text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/149

RV 139 (BUDDENBROOKS) the hearts of those still in the midst of life’s tribulations, and helping them to forget for a little while.

Hanno unclasped his hands from about his knees. He looked very pale, and cold, played with the fringe of his stool, and twisted his tongue about among his teeth. He had to draw a deep breath every little while, for his heart contracted with a joy almost painful at the exquisite bell-like purity of the chorale. The white folding doors were still tightly closed, but the spicy poignant odour drifted through the cracks and whetted one’s appetite for the wonder within. Each year with throbbing pulses he awaited this vision of ineffable, unearthly splendour. What would there be for him, in there? What he had wished for, of course; there was always that—unless he had been persuaded out of it beforehand. The theatre, then, the long-desired toy theatre, would spring at him as the door opened, and show him the way to his place. This was the suggestion which had stood heavily underlined at the top of his list, ever since he had seen Fidelio; indeed, since then, it had been almost his single thought.

He had been taken to the opera as compensation for a particularly painful visit to Herr Brecht; sitting beside his mother, in the dress circle, he had followed breathless a performance of Fidelio, and since that time he had heard nothing, seen nothing, thought of nothing but opera, and a passion for the theatre filled him and almost kept him sleepless. He looked enviously at people like Uncle Christian, who was known as a regular frequenter and might go every night if he liked: Consul Döhlmann, Gosch the broker—how could they endure the joy of seeing it every night? He himself would ask no more than to look once a week into the hall, before the performance: hear the voices of the instruments being tuned, and gaze for a while at the curtain! For he loved it all, the seats, the musicians, the drop-curtain—even the smell of gas.

Would his theatre be large? What sort of curtain would it have? A tiny hole must be cut in it at once—there was a

RV 139 (139)


text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/150

RV 140 (BUDDENBROOKS) peep-hole in the curtain at the theatre. Had Grandmamma, or rather had Mamsell Severin—for Grandmamma could not see to everything herself—been able to find all the necessary scenery for Fidelio? He determined to shut himself up to-morrow and give a performance all by himself, and already in fancy he heard his little figures singing: for he was approaching the theatre by way of his music.

“Exult, Jerusalem!” finished the choir; and their voices, following one another in fugue form, united joyously in the last syllable. The clear accord died away; deep silence reigned in the pillared hall and the landscape-room. The elders looked down, oppressed by the pause; only Director Weinschenk’s eyes roved boldly about, and Frau Permaneder coughed her dry cough, which she could not suppress. Now the Frau Consul moved slowly to the table and sat among her family. She turned up the lamp and took in her hands the great Bible with its edges of faded gold-leaf. She stuck her glasses on her nose, unfastened the two great leather hasps of the book, opened it to the place where there was a bookmark, took a sip of eau sucrée, and began to read, from the yellowed page with the large print, the Christmas chapter.

She read the old familiar words with a simple, heart-felt accent that sounded clear and moving in the pious hush. “ ‘And to men good-will,’ ” she finished, and from the pillared hall came a trio of voices: “Holy night, peaceful night!” The family in the landscape-room joined in. They did so cautiously, for most of them were unmusical, as a tone now and then betrayed. But that in no wise impaired the effect of the old hymn. Frau Permaneder sang with trembling lips; it sounded sweetest and most touching to the heart of her who had a troubled life behind her, and looked back upon it in the brief peace of this holy hour. Madame Kethelsen wept softly, but comprehended nothing.

Now the Frau Consul rose. She grasped the hands of her grandson Johann and her granddaughter Elisabeth, and proceeded through the room. The elders of the family fell in

RV 140 (140)

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


text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/151

RV 141 (BUDDENBROOKS) behind, and the younger brought up the rear; the servants and poor joined in from the hall; and so they marched, sinking with one accord “Oh, Evergreen”—Uncle Christian sang “Oh, Everblue,” and made the children laugh by lifting up his legs like a jumping-jack—through the wide-open, lofty folding doors, and straight into Paradise.

The whole great room was filled with the fragrance of slightly singed evergreen twigs and glowing with light from countless tiny flames. The sky-blue hangings with the white figures on them added to the brilliance. There stood the mighty tree, between the dark red window-curtains, towering nearly to the ceiling, decorated with silver tinsel and large white lilies, with a shining angel at the top and the manger at the foot. Its candles twinkled in the general flood of light like far-off stars. And a row of tiny trees, also full of stars and hung with comfits, stood on the long white table, laden with presents, that stretched from the window to the door. All the gas-brackets on the wall were lighted too, and thick candles burned in all four of the gilded candelabra in the corners of the room. Large objects, too large to stand upon the table, were arranged upon the floor, and two smaller tables, likewise adorned with tiny trees and covered with gifts for the servants and the poor, stood on either side of the door.

Dazzled by the light and the unfamiliar look of the room, they marched once around it, singing, filed past the manger where lay the little wax figure of the Christ-child, and then moved to their places and stood silent.

Hanno was quite dazed. His fevered glance had soon sought out the theatre, which, as it stood there upon the table, seemed larger and grander than anything he had dared to dream of. But his place had been changed—it was now opposite to where he had stood last year, and this made him doubtful whether the theatre was really his. And on the floor beneath it was something else, a large, mysterious something, which had surely not been on his list; a piece of fur-

RV 141 (141)


text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/152

RV 142 (BUDDENBROOKS) niture, that looked like a commode—could it be meant for him?

“Come here, my dear child,” said the Frau Consul, “and look at this.” She lifted the lid. “I know you like to play chorals. Herr Pfühl will show you how. You must tread all the time, sometimes more and sometimes less; and then, not lift up the hands, but change the fingers so, peu à peu.”

It was a harmonium—a pretty little thing of polished brown wood, with metal handles at the sides, gay bellows worked with a treadle, and a neat revolving stool. Hanno struck a chord. A soft organ tone released itself and made the others look up from their presents. He hugged his grandmother, who pressed him tenderly to her, and then left him to receive the thanks of her other guests.

He turned to his theatre. The harmonium was an overpowering dream—which just now he had no time to indulge. There was a superfluity of joy; and he lost sight of single gifts in trying to see and notice everything at once. Ah, here was the prompter’s box, a shell-shaped one, and a beautiful red and gold curtain rolled up and down behind it. The stage was set for the last act of Fidelio. The poor prisoners stood with folded hands. Don Pizarro, in enormous puffed sleeves, was striking a permanent and awesome attitude, and the minister, in black velvet, approached from behind with hasty strides, to turn all to happiness. It was just as in the theatre, only almost more beautiful. The Jubilee chorus, the finale, echoed in Hanno’s ears, and he sat down at the harmonium to play a fragment which stuck in his memory. But he got up again, almost at once, to take up the book he had wished for, a mythology, in a red binding with a gold Pallas Athene on the cover. He ate some of the sweetmeats from his plate full of marzipan, gingerbread, and other goodies, looked through various small articles like writing utensils and school-bag—and for the moment forgot everything else, to examine a penholder with a tiny glass bulb

RV 142 (142)


text:
Grayned v. City of Rockford/Opinion of the Court

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Appellant Richard Grayned was convicted for his part in a demonstration in front of West Senior High School in Rockford, Illinois. Negro students at the school had first presented their grievances to school administrators. When the principal took no action on crucial complaints, a more public demonstration of protest was planned. On April 25, 1969, approximately 200 people—students, their family members, and friends—gathered next to the school grounds. Appellant, whose brother and twin sisters were attending the school, was part of this group. The demonstrators marched around on a sidewalk about 100 feet from the school building, which was set back from the street. Many carried signs which summarized the grievances: "Black cheerleaders to cheer too"; "Black history with black teachers"; "Equal rights, Negro counselors." Others, without placards, made the "power to the people" sign with their upraised and clenched fists.

In other respects, the evidence at appellant's trial was sharply contradictory. Government witnesses reported that the demonstrators repeatedly cheered, chanted, baited policemen, and made other noise that was audible in the school; that hundreds of students were distracted from their school activities and lined the classroom windows to watch the demonstration; that some demonstrators successfully yelled to their friends to leave the school building and join the demonstration; that uncontrolled latenesses after period changes in the school were far greater than usual, with late students admitting that they had been watching the demonstration; and that, in general, orderly school procedure was disrupted. Defense witnesses claimed that the demonstrators were at all times quiet and orderly; that they did not seek to violate the law, but only to "make [p106] a point"; that the only noise was made by policemen using loudspeakers; that almost no students were noticeable at the schoolhouse windows; and that orderly school procedure was not disrupted.

After warning the demonstrators, the police arrested 40 of them, including appellant. For participating in the demonstration, Grayned was tried and convicted of violating two Rockford ordinances, hereinafter referred to as the "antipicketing" ordinance and the "antinoise" ordinance. A $25 fine was imposed for each violation. Since Grayned challenged the constitutionality of each ordinance, he appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Illinois. Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 302. He claimed that the ordinances were invalid on their face, but did not urge that, as applied to him, the ordinances had punished constitutionally protected activity. The Supreme Court of Illinois held that both ordinances were constitutional on their face. 46 Ill. 2d 492, 263 N.E.2d 866 (1970). We noted probable jurisdiction, 404 U.S. 820 (1971). We conclude that the antipicketing ordinance is unconstitutional, but affirm the court below with respect to the antinoise ordinance. [p107]

= I =

At the time of appellant's arrest and conviction, Rockford's antipicketing ordinance provided that

"A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:

"(i) Pickets or demonstrates on a public way within 150 feet of any primary or secondary school building while the school is in session and one-half hour before the school is in session and one-half hour after the school session has been concluded, provided that this subsection does not prohibit the peaceful picketing of any school involved in a labor dispute " Code of Ordinances, c. 28, § 18.1(i).

