text:
Paul de Rapin

Paul de Rapin (25 March 1661 – 25 April 1725), sieur of Thoyras (and therefore styled de Rapin de Thoyras), was a Huguenot historian writing under English patronage. His History of England, written and first published in French in 1724–27, was an influential exposition of the Whig view of history on both sides of the English Channel.

Early life and education
The son of Jacques de Rapin, an avocat at Castres (Tarn); his mother Jeanne was the sister of Paul Pellisson, official historian to Louis XIV. He was educated at the Academy of Saumur, a Protestant academic institution.

Career
In 1679, he became an advocate, but he never practised law. Soon after, he joined the army. The revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, and the death of his father led him to move to England with his brother. Inclined to a military career, but unable to find work, he went on to the Dutch Republic where he enlisted in a company of French army cadets at Utrecht, commanded by his cousin, Daniel de Rapin. Rapin met the 15-years-old Jean de Bodt and seven-year old Jean de Collas also Huguenots. They accompanied William III to England in 1688 (Glorious Revolution); Collas became a page of the queen Mary II of England.

De Rapin and de Both joined in Ulster under the command of the 1st Earl of Athlone. During the Williamite war in Ireland de Rapin took part in the Siege of Carrickfergus, the Battle of the Boyne, and was wounded at the Siege of Limerick (1690). Soon afterwards he was promoted to captain; but in 1693 he was asked to become tutor to the Henry, Viscount Woodstock. Rapin accompanied his father William Bentinck, 1st Earl of Portland, a diplomat, at the Peace of Ryswick (1697), perhaps also to Paris in the year after; in a very costly entourage. Bentinck was sent as ambassador to Paris for six months. While there, he opened negotiations with Louis XIV for a partition of the Spanish monarchy, and as William's representative, signed the two partition treaties, known as the Treaty of The Hague (1698). Because of this Treaty all the diplomats settled in the Hague. In April 1699 Paul de Rapin married the widow Marie-Anne Testart (1676–1749) in a tiny village called Sloterdijk outside Amsterdam.

In 1701, Bentinck resigned all his offices in the royal household. A parliamentary enquiry found him guilty of high treason for his role in the secret negotiations over the Treaty of The Hague (1698). The House of Commons' dubious conviction was overturned by the House of Lords. However, he lost all his Irish estates after a critical report by a parliamentary committee. Travelling with his 19-year-old pupil between 1701 and 1703 to Hanover, Vienna and Toscane, both parties sent letters to Bentinck. Numerous letters shed light on the preparation of the voyage, the problematic relationship between the teenager and his teacher. Sophia of Hanover admired the guy. After 1704 – when Henry married – de Rapin started secretly a new project, writing a new, impartial history of England.

In 1705, he visited or lived in the Prussian town Wesel, as one of his children was baptized there. Wesel had a considerable Huguenot community, almost a thousand in 1697. The French architect and engineer Jean de Bodt was reshaping Wesel citadel in the style of Vauban. With the financial participation of the Dutch, the largest fortress in Brandenburg-Prussia at the time was built over the next 40 years – as a barricade against the expansionist ambitions of Louis XIV. Rapin settled there perhaps with the protection of Frederick I of Prussia and Sophia of Hanover, the English heir presumptive. He may have disagreed with the Second Stadtholderless period too. In 1706 his wife received a considerable amount of money and jewelry; Rapin was involved as executor of the will of his sister-in-law, the wealthy Henriette Testart.

Rapin de Thoyras and his wife probably had eleven children, four were baptized in the Hague and six in Wesel; five died young.

He was the author of a Dissertation sur les Whigs et les Torys (1717), which was immediately translated into German, Dutch, Danish, and English.

Histoire d'Angleterre

It was at Wesel that he began his great work: Histoire d'Angleterre (History of England), an impartial account written for foreigners rather than for Englishmen. Rapin's ‘History’ begins with the landing of Julius Cæsar and ends with the accession of William and Mary. It was continued in French by David Durand (d. 1763), a Huguenot refugee. He added to Rapin's ‘History’ vols. xi. and xii. treating the reign of William III, published at the Hague in 1734–5.

 * Volume I (1724): an account of Britain from the time of the Ancient British down to the Norman Conquest;
 * Volume II: from William the Conqueror to Henry III;
 * Volume III: from Edward I to Henry V;
 * Volume IV: from Henry VI to Henry VII;
 * Volume V: Henry VIII;
 * Volume VI: from Edward VI to Elizabeth I;
 * Volume VII (1725): James I and the beginning of Charles I;
 * Volume VIII: Charles I;
 * Volume IX (1727): Charles II;
 * Volume X: James II and William III and Mary II.

L'Histoire d'Angleterre was published monthly with illustrations and allegorical end pieces designed and engraved by François Morellon la Cave, and with a dedicatory epistle to King George I. The written style is lucid and effective. He stopped writing after dealing with the execution of Charles I of England in 1649.

All volumes of his work were translated to English in a total of 14 volumes from 1727 by the Reverend Nicolas Tindal. Tindal began this great task while a chaplain to the Royal Navy, as attested in his foreword to an early volume. He added large numbers of informative notes throughout the volumes, which were illustrated with engravings, maps and genealogical tables of great quality. Illustrations were commissioned from Jacobus Houbraken. Many of the borders being designed by Thomas Gainsborough and George Vertue. Tindal also added a "Continuation" to the History, covering the years from the accession of James VI and I to that of George I of Great Britain.

Although written in French this work was produced for the endorsement of the British monarchy, and at the time of its publication, for the House of Hanover. For this reason the epistle Dedicatory, printed beneath a very elegant engraving of the Royal Arms, is of interest. The following is a translation of it:

To His Britannic Majesty, GEORGE I: Sire, ''The liberty which I take in offering this History of England to YOUR MAJESTY, is based uniquely on the nature of this Work, in which I have set myself the task of instructing Foreigners in the origin and the progressions of the English Monarchy. As no-one takes more interest than Your Majesty in the glory of England, I have hoped that He would look with a favourable eye upon the feeble efforts which I have made to execute this design. The simple and faithful recital of the actions of the Kings, Your Predecessors, backed by the courage, the zeal, and the faithfulness of their English Subjects, is a kind of Panegyrique which can only be agreeable to Your Majesty. But He doubtless would not approve my temerity, if I were to undertake to add here that of Your Majesty, however abundant the material for it might be. That is a task which should be reserved for more eloquent pens than mine. I am content, SIRE, to have furnished for my Readers a ready means by which to compare the Reign of Your Majesty with the preceding Reigns, and the opportunity to observe, how attentive Your Majesty is to follow in the tracks of the Kings of England which were most distinguished by their virtues, and by their sincere love for their People – and with what care He distances himself from the false paths in which some have unfortunately gone astray. One will see clearly in this History, that the constant union of the Sovereign with his Parliament, is the most solid foundation for the glory of the Prince and the welfare of the Subjects; and from the little that one may have learnt of what is happening in England since Your Majesty took the Throne, one cannot but be convinced, that that indeed is the invariable principle upon which Your Majesty governs his conduct. I should account myself extremely fortunate, SIRE, if my zeal for Your Majesty should obtain for me a gracious acceptance of my very humble homage, and if Your Majesty were to deign to approve my sincere protestation, that I am, with a very profound respect, SIRE, the very humble and very obedient servant of Your Majesty, THOYRAS RAPIN.''

The original version was almost the only English history available in France in the first half of the 18th century.

It was in his description of the reign of King Stephen of England that de Rapin made perhaps his most enduring contribution to English history: he was the first historian to describe the reign as an "anarchy": "In the fatal anarchy, the barons acting as sovereigns grievously oppressed the people and were so presumptuous as to coin their own money." As a result, the civil war between 1138 and 1153 is now widely referred to as The Anarchy.

Though de Rapin was of a strong constitution, the seventeen years he spent on the work ruined his health. One of his grandchildren was Theophile Cazenove.

