text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/387

 See Roger Ascham, Toxophilus (1545), edited by Edward Arber (London, 1868); The Arte of Warre, by William Garrard (London 1591); The Arte of Archerie, by Gervase Markham (London, 1634); Ancient and Modern Methods of Arrow Release, by E. S. Morse (1885); The English Bowman, by T. Roberts (London, 1801); A Treatise on Archery, by Thomas Waring (London, 9th ed., 1832); The Theory and Practice of Archery, by Horace A. Ford (new ed., London, 1887); Archery, by C. J. Longman and H. Walrond (Badminton Library, London, 1894).

ARCHES, COURT OF, the English ecclesiastical court of appeal of the archbishop of Canterbury, as metropolitan of the province of Canterbury, from all the consistory and commissary courts in the province. It derives its name from its ancient place of judicature, which was in the church of Beata Maria de Arcubus—St Mary-le-Bow or St Mary of the Arches, “by reason of the steeple thereof raised at the top with stone pillars in fashion like a bow bent archwise.” This parish was the chief of thirteen locally situated within the diocese of London but exempt from the bishop’s jurisdiction, and it was no doubt owing to this circumstance that it was selected originally as the place of judicature for the archbishop’s court. The proper designation of the judge is official principal of the Arches court, but by custom he came to be styled the dean of the Arches, a title belonging formerly to the chief official of the subordinate court. Originally, the official principal exercised metropolitan jurisdiction, while the dean of the Arches exercised the “peculiar” jurisdiction. The jurisdictions called “peculiars” at one time numbered nearly 300 in England. They were originally introduced by the pope for the purpose of curtailing the bishop’s legitimate authority within his diocese; “an object which,” says Phillimore, “they certainly attained, to the great confusion of ecclesiastical jurisdiction for many years.” The dean of the Arches originally had jurisdiction over the thirteen London parishes above mentioned, but as the official principal was often absent as ambassador on the continent, he became his substitute, and gradually the two offices were blended together. The original office of the dean of the Arches may now be regarded as extinct, though the title is still popularly used, for no dean of the Arches has been appointed eo nomine for several centuries, and by an act of 1838 bishops have jurisdiction over all peculiars within their diocese. The judge of the Arches court was until 1874 appointed by the archbishop of Canterbury by patent which, when confirmed by the dean and chapter of Canterbury, conferred the office for the life of the holder. He took the oaths of office required by the 127th canon. But by the Public Worship Regulation Act 1874 the two archbishops were empowered, subject to the approval of the sovereign by sign-manual, from time to time to appoint a practising barrister of ten years’ standing, or a person who had been a judge of one of the superior courts (being a member of the Church of England) to be, during good behaviour, a judge for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under that act, and it was enacted (sec. 7) that on a vacancy occurring in the office of official principal of the Arches court the judge should become ex officio such official principal. In this way the late Lord Penzance became dean on the retirement of Sir Robert Phillimore in 1875. Lord Penzance received in 1878 a supplemental patent as dean from Archbishop Tait, but did not otherwise fulfil the conditions observed on the appointment of his predecessors. On Lord Penzance’s retirement in 1899, his successor, Sir Arthur Charles, received a patent from the archbishop of Canterbury as official principal of the Arches court, and he took the oaths of office according to the practice before the Public Worship Regulation Act. He was subsequently and separately appointed judge under that act. Sir A. Charles resigned in 1903 and was succeeded by Sir L. T. Dibdin, who qualified in the same way as his immediate predecessor. The official principal of the Arches court is the only ecclesiastical judge who is empowered to pass a sentence of deprivation against a clerk in holy orders. The appeals from the decisions of the Arches court were formerly made to the king in chancery, but they are now by statute addressed to the king in council, and they are heard before the judicial committee of the privy council. By an act of Henry VIII. (Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act 1532) the Arches court is empowered to hear, in the first instance, such suits as are sent up to it by letters of request from the consistorial courts of the bishops of the province of Canterbury, and by the Church Discipline Act 1840, this jurisdiction is continued to it, and it is further empowered to accept letters of request from the bishops of the province of Canterbury after they have issued commissions of inquiry under that statute, and the commissioners have made their report.

The Arches court was also the court of appeal from the consistory courts of the bishops of the province in all testamentary and matrimonial causes. The matrimonial jurisdiction was transferred to the crown by the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857. Under the Clergy Discipline Act 1892 an appeal lies from the judgment of a consistory court under that act, in respect of fact by leave of the appellate court, and in respect of law without leave, to either the Arches court or the judicial committee of the privy council at the option of the appellant. Under the Benefices Act 1898 the official principal of the archbishop is required to institute a presentee to a benefice if the tribunal constituted under that act decides that there is no valid ground for refusing institution and the bishop of the diocese notwithstanding fails to institute him. After the College of Advocates was incorporated and had established itself in Doctors’ Commons, the archbishop’s court of appeal, as well as his prerogative court, were usually held in the hall of the College of Advocates, but after the destruction of the buildings of the college, the court of appeal held its sittings, for the most part, in Westminster Hall. For many years past there has been but little business in the Arches court, mainly owing to the unwillingness of a large number of the clergy to recognize the jurisdiction of what they deny to be any longer a spiritual court, and the consistent use by the bishops of their right of veto in the case of prosecutions under the Public Worship Regulation Act. On the rare occasions when a sitting of the court is necessary, it is held in the library of Lambeth Palace, or at the Church House, Westminster. ARCHESTRATUS, of Syracuse or Gela, a Greek poet, who flourished about 330 After travelling extensively in search of foreign delicacies for the table, he embodied the result in a humorous poem called , afterwards freely translated by Ennius under the title Heduphagetica. About 300 lines of this gastronomical poem are preserved in Athenaeus. The writer, who has been styled the Hesiod or Theognis of gluttons, parodies the style of the old gnomic poets; chief attention is paid to details concerning fish.

Ribbeck, Archestrati Reliquiae (1877); Brandt, Corpusculum Poesis Epicae Graecae ludibundae, i. 1888; Schmid, De Archestrati Gelensis Fragmentis (1896).

ARCHIAC, ÉTIENNE JULES ADOLPHE DESMIER DE SAINT SIMON, (1802–1868), French geologist and palaeontologist, was born at Reims on the 24th of September 1802. He was educated in the Military School of St Cyr, and served for nine years as a cavalry officer until 1830, when he retired from the service. Prior to this he had published an historical romance; but now geology came to occupy his chief attention. In his earlier scientific works, which date from 1835, he described the Tertiary and Cretaceous formations of France, Belgium and England, and dealt especially with the distribution of fossils geographically and in sequence. Later on he investigated the Carboniferous, Devonian and Silurian formations. His great work, Histoire des progrès de la géologie, 1834–1859, was published in 8 volumes at Paris (1847–1860). In 1853 the Wollaston Medal of the Geological Society was awarded to him. In the same year, with Jules Haime (1824–1856), he published a monograph on the Nummulitic formation of India. In 1857 he was elected a member of the Academy of Sciences, and in 1861 he was appointed professor of palaeontology in the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris. Of later works his Paléontologie stratigraphique, in 3 vols. (1864–1865); his Géologie et paléontologie (1866); and his palaeontological contributions to de Tchihatcheff’s Asie mineure (1866), may be specially mentioned.

He died on the 24th of December 1868.

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/387


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/41

Letter 3] effort. Of course I do not deny that this subtle metaphysical idea may have been suggested to us originally by our faculty of touch, and especially the faculty of self-pinching or self-touching. I dare say you have read how men have sometimes caught hold of their own benumbed hand by night, and awakened a household by shouting that they had caught at robber: has it ever occurred to you that, if you never had the power of distinguishing your own hand from anybody else's hand by the sense of touch, you might have gone through life with no sense, or with a very tardily acquired sense, of your own identity? If the monkey who boiled his own tail in the caldron had felt no pain, might he not have been excused for doubting sometimes whether the tail belonged to him? And if his head were equally painless or joyless when he thumped it or scratched it, ought he to be condemned for disowning his own head? And if a monkey, or even a child, could not lay claim to its own head, it seems to me doubtful whether he could ever claim such a separation from the outside world as would necessitate his using the word "I." But, as it is, having this self-pinching faculty, the child soon finds that to pinch a ball, or a bladder, or a sister, is an entirely different thing from pinching himself: and this self-touching faculty confirms the evidence suggested by the bumps and thumps of the external world; all of which lead him to the belief that he has a bodily frame of his own, liable to pain and to pleasure, and largely dependent for pain and pleasure on his own motions, which motions he dimly perceives dependent upon something that appears to be inside himself.