This ordinance is identical to the Chicago disorderly conduct ordinance we have today considered in Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, ante, p. 92. For the reasons given in Mosley, we agree with dissenting Justice Schaefer below, and hold that § 18.1(i) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Appellant's conviction under this invalid ordinance must be reversed.

= II =

The antinoise ordinance reads, in pertinent part, as follows:

"[N]o person, while on public or private grounds adjacent to any building in which a school or any [p108] class thereof is in session, shall willfully make or assist in the making of any noise or diversion which disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of such school session or class thereof" Code of Ordinances, c. 28, § 19.2(a).

Appellant claims that, on its face, this ordinance is both vague and overbroad, and therefore unconstitutional. We conclude, however, that the ordinance suffers from neither of these related infirmities.

A. Vagueness
It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates [p109] basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. Third, but related, where a vague statute "abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms," it "operates to inhibit the exercise of [those] freedoms." Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to steer far wider of the unlawful zone' than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked."

Although the question is close, we conclude that the antinoise ordinance is not impermissibly vague. The court below rejected appellant's arguments "that proscribed conduct was not sufficiently specified and that police were given too broad a discretion in determining whether conduct was proscribed." 46 Ill. 2d, at 494, 263 N.E.2d, at 867. Although it referred to other, similar statutes it had recently construed and upheld, the court [p110] below did not elaborate on the meaning of the antinoise ordinance. In this situation, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter put it, we must "extrapolate its allowable meaning." Here, we are "relegated to the words of the ordinance itself," to the interpretations the court below has given to analogous statutes, and, perhaps to some degree, to the interpretation of the statute given by those charged with enforcing it. "Extrapolation," of course, is a delicate task, for it is not within our power to construe and narrow state laws.

With that warning, we find no unconstitutional vagueness in the antinoise ordinance. Condemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language. The words of the Rockford ordinance are marked by "flexibility and reasonable breadth, rather than meticulous specificity," Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 415 F.2d 1077, 1088 (CA8 1969) (Blackmun, J.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 965 (1970), but we think it is clear what the ordinance as a whole prohibits. Designed, according to its preamble, "for the protection of Schools," the ordinance forbids deliberately [p111] noisy or diversionary activity that disrupts or is about to disrupt normal school activities. It forbids this willful activity at fixed times—when school is in session—and at a sufficiently fixed place—"adjacent" to the school. Were we left with just the words of the ordinance, we might be troubled by the imprecision of the phrase "tends to disturb." However, in Chicago v. Meyer, 44 Ill. 2d 1, 4, 253 N.E.2d 400, 402 (1969), and Chicago v. Gregory, 39 Ill. 2d 47, 233 N.E.2d 422 (1968), reversed on other grounds, 394 U.S. 111 (1969), the Supreme Court of Illinois construed a Chicago ordinance prohibiting, inter alia, a "diversion tending to disturb the peace," and held that it permitted conviction only where there was "imminent threat of violence." (Emphasis supplied.) See Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 116–117, 121–122 (1969) (Black, J., concurring). Since Meyer was specifically cited in the opinion below, and it in turn drew heavily on Gregory, we think it proper to conclude that the Supreme Court of Illinois would interpret the Rockford ordinance to prohibit only actual [p112] or imminent interference with the "peace or good order" of the school.

Although the prohibited quantum of disturbance is not specified in the ordinance, it is apparent from the statute's announced purpose that the measure is whether normal school activity has been or is about to be disrupted. We do not have here a vague, general "breach of the peace" ordinance, but a statute written specifically for the school context, where the prohibited disturbances are easily measured by their impact on the normal activities of the school. Given this "particular context," the ordinance gives "fair notice to those to whom [it] is directed." Although the Rockford ordinance may not be as precise as the statute we upheld in Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611 (1968)—which prohibited picketing "in such a manner as to obstruct or unreasonably interfere with free ingress or egress to and from" any courthouse—we think that, as in Cameron, the ordinance here clearly "delineates its reach in words of common understanding." Id., at 616.

[p113] Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965), and Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971), on which appellant particularly relies, presented completely different situations. In Cox, a general breach of the peace ordinance had been construed by state courts to mean "to agitate, to arouse from a state of repose, to molest, to interrupt, to hinder, to disquiet." The Court correctly concluded that, as construed, the ordinance permitted persons to be punished for merely expressing unpopular views. In Coates, the ordinance punished the sidewalk assembly of three or more persons who "conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by " We held, in part, that the ordinance was impermissibly vague because enforcement depended on the completely subjective standard of "annoyance."

In contrast, Rockford's antinoise ordinance does not permit punishment for the expression of an unpopular point of view, and it contains no broad invitation to subjective or discriminatory enforcement. Rockford does not claim the broad power to punish all "noises" and "diversions." The vagueness of these terms, by themselves, is dispelled by the ordinance's requirements that (1) the "noise or diversion" be actually incompatible with normal school activity; (2) there be a demonstrated causality between the disruption that occurs and the "noise or diversion"; and (3) the acts be [p114] "willfully" done. "Undesirables" or their "annoying" conduct may not be punished. The ordinance does not permit people to "stand on a public sidewalk only at the whim of any police officer." Rather, there must be demonstrated interference with school activities. As always, enforcement requires the exercise of some degree of police judgment, but, as confined, that degree of judgment here is permissible. The Rockford City Council has made the basic policy choices, and has given fair warning as to what is prohibited. "[T]he ordinance defines boundaries sufficiently distinct" for citizens, policemen, juries, and appellate judges. It is not impermissibly vague.

B. Overbreadth
A clear and precise enactment may nevertheless be "overbroad" if in its reach it prohibits constitutionally protected conduct. Although appellant does not claim that, as applied to him, the antinoise ordinance has punished protected expressive activity, he claims that the ordinance is overbroad on its face. Because overbroad laws, like vague ones, deter privileged activity, our cases firmly establish appellant's standing to raise an overbreadth challenge. The crucial question, then, is [p115] whether the ordinance sweeps within its prohibitions what may not be punished under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, appellant contends that the Rockford ordinance unduly interferes with First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to picket on a public sidewalk near a school. We disagree.

"In considering the right of a municipality to control the use of public streets for the expression of religious [or political] views, we start with the words of Mr. Justice Roberts that 'Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.' Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939)." Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290, 293 (1951). See Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 152 (1969). The right to use a public place for expressive activity may be restricted only for weighty reasons.

Clearly, government has no power to restrict such activity because of its message. Our cases make equally clear, however, that reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations may be necessary to further significant governmental interests, and are permitted. For example, two parades cannot march on the same street simultaneously, and government may allow only one. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 576 (1941). A demonstration or parade on a large street during rush hour [p116] might put an intolerable burden on the essential flow of traffic, and for that reason could be prohibited. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S., at 554. If overamplified loudspeakers assault the citizenry, government may turn them down. Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77 (1949); Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558, 562 (1948). Subject to such reasonable regulation, however, peaceful demonstrations in public places are protected by the First Amendment. Of course, where demonstrations turn violent, they lose their protected quality as expression under the First Amendment.

The nature of a place, "the pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regulations of time, place, and manner that are reasonable." Although a silent vigil may not unduly interfere with a public library, Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U.S. 131 (1966), making a speech in the reading room almost certainly would. That same speech should be perfectly appropriate in a park. The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time. Our cases make clear that in assessing the reasonableness of a regulation, we must weigh heavily the fact that communication is involved; the regulation must be narrowly [p117] tailored to further the State's legitimate interest. Access to the "streets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar public places for the purpose of exercising [First Amendment rights] cannot constitutionally be denied broadly " Free expression "must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied."

In light of these general principles, we do not think that Rockford's ordinance is an unconstitutional regulation of activity around a school. Our touchstone is Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), in which we considered the question of how to accommodate First Amendment rights with the "special characteristics of the school environment." Id., at 506. Tinker held that the Des Moines School District could not punish students for wearing black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam war. Recognizing that wide exposure to robust exchange of ideas is an "important part of the educational process" and should be nurtured, id., at 512, we concluded that free expression could not be barred from the school campus. We made clear that "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression," id., at 508, and that particular expressive activity could not be prohibited because of a "mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint," Id., at 509. But we nowhere suggested that students, teachers, or anyone else has an absolute constitutional right to use [p118] all parts of a school building or its immediate environs for his unlimited expressive purposes. Expressive activity could certainly be restricted, but only if the forbidden conduct "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others." Id., at 513. The wearing of armbands was protected in Tinker because the students "neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder." Id., at 514. Compare Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744 (CA5 1966), and Butts v. ''Dallas Ind. School District, 436 F.2d 728 (CA5 1971), with Blackwell v. Issaquena County Board of Education'', 363 F.2d 749 (CA5 1966).

Just as Tinker made clear that school property may not be declared off limits for expressive activity by students, we think it clear that the public sidewalk adjacent to school grounds may not be declared off limits for expressive activity by members of the public. But in each case, expressive activity may be prohibited if it "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others." Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S., at 513.

We would be ignoring reality if we did not recognize that the public schools in a community are important institutions, and are often the focus of significant grievances. Without interfering with normal school activities, [p119] daytime picketing and handbilling on public grounds near a school can effectively publicize those grievances to pedestrians, school visitors, and deliverymen, as well as to teachers, administrators, and students. Some picketing to that end will be quiet and peaceful, and will in no way disturb the normal functioning of the school. For example, it would be highly unusual if the classic expressive gesture of the solitary picket disrupts anything related to the school, at least on a public sidewalk open to pedestrians. On the other hand, schools could hardly tolerate boisterous demonstrators who drown out classroom conversation, make studying impossible, block entrances, or incite children to leave the schoolhouse.

