigated by Archdeacon J. H. Pratt, who applied the term compensation to the negative effect of the underlying defect of density, in compensating the direct effect of the attraction of the visible mass of the mountains. In 1892 Major C. E. Dutton, discussing the greater problems of physical geology, deduced a general principle that the weight of matter under any unit area of the earth's surface tended to become uniform, and suggested that this was brought about by an underground transfer of material to balance the visible surface transport from regions of erosion to those of deposition. To this principle he gave the name isostasy (ἴσος, equal, and στάσις, position), not as a synonym for Pratt's compensation, but as a name for the principle and process by which it was brought about. In 1909 there appeared a very complete and elaborate investigation of the subject, by J. F. Hayford, in which the word isostasy is used throughout as synonymous with what Pratt called compensation, and this use of the term has since become general among geodesists. Some inconvenience results from this change in the meaning attached to the word, for it is still largely understood by geologists in the sense intended by its inventor, as the process by which the fact implied by Pratt's word, compensation, is brought about (see also ).

(R. D. O.)

title: 1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Isostasy


text:
Author:Richard Dixon Oldham

Works

 * Manual of the Geology of India, (2nd ed., 1893)

title: Author:Richard Dixon Oldham


text:
Page:Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922.djvu/24

Rh as a fact on its own account, may be a set of words which a man says over to himself, or a complex image, or train of images passing through his mind, or a set of incipient bodily movements. It may be any one of innumerable different things. The proposition as a fact on its own account, for example the actual set of words the man pronounces to himself, is not relevant to logic. What is relevant to logic is that common element among all these facts, which enables him, as we say, to mean the fact which the proposition asserts. To psychology, of course, more is relevant; for a symbol does not mean what it symbolizes in virtue of a logical relation alone, but in virtue also of a psychological relation of intention, or association, or what-not. The psychological part of meaning, however, does not concern the logician. What does concern him in this problem of belief is the logical schema. It is clear that, when a person believes a proposition, the person, considered as a metaphysical subject, does not have to be assumed in order to explain what is happening. What has to be explained is the relation between the set of words which is the proposition considered as a fact on its own account, and the "objective" fact which makes the proposition true or false. This reduces ultimately to the question of the meaning of propositions, that is to say, the meaning of propositions is the only non-psychological portion of the problem involved in the analysis of belief. This problem is simply one of a relation of two facts, namely, the relation between the series of words used by the believer and the fact which makes these words true or false. The series of words is a fact just as much as what makes it true or false is a fact. The relation between these two facts is not unanalysable, since the meaning of a proposition results from the meaning of its constituent words. The meaning of the series of words which is a proposition is a function of the meanings of the separate words. Accordingly, the proposition as a whole does not really enter into what has to be explained in explaining the meaning of a proposition. It would Rh


text:
Page:Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922.djvu/25

Rh perhaps help to suggest the point of view which I am trying to indicate, to say that in the cases we have been considering the proposition occurs as a fact, not as a proposition. Such a statement, however, must not be taken too literally. The real point is that in believing, desiring, etc., what is logically fundamental is the relation of a proposition considered as a fact, to the fact which makes it true or false, and that this relation of two facts is reducible to a relation of their constituents. Thus the proposition does not occur at all in the same sense in which it occurs in a truth-function.

There are some respects, in which, as it seems to me, Mr Wittgenstein's theory stands in need of greater technical development. This applies in particular to his theory of number (6.02 ff.) which, as it stands, is only capable of dealing with finite numbers. No logic can be considered adequate until it has been shown to be capable of dealing with transfinite numbers. I do not think there is anything in Mr Wittgenstein's system to make it impossible for him to fill this lacuna.

More interesting than such questions of comparative detail is Mr Wittgenstein's attitude towards the mystical. His attitude upon this grows naturally out of his doctrine in pure logic, according to which the logical proposition is a picture (true or false) of the fact, and has in common with the fact a certain structure. It is this common structure which makes it capable of being a picture of the fact, but the structure cannot itself be put into words,since it is a structure of words, as well as of the facts to which they refer. Everything, therefore, which is involved in the very idea of the expressiveness of language must remain incapable of being expressed in language, and is, therefore, inexpressible in a perfectly precise sense. This inexpressible contains, according to Mr Wittgenstein, the whole of logic and philosophy. The right method of teaching philosophy, he says, would be to confine oneself to propositions of the sciences, stated with all possible clearness and exactness, leaving philosophical assertions Rh


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Israëls, Josef

ISRAËLS, JOSEF (1824-1911), Dutch painter (see ), died at The Hague Aug. 12 1911.


text:
Page:Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922.djvu/26

Rh to the learner, and proving to him, whenever he made them, that they are meaningless. It is true that the fate of Socrates might befall a man who attempted this method of teaching, but we are not to be deterred by that fear, if it is the only right method. It is not this that causes some hesitation in accepting Mr Wittgenstein's position, in spite of the very powerful arguments which he brings to its support. What causes hesitation is the fact that, after all, Mr Wittgenstein manages to say a good deal about what cannot be said, thus suggesting to the sceptical reader that possibly there may be some loophole through a hierarchy of languages, or by some other exit. The whole subject of ethics, for example, is placed by Mr Wittgenstein in the mystical, inexpressible region. Nevertheless he is capable of conveying his ethical opinions. His defence would be that what he calls the mystical can be shown, although it cannot be said. It may be that this defence is adequate, but, for my part, I confess that it leaves me with a certain sense of intellectual discomfort.

