View allAll Photos Tagged Sentences
The museum's decription for this panel makes no mention of Bassenheim but places this painting next to the painting I uploaded yesterday. The last ½-sentence makes no sense to me.
38 years old Rohingya form Teknaf.
Met him in the street, then shared a tea and start talking about the Burmese Bangladesh political issue. Had served a 3 years sentence in Burma for mobile phone trafficking !
Running a small business in Teknaf, but dreaming of a better life abroad, thinking of using the illegal, paying brokers to smuggle by boat to Malaysia and beyond Australia. His sister got married with a bangladeshi, a more common trend these last years.
I just learned that Violet Hobaugh, who lived in the house I documented in the set "conviction" passed away this week.
© laura kicey
Members of Women’s Strike for Peace picket in front of the Selective Service headquarters at 1724 F Street in Washington, D.C. July 10, 1968 protesting the sentencing of Dr. Benjamin Spock and three others for conspiracy to aid and abet draft resistance.
Spock, a prominent pediatrician and antiwar activist; Rev. William Sloane Coffin; Michael Goodwin, a writer and college instructor; and Michael Ferber, a college graduate student were all sentenced to two years in prison the same day. Another defendant, a founder of the Institute for Policy Studies Marcus Raskin, had been acquitted in the earlier trial.
They were also fined $5,000 except Ferber who was fined $1,000.
All five men joined a rally by about 1,000 people at Boston Commons, near where the sentencing took place, and vowed to continue their antiwar activities.
Federal Judge Francis J. W. Ford had no tolerance for the men saying the charge against the men “amounts to rebellion against the law Rebellion against the law is in the nature of treason. The law demands obedience.”
The judge further said that it would be “preposterous” if the four convicted of inciting draft evasion should “escape under the guise of free speech.”
The men never served jail time as their convictions were overturned on appeal.
The case was one of many conspiracy trials that took place during the Vietnam War as the federal government targeted those they perceived to be leaders of the antiwar movement. Nearly all of those conspiracy trials resulted in either acquittals, hung juries or convictions overturned on appeal.
For more information and related images, see www.flickr.com/gp/washington_area_spark/Q034FH
The photographer is unknown. The image is a United Press International photograph housed in the D.C. Library Washington Star Collection.
The Great North Museum: Hancock is a museum of natural history and ancient civilisations in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
The museum was established in 1884 and was formerly known as the Hancock Museum. In 2006 it merged with Newcastle University's Museum of Antiquities and Shefton Museum to form the Great North Museum. The museum reopened as the Great North Museum: Hancock in May 2009 following a major extension and refurbishment of the original Victorian building. The museum and most of its collections are owned by the Natural History Society of Northumbria, and it is managed by Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums on behalf of Newcastle University.
The museum is located on the campus of Newcastle University, next to the Great North Road, and close to Barras Bridge. The nearest Tyne & Wear Metro station is Haymarket, and there is also a bus station at Haymarket.
One of the Second World War air raid shelter openings into the Victoria Tunnel is beneath the grounds of the museum.
The collection of the Hancock Museum can be traced to about 1780 when Marmaduke Tunstall started accumulating ethnographic and natural history material from around the world. He then brought his collection from London to North Yorkshire. In 1790 Tunstall died, and George Allan of Darlington purchased Tunstall's collection; and later in 1823 it was acquired by the Literary and Philosophical Society of Newcastle upon Tyne. A wombat, which is still on display, is considered to be the earliest object in the collection. It was the first complete wombat specimen to reach Europe. In 1829 the Natural History Society of Northumberland, Durham and Newcastle upon Tyne (now the Natural History Society of Northumbria) was formed as a scientific offshoot of the Literary and Philosophical Society. Amongst the founding and early members of the Natural History Society were Joshua Alder, Albany Hancock, John Hancock, Prideaux John Selby and William Chapman Hewitson.
The museum opened on its current site in 1884 after the collection of the Natural History Society outgrew its small museum, located on Westgate Road, which opened in 1834. A major benefactor to the museum was William Armstrong who gave the then large sum of £11,500. Armstrong had also founded the College of Physical Science which later became part of Newcastle University. The museum was renamed in the 1890s, after the local Victorian naturalists, Albany and John Hancock. In 1959 the Natural History Society agreed with the University of Newcastle for the university to care for the building and collections, and since 1992 the university has contracted with Tyne & Wear Museums to manage the museum under a Service Level Agreement.
The Hancock Museum was closed on 23 April 2006 for refurbishment and did not reopen until 23 May 2009. It was completely refurbished and extended as part of the Great North Museum Project, at a cost of £26 million. Great North Museum project is a partnership between Newcastle University, Tyne & Wear Museums, Newcastle City Council, the Natural History Society of Northumbria and the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne. The project was made possible with funds from the Heritage Lottery Fund, TyneWear Partnership, One NorthEast, the European Regional Development Fund, Newcastle University, Newcastle City Council, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Wolfson Foundation and The Northern Rock Foundation, as well as numerous other trusts and foundations. The building architects were Terry Farrell and Partners; Sir Terry Farrell is a native of Newcastle, and had previously been a student at Newcastle University.