Rockford's antinoise ordinance goes no further than Tinker says a municipality may go to prevent interference with its schools. It is narrowly tailored to further Rockford's compelling interest in having an undisrupted school session conducive to the students' learning, and does not unnecessarily interfere with First Amendment rights. Far from having an impermissibly broad prophylactic ordinance, Rockford punishes only conduct which disrupts or is about to disrupt normal school activities. That decision is made, as it should be, on an individualized basis, given the particular fact situation. Peaceful picketing which does not interfere with the ordinary functioning of the school is permitted. [p120] And the ordinance gives no license to punish anyone because of what he is saying.

We recognize that the ordinance prohibits some picketing that is neither violent nor physically obstructive. Noisy demonstrations that disrupt or are incompatible with normal school activities are obviously within the ordinance's reach. Such expressive conduct may be constitutionally protected at other places or other times, cf. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 (1965), but next to a school, while classes are in session, it may be prohibited. The antinoise ordinance imposes no such restriction on expressive activity before or after the school session, while the student/faculty "audience" enters and leaves the school.

In Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965), this Court indicated that, because of the special nature of the place, persons could be constitutionally prohibited from picketing "in or near" a courthouse "with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding administration of justice." Likewise, in Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U.S. 611 (1968), we upheld a statute prohibiting [p121] picketing "in such a manner as to obstruct or unreasonably interfere with free ingress or egress to and from any county  courthouses." As in those two cases, Rockford's modest restriction on some peaceful picketing represents a considered and specific legislative judgment that some kinds of expressive activity should be restricted at a particular time and place, here in order to protect the schools. Such a reasonable regulation is not inconsistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The antinoise ordinance is not invalid on its face.

The judgment is

Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

joins in the judgment and in Part I of the opinion of the Court. He concurs in the result as to Part II of the opinion.

= Notes =

1. Police officers testified that "there was no way of picking out any one in particular" while making arrests. Report of Proceedings in Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit, Winnebago County 66. However, apparently only males were arrested. Id., at 65, 135, 147. Since appellant's sole claim in this appeal is that he was convicted under facially unconstitutional ordinances, there is no occasion for us to evaluate either the propriety of these selective arrests or the sufficiency of evidence that appellant himself actually engaged in conduct within the terms of the ordinances. , in concluding that appellant's particular behavior was protected by the First Amendment, reaches a question not presented by the parties here or in the court below. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 16–17; Jurisdictional Statement 3; City of Rockford v. Grayned, 46 Ill. 2d 492, 494, 263 N.E.2d 866, 867 (1970).

2. In November 1971, the antipicketing ordinance was amended to delete the labor picketing proviso. As Rockford notes, "This amendment and deletion has, of course, no effect on Appellant's personal situation." Brief 2. Necessarily, we must consider the facial constitutionality of the ordinance in effect when appellant was arrested and convicted.

3. E.g., Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 162 (1972); Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278, 287 (1961); United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954); Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223, 230–232 (1951); Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453 (1939); Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926); United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 89 (1921); International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216, 223–224 (1914).

4. E.g., Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, supra; Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, 614 (1971); Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S. 111, 120 (1969) (Black, J., concurring); Interstate Circuit v. Dallas, 390 U.S. 676, 684–685 (1968); Ashton v. Kentucky, 384 U.S. 195, 200 (1966); Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 (1966); Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90–91 (1965); [p109] Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951); Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558, 559–560 (1948); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 97–98 (1940); Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 261–264 (1937).

5. Where First Amendment interests are affected, a precise statute "evincing a legislative judgment that certain specific conduct be  proscribed," Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 236 (1963), assures us that the legislature has focused on the First Amendment interests and determined that other governmental policies compel regulation. See Kalven, The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, 32; Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157, 200, 202 (1961) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment).

6. Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 372 (1964).

7. Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U.S., at 287.

8. Baggett v. Bullitt, supra, 377 U.S., at 372, quoting Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 526. See Interstate Circuit v. Dallas, supra, at 684; Ashton v. Kentucky, supra, at 195, 200–201; Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 486 (1965); Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 150–152 (1959); Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507 (1948); Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369 (1931).

9. The trial magistrate simply charged the jury in the words of the ordinance. The complaint and verdict form used slightly different language. See n. 24, infra.

10. Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S., at 174 (concurring in judgment).

11. Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S., at 614.

12. E.g., Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972).

13. E.g., Lake Carriers Assn. v. MacMullan, 406 U.S. 498, 506–508 (1972); Cole v. Richardson, 405 U.S. 676 (1972); Ehlert v. United States, 402 U.S. 99, 105, 107 (1971); cf. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961).

14. United States v. 37 Photographs, 402 U.S. 363, 369 (1971).

15. It will always be true that the fertile legal "imagination can conjure up hypothetical cases in which the meaning of [disputed] terms will be in nice question." American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 412 (1950).

16. "Diversion" is defined by Webster's Third New International Dictionary as "the act or an instance of diverting from one course or use to another   the act or an instance of diverting (as the mind or attention) from some activity or concern   a turning aside   something that turns the mind from serious concerns or ordinary matters and relaxes or amuses."

17. Cf. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 568–569 (1965) ("near" the courthouse not impermissibly vague).

18. See Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U.S., at 119–120 (Black, J., concurring); Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S., at 525–527; Craig v. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 372 (1947); cf. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) (statute punishing "fighting words," that have a "direct tendency to cause acts of violence," upheld); Street v. New York, 394 U.S. 576, 592 (1969).

19. Cf. Chicago v. Terminiello, 400 Ill. 23, 79 N.E.2d 39 (1948), reversed on other grounds, 337 U.S. 1, 6 (1949).

20. Some intermediate appellate courts in Illinois appear to have interpreted the phrase "tending to" out of the Chicago ordinance entirely, at least in some contexts. Chicago v. Hansen, 337 Ill. App. 663, 86 N.E.2d 415 (1949); Chicago v. Holmes, 339 Ill. App. 146, 88 N.E.2d 744 (1949); Chicago v. Nesbitt, 19 Ill. App. 2d 220, 153 N.E. 259 (1958); but cf. Chicago v. Williams, 45 Ill. App. 2d 327, 195 N.E.2d 425 (1963).

In its brief, the city of Rockford indicates that its sole concern is with actual disruption. "[A] court and jury [are] charged with the duty of determining whether or not a school has been disrupted and that the defendant's conduct, [no matter what it was,] caused or contributed to cause the disruption." Brief for Appellee 16 (emphasis supplied). This was the theory on which the city tried appellant's case to the jury, Report, supra, n. 1, at 12–13, although the jury was instructed in the words of the ordinance. As already noted, supra, n. 1, no challenge is made here to the Rockford ordinance as applied in this case.

21. American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S., at 412.

22. Cf. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308 (1940). Similarly, in numerous other cases, we have condemned broadly worded licensing ordinances which grant such standardless discretion to public officials that they are free to censor ideas and enforce their own personal preferences. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969); Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958); Saia v. New York, 334 U.S. 558 (1948); Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 163–164 (1939); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938); Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 (1939).

23. Cf. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 546–550 (1965); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S., at 234–237.

24. Tracking the complaint, the jury verdict found Grayned guilty of "[w]ilfully causing diversion of good order of public school in session, in that while on school grounds and while school was in session, did wilfully make and assist in the making of a diversion which tended to disturb the peace and good order of the school session and class thereof."

25. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U.S., at 90.

26. Chicago v. Fort, 46 Ill. 2d 12, 16, 262 N.E.2d 473, 476 (1970), a case cited in the opinion below.

27. See Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 249–250 (1967), and cases cited.

28. E.g., Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972); Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S., at 616; Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S., at 486, and cases cited; Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290 (1951).

29. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, ante, p. 92.

30. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 575–576 (1941); Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S., at 293–294; Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395, 398 (1953); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S., at 554–555; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 46–48 (1966); Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U.S. 308, 320–321 (1968); Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

31. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, ante, at 95–96, and cases cited.

32. See generally T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 328–345 (1970).

33. Wright, The Constitution on the Campus, 22 Vand. L. Rev. 1027, 1042 (1969). Cf. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966); Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U.S. 308 (1968); Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

34. E.g., Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939); Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960); Saia v. New York, 334 U.S., at 562; Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S., at 574; Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S., at 516. See generally Kalven, The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1.

35. De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364–365 (1937); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S., at 451; Schneider v. State, 308 U.S., at 164; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S., at 307; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S., at 562–564; Davis v. Francois, 395 F.2d 730 (CA5 1968). Cf. Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 488 (1960); NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 438 (1963).

36. Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U.S., at 315.

37. Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S., at 516.

38. Cf. Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S., at 516.

39. In Tinker we recognized that the principle of that case was not limited to expressive activity within the school building itself. Id. at 512 n. 6, 513–514. See Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 415 F.2d 1077 (CA8 1969) (Blackmun, J.), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 965 (1970); Jones v. Board of Regents, 436 F.2d 618 (CA9 1970); Hammond v. South Carolina State College, 272 F. Supp. 947 (SC 1967) cited in Tinker.

40. Cf. Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S., at 102. It goes without saying that "one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of [p119] expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place." Schneider v. State, 308 U.S., at 163.

41. Cf. Jones v. Board of Regents, supra.

42. Cf. Barker v. Hardway, 283 F. Supp. 228 (SD W. Va.), aff'd 399 F.2d 638 (CA4 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 905 (1969) (Fortas, J., concurring).

43. See Jones v. Board of Regents, supra; Hammond v. South Carolina State College, supra.

44. Compare Scoville v. Board of Education, 425 F.2d 10 (CA7), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 826 (1970); Dickey v. Alabama State Board of Education, 273 F. Supp. 613 (MD Ala. 1967) (cited in Tinker).

45. Different considerations, of course, apply in different circumstances. For example, restrictions appropriate to a single-building high school during class hours would be inappropriate in many open areas on a college campus, just as an assembly that is permitted outside a dormitory would be inappropriate in the middle of a mathematics class.