There is one purely logical problem in regard to which these difficulties are peculiarly acute. I mean the problem of generality. In the theory of generality it is necessary to consider all propositions of the form fx where fx is a given prepositional function. This belongs to the part of logic which can be expressed, according to Mr Wittgenstein's system. But the totality of possible values of x which might seem to be involved in the totality of propositions of the form fx is not admitted by Mr Wittgenstein among the things that can be spoken of, for this is no other than the totality of things in the world, and thus involves the attempt to conceive the world as a whole; "the feeling of the world as a bounded whole is the mystical" ; hence the totality of the values of x is mystical (6.45). This is expressly argued when Mr Wittgenstein denies that we can make propositions as to how many things there are in the world, as for example, that there are more than three. Rh


text:
Page:Wittgenstein - Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 1922.djvu/27

Rh These difficulties suggest to my mind some such possibility as this: that every language has, as Mr Wittgenstein says, a structure concerning which, in the language, nothing can be said, but that there may be another language dealing with the structure of the first language, and having itself a new structure, and that to this hierarchy of languages there may be no limit. Mr Wittgenstein would of course reply that his whole theory is applicable unchanged to the totality of such languages. The only retort would be to deny that there is any such totality. The totalities concerning which Mr Wittgenstein holds that it is impossible to speak logically are nevertheless thought by him to exist, and are the subject-matter of his mysticism. The totality resulting from our hierarchy would be not merely logically inexpressible, but a fiction, a mere delusion, and in this way the supposed sphere of the mystical would be abolished. Such an hypothesis is very difficult, and I can see objections to it which at the moment I do not know how to answer. Yet I do not see how any easier hypothesis can escape from Mr Wittgenstein's conclusions. Even if this very difficult hypothesis should prove tenable, it would leave untouched a very large part of Mr Wittgenstein's theory, though possibly not the part upon which he himself would wish to lay most stress. As one with a long experience of the difficulties of logic and of the deceptiveness of theories which seem irrefutable, I find myself unable to be sure of the rightness of a theory, merely on the ground that I cannot see any point on which it is wrong. But to have constructed a theory of logic which is not at any point obviously wrong is to have achieved a work of extraordinary difficulty and importance. This merit, in my opinion, belongs to Mr Wittgenstein's book, and makes it one which no serious philosopher can afford to neglect.

May 1922. Rh


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Isvolsky, Alexander Petrovich

ISVOLSKY, ALEXANDER PETROVICH (1856-1919), Russian statesman, was born in 1856 in the government of Vladimir, of a family which for generations had appertained to the lower officialdom. At the age of 20 he received his first diplomatic appointment at Rome, and was thence transferred to Philippopolis and Bucharest, where, by the patronage of Princess Urussov (wife of a future Russian ambassador at Paris), he made his reputation. Thence he was sent to Washington and the Vatican. At this time he was already so much the coming man that, upon the retirement of Count Lobanov, his mother-in-law, Countess Toll, saw fit to inform Count Muraviev that her son-in-law, upon his appointment as foreign minister, would bear him in mind. Muraviev, who already carried his nomination in his pocket, resented this condescension, and relegated Isvolsky to Belgrade and to Munich, where he had the rank of a minister plenipotentiary. Returning to favour in 1899, he was promoted to the Legation at Tokio, where, however, under the influence of German reports concerning the Japanese army — and especially its artillery — he misjudged Japan's advent as a Great Power. His eleventh-hour conversion could not avert the conflict of interests which led to the war of 1904-5, from which Russia emerged defeated, but enabled him to veil a serious diplomatic error by relinquishing

the odium of failure to his successor, Rosen. He himself went to Copenhagen, where he negotiated the passage of Adml. Rozhestvensky's fleet through the Great Belt (Oct. 1904). There also, in July 1905, he had his historic interview with the Emperor William II. in which an alliance between Russia, Germany and France was proposed. Isvolsky was ignorant of the “personal” treaty of defensive alliance “between Germany and Russia, entered into by the respective sovereigns at Björkö.” Though this secret compact did not bear his signature (since he had not been present), the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Count Lambsdorff, fell over its repudiation, and was, in May 1906, succeeded by Isvolsky.

Russia's military prestige was at a low ebb, her finance in a state of chaos, the Tsarist régime discredited and the country in the throes of revolution. At this time, Isvolsky displayed great physical courage in that he went about St. Petersburg unattended, but also great lack of faith in the existing order, since, having discovered that through an irregularity his pay depended on the Privy Purse, he caused it to be charged to the Treasury as the first act of his tenure of office. He also raised his brother to the office of Procurator of the Holy Synod and his Goadachev relations to high diplomatic appointments.