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

title: Paul de Rapin


text:
A. R. B. Shuttleworth

Brigadier Allen Robert Betham Shuttleworth (20 February 1873 – 30 July 1935) was an officer in the British Indian Army and player of The Great Game.

Shuttleworth was born in Dapoli, North-West Provinces, India, to Allen Thornton Shuttleworth, who won the Albert Medal of the First Class, and Laura Phoebe Betham. His younger brother was Sir Digby Shuttleworth. Shuttleworth joined the British Army relatively late, beginning his career in the militia.

For a time in 1908, Shuttleworth was acting Consul in Kashgar while George Macartney was in England. During this time, Shuttleworth became involved in investigating the expeditions of Eizaburo Nomura and Zuicho Tachibana, even dining with them at Chini-Bagh. Shuttleworth reported his suspicions to Sir Francis Younghusband, and these suspicions about the two Japanese eventually made its way to Lord Morley, Secretary of State for India.

Shuttleworth died suddenly in Ajmer, Rajasthan.

title: A. R. B. Shuttleworth


text:
Odo IV, Duke of Burgundy

Odo IV or Eudes IV (1295 – 3 April 1349) was Duke of Burgundy from 1315 until his death and Count of Burgundy and Artois between 1330 and 1347, as well as titular King of Thessalonica from 1316 to 1320. He was the second son of Duke Robert II and Agnes of France.

Inheritances
Odo succeeded his elder brother, Hugh V, in 1315. Odo defended the rights of his niece Joan against Philip the Tall, another uncle, after Louis X's death in 1316. In 1318, Odo married Philip's eldest daughter, Joan III, Countess of Burgundy (1308 – 1347). Thus allying himself with Philip V, who had become king of France.

On the death of his brother, Louis in 1316, Odo became titular king of Thessalonica. By 1320, Odo was complaining to the pope of the Angevins' usurpation of Thessalonica, yet later sold his rights as King of Thessalonica and Prince of Achaea to Louis, Count of Clermont.

Odo's wife inherited the domains of her mother in 1330: the county of Artois and the county of Burgundy, the so-called Free County. Her claim to the County of Artois was challenged by Robert III of Artois, who at that time was a close friend and advisor of King Philip VI. The dispute ended abruptly when in December 1330 the documents used by Robert of Artois to support his claim were found to be forged on his instructions.

War with England
Odo was a loyal vassal of his brother-in-law, Philip of Valois, after he succeeded to the French throne as Philip VI. He belonged to Philip VI’s small circle of trusted advisors. He fought in many theatres of French warfare: the Low Countries, Brittany, Aquitaine. He fought the Flemings and was wounded at the Battle of Cassel in 1328.

In 1340, Odo first fought in Hainaut, helped capture the town of Antoing and later defended Saint-Omer in the battle there against Robert III of Artois. During the summer the French government became aware of plans for an Anglo-Flemish army under Robert of Artois to attack on Saint-Omer. The Duke entered Saint-Omer 15 July with several thousands men-at-arms and begun preparing the defences of the city. The slow progress of the English army also allowed further reinforcements led by John I, Count of Armagnac to arrive. On 26 July Robert of Artois offered battle to the garrison of Saint-Omer. Contrary to orders some hotheads charged out, their attack was beaten off, but their flight caused the Flemings to abandon their defensive works in pursuit. The Duke of Burgundy now decided to sally with the Count of Armagnac. During the battle the Duke got into a fierce fight with the English and Brugeois contingents and barely escaped back behind the walls. Meanwhile, however the Count of Armagnac had scattered the enemy left flank. The loss of most of his Flemish troops forced Robert of Artois to flee back to Flanders.

He took part in the War of the Breton Succession as a partisan of Charles of Blois serving as advisor to his nephew John, Duke of Normandy, during the latter’s campaign in Brittany autumn 1341.

He served together with the Duke of Normandy and the Chancellor of France, Guillaume Flote, as French ambassadors to a peace conference at Avignon in the summer 1344. The conference was however actively sabotaged by the English. Henry, Earl of Derby who had been announced as the head of the English delegation, claimed once he arrived at Avignon to be there only in a private capacity for devotional reasons and the minor English officials who were officially there had no instructions.

In 1346, he was in Guyenne combatting the English. In spring that year, the French government decided to field so far the strongest army in the south-west. The Duke of Burgundy followed John of Normandy south together with a substantial number of northern nobles and such dignitaries as Raoul II of Brienne, Count of Eu, the Constable of France, both Marshals and the Master of Crossbowmen. In April, Normandy laid siege to the town of Aiguillon, which controlled the confluence between the Lot and the Garonne. There they still remained in August, when John of Normandy was urgently recalled to the north to help stop Edward III, who had landed in Normandy. The French 1346 campaign in the south ended, having accomplished nothing.

In September, Edward III laid siege to Calais. As Artois became the main theatre of the war, relations between the Duke and King Philip VI plummeted. The Duke governed Artois on behalf of his wife, but the royal government increasingly disregarded local officials and even began making its own appointments. In December 1346, Philip suspended the Duke’s government altogether.

Death and legacy
Odo was present at the coronation of Pope Clement VI at Avignon 19 May 1342.

Perhaps the greatest legacy of Odo IV is seen in the subsequent Burgundian court of the Valois dukes, for Odo was a patron of the arts and the church and sponsored many young artists. He also endeavoured for good political connections and by marrying a French royal princess assured the good relations with the king. The premature death of his son Philip made his four-year-old grandson the heir presumptive. He succeeded Odo IV as Philip I after Odo died of the plague. Most sources place his death at Sens, on Friday, 3 April 1349. Some sources give the year as 1350.

Children
By his wife Joan III, Odo had six sons, most of whom died young:
 * a stillborn son (1322)
 * Philip (1323–1346), Count of Auvergne
 * John (1325–1327 or 1328)
 * three sons who died young, born in 1327, 1330, and 1335

Portrayal in film
Odo (as Eudes) is a supporting character in Les Rois maudits (The Accursed Kings), a series of French historical novels by Maurice Druon. He was portrayed by in the 1972 French miniseries adaptation of the series, and by C. Florescu in the 2005 adaptation.

title: Odo IV, Duke of Burgundy


text:
Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 10

New Introduction.

I have written a new intro, based of course primarily on pre-existing text, which I hope balances everyone's concerns. The first paragraph says that race is used in many different ways and is controversial. Then, those who promote the "literal" definition as intraspecific division have their say, with some qualifiers such as "certain fields" to deflect worries of claims of universality. The mention of humans connects this discussion to the remainder of the article. Then, the other views have their say. The reduced frequency of the word race in biology is noted, and the social science criticism is then stated, along with the support for it from genetics. Finally, the rest of the article is introduced by noting the focus will be on humans and what it will be about. I hope this can end this conflict, which was starting to descend into mad reverts and namecalling. My main worry is that by trying to make everyone happy I will make no one happy. Well, comments? -- VV 23:03, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] It looks pretty good to me. Looking ahead, the problem with race in the U.S. and in socio-politically similar areas is that humans do not form sub-species, but many people insist that they do form races. By "races" they mean something other than what scientists mean by "sub-species." These people take comfort from the ideas mentioned by Rikurzhen about "extended families." So, looking ahead, I think it would be very worthwhile to find some way of providing the two charts I mentioned above because they show how poorly these "extended families" correspond to the average person's naive idea of "races."

[Peak:] I reinstated the para about ICZN for obvious reasons, and dropped the detail from that paragraph as it has nothing to do with the ICZN. It seems to me that there is currently no need for the preamble to talk about "population" because: Peak 06:36, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) the preamble is about race, not about related terms
 * 2) the preamble is already too long
 * 3) the article itself talks quite a lot about population

 * What are these "obvious reasons"? Race is not being called "intrasubspecific", so that is not relevant.  The word population is being noted as an alternative way of talking about what some have called race, and the mention of this is extremely brief.  And, no, the detail had nothing to do with ICZN, it had to do with the word race, and you should not just delete it. -- VV 07:20, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] Rereading the new Introduction I see one problem that is a carry-over from previous version(s):
 * Some feel that this usage justifies the division of humans into races.

