text:
Page:Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There.djvu/40

20 manage this one a bit; it writes all manner of things that I don't intend"

"What manner of things?" said the Queen, looking over the book (in which Alice had put The White Knight is sliding down the poker. He balances very badly). "That's not a memorandum of your feelings!"

There was a book lying near Alice on the table, and while she sat watching the White King (for she was still a little anxious about him, and had the ink all ready to throw over him, in case he fainted again), she turned over the leaves, to find some part that she could read, "—for it's all in some language I don't know," she said to herself.


text:
Page:Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There.djvu/41

Rh It was like this.

She puzzled over this for some time, but at last a bright thought struck her. "Why, it's a Looking-glass book, of course! And if I hold it up to a glass, the words will all go the right way again."

This was the poem that Alice read.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
 * Did gyre and gimble in the wadewabe [sic];

All mimsy were the borogoves,
 * And the mome raths outgrabe.

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


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part I.djvu/273

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011

Rh

Paris, September 12, 1946.

No. 6141

Subject: Transmitting Memorandum of Conversation with Ho Chi-minh.

The Honorable

 * The Secretary of State,

 * Washington.

undefined

Sir:

I have the honor to refer to my despatch No.6131 dated September 11, 1946, regarding my conversation with Ho Chi-minh, President of the Republic of Viet-Nam, and to enclose herewith a memorandum prepared by First Secretary George N. Abbott covering his conversation with Ho Chi-minh later in the day.

 * Respectfully yours,

 * Jefferson Caffery signature.jpg

 * Jefferson Caffery

Enclosure: Attm

 * Memorandum of conversation with Ho Chi-minh prepared by First Secretary George M. Abbott

Original and hectograph to Department

Copies to Saigon, London, and Moscow

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part I.djvu/273


text:
Page:Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There.djvu/42

22

 "Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
 * The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
 * The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
 * Long time the manxome foe he sought—

So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
 * And stood awhile in thought.

And as in uffish thought he stood,
 * The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,

Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
 * And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
 * The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!

He left it dead, and with its head
 * He went galumphing back.


text:
Page:Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There.djvu/43

Rh


text:
Talk:The Libre Society Manifesto

Potential source
A copy of this manifesto is included in "Libre Culture: Meditations on Free Culture" at the Internet Archive. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Source and license
The most likely source is Free Software Magazine, where it is tagged as (or rather as "CC BY-SA", but 2.0 was then current since 2.5 wasn't released until later that year). The book Adam mentions above is no longer available at the URL, or anywhere else on IA, by the uploaders' request. Nor does it appear to available anywhere online, except as cached copies by third parties. Xover (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Libre Society Manifesto


text:
Page:Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There.djvu/44

24

 "And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
 * Come to my arms, my beamish boy!

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
 * He chortled in his joy.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
 * Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;

All mimsy were the borogoves,
 * And the mome raths outgrabe.

 "It seems very pretty," she said when she had finished it, "but it's rather hard to understand!" (You see she didn't like to confess, even to herself, that she couldn't make it out at all.) "Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideasonly I don't exactly know what they are! However, somebody killed something: that's clear, at any rate"

"But oh!" thought Alice, suddenly jumping up, "if I don't make haste I shall have to


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/121

 comparison with the gorilla, as on the whole the most anthropomorphous ape. In the general proportions of the body and limbs there is a marked difference between the gorilla and man. The gorilla’s brain-case is smaller, its trunk larger, its lower limbs shorter, its upper limbs longer in proportion than those of man. The differences between a gorilla’s skull and a man’s are truly immense. In the gorilla, the face, formed largely by the massive jaw-bones, predominates over the brain-case or cranium; in the man these proportions are reversed. In man the occipital foramen, through which passes the spinal cord, is placed just behind the centre of the base of the skull, which is thus evenly balanced in the erect posture, whereas the gorilla, which goes habitually on all fours, and whose skull is inclined forward, in accordance with this posture has the foramen farther back. In man the surface of the skull is comparatively smooth, and the brow-ridges project but little, while in the gorilla these ridges overhang the cavernous orbits like penthouse roofs. The absolute capacity of the cranium of the gorilla is far less than that of man; the smallest adult human cranium hardly measuring less than 63 cub. in., while the largest gorilla cranium measured had a content of only 34½ cub. in. The largest proportional size of the facial bones, and the great projection of the jaws, confer on the gorilla’s skull its small facial angle and brutal character, while its teeth differ from man’s in relative size and number of fangs. Comparing the lengths of the extremities, it is seen that the gorilla’s arm is of enormous length, in fact about one-sixth longer than the spine, whereas a man’s arm is one-fifth shorter than the spine; both hand and foot are proportionally much longer in the gorilla than in man; the leg does not so much differ. The vertebral column of the gorilla differs from that of man in its curvature and other characters, as also does the conformation of its narrow pelvis. The hand of the gorilla corresponds essentially as to bones and muscles with that of man, but is clumsier and heavier; its thumb is “opposable” like a human thumb, that is, it can easily meet with its extremity the extremities of the other fingers, thus possessing a character which does much to make the human hand so admirable an instrument; but the gorilla’s thumb is proportionately shorter than man’s. The foot of the higher apes, though often spoken of as a hand, is anatomically not such, but a prehensile foot. It has been argued by Sir Richard Owen and others that the position of the great toe converts the foot of the higher apes into a hand, an extremely important distinction from man; but against this Professor T. H. Huxley maintained that it has the characteristic structure of a foot with a very movable great toe. The external unlikeness of the apes to man depends much on their hairiness, but this and some other characteristics have no great zoological value. No doubt the difference between man and the apes depends, of all things, on the relative size and organization of the brain. While similar as to their general arrangement to the human brain, those of the higher apes, such as the chimpanzee, are much less complex in their convolutions, as well as much less in both absolute and relative weight—the weight of a gorilla’s brain hardly exceeding 20 oz., and a man’s brain hardly weighing less thin 32 oz., although the gorilla is considerably the larger animal of the two.

These anatomical distinctions are undoubtedly of great moment, and it is an interesting question whether they suffice to place man in a zoological order by himself. It is plain that some eminent zoologists, regarding man as absolutely differing as to mind and spirit from any other animal, have had their discrimination of mere bodily differences unconsciously sharpened, and have been led to give differences, such as in the brain or even the foot of the apes and man, somewhat more importance than if they had merely distinguished two species of apes. Many naturalists hold the opinion that the anatomical differences which separate the gorilla or chimpanzee from man are in some respects less than those which separate these man-like apes from apes lower in the scale. Yet all authorities class both the higher and lower apes in the same order. This is Huxley’s argument, some prominent points of which are the following: As regards the proportion of limbs, the hylobates or gibbon is as much longer in the arms than the gorilla as the gorilla is than the man, while on the other hand, it is as much longer in the legs than the man as the man is than the gorilla. As to the vertebral column and pelvis, the lower apes differ from the gorilla as much as, or more than, it differs from man. As to the capacity of the cranium, men differ from one another so extremely that the largest known human skull holds nearly twice the measure of the smallest, a larger proportion than that in which man surpasses the gorilla; while, with proper allowance for difference of size of the various species, it appears that some of the lower apes fall nearly as much below the higher apes. The projection of the muzzle, which gives the character of brutality to the gorilla as distinguished from the man, is yet further exaggerated in the lemurs, as is also the backward position of the occipital foramen. In characters of such importance as the structure of the hand and foot, the lower apes diverge extremely from the gorilla; thus the thumb ceases to be opposable in the American monkeys, and in the marmosets is directed forwards, and armed with a curved claw like the other digits, the great toe in these latter being insignificant in proportion. The same argument can be extended to other points of anatomical structure, and, what is of more consequence, it appears true of the brain. A series of the apes, arranged from lower to higher orders, shows gradations from a brain little higher that that of a rat, to a brain like a small and imperfect imitation of a man’s; and the greatest structural break in the series lies not between man and the man-like apes, but between the apes and monkeys on one side, and the lemurs on the other. On these grounds Huxley, restoring in principle the Linnean classification, desired to include man in the order of Primates. This order he divided into seven families: first, the Anthropini, consisting of man only; second, the Catarhini or Old World apes; third, the Platyrhini, all New World apes, except the marmosets; fourth, the Arctopithecini, or marmosets; fifth, the Lemurini, or lemurs; sixth and seventh, the Cheiromyini and Galeopithecini.

It is in assigning to man his place in nature on psychological grounds that the greater difficulty arises. Huxley acknowledged an immeasurable and practically infinite divergence, ending in the present enormous psychological gulf between ape and man. It is difficult to account for this intellectual chasm as due to some minor structural difference. The opinion is deeply rooted in modern as in ancient thought, that only a distinctively human element of the highest import can account for the severance between man and the highest animal below him. Differences in the mechanical organs, such as the perfection of the human hand as an instrument, or the adaptability of the human voice to the expression of human thought, are indeed of great value. But they have not of themselves such value, that to endow an ape with the hand and vocal organs of a man would be likely to raise it through any large part of the interval that now separates it from humanity. Much more is to be said for the view that man’s larger and more highly organized brain accounts for those mental powers in which he so absolutely surpasses the brutes.