The new museum includes new displays on natural history and geology, Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece, Romans and Hadrian's Wall, World Cultures and Pre-history. It also includes an interactive study zone, an under 5's space, and a digital Planetarium, as well as new learning facilities, a new temporary exhibition space, and a study garden. The new museum houses not only the Hancock Museum collections, but also those of the university's Museum of Antiquities and Shefton Museum. The building that formerly housed the Museum of Antiquities was later demolished. The Hatton Gallery is also a part of the Great North Museum Project, but is not relocating to the Hancock, and is remaining in Newcastle University's Fine Art Building.
In September 2008, the Great North Museum searched for a lookalike of the Emperor Hadrian, for a photo shoot, whose likeness would feature in a permanent display at the Hancock Museum. On 21 November 2008 the 'Be Part of It' campaign was launched, and it was announced that the Great North Museum: Hancock would be opening in May 2009. Athlete Jonathan Edwards is the patron of the 'Be Part of It' campaign. Other celebrity supporters of the museum include Sir Thomas Allen and Adam Hart-Davis. Donors to the campaign have the opportunity to have their name (or the name of a loved one) permanently included on a donor wall in the museum.
The Great North Museum formally re-opened on 23 May 2009. In August the museum announced that they had surpassed their expected annual target of 300,000 visitors. By August over 400,000 people had visited the reopened museum. On 6 November 2009 HM The Queen officially opened the Great North Museum. In 2009, the Great North Museum had over 600,000 visitors.
By August 2010, the reopened Great North Museum had welcomed its one millionth visitor.
Among the museum's permanent residents are a life-size cast of an African elephant; the Egyptian mummy Bakt-en-Hor (previously known as Bakt-hor-Nekht); a full size replica of a T-Rex skeleton; and Sparkie, Newcastle's famous talking budgie, who was stuffed after his death in 1962 and is now the subject of a new opera by Michael Nyman.
The full size cast of an African Elephant was built in the Living Planet gallery. The model was crafted by Zephyr Wildlife, who took a cast from an actual stuffed elephant at a museum in Bonn in Germany. To get the elephant into the museum a crane, from Bel Lift Trucks, had to be used. The full size model of a T-Rex dinosaur has been shipped from Canada, where it was built by a company called Research Casting International. It forms part of the display known as the Fossil Stories gallery. The T-Rex model was one of the first items to be placed in the new museum, due to its size. In 1908, the Manchester taxidermist Harry Ferris Brazenor mounted a "fine bison bull" for the museum.
Other exhibitions include 'Hadrian's Wall' looking at Roman life in the north of England, 'Natural Northumbria' focusing on the wildlife found in the northeast, 'Ancient Egypt' looking at the Ancient Egyptians and featuring the museum's two mummies, 'Ice Age to Iron Age' detailing the history of the British Isles over the past 12,000 years, 'World Cultures' featuring artifacts and displays from cultures across the globe, 'The Shefton Collection' with one of the most detailed collections of Greek artifacts in the UK and 'Explore' which is a more hands-on area of the museum and features regular interactive sessions.
There were live animals on display but these have now been withdrawn, as well as a conference area for corporate events and a fully provisioned learning suite for school visits.
The museum was entered into the 'long list' for the 2010 Art Fund Prize for museums and galleries.
The interactive Bio-Wall features hundreds of creatures, that visitors will be able to investigate and find out where they live and how they survive in such extreme places as the Arctic and Desert. There is also a great white shark display, polar bear and giraffe specimens from the historic Hancock collections and a moa skeleton. Also between May and October 2019 the museum hosted Dippy the dinosaur as part of its UK tour.
Within the museum's archives are the nineteenth century botanical paintings by Margaret Rebecca Dickinson of plants from the Newcastle and Scottish Borders region.
Roman Britain was the territory that became the Roman province of Britannia after the Roman conquest of Britain, consisting of a large part of the island of Great Britain. The occupation lasted from AD 43 to AD 410.
Julius Caesar invaded Britain in 55 and 54 BC as part of his Gallic Wars. According to Caesar, the Britons had been overrun or culturally assimilated by the Belgae during the British Iron Age and had been aiding Caesar's enemies. The Belgae were the only Celtic tribe to cross the sea into Britain, for to all other Celtic tribes this land was unknown. He received tribute, installed the friendly king Mandubracius over the Trinovantes, and returned to Gaul. Planned invasions under Augustus were called off in 34, 27, and 25 BC. In 40 AD, Caligula assembled 200,000 men at the Channel on the continent, only to have them gather seashells (musculi) according to Suetonius, perhaps as a symbolic gesture to proclaim Caligula's victory over the sea. Three years later, Claudius directed four legions to invade Britain and restore the exiled king Verica over the Atrebates. The Romans defeated the Catuvellauni, and then organized their conquests as the province of Britain. By 47 AD, the Romans held the lands southeast of the Fosse Way. Control over Wales was delayed by reverses and the effects of Boudica's uprising, but the Romans expanded steadily northward.