Slowly he restored the national prestige, for he asserted loyalty to France as the first principle of policy and brought about the Anglo-Russian agreement in Persia of Aug. 31 1907, which was followed on June 9 1908 by a meeting between King Edward VII. and the Tsar Nicholas II. near Reval. The long Balkan troubles of 1908-12, which originated in Count Aehrenthal's exploitation of Russia's transitory weakness, called for great care, especially during the crisis of 1908-9, which laid bare Russian impotence. After four years at the Foreign Office, which gained Russia the time she needed to recuperate, Isvolsky succeeded M. Nelidov as Russian ambassador in Paris. He lived to see the World War of 1914 and the Russian revolution of 1917, which forced him into impoverished retirement at his villa at Biarritz. He died on Aug. 18 1919. An accomplished man of letters, a competent critic of art, a linguist of rare perfection and charming in manner, but cynical and pleasure-loving, he was certainly one of the chief diplomatic personages in the reign of the last of the tsars. He married Marguerite Carlovna, née Countess Toll, a Balt of great charm whose influence at court was impeded by her ignorance of the Russian tongue. By her he had one son, who fought in the Dardanelles.

 * (W. L. B.)


text:
1922 Encyclopædia Britannica/Itagaki, Taisuke, Count

ITAGAKI, TAISUKE, (1837-1920), Japanese statesman (see ), died in 1920. True to his radical principles, he forbade his son to apply for the succession to his title, and it lapsed.


text:
Page:The Daughters of England.djvu/262

Rh fatal mystery of deceiving others. It is like the dew on the untrodden grass, the bloom of the flower, the down on the butterfly's wing, the purity of newly-fallen snow, before even a breath of wind has swept over it. Alas! what has it to do in this world of ours, where so many rude feet tread, and where so many rough winds blow? Consequently we find but little true simplicity of heart, except in early youth; or connected with a dullness of perception as to the nature and condition of the human race; or in situations where a very limited knowledge of the world is admitted.

But integrity we may find in every circumstance of life, because integrity is founded on principle; and consequently while not a stranger to temptation, its nature is to withstand it. Integrity is shown in a straightforward and upright line of conduct, on trifling, as well as on great occasions; in private, as well as in public; beneath the eye of God alone, as well as before the observation of men. It is a shield of protection under which no man can make us afraid; because when actuated in all things by the principle of integrity, no unexpected event can bring to light what we are afraid or ashamed to have known. The woman who walks through the world with unstained integrity, is always safe. No fear then of whispering tongues; or of those confidential revealings of friendly secrets, by which the creature of artifice is ever kept in a state of dread; no fear then of a comparing of evidence by different parties; of the treachery of private agents; of the mal-occurrence of contingent events; above all, of that half-implied suspicion which can with difficulty be warded off, except by an entire falsehood. The woman of integrity fears none of these. Her course is clear as that of the sun in the heavens, and the light she sheds around her in society, is scarcely less genial and pure.

Let us ask then, how this integrity may be preserved, or

title: Page:The Daughters of England.djvu/262


text:
Page:The Daughters of England.djvu/263

252 rather—for I fear that Will be more to the purpose—how it is most frequently, and most fatally destroyed.

There is reason to fear, that even home education is defective enough on this point; but if every one who has been educated at a public school, would tell one half of the many arts of subterfuge, trickery, and evasion, which she learned to practise there; and if all who are advanced in life would also trace out the consequences upon their subsequent conduct, of having learned in early life these lessons in the school of deception, I believe an amount of moral culpability, and of offensiveness in the sight of God, would be unfolded, which some of our early instructors would shudder to contemplate. On looking into the dark past, they would then see how, while they were so diligently and patiently—yes, and meritoriously too, teaching us the rules of grammar, arithmetic, and geography; expending their daily strength, and often their midnight thought, in devising and carrying out improved schemes for making us learn more languages, and remember more words; we had been almost equally busy in devising schemes to promote our own interest, to establish ourselves in the favour of our instructors, or to escape their too frequently well-merited displeasure.

And women from their very infancy are apt at all this; because to the timid, and affectionate little girl, it is so sad a thing to fall into disgrace—so pleasant a thing to be approved, and loved. Her young and tender spirit sinks like a broken flower, when she falls under condemnation; but springs up exulting like the lark, when commended by the lips she loves.

What, then, shall we say, when it is this very sensitiveness and tenderness of her nature, which so often, in the first instance, betrays her into ingenious, indirect, and too frequently unlawful means, for warding off blame, or

title: Page:The Daughters of England.djvu/263


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/453

 .—Green, Encyclopaedia of Scots Law (Edinburgh, 1896); Stewart, Law of Fishing in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1869); Woolrych, Waters (London, 1851); Paterson, Fishery Laws of the United Kingdom (London and Cambridge, 1863); Stuart Moore, Foreshore (London, 1888); Phillimore, International Law (3rd ed., London, 1879); Martens, Causes célèbres du droit des gens (Leipzig, 1827); Selwyn, Nisi Prius, Fishery (London, 1869).

FISHGUARD (Abergwaun), a market town, urban district, contributory parliamentary borough and seaport of Pembrokeshire, Wales, near the mouth of the river Gwaun, which here flows into Fishguard Bay of St George’s Channel. Pop. (1901) 2002. Its railway station, which is the chief terminus of the South Wales system of the Great Western railway, is at the hamlet of Goodwick across the bay, a mile distant to the south-west. Fishguard Bay is deep and well sheltered from all winds save those of the N. and N.E., and its immense commercial value has long been recognized. After many years of labour and at a great expenditure of money the Great Western railway has constructed a fine breakwater and railway pier at Goodwick across the lower end of the bay, and an important passenger and goods traffic with Rosslare on the opposite Irish coast was inaugurated in 1906.