[P0M:] We need to explain that specialists in this field generally do not accept division of humans into races or subspecies (despite the differences found among the "extended families") because the variations are clinal.
 * SOme specialists do believe this -- as the sentence says (some). And the intro makes it very clear that most don't. Slrubenstein

 * The term race, however, is increasingly infrequently used in contemporary scientific classification; in zoology, for example, ...

[P0M:] It isn't clear from the way this is said whether "race" has lost favor to "sub-species" or whether both terms are now less often used for some reason. P0M 00:57, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

POM, I don't disagree, in principle, with your two points. But I do think that VV's intro (with some minor changes I made) does make these points. I admit that it makes them in a minimal way -- but that is what an introduction is for. We shouldn't make the introduction argumentative -- it should just introduce the different issues and points of view. Develop these points in the appropriate place in the body of the article. A discussion or race and subspeicies is too comples to have in the intro -- clearly the intro raises the issue; let the body address it. Slrubenstein

[P0M:] I think it is fine now. The changes you made lessened my sense of a slightly unstable footing. P0M 01:40, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Much improved, SLR. Still some problems though. In the para quoted below, the entry contradicts itself. We just said that: "In biology, there is a usage of race to mean a division within a species ... synonym for subspecies or ... varety". But next we say:

 * The term race, however, is increasingly infrequently used in contemporary scientific classification; in zoology, for example, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th edition, 2000) divides species into subspecies but does not attempt to codify any "infrasubspecific entities". Further details may be found at subspecies. Currently, the preferred term is population.

So we say:

 * (a) that (in zoology) race = subspecies. So far so good.
 * [Peak]: NO! You are missing the whole point of the ICZN reference. The ICZN does NOT say that race == subspecies. Peak 16:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * (b) we say that the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature recognises subspecies. This too is fine
 * (c) Then we start talking about sub-divisions of subspecies! Why?
 * [Peak:] If race == subspecies, then there is only one human race, but some people believe that there are several human races, so the question becomes: is there some scientifically agreed basis for defining infrasubspecific groups? The ICZN says it's too hot a potato IN GENERAL in scientific classification in general. Peak 16:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * [P0M] I thought this might be what was going on here. Some people want to talk about the "extended families", which seems to correspond to what you are calling infrasubspecific groups. But as I was reading the passage with the language about infrasubspecific groups I could not do other than to guess where you (?) were going with it. Can we get those two "family tree" charts that you put me on to without breaking somebody's copyright? I'm pretty sure that those groupings were what JDG and the person who insisted that //Science// magazine supported the reality of races were really talking about, or at least that such information is the only objective basis that they might draw on. If we include enough of that kind of information to let people see clearly why e.g., the medical community is interested in these groups (and calls them "races"), they we can explain why they are "fuzzy" sets, and also why they are different from subspecies.  If we know how we are going to handle this issue in the body of the article then it will be easier to see what we need to say in the introduction. P0M

What earthly connection does this have to anything? The topic is race (in the biological sense, i.e., subspecies), so why do we introduce the notion that there are no recognised sub-divisions of subspecies/races here? That happens to be true, but what relevance does it have? We are not discussing "sub-sub-species", we are discussing races. All this does is confuse things.

 * [P0M:] I agree that talking about sub-divisions of subspecies seems irrelevant here.
 * [Peak:] Please see above. I hope you will retract the point.Peak 16:14, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * [P0M:] I just went back and looked at your version. I also caught up on your explanation that ICZN does not say that race == subspecies.
 * The term race, however, is infrequently used in international forums devoted to scientific classification; in zoology, for example, the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th edition, 2000) divides species into subspecies but does not attempt to codify any "infrasubspecific entities". Further details may be found at subspecies.
 * [P0M:] This passage assumes that the reader will understand that you mean for "race" to be understood (by ICZM?) to mean some "infrasubspecific entity" that it thinks is unacceptable. How you are making the link between "race" and "infrasubspecific entity" is not clear enough, or at least it was not clear enough for me. (See what I wrote earlier in the passage that follows:) P0M 18:09, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * [P0M:]I had assumed that it was there because somebody wanted to make the claim that "race" (at least as applies to humans) is a matter of "extended families" -- a grouping with less rigorous requirements than the requirements for subspecies, but still of enough interest to be given a name. I would prefer that we drop the "sub-divisions of subspecies" part here and provide the charts (cladograms) of these "extended families" later on.

 * (d) Finally, we say that the currently preffered term is population. Term for what? For race/subspecies? Or for these non-codified and in any case irrelevant "sub-sub-species" things that have suddenly been introduced into the para? In fact, population is a term with a completely different meaning to race or subspecies or "sub-sub-species". A population is any recognisable group. It is a far more general term than any of the others so far discussed. So yes, you can describe, for example, the southern race of the Masked Lapwing (Vanellus miles novaehollandiae) as "the southern population" instead of "the southern race" or "the southern subspecies", but in doing so you are saying a different thing. You are making no claim about the status of a group when you say "population". It may be a race, it may be a full species, it may be three species of two different genera, it may simply be a random collection of individuals. The southern population of the Koala, to take another example, can not be described as the "southern race", as there is no such thing, the Koals being a monotypic species. (i.e., there ius only one race.) In short, population is a very vague term. You use population when race or species or subspecies are inappropriate. You often use it because you want to talk about a particular group but you don't want to get bogged down in the details of whether it is a subspecies or a full species. It's especially handy when the correct status (species/subspecies/neither) of a given group is not yet known or is controversial. Tannin 04:40, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * [P0M:] I agree with this characterization of "population." Can't we just paraphrase what Tannin says above -- that rather than using the problematical concepts "race" or "subspecies" to talk about humans, most scientists prefer the work-around of using "population". P0M 05:18, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * VV I agree that this paragraph was problematic, and I left it undisturbed in my earlier rewrite because I didn't know what to do with it. But, I read through this discussion and made an attempt; let me know what you think.  I dropped the book reference because it didn't seem relevant or helpful.  I was reluctant to do this before in case someone was attached to it, but there seems to be agreement it's not needed.  -- VV 05:49, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Peak-- I strongly object to these changes. Did you read the foregoing discussion about this intrasubspecific issue?  And the Templeton quote is way out of place in the intro paragraph, completely prejudicial; saying he "summed it up" is a way of making his opinion out to be the last word.  And the issue is not whether there is a single "human race" or not, as there is, but this is either a different shade of meaning, a broader use, or a stock English phrase.  The intro para I wrote correctly said controversy stems from political, etc., not just from some fundamental issues.  It seems to me you're completely departing from the delicate compromise we reached. -- VV 06:58, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] I suspect that communications are getting skewed. Is not the purpose of the sentence "The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th edition, 2000) divides species into subspecies but does not attempt to codify any 'infrasubspecific entities'" to head off the use of a fuzzier definition of "race" when the word is applied to human beings? (See the comment of Rikurzhen below. Perhaps he is trying to get us to look at this issue.) P0M 08:10, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * It would not serve that purpose. Lack of codification just means that there are no fixed naming systems for groupings below the subspecies level.  E.g., for the species level there are rules such as, the species name is whatever name the first person to document that species used (even if it's a terrible name).  This is fleshed out a lot more, but you get the drift.  Lack of fixed nomenclature just means the individual researcher is "free" to use whichever naming system they prefer, such as their own, for smaller groupings, that is all.  It does not address that other issue in any way. -- VV 08:15, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] I wasn't referring to the purpose of the writers of the International Code, I was referring to the original reason for including mention of it in the Race article we are discussing here. It isn't clear to me what it was mentioned for, so what I said was a guess intended to draw out comment. P0M 08:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Similar objections as before: The "one race" issue in the first para is not the issue. Many use the term race to refer to any extended family, regardless of scale.  Thus there can be all of a human race, a Caucasian race, and a Russian race.  Thus, one does not say there is no "human race" just because one believes in multiple races witin H.s.  Similarly, if race is pegged at subspecies, I have seen authors who use different classifications and divide H.s. into subspecies (in fact, I think Linnaeus did).  Since, as I said before, subspecies inherits all the ambiguities of species and then some, I don't think we should prejudice the contrary view in the intro.  It's enough to just say that there are those who do and do not believe there are meaningful biological divisions within the species. -- VV 23:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[P0M:] V, your paragraph above is not very clear to me, especially regarding what your term "the issue" and in regard to what you call "the contrary view." And I do not agree that it is enough to say that there "there are those who do and do not believe that there are meaningful biological divisions within the species." There are undeniable heritable biological differences among humans. There are both meaningful connections and meaningful ramifications among humans. The question is not whether we are talking about a ramiform structure. The question is whether the branches are isolated or are interacting. I doubt very much that anybody believes either that [races] of humans do not derive from a common source. I also doubt very much that anybody believes that there has been no differentiation among populations that are isolated over space and time. The question that has to be faced is how to objectively reflect the level at which heritable characteristics are shared, and the determination of whether there are human subspecies (as the term is commonly understood in the present) speaks to this question.