The distinction does not seem to lie principally in the range and delicacy of direct sensation, as may be judged from such well-known facts as man’s inferiority to the eagle in sight, or to the dog in scent. At the same time, it seems that the human sensory organs may have in various respects acuteness beyond those of other creatures. But, beyond a doubt, man possesses, and in some way possesses by virtue of his superior brain, a power of co-ordinating the impressions of his senses, which enables him to understand the world he lives in, and by understanding to use, resist, and even in a measure rule it. No human art shows the nature of this human attribute more clearly than does language. Man shares with the mammalia and birds the direct expression of the feelings by emotional tones and interjectional cries; the parrot’s power of articulate utterance almost equals his own; and, by association of ideas in some measure, some of the lower animals have even learnt to recognize words he utters. But, to use words in themselves unmeaning, as symbols by which to conduct and convey the complex intellectual processes in which mental conceptions are suggested, compared, combined, and even analysed, and new ones created—this is a faculty which is scarcely to be traced in any lower animal.

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/121


text:
Page:Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There.djvu/45

Rh go back through the Looking-glass, before I've seen what the rest of the house is like! Let's have a look at the garden first!" She was out of the room in a moment, and ran down stairsor, at least, it wasn't exactly running, but a new invention for getting down stairs quickly and easily, as Alice said to herself. She just kept the tips of her fingers on the hand-rail, and floated gently down without even touching the stairs with her feet; then she floated on through the hall, and would have gone straight out at the door in the same way, if she hadn't caught hold of the door-post. She was getting a little giddy with so much floating in the air, and was rather glad to find herself walking again in the natural way.


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part I.djvu/274

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011 Paris, September 12, 1946.

To: The Ambassador

From: George M. Abbott

In accordance with your request, I called last night on Ho Chi-minh and had a conversation lasting an hour.

Ho Chi-minh first discussed his contacts with Americans dating back to his guerrilla warfare against the Japanese when the OSS and Army officers were parachuted into his jungle headquarters and culminating with his talk with you. He emphasized his admiration for the United States and the respect and affection for President Roosevelt which is found even in the remote villages of his country. He referred particularly toward the Philippines and pointed out that it was only natural that his people, seeing and independent Philippines on one side and India about to gain its freedom on the other, should expect France to understand that similar measures for Indochina are inevitable.

He then took up the question of his supposed Communist connections which he, of course, denied. Ho Chi-minh pointed out that there are no Communist ministers in his government and that the Viet-Nam constitution opens with a guarantee of personal liberties and the so-called rights of man and also guarantees the right to personal property. He admits that there are Communists in Annam but claims that the Communist Party as such dissolved itself several months ago.

The President then outlined his relations with France in general and the developments during the Fontainebleau Conference in particular. He pointed out that all of the various provisions of the preliminary agreement of March 6, 1946, had been fulfilled except the provisions regarding a referendum in Cochinchina. The Viet-Nam has its own government, its parliament, its army, and controls its finances. Regarding Cochinchina, however, the French have been unwilling to set a date fro the referendum or to agree to the proposal that a joint Viet-Nam–French commission should be named to arrange for and supervise the referendum. At the same time the French authorities in Indochina have not respected the truce in Cochinchina and have continued military operations against resistance elements loyal to the Viet-Nam.

Ho Chi-minh realizes that the present French Government is a provisional one and that until a French constitution was adopted, the outlines of the French Union

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part I.djvu/274


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part I.djvu/275

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011 Union established, and a permanent government chosen, it was difficult for French officials to sign any permanent treaty or agreement with the Viet-Nam. For that reason he was quite willing to adjourn the Fontainebleau Conference until January or thereabouts.

With regards to the modus vivendi which should have been signed September 10, 1946, Ho Chi-minh said that agreements had been reached regarding French economic and cultural rights in the Viet-Nam, a customs union for Indochina, and a common currency, although there had been some difficulty over the drafting since he refused to allow the phrase "Indochinese Federation" since it does not yet exist. The French, however, have not accepted the Viet-Nam demand that "democratic liberties" be restored in Cochinchna. Ho Chi-minh explained that by this he meant freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the release of political prisoners. The Viet-Nam also insists that they be permitted to send a delegation to Cochinchina to make sure that the French live up to these provisions and to cooperate with the French in bringing about the end of guerrilla warfare. He admitted that there are many unsavory elements within the resistance movement in Cochinchina, but argued that if his representatives could go through the country and talk to local leaders it would be possible to distinguish between bandits and patriots, and the former could then be liquidated by either his or the French forces.

Ho Chi-minh stated that he still hoped to reach an agreement with the French before his departure on September 14, but that in any case he must return on that date since he had already been too long away from his country.

Ho Chi-minh spoke at various times of the aid which he hoped to get from the United States, but was vague except as regards economic aid. With regard to the latter,he explained that the riches of his country were largely undeveloped, that he felt that Indochina offered a fertile field for American capital and enterprise. He had resisted and would continue to resist the French desire for a continuation of their former policy of economic monopoly. He was willing to give the French priority in such matters as advisers, concessions, and purchases of machinery and equipment, but if the French were not in a position to meet his country's needs he would insist on the right to approach other friendly countries. He hinted that the policy might apply to military and naval matters as well and mentioned the naval base at Cam Ranh bay.

As I left, Ho Chi-minh stated that he hoped that through his contacts with the Embassy the American public would be informed of the true situation in Indochina.

George M. Abbott

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part I.djvu/275


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/122

 The view that this, with other mental processes, is a function of the brain, is remarkably corroborated by modern investigation of the disease of aphasia, where the power of thinking remains, but the power is lost of recalling the word corresponding to the thought, and this mental defect is found to accompany a diseased state of a particular locality of the brain (see ). This may stand among the most perfect of the many evidences that, in Professor Bain’s words, “the brain is the principal, though not the sole organ of mind.” As the brains of the vertebrate animals form an ascending scale, more and more approaching man’s in their arrangement, the fact here finds its explanation, that lower animals perform mental processes corresponding in their nature to our own, though of generally less power and complexity. The full evidence of this correspondence will be found in such works as Brehm’s Thierleben; and some of the salient points are set forth by Charles Darwin, in the chapter on “Mental Powers,” in his Descent of Man. Such are the similar effects of terror on man and the lower animals, causing the muscles to tremble, the heart to palpitate, the sphincters to be relaxed, and the hair to stand on end. The phenomena of memory, as to both persons and places, is strong in animals, as is manifest by their recognition of their masters, and their returning at once to habits of which, though disused for many years, their brain has not lost the stored-up impressions. Such facts as that dogs “hunt in dreams,” make it likely that their minds are not only sensible to actual events, present and past, but can, like our minds, combine revived sensations into ideal scenes in which they are actors,—that is to say, they have the faculty of imagination. As for the reasoning powers in animals, the accounts of monkeys learning by experience to break eggs carefully, and pick off bits of shell, so as not to lose the contents, or of the way in which rats or martens after a while can no longer be caught by the same kind of trap, with innumerable similar facts, show in the plainest way that the reason of animals goes so far as to form by new experience a new hypothesis of cause and effect which will henceforth guide their actions. The employment of mechanical instruments, of which instances of monkeys using sticks and stones furnish the only rudimentary traces among the lower animals, is one of the often-quoted distinctive powers of man. With this comes the whole vast and ever-widening range of inventive and adaptive art, where the uniform hereditary instinct of the cell-forming bee and the nest-building bird is supplanted by multiform processes and constructions, often at first rude and clumsy in comparison to those of the lower instinct, but carried on by the faculty of improvement and new invention into ever higher stages. “From the moment,” writes A. R. Wallace (Natural Selection), “when the first skin was used as a covering, when the first rude spear was formed to assist in the chase, when fire was first used to cook his food, when the first seed was sown or shoot planted, a grand revolution was effected in nature, a revolution which in all the previous ages of the earth’s history had had no parallel; for a being had arisen who was no longer necessarily subject to change with the changing universe,—a being who was in some degree superior to nature, inasmuch as he knew how to control and regulate her action, and could keep himself in harmony with her, not by a change in body, but by an advance of mind.”