The conquest of Britain continued under command of Gnaeus Julius Agricola (77–84), who expanded the Roman Empire as far as Caledonia. In mid-84 AD, Agricola faced the armies of the Caledonians, led by Calgacus, at the Battle of Mons Graupius. Battle casualties were estimated by Tacitus to be upwards of 10,000 on the Caledonian side and about 360 on the Roman side. The bloodbath at Mons Graupius concluded the forty-year conquest of Britain, a period that possibly saw between 100,000 and 250,000 Britons killed. In the context of pre-industrial warfare and of a total population of Britain of c. 2 million, these are very high figures.
Under the 2nd-century emperors Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, two walls were built to defend the Roman province from the Caledonians, whose realms in the Scottish Highlands were never controlled. Around 197 AD, the Severan Reforms divided Britain into two provinces: Britannia Superior and Britannia Inferior. During the Diocletian Reforms, at the end of the 3rd century, Britannia was divided into four provinces under the direction of a vicarius, who administered the Diocese of the Britains. A fifth province, Valentia, is attested in the later 4th century. For much of the later period of the Roman occupation, Britannia was subject to barbarian invasions and often came under the control of imperial usurpers and imperial pretenders. The final Roman withdrawal from Britain occurred around 410; the native kingdoms are considered to have formed Sub-Roman Britain after that.
Following the conquest of the Britons, a distinctive Romano-British culture emerged as the Romans introduced improved agriculture, urban planning, industrial production, and architecture. The Roman goddess Britannia became the female personification of Britain. After the initial invasions, Roman historians generally only mention Britain in passing. Thus, most present knowledge derives from archaeological investigations and occasional epigraphic evidence lauding the Britannic achievements of an emperor. Roman citizens settled in Britain from many parts of the Empire.
History
Britain was known to the Classical world. The Greeks, the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians traded for Cornish tin in the 4th century BC. The Greeks referred to the Cassiterides, or "tin islands", and placed them near the west coast of Europe. The Carthaginian sailor Himilco is said to have visited the island in the 6th or 5th century BC and the Greek explorer Pytheas in the 4th. It was regarded as a place of mystery, with some writers refusing to believe it existed.
The first direct Roman contact was when Julius Caesar undertook two expeditions in 55 and 54 BC, as part of his conquest of Gaul, believing the Britons were helping the Gallic resistance. The first expedition was more a reconnaissance than a full invasion and gained a foothold on the coast of Kent but was unable to advance further because of storm damage to the ships and a lack of cavalry. Despite the military failure, it was a political success, with the Roman Senate declaring a 20-day public holiday in Rome to honour the unprecedented achievement of obtaining hostages from Britain and defeating Belgic tribes on returning to the continent.
The second invasion involved a substantially larger force and Caesar coerced or invited many of the native Celtic tribes to pay tribute and give hostages in return for peace. A friendly local king, Mandubracius, was installed, and his rival, Cassivellaunus, was brought to terms. Hostages were taken, but historians disagree over whether any tribute was paid after Caesar returned to Gaul.
Caesar conquered no territory and left no troops behind, but he established clients and brought Britain into Rome's sphere of influence. Augustus planned invasions in 34, 27 and 25 BC, but circumstances were never favourable, and the relationship between Britain and Rome settled into one of diplomacy and trade. Strabo, writing late in Augustus's reign, claimed that taxes on trade brought in more annual revenue than any conquest could. Archaeology shows that there was an increase in imported luxury goods in southeastern Britain. Strabo also mentions British kings who sent embassies to Augustus, and Augustus's own Res Gestae refers to two British kings he received as refugees. When some of Tiberius's ships were carried to Britain in a storm during his campaigns in Germany in 16 AD, they came back with tales of monsters.
Rome appears to have encouraged a balance of power in southern Britain, supporting two powerful kingdoms: the Catuvellauni, ruled by the descendants of Tasciovanus, and the Atrebates, ruled by the descendants of Commius. This policy was followed until 39 or 40 AD, when Caligula received an exiled member of the Catuvellaunian dynasty and planned an invasion of Britain that collapsed in farcical circumstances before it left Gaul. When Claudius successfully invaded in 43 AD, it was in aid of another fugitive British ruler, Verica of the Atrebates.
Roman invasion
The invasion force in 43 AD was led by Aulus Plautius,[26] but it is unclear how many legions were sent. The Legio II Augusta, commanded by future emperor Vespasian, was the only one directly attested to have taken part. The Legio IX Hispana, the XIV Gemina (later styled Martia Victrix) and the XX (later styled Valeria Victrix) are known to have served during the Boudican Revolt of 60/61, and were probably there since the initial invasion. This is not certain because the Roman army was flexible, with units being moved around whenever necessary. The IX Hispana may have been permanently stationed, with records showing it at Eboracum (York) in 71 and on a building inscription there dated 108, before being destroyed in the east of the Empire, possibly during the Bar Kokhba revolt.
The invasion was delayed by a troop mutiny until an imperial freedman persuaded them to overcome their fear of crossing the Ocean and campaigning beyond the limits of the known world. They sailed in three divisions, and probably landed at Richborough in Kent; at least part of the force may have landed near Fishbourne, West Sussex.