But neither this nor any other explanation of the manner in which the sensations prepare the way for the construction of the idea of the "I," ought to prevent us from recognizing that the idea itself is the work of the

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


text:
Page:Unconstitutionality of the Fugitive Act.djvu/35

Rh before the commissioner do not determine the question of freedom or slavery, that the fugitive is only sent back to the State from which he is alleged to have escaped, and that when he reaches there he is a freeman or a slave, as his status shall be determined by the local law. it is further said that these proceedings are analogus to those by which the fugitive from justice is delivered up, to be taken to the State from which he has escaped; that a person may be arrested by virtue merely of an indictment, founded on an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging him with treason, felony, or other crime, committed in some other State, and that upon the production of a copy of the indictment or affidavit certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from which he fled, he shall be delivered up to be taken back. It is said that as this proceeding does not deprive the person of his liberty in the sense-in which that term is used in the constitution, but merely delivers him up, to be taken to the State where, according to the indictment or affidavit, the offence was committed, to be dealt with according to the local law, so neither do these proceedings accomplish more than the mere transfer of the alleged fugitive to the State where, as is claimed, he owes service or labor, by force of the local law. think this is a mistaken view of the question. The fugitive from justice is delivered to an agent appointed by lhe governor of the State where the offence is alleged to have been committed, without any adjudication upon the question of his guilt or innocence; in other words, he delivered to the officer of the law, and is in the custody of the law, for the purpose of being taken to the Sate where alone he can be tried for the alleged offence. But the cause is very different with the alleged fugitive from labor. There is an adjudication before the commissioner that he owes service or labor, and that he has escaped.— By force of the act of congress under consideration, the record made in the State from which he is said to have escaped, is conclusive evidence that his status is that of a slave.

The commissioner is obliged, if his identity is proved, so to adjudge, and tile certificate which is given to the claimant, is given, because the commissioner has so adjudged. Moreover, the commissioner can only give the certificate to the claimant who must be the person to whom the labor or service is due, his agent or attorney, and it is given to him for that reason. It is not material to enquire what the condition of the person will be when he has been taken to the State where the labor or service is said to be due. He may regain his freedom, but if he does it will be by force of the law of the State, and not by virtue of the act of congress under consideration; for under that he has been adjudged a slave, and by force of it he has been taken as a slave by the person adjudged to be his owner, his agent or attorney, from the State where he was arrested to the State from which he is alleged to have escaped. We are therefore obliged to conclude that the alleged fugitive from labor is taken back to the State from which he is said to have escaped, not as a person merely charged with being a slave, but as a person who has been proved and adjudged to be a slave, and, as we believe, without due process of law; without having his rights passed upon and determined by a jury of his peers. We think it essential that his right should be maintained by all courts and all tribunals, and for the reasons above given we mast affirm the order made in this case, dischargig the relator.

Copies to be had at the Free Democrat Office, Milwaukee: Price, $5 for 100, for 50 $2 for 30, 10 cents a copy.


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Archery

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Archery


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/42

25 Imagination, and not of the unaided sensations, nor of the unaided reason. Self-pinching and contact with the rough external world might convince the child that he was different from his environment at the time when he made his last experiments and underwent his last experiences; but they could not convince him that he is different now, or that he will be different in the next instant; and for this conviction he depends upon faith. Again, the imagination of the "I" seems closely bound up with two other nearly simultaneous imaginations, those of Force and Cause. First he feels a desire to touch the inkstand, then he feels himself moving towards the inkstand, then he feels the inkstand touched. These sequences of desire, action, result, he can repeat as often as he likes. By their frequency therefore, as well as by their vividness, they impress him more powerfully than sequences of phenomena not dependent on himself; and it is from these probably that he first imagines the idea of "must," or "necessity," or "cause and effect." If he feels a desire to move a limb, the motion of the limb immediately follows; it always obeys him; it must obey him. He pushes a brick; what caused the brick to fall? He feels that it was his own force that caused it; he no longer looks upon the push and the fall as if the former merely preceded the latter; he imagines a connection of necessity between the push and the fall, the cause and the effect, and gradually comes to imagine himself as the causer of the cause. But all these imaginations are mere imaginations, not proofs. To gather together all the sensations of which he retains the memory, the sensations of which he is at present conscious, and the sensations to which he looks forward, and to put an "I" behind or below all these, as the foundation of them all, and partial causer of them all—what an audacious assumption is this! Not Plato and Aristotle combined could prove to a child, or to the most


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Arches, Court of


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/43

Letter 3] consummate of philosophers, that he has a right to call himself "I," or that he is any other than a machine and a part of the universal machinery. How can I prove and vindicate my independence, my right to an "I"? By saying that I will do, or not do, and by then doing, or not doing, any conceivable thing at any conceivable time? Such an attempt is futile. The retort is unanswerable: "In the great machine which you call the universe, that small part which you call 'I' was so constructed and wound up that it could no more help saying and doing what it did and said, than a clock could help pointing and striking."

What then is the real proof that we are right in using the word "I" and in distinguishing ourselves from other objects which we call external? There is no proof at all except that, first, we are led to this way of looking at things by Nature and Imagination, and secondly, this way of looking at things works best. The "I-view" is better fitted than the "machine-view" to develop in us the faculties of judgment and self-control, to give us a sense of responsibility and a capability of amendment, and to make us ultimately more hopeful and more active. So too, the belief in "cause and effect" works better than a mere mental record of past antecedents and sequences, accompanied by a blank and strictly logical neutrality of mind as to what will happen in the future. Faith in "cause and effect" is the foundation of all stable life and all regular progress alike in the individual and in the state. The unfaithful unbeliever in causality is the Esau, both in the moral and in the intellectual world, the happy-go-lucky hunter who depends on stray venison and refuses to resort to system in order to make a sure provision for the needs of the future; the believer is the quiet plodding Jacob who has his goats in the fold where he knows he can find them when wanted. The unbeliever is the


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Marshall, Arthur Milnes


text:
Page:Unconstitutionality of the Fugitive Act.djvu/28

28 was taken up. This article provided for the surrender of fugitives from justice.

"Mr Butler and Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina,moved to require Fugitive Slaves and servants to be delivered up like criminals.

"Mr. Sherman saw no more propriety n the public seizing and surrendering a slave or servant than a horse.

"Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular provision might be made apart from this article."—''Mad. Pap''., 1447-'8.

On the 29th of August, the provision in regard to Public Acts and cords, came under consideration, when various propositions of amendment were made, and were finally referred to a committee, of which Mr. Rutledge was chairman. On the 1st of September, the article, among other matters, was reported back, and now, for the first time, was incorporated in it, a power on the part of Congress, to legislate upon the subject. Dr. Johnson, of Conn., objected to the grant of such power, because it would authorize the General Legislature to declare the effect of the legislative acts of one State in another State, and Mr. Randolph objected that it might enable the Government to usurp all State powers. After some amendments, the report was agreed to, an thus, in addition to the compact, by which full faith and credit were covenanted to be given to the public acts, records, &c., of one State by every other State, Congress was granted the "power prescribe, by general laws, the manner of proving them, and the effect thereof."

This history is important, as it not only justifies and requires a distinction to be taken between grants of power and articles of compact, but it clearly demonstrates that the Convention all along discriminated between grants of power to the government and articles of compact between the States, and as extremely jealous and cautions in making such grants, and only did so when it was deemed absolutely necessary.

Having now traced through this compact, and discovered the time and manner when it became coupled with a power, let us trace along its neighbor in regard to the reclaiming of fugitive slaves, and discover, if we can, the time and manner in which it shall be coupled with a grant of power to Congress, to secure its efficacy by legislation. We have seen that the first suggestion in regard to the subject, was on the 28th day of August, when Mr. Pinckney and Mr. Butler moved to connect it with the surrender of fugitives from justice, but withdrew the proposition, for the purpose of makin a separate provision.—On the 29th day of August, Mr. Butler offered such provision in these words:

"If any person, bound to service or labor in any of the United State shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor." "Which was agreed to nem con."

Here we have all the discussion upon the subject.—Plan after plan for the organization of the government was made and presented, resolution upon resolution offerred and discussed embracing the whole ground of Federal and Sate rights end powers, without one word being mentioned about fugitive slaves; and when it did occur to the minds of some members, suggested unquestionably by the clause in regard to fugitives from justice, it is quietly agreed that the States would deliver up such fugitives from labor. No power was asked for the Federal government to seize them; no such power was dreamed of; the proposition that the States should respectively deliver them up was acquiesced in without any dissent.—Yet we are told: arguendo, by judicial authority, that without such a clause, the Union could not have been formed, and that this provision was one of the essential compromises between the South and the North. In point fact, it did not enter in the slightest degree into the Compromises between the North and the South. I have had time and opportunity to examine the debates in the conventions for the adoption of the Constitution of only the States of North Carolina and South Carolina. In the former, the whole of article 4 was read, and though the grants of power, as contradistinguished from mere compact, were scrutinized closely, no objection was made to the absence of such grant, but the article was acquiesced in, with only a few words of explanation from Mr. Iredell, who stated that the "Northern delegates, owing to their particular scruples on the subject of Slavery, did not choose to have the word slave to be mentioned, but that was their meaning.": In the South Carolina convention, I have been unable to find a word of comment on the subject. In Virginia, it was discussed by Messrs. Madison and Randolph, who never claimed for it the character of a power delegated to the National Government. It is nowhere mentioned as entering into the compromises of the Constitution. How, then, can any one say, that without this provision, the Union could not have been formed?—And yet such assertion, contradicted by the truth of history, is made the pretext for the exercise of powers by the General Government, that could not stand for a single Government upon a similar basis, in respect to any other subject matter.