The importance of Fishguard is due to the local fisheries and the excellence of its harbour, and its early history is obscure. The chief historical interest of the town centres round the so-called “Fishguard Invasion” of 1797, in which year on the 22nd of February three French men-of-war with troops on board, under the command of General Tate, an Irish-American adventurer, appeared off Carreg Gwastad Point in the adjoining parish of Llanwnda. To the great alarm of the inhabitants a body of about 1400 men disembarked, but it quickly capitulated, practically without striking a blow, to a combined force of the local militias under Sir Richard Philipps, Lord Milford and John Campbell, Lord Cawdor; the French frigates meanwhile sailing away towards Ireland. For many years the castles and prisons of Haverfordwest and Pembroke were filled to overflowing with French prisoners of war. Close to the banks of the Gwaun is the pretty estate of Glyn-y-mel, for many years the residence of Richard Fenton (1746–1821), the celebrated antiquary and historian of Pembrokeshire.

FISHKILL LANDING, or, a village of Fishkill township, Dutchess county, New York, U.S.A., about 58 m. N. of New York City, on the E. bank of the Hudson river, opposite Newburgh. Pop. (1890) 3617; (1900) 3673, of whom 540 were foreign-born; (1905) 3939; (1910) 3902, of Fishkill township (1890) 11,840; (1900) 13,016; (1905) 13,183; (1910) 13,858. In the township are also the villages of (q.v.), Fishkill and Glenham. Fishkill Landing is served by the New York Central & Hudson River and the New York, New Haven & Hartford railways; by railway ferry and passenger ferries to Newburgh, connecting with the West Shore railway; by river steamboats and by electric railway to Matteawan. Four miles farther N. on Fishkill Creek is the village of Fishkill (incorporated in 1899), pop. (1905) 579. In this village are two notable old churches, Trinity (1769), and the First Dutch Reformed (1731), in which the New York Provincial Congress met in August and September 1776. At the old Verplanck mansion in Fishkill Landing the Society of the Cincinnati was organized in 1783. Among the manufactures of Fishkill Landing are rubber-goods, engines (Corliss) and other machinery, hats, silks, woollens, and brick and tile. The village of Fishkill Landing was incorporated in 1864. The first settlement in the township was made about 1690. The township of Fishkill was, like Newburgh, an important military post during the War of Independence, and was a supply depot for the northern Continental Army.

FISK, JAMES (1834–1872), American financier, was born at Bennington, Vermont, on the 1st of April 1834. After a brief period in school he ran away and joined a circus. Later he became a hotel waiter, and finally adopted the business of his father, a pedlar. He then became a salesman for a Boston dry goods firm, his aptitude and energy eventually winning for him a share in the business. By his shrewd dealing in army contracts during the Civil War, and it is said by engaging in cotton smuggling, he accumulated a considerable capital which he soon lost in speculation. In 1864 he became a stockbroker in New York and was employed by Daniel Drew as a buyer. He aided Drew in his war against Vanderbilt for the control of the Erie railway, and as a result of the compromise that was reached he and Jay Gould became members of the Erie directorate. The association with Gould thus began continued until his death. Subsequently by a well-planned “raid,” Fisk and Gould obtained control of the road. They carried financial “buccaneering” to extremes, their programme including open alliance with the Tweed “ring,” the wholesale bribery of legislatures and the buying of judges. Their attempt to corner the gold market culminated in the fateful Black Friday of the 24th of September 1869. Fisk was shot and killed in New York City by E. S. Stokes, a former business associate, on the 6th of January 1872.

FISK, WILBUR (1792–1839), American educationist, was born in Brattleboro, Vermont, on the 31st of August 1792. He studied at the university of Vermont in 1812–1814, and then entered Brown University, where he graduated in 1815. He studied law, and in 1817 came under the influence of a religious revival in Vermont, where at Lyndon in the following year he was licensed as a local preacher and was admitted to the New England conference. His influence with the conference turned that body from its opposition to higher education as immoral in tendency to the establishment of secondary schools and colleges. Upon the removal in 1824 of the conference’s academy at New Market, New Hampshire, to Wilbraham, Massachusetts, Fisk became one of its agents and trustees, and in 1826 its principal. He drafted the report of the committee on education to the general conference in 1828, at which time he declined the bishopric of the Canada conference. He was first president of Wesleyan University from the opening of the university in 1831 until his death on the 22nd of February 1839 in Middletown, Connecticut. His successful administration of the Wesleyan Academy at Wilbraham and of Wesleyan University were remarkable. He was an able controversialist, and in the interests of Arminianism attacked both New England Calvinism and Unitarianism; he published in 1837 The Calvinistic Controversy. He also wrote Travels on the Continent of Europe (1838).

See Life and Writings of Wilbur Fisk (New York, 1842), edited by Joseph Holdich, and the biography by George Prentice (Boston, 1890), in the American Religious Leaders Series; also a sketch in Memoirs of Teachers and Educators (New, York, 1861), edited by Henry Barnard.