The Catuvellauni and their allies were defeated in two battles: the first, assuming a Richborough landing, on the river Medway, the second on the river Thames. One of their leaders, Togodumnus, was killed, but his brother Caratacus survived to continue resistance elsewhere. Plautius halted at the Thames and sent for Claudius, who arrived with reinforcements, including artillery and elephants, for the final march to the Catuvellaunian capital, Camulodunum (Colchester). Vespasian subdued the southwest, Cogidubnus was set up as a friendly king of several territories, and treaties were made with tribes outside direct Roman control.
Establishment of Roman rule
After capturing the south of the island, the Romans turned their attention to what is now Wales. The Silures, Ordovices and Deceangli remained implacably opposed to the invaders and for the first few decades were the focus of Roman military attention, despite occasional minor revolts among Roman allies like the Brigantes and the Iceni. The Silures were led by Caratacus, and he carried out an effective guerrilla campaign against Governor Publius Ostorius Scapula. Finally, in 51, Ostorius lured Caratacus into a set-piece battle and defeated him. The British leader sought refuge among the Brigantes, but their queen, Cartimandua, proved her loyalty by surrendering him to the Romans. He was brought as a captive to Rome, where a dignified speech he made during Claudius's triumph persuaded the emperor to spare his life. The Silures were still not pacified, and Cartimandua's ex-husband Venutius replaced Caratacus as the most prominent leader of British resistance.
On Nero's accession, Roman Britain extended as far north as Lindum. Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, the conqueror of Mauretania (modern day Algeria and Morocco), then became governor of Britain, and in 60 and 61 he moved against Mona (Anglesey) to settle accounts with Druidism once and for all. Paulinus led his army across the Menai Strait and massacred the Druids and burnt their sacred groves.
While Paulinus was campaigning in Mona, the southeast of Britain rose in revolt under the leadership of Boudica. She was the widow of the recently deceased king of the Iceni, Prasutagus. The Roman historian Tacitus reports that Prasutagus had left a will leaving half his kingdom to Nero in the hope that the remainder would be left untouched. He was wrong. When his will was enforced, Rome[clarification needed] responded by violently seizing the tribe's lands in full. Boudica protested. In consequence, Rome[clarification needed] punished her and her daughters by flogging and rape. In response, the Iceni, joined by the Trinovantes, destroyed the Roman colony at Camulodunum (Colchester) and routed the part of the IXth Legion that was sent to relieve it. Paulinus rode to London (then called Londinium), the rebels' next target, but concluded it could not be defended. Abandoned, it was destroyed, as was Verulamium (St. Albans). Between seventy and eighty thousand people are said to have been killed in the three cities. But Paulinus regrouped with two of the three legions still available to him, chose a battlefield, and, despite being outnumbered by more than twenty to one, defeated the rebels in the Battle of Watling Street. Boudica died not long afterwards, by self-administered poison or by illness. During this time, the Emperor Nero considered withdrawing Roman forces from Britain altogether.
There was further turmoil in 69, the "Year of the Four Emperors". As civil war raged in Rome, weak governors were unable to control the legions in Britain, and Venutius of the Brigantes seized his chance. The Romans had previously defended Cartimandua against him, but this time were unable to do so. Cartimandua was evacuated, and Venutius was left in control of the north of the country. After Vespasian secured the empire, his first two appointments as governor, Quintus Petillius Cerialis and Sextus Julius Frontinus, took on the task of subduing the Brigantes and Silures respectively.[38] Frontinus extended Roman rule to all of South Wales, and initiated exploitation of the mineral resources, such as the gold mines at Dolaucothi.
In the following years, the Romans conquered more of the island, increasing the size of Roman Britain. Governor Gnaeus Julius Agricola, father-in-law to the historian Tacitus, conquered the Ordovices in 78. With the XX Valeria Victrix legion, Agricola defeated the Caledonians in 84 at the Battle of Mons Graupius, in north-east Scotland. This was the high-water mark of Roman territory in Britain: shortly after his victory, Agricola was recalled from Britain back to Rome, and the Romans initially retired to a more defensible line along the Forth–Clyde isthmus, freeing soldiers badly needed along other frontiers.
For much of the history of Roman Britain, a large number of soldiers were garrisoned on the island. This required that the emperor station a trusted senior man as governor of the province. As a result, many future emperors served as governors or legates in this province, including Vespasian, Pertinax, and Gordian I.
Roman military organisation in the north
In 84 AD
In 84 AD
In 155 AD
In 155 AD
Hadrian's Wall, and Antonine Wall
There is no historical source describing the decades that followed Agricola's recall. Even the name of his replacement is unknown. Archaeology has shown that some Roman forts south of the Forth–Clyde isthmus were rebuilt and enlarged; others appear to have been abandoned. By 87 the frontier had been consolidated on the Stanegate. Roman coins and pottery have been found circulating at native settlement sites in the Scottish Lowlands in the years before 100, indicating growing Romanisation. Some of the most important sources for this era are the writing tablets from the fort at Vindolanda in Northumberland, mostly dating to 90–110. These tablets provide evidence for the operation of a Roman fort at the edge of the Roman Empire, where officers' wives maintained polite society while merchants, hauliers and military personnel kept the fort operational and supplied.