As to the lower instincts tending directly to self-preservation, it is acknowledged on all hands that man has them in a less developed state than other animals; in fact, the natural defencelessness of the human being, and the long-continued care and teaching of the young by the elders, are among the commonest themes of moral discourse. Parental tenderness and care for the young are strongly marked among the lower animals, though so inferior in scope and duration to the human qualities; and the same may be said of the mutual forbearance and defence which bind together in a rudimentary social bond the families and herds of animals. Philosophy seeking knowledge for its own sake; morality, manifested in the sense of truth, right, and virtue; and religion, the belief in and communion with superhuman powers ruling and pervading the universe, are human characters, of which it is instructive to trace, if possible, the earliest symptoms in the lower animals, but which can there show at most only faint and rudimentary signs of their wondrous development in mankind. That the tracing of physical and even intellectual continuity between the lower animals and our own race, does not necessarily lead the anthropologist to lower the rank of man in the scale of nature, may be shown by citing A. R. Wallace. Man, he considers, is to be placed “apart, as not only the head and culminating point of the grand series of organic nature, but as in some degree a new and distinct order of being.”

To regard the intellectual functions of the brain and nervous system as alone to be considered in the psychological comparison of man with the lower animals, is a view satisfactory to those thinkers who hold materialistic views. According to this school, man is a machine, no doubt the most complex and wonderfully adapted of all known machines, but still neither more nor less than an instrument whose energy is provided by force from without, and which, when set in action, performs the various operations for which its structure fits it, namely, to live, move, feel, and think. This view, however, always has been strongly opposed by those who accept on theological grounds a spiritualistic doctrine, or what is, perhaps, more usual, a theory which combines spiritualism and materialism in the doctrine of a composite nature in man, animal as to the body and in some measure as to the mind, spiritual as to the soul. It may be useful, as an illustration of one opinion on this subject, to continue here the citation of Dr Prichard’s comparison between man and the lower animals:—

Dr Prichard here puts forward distinctly the time-honoured doctrine which refers the mental faculties to the operation of the soul. The view maintained by a distinguished comparative anatomist, Professor St George Mivart, in his Genesis of Species, ch. xii., may fairly follow. “Man, according to the old scholastic definition, is ‘a rational animal’ (animal rationale), and his animality is distinct in nature from his rationality, though inseparably joined, during life, in one common personality. Man’s animal body must have had a different source from that of the spiritual soul which informs it, owing to the distinctness of the two orders to which those two existences severally belong.” The two extracts just given, however, significant in themselves, fail to render an account of the view of the human constitution which would probably, among the theological and scholastic leaders of public opinion, count the largest weight of adherence. According to this view, not only life but thought are functions of the animal system, in which man excels all other animals as to height of organization: but beyond this, man embodies an immaterial and immortal spiritual principle which no lower creature possesses, and which makes the resemblance of the apes

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/122


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Conigrave, John Fairfax


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Conolly, His Honour Edward Tennyson


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cooke, Ebenezer


text:
User:Nkansahrexford

Please read more about me on Wikipedia English

title: User:Nkansahrexford


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cooper, Sir Charles


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cooper, Sir Daniel


text: United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense/II. U.S. Involvement in the Franco–Viet Minh War, 1950–1954


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cooper, George Sisson


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cooper, Hon. Pope Alexander


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cope, His Honour Thomas Spencer


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Copeland, Hon. Henry


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Corbett, Right Rev. Dr. James Francis


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Corney, Hon. Bolton Glanvill


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Costley, Edward


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/5

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/5


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/9

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/9


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/40

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/40


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cottar, Thomas Young


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/51

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/51


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/62

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/62


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Couchman, Lieut.-Col. Thomas


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/66

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/66


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/79

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/79


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Counsel, Edward Albert


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Courthope, Edward L.


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Couvreur, Jessie Catherine ("Tasma")


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/1

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011 II (1 Vol.)

A. U.S., France and Vietnamese Nationalism

B. Toward a Negotiated Settlement

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/1


text:
Page:Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There.djvu/11

PAGE Alice meets R. Q. Alice through Q.'s 3d (by railway) to Q.s, 4th. (Tweedledum and Tweedledee) Alice meets W. Q. (with shawl) Alice to Q.'s 5th (shop, river, shop) Alice to Q.'s 6th (Humpty Dumpty) Alice to Q.'s 7th (forest) W. Kt. takes R.Kt.
Alice to Q.'s 8th (coronation)

Alice becomes Queen

Alice castles (feast)

Alice takes R.Q. & wins

PAGE

R. Q. to K. R.'s 4th

W. Q. to Q. B.'s 4th (after shawl)

W. Q. to Q. B.'s 5th (becomes sheep)

W. Q. to K. B.'s 8th (leaves egg on shelf)

W. Q. to Q. B.'s 8th (flying from R. Kt.)

R. Kt. to K.'s 2nd (ch.)

W. Kt. to K. B.'s 5th

R. Q. to K.'s sq. (examination)

Queens castle

W. Q. to Q.R.'s 6th (soup)


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/2

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011 {| Align=center
 * TOP SECRET – SENSITIVE
 * }

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

SET #13

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/2


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cowie, Right Rev. William Garden


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/3

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011

Sec Def Cont Nr. X-

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/3


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cowley, Hon. Alfred Sandlings


text:
Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/4

Declassified per Executive Order 13526, Section 3.3 NND Project Number: NND 63316. By: NWD Date: 2011 TOP SECRET – Sensitive PART II

This portion of the study treats U.S. policy towards the war in Indochina from the U.S. decision to recognize the Vietnamese Nationalist regime of the Emperor Bao Dai in February, 1950, through the U.S. deliberations on military intervention in late 1953 and early 1954. Section A examines the triangular relationship of France, the U.S., and the Bao Dai regime. Section B analyzes the intervention issue, end the antecedents to the Geneva Conference.

A. United States, France, and Vietnamese Nationalism

B. Toward a Negotiated Settlement Rh

title: Page:Pentagon-Papers-Part II.djvu/4


text: United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense/II. A. U.S., France and Vietnamese Nationalism


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cowlishaw, Hon. James


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cowper, Hon. Sir Charles


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cowper, Charles


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cowper, Ven. Archdeacon William


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cowper, Very Rev. and Ven. William Macquarie


text:
User:HesperianBot

This account is Hesperian's bot account.At present it is uploading raw page scan images for pages tagged with missing image or raw image. Community approval for it to undertake this task can be found at [//en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2013-02#Proposal_to_upload_page_scans_for_.7D.7Dmissing_image.7D.7D].

How it works
Many of our works are illustrated. Compared to proofreading of text, providing good images is a relatively onerous and time-consuming task. This bot is designed to make it a bit easier by doing a lot of the work.

Most of our scans come from the Internet Archive, and for many of those scans the Internet Archive makes available a zip file of high resolution jp2 page scans. This bot untertakes to locate, download and upload the Internet Archive page scans for DjVu file pages that have illustrations.

1. Tagging missing images
When a proofreader encounters an image, rather than providing that image immediately, they have the option of flagging the image as missing and moving on. They may either return later to provide the image, or leave the image to be provided by another member of the Wikisource community.

We have two templates for tagging missing images. If the full page scan is a suitable placeholder for the missing image (that is, the image takes up the full page and is correctly oriented), then you can use raw image to display the full page scan. The idea is that it is often better to display a rough-and-ready image than to display an obtrusive message box.

If the full page scan isn't a suitable placeholder for the missing image, then use missing image to display a message box.

Don't use these templates to flag content that can be coded, such as missing tables, musical scores or chess diagrams; use missing table, missing score and missing chess diagram respectively.

Don't use these template to flag an image that is missing from the scan itself. Use bad image scan.

2. The bot's bit
From time to time, HesperianBot will go through all the DjVu file pages that are tagged as missing an image. It will check the File: page for the source of the file, and for those File: pages that provide a URL link to an Internet Archive document, it will go over to the Internet Archive and look for a zip file of jp2 page scans. If it finds it, it will download it and then attempt to identify the specific pages that need to be extracted. If successful it will extract them and convert them to PNG format. Yes, that's a lot of ifs; it is surprising how often it works.

3. Hesperian's bit
At this point, Hesperian casts an eye over the images, and if there are trivial things that can be done to improve them, such as 90 degree rotations, or cropping an image out of page text, he may (and usually does) perform them.

4. Upload and display
Another script is then run to upload the images to Wikisource. They are uploaded to a file name in the format "DJVUFILENAME-PAGE.png". The missing image flagging templates recognise files that use that naming convention and preferentially display the hi-res raw page scan if available, rather than the DjVu page scan. The template text also changes to advise people that a hi-res raw page scan is available.

As of August 2016, there are almost 16000 raw page scans available online for restoration.

5. Your bit
HesperianBot's task is to get these images out of jp2 format in a zip file on the Internet Archive, and to put them at your fingertips.

It's your job to download the raw images, restore them, upload them to Commons with a suitable title, and embed them in their Wikisource texts.

Things you might do to restore an image:
 * 1) Crop
 * 2) Rotate it so that verticals are really vertical and horizontals are really horizontal
 * 3) Eliminate yellow paper background
 * 4) Colour-balance

If you perform an incremental improvement that leaves the image needing more work, then feel free to upload your improved image over the top of HesperianBot's image.