We have seen how the power of legislation was granted to Congress in respect to public records, &c. We have seen that no such power is granted in respect to the surrender of fugitives from labor, and that it was not even asked for; and from the known temper and scruples of the National Convention, we may safely affirm, that had it been asked for it would not have been granted, and had it been granted, no Union could have been formed upon such a basis. The history of the times fully justifies this conclusion. Can it be supposed for moment, that had the framers of the Constitution imagined, that under this provision the Federal Government would assume to override the State authorities, appoint subordinate tribunals in every county in every State, invested with jurisdiction beyond the reach or inquiry of the State Judiciary, to multiply executive officers ad infinitum, wholly independent of, and irresponsible to the police regulations of the State, and that the whole army and navy of the Union could be sent into a State, without the request and against the remonstrance of the Legislature thereof: nay, that even under its operation the efficacy of the Writ of Habeas Corpus could be destroyed, if the privileges thereof were not wholly suspended; if the members of the Convention had dreamed that they were incorporating such a power into the Constitution, does any one believe that it would have been adopted without opposition and without debate? And if these results had suggested themselves to the States on its adoption, would it have been passed by them, sub sliento, jealous as they were of State Rights and State, Sovereignty? The idea is preposterous. The Union would never have been formed upon such a basis.

This clause in regard to public records forms one section by itself with its grant of power added upon full consideration. The 2d section of the same article contains three clauses, but all grouped and numbered together.

"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States."

"A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another State, shall, on demand on the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime."

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof,escaping into another shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such labor or service may be due."

Here is the whole of the section, without one word of grant or one word from which a grant may be inferred or implied. Congress has the same power to legislate in regard to, fugitives from justice or labor. But it may be asked, how ore the rights here stipulated and guaranteed, to be enforced? I answer that every State officer, executive, legislative and judicial, who takes an oath to support. the Constitution of the United States, is bound to provide for, and aid in their enforcement, according to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution. But what if one or more States should refuse to perform their duty, and its officers violate their oaths and repudiate the compact? This question is answered by asking another, What if Congress should declare a single violation of one of its laws treason, and that a conviction thereof should work corruption of blood and forfeiture of estate beyond the life of the person attainted, and the judicial department should pronounce it valid, and the executive attempt to enforce it? The simple answer is, that when the State and Federal officers become so regardless of their oath and obligations as either question implies, anarchy or revolution, or both, must supervene, for the government would be a wilful departure from the fundamental law of its organization, and the people would be absolved from their allegiance to it. I do not mean to say that every minor, or unintentional departure from the Constitution must work such disastrous results. On the part of the States and people there is a fixed attachment. to the Constitution, and when its provisions are violated, or its restraints overleaped, discussion ensues, and the


text:
Page:The kernel and the husk (Abbott, 1886).djvu/44

28 unimaginative savage who has not faith enough to see the harvest in the seed; the believer is the man of civilisation who can trust Nature through six long months of waiting and can say to her, not in the language of hope, "do ut des," but in the language of conviction, "do daturae." Nevertheless, convenient as these ideas may be for our comfort, nay, though they may be even necessary for our existence, we are bound to recollect that they are merely ideas. Like the ideas of force, cause, effect, necessity, so the idea of "I,"—though produced with the aid of experience and tested by appeal to experience and reason—appears to be nothing but a child of the Imagination, and a foster-child of Faith.

Perhaps your conclusion from all this is that I am proving that we can know nothing? Not in the least. What I am saying does not prove that we know less or more than we profess to know at present. I am merely showing that our knowledge comes to us from sources other than those which are ordinarily assumed.


text: The Kernel and the Husk/Knowledge

title: The Kernel and the Husk/Knowledge


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Marshall, Benjamin


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Marshall, Emma


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Marshall, William Calder


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Martin, Lady


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Martin, William Fanshawe


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Archestratus


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Maunsell, Andrew


text:
Page:Democratic Ideals and Reality (1919).djvu/118

106 increase in fertility from the edge of the Sahara towards the tropical forests of the Guinea Coast and the Congo. The forests do not spread completely across to the Indian Ocean, but leave a belt of grassy upland which connects the grasslands of the Sudan with those of South Africa, and this immense, open ground, thus continuous from the Sudan to the Cape Veldt, is the home of the antelopes, zebras, and other large, hoofed game, which correspond to the wild horses and wild asses of the Northern Heartland. Though the zebra has not been successfully domesticated, and the South African natives had no usual beast of burden, yet the horse and the one-humped camel of Arabia were early introduced into the Sudan. In both Heartlands, therefore, although to a greater extent in the Northern than in the Southern, mobility by the aid of animals has been available to replace the riverwise and coastwise mobility of the ships of the Atlantic and Pacific coastlands.

The Northern Heartland adjoins Arabia, as we have seen, for many hundred miles where the Iranian Upland drops to the Euphrates Valley; the Southern Heartland, at its northeastern corner in Abyssinia and Somaliland, grasps, though with an interval of sea, the


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Maunsfield, Henry de


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Martineau, James


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Maurice (d.1107)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Maurice (fl.1210)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Maurice (1620-1652)


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Archiac, Étienne Jules Adolphe Desmier de Saint Simon


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Maurice, Frederick Denison


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Maurice, Henry


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


text: Weird Tales/Volume 42/Issue 4/Luna Aeternalis


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Maxwell, John (1553-1593)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Maxwell, John (1586?-1612)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Maxwell, Murray


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/May, Baptist


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/May, George Augustus Chichester


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/May, Humphrey


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/May, John (fl.1613)


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/May, Thomas (1595-1650)


text:
Page:Democratic Ideals and Reality (1919).djvu/119

Rh southern fertile angle of Arabia, known as Yemen. So the Steppes of Arabia, enframing its deserts, serve as a passage-land between the Northern and Southern Heartlands; and there is also the way by the banks of the Nile through Nubia. Thus it will be realised that the Northern Heartland, Arabia, and the Southern Heartland afford a broad, grassy way for horsemen and camel-men from Siberia through Persia, Arabia, and Egypt into the Sudan, and that but for the tsetse-fly and other plagues men would probably have penetrated on horseback and camel-back southward almost to the Cape of Good Hope.

Outside Arabia, the Sahara, and the two Heartlands, there remain in the World-Island only two comparatively small regions, but those two regions are the most important on the Globe. Around the Mediterranean, and in the European peninsulas and islands, there dwell four hundred million people, and in the southern and eastern coastlands of Asia, or, to use the historic expression, in the Indies, there dwell eight hundred million people. In these two regions, therefore, are three-quarters of the people of the world. From our present point of view the most pertinent way of stating this great fact is to say that four-fifths of the population of the Great


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/May, Thomas Erskine


text:
Page:Democratic Ideals and Reality (1919).djvu/120

108 Continent, the World-Island, live in two regions which together measure only one-fifth of its area.

These two regions resemble one another in certain other very important respects. In


text:
Page:Democratic Ideals and Reality (1919).djvu/121

Rh the first place, their rivers are for the most part navigable continuously from the ocean.

In the Indies we have this series of large rivers descending to the open sea; Indus,


text:
Page:Democratic Ideals and Reality (1919).djvu/122

110 Ganges, Brahmaputra, Irrawady, Salwen, Menam, Mekong, Songho, Sikiang, Yangtse, Hoangho, Peiho, Liauho, Amur. Most of them are navigable from their mouths for some hundreds of miles; a British battleship once steamed up the Yangtse to Hankow, five hundred miles from the sea. There is not much space for such large rivers in peninsular Europe, but the Danube, Rhine, and Elbe carry a great traffic in direct connection with the ocean. Mannheim, three hundred miles up the Rhine, was one of the principal ports of Europe before the War; barges a hundred yards long and of a thousand tons burden lay beside its wharves. For the rest, the peninsulation of Europe, which limits the development of rivers, itself offers even greater facilities for mobility by water.

The similarity of these two 'Coastlands' is not limited to the navigability of their rivers. If we clear away from the more arid zone on the rainfall map of the World-Island the patches indicative of merely local rains, due to mountain groups, we perceive at once the pre-eminence of the coastlands in fertility, owing to their widespread rainfall on the plains as well as in the mountains. The Monsoon winds of the summer carry the


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Maxse, Frederick Augustus


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Maxwell, William Edward


text:
User:Iwan Novirion

 Ę-oиė   >>>   ™

title: User:Iwan Novirion


text:
User talk:Iwan Novirion

Welcome
Welcome

Hello, Iwan Novirion, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * Help pages
 * Style guide
 * Inclusion policy
 * For Wikipedians

You may be interested in participating in Add the code active projects, PotM or CotW to your page for current wikisource projects.
 * Proofread of the Month
 * Community collaboration
 * Requested texts

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click  [ edit] ) and place  before your question.

Again, welcome!  Ę-oиė   >>>   ™ 19:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Iwan Novirion


text:
Page:Unconstitutionality of the Fugitive Act.djvu/29

Rh is brought back to the constitutional tack; but I repudiate the degrading insinuation that State officers are less faithful to the Constitution, than Federal officers. On the contrary, from the very fact that upon them is devolved the duty and responsibility of guarding the rights and sovereignty of the States under the compact of the Union, they must necessarily be more watchful of the exercise or assumption of power, on the part of the States respectively, and the general government, than the Federal officers would naturally be.

It may be again repeated, and cannot be repeated too often, that upon the States rests the immense responsibility of preserving not only their own sovereignty, but the just constitutional powers of the general government Let it also be remembered that the States and their civil functionaries are as essential to the existence and operation of the government of the Union, as are the peculiar officers of the latter. Each and all are parts of a united whole, and all are bound by the most solemn ties of fidelity to all and each.