FISKE, JOHN (1842–1901), American historical, philosophical and scientific writer, was born in Hartford, Connecticut, on the 30th of March 1842, and died at Gloucester, Massachusetts, on the 4th of July 1901. His name was originally Edmund Fiske Green, but in 1855 he took the name of a great-grandfather, John Fiske. His boyhood was spent with a grandmother in Middletown, Connecticut; and prior to his entering college he had read widely in English literature and history, had surpassed most boys in the extent of his Greek and Latin work, and had studied several modern languages. He graduated at Harvard in 1863, continuing to study languages and philosophy with zeal; spent two years in the Harvard law school, and opened an office in Boston; but soon devoted the greater portion of his time to writing for periodicals. With the exception of one year, he resided at Cambridge, Massachusetts, from the time of his graduation until his death. In 1869 he gave a course of lectures at Harvard on the Positive Philosophy; next year he was history tutor; in 1871 he delivered thirty-five lectures on the Doctrine of Evolution, afterwards revised and expanded as Outlines of Cosmic Philosophy (1874); and between 1872 and 1879 he was assistant-librarian. After that time he devoted himself to literary work and lecturing on history. Nearly all of his books were first given to the public in the form of lectures or magazine articles, revised and collected under a general title, such as Myths and Myth-Makers (1872), Darwinism and Other Essays (1879), Excursions of an Evolutionist (1883), and A Century of Science (1899). He did much, by the thoroughness of his learning and the lucidity of his style, to spread a knowledge of Darwin and Spencer in America. His Outlines of Cosmic

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/453


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/443

 his Liberal ideas, but the effect of this was to rouse considerable sympathy for his views, and in 1856 he obtained a professorship at Jena, where he soon acquired great influence by the dignity of his personal character. In 1872, on Zeller’s removal to Berlin, Fischer succeeded him as professor of philosophy and the history of modern German literature at Heidelberg, where he died on the 4th of July 1907. His part in philosophy was that of historian and commentator, for which he was especially qualified by his remarkable clearness of exposition; his point of view is in the main Hegelian. His Geschichte der neuern Philosophie (1852–1893, new ed. 1897) is perhaps the most accredited modern book of its kind, and he made valuable contributions to the study of Kant, Bacon, Shakespeare, Goethe, Spinoza, Lessing, Schiller and Schopenhauer.

Some of his numerous works have been translated into English: Francis Bacon of Verulam, by J. Oxenford (1857); The Life and Character of Benedict Spinoza, by Frida Schmidt (1882); A Commentary on Kant’s Kritik of Pure Reason, by J. P. Mahaffy (1866); Descartes and his School, by J. P. Gordy (1887); A Critique of Kant, by W. S. Hough (1888); see also H. Falkenheim, Kuno Fischer und die litterar-historische Methode (1892); and bibliography in J. M. Baldwin’s Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology (1905).

FISH, HAMILTON (1808–1893), American statesman, was born in New York City on the 3rd of August 1808. His father, Nicholas Fish (1758–1833), served in the American army during the War of American Independence, rising to the rank of lieutenant-colonel. The son graduated at Columbia College in 1827, and in 1830 was admitted to the bar, but practised only a short time. In 1843–1845 he was a Whig representative in Congress. He was the Whig candidate for lieutenant-governor of New York in 1846, and was defeated by Addison Gardner (Democrat); but when in 1847 Gardner was appointed a judge of the state court of appeals, Fish was elected (November 1847) to complete the term (to January 1849). He was governor of New York state from 1849 to 1851, and was United States senator in 1851–1857, acting with the Republicans during the last part of his term. In 1861–1862 he was associated with John A. Dix, William M. Evarts, William E. Dodge, A. T. Stewart, John Jacob Astor, and other New York men, on the Union Defence Committee, which (from April 22, 1861, to April 30, 1862) co-operated with the municipal government in the raising and equipping of troops, and disbursed more than a million dollars for the relief of New York volunteers and their families. Fish was secretary of state during President Grant’s two administrations (1869–1877). He conducted the negotiations with Great Britain which resulted in the treaty of the 8th of May 1871, under which (Article 1) the “Alabama claims” were referred to arbitration, and the same disposition (Article 34) was made of the “San Juan Boundary Dispute,” concerning the Oregon boundary line. In 1871 Fish presided at the Peace Conference at Washington between Spain and the allied republics of Peru, Chile, Ecuador and Bolivia, which resulted in the formulation (April 12) of a general truce between those countries, to last indefinitely and not to be broken by any one of them without three years’ notice given through the United States; and it was chiefly due to his restraint and moderation that a satisfactory settlement of the “Virginius Affair” was reached by the United States and Spain (1873). Fish was vice-president-general of the Society of the Cincinnati from 1848 to 1854, and president-general from 1854 until his death. He died in Garrison, New York, on the 7th of September 1893.

His son, (1846–1902), was appointed second secretary of legation at Berlin in 1871, became secretary in 1874, and was chargé d’affaires at Berne in 1877–1881, and minister to Belgium in 1882–1886, after which he engaged in banking in New York City.

 FISH (O. Eng. fisc, a word common to Teutonic languages, cf. Dutch visch, Ger. Fisch, Goth. fisks, cognate with the Lat. piscis), the common name of that class of vertebrate animals which lives exclusively in water, breathes through gills, and whose limbs take the form of fins (see ). The article deals with the subject from the economic and commercial point of view, and with the catching of fish as a sport. The constellation and sign of the zodiac known as “the fishes” is treated under.