If you fully restore an image, then upload it to Wikimedia Commons, using a naming format different from the one that HesperianBot uses. When you clobber HesperianBot's namespace by hijacking its file naming convention, you make Hesperian cry.

Don't claim copyright in your image restoration efforts: use the same licence as that of the DjVu file.

Once you've uploaded your restored image to Commons, insert the image into the Wikisource page using the usual   syntax, and remove the missing image template.

6. Cleanup
From time to time, HesperianBot will generate a list of raw page scans that are no longer needed, and Hesperian will go through and delete them all.

Also, if incremental improvements render a raw page scan suitable for use as an image placeholder, Hesperian may from time to time go through an "upgrade" some image templates from missing image to raw image... but probably not very often.

As of August 2016, HesperianBot has over 3600 deleted contributions, suggesting that about this many raw page scan images have been restored.

title: User:HesperianBot


text: Index:US District Court Jury Verdict SRF v Ananda 2002.pdf


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cox, Alfred


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cracknell, Edward Charles


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Crane, Right Rev. Martin


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cross, Ada


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Crossman, Major-General Sir William


text:
Page:US District Court Jury Verdict SRF v Ananda 2002.pdf/1

 {|align=center FILED OCT 28, 2002 Jack L. Wagner, Clerk, US District Court Eastern District of California By (signature of Deputy Clerk) Deputy Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA —-o0o— SELF REALIZATION FELLOWSHIP CHURCH, a California Corp., Plaintiff, v. ANANDA CHURCH OF SELF-REALIZATION, a California Corp., and J. DONALD WALTERS, Defendants. CIV. NO. S-90-0846 EJG PAN  V E R D I C T
 * colspan=2|
 * colspan=2|
 *  ||
 * colspan=2|
 * colspan=2|
 * colspan=2|
 * }

WE, the jury in the above-entitled case, find the following verdict on the questions submitted to use:

 QUESTION NO. 1: (ASSIGNMENT)

Did the Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Yogananda, during his lifetime, assigned to Self Realization Fellowship (“SRF") any of his United States common law copyrights in his writings or sound recordings at issue in this case?

"YES: __ X __ No: ____"

If you answered "NO" to this question, you are finished. Please have the jury foreperson sign and date this form and return it to the Court.

If you answered "YES" to this question, please continue to the next question.


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Crowther, Hon. William Lodewyk


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ephesus

Ephesus, a titular archiepiscopal see in Asia Minor, said to have been founded in the eleventh century B.C. by Androcles, son of the Athenian King Codrus, with the aid of Ionian colonists. Its coinage dates back to 700 B.C., the period when the first money was struck. After belonging successively to the kings of Lydia, the Persians, and the Syrian successors of Alexander the Great, it passed, after the battle of Magnesia (190 B.C.), to the kings of Pergamum, the last of whom, Attains III, bequeathed his kingdom to the Roman people (133 B.C.). It was at Ephesus that Mithradates (88 B.C.) signed the decree ordering all the Romans in Asia to be put to death, in which massacre there perished 100,000 persons. Four years later Sulla, again master of the territory, slaughtered at Ephesus all the leaders of the rebellion. From 27 B.C. till a little after A.D. 297, Ephesus was the capital of the proconsular province of Asia, a direct dependency of the Roman Senate. Though unimportant politically, it was noted for its extensive commerce. Many illustrious persons were born at Ephesus, e.g. the philosophers Heraclitus and Hermodorus, the poet Hipponax, the painter Parrhasius (all in the sixth or fifth century B.C.), the geographer Artemidorus, another Artemidorus, astrologer and charlatan, both in the second century of the Christian Era, and the historian and essayist, Xenophon. Ephesus owed its chief renown to its temple of Artemis (Diana), which attracted multitudes of visitors. Its first architect was the Cretan Chersiphron (seventh to sixth century B.C.) but it was afterwards enlarged. It was situated on the bank of the River Selinus and its precincts had the right of asylum. This building, which was looked upon in antiquity as one of the marvels of the world, was burnt by Herostratus (356 B.C.) the night of the birth of Alexander the Great, and was afterwards rebuilt, almost in the same proportions, by the architect Dinocrates. Its construction is said to have lasted 120 years, according to some historians 220. It was over 400 feet in length and 200 in breadth, and rested upon 128 pillars of about sixty feet in height. It was stripped of its riches by Nero and was finally destroyed by the Goths (A.D. 262).

It was through the Jews that Christianity was first introduced into Ephesus. The original community was under the leadership of Apollo (I Cor., i, 12). They were disciples of St. John the Baptist, and were converted by Aquila and Priscilla. Then came St. Paul, who lived three years at Ephesus to establish and organize the new church; he was wont to teach in the schola or lecture-hall of the rhetorician Tyrannus (Acts, xix, 9) and performed there many miracles. Eventually he was obliged to depart, in consequence of a sedition stirred up by the goldsmith Demetrius and other makers of ex-votoes for the temple of Diana (Acts, xviii, 24 sqq.; xix, 1 sqq.). A little later, on his way to Jerusalem, he sent for the elders of the community of Ephesus to come to Miletus and bade them there a touching farewell (Acts, xx, 17-35). The Church of Ephesus was committed to his disciple, St. Timothy, a native of the city (I Tim., i, 3; II Tim., i, 18; iv, 12). The Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians was not perhaps addressed directly to them; it may be only a circular letter sent by him to several churches. The sojourn and death of the Apostle St. John at Ephesus are not mentioned in the New Testament, but both are attested as early as the latter part of the second century by St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, iii, 4), Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., V, xxi), Clement of Alexandria, the "Acta Joannis", and a little earlier by St. Justin and the Montanists. Byzantine tradition has always shown at Ephesus the tomb of the Apostle. Another tradition, which may be trustworthy, though less ancient, makes Ephesus the scene of the death of St. Mary Magdalen. On the other hand the opinion that the Blessed Virgin died there rests on no ancient testimony; the often quoted but ambiguous text of the Council of Ephesus (431), means only that there was at that time at Ephesus a church of the Virgin. (See Ramsay in "Expositor", June, 1905, also his "Seven Cities of Asia".) We learn, moreover, from Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., V, xxiv) that the three daughters of the Apostle St. Philip were buried at Ephesus.

About 110 St. Ignatius of Antioch, having been greeted at Smyrna by messengers of the Church of Ephesus, sent to it one of his seven famous epistles. During the first three centuries, Ephesus was, next to Antioch, the chief center of Christianity in Asia Minor. In the year 190 its bishop, St. Polycrates, held a council to consider the paschal controversy and declared himself in favor of the Quartodeciman practice; nevertheless the Ephesian Church soon conformed in this particular to the practice of all the other Churches. It seems certain that the sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea (325), confirmed for Ephesus its ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the whole "diocese" or civil territory of Asia Minor, i.e. over eleven ecclesiastical provinces; at all events, the second canon of the Council of Constantinople (381) formally recognized this authority. But Constantinople was already claiming the first rank among the Churches of the East and was trying to annex the Churches of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus. To resist these encroachments, Ephesus made common cause with Alexandria. We therefore find Bishop Memnon of Ephesus siding with St. Cyril at the Third Ecumenical Council, held at Ephesus in 431 in condemnation of Nestorianism, and another bishop, Stephen, supporting Dioscorus at the so-called Robber Council (Latrocinium Ephesinum) of 449, which approved the heresy of Eutyches. But the resistance of Ephesus was overcome at the Council of Chalcedon (451), whose famous twenty-eighth canon placed the twenty-eight ecclesiastical provinces of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Henceforth Ephesus was but the second metropolis of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, nor did it ever recover its former standing, despite a council of 474 in which Paul, the Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria restored its ancient rights. Egyptian influence was responsible for the hold which Monophysitism gained at Ephesus during the sixth century; the famous ecclesiastical historian, John of Asia, was then one of its bishops. The metropolis of Ephesus in those days ruled over thirty-six suffragan sees. Justinian, who imitated Constantine in stripping the city of many works of art to adorn Constantinople, built there a magnificent church consecrated to St. John; this was soon a famous place of pilgrimage.