What would be thought by the people of this country, should Congress pass a law to carry into effect that clause of the 4th article in regard to citizenship? And declare pains and penalties against any State functionary who Should fail to comply? What would be thought if Congress should declare it a penitentiary offence, for any executive of a State to refuse to surrender a fugitive from justice? What State would submit to see its chief magistrate dragged before the federal tribunals, on charge of infraction of such a law, or what Federal court sume to compel his obedience by mandamus? And yet the assumption of power to legislate at all upon the subject, is assuming supreme and unlimited power over the whole matter. There is no middle ground. A bare statement of the proposition assumed, is its most effectual refutation.

The law of 1793 was in fact but little, if any more than organizing the State authorities, for the accomplishment of the constitutional duties devolved upon them. For that very reason it passed without scrutiny, and for a long time was obeyed without question. It was practically nothing more than the, Sates themselves carrying out the constitutional compact. Not until it began to be required that, the States should yield up all control over these subjects, and a prostration of their sovereignty was demanded, did attention become aroused. No importance, therefore, can justly be attached to the fact that this act was passed by an early congress, and was signed by the Father of his country, and was acquiesced in by the States and people. It is a remarkable fact that the most startling deviations from strict constitutional limits occurred in the very earliest ears of the Republic. So it must always be. But time, discussion and experience have heretofore proved adequate correctives. So may they ever prove. Added to these, State sovereignty jeopardized, federal encroachment apprehended, and consolidation menacing, can hardly fail to accomplish the desired ends.

To my mind, therefore, it is apparent that Congress has no constitutional power to legislate on this subject. It is equally apparent, that the several States can pass no laws, nor adopt any regulations, by which the fugitive may be discharged from service. All such laws and regulations must be declared void whenever they are brought.to the test of judicial scrutiny, State or National. It is equally apparent, that it is the duty of the respective States to make laws and regulations, for the faithful observance of this compact. They have generally done so, and doubtless would have continued to do so, but for the decision of the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Prigg vs. Commonwealth of Penn. It is still their duty so to do.

Again, it is to my mind apparent, that the provision of the Constitution in regard to fugitives from labor or service, contemplates a judicial determination of the awfulness of the claim which may be made.

Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, who reported the clause for the first time, Aug. 29th, 17S7, framed its conclusion as follows: '"but shall be delivered up to the person JUSTLY claiming their service or labor." How was the justice of the claim to be ascertained? Who were to determine it? Fugitives were not to be discharged in consequence of any law or regulation of the rates to which they may have fled. Not discharged by whom? The federal government? No, but by the States, in consequence, or by virtue of any law or regulation therein.—"But shall be delivered up." By whom? Evidently by the same power which had covenanted not to discharge them. Shall be delivered up by the States, not seized by the federal government.

The clause, as finally adopted, reads—" but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor is DUE." Here is a fact to be ascertained, before the fugitive can be legally delivered up, viz: that his service or labor is really due to the party who claims him.—How is the fact to be ascertained? A claim is set up to the service of a person. He who makes the claim is denominated by the constitution, a party. The claimant one party, the person who resists the claim is another party. If he really owes the service according to the laws of the State from which he is alleged to have escaped, he must be delivered up. If the claim is unfounded he cannot be delivered up. The constitution itself has made up the issue and arrange. the parties to it. Can any proposition be plainer than that here is suspended a legal right upon an issue of fact, which can only be determined by the constitutional judicial tribunals of the country? It bears no analogy to the extradition of fugitives from justice. In the latter case, no issue is presented by the constitution; judicial proceedings have already been commenced, and this is but a species of process to bring the defendant into court. No claim is to be determined. He is to be delivered up from the mere fact that he is charged to be removed to the STATE demanding him for trial.—He is placed in the custody, and under the protection of the law, in the regular course of judicial proceedings.—But in the former case there can be no delivery until the claim is tried and determined aid then the fugitive is delivered, not into the custody of the law, but into the possession and control of the party who has established his claim; not to be removed to another State or tribunal for trial, with the shield of the law over him, but to be reduced, without further process or trial, to absolute subjection, to be taken whithersoever the claimant may desire. In one case, the proceedings are commenced and terminated where the claim is made; in the other the suit is commenced where the offence. is committed, and the law sends out its process to bring the defendant to meet the issue. While that process is being served, thro' all its mutations, he is as much under the protection of the law as he who executes it, and, in its eye, both are equal.

Here there is a fact, an issue, to be judicially determined, before a right can be enforced. What authority shall determine it? Clearly the authority of the State, whose duty it is to deliver up the fugitive, when the fact is determined. Until the issue which the constitution itself creates, is decided, the person is entitled to the protection of the laws of the Sate. When the issue is determined against the fugitive, then the constitutional compact rises above the laws and regulations of the State, and to the former the latter must yield.

To my mind this seems very clear and simple. The whole proceeding is clearly a judicial one, and I will not stop here to demonstrate what, from the preceding remarks, appears so obvious. The law of 1850, by providing for a trial of the constitutional issue, between the parties designated thereby, by officers not recognized by any constitution, State or national, is Unconstitutional and void.

It has been already said, that until the claim of the owner be interposed, the fugitive in this State is, to all intents and purposes, a free man.

The interposition of a claim. by legal process, is the commencement of a suit. "A suit is the prosecution of some claim, demand, or request." 6 Wheat. 407. The trial of such claim is the trial of a suit. Therefore, the trial thereof must not only be had before a judicial tribunal, but whether proceedings be commenced by the fugitive to resist the claim of the claimant, or by the claimant to enforce and establish it, it would seem that either party would be entitled to a jury. It is no answer to this position to say that neither the States nor the General Government have provided the means for such a mode of trial. The constitutional right of the party remains the same. The late organization of our county courts failed to provide a trial by a constitutional jury, yet the supreme court held that the parties were nevertheless entitled to den.and it. If provision is not made for such a trial, it the duty of the proper authority to make it. Nor is it any answer to this position to say that the proceeding to reclaim and re-possess a fugitive from service, is not a "suit at common law." This question is already settled. It has'been judicially determined that the term "common law" was used in the Constitution in contradistinction to suits in admiralty or equity. Were it otherwise, Congress need only to change the common law form of procedure, to nullify the right of trial by jury in all cases.—See Story Com. 645, et seq.; 3 Pet. 446.

Mr. Justice Story says, "in just sense the


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 7.djvu/123

89 BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE SUCCESSIVE EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS OF LORD BYRON'S POETICAL WORKS. Collected Editions. The/ Poetical Works/ of/ Lord Byron./ In Two Volumes./ Vol. I./ [Vol. II.] From the last London Edition./ Phila- delphia :/ Published by Moses Thomas,/ N? 52, Chesnut Street./ William Fry, Printer./ 1813./ [16? [A bound copy : smooth blue calf, lettered " Lord Byron."] d llalion — Vol. I.: Dedication ; Vol. II. : Preface, etc., pp. i.-xii. Cojitents — Vol. I. : — Poems, and Translated. . English Bards, etc. pp. I-203 — Title, one leaf; Cont. and Text, pp. i-203. pp. xii. + 261 — Title, one leaf; Cont. Text, pp. i-261. Half-title Half-title Original p. I P- *37 Harold's Vol. II. :— Childe Pilgrimage, Canto I. (xciii stanzas) p. 13 Canto II. (lxxxviii. stanzas) p. 9 Notes p. 99 Poems (xx.) ... p. 156 The Giaour (12 15 lines) Note P- . . . . p. 261 Note (Vol. I.).— On fly-leaf: "To the R*. Honourable Lord Byron from his oW servant Geo Ticknor, June 20. 1S15."


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 7.djvu/341

305 NOTES. Note (i).— On Genuine and Spurious Issues of "English Bards, and Scotch Reviewers." Among the first who called attention to the " inextricable tangle" of the several editions of English Bards, and Scotch Reviewers was Mr. Leicester Warren, better known as Lord de Tabley, who com- municated some notes in 1877 to Notes and Queries (Series V. vol. vii. pp. 145, etc.) ; but it was reserved to the late Mr. Dykes Campbell, Mr. Bertram Dobell, and other correspondents to the Athenaum (May 5 to July 7, 1894), to point out that the problem was still farther complicated by the existence of spurious issues of at least three out of the five or six distinct editions of the Satire. All editions, genuine or spurious, claim as their publisher "James Cawthorn, British Library, No. 24 Cockspur Street," but different printers were employed. The First Edition bears the imprint of "T. Collins, Printer, No. I, Harvey's Buildings, Strand;" the Second Edition, that of " Deans and Co. Hart Street, Covent Garden;" the Third Edition, that of " T. Collins," etc.; the Fourth Edition of 1810, that of " T. Collins," etc. ; the Fourth Edition of 181 1 ("James Cawthorn and Sharpe and Hailes"), that of " Cox, Son, and Baylis, Great Queen Street, London." No printer's name was attached to the suppressed Fifth Edition of 1812. Genuine First Editions have the water-mark, " E. and P. 1804," or " E. and P. 1805," or, possibly, no water-mark at all. A copy of the spurious First Edition, in Mr. Murray's possession, has the water-mark, " S. and C. Wise, 1812." In addition to at least eleven variants in punctuation, the spurious copy prints (p. 5, line 47) " Wizzard" (p. 20 ;/.), " Madeira," and, in the same note, "Anna d'Afert;" whereas the genuine copies print correctly "Wizard," "Madeira," and " Anna d'Arfet." A genuine copy of the Second Edition, which belonged to the late Mr. Dykes Campbell, bears the water-mark " Budgen and Willmot, 1808." On p. 80, line 1007, " Abedeen " is misprinted for "Aberdeen ; " and the same misprint occurs in a copy of the Second Edition in the British Museum. In all probability there was no spurious issue of the Second Edition. VOL. VII. X