[P0M:] You realize, I assume, that your position on the definition of the word "race" is strongly opposed to Tannin's definition. Linnaeus did indeed divide Homo sapiens into subspecies, and on Tannin's understanding of subspecies (which I believe is the correct understanding) Linnaeus was wrong. You might find it interesting to evaluate how objective he was about the characteristics he assigned to each of the subspecies. Mentioning him in this connection is not persuasive to me. Since humans display "biological divisions" but the differentiation is clinal, the task then becomes to accurately characterize the real-world differences that have led people to, rather arbitrarily, divide humans into what they call races.

[P0V:] It is not going to work to equate subspecies and race. In that I can agree with you because, as you demonstrate, people use the word "race" in many different ways. The medical community seems firmly wedded to the practice of calling "extended families" races. But it is also not going to work if we avoid mention of the fact that differences among humans are clinal and that is the reason that humans are not divided into subspecies. It is vitally important to make clear the actual levels of similarity and difference among various groups, and to make extremely clear that knowing that somebody belongs to some [race] only gives grounds for a probablistic prediction that s/he will possess any trait associated with that [race]. P0M. -

[Peak:] Your persistence in reverting my attempts to keep the introduction balanced violate Wikipedia NPOV policy. You have highlighted what amounts to a "scientific racism" POV by deleting the other (largely "scientific mainstream") perspective. I have also given specific pieces of evidence which you have also omitted in their entirety (e.g. the information about ICZN and the quotation). I prefer to "frame and elaborate" but if you are going to resort to brute force reversion, then others will feel entitled to respond in kind. In my last Edit Summary, I proposed we try to avoid the problem by moving material out of the preamble so that a more comprehensive explanation of the issues can be given than is possible in the preamble. Once again, I invite you to reconsider your reversion tactics. Peak 06:18, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * (a) That was my first ever revert since this discussion began, and it was because you basically undid my last change entirely without explanation.
 * [Peak:] My explanation was in the Edit Summary, but more importantly, in the text itself.

 * (b) I have explained every edit thoroughly in Talk. (c) I am not deleting your view; it is still there, but it is simply not presented as the only one.
 * [Peak:] You have deleted sentences, quotations, citations, to emphasize one POV. I have always tried to be inclusive.
 * Your Templeton quote was a strong POV put in the intro paragraph and presented as the only view on the subject
 * [Peak:] My addition was simply that: it did not involve subtracting anything. It added a coherent statement from an expert. It did not state that it ia the only POV. When I wrote "summed it up" I meant that the quotation summed up an important perspective (POV if you like).

 * while the ICZN is not relevant for the reasons discussed here already.
 * [Peak:] I already addressed that issue above. Peak 07:09, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The intro is already very abbreviated and is short, factual, and neutral as stands.
 * [Peak:] You may think it is neutral, but that is just your POV. I am telling you that it is not. In particular, I disagree with the following sentence (as explained in the next paragraph: "in this usage we may justifiably speak of dividing Homo sapiens into races"

 * There is a long way between a theoretical definition ("race means such and such in biology") and a scientific conclusion (that from a scientific point of view, there are several races). Please understand, in particular, that in

scientific classification, a high degree of "disjointness" is usually required. See the above account of an interview with an academic biologist on the subject.

 * Do not force your view of the subject on the intro.  -- VV 06:24, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * [Peak:] Your POV is welcome, but you should not suppress other perspectives (especially perspectives of relevant authorities and international bodies such as ICZN) by DELETION and REVERSION tactics. Peak 07:09, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * In the quote above your omitted "Some feel that" ... "in this usage we may justifiably...", which states a major POV on the subject at hand. The ICZN, as I've explained here several times, is about nomenclature conventions and has no relevance to this issue.  The Templeton quote was not presented as a POV but as a "summing up" of the controversy over race.  If it's stated as one person's POV on the subject, that's one matter, but even so whole quotes should probably not go in the introduction because of length considerations; that's what the full text is for.  And lay off on the accusations; they are not productive. -- VV 07:27, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If your serious about improving this article, I would invite you to do a little outside reading. My strongest suggestion would be this recent paper from Genome Biology:. If you have trouble with that site, you can find the PDF here:. If you prefer something shorter, try this NEJM paper:. I'm only sorry that the figures aren't in the public domain. Rikurzhen 07:56, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * A very interesting article! Thanks for the links. -- VV 08:16, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * [Peak:] I would like to recommend the following short article (written as a "Letter"):
 * Peter A. Underhill1 et al. "Y chromosome sequence variation and the history of human populations" Nature Genetics • volume 26 • november 2000 [ http://www2.smumn.edu/uasal/DNAWWW/pdfs/Underhill2000.pdf]

 * If you don't have time to read it all, then please at least take a look at the diagrams therein, especially Figure 2. Peak 04:40, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * [P0M:] It is clear that the way Rikurzhen is using "race" is not the way Tannin uses that word. If we were to stick to the logical consequences of equating race with subspecies, then all we could say about human races is that there is only one. If we accept the idea of "extended families" to explain what people who talk about race are really looking at, then we get into the kind of thing that is being discussed in these articles. I had a quick look at the short one, and it appears that the author uses the word "race" pretty much as it is used in vernacular English. Showing people what does and what does not correspond to the naive idea of "race" should be very useful. P0M 08:34, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * [P0M:] There are people who have "insisted on the biological reality of race among humans as the scientific view." There are people who maintain that race is a "myth". There are people who would equate "race" with "subspecies" and say that there is only one race of Homo sapiens extant. We need to face the reality of the kinds of categorizations being made in the links that Rikurzhen posted above, and in the charts that I have mentioned a couple of times before. But it would be good to have a less problematical term for these kinds of commonalities, something to remind people that knowing somebody's extended family does not give you definite assurance of the presence or absence of traits such as, e.g., lactose intolerance. P0M 08:54, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Here's another resource. A weekly workshop at Stanford, "Revisiting Race and Ethnicity in the Context of Emerging Genetic Research". They have links to papers capturing many points of view. Rikurzhen

Follow-through, section on Phylogenetic representations

 * Here the problem arises of distinguishing black Africans as a racial group; it doesn't work because it is a paraphyletic classification -- that is, to take black Africans as a racial group, the group by definition includes every living person on Earth because everyone is descended from this group.

[P0M:] Strictly speaking, everyone is descended from the same ancestors, but wouldn't a correct cladogram show a branching at 120000 B.C. (or whatever the approximate date really is) with the several African groups continuing to evolve away from their original genetic constitution(s) during the same time span that the groups that migrated out of Africa evolved to adapt to new environments?