The fish was an early symbol of Christ in primitive and medieval Christian art. The origin is to be found in the initial letters of the names and titles of Jesus in Greek, viz.  , Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour, which together spell the Greek word for “fish,” . The fish is also said to be represented in the oval-shaped figure, pointed at both ends, and formed by the intersection of two circles. This figure, also known as the vesica piscis, is common in ecclesiastical seals and as a glory or aureole in paintings of sculpture, surrounding figures of the Trinity, saints, &c. The figure is, however, sometimes referred to the almond, as typifying virginity; the French name for the symbol is Amande mystique.

The word “fish” is used in many technical senses. Thus it is used of the purchase used in raising the flukes of an anchor to the bill-board; of a piece of wood or metal used to strengthen a sprung mast or yard; and of a plate of metal used, as in railway construction, for the strengthening of the meeting-place of two rails. This word is of doubtful origin, but it is probably an adaptation of the Fr. fiche, that which “fixes,” a peg. This word also appears in the English form “fish,” in the metal, pearl or bone counters, sometimes made in the form of fish, used for scoring points, &c., in many games.

 FISHER, ALVAN (1792–1863), American portrait-painter, was born at Needham, Massachusetts, on the 9th of August 1792. At the age of eighteen he was a clerk in a country shop, and subsequently was employed by the village house painter, but at the age of twenty-two he began to paint portrait heads, alternating with rural scenes and animals, for which he found patrons at modest prices. In ten years he had saved enough to go to Europe, studying at the Paris schools and copying in the galleries of the Louvre. Upon his return he became one of the recognized group of Massachusetts portrait-painters. Along with Doughty, Harding and Alexander, in 1831, he held an exhibition of his work in Boston—perhaps the first joint display by painters ever held in that city. Though he had considerable talent for landscape, a lack of patronage for such work caused him to confine himself to portraiture, in which he was moderately successful. He died at Dedham, Mass., on the 16th of February 1863.

 FISHER, GEORGE PARK (1827–1909), American theologian, was born at Wrentham, Massachusetts, on the 10th of August 1827. He graduated at Brown University in 1847, and at the Andover Theological Seminary in 1851, spent three years in study in Germany, was college preacher and professor of divinity at Yale College in 1854–1861, and was Titus Street professor of ecclesiastical history in the Yale Divinity School in 1861–1901, when he was made professor emeritus. He was president of the American Historical Association in 1897–1898. His writings have given him high rank as an authority on ecclesiastical history. They include Essays on the Supernatural Origin of Christianity (1865); History of the Reformation (1873), republished in several revisions; The Beginnings of Christianity (1877); Discussions in History and Theology (1880); Outlines of Universal History (1886); History of the Christian Church (1887); The Nature and Method of Revelation (1890); Manual of Natural Theology (1893); A History of Christian Doctrine, in the “International Theological Library” (1896); and A Brief History of Nations (1896). He died on the 20th of December 1909.

 FISHER, JOHN (c. 1469–1535), English cardinal and bishop of Rochester, born at Beverly, received his first education at the collegiate church there. In 1484 he went to Michael House, Cambridge, where he took his degrees in arts in 1487 and 1491, and, after filling several offices in the university, became master of his college in 1499. He took orders; and his reputation for learning and piety attracted the notice of Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII., who made him her confessor and chaplain. In 1501 he became vice-chancellor; and later on, when chancellor, he was able to forward, if not to initiate entirely, the beneficent schemes of his patroness in the foundations of St. John’s and Christ’s colleges, in addition to two lectureships, in Greek

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/443


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/423

 or ladders, and a regular inspection of their efficiency, will do much. The examination of a rusty door-catch may save a building. The actual preventive work of the surveyor will, however, mostly consist in warning property owners against temporary stoves standing on ordinary floor boards, sooty chimneys, badly hung lamps, dangerous burners and gas brackets fixed in risky positions. Self-help will be greatly facilitated by the judicious arrangement of fire-extinguishing gear, and a like inspection of its efficiency. Hydrants and cocks must not rust, nor must the hose get so stiff that the water cannot pass through it, or sprinklers choked. Hand pumps and pails must always stand ready filled. One of the greatest errors generally made in distributing such apparatus is disregard of the fact that the amateur likes to have an easy retreat if his efforts are unsuccessful, and if this is not the case, he may not, perhaps, use the gear at all.

With regard to regulations governing “special risks,” so far as the safety of the public in theatres and public assembly halls is concerned, attention should be chiefly given to the exits. Spread of fire, and even its outbreak, are secondary considerations. A panic caused by the suspicion of a fire can be quite as fatal as that caused by the actual start of a conflagration. In the storage of petroleum in shops, direct communication should be prevented between the shop or cellar and the main staircase or the living rooms. The sale of dangerous lamps and burners should be prohibited.

Fire-resisting Materials.—One of the greatest misnomers in connexion with fire prevention was originally the description of certain materials and systems of construction as being “fire-proof.” This has seriously affected the development of the movement towards fire prevention, for, having regard to the fact that nothing described as “fire-proof” could be fire-proof in the true sense, confidence was lost in everything so described, and in fact everything described as “fire-proof” came to be looked on with suspicion. In order to decrease this suspicion and obtain a better understanding on the subject, the International Fire Prevention Congress of London in 1903, at which some 800 representatives of government departments and municipalities were present, discussed this matter at considerable length, and they arrived at conclusions which, in consideration of their importance in affecting the whole development of fire-resisting construction, are published below. It is the classification of fire resistance adopted by this congress in 1903 that has been utilized by all concerned throughout the British empire, and in numerous other countries, since that date.