Around 105 there appears to have been a serious setback at the hands of the tribes of the Picts: several Roman forts were destroyed by fire, with human remains and damaged armour at Trimontium (at modern Newstead, in SE Scotland) indicating hostilities at least at that site.[citation needed] There is also circumstantial evidence that auxiliary reinforcements were sent from Germany, and an unnamed British war of the period is mentioned on the gravestone of a tribune of Cyrene. Trajan's Dacian Wars may have led to troop reductions in the area or even total withdrawal followed by slighting of the forts by the Picts rather than an unrecorded military defeat. The Romans were also in the habit of destroying their own forts during an orderly withdrawal, in order to deny resources to an enemy. In either case, the frontier probably moved south to the line of the Stanegate at the Solway–Tyne isthmus around this time.
A new crisis occurred at the beginning of Hadrian's reign): a rising in the north which was suppressed by Quintus Pompeius Falco. When Hadrian reached Britannia on his famous tour of the Roman provinces around 120, he directed an extensive defensive wall, known to posterity as Hadrian's Wall, to be built close to the line of the Stanegate frontier. Hadrian appointed Aulus Platorius Nepos as governor to undertake this work who brought the Legio VI Victrix legion with him from Germania Inferior. This replaced the famous Legio IX Hispana, whose disappearance has been much discussed. Archaeology indicates considerable political instability in Scotland during the first half of the 2nd century, and the shifting frontier at this time should be seen in this context.
In the reign of Antoninus Pius (138–161) the Hadrianic border was briefly extended north to the Forth–Clyde isthmus, where the Antonine Wall was built around 142 following the military reoccupation of the Scottish lowlands by a new governor, Quintus Lollius Urbicus.
The first Antonine occupation of Scotland ended as a result of a further crisis in 155–157, when the Brigantes revolted. With limited options to despatch reinforcements, the Romans moved their troops south, and this rising was suppressed by Governor Gnaeus Julius Verus. Within a year the Antonine Wall was recaptured, but by 163 or 164 it was abandoned. The second occupation was probably connected with Antoninus's undertakings to protect the Votadini or his pride in enlarging the empire, since the retreat to the Hadrianic frontier occurred not long after his death when a more objective strategic assessment of the benefits of the Antonine Wall could be made. The Romans did not entirely withdraw from Scotland at this time: the large fort at Newstead was maintained along with seven smaller outposts until at least 180.
During the twenty-year period following the reversion of the frontier to Hadrian's Wall in 163/4, Rome was concerned with continental issues, primarily problems in the Danubian provinces. Increasing numbers of hoards of buried coins in Britain at this time indicate that peace was not entirely achieved. Sufficient Roman silver has been found in Scotland to suggest more than ordinary trade, and it is likely that the Romans were reinforcing treaty agreements by paying tribute to their implacable enemies, the Picts.
In 175, a large force of Sarmatian cavalry, consisting of 5,500 men, arrived in Britannia, probably to reinforce troops fighting unrecorded uprisings. In 180, Hadrian's Wall was breached by the Picts and the commanding officer or governor was killed there in what Cassius Dio described as the most serious war of the reign of Commodus. Ulpius Marcellus was sent as replacement governor and by 184 he had won a new peace, only to be faced with a mutiny from his own troops. Unhappy with Marcellus's strictness, they tried to elect a legate named Priscus as usurper governor; he refused, but Marcellus was lucky to leave the province alive. The Roman army in Britannia continued its insubordination: they sent a delegation of 1,500 to Rome to demand the execution of Tigidius Perennis, a Praetorian prefect who they felt had earlier wronged them by posting lowly equites to legate ranks in Britannia. Commodus met the party outside Rome and agreed to have Perennis killed, but this only made them feel more secure in their mutiny.
The future emperor Pertinax (lived 126–193) was sent to Britannia to quell the mutiny and was initially successful in regaining control, but a riot broke out among the troops. Pertinax was attacked and left for dead, and asked to be recalled to Rome, where he briefly succeeded Commodus as emperor in 192.
3rd century
The death of Commodus put into motion a series of events which eventually led to civil war. Following the short reign of Pertinax, several rivals for the emperorship emerged, including Septimius Severus and Clodius Albinus. The latter was the new governor of Britannia, and had seemingly won the natives over after their earlier rebellions; he also controlled three legions, making him a potentially significant claimant. His sometime rival Severus promised him the title of Caesar in return for Albinus's support against Pescennius Niger in the east. Once Niger was neutralised, Severus turned on his ally in Britannia; it is likely that Albinus saw he would be the next target and was already preparing for war.
Albinus crossed to Gaul in 195, where the provinces were also sympathetic to him, and set up at Lugdunum. Severus arrived in February 196, and the ensuing battle was decisive. Albinus came close to victory, but Severus's reinforcements won the day, and the British governor committed suicide. Severus soon purged Albinus's sympathisers and perhaps confiscated large tracts of land in Britain as punishment. Albinus had demonstrated the major problem posed by Roman Britain. In order to maintain security, the province required the presence of three legions, but command of these forces provided an ideal power base for ambitious rivals. Deploying those legions elsewhere would strip the island of its garrison, leaving the province defenceless against uprisings by the native Celtic tribes and against invasion by the Picts and Scots.