[P0M:] Does anybody own the knowledge on which these cladograms are made? Why can't we just draw our own diagram? P0M 17:48, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Post Tax Day Changes
A new contributor, Arnejohs, altered the third paragraph substantially, as well as making many changes that I think are useful. I have always been a little queasy about the word "categorical" in the paragraph 3 that was there before, but I put the whole paragraph back because in my experience having that information there will head off misunderstandings and turbulence. P0M 21:11, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you Patrick0Moran for correcting the error I entered. I am sorry, but my intension was not at all to remove the lines of the third paragraph. Actually I wanted to delete last sentence in the second paragraph. How I managed to mess it up don?t know. My intension was also to put down some arguments at the discussion page. Therefore I appreciate your invitation to do so. I felt that parts of the introductory words of this article were an inconsistent with the content of other wiki articles. Human race redirects to Human where the last sentence in the first paragraphs says "There is only one extant subspecies, H. sapiens sapiens; that is, all humans alive today belong to this one subspecies." If the term race should be used in biological science it should (according to what is said here to) be equivalent to subspecies. It is important to note that race also is used in the more defendable interpretation as social construct, - also by biologists. If this social construct is geographically defined, the term population is mostly used. Arnejohs 00:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Should the article be divided?
I was not fully aware of all the problems involved when I first dared to edit this article. Reading through the article once again, also the later changes, I think the best way of clarifying the understanding of the term ?race? is to define "race" into the different context where it is used. One obvious way is to differ between the biological context and the sociological (social construct) context. Also former use of the term has to be covered or even different use of the term in different part of the world (e.g. USA and Europe).

I my view the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia has a rather precise definition, including both former and current use of the term:

 * "Race. Term once commonly used in physical anthropology to denote a division of humankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type (e.g., Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid). Today the term has little scientific standing, as older methods of differentiation, including hair form and body measurement, have given way to the comparative analysis of DNA and gene frequencies relating to such factors as blood typing, the excretion of amino acids, and inherited enzyme deficiencies. Because all human populations today are extremely similar genetically, most researchers have abandoned the concept of race for the concept of the cline, a graded series of differences occurring along a line of environmental or geographical transition. This reflects the recognition that human populations have always been in a state of flux, with genes constantly flowing from one gene pool to another, impeded only by physical or ecological boundaries. While relative isolation does preserve genetic differences and allow populations to maximally adapt to climatic and disease factors over long periods of time, all groups currently existing are thoroughly "mixed" genetically, and such differences as still exist do not lend themselves to simple typologizing. "Race" is today primarily a sociological designation, identifying a class sharing some outward physical characteristics and some commonalities of culture and history. See also climatic adaptation, ethnic group, racism."

Probably the term is more present in the U.S. of A. than in Europe, - in particular because of the special census tradition. I think large parts of the article have to be understood on this background. E.g. ?Race and intelligence? and recent addition by ElBenevolente ("In 2003, DNA analysis was used to correctly determine the race of a Louisiana serial rapist?..") use Race in the meaning as a social construct I hope. If not it is inconsistent with the biological consensus of one human race. I am not sure how, but this needs to be sorted out in one way or another. Arnejohs 08:00, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * While the "social construct" versus "subspecies" distinction of race may seem useful, I think it is misleading and difficult. It seems to me that even if human "races" were true subspecies, it would have little relevance to the major questions/problems surrounding the topic. Just as it is unhelpful to strictly define race as subspecies and thus eliminate the common sense notion of the word as it applies to humans. Likewise, defining race as a social construct has a pejoritive connotation. This definition would seem to support that point of view that "race" has absolutely no biological basis. Also, the distinction seems to falsely exclude the middle point of view that race is both social and biological. It strikes me that there is less of a precdedent to divide race into social and biological components than (for example) sex/gender.--Rikurzhen 06:45, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * Human races, even considered biologically, are not subspecies -- but I didn't think the article claimed this. Have I missed something here? Slrubenstein

§ I don't believe that anybody believes "that 'race' has absolutely no biological basis." At least nobody that I know of would state that many of the characteristics that people use as racial markers have no biological basis. White people are white for clearly biological reasons. The epicanthic folds of many Chinese people are heritable characteristics. The thick pads over the arch of the foot that characterize many people of African descent are heritable characteristics. Nobody that I know of imagines that most Chinese people have straight black hair simply because they were born in a certain geographical region or under a certain tradition of government. The question is, rather, what genetic characteristics are permanently linked with what genetic characteristics. The answer is that no allele of any gene is permanently included in or or excluded from any group of people. Genes show up wherever they flourish. It may take a while, but they will flourish in environments where they are favorable. [P0M]

§ If we had one word for one concept it would be much easier to write articles on the many concepts that now get called "race." It would also be easier to write an article on race if there were not so many points of view that are fervently held. The article on human race is correct when it asserts that there is only one subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens, that is now extant. It is also correct that there is some statistical utility for the medical profession in knowing whether somebody has come from a population that was naturalized to, e.g., a malaria-infested area. It might help if it were clearly established for readers, perhaps in another article, what the meaningful statistical differences are among various groups. Much of the problem centering around the issue of race seems to be that some people believe that they can make assertions about socially relevant characteristics on the basis of certain "marker characteristics." It would probably be relevant and helpful for many readers, for instance, to know that a common characteristic of many Chinese people is the presence of shovel-shaped incisors, but that not all Chinese people show this trait. Another fairly common trait of the Chinese population is something called "agenisis," i.e., the inherited trait of not growing wisdom teeth. But non-Chinese people can also be naturally free of the problems occasioned by wisdom teeth. It is my understanding that those two characteristics are among the four or five main characteristics that are common enough among Chinese to be interesting. But, unless you are a dentist interested in how much and what kind of dental surgury you may perform if you move to China, I can't imagine these "prominent characteristics" being of material relevance to anybody. What people often react to, and may find problematical, are not actually genetic differences but are cultural differences. If people were clearer on what signals were actually "pushing their buttons", then we might be able to have a more peaceful world. P0M 02:53, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * P0M, you and I seem to be on the same wavelength, but there are public commentators on race who would disagree with us. Consider this quotation from Jacqueline Stevens, a visiting Assistant Professor at Pomona College, from an essay titled "Symbolic Matter: Deconstructing/Reconstructing DNA and Race"
 * "Conventional wisdom holds that race is socially constructed and not based on genetic differences. Cutting-edge genetic research threatens this view and hence also endangers the pursuit of racial equality and useful public health research."
 * This is an example why I'm particular sensitive about the suggestion of limiting the view points presented on defining race to only "social construct" versus "subspecies". I think that many people hold more nuanced views. --Rikurzhen 05:37, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)


text:
Philip I, Count of Auvergne

Philip of Burgundy (10 November 1323 – 10 August 1346) was Count of Auvergne and Boulogne (as Philip I) in right of his wife. He died during the Siege of Aiguillon.

Biography
Philip, born 10 November 1323, was the only son and heir of Odo IV, Duke of Burgundy, and of Joan III, Countess of Burgundy, daughter of King Philip V of France and Joan II, Countess of Burgundy. He married Joan I, Countess of Auvergne and Boulogne, in c. 1338.

In 1340, Philip and his father defended the city of Saint-Omer against the assaults of Robert III of Artois. In 1346, he participated in the siege of Aiguillon, led by John, Duke of Normandy. It was during this siege that Philip died, after falling from his horse.

Philip had no other sons from his marriage to Joan. The House of Burgundy was then placed in the hands of his young son Philip (1346–1361), who died childless. After the death of the younger Philip, the dukedom of Burgundy became a part of the French crown, and was granted by John II of France to his youngest son, Philip the Bold.

Philip's daughter, Joan (1344 – 11 September 1360), was betrothed to Amadeus VI, Count of Savoy from 1347 to 1355, and was raised at his court. When she was released from the engagement at age 10, she entered a convent at Poissy, where she remained for her final years.

title: Philip I, Count of Auvergne


text:
James Sharp (bishop)

James Sharp, or Sharpe, (4 May 1618 – 3 May 1679) was a minister in the Church of Scotland, or kirk, who served as Archbishop of St Andrews from 1661 to 1679. His support for Episcopalianism, or governance by bishops, brought him into conflict with elements of the kirk who advocated Presbyterianism. Twice the victim of assassination attempts, the second cost him his life.