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 7.djvu/350

314 APPENDIX TO BIBLIOGRAPHY. ILLUSTRATIONS OF LORD BYRON'S POETICAL WORKS. Note. — The following catalogue of " illustrations of Lord Byron " has been extracted from pp. 88, 89, 94-96 of " The Prisoner of Chilian, etc. Herausgegeben von Eugen Kolbing, Weimar. 1896." Compositions in outline from Lord Byron's " Manfred " and " Prisoner of Chillon," by Frederick Thrupp, sculptor. London, Pub 1 ? by Ackermann and Co., Strand. II. The Pocket Magazine of classic and polite literature. With en- gravings, illustrative of Lord Byron's Works. Vols. L, II. London : Printed and published by John Arliss. 1818. III. Forty illustrations of Lord Byron ; by George Cruikshank. Pub- lished by J. Robins and Co., Ivy Lane, Paternoster Row. [June 12, 1824.] IV. Six vignettes pour les Giuvres de lord Byron, d'apres les tableaux de MM, Alfred et Tony Johannot, gravees par MM. Koenig, Markl, Maulet, Pourvoyeur, Mauduit. Paris. Fume, libraire- editeur. 1832. V. The Byron Gallery ; a series of historical embellishments to illus- trate the poetical works of Lord Byron. London : published by Smith, Elder and Co. 65 Cornhill. 1833.


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 7.djvu/353

317 CONTENTS OF BIBLIOGRAPHY. Collections of Poems. Collected Editions, pp. 89-136. Collections of Dramas, pp. 168, 169. Fugitive Pieces and Minor Poems, pp. 246-254. The Liberal, p. 303. Miscellaneous Poems, pp. 152-159. Poems, pp. 254, 255. Poems on His Domestic Circumstances, pp. 255-259. Selections, pp. 144-149. Separate Poems and Dramas. Age of Bronze, p. 170. Beppo, pp. 170, 171. Bride of Abydos, pp. 172, 173. Cain, pp. 176-178. Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, pp. 180-194. Corsair, pp. 201-204. Curse of Minerva, pp. 207, 208. Deformed Transformed, p. 208. Don Juan, pp. 209-220. English Bards, etc., pp. 225-232. Fare Thee Well ! and A Sketch, etc., pp. 232-234. Giaour, pp. 234-238. Heaven and Earth, p. 241. Hebrew Melodies, pp. 242-244. Hints from Horace, pp. 259, 260. Irish Avatar, p. 260. Island, pp. 260, 261. Lament of Tasso, pp. 262, 263. Lara, pp. 263-265. Manfred, pp. 266-268. Marino Faliero, pp. 275, 276. Mazeppa, pp. 276-278.


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 7.djvu/357

319 SUMMARY OF BIBLIOGRAPHY. i. ii. in. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXV. XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. XXX. XXXI. XXXII. XXXIII. XXXIV. XXXV. Poetical Works. 2 vols. Philadelphia. 1813. P. Works. 2 v. Boston. 1814. Works. 4 v. London. Murray. 1815. Works. 2 v. London. M. 1815. P. Works. 3 v. New York. 1815. Works. Works. Poems. Works. Works. Works. Works. Works. Works. Works. Works. Works. Works. Works. Works. Works. Works. Works. Lacy. Works. Works. v. 5v. I v. 8v. 6 v. 13 v. 3v. v. 6v. v. 4v. Sv. 5 v. 16 v. 4v. 12 v. V. v Philadelphia. 1816. London. M. 181 7. New York. 1817. London. M. 1818-1820. Paris. 1818. Leipzig. 181 8-1 822. London. M. 18 19. Paris. 1819. Zuickau. 1819. Brussels. 1819. New York. 1820. London. M. 1 82 1. Paris. 1821. Paris. 1822-1824. London. M. 1823. -1824. . vi., vii.] London. Paris. Paris, [vols, v., 1824-1825. 8 v. London. 6 v. [vols. v. Knight and Complete Works. 7 v. M. 1825. vi.] London. Paris. 1825. M. 1825. Works. 8 v. Philadelphia. 1825. Works. 8 v. New York. 1825. Works. 32 V. Zuickau. 1825-1827. Works. 13 v. Paris. 1826. Works. I v. Paris. 1826. Works. I v. Frankfort. 1826. Works. 6 v. London. M. 1827. Works. 4 v. London. M. 1828. Works. I v. Paris. 1828.


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 7.djvu/389

 The figures in italics refer to the notes only.

A

Abbot, The, vi. 440

Abdalmalek, Hi. 120

Abdera, vi. 171

Abderrahman, Hadgi, vi. 160

Abelard, v. 634

Abencerrages, the, a Moorish tribe, v. 553

Abenhamim, iv. 530

Aberdeen, "auld toun" of, v. 609; vi. 405

Aberdeen, George Hamilton Gordon, 4th Earl of, i. 305, 378, 454; ii. 170, 204; An Inquiry into the Principles of Beauty in Grecian Architecture, i. 336

Abernethy, John, vi. 412

Aboukir, battle of, ii. 459 ; vi. 14

Abruzzi, the, iv. 288

Abydos to Sestos, ByonByron [sic]'s swim from, iii. 13

Académie des Inscriptions (Faris), v. 603

Acarnania, ii. 143

Achelous (Aspropotamo) river, ii. 143, 182

Acheron (Kalamas) river, ii. 131, 180-182

Acherusia, Palus, ii. 129, 179

Achilles, i. 175, 398; ii. 167, 462; iii. ISO ; v. 488, 526, 535; vi. 117 ; his tomb, vi. 204, 211

Achmet II., Sultan, iii. 454

Achmet III., Sultan, vi. 261

Acre, siege of, Hi. 4; vi. 14

Acroceraunian mountains, ii. 303

Acropolis, Athens, ii. 100, 165 ; vi. 429

Actium, battle of, ii. 126, 123, 179 ; iii. II ; vi. 269

Adagia Variorum, v. 396

Adams, John, a carrier of Southwell, vii. 1

Adams, John, of Pitcairn Island (Alexander Smith of the Bounty), v. 583, 588, 605, 625

Adams, Mr., iii. 45

Addison, Joseph, his relative Budgell, i. 449; Essay on Wit, i. 398; Reflections on Westminster Abbey, ii. 133 ; Cato, ii. 325 ; vi. 485 ; Remarks on Several Parts of Italy, ii. 384 ; on Tasso and the Venetians, ii. 467 ; quotes an Arabian tale in Spectator, iii. 98 ; his “faint praise,” vi. 602 ; his publisher Tonson, vii. 57

Address intended to be recited at the Caledonian Meeting, iii. 415

Address spoken at the Opening of Drury Lane Theatre, iii. 51

Address to the Sun in Carthon, iii. 26

Adieu, The, written under the impression that the Author would soon die, i. 192, 232, 237 ; ii. 45S ; iii. 48

Adonis, iv. 115

Adramyttium, gulf of, ii. 200


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 7.djvu/491

449 INDEX TO FIRST LINES. (The first line is given of every Poem, and of each Canto of the longer Poems : that of the Plays is omitted.) A noble Lady of the Italian shore {Poems 1816-1823), iv. 547 A Spirit passed before me : I beheld (Hebrew Melodies), iii. 406 A Year ago you swore, fond she ! (Jeux d' Esprit, etc.), vii. 41 Absent or present, still to thee {Poems 1809-1813), iii. 50 Adieu, adieu ! my native shore {Childe Harold, Canto I.), ii. 26 Adieu, thou Hill ! where early joy {Hours of Idleness), i. 237 Adieu, ye joys of La Valette {Poems 1809-1813), iii. 24 yEgle, beauty and poet, has two little crimes {Jeux d'Esprit, etc.), vii. 76 Ah ! gentle, fleeting, wav'ring sprite {Hours of Idleness), i. 20 Ah, heedless girl ! why thus disclose {Hours of Idleness), i. 244 Ah ! Love was never yet without {Poems 1809-1813), iii. 62 Ah ! — What should follow slips from my reflection {Don Juan, Canto XV.), vi. S44 And dost thou ask the reason of my sadness? {Jeux d'Esprit, etc.), vii. 41 And thou art dead, as young and fair {Poems 1809-1813), iii. 32, 41 And thou wert sad — yet I was not with thee {Poems of July — September, ), iv. 63 And " thy true faith can alter never" {Poems 1809-1813), iii. 65 And wilt thou weep when I am low ? {Hours of Idleness), i. 266 Anne's Eye is liken'd to the Sun {Hours of Idleness), i. 244 As by the fix'd decrees of Heaven {Hours of Idleness), i. 231 As o'er the cold sepulchral stone {Poems 1809-1813), iii. 4 As the Liberty lads o'er the sea {Jeux d'Esprit, etc.), vii. 42 Away, away, ye notes of Woe ! {Poems 1S09-1S13), iii. 32, 35 Away, away, — your flattering arts {Hours of Idleness), i. 15 Away with your fictions of flimsy romance {Hours of Idleness), i. 82 Away, ye gay landscapes, ye gardens of rose {Hours of Idleness), i. 171 Behold the blessings of a lucky lot ! {Jeux d'Esprit, etc.), vii. 75 Belshazzar ! from the banquet turn {Poems 1814-1816), iii. 421 Beneath Blessington's eyes {Jeux d'Esprit, etc.), vii. 82 Beside the confines of the ^Egean main {Poems 1809-1813), iii. 18 Bob Sou they ! You're a poet — Poet-Laureate {Don Juan, Dedication), vi. 3 VOL. VII. 2 G