The traditional view is that northern Britain descended into anarchy during Albinus's absence. Cassius Dio records that the new Governor, Virius Lupus, was obliged to buy peace from a fractious northern tribe known as the Maeatae. The succession of militarily distinguished governors who were subsequently appointed suggests that enemies of Rome were posing a difficult challenge, and Lucius Alfenus Senecio's report to Rome in 207 describes barbarians "rebelling, over-running the land, taking loot and creating destruction". In order to rebel, of course, one must be a subject – the Maeatae clearly did not consider themselves such. Senecio requested either reinforcements or an Imperial expedition, and Severus chose the latter, despite being 62 years old. Archaeological evidence shows that Senecio had been rebuilding the defences of Hadrian's Wall and the forts beyond it, and Severus's arrival in Britain prompted the enemy tribes to sue for peace immediately. The emperor had not come all that way to leave without a victory, and it is likely that he wished to provide his teenage sons Caracalla and Geta with first-hand experience of controlling a hostile barbarian land.
Northern campaigns, 208–211
An invasion of Caledonia led by Severus and probably numbering around 20,000 troops moved north in 208 or 209, crossing the Wall and passing through eastern Scotland on a route similar to that used by Agricola. Harried by punishing guerrilla raids by the northern tribes and slowed by an unforgiving terrain, Severus was unable to meet the Caledonians on a battlefield. The emperor's forces pushed north as far as the River Tay, but little appears to have been achieved by the invasion, as peace treaties were signed with the Caledonians. By 210 Severus had returned to York, and the frontier had once again become Hadrian's Wall. He assumed the title Britannicus but the title meant little with regard to the unconquered north, which clearly remained outside the authority of the Empire. Almost immediately, another northern tribe, the Maeatae, went to war. Caracalla left with a punitive expedition, but by the following year his ailing father had died and he and his brother left the province to press their claim to the throne.
As one of his last acts, Severus tried to solve the problem of powerful and rebellious governors in Britain by dividing the province into Britannia Superior and Britannia Inferior. This kept the potential for rebellion in check for almost a century. Historical sources provide little information on the following decades, a period known as the Long Peace. Even so, the number of buried hoards found from this period rises, suggesting continuing unrest. A string of forts were built along the coast of southern Britain to control piracy; and over the following hundred years they increased in number, becoming the Saxon Shore Forts.
During the middle of the 3rd century, the Roman Empire was convulsed by barbarian invasions, rebellions and new imperial pretenders. Britannia apparently avoided these troubles, but increasing inflation had its economic effect. In 259 a so-called Gallic Empire was established when Postumus rebelled against Gallienus. Britannia was part of this until 274 when Aurelian reunited the empire.
Around the year 280, a half-British officer named Bonosus was in command of the Roman's Rhenish fleet when the Germans managed to burn it at anchor. To avoid punishment, he proclaimed himself emperor at Colonia Agrippina (Cologne) but was crushed by Marcus Aurelius Probus. Soon afterwards, an unnamed governor of one of the British provinces also attempted an uprising. Probus put it down by sending irregular troops of Vandals and Burgundians across the Channel.
The Carausian Revolt led to a short-lived Britannic Empire from 286 to 296. Carausius was a Menapian naval commander of the Britannic fleet; he revolted upon learning of a death sentence ordered by the emperor Maximian on charges of having abetted Frankish and Saxon pirates and having embezzled recovered treasure. He consolidated control over all the provinces of Britain and some of northern Gaul while Maximian dealt with other uprisings. An invasion in 288 failed to unseat him and an uneasy peace ensued, with Carausius issuing coins and inviting official recognition. In 293, the junior emperor Constantius Chlorus launched a second offensive, besieging the rebel port of Gesoriacum (Boulogne-sur-Mer) by land and sea. After it fell, Constantius attacked Carausius's other Gallic holdings and Frankish allies and Carausius was usurped by his treasurer, Allectus. Julius Asclepiodotus landed an invasion fleet near Southampton and defeated Allectus in a land battle.
Diocletian's reforms
As part of Diocletian's reforms, the provinces of Roman Britain were organized as a diocese governed by a vicarius under a praetorian prefect who, from 318 to 331, was Junius Bassus who was based at Augusta Treverorum (Trier).
The vicarius was based at Londinium as the principal city of the diocese. Londinium and Eboracum continued as provincial capitals and the territory was divided up into smaller provinces for administrative efficiency.
Civilian and military authority of a province was no longer exercised by one official and the governor was stripped of military command which was handed over to the Dux Britanniarum by 314. The governor of a province assumed more financial duties (the procurators of the Treasury ministry were slowly phased out in the first three decades of the 4th century). The Dux was commander of the troops of the Northern Region, primarily along Hadrian's Wall and his responsibilities included protection of the frontier. He had significant autonomy due in part to the distance from his superiors.