Biography
James Sharp was born at Banff Castle on 4 May 1618, eldest son of William Sharp (1592–1638) and Isabel Leslie (1595-ca 1640). His father was property manager, or factor, for the Earl of Findlater; his mother was the daughter of the Laird of Kininvie. His younger brother, Sir William Sharp of Stonihill (1622–1685), was political agent to the Duke of Lauderdale, Scottish Secretary of State from 1661 to 1680.

In April 1653, Sharp married Helen Moncrieff, daughter of the laird of Randerston. They had seven children.

Background
Whilst Presbyterian or Episcopalian now implies differences in both governance and doctrine, this was not the case in the 17th century. 'Episcopalian' meant governance by bishops, usually appointed by the monarch; Presbyterian implied rule by Elders, nominated by their congregations. The Protestant Reformation created a Church of Scotland, or 'kirk', that was Presbyterian in structure and Calvinist in doctrine. When bishops were introduced to the Scottish system in 1584, they were doctrinal Calvinists, who opposed many practices of the Church of England; these differences explain the failure of attempts to unify the two churches. The 1638 National Covenant expelled bishops and established a Covenanter government, which ruled Scotland during the 1638 to 1651 Wars of the Three Kingdoms. In 1647, Royalist defeat in the First English Civil War split the Covenanters into moderate Engagers and Kirk Party fundamentalists; both sides believed the institution of monarchy was divinely ordered, but differed over who held ultimate authority in clerical affairs.

Attempts by the Scots to restore first Charles I, then his son Charles II to the English throne, ended with incorporation into the Commonwealth of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1652. The kirk split again, between a moderate majority known as Resolutioners, and 'Protestors', who blamed defeat on compromise with 'malignants.' Differences between the two were both religious and political, including church government, religious toleration and the role of law in a 'godly' society.

Since each split ended with the winners evicting the losers from their offices and ministries, it led to increasing bitterness. Lord Broghill, head of the Council of State for Scotland, summarised the position by saying 'the Resolutioners love Charles Stuart and hate us, the Protesters love neither him nor us.' He fostered conflict between the two groups as deliberate policy.

Career
Sharp was educated at the local grammar school and in 1637, graduated from King's College, Aberdeen. The university and Banff in general were centres of Episcopalian support and one of the few areas to oppose the 1638 National Covenant, which removed bishops from the kirk. Sharp went to Oxford, allegedly seeking a position in the Church of England, but returned to Scotland and by 1642, was a regent at the University of St Andrews. In 1648, he became minister for the parish of Crail, then a delegate to the kirk's General Assembly in 1650. He accompanied the Scottish army in its invasion of England and was captured at Worcester in September 1651, before being released in 1652.

The Protesters sent a delegation to argue their case before Parliament in 1656; Sharp was selected to represent the Resolutioners and spent most of the next four years in London. By 1659, plans were being made by George Monck to restore Charles II to the thrones of England and Scotland. The Resolutioners wanted Charles to commit to a Presbyterian kirk; in May 1660, Sharp was sent to Breda to ensure he did so, but was unsuccessful in getting a response.

In January 1661, Sharp was appointed Royal Chaplain, and returned to St Andrews as Professor of Divinity. The March 1661 Rescissory Act returned the legal position in Scotland to that prevailing in 1633, removing the Covenanter reforms of 1638-1639. The restoration of bishops was confirmed by the Privy Council of Scotland on 6 September 1661.

Sharp was appointed Archbishop of St Andrews and Primate of Scotland and consecrated at Westminster Abbey in December 1661. The kirk was restored as the national church, independent sects banned and all office-holders were required to renounce the Covenant; about a third of the clergy refused, around 270 in total, and lost their positions as a result. Most occurred in the south-west of Scotland, an area particularly strong in its Covenanting sympathies; some took to preaching in the open fields, or conventicles, which often attracted thousands of worshippers.

After his appointment to the Privy Council of Scotland in June 1663, Sharp assumed responsibility for these evictions, making him a target for Presbyterian radicals. At the same time, his lobbying to be made Lord Chancellor brought him into conflict with Lauderdale and other political leaders. He took an active role in suppressing the Covenanter-backed Pentland Rising in November 1666; he is reported as having condemned to death eleven prisoners who surrendered on a promise of mercy, telling them "You were pardoned as soldiers, but you are not acquitted as subjects".

On 9 July 1668, James Mitchell, a veteran of Rullion Green, tried to assassinate Sharp in Edinburgh. He was seated in his coach on the Royal Mile near his house at Blackfriars Wynd waiting for Bishop Andrew Honeyman to join him. Mitchell fired his pistol at Sharp but hit Honeyman instead. Mitchell was imprisoned on the Bass Rock for this crime but was not executed until 1676.

Soon after, the government issued the first in a series of 'indulgences', allowing the readmission of evicted clergy, even without subscribing to episcopacy. The kirk split once again, this time between moderates, led by Robert Leighton, and 'hardline' Episcopalians under Sharp; over the next decade, policy alternated between persecution and reconciliation. In 1678, Sharp's faction regained control and supported by the government, stepped up actions against non-conformists; 3,000 Lowland militia and 6,000 Highlanders, known as the "Highland Host", were billeted in the Covenanting shires, as a form of punishment. James Mitchell, who had been arrested in 1673, was executed in 1678, making him a Presbyterian folk hero; Sharp gave evidence at his trial and was accused of perjury.

Death
On 2 May 1679, a group of nine Covenanters, led by David Hackston and his brother-in-law, John Balfour of Kinloch, were waiting at Magus Muir, hoping to ambush the Sheriff of Cupar. A Sharp appointee, the Sheriff was prominent in persecuting Covenanters but apparently heard about the proposed ambush and stayed home. Learning Sharp's coach was on the road, they intercepted it instead; Sharp was stabbed several times, in front of his daughter Isabella, before being killed by a shot to the chest. One of the group, James Russell, claimed he told Sharp he "...declared before the Lord that it was no particular interest, nor yet for any wrong that he had done to him, but because he had betrayed the church as Judas, and had wrung his hands, these 18 or 19 years in the blood of the saints, but especially at Pentland..."

Two of the nine, Hackston and Andrew Guillan, were eventually captured and executed; a third, William Dingwall, died at the Battle of Drumclog a month later. The other six were never tried; Balfour escaped to Holland with George Fleming, but disappears from the records thereafter.

Aftermath
Sharp was buried beneath an imposing black and white marble monument in the Holy Trinity Church, St Andrews. Designed by his son, Sir William, it has two main objectives; commemorating his father as a martyr, rather than a turncoat, and confirming his privileged status as archbishop. When the tomb was opened in 1849, it was empty; the body was allegedly removed in 1725 and has never been found.

On 25 December 1679, five Covenanters captured at Bothwell Bridge, Thomas Brown, James Wood, Andrew Sword, John Weddell and John Clyde, were hanged for refusing to identify the perpetrators. Although not involved themselves, they were executed at Magus Muir; their bodies hung in chains until the flight of James VII in 1688. A gravestone was erected over their burial place in 1728 and enclosed by a surrounding wall in 1877; the same year that a memorial to Sharp was built. Both are situated about 0.5 mi south of the spot where the murder occurred.

19th century Scottish histories portrayed Sharp as a despised turncoat; "For well concocted, cold blooded, systematic dissimulation, he stands almost without a match in History." Even more recent writers suggest his death can be seen as deserved retribution for his actions.

His most recent biographer, Julia Buckroyd, summarised his career as follows; "Sharp, who identified himself as a Scot and Presbytery, and who struggled to extricate Scotland from the Cromwellian union,...became identified as an agent of English, episcopal and political interests...an enemy of Scottish Presbyterianism and the rule of law."