The resolutions adopted by the congress embodied the recommendations contained in the following statement issued by the British Fire Prevention Committee:—

The executive of the British Fire Prevention Committee having given their careful consideration to the common misuse of the term “fire-proof,” now indiscriminately and often most unsuitably applied to many building materials and systems of building construction in use in Great Britain, have come to the conclusion that the avoidance of this term in general business, technical, and legislative vocabulary is essential.

The executive consider the term “fire-resisting” more applicable for general use, and that it more correctly describes the varying qualities of different materials and systems of construction intended to resist the effect of fire for shorter or longer periods, at high or low temperatures, as the case may be, and they advocate the general adoption of this term in place of “fire-proof.”

Further, the executive, fully realizing the great variations in the fire-resisting qualities of materials and systems of construction, consider that the public, the professions concerned, and likewise the authorities controlling building operations, should clearly discriminate between the amount of protection obtainable or, in fact, requisite for different classes of property. For instance, the city warehouse filled with highly inflammable goods of great weight requires very different protection from the tenement house of the suburbs.

The executive are desirous of discriminating between fire-resisting materials and systems of construction affording temporary protection, partial protection, and full protection against fire, and to classify all building materials and systems of construction under these three headings. The exact and definite limit of these three classes is based on the experience obtained from numerous investigations and tests, combined with the experience obtained from actual fires, and after due consideration of the limitations of building practice and the question of cost.

The executive’s minimum requirements of fire-resistance for building materials or systems of construction will be seen from the standard tables appended for—
 * I. Fire-resisting floors and ceilings,
 * II. Fire-resisting partitions,
 * III. Fire-resisting doors,

but they could be popularly summarized as follows:—
 * (a) That temporary protection implies resistance against fire for at least three-quarters of an hour.
 * (b) That partial protection implies resistance against a fierce fire for at least one hour and a half.
 * (c) That full protection implies resistance against a fierce fire for at least two hours and a half.

The conditions under this resistance should be obtainable, the actual minimum temperatures, thickness, questions of load, and the application of water can be appreciated from the annexed tables by all technically interested, but for the popular discrimination—which the executive are desirous of encouraging—the time standard alone should suffice.

It is desirable that these standards become the universal standards in this country, on the continent and in the United States, so that the same standardization may in future be common to all countries, and the preliminary arrangements for this universal standardization are already in hand.

Fire Combating.—As to self-help, complication must always be avoided. The amateur fireman must be drilled on the simplest lines. One thing which must be instilled into him is not to waste water—a sure sign of lack of training. Of course the drills must be on the same lines as those of the local brigade, and on no account should other gear be used for self-help than is generally

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/423


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/400

 had hitherto been dominant in Finland, and the Finnish “nationalist” party which, during the latter half of the 19th century, had been determinedly asserting itself linguistically and politically. With some exceptions, however, the whole country united in defence of its constitution; “Fennoman” and “Svecoman,” recognizing that their common liberties were at stake, suspended their feud for a season. With the accession of Nicholas II. (see ) the constitutional conflict became acute, and the “February manifesto” (February 15th, 1899) virtually abrogated the legislative power of the Finnish diet. A new military law, practically amalgamating the Finnish with the Russian forces, followed in July 1901; Russian officials and the Russian language were forced on Finland wherever possible, and in April 1903 the Russian governor, General Bobrikov, was invested with practically dictatorial powers. The country was flooded with spies, and a special Russian police force was created, the expenses being charged to the Finnish treasury. The Russian system was now in full swing; domiciliary visits, illegal arrests and banishments, and the suppression of newspapers, were the order of the day. To all this the people of Finland opposed a dogged and determined resistance, which culminated in November 1905 in a “national strike.” The strike was universal, all classes joining in the movement, and it spread to all the industrial centres and even to the rural districts. The railway, steamship, telephone and postal services were practically suspended. Helsingfors was without tramcars, cabs, gas and electricity; no shops except provision shops were open; public departments, schools and restaurants were closed. After six days the unconstitutional government—already much shaken by events in Russia and Manchuria—capitulated. In an imperial manifesto dated the 7th of November 1905 the demands of Finland were granted, and the status quo ante 1899 was restored.

But the reform did not rest here. The old Finnish constitution, although precious to those whose only protection it was, was an antiquated and not very efficient instrument of government. Popular feeling had been excited by the political conflict, advanced tendencies had declared themselves, and when the new diet met it proceeded as explained above to remodel the constitution, on the basis of universal suffrage, with freedom of the press, speech, meeting and association.

In 1908–10 friction with Russia was again renewed. The Imperial government insisted that the decision in all Finnish questions affecting the Empire must rest with them; and a renewed attempt was made to curtail the powers of the Finnish Diet.

Ethnology.—The term Finn has a wider application than Finland, being, with its adjective Finnic or (q.v.) or Ugro-Finnic, the collective name of the westernmost branch of the Ural-Altaic family, dispersed throughout Finland, Lapland, the Baltic provinces (Esthonia, Livonia, Curland), parts of Russia proper (south of Lake Onega), both banks of middle Volga, Perm, Vologda, West Siberia (between the Ural Mountains and the Yenissei) and Hungary.