The tasks of the vicarius were to control and coordinate the activities of governors; monitor but not interfere with the daily functioning of the Treasury and Crown Estates, which had their own administrative infrastructure; and act as the regional quartermaster-general of the armed forces. In short, as the sole civilian official with superior authority, he had general oversight of the administration, as well as direct control, while not absolute, over governors who were part of the prefecture; the other two fiscal departments were not.
The early-4th-century Verona List, the late-4th-century work of Sextus Rufus, and the early-5th-century List of Offices and work of Polemius Silvius all list four provinces by some variation of the names Britannia I, Britannia II, Maxima Caesariensis, and Flavia Caesariensis; all of these seem to have initially been directed by a governor (praeses) of equestrian rank. The 5th-century sources list a fifth province named Valentia and give its governor and Maxima's a consular rank. Ammianus mentions Valentia as well, describing its creation by Count Theodosius in 369 after the quelling of the Great Conspiracy. Ammianus considered it a re-creation of a formerly lost province, leading some to think there had been an earlier fifth province under another name (may be the enigmatic "Vespasiana"), and leading others to place Valentia beyond Hadrian's Wall, in the territory abandoned south of the Antonine Wall.
Reconstructions of the provinces and provincial capitals during this period partially rely on ecclesiastical records. On the assumption that the early bishoprics mimicked the imperial hierarchy, scholars use the list of bishops for the 314 Council of Arles. The list is patently corrupt: the British delegation is given as including a Bishop "Eborius" of Eboracum and two bishops "from Londinium" (one de civitate Londinensi and the other de civitate colonia Londinensium). The error is variously emended: Bishop Ussher proposed Colonia, Selden Col. or Colon. Camalodun., and Spelman Colonia Cameloduni (all various names of Colchester); Gale and Bingham offered colonia Lindi and Henry Colonia Lindum (both Lincoln); and Bishop Stillingfleet and Francis Thackeray read it as a scribal error of Civ. Col. Londin. for an original Civ. Col. Leg. II (Caerleon). On the basis of the Verona List, the priest and deacon who accompanied the bishops in some manuscripts are ascribed to the fourth province.
In the 12th century, Gerald of Wales described the supposedly metropolitan sees of the early British church established by the legendary SS Fagan and "Duvian". He placed Britannia Prima in Wales and western England with its capital at "Urbs Legionum" (Caerleon); Britannia Secunda in Kent and southern England with its capital at "Dorobernia" (Canterbury); Flavia in Mercia and central England with its capital at "Lundonia" (London); "Maximia" in northern England with its capital at Eboracum (York); and Valentia in "Albania which is now Scotland" with its capital at St Andrews. Modern scholars generally dispute the last: some place Valentia at or beyond Hadrian's Wall but St Andrews is beyond even the Antonine Wall and Gerald seems to have simply been supporting the antiquity of its church for political reasons.
A common modern reconstruction places the consular province of Maxima at Londinium, on the basis of its status as the seat of the diocesan vicarius; places Prima in the west according to Gerald's traditional account but moves its capital to Corinium of the Dobunni (Cirencester) on the basis of an artifact recovered there referring to Lucius Septimius, a provincial rector; places Flavia north of Maxima, with its capital placed at Lindum Colonia (Lincoln) to match one emendation of the bishops list from Arles;[d] and places Secunda in the north with its capital at Eboracum (York). Valentia is placed variously in northern Wales around Deva (Chester); beside Hadrian's Wall around Luguvalium (Carlisle); and between the walls along Dere Street.
4th century
Emperor Constantius returned to Britain in 306, despite his poor health, with an army aiming to invade northern Britain, the provincial defences having been rebuilt in the preceding years. Little is known of his campaigns with scant archaeological evidence, but fragmentary historical sources suggest he reached the far north of Britain and won a major battle in early summer before returning south. His son Constantine (later Constantine the Great) spent a year in northern Britain at his father's side, campaigning against the Picts beyond Hadrian's Wall in the summer and autumn. Constantius died in York in July 306 with his son at his side. Constantine then successfully used Britain as the starting point of his march to the imperial throne, unlike the earlier usurper, Albinus.
In the middle of the century, the province was loyal for a few years to the usurper Magnentius, who succeeded Constans following the latter's death. After the defeat and death of Magnentius in the Battle of Mons Seleucus in 353, Constantius II dispatched his chief imperial notary Paulus Catena to Britain to hunt down Magnentius's supporters. The investigation deteriorated into a witch-hunt, which forced the vicarius Flavius Martinus to intervene. When Paulus retaliated by accusing Martinus of treason, the vicarius attacked Paulus with a sword, with the aim of assassinating him, but in the end he committed suicide.