Ephesus was taken in 655 and 717 by the Arabs. Later it became the capital of the theme of the Thracesians. During the Iconoclastic period two bishops of Ephesus suffered martyrdom, Hypatius in 735 and Theophilus in the ninth century. In the same city the fierce general Lachanodracon put to death thirty-eight monks from the monastery of Pelecete in Bithynia and other partisans of the holy images. In 899 Leo the Wise transferred the relics of St. Mary Magdalen to Constantinople. The city was captured in 1090 and destroyed by the Seljuk Turks, but the Byzantines succeeded in retaking it and rebuilt it on the neighboring hills around the church of St. John. Henceforth it was commonly called Hagios Theologos (the holy theologian, i.e. St. John the Divine), or in Turkish Aya Solouk (to the Greeks the Apostle St. John is "the Theologian"); the French called the site Altelot and the Italians Alto Luogo. At the beginning of the thirteenth century its metropolitan, Nicholas Mesarites, had an important role at conferences between the Greeks and the Latins. The city was again plundered by the Turks in the first years of the fourteenth century, then by the Catalonian mercenaries in the pay of the Byzantines, and once more by the Turks. The church of St. John was transformed into a mosque, and the city was ruled by a Turkish ameer, who carried on a little trade with the West, but it could no longer maintain its Greek bishop. A series of Latin bishops governed the see from 1318 to 1411. The ruin of Ephesus was completed by Timur-Leng in 1403 and by nearly a half-century of civil wars among its Turkish masters. When at the Council of Florence in 1439 Mark of Ephesus (Marcus Eugenicus) showed himself so haughty towards the Latins, he was the pastor of a miserable village, all that remained of the great city which Pliny once called alterum lumen Asioe, or the second eye of Asia (Hist. nat., V, xxix; also Apoc., ii, 5; cf. W. Brockhoff, "Ephesus vom vierten christlich. Jhdt. bis seinem Untergang", Jena, 1906).

Today Aya Solouk has 3000 inhabitants, all Greeks. It is situated in the caza of Koush Adassi, in the vilayet of Aïdin or Smyrna, about fifty miles from Smyrna, on the Smyrna-Aïdin railway. The ruins of Ephesus stand in the marshy and unhealthy plain below the village. There are the remains of the temple of Diana, the theatre, with a capacity of 25,000 spectators, the stadium, the great gymnasium, and the "Double Church", probably the ancient cathedral, one aisle of which was dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, the other to St. John, where the councils of 431 and 449 were held. The Greek metropolitan resides at Manissa, the ancient Magnesia.

.

title: Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ephesus


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Council of Ephesus

Ephesus,, the third ecumenical council, 431. The idea of this great council seems to have been due to Nestorius, the Bishop of Constantinople. St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, had accused him to Pope St. Celestine of heresy, and the pope had replied on August 11, 430, by charging St. Cyril to assume his authority and give notice in his name to Nestorius that, unless he recanted within ten days of receiving this ultimatum, he was to consider himself excommunicated and deposed. The summons was served on Nestorius on a Sunday, November 30, or December 7, by four bishops sent by Cyril. But Nestorius was evidently well informed of what he was to expect. He regarded himself as having been calumniated to the pope, and he did not choose to be given over into the hands of Cyril. The latter was, in his opinion, not merely a personal enemy, but a dangerous theologian, who was reviving to some extent the errors of Apollinarius. Nestorius had influence over the Emperor of the East, Theodosius II, whom he induced to summon a general council to judge of the difference between the Patriarch of Alexandria and himself, and he worked so well that the letters of convocation were issued by the emperor to all metropolitans on November 19, some days before the messengers of Cyril arrived. The emperor was able to take this course without seeming to favor Nestorius too much, because the monks of the capital, whom Nestorius had excommunicated for their opposition to his heretical teaching, had also appealed to him to call together a council. Nestorius, therefore, paid no attention to the pope's ultimatum, and refused to be guided by the advice to submit which his friend John, the Patriarch of Antioch, volunteered.

The pope was pleased that the whole East should be united to condemn the new heresy. He sent two bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, to represent himself and his Roman council, and the Roman priest, Philip, as his personal representative. Philip, therefore, takes the first place, though, not being a bishop, he could not preside. It was probably a matter of course that the Patriarch of Alexandria should be president. The legates were directed not to take part in the discussions, but to give judgment on them. It seems that Chalcedon, twenty years later, set the precedent that the papal legates should always be technically presidents at an ecumenical council, and this was henceforth looked upon as a matter of course, and Greek historians assumed that it must have been the case at Nicaea.

The emperor was anxious for the presence of the most venerated prelate of the whole world, Augustine, and sent a special messenger to that great man with a letter in honorable terms. But the saint had died during the siege of Hippo in the preceding August, though the troubles of Africa had prevented news from reaching Constantinople. Theodosius wrote an angry letter to Cyril, and a temperate one to the council. The tone of the latter epistle and of the instructions given to the imperial commissioner, Count Candidian, to be absolutely impartial, are ascribed by the Coptic Acts to the influence exercised on the emperor by the Abbot Victor, who had been sent to Constantinople by Cyril to act as his agent at the Court on account of the veneration and friendship which Theodosius was known to feel for the holy man. Nestorius, with sixteen bishops, and Cyril, with fifty, arrived before Pentecost at Ephesus. The Coptic tells us that the two parties arrived on the same day, and that in the evening Nestorius proposed that all should join in the Vesper service together. The other bishops refused. Memnon, Bishop of Ephesus, was afraid of violence, and sent his clergy only to the church. The mention of a Flavian, who seems to be the Bishop of Philippi, casts some doubt. on this story, for that bishop did not arrive till later. Memnon of Ephesus had forty suffragans present, not counting twelve from Pamphylia (whom John of Antioch calls heretics). Juvenal of Jerusalem, with the neighboring bishops whom he looked upon as his suffragans, and Flavian of Philippi, with a contingent from the countries which looked to Thessalonica as their metropolis, arrived soon after Pentecost. The Patriarch of Antioch, John, an old friend of Nestorius, wrote to explain that his suffragans had not been able to start till after the Octave of Easter. (The Coptic Acts say that there was a famine at Antioch.) The journey of thirty days had been lengthened by the death of some horses; he would accomplish the last five or six stages at leisure. But he did not arrive, and it was said that he was loitering because he did not wish to join in condemning Nestorius. Meanwhile the heat was great. Many bishops were ill. Two or three died. Two of John's metropolitans, those of Apamea and Hierapolis, arrived and declared that John did not wish the opening of the council to be deferred on account of his delay. However, these two bishops and Theodoret of Cyrus, with sixty-five others, wrote a memorial addressed to St. Cyril and Juvenal of Jerusalem, begging that the arrival of John should be awaited. Count Candidian arrived, with the imperial decree, and he took the same view. But Cyril and the majority determined to open the council on June 22, sixteen days having passed since John had announced his arrival in five or six. It was clear to the majority that this delay was intentional, and they were probably right. Yet it is regrettable that all possible allowance was not made, especially as no news had yet come from Rome.

For Cyril had written to the pope with regard to an important question of procedure. Nestorius had not recanted within the ten days fixed by the pope, and he was consequently treated as excommunicate by the majority of the bishops. Was he to be allowed a fresh trial, although the pope had already condemned him? Or, on the other hand, was he to be merely given the opportunity of explaining or excusing his contumacy? One might have presumed that Pope Celestine, in approving of the council, intended that Nestorius should have a full trial, and in fact this was declared in his letter which was still on the way. But as no reply had come to Cyril, that saint considered that he had no right to treat the pope's sentence as a matter for further discussion, and no doubt he had not much wish to do so. The council assembled on June 22, and St. Cyril assumed the presidency both as Patriarch of Alexandria and "as filling the place of the most holy and blessed Archbishop of the Roman Church, Celestine", in order to carry out his original commission, which he considered, in the absence of any reply from Rome, to be still in force. In the morning one hundred and sixty bishops were present, and by evening one hundred and ninety-eight had assembled. The session began by a justification of the decision to delay no longer. Nestorius had been on the previous day invited to attend. He had replied that he would come if he chose. To a second summons, which was now dispatched, he sent a message from his house, which was surrounded with armed men, that he would appear when all the bishops had come together. Indeed only some twenty of the sixty-eight who had demanded a delay had rallied to Cyril, and Nestorius's own suffragans had also stayed away. To a third summons he gave no answer. This attitude corresponds with his original attitude to the ultimatum sent by Cyril. He would not acknowledge Cyril as a judge, and he looked upon the opening of the council before the arrival of his friends from Antioch as a flagrant injustice.