The 1688 Glorious Revolution in Scotland led to the Act of Settlement in 1690, which re-established the kirk on a Presbyterian basis. Episcopacy was immediately abolished since then, leading to the formation of the separate Scottish Episcopal Church in the same 1690.

Family
He was  married  on  6  April  1653  to  Helen who was a daughter  of  William  Moncrieff  of  Randerston. Other relatives were:
 * Sir William  of  Scotscraig, created  a  Baronet  1683,  died  January  1712
 * John, baptised  February  1665
 * Isabella (married, cont.  18  December  1679,  John  Cunningham  of  Barns)
 * Catherine
 * Margaret, born  8  December  1664  (married  11  October  1683,  William Fraser, 12th Lord Saltoun),  died  1734
 * Penelope (married John  Dubh  Mackinnon  of  that  Ilk)
 * Agnes, buried  March  1666
 * Robert, sheriff-clerk of  Banff.

title: James Sharp (bishop)


text:
Philip I, Duke of Burgundy

Philip of Rouvres (1346 – 21 November 1361) was the Count of Burgundy (as Philip II) and Count of Artois (as Philip III) from 1347, Duke of Burgundy (as Philip I) from 1349, and Count of Auvergne and Boulogne (as Philip III) from 1360. He was the only son of Philip, heir to the Duchy of Burgundy, and Joan I, heiress of Auvergne and Boulogne.

Biography
Philip succeeded his grandmother in the County of Burgundy (Franche-Comté) and Artois when he was only one year old. He succeeded his grandfather when he was only three. His deceased father was the only child of Odo IV, Duke of Burgundy, and of Joan III, Countess of Burgundy and Artois. In 1355, Philip married Margaret, daughter of Louis de Mâle, Count of Flanders.

Philip, in his own right, held the counties of Artois and Burgundy from 1349 (inherited from his grandmother), the Duchy of Burgundy from 1349 (inherited from his grandfather) and the counties of Auvergne and Boulogne from 1360 (inherited from his mother). In 1357, by marrying the future Margaret III, Countess of Flanders, then heiress of Flanders, he was promised the counties of Flanders, Nevers, Rethel, and Antwerp, and the duchies of Brabant, and Limburg. Most of these lands were located in the Low Countries.

His mother Joanna, who became Queen of France after her remarriage to King John II of France, governed Burgundy as Philip's guardian until her death in September 1360. Philip was declared of age on 20 October the same year.

Death and succession
In 1361 at the age of 15, Philip died, either of the plague or from injuries suffered in a riding accident, before he could consummate his marriage to Margaret. With his death, King John II of France claimed the duchy for the kingdom of France, making his youngest son Philip the Bold royal lieutenant-general by 27 June 1363 and duke of Burgundy by June 1364.

title: Philip I, Duke of Burgundy


text:
Irregularities and exceptions in Interlingua

The term irregularities or exceptions in Interlingua refers to deviations from the logical rules in a few grammatical constructions in the international auxiliary language Interlingua. These oddities are a part of the standard grammar. These special cases have crept into the language as a result of the effort to keep it naturalistic. Most of these irregularities also exist in Interlingua's source languages; English, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and to a lesser extent German and Russian. This feature of the language makes Interlingua more familiar to the speakers of source languages. And at the same time, it makes the language more difficult for others.

The speakers of the source languages do not perceive all deviations as irregular. For instance, Interlingua has three different words for English "am" (so), "is" (es) and "are" (son). While most English speakers will not find any thing abnormal about it, speakers of a few other languages may find the use of three words to express the concept of 'simple present' as unnecessary.

Interlingua is notable in the sense that unlike most auxiliary languages, that seek to minimise or eliminate any irregular aspects, Interlingua takes a flexible approach. It is mandatory to use certain exceptions in Interlingua while others have been kept optional.

Pronunciation
Interlingua does not have a 'one letter one sound' orthography. As in English, several letters can be pronounced in different ways; depending on where they are in a word. For instance, the letter C can be pronounced as either /k/ (canto) or /ts/ (cento). Here is a list of other mandatory exceptions in pronunciation:

Besides, there are also unassimilated loan words that retain their original pronunciation and spelling.

Diacritics are permitted when they do not influence the pronunciation of the word borrowed into Interlingua. Common examples of such words are radios Röntgen (X rays) and kümmel.

Contractions
Just as in English, where I am is usually contracted to I'm and he is to he's, such contractions are also found in Interlingua and these two are compulsory to observe:

Plurals
Plurals can be formed in three different ways depending on the ending of a noun.

There are also irregular plurals that occur in loan words. The common ones are tests (from 'test'), addenda (from 'addendum') and lieder (from 'lied').

Parts of speech

 * Not all adverbs are derived from adjectives.
 * If an adjective ends with -c, an adverb derived from it takes -amente (instead of -mente).
 * Sia is the imperative form of esser ('to be'): Sia contente! 'Be content!'

Pronunciation

 * if s is between vowels, it can be pronounced, like in "these" (instead of the of "stay")
 * if x is between vowels, it can be spoken like the in "exact" (instead of like the  in "fox")

Optional short forms

 * ha for habe, 'has', 'have'
 * va for vade, 'goes', 'go'
 * es for esse, 'is', 'am', 'are'

Alternative forms of esser

 * Note. These forms are rarely used.

 * so for (io) es
 * son for (nos/vos/illes/-as/-os) es
 * era for esseva
 * sera for essera
 * serea for esserea

Comparative and superlative adjectives

 * (le) minor instead of (le) plus parve
 * (le) major instead of (le) plus magne
 * (le) melior instead of (le) plus bon
 * (le) pejor instead of (le) plus mal
 * minime instead of le plus parve or le minor
 * maxime instead of "le plus magne" or "le major"
 * optime instead of le plus bon or le melior
 * pessime instead of le plus mal or le pejor


text:
Eurodollar

Eurodollars are U.S. dollars held in time deposit accounts in banks outside the United States, which are not subject to the legal jurisdiction of the U.S. Federal Reserve. Consequently, such deposits are subject to much less regulation than deposits within the U.S. The term was originally applied to U.S. dollar accounts held in banks situated in Europe, but it expanded over the years to cover US dollar accounts held anywhere outside the U.S. Thus, a U.S. dollar-denominated deposit in Tokyo or Beijing would likewise be deemed a Eurodollar deposit (sometimes an Asiadollar). The offshore locations of the Eurodollar make it exposed to potential country risk and economic risk.

There is no connection with the euro currency of the European Union. More generally, the euro- prefix can be used to indicate any currency held in a country where it is not the official currency, broadly termed "eurocurrency", for example, Euroyen or even Euroeuro.

History
After World War II, the quantity of physical U.S. dollar banknotes outside the United States increased significantly, as a result of both the dollar funding of the Marshall Plan and from dollar proceeds of European exports to the U.S., which had become the largest consumer market.

As a result, large amounts of U.S. dollar banknotes were in the custody of foreign banks outside the United States. Some foreign countries, including the Soviet Union, also had deposits in U.S. dollars in American banks, evidenced by certificates of deposit. Various narrations are given of the creation of the first eurodollar account, but most trace back to Communist governments keeping dollar deposits abroad.

In one version, the first eurodollar account was created in France in favour of Communist China, which in 1949 managed to move almost all of its U.S. dollar banknotes to the Soviet-owned Banque Commerciale pour l'Europe du Nord in Paris before the United States froze its remaining U.S. situated assets during the Korean War.