46. Noting the need "to assure that the administration of justice at all stages is free from outside control and influence," we emphasized that "[a] State may protect against the possibility of a conclusion by the public  [that a] judge's action was in part a product of intimidation and did not flow only from the fair and orderly working of the judicial process." 379 U.S., at 562, 565.

47. Quoting Schneider v. State, 308 U.S., at 161, we noted that such activity bears no necessary relationship to the freedom to  distribute information or opinion. 390 U.S., at 617.

48. Cf. Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S., at 202–203 (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment).

49. Cf. Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966). In Adderley, the Court held that demonstrators could be barred from jailhouse grounds not ordinarily open to the public, at least where the demonstration obstructed the jail driveway and interfered with the functioning of the jail. In Tinker we noted that "a school is not like a hospital or a jail enclosure." 393 U.S., at 512 n. 6.

50. It is possible, of course, that there will be unconstitutional applications; but that is not a matter which presently concerns us. See Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U.S., at 91, and n. 1, supra.


text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/153

RV 143 (BUDDENBROOKS) on it: when you held this up to your eye, you saw, like magic, a broad Swiss landscape.

Mamsell Severin and the maid passed tea and biscuits; and while Hanno dipped and ate, he had time to look about. Every one stood talking and laughing; they all showed each other their presents and admired the presents of others. Objects of porcelain, silver, gold, nickel, wood, silk, cloth, and every other conceivable material lay on the table. Huge loaves of decorated gingerbread, alternating with loaves of marzipan, stood in long rows, still moist and fresh. All the presents made by Frau Permaneder were decorated with huge satin bows.

Now and then some one came up to little Johann, put an arm across his shoulders, and looked at his presents with the overdone, cynical admiration which people manufacture for the treasures of children. Uncle Christian was the only person who did not display this grown-up arrogance. He sauntered over to his nephew’s place, with a diamond ring on his finger, a present from his mother; and his pleasure in the toy theatre was as unaffected as Hanno’s own.

“By George, that’s fine,” he said, letting the curtain up and down, and stepping back for a view of the scenery. “Did you ask for it? Oh, so you did ask for it!” he suddenly said after a pause, during which his eyes had roved about the room as though he were full of unquiet thoughts. “Why did you ask for it? What made you think of it? Have you been in the theatre? Fidelio, eh? Yes, they give that well. And you want to imitate it, do you? Do opera yourself, eh? Did it make such an impression on you? Listen, son—take my advice: don’t think too much about such things—theatre, and that sort of thing. It’s no good. Believe your old uncle. I’ve always spent too much time on them, and that is why I haven’t come to much good. I’ve made great mistakes, you know.”

Thus he held forth to his nephew, while Hanno looked up

RV 143 (143)


text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/154

RV 144 (BUDDENBROOKS) at him curiously. He paused, and his bony, emaciated face cleared up as he regarded the little theatre. Then he suddenly moved forward one of the figures on the stage, and sang, in a cracked and hollow tremolo, “Ha, what terrible transgression!” He sat down on the piano-stool, which he shoved up in front of the theatre, and began to give a performance, singing all the roles and the accompaniment as well, and gesticulating furiously. The family gathered at his back, laughed, nodded their heads, and enjoyed it immensely. As for Hanno, his pleasure was profound. Christian broke off, after a while, very abruptly. His face clouded, he rubbed his hand over his skull and down his left side, and turned to his audience with his nose wrinkled and his face quite drawn.

“There it is again,” he said. “I never have a little fun without having to pay for it. It is not an ordinary pain, you know, it is a misery, down all this left side, because the nerves are too short.”

But his relatives took his complaints as little seriously as they had his entertainment. They hardly answered him, but indifferently dispersed, leaving Christian sitting before the little theatre in silence. He blinked rapidly for a bit and then got up.

“No, child,” said he, stroking Hanno’s head: “amuse yourself with it, but not too much, you know: don’t neglect your work for it, do you hear? I have made a great many mistakes.—I think I’ll go over to the club for a while,” he said to the elders. “They are celebrating there to-day, too. Good-bye for the present.” And he went off across the hall, on his stiff, crooked legs.

They had all eaten the midday meal earlier than usual to-day, and been hungry for the tea and biscuits. But they had scarcely finished when great crystal bowls were handed round full of a yellow, grainy substance which turned out to be almond cream. It was a mixture of eggs, ground almonds, and rose-water, tasting perfectly delicious; but if you ate even a tiny spoonful too much, the result was an attack of indigestion.

RV 144 (144)


text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/155

RV 145 (BUDDENBROOKS) However, the company was not restrained by fear of consequences—even though Frau Consul begged them to “leave a little corner for supper.” Clothilde, in particular, performed miracles with the almond cream, and lapped it up like so much porridge, with heart-felt gratitude. There was also wine jelly in glasses, and English plum-cake. Gradually they all moved over to the landscape-room, where they sat with their plates round the table.

Hanno remained alone in the dining-room. Little Elisabeth Weinschenk had already been taken home; but he was to stop up for supper, for the first time in his life. The servants and the poor folk had had their presents and gone; Ida Jungmann was chattering with Riekchen Severin in the hall—although generally, as a governess, she preserved a proper distance between herself and the Frau Consul’s maid.—The lights of the great tree were burnt down and extinguished, the manger was in darkness. But a few candles still burned on the small trees, and now and then a twig came within reach of the flame and crackled up, increasing the pungent smell in the room. Every breath of air that stirred the trees stirred the pieces of tinsel too, and made them give out a delicate metallic whisper. It was still enough to hear the hand-organ again, sounding through the frosty air from a distant street.

Hanno abandoned himself to the enjoyment of the Christmas sounds and smells. He propped his head on his hand and read in his mythology book, munching mechanically the while, because that was proper to the day: marzipan, sweetmeats, almond cream, and plum-cake; until the chest-oppression caused by an over-loaded stomach mingled with the sweet excitation of the evening and gave him a feeling of pensive felicity. He read about the struggles of Zeus before he arrived at the headship of the gods; and every now and then he listened into the other room, where they were going at length into the future of poor Aunt Clothilde.

Clothilde, on this evening, was far and away the happiest of them all. A smile lighted up her colourless face as she

RV 145 (145)


text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/156

RV 146 (BUDDENBROOKS) received congratulations and teasing from all sides; her voice even broke now and then out of joyful emotion. She had at last been made a member of the Order of St. John. The Senator had succeeded by subterranean methods in getting her admitted, not without some private grumblings about nepotism, on the part of certain gentlemen. Now the family all discussed the excellent institution, which was similar to the homes in Mecklenburg, Dobberthien, and Ribnitz, for ladies from noble families. The object of these establishments was the suitable care of portionless women from old and worthy families. Poor Clothilde was now assured of a small but certain income, which would increase with the years, and finally, when she had succeeded to the highest class, would secure her a decent home in the cloister itself.

Little Hanno stopped awhile with the grown-ups, but soon strayed back to the dining-room, which displayed a new charm now that the brilliant light did not fairly dazzle one with its splendours. It was an extraordinary pleasure to roam about there, as if on a half-darkened stage after the performance, and see a little behind the scenes. He touched the lilies on the big fir-tree, with their golden stamens; handled the tiny figures of people and animals in the manger, found the candles that lighted the transparency for the star of Bethlehem over the stable; lifted up the long cloth that covered the present-table, and saw quantities of wrapping-paper and pasteboard boxes stacked beneath.

The conversation in the landscape-room was growing less and less agreeable. Inevitably, irresistibly, it had arrived at the one dismal theme which had been in everybody’s mind, but which they had thus far avoided, as a tribute to the festal evening. Hugo Weinschenk himself dilated upon it, with a wild levity of manner and gesture. He explained certain details of the procedure—the examination of witnesses had now been interrupted by the Christmas recess—condemned the very obvious bias of the President, Dr. Philander, and poured scorn on the attitude which the Public Prosecutor, Dr. Hagenström,

RV 146 (146)


text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/157

RV 147 (BUDDENBROOKS) thought it proper to assume toward himself and the witnesses for the defence. Breslauer had succeeded in drawing the sting of several of his most slanderous remarks; and he had assured the Director that, for the present, there need be no fear of a conviction. The Senator threw in a question now and then, out of courtesy; and Frau Permaneder, sitting on the sofa with elevated shoulders, would utter fearful imprecations against Dr. Moritz Hagenström. But the others were silent: so profoundly silent that the Director at length fell silent too. For little Hanno, over in the dining-room, the time sped by on angels’ wings; but in the landscape-room there reigned an oppressive silence, which dragged on till Christian came back from the club, where he had celebrated Christmas with the bachelors and good fellows.

The cold stump of a cigar hung between his lips, and his haggard cheeks were flushed. He came through the dining-room and said, as he entered the landscape-room, Well, children, the tree was simply gorgeous. Weinschenk, we ought to have had Breslauer come to see it. He has never seen anything like it, I am sure.”

He encountered one of his mother’s quiet, reproachful sideglances, and returned it with an easy, unembarrassed questioning look. At nine o’clock the party sat down to supper.

It was laid, as always on these occasions, in the pillared hall. The Frau Consul recited the ancient grace with sincere conviction:

“Come, Lord Jesus, be our guest,

And bless the bread thou gavest us”

—to which, as usual on the holy evening, she added a brief prayer, the substance of which was an admonition to remember those who, on this blessed night, did not fare so well as the Buddenbrook family. This accomplished, they all sat down with good consciences to a lengthy repast, beginning with carp and butter sauce and old Rhine wine. RV 147 (147)


text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/158

RV 148 (BUDDENBROOKS) The Senator put two fish-scales into his pocket, to help him save money during the coming year. Christian, however, ruefully remarked that he hadn’t much faith in the prescription; and Consul Kröger had no need of it. His pittance had long since been invested securely, beyond the reach of fluctuations in the exchange. The old man sat as far away as possible from his wife, to whom he hardly ever spoke nowadays. She persisted in sending money to Jacob, who was still roaming about, nobody knew where, unless his mother did. Uncle Justus scowled forbiddingly when the conversation, with the advent of the second course, turned upon the absent members of the family, and he saw the foolish mother wipe her eyes. They spoke of the Frankfort Buddenbrooks and the Duchamps in Hamburg, and of Pastor Tibertius in Riga, too, without any ill-will. And the Senator and his sister touched glasses in silence to the health of Messrs Grünlich and Permaneder—for, after all, did they not in a sense belong to the family too?