The session proceeded. The Nicene Creed was read, and then the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius, on which the bishops at Cyril's desire, severally gave their judgement that it was in accordance with the Nicene faith, one hundred and twenty-six speaking in turn. Next the reply of Nestorius was read. All then cried Anathema to Nestorius. Then Pope Celestine's letter to St. Cyril was read, and after it the third letter of Cyril to Nestorius, with the anathematisms which the heretic was to accept. The bishops who had served this ultimatum on Nestorius deposed that they had given him the letter. He had promised his answer on the morrow, but had not given any, and did not even admit them. Then two friends of Nestorius, Theodotus of Ancyra and Acacius of Mitylene, were invited by Cyril to give an account of their conversations at Ephesus with Nestorius. Acacius said that Nestorius had repeatedly declared dimeniaion e trimeniaion me dein legesthai Theon. Nestorius's own account of this conversation in his "Apology" (Bethune-Baker, p. 71) shows that this phrase is to be translated thus: "We must not say that God is two or three months old." This is not so shocking as the meaning which has usually been ascribed to the words in modern as well as ancient times (e.g. by Socrates, VII, xxxiv): "A baby of two or three months old ought not to be called God." The former sense agrees with the accusation of Acacius that Nestorius declared "one must either deny the Godhead [theotes] of the Only-begotten to have become man, or else admit the same of the Father and of the Holy Ghost." (Nestorius means that the Divine Nature is numerically one—and if Nestorius really said theotes, and not hupostasis, he was right, and Acacius was wrong.) Acacius further accused him of uttering the heresy that the Son who died is to be distinguished from the Word of God. A series of extracts from the holy Fathers was then read, Peter I and Athanasius of Alexandria, Julius and Felix of Rome (but these papal letters were Apollinarian forgeries), Theophilus, Cyril's uncle, Cyprian, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Atticus, Amphilochius. After these, contrasting passages from the writings of Nestorius were read. These were of course pièces justificatives brought forward by Cyril, and necessary to inform the council as to the question at issue. Hefele has wrongly understood that the bishops were examining the doctrine of Nestorius afresh, without accepting the condemnation by the pope as necessarily correct. A fine letter from Capreolus, Bishop of Carthage, and primate of a greater number of bishops than any of the Eastern patriarchs, was next produced. He writes in the midst of the devastation of Africa by the Vandals, and naturally could neither hold any synod nor send any bishops. No discussion followed (and Hefele is wrong in suggesting an omission in the Acts, which are already of extraordinary length for a single day), but the bishops accepted with acclamation the words of Capreolus against novelty and in praise of ancient faith, and all proceeded to sign the sentence against Nestorius. As the excommunication by St. Celestine was still in force, and as Nestorius had contumaciously refused to answer the threefold summons enjoined by the canons, the sentence was worded as follows:

The holy synod said: "Since in addition to the rest the most impious Nestorius has neither been willing to obey our citation, nor to receive the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and, having apprehended from his letters and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in, this metropolis which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily impelled thereto both by the canons [for his contumacy] and by the letter [to Cyril] of our most holy father and colleague Celestine, Bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears have arrived at the following grievous sentence against him: Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, has defined by this holy synod that the same Nestorius is excluded from all episcopal dignity and from every assembly of bishops."

This sentence received 198 signatures, and some more were afterwards added. A brief notification addressed to "the new Judas" was sent to Nestorius. The Coptic Acts tell us that, as he would not receive it, it was affixed to his door. The whole business had been concluded in a single long session, and it was evening when the result was known. The people of Ephesus, full of rejoicing, escorted the fathers to their houses with torches and incense. Count Candidian, on the other hand, had the notices of the deposition torn down, and silenced the cries in the streets. The council wrote at once to the emperor and to the people and clergy of Constantinople, though the Acts had not yet been written out in full. In a letter to the Egyptian bishops in the same city and to the Abbot Dalmatius (the Coptic substitutes Abbot Victor), Cyril asks for their vigilance, as Candidian was sending false reports. Sermons were preached by Cyril and his friends, and the people of Ephesus were much excited. Even before this, Nestorius, writing, with ten bishops, to the emperor to complain that the council was to begin without waiting for the Antiochenes and the Westerns, had spoken of the violence of the people, egged on by their bishop Memnon who (so the heretic said) had shut the churches to him and threatened him with death.

Five days after the first session John of Antioch arrived. The party of Cyril sent a deputation to meet him honorably, but John was surrounded by soldiers, and complained that the bishops were creating a disturbance. Before he would speak to them, he held an assembly which he designated "the holy synod". Candidian deposed that he had disapproved of the assembling of the bishops before John's arrival; he had attended the session and read the emperor's letter (of this not a word in the Acts, so Candidian was apparently lying). John accused Memnon of violence, and Cyril of Arian, Apollinarian, and Eunomian heresy. These two were deposed by forty-three bishops present; the members of the council were to be forgiven, provided they would condemn the twelve anathematisms of Cyril. This was absurd, for most of these could not be understood in anything but a Catholic sense. But John, who was not a bad man, was in a bad temper. It is noticeable that not a word was said in favor of Nestorius at this assembly. The party of Cyril was now complaining of Count Candidian and his soldiers, as the other side did of Memnon and the populace. Both parties sent their report to Rome. The emperor was much distressed at the division, and wrote that a collective session must be held, and the matter begun afresh. The official named Palladius who brought this epistle took back with him many letters from both sides. Cyril proposed that the emperor should send for him and five bishops, to render an exact account.

At last on July 10 the papal envoys arrived. The second session assembled in the episcopal residence. The legate Philip opened the proceedings by saying that the former letter of St. Celestine had been already read, in which he had decided the present question; the pope had now sent another letter. This was read: It contained a general exhortation to the council, and concluded by saying that the legates had instructions to carry out what the pope had formerly decided; doubtless the council would agree. The Fathers then cried: "This is a just judgment. To Celestine the new Paul! To the new Paul Cyril! To Celestine, the guardian of the Faith! To Celestine agreeing with the Synod! The Synod gives thanks to Cyril. One Celestine, one Cyril! "The legate Projectus then says that the letter enjoins on the council, though they need no instruction, to carry into effect the sentence which the pope had pronounced. Hefele wrongly interprets this: "That is, that all the bishops should accede to the Papal sentence" (vol. III, 136). Firmus, the Exarch of Caesarea in Cappadocia, replies that the pope, by the letter which he sent to the Bishops of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Thessalonica, Constantinople, and Antioch, had long since given his sentence and decision; and the synod—the ten days having passed, and also a much longer period—having waited beyond the day of opening fixed by the emperor, had followed the course indicated by the pope, and, as Nestorius did not appear, had executed upon him the papal sentence, having inflicted the canonical and Apostolic judgment upon him. This was a reply to Projectus, declaring that what the pope required had been done, and it is an accurate account of the work of the first session and of the sentence; canonical refers to the words of the sentence, "necessarily obliged by the canons", and Apostolic to the words "and by the letter of the bishop of Rome". The legate Arcadius expressed his regret for the late arrival of his party, on account of storms, and asked to see the decrees of the council. Philip, the pope's personal legate, then thanked the bishops for adhering by their acclamations as holy members to their holy head—"For your blessedness is not unaware that the Apostle Peter is the head of the Faith and of the Apostles." The Metropolitan of Ancyra declared that God had shown the justice of the synod's sentence by the coming of St. Celestine's letter and of the legates. The session closed with the reading of the pope's letter to the emperor.

On the following day, July 11, the third session took place. The legates had read the Acts of the first session and now demanded only that the condemnation of Nestorius should be formally read in their presence. When this had been done, the three legates severally pronounced a confirmation in the pope's name. The exordium of the speech of Philip is celebrated: "It is doubtful to none, nay it has been known to all ages, that holy and blessed Peter, the prince and head of the Apostles, the column of the Faith, the foundation of the Catholic Church, received from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, the keys of the Kingdom, and that to him was given the power of binding and loosing sins, who until this day and for ever lives and judges in his successors. His successor in order and his representative, our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine..." It was with words such as these before their eyes that Greek Fathers and councils spoke of the Council of Ephesus as celebrated "by Celestine and Cyril". A translation of these speeches was read, for Cyril then rose and said that the synod had understood them clearly; and now the Acts of all three sessions must be presented to the legates for their signature. Arcadius replied that they were of course willing. The synod ordered that the Acts should be set before them, and they signed them. A letter was sent to the emperor, telling him how St. Celestine had held a synod at Rome and had sent his legates, representing himself and the whole of the West. The whole world has therefore agreed; Theodosius should allow the bishops to go home, for many suffered from being at Ephesus, and their dioceses also must suffer. Only a few friends of Nestorius held out against the world's judgment. A new bishop must be appointed for Constantinople.

On July 16 a more solemn session was held, like the first, in the cathedral of the Theotokos. Cyril and Memnon presented a written protest against the conciliabulum of John of Antioch. He was cited to appear, but would not even admit the envoys. Next day the fifth session was held in the same church. John had set up a placard in the city accusing the synod of the Apollinarian heresy. He is again cited, and this is counted as the third canonical summons. He would pay no attention. In consequence the council suspended and excommunicated him, together with thirty-four bishops of his party, but refrained from deposing them. Some of John's party had already deserted him, and he had gained only a few. In the letters to the emperor and the pope which were then dispatched, the synod described itself as now consisting of two hundred and ten bishops. The long letter to Celestine gives a full account of the council, and mentions that the pope's decrees against the Pelagians had been read and confirmed. At the end of the sixth session, which dealt only with the case of two Nestorianizing priests, was made the famous declaration that no one must produce or compose any other creed than (para, proeter, "beyond"—"contrary to"?) the Nicene, and that anyone who should propose any such to pagans, Jews, or heretics, who wished to be converted, should be deposed if a bishop or cleric, or anathematized if a layman. This decision became later a fruitful source of objections to the decrees of later synods and to the addition of the filioque to the so-called Constantinopolitan Creed; but that creed itself would be abolished by this decree if it is taken too literally. We know of several matters connected with Pamphylia and Thrace which were treated by the council, which are not found in the Acts. St. Leo tells us that Cyril reported to the pope the intrigues by which Juvenal of Jerusalem tried at Ephesus to carve himself a patriarchate out of that of Antioch, in which his see lay. He was to succeed in this twenty years later, at Chalcedon. In the seventh and last session on July 31 (it seems) the bishops of Cyprus persuaded the council to approve their claim of having been anciently and rightly exempt from the jurisdiction of Antioch. Six canons were also passed against the adherents and supporters of Nestorius.