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/388

 ARCHIAS, AULUS LICINIUS, Greek poet, was born at Antioch in Syria 120  In 102, his reputation having been already established, especially as an improvisatore, he came to Rome, where he was well received amongst the highest and most influential families. His chief patron was Lucullus, whose gentile name he assumed. In 93 he visited Sicily with his patron, on which occasion he received the citizenship of Heracleia, one of the federate towns, and indirectly, by the provisions of the lex Plautia Papiria, that of Rome. In 61 he was accused by a certain Gratius of having assumed the citizenship illegally; and Cicero successfully defended him in his speech Pro Archia. This speech, which furnishes nearly all the information concerning Archias, states that he had celebrated the deeds of Marius and Lucullus in the Cimbrian and Mithradatic wars, and that he was engaged upon a poem of which the events of Cicero’s consulship formed the subject. The Greek Anthology contains thirty-five epigrams under the name of Archias, but it is doubtful how many of these (if any) are the work of the poet of Antioch.

ARCHIDAMUS, the name of five kings of Sparta, of the Eurypontid house.

1. The son and successor of Anaxidamus. His reign, which began soon after the close of the second Messenian War, is said to have been quiet and uneventful (Pausanias iii. 7. 6).

2. The son of Zeuxidamus, reigned 476–427 (but see ). He succeeded his grandfather Leotychides upon the banishment of the latter, his father having already died. His coolness and presence of mind are said to have saved the Spartan state from destruction on the occasion of the great earthquake of 464 (Diodorus xi. 63; Plutarch, Cimon, 16), but this story must be regarded as at least doubtful. He was a friend of Pericles and a man of prudence and moderation. During the negotiations which preceded the Peloponnesian War he did his best to prevent, or at least to postpone, the inevitable struggle, but was overruled by the war party. He invaded Attica at the head of the Peloponnesian forces in the summers of 431, 430 and 428, and in 429 conducted operations against Plataea. He died probably in 427, certainly before the summer of 426, when we find his son Agis on the throne.

3. The son and successor of Agesilaus II., reigned 360–338 During his father’s later years he proved himself a brave and capable officer. In 371 he led the relief force which was sent to aid the survivors of the battle of Leuctra. Four years later he captured Caryae, ravaged the territory of the Parrhasii and defeated the Arcadians, Argives and Messenians in the “tearless battle,” so called because the victory did not cost the Spartans a single life. In 364, however, he sustained a severe reverse in attempting to relieve a besieged Spartan garrison at Cromnus in south-western Arcadia. He showed great heroism in the defence of Sparta against Epaminondas immediately before the battle of Mantineia (362). He supported the Phocians during the Sacred War (355–346), moved, no doubt, largely by the hatred of Thebes which he had inherited from his father; he also led the Spartan forces in the conflicts with the Thebans and their allies which arose out of the Spartan attempt to break up the city of Megalopolis. Finally he was sent with a mercenary army to Italy to protect the Tarentines against the attacks of Lucanians or Messapians; he fell together with the greater part of his force at Mandonion on the same day as that on which the battle of Chaeronea was fought.

4. The son of Eudamidas I., grandson of Archidamus III. The dates of his accession and death are unknown. In 294 he was defeated at Mantineia by Demetrius Poliorcetes, who invaded Laconia, gained a second victory close to Sparta, and was on the point of taking the city itself when he was called away by the news of the successes of Lysimachus and Ptolemy in Asia Minor and Cyprus.

5. The son of Eudamidas II., grandson of Archidamus IV., brother of Agis IV. On his brother’s murder he fled to Messenia (241 ). In 227 he was recalled by Cleomenes III., who was then reigning without a colleague, but shortly after his return he was assassinated. Polybius accuses Cleomenes of the murder, but Plutarch is probably right in saying that it was the work of those who had caused the death of Agis, and feared his brother’s vengeance.

ARCHIL (a corruption of “orchil,” Ital. oricello, the origin of which is unknown), a purple dye obtained from various species of lichens. Archil can be extracted from many species of the genera Roccella, Lecanora, Umbilicaria, Parmelia and others, but in practice two species of Roccella—R. tinctoria and R. fuciformis—are almost exclusively used. These, under the name of “orchella weed” or “dyer’s moss,” are obtained from Angola, on the west coast of Africa, where the most valuable kinds are gathered; from Cape Verde Islands; from Lima, on the west coast of South America; and from the Malabar coast of India. The colouring properties of the lichens do not exist in them ready formed, but are developed by the treatment to which they are subjected. A small proportion of a colourless, crystalline principle, termed orcinol (a dioxytoluene), is found in some, and in all a series of acid substances, erythric, lecanoric acids, &c. Orcinol in presence of oxygen and ammonia takes up nitrogen and becomes changed into a purple substance, orceine (C7H7NO3), which is essentially the basis of all lichen dyes. Two other colouring-matters, azoerythin and erythroleinic acid, are sometimes present. Archil is prepared for the dyer’s use in the form of a “liquor” (archil) and a “paste” (persis), and the latter, when dried and finely powdered, forms the “cudbear” of commerce, a dye formerly manufactured in Scotland from a native lichen, Lecanora tartarea. The manufacturing process consists in washing the weeds, which are then ground up with water to a thick paste. If archil paste is to be made this paste is mixed with a strong ammoniacal solution, and agitated in an iron cylinder heated by steam to about 140° F. till the desired shade is developed—a process which occupies several days. In the preparation of archil liquor the principles which yield the dye are separated from the ligneous tissue of the lichens, agitated with a hot ammoniacal solution, and exposed to the action of air. When potassium or sodium carbonate is added, a blue dye known as litmus, much used as an “indicator,” is produced. French purple or lime lake is a lichen dye prepared by a modification of the archil process, and is a more brilliant and durable colour than the other. The dyeing of worsted and home-spun cloth with lichen dyes was formerly a very common domestic employment in Scotland; and to this day, in some of the outer islands, worsted continues to be dyed with “crottle,” the name given to the lichens employed. ARCHILOCHUS, Greek lyric poet and writer of lampoons, was born at Paros, one of the Cyclades islands. The date of his birth is uncertain, but he probably flourished about 650 ; according to some, about forty years earlier but certainly not before the reign of Gyges (687–652), whom he mentions in a well-known fragment. His father, Telesicles, who was of noble family, had conducted a colony to Thasos, in obedience to the command of the Delphic oracle. To this island Archilochus himself, hard pressed by poverty, afterwards removed. Another reason for leaving his native place was personal disappointment and indignation at the treatment he had received from Lycambes, a citizen of Paros, who had promised him his daughter Neobule in marriage, but had afterwards withdrawn his consent. Archilochus, taking advantage of the licence allowed at the feasts of Demeter, poured out his wounded feelings in unmerciful satire. He accused Lycambes of perjury, and his daughters of leading

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/388


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Archias, Aulus Licinius


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Archidamus

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Archidamus


text: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Archil

title: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Archil


text:
Page:Unconstitutionality of the Fugitive Act.djvu/30

30 (amendment 7) may well be construed to embrace all suits which are not of equity admiralty jurisdiction. whatever may be the peculiar form which they may assume to settle legal rights." We have already seen that the legal right of the claim must be settled before a fugitive from labor can be delivered up. We have already seen that a suit is hold to be "the prosecution, of some claim, demand or request." The conclusion seems to be irresistible, therefore, that the prosecution of the claim to a fugitive from labor, or resistance to such claim by legal proceedings on the part of the fugitive, is a suit, nor in equity or admiralty, and hence at common law, within the purview of the Constitution. Of course, I do not pretend to say that such a proceeding is technically a suit at common law: nor is a proceeding by foreign attachment. and many other proceedings which are held to be embraced by the jury provision of the Constitution Authorities might be multiplied on this subject, were it necessary.

Again it is said that the constitution evidently contemplates a summary mode of proceeding in the case of a fugitive from labor. Where is he evidence of it? Nothing of the kind is found in the history of the provision nor in its pathway to the constitution, Nothing of the kind is apparent from the language used: for it distinctly imports a trial of the claim, and a determination of the fact that labor or service is due to the claimant before a delivery can be made. When the evidence of such intention is furnished, there will be time enough to trample, down all the forms of law, and set at naught every settied rule of construction. But, admit the fact. A provision may be made for obtaining a jury in a summary maner, as is sometimes done for the trial of the right of proprty, seized by attachment. But I can pursue this subject no further.