The turkey, stuffed with chestnuts, raisins, and apples, was universally praised. They compared it with other years, and decided that this one was the largest for a long time. With the turkey came roast potatoes and two kinds of compote, and each dish held enough to satisfy the appetite of a family all by itself. The old red wine came from the firm of Möllendorpf.

Little Johann sat between his parents and choked down with difficulty a small piece of white meat with stuffing. He could not begin to compete with Aunt Tilda, and he felt tired and out of sorts. But it was a great thing none the less to be dining with the grown-ups, and to have one of the beautiful little rolls with poppy-seed in his elaborately folded serviette, and three wine-glasses in front of his place. He usually drank out of the little gold mug which Uncle Justus gave him. But when the red, white, and brown meringues appeared, and Uncle Justus poured some oily, yellow Greek wine into the smallest of the three glasses, his appetite revived. He ate a whole red ice, then half a white one, then a little piece of

RV 148 (148)


text:
Grayned v. City of Rockford/Concurrence-dissent Douglas

, dissenting in part.

While I join Part I of the Court's opinion, I would also reverse the appellant's conviction under the antinoise ordinance.

[p122] The municipal ordinance on which this case turns is c. 28, § 19.2(a) which provides in relevant part:

"That no person, while on public or private grounds adjacent to any building in which a school or any class thereof is in session, shall willfully make or assist in the making of any noise or diversion which disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of such school session or class thereof."

Appellant was one of 200 people picketing a school and carrying signs promoting a black cause—"Black cheerleaders to cheer too," "Black history with black teachers," "We want our rights", and the like. Appellant, however, did not himself carry a picket sign. There was no evidence that he yelled or made any noise whatsoever. Indeed, the evidence reveals that appellant simply marched quietly and on one occasion raised his arm in the "power to the people" salute.

The pickets were mostly students; but they included former students, parents of students, and concerned citizens. They had made proposals to the school board on their demands and were turned down. Hence the picketing. The picketing was mostly by black students who were counseled and advised by a faculty member of the school. The school contained 1,800 students. Those counseling the students advised they must be quiet, walk hand in hand, no whispering, no talking.

Twenty-five policemen were stationed nearby. There was noise but most of it was produced by the police who used loudspeakers to explain the local ordinance and to announce that arrests might be made. The picketing did not stop, and some 40 demonstrators, including appellant, were arrested.

The picketing lasted 20 to 30 minutes and some students went to the windows of the classrooms to observe it. It is not clear how many there were. The picketing [p123] was, however, orderly or, as one officer testified, "very orderly." There was no violence. And appellant made no noise whatever.

What Mr. Justice Roberts said in Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515–516, has never been questioned:

"Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use of the streets and public places has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens. The privilege of a citizen of the United States to use the streets and parks for communication of views on national questions may be regulated in the interest of all; it is not absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order; but it must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied."

We held in Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 544–545, that a State could not infringe the right of free speech and free assembly by convicting demonstrators under a "disturbing the peace" ordinance where all that the students in that case did was to protest segregation and discrimination against blacks by peaceably assembling and marching to the courthouse where they sang, prayed, and listened to a speech, but where there was no violence, no rioting, no boisterous conduct.

The school where the present picketing occurred was the center of a racial conflict. Most of the pickets were indeed students in the school. The dispute doubtless disturbed the school; and the blaring of the loudspeakers of the police was certainly a "noise or diversion" in the [p124] meaning of the ordinance. But there was no evidence that appellant was noisy or boisterous or rowdy. He walked quietly and in an orderly manner. As I read this record, the disruptive force loosed at this school was an issue dealing with race—an issue that is preeminently one for solution by First Amendment means. That is all that was done here; and the entire picketing, including appellant's part in it, was done in the best First Amendment tradition.


text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/159

RV 149 (BUDDENBROOKS) the chocolate, his teeth hurting horribly all the while. Then he sipped his sweet wine gingerly and listened to Uncle Christian, who had begun to talk.

He told about the Christmas celebration at the club, which had been very jolly, it seemed. “Good God!” he said, just as if he were about to relate the story of Johnny Thunderstorm, “those fellows drank Swedish punch just like water.”

“Ugh!” said the Frau Consul shortly, and cast down her eyes.

But he paid no heed. His eyes began to wander—and thought and memory became so vivid that they flickered like shadows across his haggard face.

“Do any of you know,” he asked, “how it feels to drink too much Swedish punch? I don’t mean getting drunk: I mean the feeling you have the next day—the after-effects. They are very queer and unpleasant; yes, queer and unpleasant at the same time.”

“Reason enough for describing them,” said the Senator.

“Assez, Christian. That does not interest us in the least,” said the Frau Consul. But he paid no attention. It was his peculiarity that at such times nothing made any impression on him. He was silent awhile, and then it seemed that the thing which moved him was ripe for speech.

“You go about feeling ghastly,” he said, turning to his brother and wrinkling up his nose. “Headache, and upset stomach—oh, well, you have that with other things, too. But you feel filthy”—here he rubbed his hands together, his face entirely distorted. “You wash your hands, but it does no good; they feel dirty and clammy, and there is grease under the nails. You take a bath: no good, your whole body is sticky and unclean. You itch all over, and you feel disgusted with yourself. Do you know the feeling, Thomas? you do know it, don’t you?”

“Yes, yes,” said the Senator, making a gesture of repulsion with his hand. But Christian’s extraordinary tactlessness had so increased with the years that he never perceived how

RV 149 (149)


text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/160

RV 150 (BUDDENBROOKS) unpleasant he was making himself to the company, nor how out of place his conversation was in these surroundings and on this evening. He continued to describe the evil effects of too much Swedish punch; and when he felt that he had exhausted the subject, he gradually subsided.

Before they arrived at the butter and cheese, the Frau Consul found occasion for another little speech to her family. If, she said, not quite everything in the course of the years had gone as we, in our short-sightedness, desired, there remained such manifold blessings as should fill our hearts with gratitude and love. For it was precisely this mingling of trials with blessings which showed that God never lifted his hand from the family, but ever guided its destinies according to His wise design, which we might not seek to question. And now, with hopeful hearts, we might drink together to the family health and to its future—that future when all the old and elderly of the present company would he laid to rest; and to the children, to whom the Christmas feast most properly belonged.

As Director Weinschenk’s small daughter was no longer present, little Johann had to make the round of the table alone and drink severally with all the company, from Grandmamma to Mamsell Severin. When he came to his father, the Senator touched the child’s glass with his and gently lifted Hanno’s chin to look into his eyes. But his son did not meet his glance: the long, gold-brown lashes lay deep, deep upon the delicate bluish shadows beneath his eyes.

Therese Weichbrodt took his head in both her hands, kissed him explosively on both cheeks, and said with such a hearty emphasis that surely God must have heeded it, “Be happy, you good che-ild!”

An hour later Hanno lay in his little bed, which now stood in the ante-chamber next to the Senator’s dressing-room. He lay on his back, out of regard for his stomach, which feeling was far from pleasant over all the things he had put into it that evening. Ida came out of her room in

RV 150 (150)


text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/161

RV 151 (BUDDENBROOKS) her dressing-sown, waving a glass about in circles in the air in order to dissolve its contents. He drank the carbonate of soda down quickly, made a wry face, and fell back again.

“I think I’ll just have to give it all up, Ida,” he said.

“Oh, nonsense, Hanno. Just lie still on your back. You see, now: who was it kept making signs to you to stop eating, and who was it that wouldn’t do it?”

“Well, perhaps I’ll be all right. When will the things come, Ida?”

“To-morrow morning, first thing, my dearie.”

“I wish they were here—I wish I had them now.”

“Yes, yes, my dearie—but just have a good sleep now.” She kissed him, put out the light, and went away.

He lay quietly, giving himself up to the operation of the soda he had taken. But before his eyes gleamed the dazzling brilliance of the Christmas tree. He saw his theatre and his harmonium, and his book of mythology; he heard the choir-boys singing in the distance: “Rejoice, Jerusalem!” Everything sparkled and glittered. His head felt dull and feverish; his heart, affected by the rebellious stomach, beat strong and irregularly. He lay for long, in a condition of mingled discomfort, excitement, and reminiscent bliss, and could not fall asleep.

Next day there would be a third Christmas party, at Fräulein Weichbrodt’s. He looked forward to it as to a comic performance in the theatre. Therese Weichbrodt had given up her pensionnat in the past year. Madame Kethelsen now occupied the first storey of the house on the Mill Brink, and she herself the ground floor, and there they lived alone. The burden of her deformed little body grew heavier with the years, and she concluded, with Christian humility and submission, that the end was not far off. For some years now she had believed that each Christmas was her last; and she strove with all the powers at her command to give a depart-

RV 151 (151)


text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/162

RV 152 (BUDDENBROOKS) ing brilliance to the feast that was held in her small overheated rooms. Her means were very narrow, and she gave away each year a part of her possession to swell the heap of gifts under the tree: knick-knacks, paper-weights, emery-bags, needle-cushions, glass vases, and fragments of her library, miscellaneous books of every shape and size. Books like “The Secret Journal of a Student of Himself,” Hebei’s “Alemannian Poems,” Krummacher’s “Parables”—Hanno had once received an edition of the “Pensées de Blaise Pascal,” in such tiny print that it had to be read with a glass.