The history of the intrigues by which both parties tried to get the emperor on their side need not be detailed here. The orthodox were triumphant at Ephesus by their numbers and by the agreement of the papal legates. The population of Ephesus was on their side. The people of Constantinople rejoiced at the deposition of their heretical bishop. But Count Candidian and his troops were on the side of Nestorius, whose friend, Count Irenaeus, was also at Ephesus, working for him. The emperor had always championed Nestorius, but had been somewhat shaken by the reports of the council. Communication with Constantinople was impeded both by the friends of Nestorius there and by Candidian at Ephesus. A letter was taken to Constantinople at last in a hollow cane, by a messenger disguised as a beggar, in which the miserable condition of the bishops at Ephesus was described, scarce a day passing without a funeral, and entreaty was made that they might be allowed to send representatives to the emperor. The holy abbot, St. Dalmatius, to whom the letter was addressed, as well as to the emperor, clergy, and people of Constantinople, left his monastery in obedience to a Divine voice and, at the head of the many thousand monks of the city, all chanting and carrying tapers, made his way through enthusiastic crowds to the palace. They passed back right through the city, after the abbot Dalmatius had interviewed the emperor, and the letter was read to the people in the church of St. Mocius. All shouted "Anathema to Nestorius!"

Eventually the pious and well-meaning emperor arrived at the extraordinary decision that he should ratify the depositions decreed by both councils. He therefore declared that Cyril, Memnon, and John were all deposed. Memnon and Cyril were kept in close confinement. But in spite of all the exertions of the Antiochian party, the representatives of the envoys whom the council was eventually allowed to send, with the legate Philip, to the Court, persuaded the emperor to accept the great council as the true one. Nestorius anticipated his fate by requesting permission to retire to his former monastery. The synod was dissolved about the beginning of October, and Cyril arrived amid much joy at Alexandria on October 30. St. Celestine was now dead, but his successor, St. Sixtus III, confirmed the council.

.


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cullen, Edward Boyd


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cuninghame, Archibald


text:
Page:US District Court Jury Verdict SRF v Ananda 2002.pdf/2

  QUESTION NO. 2: (ASSIGNMENT - WORKS ASSIGNED)

If you answered "YES" to Question No. 1, please identify the work(s) in which you find Yogananda assigned to SRF his common law copyrights prior to publication:

a. The seven (7) articles printed in SRF's magazine between 1949 and 1975. YES: ___ X ___  NO: ______ b. Yogananda's writing(s) concerning the Spiritual Interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita. YES: ___ X ___  NO: ______ c. Yogananda's writing(s) concerning the Second Coming of Christ. YES: ___ X ___  NO: ______ d. The six sound recordings of Yogananda's religious talks recorded between 1949 and 1952. YES: ___ X ___  NO: ______ Please continue to the next question.

 QUESTION NO. 3: (DEFENDANTS WHO INFRINGED OR USED WORKS)

For each work or works that you find SRF owns a valid copyright by assignment, did any Defendant infringe those works? a. Defendant Ananda Church of Realization: YES: ___ X ___  NO: ______ b. Defendant J. Donald Walters ("Kriyananda"): YES: ___ X ___  NO: ______ Please continue to the next question.


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Curnow, Francis


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ephod

Ephod (Heb. APUD or APDO Gr. Epomis, ephod, ephoud, Lat. superhumerale) is a kind of garment mentioned in the O. T., which differed according to its use by the high-priest, by other persons present at religious services, or as the object of idolatrous worship.

Ephod of the High-Priest.—Supplementing the data contained in the Bible with those gleaned from Josephus and the Egyptian monuments, we may distinguish in the ephod three parts: a kind of waistcoat or bodice, two shoulder-pieces, and a girdle. The first of these pieces constituted the main part of the ephod; it is described by some writers as resembling the form of the chasuble, by others as being an oblong piece of cloth bound round the body under the arms and reaching as far as the waist. Its material was fine-twisted linen, embroidered with violet, purple, and scarlet twice-dyed threads, and interwoven with gold (Ex., xxviii, 6; xxxix, 2). The ephod proper must not be confounded with the "tunick of the ephod" (Ex., 31-35), nor with the "rational of judgment" (Ex., xxviii, 15-20). The tunick was worn under the ephod; it was a sleeveless frock, made "all of violet", and was put on by being drawn over the head, something in the manner of a cassock. Its skirt was adorned with a border of pomegranates "of violet, and purple, and scarlet twice dyed, with little bells set between", whose sound was to be heard while the high-priest was ministering. The "rational of judgment" was a breastplate fastened on the front of the ephod which it resembled in material and workmanship. It was a span in length and width, and was ornamented with four rows of precious stones on which were inscribed the names of the twelve tribes. It held also the Urim and Thummim (doctrine and truth) by means of which the high-priest consulted the Lord. The second part of the ephod consisted of a pair of shoulder-pieces, or suspenders, fastened to the bodices in front and behind, and passing over the shoulders. Each of these straps was adorned with an onyx stone engraved with the names of six of the tribes of Israel, so that the high-priest while ministering wore the names of all the tribes, six upon each shoulder (Ex., xxviii, 9-12; xxv, 7; xxxv, 9; xxxix, 16-19). The third part of the ephod was the cincture, of the same material as the main part of the ephod and woven in one piece with it, by which it was girt around the waist (Lev., viii, 7). Some writers maintain that the correct Hebrew reading of Ex., xxviii, 8, speaks of this band of the ephod; the contention agrees with the Syriac and Chaldee versions and with the rendering of Josephus (cf. Ex., xxviii, 27 sq.; 5; xxxix, 20 sq.). It must not be imagined that the ephod was the ordinary garb of the high-priest; he wore it while performing the duties of his ministry (Ex., xxviii, 4; Lev., viii, 7; I K., ii, 28) and when consulting the Lord. Thus David learned through Abiathar's ephod the disposition of the people of Ceila (I K., xxiii, 11 sq.) and the best plan of campaign against the Amalecites (I K., xxx, 7 sqq.). In I K., xiv, 18, it appears that Saul wished the priest Achias to consult the Lord by means of the Ark; but the Septuagint reading of this passage, its context (I K., xiv, 3), and the text of Josephus (Ant. Jud., VI, vi, 3) plainly show that in I K., xiv, 18, we must read "take the ephod" instead of "bring the ark".

The Common Ephod.—An ephod was worn by Samuel when serving in the time of Heli (I K., ii, 18), by the eighty-five priests slain by Doeg in the sanctuary of Nobe (I K., xxii, 18), and by David dancing before the Ark (II K., vi, 14). This garment is called the linen ephod; its general form may be supposed to have resembled the ephod of the high-priest, but its material was not the celebrated fine white linen, nor does it appear to have been adorned with the variegated colors of the high-priest's ephod. The Septuagint translators seem to have intended to emphasize the difference between the ephod of the high-priest and that worn by David, for they call this latter the idolatrous ephod.

The Idolatrous Ephod.—According to Judges, viii, 26 sq., Gedeon made an ephod out of part of the spoils taken from the Madianites, their golden earlets, jewels, purple raiment, and golden chains. All Israel paid idolatrous worship to this ephod, so that it became a ruin to Gedeon and all his house. Some writers, following the Syriac and Arabic versions, have explained this ephod as denoting a gold casing of an oracular image. But there is no other instance of such a figurative meaning of ephod; besides, the Hebrew verb used to express the placing of the ephod on the part of Gedeon denotes in Judges, vi, 37, the spreading of the fleece of wool. The opinion that Gedeon's ephod was a costly garment like that of the high-priest, is, therefore, preferable.

A. J. MAAS

title: Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ephod


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Curnow, William


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Curr, Edward Micklethwaite


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Curtis, Oswald


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Cuthbert, Hon. Henry


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Daintree, Richard


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Epicureanism

Epicureanism.— This term has two distinct, though cognate, meanings. In its popular sense, the word stands for a refined and calculating selfishness, seeking not power or fame, but the pleasures of sense, particularly of the palate, and those in company rather than solitude. An epicure is one who is extremely choice and delicate in his viands. In the other sense, Epicureanism signifies a philosophical system, which includes a theory of conduct, of nature, and of mind.