Again, a constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, This last phrase has a distinct technical meaning, viz.: regular judicial proceedings, according to the course of the common law, or by a regular suit, common need and prosecuted according to the forms of law. An essential requisite is due process to bring the party into court. It is in accordance with the first principles of natural law— Every person is entitled to his "day in court," to be legally notified of the proceedings taken against him, and duly summoned to defend. The passing judgement upon any person without his "day in court," without due process or its equivalent, is contrary to the law of nature, and of the civilized world, and without the express guaranty of the constitution, it would be implied as a fundamental condition of all civil government. But the 16th section of the act of 1850, expressly nullifies this provision of the constitution. It provides that the claimant may go before any court of record, or judge in vacation, and without process, make proof of the escape and the owing of service or labor; whereupon record is made of the matters proved, and a general description of the person alleged to have escaped; a transcript of such record made out and attested by the clerk, with the seal of the court, being exhibited to the judge or commissioner, must be taken and held to be conclusive evidence of the fact of cape, and that service or labor is due to the party mentioned in the record, and may be held sufficient evidence of the identity of the person escaping.

Here is, a palpable violation of the constitution. Can that be said to be by due process of law, which is without process altogether? Here the status, or condition of the person is instantly changed, in his absence, without process, without notice, without opportunity to meet or examine the witnesses against him,. or rebut their testimony. A record is made which is conclusive against him "in any State or Territory in which he may be found" It is mot a process to bring the person before the court in which the record is made up, but it is, to all intents and purposes, a judgment of the court or judge, which commits the person absolutely to the control ans possession of the claimant, to be taken whithersoever he pleases, robe dragged from a State where the legal presumption is favor of his freedom, to any State or Territory where the legal presumption is against his freedom.

Is not this depriving a person of liberty without due process of law? Other Courts and other Judges may pronounce this provision of the act of 1850 to be in conformity with that provision of the Constitution which deeclares that " no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law," but while I have a mind to reason and a conscience to dictate me, and an oath to support the Constitution of the United States resting upon my soul, I cannot so declare it, and for the price of worlds I will not.

Upon this branch of that act I am not aware that there has been any adjudication. Certainly here has been none that can be claimed as authority here The same may be and in regard to the trial by Jury. There are other points equally fatal to this act when tested by the Constitution, but I have not time nor inclination now to discuss them.

I ought not to dismiss the consideration of this question without particularly adverting to the case of Prigg vs The Commonwealth of Penn., 16 Peter's Rep. 540. The opinions in the other cases rated are so conflicting, casual, or incidental as to be of so force and of the case of Priffg vs. Penn., it may be justly remarked that the discrepancy of opinion among the members of the Court was so wide and fundamental, as greatly to impair the authority of that decision. It arms the constitutionality the act of 1793, upon contemporaneous exposition, in one respect, and expressly decries the same rule in another, for it pronounces the act constitutional in part, and unconstitutional in another part. Whatever of authority may attach to it in consequence of the character and eminenece of the men who passed it, and of him who signed it. is effectually counteracted by the decision of the court that in one part of it, at least, the constitution was violated.— Contemporaneous construction confers the power of legislation and execution upon the States as well as Congress; for, long before Congress assumed to act upon the subject the State Legislatures had passed laws in fidelity to the compact, in most of which some of the framers of the Constitution had seats, and all of the slave States, and all or nearly all the free States continued to exercise the power up to a very recent period.

Contemporaneous history,contemporaneous exposition, early and long continued, acquiescence, all go to show the interpretation given to this provision of the Constitution by the States and the people. The slave States passed acts to execute the compact. The fee States did the same. The action of the several States, or many of them, shows conclusively that they interpreted the provision as a compact merely addressed to the good faith of the States. The slave States appealed to the free States for legislative action to carry into effect this provision of the Federal Constitution, and demanded of the latter the stern. exercise of a power which it is now sought to wrest from them. In 1826, the State of Maryland appointed commissioners to attend upon the session of the Legislature of Pennsylvania and induce the latter to pass an act to facilitate the reclamation of fugitive slaves. Their mission was successful. Pennsylvania yielded to the solicitations of Maryland's commissioners. and passed the act of 1826, which was afterwards declared void by the Supreme Court of the United States in Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, at the suit of' Maryland. In 1838 or 1837, similar commissioners were appointed by the State of Kentucky to the State of Ohio whose mission resulted in the passage of most stringent fugitive act by the Legislature of Ohio. So. also, about the same time, in regard to Indiana, and I be live Illinois. Up to 1837, the States esteemed it their duty, and Slave States demanded its performance, to provide by law, for the execution and faithful observance of this compact. All seemed to regard it as a compact and nothing else; blinding, it is true, and operative as law equally upon all, but still a compact and a compact only.

Again, it is respectfully suggested, that the whole argument of Mr. Justice Story is based upon what is sometimes called the petitio principii. He assumes that the Constitution makes it the duty of the Federal Government to enforce the right of the owner secured by the compact, and then inters that it must necessarily have the power. and then. if Congress has it, the States cannot have it.

All admit that there is no express power in the Constitution to legislate upon this subject, but it is claimed to be necessarily implied, as incidental to the grant of judicial power. The reclamation of a fugitive is first decided to be a "case" arising under the constitution of the United States and hence within the judicial power. But this mode of implying powers can never be sustained. The judicial power is extended in several respects beyond the legislative power. The judicial has jurisdiction in cases arising between citizens of different States. A citizen of New York may sue a citizen of Wisconsin, upon a promissory note, bill of exchange, covenants in a deed in partitions of real estate, or even in ejectment for the! o session or title to lands. If a power of legislation may therefore be grafted by implication upon a judicial power, Congress may assume the whole power of legislation over these subjects in the respective States, an


text: Montgomery v. Henry

title: Montgomery v. Henry


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 4.djvu/571

A VERY MOURNFUL BALLAD [Byron does not give his authority for the Spanish original of his Romance Muy Doloroso. In default of any definite information, it may be surmised that his fancy was caught by some broadside or chap-book which chanced to come into his possession, and that he made his translation without troubling himself about the origin or composition of the ballad. As it stands, the "Romance" is a cento of three or more ballads which are included in the Guerras Civiles de Granada of Gines Peres de Hita, published at Saragossa in 1595 (see ed. "En Alcala de Henares," 1601, pp. 249-252). Stanzas I-II, "Passeavase el Rey Moro," etc., follow the text which De Hita gives as a translation from the Arabic; stansas 12-14 are additional, and do not correspond with any of the Spanish originals; stanzas 15-21, with numerous deviations and omissions, follow the text of a second ballad, "Moro Alcayde, Moro Alcayde," described by De Hita as "antiguo Romance." and portions of stanzas 21-23 are imbedded in a ballad entitled "Muerte dada á Los Abencerrajes" (Duran's Romancero General, 1851, ii. 89).

The ballad as a whole was not known to students of Spanish literature previous to the publication of Byron's translation (1818), (see Ancient Ballads from the Civil Wars of Granada, by Thomas Rodd, 1801, pp. 93, 98; Southey's Common-Place Book, iv. 262-266, and his Chronicle of the Cid, 1808, pp. 371-374), and it has not been included by H. Duran in his Romancero General, 1851, ii. 89-91, or by F. Wolf and C. Hofmann in their Primavera y Flor de Romances, 1856, i. 270-278. At the same time, it is most improbable that Byron was his own "Centonista," and it may be assumed that the Spanish text as printed (see Childe Harold, Canto IV., 1818. pp. 240-254, and Poetical Works, ON THE SIEGE AND CONQUEST OF ALHAMA.

Which, in the Arabic language, is to the following purport.

1.

Moorish King rides up and down,

Through Granada's royal town:


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 4.djvu/572

530 From Elvira's gates to those

Of Bivarambla on he goes.

Woe is me, Alhama!

2.

Letters to the Monarch tell

How Alhama's city fell:

In the fire the scroll he threw,

And the messenger he slew.

Woe is me, Alhama!

3.

He quits his mule, and mounts his horse,

And through the street directs his course;

Through the street of Zacatin

To the Alhambra spurring in.

Woe is me, Alhama!


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 4.djvu/573

Rh 4.

When the Alhambra walls he gained,

On the moment he ordained

That the trumpet straight should sound

With the silver clarion round.

Woe is me, Alhama!

5.

And when the hollow drums of war

Beat the loud alarm afar,

That the Moors of town and plain

Might answer to the martial strain.

Woe is me, Alhama!

6.

Then the Moors, by this aware,

That bloody Mars recalled them there,

One by one, and two by two,

To a mighty squadron grew.

Woe is me, Alhama!

7.

Out then spake an agéd Moor

In these words the king before,

"Wherefore call on us, oh King?

What may mean this gathering?"

Woe is me, Alhama!

8.

"Friends! ye have, alas! to know

Of a most disastrous blow—

That the Christians, stern and bold,

Have obtained Alhama's hold."

Woe is me, Alhama!

9.

Out then spake old Alfaqui,

With his beard so white to see,


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/389

 the most abandoned lives. Such was the effect produced by his verses, that Lycambes and his daughters are said to have hanged themselves. At Thasos the poet passed some unhappy years; his hopes of wealth were disappointed; according to him, Thasos was the meeting-place of the calamities of all Hellas. The inhabitants were frequently involved in quarrels with their neighbours, and in a war against the Saians—a Thracian tribe—he threw away his shield and fled from the field of battle. He does not seem to have felt the disgrace very keenly, for, like Alcaeus and Horace, he commemorates the event in a fragment in which he congratulates himself on having saved his life, and says he can easily procure another shield. After leaving Thasos, he is said to have visited Sparta, but to have been at once banished from that city on account of his cowardice and the licentious character of his works (Valerius Maximus vi. 3, externa 1). He next visited Siris, in lower Italy, a city of which he speaks very favourably. He then returned to his native place, and was slain in a battle against the Naxians by one Calondas or Corax, who was cursed by the oracle for having slain a servant of the Muses.