Bishop flowed in streams, and Sesemi’s ginger-bread was very spicy. But Fräulein Weichbrodt abandoned herself with such trembling emotion to the joys of each Christmas party that none of them ever went off without a mishap. There was always some small catastrophe or other to make the guests laugh and enhance the silent fervour of the hostess’ mien. A jug of bishop would be upset and overwhelm everything in a spicy, sticky red flood. Or the decorated tree would topple off its wooden support just as they solemnly entered the room. Hanno fell asleep with the mishap of the previous year before his eyes. It had happened just before the gifts were given out. Therese Weichbrodt had read the Christmas chapter, in such impressive accents that all the vowels got inextricably commingled, and then retreated before her guests to the door, where she made a little speech. She stood upon the threshold, humped and tiny, her old hands clasped before her childish bosom, the green silk cap-ribbons falling over her fragile shoulders. Above her head, over the door, was a transparency, garlanded with evergreen, that said “Glory to God in the Highest.” And Sesemi spoke of God’s mercy; she mentioned that this was her last Christmas, and ended by reminding them that the words of the apostle commended them all to joy—wherewith she trembled from head to foot, so much did her whole poor little body share in her emotions. “Rejoice!” said she, laying her head on one side and nodding violently: “and again I say unto you, rejoice!”

But at this

RV 152 (152)


text:
Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/163

RV 153 (BUDDENBROOKS) moment the whole transparency, with a puffing, crackling, spitting noise, went up in flames, and Mademoiselle Weichbrodt gave a little shriek and a side-spring of unexpected picturesqueness and agility, and got herself out of the way of the rain of flying sparks.

As Hanno recalled the leap which the old spinster performed, he giggled nervously for several minutes into his pillow.

RV 153 (153)


text:
Page:The story of the flute (IA storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/191

 , Carmen, Act II., Opening. Zigeunerlied. , Carmen, ii-iii. Zwischenspiel. with the harp, 'cello, viola; and the Zwischenspiel (ii.-iii.) for solo flute and harp only. In fact, throughout the entire work, the flutes are splendidly handled.

Turning to English composers of recent times, we find Sir Arthur Sullivan making great use of both the flute and piccolo in The Golden Legend. The flute parts are written very high. At the beginning of this work he uses the flutes in sustained notes at the very top of their register to depict the whistling of the wind and the storm raging round the spire of the cathedral, and


text: Page:Buddenbrooks vol 2 - Mann (IA buddenbrooks0002mann).pdf/58


text:
User:Peteforsyth/tempforAWB

Category talk:Works with no license template

= convenience header =

 * A Biographical Fragment (1923)
 * Our Need for Religious Sincerity (1926)

Collections of poetry

 * The Wanderings of Oisin and Other Poems (1889) (Unindexed)
 * The Countess Kathleen and Various Legends and Lyrics or The Rose (1893) (Unindexed)
 * The Wind Among the Reeds (1899)
 * In the Seven Woods (1903)
 * The Green Helmet and Other Poems (1912)
 * Responsibilities (1914)
 * The Wild Swans at Coole (1919)
 * Michael Robartes and the Dancer (1921)
 * The Tower (1928)
 * The Winding Stair and Other Poems (1933)
 * A Woman Young and Old
 * Word for Music, Perhaps And Other Poems (1933)
 * A Full Moon in March (1935)
 * New Poems (1938) (Unindexed)
 * Last Poems (1939)

Poems

 * Index of Titles
 * Index of First Lines

Drama

 * The Island of Statues (1885)
 * Mosada (1886)
 * The Countess Cathleen (1892)
 * The Land of Heart's Desire (1894) (frontispiece by Aubrey Beardsley)
 * The Shadowy Waters (1900)
 * Cathleen ni Houlihan (1902)
 * On Baile's Strand (1904)
 * Where There is Nothing... (1903)
 * The Hour-Glass (1904)
 * The King's Threshold (1904)
 * The Pot of Broth (1904)
 * Deirdre (1907)
 * The Unicorn from the Stars, and Other Plays (1908)
 * The Unicorn from the Stars (1922 edition from Plays in Prose and Verse)
 * Cathleen ni Houlihan (1922 edition from Plays in Prose and Verse)
 * The Hour-Glass (see above)
 * The Green Helmet (1912)
 * At the Hawk's Well (1916)
 * Calvary (1921)
 * Four Plays for Dancers (1921)
 * The Player Queen (1922)
 * Plays in Prose and Verse (1922)
 * Cathleen ni Houlihan
 * The Pot of Broth
 * The Hour-Glass (prose)
 * The King's Threshold
 * On Baile's Strand
 * The Shadowy Waters
 * Deidre
 * The Unicorn from the Stars
 * The Green Helmet
 * The Hour-Glass (verse)
 * The Player Queen
 * The Cat and the Moon (1924)
 * Plays and Controversies (1924)
 * Plays in Prose and Verse (Revised Edition) (1924)
 * Sophocles' King Oedipus, a version for the modern stage (1928)
 * The Resurrection (1931)
 * The Words upon the Window Pane (1934)
 * A Full Moon in March
 * Purgatory (1938)
 * A Full Moon in March
 * Purgatory (1938)
 * Purgatory (1938)

Prose

 * The Celtic Twilight (1893),
 * The Curse of the Fires and of the Shadows (1893)
 * Rosa alchemica (1914)
 * Essays (1924)
 * A Vision (1925)

Autobiography

 * Volume I - Reveries over Childhood and Youth (1916)
 * Volume II - The Trembling of the Veil (1938)

Other

 * The works of William Blake, poetic, symbolic and critical (1893; edited with Edwin John Ellis)
 * Ideas of Good and Evil (1903) (non-fiction)
 * Irish Fairy Tales (1903) (as editor)
 * Twenty-One poems (1907) (editor; poems by Katharine Tynan Hinkson)
 * Esoteric Spiritualism // A Collection of Esoteric Writings of T. Subba Row, The Bombay Theosophical publication fund, Bombay, 1910
 * The cutting of an agate (1912)
 * Introduction to Gitanjali (1913)

title: User:Peteforsyth/tempforAWB


text:
Swarb v. Lennox/Concurrence White

MR. JUSTICE WHITE, concurring.

I join in the opinion of the Court and add these comments about a narrow aspect of the case.

It is true that this court has no jurisdiction of that portion of the District Court's judgment from which no appeal or cross-appeal was taken. Morley Construction Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 300 U.S. 185, 191-192 (1937); cf. United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 27 n. 7 (1960). But it is also well established that the prevailing party below need not cross-appeal to entitle him to support the judgment in his favor of grounds expressly rejected by the court below. Walling v. General Industries Co., 330 U.S. 545 (1947); Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 534-539 (1931); United States v. American Railway Express Co., 265 U.S. 425, 435-436 (1924); and the Court may notice a plain error in the record that disposes of a judgment before it. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, addendum n. to op., pp. 168-169 (1879). Thus, despite the fact that appellee-intervenors did not cross-appeal, they were free to support that part of the judgment in their favor on grounds that were presented and rejected by the District Court [p203] in arriving at an adverse judgment on other aspects of the case. Those grounds, if sustained, would not affect the finality of the unappealed judgment, but they would, if sufficient, be available to support the judgment of the District Court insofar as it is challenged here. Nothing to the contrary is to be inferred from our affirmance of that judgment on other grounds. At least that is my understanding of the Court's opinion, which I join.

title: Swarb v. Lennox/Concurrence White


text: Page:Tree Crops (1953).pdf/5

title: Page:Tree Crops (1953).pdf/5


text:
Page:The story of the flute (IA storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/192

 at the devil's words, "Shake the casements," he gives them a rapid staccato descending passage. The dying , Golden Legend. "Shake the casements." away of the storm is portrayed by chromatic passages, gradually descending from the C♯ in altissimo, on the flutes. In the sixth scene there is the long passage for , Golden Legend, Sc. vi. two flutes and piccolo in imitation of bells, and in the first scene we have a very peculiar effect produced by an accompaniment of two flutes and two piccolosthe


text:
Page:Tree Crops (1953).pdf/250

Farm animals eat much the greater part of the produce of the American acres. For that reason, we have thus far, in this book, been considering tree crops chiefly suited to feeding domestic animals; but now we come to the consideration of a series of crops which are grown, and should be, primarily for human food. I refer to the nuts. Walnuts, for example, like most other nuts, are a substitute for both meat and butter.

Tables of food analysis (Appendix) show that nuts have more food value than meat, grains, or fruits. Six leading flesh foods average 810 calories per pound. Half a dozen common nut kernels average 3,231 calories, about four times as much. Cereals at 1,650 calories are about half as nutritious as nuts. Fresh vegetables averaging 300 and fruits averaging about 275 calories per pound are less than a tenth as nutritious as nut meats.

The quality of nut food is also of the very highest. Early food chemists called nut protein "vegetable casein," because of its close resemblance to the protein of milk. When the Chinese mother's milk fails, her babe is fed on milk made of boiled water and the paste of ground walnut, Juglans regia.

P. W. Wang, curator, Kinsman Arboretum, Chuking, Kiangsu Province, China, says (1922 Proceedings of the Northern Nut Growers' Association, p. 120):

title: Page:Tree Crops (1953).pdf/250


text:
Page:Tree Crops (1953).pdf/251

 In China there is no baby fed by cow's milk. When the mother lacks milk and the home is not rich enough to hire a milk nurse, walnut milk is substituted. The way of making walnut milk is rather crude here; they simply grind or knock the kernel into paste, then mix with boiled water.