In another version, the first eurodollar account was created by an English bank in favour of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, following the invasion of Hungary in 1956, as the Soviet Union feared that its deposits in North American banks would be frozen as a sanction. It therefore decided to move some of its U.S. dollars held directly in North American banks to the Moscow Narodny Bank, an English limited liability company registered in London in 1919, whose shares were owned by the Soviet Union. The English bank would then re-deposit the dollars into U.S. banks. Thus although in reality the dollars never left North America, there would be no chance of the U.S. confiscating that money, because now it belonged legally to the British bank and not directly to the Soviets, the beneficial owners. Accordingly, on 28 February 1957, the sum of $800,000 was duly transferred, creating the first eurodollars. Initially dubbed "Eurobank dollars" after the bank's telex address, they eventually became known as "eurodollars" as such deposits were at first held mostly by European banks and financial institutions. City of London banks, such as Midland Bank, now part of HSBC, and their offshore holding companies also played a major role in holding the deposits.

In the mid-1950s, Eurodollar trading and its development into a dominant world currency began when the Soviet Union wanted better interest rates on their Eurodollars and convinced an Italian banking cartel to give them more interest than could have been earned if the dollars were deposited in the U.S. The Italian bankers then had to find customers ready to borrow the Soviet dollars and pay above the U.S. legal interest-rate caps for their use, and were able to do so; thus, Eurodollars began to be used increasingly in global finance.

Being a riskier asset than dollars held directly in U.S. bank accounts, Eurodollars demand in compensation a higher interest rate. U.S. banks, which hold required reserve accounts at the U.S. Federal Reserve, can receive unlimited financial support from the Fed if necessary, and are thus unlikely to become bankrupt. Thus, U.S. dollar deposits in U.S. banks are inherently less risky than Eurodollar deposits in banks which have no possibility of financial support from the Fed.

By the end of 1970, 385 billion eurodollars were held in offshore bank accounts. These deposits were lent on as U.S. dollar loans to businesses in other countries where interest rates on loans were perhaps much higher in the local currency, and where the businesses were exporting to the U.S. and receiving payment in dollars, thereby avoiding foreign exchange risk on their funding arrangements.

Several factors led eurodollars to overtake certificates of deposit (CDs) issued by U.S. banks as the primary private short-term money market instruments by the 1980s, including:
 * The successive balance of payments deficits of the United States, causing a net outflow of dollars;
 * Regulation Q, the U.S. Federal Reserve's ceiling on interest payable on domestic deposits during the high inflation of the 1970s
 * Eurodollar deposits were a cheaper source of funds because they were free of reserve requirements and deposit insurance assessments

Market size
Since the Eurodollar market is not run by any government agency its growth is hard to estimate. However, the Eurodollar market is by a wide margin the largest source of global finance. In 1997, nearly 90% of all international loans were made this way.

In December 1985 the Eurodollar market was estimated by J.P. Morgan Guaranty bank to have a net size of 1.668 trillion. In 2016, the Eurodollar market size was estimated at around 13.833 trillion.

Futures contracts
The Eurodollar futures contract refers to the financial futures contract based upon these deposits, traded at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME). More specifically, Eurodollar futures contracts are derivatives on the interest rate paid on those deposits. A Eurodollar future is a cash settled futures contract whose price moves in response to the LIBOR interest rate. Eurodollar futures are a way for companies and banks to lock in an interest rate today, for money they intend to borrow or lend in the future. Each CME Eurodollar futures contract has a notional or "face value" of $1 million, though the leverage used in futures allows one contract to be traded with a margin of about one thousand dollars.

CME Eurodollar futures prices are determined by the market's forecast of the 3-month USD LIBOR interest rate expected to prevail on the settlement date. A price of 95.00 implies an interest rate of 100.00 - 95.00, or 5%. The settlement price of a contract is defined to be 100.00 minus the official British Bankers' Association fixing of 3-month LIBOR on the day the contract is settled.

How the Eurodollar futures contract works
For example, if on a particular day an investor buys a single three-month contract at 95.00 (implied settlement LIBOR of 5.00%):

 * if at the close of business on that day, the contract price has risen to 95.01 (implying a LIBOR decrease to 4.99%), US$25 will be bought from the investor's margin account; or
 * if at the close of business on that day, the contract price has fallen to 94.99 (implying a LIBOR increase to 5.01%), US$25 will be sold from the investor's margin account.

On the settlement date, the settlement price is determined by the actual LIBOR fixing for that day rather than a market-determined contract price.

History
The Eurodollar futures contract was launched in 1981, as the first cash-settled futures contract. People reportedly camped out the night before the contract's open, flooding the pit when the CME opened the doors. That trading pit was the largest pit ever, nearly the size of a football field, and quickly became one of the most active on the trading floor, with over 1500 traders and clerks coming to work every day on what was then known as the CME's upper trading floor. That floor is no longer, with the CME having moved over to the CBOT's trading floor and 98% of Eurodollar trading now done electronically.

Eurodollar futures contract as synthetic loan
A single Eurodollar future is similar to a forward rate agreement to borrow or lend US$1000000 for three months starting on the contract settlement date. Buying the contract is equivalent to lending money, and selling the contract short is equivalent to borrowing money.

Consider an investor who agreed to lend US$1000000 on a particular date for three months at 5.00% per annum (months are calculated on a 30/360 basis). Interest received in 3 months' time would be US$1000000 × 5.00% × 90 / 360 = US$12500.
 * If the following day, the investor is able to lend money from the same start date at 5.01%, he or she would be able to earn US$1000000 × 5.01% × 90 / 360 = US$12525 of interest. Since the investor only is earning US$12500 of interest, he or she has lost US$25 as a result of interest rate moves.
 * On the other hand, if the following day, the investor is able to lend money from the same start date only at 4.99%, he or she would be able to earn only US$1000000 × 4.99% × 90 / 360 = US$12475 of interest. Since the investor is in fact earning US$12500 of interest, he or she has gained US$25 as a result of interest rate moves.

This demonstrates the similarity. However, the contract is also different from a loan in several important respects:
 * In an actual loan, the US$25 per basis point is earned or lost at the end of the three-month loan, not up front. That means that the profit or loss per 0.01% change in interest rate as of the start date of the loan (i.e., its present value) is less than US$25. Moreover, the present value change per 0.01% change in interest rate is higher in low interest rate environments and lower in high interest rate environments. This is to say that an actual loan has convexity. A Eurodollar future pays US$25 per 0.01% change in interest rate no matter what the interest rate environment, which means it does not have convexity. This is one reason that Eurodollar futures are not a perfect proxy for expected interest rates. This difference can be adjusted for by reference to the implied volatility of options on Eurodollar futures.
 * In an actual loan, the lender takes credit risk to a borrower. In Eurodollar futures, the principal of the loan is never disbursed, so the credit risk is only on the margin account balance. Moreover, even that risk is the risk of the clearinghouse, which is considerably lower than even unsecured single-A credit risk.

Other features of Eurodollar futures
40 quarterly expirations and 4 serial expirations are listed in the Eurodollar contract. This means that on 1 January 2011, the exchange will list 40 quarterly expirations (March, June, September, December for 2011 through 2020), the exchange will also list another four serial (monthly) expirations (January, February, April, May 2011). This extends tradeable contracts over ten years, which provides an excellent picture of the shape of the yield curve. The front-month contracts are among the most liquid futures contracts in the world, with liquidity decreasing for the further out contracts. Total open interest for all contracts is typically over 10 million.

The CME Eurodollar futures contract is used to hedge interest rate swaps. There is an arbitrage relationship between the interest rate swap market, the forward rate agreement market and the Eurodollar contract. CME Eurodollar futures can be traded by implementing a spread strategy among multiple contracts to take advantage of movements in the forward curve for future pricing of interest rates.

Sweeps
In United States banking, Eurodollars are a popular option for what are known as "sweeps". Until 21 July 2011, banks were not allowed to pay interest on corporate checking accounts. To accommodate larger businesses, banks may automatically transfer, or sweep, funds from a corporation's checking account into an overnight investment option to effectively earn interest on those funds. Banks usually allow these funds to be swept either into money market mutual funds, or alternately they may be used for bank funding by transferring to an offshore branch of a bank. Today, commercial banks continue to offer many forms of sweep services which tend to give a higher rate of return whilst smaller entities may use a sweep account simply out of convenience.

title: Eurodollar