HISTORY.—Epicurus, from whom this system takes its name, was a Greek, born at Samos 341 B.C., who, in 307 B.C., founded a school at Athens, and died 270 B.C. The Stoic School, diametrically opposite to this, was founded about the same time, probably 310 B.C. Thus these two systems, having for their respective watchwords Pleasure and Duty, sprang up within the first generation after Aristotle (d. 322 B.C.), each of them holding a half-truth and by exaggeration turning it into falsehood. The Epicurean School was rather a practical discipline than a habit of speculation. The master laid down his principles dogmatically, as if they must be evident as soon as stated, to any one not foolish. His disciples were made to learn his maxims by heart; and they acquired a spirit of unity more akin to that of a political party, or of a sect, than to the mere intellectual agreement of a school of philosophers. About a century and a quarter after the death of its founder, the system was introduced into Rome, and there, as well as in its native country, it attracted in the course of time a number of adherents such as moved the astonishment of Cicero. It had the fortune to be adopted by the finest of didactic poets, Lucretius (91-51 B.C.), and was expounded by him in a poem (De rerum natura) with a beauty of expression and a fervor of eloquence worthy of a nobler theme. In the latter half of the second century, when Marcus Aurelius was founding chairs of philosophy at Athens, that emperor, himself a Stoic, recognized the Epicurean (together with his own, and the Platonic, and the Aristotelic systems) as one of the four great philosophies to be established and endowed on a footing of equality. In modern times Epicureanism has had many theoretical as well as practical adherents. In the seventeenth century, when Aristoteleanism and Scholasticism were assailed by the champions of the new sciences, Gassendi (q.v.) selected Epicurus for his master; but he seems to have been attracted chiefly by the physics, and to have aimed at reforming the moral theory so as to make it tolerable to a Christian. The numerous editions of the poem of Lucretius which the present age is producing may be taken to indicate a sympathy with the philosophy expounded in it.

EPICUREAN ETHICS.—Philosophy was described by Epicurus as "the art of making life happy", and he says that "prudence is the noblest part of philosophy". His natural philosophy and epistemology seem to have been adopted for the sake of his theory of life. It is, therefore, proper that his ethics should first be explained. The purpose of life, according to Epicurus, is personal happiness; and by happiness he means not that state of wellbeing and perfection of which the consciousness is accompanied by pleasure, but pleasure itself. Moreover, this pleasure is sensuous, for it is such only as is attainable in this life. This pleasure is the immediate purpose of every action. "Habituate yourself", he says, "to think that death is nothing to us; for all good and evil is in feeling; now death is the privation of feeling. Hence, the right knowledge that death is nothing to us makes us enjoy what there is in this life, not adding to it an indefinite duration, but eradicating the desire of immortality." His idea of the pleasurable differs from that of the Cyrenaic School which preceded him. The Cyrenaics looked to the momentary pleasures of gaiety and excitement. The pleasure of Epicurus is a state, equably diffused, "the absence of [bodily] pain and [mental] anxiety". "That which begets the pleasurable life is not [sensual indulgence], but a sober reason which searches for the grounds of choosing and rejecting, and which banishes those doctrines through which mental trouble, for the most part, arises." The wise man will accordingly desire "not the longest life, but the most pleasurable". It is for the sake of this condition of permanent pleasure, or tranquility, that the virtues are desirable. "We cannot live pleasurably without living prudently, gracefully, and justly; and we cannot live prudently, gracefully, and justly, without living pleasurably", in consequence; for "the virtues are by nature united with a pleasurable life; and a pleasurable life cannot be separated from these." The virtues, in short, are to be practiced not for their own sake, but solely as a means of pleasure, "as medicine is used for the sake of health". In accordance with this view, he says that "friendship is to be pursued by the wise man only for its utility; but he will begin, as he sows the field in order to reap". "The wise man will not take any part in public affairs"; moreover, "the wise man will not marry and have children". But "the wise man will be humane to his slaves". "He will not think all sinners to be equally bad, nor all philosophers to be equally good." That is, apparently, he will not have any very exacting standard, and will neither believe very much in human virtue, nor be very much surprised at the discovery of human frailty. In this system, "prudence is the source of all pleasure and of all virtue".

The defects of this theory of life are obvious. In the first place, as to the matter of fact, experience shows that happiness is not best attained by directly seeking it. The selfish are not more happy, but less so, than the unselfish. In the next place, the theory altogether destroys virtue as virtue, and eliminates the idea and sentiment expressed by the words "ought", "duty", "right", and "wrong". Virtue, indeed, tends to produce the truest and highest pleasure; all such pleasure, so far as it depends upon ourselves, depends upon virtue. But he who practices virtue for the sake of the pleasure alone is selfish, not virtuous, and he will never enjoy the pleasure, because he has not the virtue. A similar observation may be made upon the Epicurean theory of friendship. Friendship for the sake of advantage is not true friendship in the proper sense of the word. External actions, apart from affection, cannot constitute friendship; that affection no one can feel merely because he judges it would be advantageous and pleasurable; in fact he cannot know the pleasure until he first feels the affection. If we consider the Epicurean condemnation of patriotism and of the family life, we must pronounce a still severer censure. Such a view of life is the meanest form of selfishness leading in general to vice. Epicurus, perhaps, was better than his theory; but the theory itself, if it did not originate in coldness of heart and meanness of spirit, was extremely well suited to encourage them. If sincerely embraced and consistently carried out, it undermined all that was chivalrous and heroic, and even all that was ordinarily virtuous. Fortitude and justice, as such, ceased to be objects of admiration, and temperance sank into a mere matter of calculation. Even prudence itself, dissociated from all moral quality, became a mere balancing between the pleasures of the present and of the future.

THEOLOGY.—Epicurus said that "it was not impiety to deny the gods of the multitude, but it was impiety to think of the gods as the multitude thought"; a sound principle, but one which he wrongly applied, since he got rid of what was true as well as of what was corrupt in the vulgar religion. Fear of the gods was an evil to be eradicated, as incompatible with tranquility. As to their nature, the gods are immortal, but material, like every other being. He seems to have held that there was one supreme being; but this god was not the creator, scarcely the orderer, of the universe, the gods being only a part of the All. Nor is there a Providence, for an interest in human affairs would be inconsistent with perfect happiness. In short, the gods are magnified Epicurean philosophers.

NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.—The physics of Epicurus are in a general sense atomic. He claimed originality for his theory, asserting that it began with his reflections upon a passage in Hesiod. As he read in school that all things came from chaos, he asked, What is chaos?—a question which his teacher could not answer. It is generally held, however, that he really learned his atomism from the Democritean philosophy, modifying it in one important respect; for he supposes that the atoms in falling through empty space collide by virtue of a self-determining power, or rather an indetermination owing to which it is possible for them by chance to swerve a little from the vertical direction.

BIOLOGY.—In this Epicurus simply followed the view of Empedocles, that, first, all sorts of living things and animals, well or ill organized, were evolved from the earth and that those survived which were suited to preserve themselves and reproduce their kind.

ANTHROPOLOGY.—The anthropology of Lucretius may be supposed to have been derived, like his physics and biology, from Epicurus. According to the Lucretian theory men were originally savage; the primitive condition was one of mutual war; in this condition men were like the wild beasts in strength and cunning; civil society was formed under the pressure of the evils of anarchy. The reader recognizes here the ideas indicated by the eighteenth-century phrases "state of nature" and "social contract". The "golden age" is a dream.

LOGIC.—The Epicurean logic is criterional. The test of truth practically is the pleasant and the painful belief. Theoretically, their criterion is sensation. Sensation never is deceptive; the error lies in our judgment. Dreams, the ravings of fever or lunacy, the delirium of the drunkard are true in their own way. Besides sensation the human mind has also notions, or anticipations (prolepseis), as when, seeing an object at a distance, one wonders whether it is a man or a tree. These notions are the results left by previous sensations. The notion does not appear to differ from the internal sense of a brute, such as enables a dog, for example, to welcome strangers belonging to the profession of his master, and to bark furiously at a beggar that he has never seen before. The understanding, then, does not differ essentially from the internal senses.

PSYCHOLOGY.—The human soul is material and mortal, being composed of a finer kind of atoms, resembling those of air or fire, but even more subtle. It is the bodily organism that holds together the atoms composing the soul. Yet the human will is free. "Better were it to accept all the legends of the gods, than to make ourselves slaves to the Fate of the natural philosophers." Fatalism, which to minds of a stoical disposition seemed a source of strength, was to those of an Epicurean temper simply a source of unpleasantness and helplessness. The freedom asserted by the Epicureans is not rational freedom in the true sense of the word. It does not consist in the power of choosing the right and the noble in preference to the pleasant. It is little better than physical contingency, and may be described as Casualism. The whole philosophy may well be described in a trenchant phrase of Macaulay as "the silliest and meanest of all systems of natural and moral philosophy".

M. J. RYAN