Dr. J. H. Kellogg, of Battle Creek, militant nutivorous vegetarian and in his amazing person a substantial vindication of his theory, backs up the Chinese milk-substitute theory (practice) and further points out that while many vegetable proteins are hard to digest, those from nuts are very easy to digest. He further avers that nut fats (the other chief food elements of nuts) are "far more digestible than animal fats of any sort."

On pp. 83-92, 1920 Proceedings of the Northern Nut Growers' Association, Dr. Kellogg claims that animal feeding experiments show that twenty ounces of milk will furnish complete protein enough to supplement a vegetable diet otherwise deficient in complete protein, or that the same amount of protein

Ounces of Pints of Milk Named Nuts Containing as Calories in Needed to

Much Protein Amt, of Milk Calories in Replace as One Pound Shownin One Poundof 2002, of Named Nut Column One Named Nuts of Milk

ACOIN: o3:68e03 4 2.4 780 2620 8.3 Almond........ 6.4 2080 3030 3.2 Beechnut....... 6.6 2145 3075 3.0 Butternut....... 8.5 2762 3165 2.4 Chestnut....... 3.2 1040 1876 6.4 Chinquapin..... 3-3 1072 1800 6.4 Filbert or

Hazelnut..... 5.0 1625 3290 4.0 Hickory nut..... 4.6 1495 3345 4.8 Pecans ssiecivaiaws 3.6 1170 3455 5-6 Peanut ocssws 5c 9.2 2090 2600 2.2 Pinonis's's 6 ssc08i% 4-4 1430 3205 4.8 English walnut.. 5.4 1555 3300 3.7

Black walnut.... 8.5 2762 3105 2.

title: Page:Tree Crops (1953).pdf/251


text:
Page:Tree Crops (1953).pdf/252

 can be furnished by the amount of nuts shown in column four in the table on page 203.

The housekeeper may probably do a little figuring on the relative cost of 20 ounces of milk and the nut meats listed in column 4.

The freedom of nuts from putrefactive germs and from ptomaine poisoning are points which we may esteem more highly as we increase our knowledge of what occurs in our digestive tracts.

The sufficiency of nuts as a substitute for meat in human diet seems well established alike by modern dietary experiment and by the experience of many primitive peoples. The sufficiency of a fruit-and-nut diet for humans is strongly hinted by its success with such physically similar animals as the orang-utan and the gorilla. Dr. Kellogg reports successful substitution of nuts for meat for a period of several months with a young wolf, a fish hawk, and many other carnivores. (Proceedings, Northern Nut Growers' Association, 1916, p. 112.)

I am well aware that vegetarianism is sometimes almost a religion, and although praising the nuts as food, I wish to confess my satisfaction in wielding the carving knife. Yet, I am not at all sure that I might not live longer on a vegetable-fruit-milk-nut diet. George H. Corsan, the "sassiest" man I know, and by far the spryest old man I know, is now past ninety. He classes milk as a poison, along with all flesh, and says that he lives on fruit, vegetables, and nuts. George Bernard Shaw, age 92, boasts of his vegetarianism, but is reported to take liver extract. As a matter of convenience when spending a day on the farm with my trees, I find the following lunch very satisfactory:

2 bananas 2 oranges a handful of nut meats a peanut-candy bar (for dessert)

In considering diet, it should always be remembered that after we get used to it.

title: Page:Tree Crops (1953).pdf/252


text:
Page:The story of the flute (IA storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/193

, Golden Legend, Sc. i. latter answering each other in alternate phrases. In Coleridge Taylor's Hiawatha we find some most appropriate themes given to the flute. The work opens with an announcement of one of the principal motifs by a solo , Hiawatha. flute, and the chief tenor solo has a delicate flute obligato. Some of the flute passages lie very high and are of great difficulty. A few can only be played with sufficient rapidity by the use of harmonicsa thing undreamt of by the older orchestral composers. Most of these, however, are doubled on the piccolo. This composer also gives a great number of shakes to the flute, including one of two and a half bars' duration on the top B′′′♮.


text:
Page:Tree Crops (1953).pdf/253

Nuts offer a double opportunity for the improvement of our food situation. They can enable us to increase both the quantity and the quality of our food supply. During our frontier period of abundance, nuts were neglected in America both dietetically and agriculturally; but their use as food is increasing rapidly now, and their culture is receiving attention which promises a widespread industry in a short time.

The value of nuts as a means to increase the quantity of our food supply is forcibly suggested by the established practice of French farmers who expect a good English (Persian) walnut tree to yield one hundred fifty pounds of nuts per year on the average. (See p. 210.) These have food value greater than that of one hundred fifty pounds (live weight) of sheep, which is the total produce of a whole acre of good pasture for a year even in such good pasture countries as England or the United States. Good bluegrass pastures in the United States produce about one hundred fifty pounds of beef per acre, but by liberal use of fertilizer and legumes, the yield can be pushed above that.

Careful study of the ingenious table (p. 203), especially of the last column, indicates the high possibility of nuts as food producers, if the problem of food scarcity should ever present itself to us as even partly so acute as it has already presented itself to most of the world. The United States is still a frontier, a resource frontier. The nut trees appear to be veritable engines of food production waiting for us as the nation matures, and we steadily destroy our plow land (grain land).

title: Page:Tree Crops (1953).pdf/253


text:
Page:The story of the flute (IA storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/194

 I have already spoken of Sullivan's use of the flutes in their highest register to depict a storm; Wagner uses them for the same purpose in his overture to The Flying Dutchman, and also in the "Ride" in the Walküre, where he allots to the flutes chromatic runs and shakes on their very highest notes along with the piccolos. He uses the flutes in groups, generally employing three flutes (often in unison) and a piccolo, sometimes even more; thus in Siegfried (ii. 2) we find three flutes and a piccolo, but they play only three distinct parts, and in Tannhäuser we have in the orchestra three flutes (one also plays piccolo), and also on the stage four flutes and two piccolos. As a rule, Wagner uses his flutes chiefly in sustained or reiterated chord accompaniments, or in unison with the rest of the wind in forte passages. He is fond of combining them with the oboe (e.g., Tannhäuser, iii. 1, "The day breaks in," and in the Meistersinger several times). But he hardly ever gives the flute a solo of any length; practically never a really long solo standing out prominently. The flutes are never used absolutely alone for more than a single bar. In my examples I have given the nearest approaches to solo passages to be found in his works. In Siegfried and elsewhere he uses the three flutes to imitate the flutter of birds.

Wagner does not as a rule treat the flute as a melodic instrument, nor does he use it much for "conversations" between the various instruments. We often find whole pages of his scores with no flute or


text:
Page:The Tarikh-i-Rashidi - Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát - tr. Edward D. Ross (1895).djvu/74

 Rh On the death of Vais there was a division among the Moghuls, some adhering to Yunus Khán, the eldest son of Vais, others to Isán Bugha II., the younger son.

Yunus Khan, who was expelled 832 (1429), returned 860 (1456), and regained the western part of Moghulistan. Hostilities were maintained between the eastern and western Moghuls till the death of his grand-nephew, Kabak Sultan, when he reigned without a rival.

In the latter part of his life, the remoter tribes of the steppes, displeased with his fondness for towns, separated from him, and acknowledged his second son, Sultan Ahmad, or Alácha Khán, as their Khan—so that the kingdom was again divided into two during his lifetime. He died 892 (1487).

Sultan Mahmud Khan, Yunus' eldest son, succeeded his father in Tashkand and as chief of the western tribes. He was defeated by Shaibáni Khán in 908 (1502–3), lost Tashkand and Sairám, and was finally put to death by Shaibáni in 914 (1508–9).

Isán Bugha II., raised to the throne in 832 (1429), and through life supported by the eastern Moghuls, died 866 (1462), was succeeded by his son

Dust Muhammad Khán, who ruled in the eastern districts (Uighuristan, etc.), died 873 (1468–9).

Kabak Sultan Oghlán, his son, ruled for a time about Turfán, or Uighuristán, where he was murdered.

Sultan Ahmad Khán, second son of Yunus, governed the eastern Moghuls in Aksu and Uighuristán. He was generally known as Alácha Khan—"the slaughtering Khan." He was bent on making himself absolute ruler of the steppes, destroyed the chiefs, and curtailed the power of many of the tribes. Defeated by Shaibáni Khán in 908 (1502–3), he died of grief in 909 (1503–4).

The death of Sultan Ahmad was followed by many civil wars and much anarchy in Moghulistan. His elder brother, Sultan Mahmud, invaded his dominions from the west. Sultan Ahmad's numerous sons contended with one another. Several sections of the people, and among others the Kirghiz, separated from the main body. The anarchy and civil wars lasted some years. The country was overrun by Abá Bakr (a Dughlát) of Kashghar, by the Kalmáks and the Kazáks. The whole of the tribes of Moghulistan never again united under one head. Two Khanates and the confederation of the Kirghiz-Kazáks seem to have arisen out of the ruins of the Khanate of the Moghuls. Sultan Mansur, the eldest son of Sultan Ahmad,


text:
Page:The Tarikh-i-Rashidi - Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát - tr. Edward D. Ross (1895).djvu/75

 48 established himself in Aksu, Turfán, etc., and a new Khanate arose in Kashghar and the western provinces.

Sultan Said Khan, third son of Sultan Ahmad, in Rajab 920 (Sept. 1514), or eleven years after his father's death, seized Kashghar, and expelled Abá Bakr Mirza. He died 16 Zilhajah 939 (9 July, 1533); and was succeeded by his son, Abdur Rashid Khan, who died 973 (1565–6); and was succeeded by his son, Abdul Karim.