The writings of Archilochus consisted of elegies, hymns—one of which used to be sung by the victors in the Olympic games (Pindar, Olympia, ix. i)—and of poems in the iambic and trochaic measures. To him certainly we owe the invention of iambic poetry and its application to the purposes of satire. The only previous measures in Greek poetry had been the epic hexameter, and its offshoot the elegiac metre; but the slow measured structure of hexameter verse was utterly unsuited to express the quick, light motions of satire. Archilochus made use of the iambus and the trochee, and organized them into the two forms of metre known as the iambic trimeter and the trochaic tetrameter. The trochaic metre he generally used for subjects of a serious nature; the iambic for satires. He was also the first to make use of the arrangement of verses called the epode. Horace in his metres to a great extent follows Archilochus (Epistles, i. 19. 23-35). All ancient authorities unite in praising the poems of Archilochus, in terms which appear exaggerated (Longinus xiii. 3; Dio Chrysostom, Orationes, xxxiii.; Quintilian x. i. 60; Cicero, Orator, i.). His verses seem certainly to have possessed strength, flexibility, nervous vigour, and, beyond everything else, impetuous vehemence and energy. Horace (Ars Poetica, 79) speaks of the “rage” of Archilochus, and Hadrian calls his verses “raging iambics.” By his countrymen he was reverenced as the equal of Homer, and statues of these two poets were dedicated on the same day.

His poems were written in the old Ionic dialect. Fragments in Bergk, Poetae Lyrici Graeci; Liebel, Archilochi Reliquiae (1818); A. Hauvette-Besnault, Archiloque, sa vie et ses poésies (1905).

ARCHIMANDRITE (from Gr. , a ruler, and  , a fold or monastery), a title in the Greek Church applied to a superior abbot, who has the supervision of several abbots and monasteries, or to the abbot of some specially great and important monastery, the title for an ordinary abbot being hegumenos. The title occurs for the first time in a letter to Epiphanius, prefixed to his Panarium (c. 375), but the Lausiac History of Palladius may be evidence that it was in common use in the 4th century as applied to (q.v.). In Russia the bishops are commonly selected from the archimandrites. The word occurs in the Regula Columbani (c. 7), and du Cange gives a few other cases of its use in Latin documents, but it never came into vogue in the West. Owing to intercourse with Greek and Slavonic Christianity, the title is sometimes to be met with in southern Italy and Sicily, and in Hungary and Poland.

ARCHIMEDES (c. 287–212 ), Greek mathematician and inventor, was born at Syracuse, in Sicily. He was the son of Pheidias, an astronomer, and was on intimate terms with, if not related to, Hiero, king of Syracuse, and Gelo his son. He studied at Alexandria and doubtless met there Conon of Samos, whom he admired as a mathematician and cherished as a friend, and to whom he was in the habit of communicating his discoveries before publication. On his return to his native city he devoted himself to mathematical research. He himself set no value on the ingenious mechanical contrivances which made him famous, regarding them as beneath the dignity of pure science and even declining to leave any written record of them except in the case of the  (Sphere-making), as to which see below. As, however, these machines impressed the popular imagination, they naturally figure largely in the traditions about him. Thus he devised for Hiero engines of war which almost terrified the Romans, and which protracted the siege of Syracuse for three years. There is a story that he constructed a burning mirror which set the Roman ships on fire when they were within a bowshot of the wall. This has been discredited because it is not mentioned by Polybius, Livy or Plutarch; but it is probable that Archimedes had constructed some such burning instrument, though the connexion of it with the destruction of the Roman fleet is more than doubtful. More important, as being doubtless connected with the discovery of the principle in hydrostatics which bears his name and the foundation by him of that whole science, is the story of Hiero’s reference to him of the question whether a crown made for him and purporting to be of gold, did not actually contain a proportion of silver. According to one story, Archimedes was puzzled till one day, as he was stepping into a bath and observed the water running over, it occurred to him that the excess of bulk occasioned by the introduction of alloy could be measured by putting the crown and an equal weight of gold separately into a vessel filled with water, and observing the difference of overflow. He was so overjoyed when this happy thought struck him that he ran home without his clothes, shouting , “I have found it, I have found it.” Similarly his pioneer work in mechanics is illustrated by the story of his having said  (or as another version has it, in his dialect,  ), “Give me a place to stand and I (will) move the earth.” Hiero asked him to give an illustration of his contention that a very great weight could be moved by a very small force. He is said to have fixed on a large and fully laden ship and to have used a mechanical device by which Hiero was enabled to move it by himself: but accounts differ as to the particular mechanical powers employed. The water-screw which he invented (see below) was probably devised in Egypt for the purpose of irrigating fields.

Archimedes died at the capture of Syracuse by Marcellus, 212 In the general massacre which followed the fall of the city, Archimedes, while engaged in drawing a mathematical figure on the sand, was run through the body by a Roman soldier. No blame attaches to the Roman general, Marcellus, since he had given orders to his men to spare the house and person of the sage; and in the midst of his triumph he lamented the death of so illustrious a person, directed an honourable burial to be given him, and befriended his surviving relatives. In accordance with the expressed desire of the philosopher, his tomb was marked by the figure of a sphere inscribed in a cylinder, the discovery of the relation between the volumes of a sphere and its circumscribing cylinder being regarded by him as his most valuable achievement. When Cicero was quaestor in Sicily (75 ), he found the tomb of Archimedes, near the Agrigentine gate, overgrown with thorns and briers. “Thus,” says Cicero (Tusc. Disp., v. c. 23, § 64), “would this most famous and once most learned city of Greece have remained a stranger to the tomb of one of its most ingenious citizens, had it not been discovered by a man of Arpinum.”

Works.—The range and importance of the scientific labours of Archimedes will be best understood from a brief account of those writings which have come down to us; and it need only be added that his greatest work was in geometry, where he so extended the method of exhaustion as originated by Eudoxus, and followed by Euclid, that it became in his hands, though purely geometrical in form, actually equivalent in several cases to integration, as expounded in the first chapters of our text-books on the integral calculus. This remark applies to the finding of the area of a parabolic segment (mechanical solution) and of a spiral, the surface and volume of a sphere and of a segment thereof, and the volume of any segments of the solids of revolution of the second degree.

The extant treatises are as follows:—

(1) On the Sphere and Cylinder ( ). This treatise is in two books, dedicated to Dositheus, and deals

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/389


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 4.djvu/575

Rh Thus, snorting with his choler, said

The Moorish King, and doomed him dead.

Woe is me, Alhama!

15.

Moor Alfaqui! Moor Alfaqui!

Though thy beard so hoary be,

The King hath sent to have thee seized,

For Alhama's loss displeased.

Woe is me, Alhama!

16.

And to fix thy head upon

High Alhambra's loftiest stone;

That this for thee should be the law,

And others tremble when they saw.

Woe is me, Alhama!

17.

"Cavalier, and man of worth!

Let these words of mine go forth;

Let the Moorish Monarch know,

That to him I nothing owe.

Woe is me, Alhama!

18.

"But on my soul Alhama weighs,

And on my inmost spirit preys;

And if the King his land hath lost,

Yet others may have lost the most.

Woe is me, Alhama!

19.

"Sires have lost their children, wives

Their lords, and valiant men their lives!


text: Jacobs v. Adams

title: Jacobs v. Adams


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Maynard, Walter


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Meade, Robert Henry


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 4.djvu/574

532 "Good King! thou art justly served,

Good King! this thou hast deserved.

Woe is me, Alhama!

10.

"By thee were slain, in evil hour,

The Abencerrage, Granada's flower;

And strangers were received by thee,

Of Cordova the Chivalry.

Woe is me, Alhama!

11.

"And for this, oh King! is sent

On thee a double chastisement;

Thee and thine, thy crown and realm,

One last wreck shall overwhelm.

Woe is me, Alhama!

12.

"He who holds no laws in awe,

He must perish by the law;

And Granada must be won,

And thyself with her undone."

Woe is me, Alhama!

13.

Fire flashed from out the old Moor's eyes,

The Monarch's wrath began to rise,

Because he answered, and because

He spake exceeding well of laws.

Woe is me, Alhama!

14.

"There is no law to say such things

As may disgust the ear of kings:"—


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Melvill, James Cosmo


text:
Page:The Works of Lord Byron (ed. Coleridge, Prothero) - Volume 4.djvu/576

534 One what best his love might claim

Hath lost, another wealth, or fame.

Woe is me, Alhama!

20.

"I lost a damsel in that hour,

Of all the land the loveliest flower;

Doubloons a hundred I would pay,

And think her ransom cheap that day."

Woe is me, Alhama!

21.

And as these things the old Moor said,

They severed from the trunk his head;

And to the Alhambra's wall with speed

'Twas carried, as the King decreed.

Woe is me, Alhama!

22.

And men and infants therein weep

Their loss, so heavy and so deep;

Granada's ladies, all she rears

Within her walls, burst into tears.

Woe is me, Alhama!

23.

And from the windows o'er the walls

The sable web of mourning falls;

The King weeps as a woman o'er

His loss, for it is much and sore.

Woe is me, Alhama! [First published, Childe Harold, Canto IV., 1818.]


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Mends, William Robert


text: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement/Mercier, Honoré