Originally nomads (hunters and fishers), all the Finnic people except the Lapps and Ostyaks have long yielded to the influence of civilization, and now everywhere lead settled lives as herdsmen, agriculturists, traders, &c. Physically the Finns (here to be distinguished from the Swedish-speaking population, who retain their Scandinavian qualities) are a strong, hardy race, of low stature, with almost round head, low forehead, flat features, prominent cheek bones, eyes mostly grey and oblique (inclining inwards), short and flat nose, protruding mouth, thick lips, neck very full and strong, so that the occiput seems flat and almost in a straight line with the nape; beard weak and sparse, hair no doubt originally black, but, owing to mixture with other races, now brown, red and even fair; complexion also somewhat brown. The Finns are morally upright, hospitable, faithful and submissive, with a keen sense of personal freedom and independence, but also somewhat stolid, revengeful and indolent. Many of these physical and moral characteristics they have in common with the so-called “Mongolian” race, to which they are no doubt ethnically, if not also linguistically, related.

Considerable researches have been accomplished since about 1850 in the ethnology and archaeology of Finland, on a scale which has no parallel in any other country. The study of the prehistoric population of Finland—Neolithic (no Palaeolithic finds have yet been made)—of the Age of Bronze and the Iron Age has been carried on with great zeal. At the same time the folklore, Finnish and partly Swedish, has been worked out with wonderful completeness (see L’Œuvre demi-séculaire de la Société de Littérature finnoise et le mouvement national finnois, by Dr E. G. Palmén, Helsingfors, 1882, and K. Krohn’s report to the London Folklore Congress of 1891). The work that was begun by Porthan, Z. Topelius, and especially E. Lönnrot (1802–1884), for collecting the popular poetry of the Finns, was continued by Castrén (1813–1852), Europaeus (1820–1884), and V. Porkka (1854–1889), who extended their researches to the Finns settled in other parts of the Russian empire, and collected a considerable number of variants of the Kalewala and other popular poetry and songs. In order to study the different eastern kinsfolk of the Finns, Sjögren (1792–1855) extended his journeys to North Russia, and Castrén to West and East Siberia (Nordische Reisen und Forschungen), and collected the materials which permitted himself and Schiefner to publish grammatical works relative to the Finnish, Lappish, Zyrian, Tcheremiss, Ostiak, Samoyede, Tungus, Buryat, Karagas, Yenisei-Ostiak and Kott languages. Ahlqvist (1826–1889), and a phalanx of linguists, continued their work among the Vogules, the Mordves and the Obi-Ugrians. And finally, the researches of Aspelin (Foundations of Finno-Ugrian Archaeology, in Finnish, and Atlas of Antiquities) led the Finnish ethnologists to direct more and more their attention to the basin of the Yenisei and the Upper Selenga. A series of expeditions (of Aspelin, Snellman and Heikel) were consequently directed to those regions, especially since the discovery by Yadrintseff of the remarkable Orkhon inscriptions (see, p. 473), which finally enabled the Danish linguist, V. Thomsen, to decipher these inscriptions, and to discover that they belonged to the Turkish Iron Age. (See Inscriptions de l’Iénissei recueillies et publiées par la Société Finl. d’Archéologie, 1889, and Inscriptions de l’Orkhon, 1892.)

.—The general history of Finland is fully treated by Yrjö Koskinen (1869–1873) and M. G. Schybergson (1887–1889). Both works have been translated into German. The constitutional conflict gave rise to a host of books and pamphlets in various languages. Mechelin, Danielson and Hermanson were the leading writers on the Finnish side, and M. Ordin on the Russian. Most of the political documents have been published and translated. A finely illustrated book, Finland in the Nineteenth Century, by various Finnish writers, gives an excellent account of the country; also Reuter’s Finlandia, a very complete work with an exhaustive bibliography. The constitutional question was fully discussed in English in Finland and the Tsars, by J. R. Fisher (2nd ed., 1900). The Atlas de Finlande, published in 1899 by the Geographical Society of Finland, is a remarkably well executed and complete work. The Statistical Annual for Finland—Statistisk Arsbok för Finland—published annually by the Central Statistical Bureau in Helsingfors, gives the necessary figures.

Finnish Literature.

The earliest writer in the Finnish vernacular was Michael Agricola (1506–1557), who published an A B C Book in 1544, and, as bishop of Åbo, a number of religious and educational works. A version of the New Testament in Finnish was printed by Agricola in 1548, and some books of the Old Testament in 1552. A complete Finnish Bible was published at Stockholm in 1642. The dominion of the Swedes was very unfavourable to the development of anything like a Finnish literature, the poets of Finland preferring to write in Swedish and so secure a wider audience. It was not until, in 1835, the national epos of Finland, the  (q.v.), was introduced to readers by the exertions of (q.v.), that the Finnish language was used for literary composition. Lönnrot also collected and edited the works of the peasant-poets P. Korhonen (1775–1840) and Pentti Lyytinen, with an anthology containing the improvisations of eighteen other rustic bards. During the last quarter of the 19th century there was an ever-increasing literary activity in Finland, and it took the form less and less of the publication

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu/400