Mansur Khan, Sultan Ahmad's eldest son, was acknowledged and ruled in Turfán and the eastern provinces—i.e., Uighuristán. He died in 950 (1543–4), having reigned two years along with his father, and forty more by himself; he was succeeded by his son, Sháh Khán.

Meanwhile in the steppes of Moghulistan, the Kirghiz established themselves under Khans of their own, and in process of time, formed a kind of federative union with the Kazák Uzbegs, which has, in some degree, lasted to the present day, and has been called "the three hordes of Kirghiz."

Amir Tulik, Ulusbegi (or chief of the tribe) of the Moghul Khans, contemporary with Isán Bugha I., succeeded by

Amir Balaji, his brother; raised Tughluk Timur to the throne; succeeded by his son,

Amir Khudáidád, who is said to have reigned about ninety years in Kashghar. He succeeded his father, probably soon after the year 748 (1347). In his time Amir Kamar-ud-Din, his uncle, usurped the Khanship of the Moghuls, and for a time also (it would appear) that of the greater part of Alti Shahr. The chronology of Amir Khudáidád's life is very uncertain. He was succeeded by

Amir Sayyid Ali, grandson of Khudáidád (by his son Amir Sayyid Ahmad). Sayyid Ali reigned about twenty-four years—838 to 861 (1435 to 1457)—and was succeeded by his sons,

Saniz Mirza, in Yarkand, who expelled his brother from Kashghar, and reigned seven years. He died 868 (1463–4).

Muhammad Haidar Mirza in Kashghar, whence he was expelled by his brother.

Muhammad Haidar Mirza, on his brother's death, succeeded. He is said to have reigned twenty-four years in all, or eight years with imperfect authority and sixteen years with full


text:
Page:The Tarikh-i-Rashidi - Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát - tr. Edward D. Ross (1895).djvu/76

 Rh authority. In 885 (1480) he was expelled by his nephew and stepson, Abá Bakr.

Abá Bakr Mirza, son of Sániz, reigned in all forty-eight years. The years of his reign are probably reckoned from the date of his taking possession of Yarkand, about 873 (1468–9). He was finally defeated and expelled by Sultan Said Khan, the third son of Sultan Ahmad Khan (Alácha Khan), who changed the dynasty. See Khans of Moghulistan, above. Abá Bakr was murdered 920

It may perhaps help to make matters clear as regards the dates, if I append here, a list of the western branch of the line of Chaghatai Khans (those of Mavará-un-Nahr or Transoxiana), extracted from Mr. Stanley Lane Poole's Muhammadan Dynasties (p. 242),


text:
Page:The Tarikh-i-Rashidi - Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát - tr. Edward D. Ross (1895).djvu/77

 50


text: Page:The Tarikh-i-Rashidi - Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát - tr. Edward D. Ross (1895).djvu/78


text:
Page:The story of the flute (IA storyofflute1914fitz).djvu/195

, Tristan. Beginning of Act II. , Götterdämmerung. Act III., sc. 2, Siegfried. Birds in Finale to Act II. piccolo part at all, and often only a few isolated notes in an entire movement. One feels that he could almost dispense with the flute altogether, and I rather suspect that he had an antipathy to the instrument. He chiefly makes use of the higher register, writing right up to


text:
Page:The Tarikh-i-Rashidi - Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát - tr. Edward D. Ross (1895).djvu/79

 GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE HOUSE OF CHAGHATAI

—The early part of this Table (down to Tughluk Timur) is compiled chiefly from that of Sir H. Howorth, as published in Mr. S. Lane Poole's Muhammadan Dynasties, facing p. 242. The latter part is from the Tarikh-i-Rashidi, as explained in Sect. II. of the Introduction.

The numbers (where not in parentheses) indicate the reigning Khans of the line of Mavaru-un-Nabir, as shown in the lis of p. 49, Set. II. of the Introduction.

To face p. 49


text:
Page:The Tarikh-i-Rashidi - Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát - tr. Edward D. Ross (1895).djvu/80

To face p. 50


text: Page:The Tarikh-i-Rashidi - Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát - tr. Edward D. Ross (1895).djvu/81


text:
Page:The Tarikh-i-Rashidi - Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát - tr. Edward D. Ross (1895).djvu/82

Rh

area over which Mirza Haidar's history extends is a wide one. Expressed in the geographical terms of our times, it may be said to deal with Western Turkistan, Bokhara, Farghana, the Russian province of Semirechensk (or the seven rivers), the Chinese province of Ili (or Zungaria), Eastern Turkistan, Tibet, Ladak, Baltistan, Gilgit and the neighbouring states, Chitral, Wákhán, Badakhshán, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Northern India; while references are frequently made to countries lying even beyond these regions. But it is a history, especially, of the eastern branch of the Chaghatais—i.e., the Moghuls proper—and, therefore, the chief scene of action lies in and immediately around their home-land. The situation and extent of this region are not difficult to describe, but it is far from easy to give a name to it as a whole.

Its limits were not very clearly defined at any period, and were seldom the same for twenty years at a time, while even the names of "Jatah" and "Moghulistan," by which a portion of it was known, are now not only obsolete, but have hitherto been subject to some doubt regarding the exact locality to which they were applied. Moreover, there was at no time any one name in use, which served to designate the entire Khanate. Mirza Haidar usually speaks of 'Moghulistan' and 'Kashghar,' but it is not always clear whether, by 'Kashghar,' he means only the city and district of that name, or the entire province of Alti-Shahr—the Six Cities of Eastern Turkistan—a


text:
Page:The Tarikh-i-Rashidi - Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát - tr. Edward D. Ross (1895).djvu/83

52 region which, he tells us more than once, was, when combined with Farghána, termed Mangalai Suyah or "Facing the Sun." This territory would almost exactly correspond to the provinces of Farghána and the Chinese Turkistan of modern times, less the districts of Karashahr, Turfán and Hami in the extreme east; or, in other words, to Farghána and Alti-Shahr. But even if we were to give the entire country the double name of "Moghulistan and Mangalai Suyah," there would still remain some difficulties of definition. At first sight it would appear that the author describes the limits very exactly; but this is not quite the case, and for two reasons. In the first place, he sets forth the provinces that composed it on several occasions, but does not always make them the same: the other is that, in common with all Asiatics who attempt to describe an area, he names a district or a geographical feature as a boundary, but does not mention whether it should be included or excluded—whether the limiting district, range or lake lay beyond or within the area he is describing. In addition to these uncertainties there is also the inconsistency that Farghána, as a whole, was seldom included within the actual possessions of the Khans of Moghulistan. They always regarded it as theirs by right, but they rarely held more than a few positions, or districts, within its limits, and even these they were usually unable to keep for any length of time. Practically, therefore, Farghána can scarcely be held to have formed a part of their dominions, although it may have been comprised in the geographical term "Mangalai Suyah." With this reservation, however, and in order to show what the author describes, it would seem as well that Farghána should be included nominally with Moghulistan and Alti-Shahr; so that, after making due allowance for the fluctuations that occurred at different periods, the following may be regarded (as nearly as possible) as a statement of the extent of the dominions of the Moghul Khans, from about the middle of the fourteenth century to the middle of the sixteenth.

There was no central division, but the province of Moghulistan proper—or Jatah, as it was also called during the early part of that period—being a "steppe" or pastoral country, and the homeland of the dominant tribe, was therefore the principal division. Its western boundary marched with the province of Shásh, the modern Táshkand, which seems to have contained


text:
Here all the summer could I stay

 * "Written in Devonshire", in The Poetical Works of John Keats (1884)
 * "At Teignmouth", in The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats (1899), edited by Horace Elisha Scudder

title: Here all the summer could I stay


text:
The Devon Maid

 * "Song", in The Poetical Works of John Keats (1884)
 * "The Devon Maid", in The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats (1899), edited by Horace Elisha Scudder

title: The Devon Maid


text: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/242

title: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/242


text: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/244

title: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/244


text:
Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/245

DUBLIN SCHOOL OF IRISH LEARNING, 33 DAWSON STREET HODGES, FIGGIS, & CO.,, 104 GRAFTON STREET

LONDON 1907

title: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/245


text:
Fragment of an Ode to Maia

 * "Written on May Day", in The Poetical Works of John Keats (1884)
 * "Fragment of an Ode to Maia", in The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats (1899), edited by Horace Elisha Scudder
 * "Fragment of an Ode to Maia" in The Hundred Best Poems (lyrical) in the English language (1904), edited by Adam Luke Gowans
 * "Fragment of an Ode to Maia" in the Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1900 (1931), edited by Arthur Quiller-Couch
 * "Fragment of an Ode to Maia" in the Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1918 (1940), edited by Arthur Quiller-Couch

title: Fragment of an Ode to Maia


text: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/246

title: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/246


text: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/248

title: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/248


text: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/369

title: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/369


text:
Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/370

JOHN STRACHAN

title: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/370


text: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/462

title: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/462


text: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/469

title: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/469


text: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/470

title: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/470


text: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/471

title: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/471


text: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/473

title: Page:Eriu Vol 2, 3.djvu/473


text:
Meg Merrilies

 * "Meg Merrilies", in The Poetical Works of John Keats (1884)
 * "Meg Merrilies", in The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats (1899), edited by Horace Elisha Scudder

title: Meg Merrilies


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/1


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/2


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/3


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/4


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/5


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/6


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/7


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/8


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/9


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/10


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/11


text:
At Fingal's Cave

 * "Written after Visiting Fingal's Cave", in The Poetical Works of John Keats (1884)
 * "At Fingal's Cave", in The complete poetical works and letters of John Keats (1899), edited by Horace Elisha Scudder

title: At Fingal's Cave


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/42


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/54


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/96


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/127


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/130


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/631


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/632


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/633


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/634


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/635


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/636


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/637


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/638


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/639


text: Page:Masterpieces of German literature volume 11.djvu/640