As the 4th century progressed, there were increasing attacks from the Saxons in the east and the Scoti (Irish) in the west. A series of forts had been built, starting around 280, to defend the coasts, but these preparations were not enough when, in 367, a general assault of Saxons, Picts, Scoti and Attacotti, combined with apparent dissension in the garrison on Hadrian's Wall, left Roman Britain prostrate. The invaders overwhelmed the entire western and northern regions of Britannia and the cities were sacked. This crisis, sometimes called the Barbarian Conspiracy or the Great Conspiracy, was settled by Count Theodosius from 368 with a string of military and civil reforms. Theodosius crossed from Bononia (Boulogne-sur-Mer) and marched on Londinium where he began to deal with the invaders and made his base.[ An amnesty was promised to deserters which enabled Theodosius to regarrison abandoned forts. By the end of the year Hadrian's Wall was retaken and order returned. Considerable reorganization was undertaken in Britain, including the creation of a new province named Valentia, probably to better address the state of the far north. A new Dux Britanniarum was appointed, Dulcitius, with Civilis to head a new civilian administration.
Another imperial usurper, Magnus Maximus, raised the standard of revolt at Segontium (Caernarfon) in north Wales in 383, and crossed the English Channel. Maximus held much of the western empire, and fought a successful campaign against the Picts and Scots around 384. His continental exploits required troops from Britain, and it appears that forts at Chester and elsewhere were abandoned in this period, triggering raids and settlement in north Wales by the Irish. His rule was ended in 388, but not all the British troops may have returned: the Empire's military resources were stretched to the limit along the Rhine and Danube. Around 396 there were more barbarian incursions into Britain. Stilicho led a punitive expedition. It seems peace was restored by 399, and it is likely that no further garrisoning was ordered; by 401 more troops were withdrawn, to assist in the war against Alaric I.
End of Roman rule
The traditional view of historians, informed by the work of Michael Rostovtzeff, was of a widespread economic decline at the beginning of the 5th century. Consistent archaeological evidence has told another story, and the accepted view is undergoing re-evaluation. Some features are agreed: more opulent but fewer urban houses, an end to new public building and some abandonment of existing ones, with the exception of defensive structures, and the widespread formation of "dark earth" deposits indicating increased horticulture within urban precincts. Turning over the basilica at Silchester to industrial uses in the late 3rd century, doubtless officially condoned, marks an early stage in the de-urbanisation of Roman Britain.
The abandonment of some sites is now believed to be later than had been thought. Many buildings changed use but were not destroyed. There was a growing number of barbarian attacks, but these targeted vulnerable rural settlements rather than towns. Some villas such as Chedworth, Great Casterton in Rutland and Hucclecote in Gloucestershire had new mosaic floors laid around this time, suggesting that economic problems may have been limited and patchy. Many suffered some decay before being abandoned in the 5th century; the story of Saint Patrick indicates that villas were still occupied until at least 430. Exceptionally, new buildings were still going up in this period in Verulamium and Cirencester. Some urban centres, for example Canterbury, Cirencester, Wroxeter, Winchester and Gloucester, remained active during the 5th and 6th centuries, surrounded by large farming estates.
Urban life had generally grown less intense by the fourth quarter of the 4th century, and coins minted between 378 and 388 are very rare, indicating a likely combination of economic decline, diminishing numbers of troops, problems with the payment of soldiers and officials or with unstable conditions during the usurpation of Magnus Maximus 383–87. Coinage circulation increased during the 390s, but never attained the levels of earlier decades. Copper coins are very rare after 402, though minted silver and gold coins from hoards indicate they were still present in the province even if they were not being spent. By 407 there were very few new Roman coins going into circulation, and by 430 it is likely that coinage as a medium of exchange had been abandoned. Mass-produced wheel thrown pottery ended at approximately the same time; the rich continued to use metal and glass vessels, while the poor made do with humble "grey ware" or resorted to leather or wooden containers.
Sub-Roman Britain
Towards the end of the 4th century Roman rule in Britain came under increasing pressure from barbarian attacks. Apparently, there were not enough troops to mount an effective defence. After elevating two disappointing usurpers, the army chose a soldier, Constantine III, to become emperor in 407. He crossed to Gaul but was defeated by Honorius; it is unclear how many troops remained or ever returned, or whether a commander-in-chief in Britain was ever reappointed. A Saxon incursion in 408 was apparently repelled by the Britons, and in 409 Zosimus records that the natives expelled the Roman civilian administration. Zosimus may be referring to the Bacaudic rebellion of the Breton inhabitants of Armorica since he describes how, in the aftermath of the revolt, all of Armorica and the rest of Gaul followed the example of the Brettaniai. A letter from Emperor Honorius in 410 has traditionally been seen as rejecting a British appeal for help, but it may have been addressed to Bruttium or Bologna. With the imperial layers of the military and civil government gone, administration and justice fell to municipal authorities, and local warlords gradually emerged all over Britain, still utilizing Romano-British ideals and conventions. Historian Stuart Laycock has investigated this process and emphasised elements of continuity from the British tribes in the pre-Roman and Roman periods, through to the native post-Roman kingdoms.
In British tradition, pagan Saxons were invited by Vortigern to assist in fighting the Picts, Scoti, and Déisi. (Germanic migration into Roman Britannia may have begun much earlier. There is recorded evidence, for example, of Germanic auxiliaries supporting the legions in Britain in the 1st and 2nd centuries.) The new arrivals rebelled, plunging the country into a series of wars that eventually led to the Saxon occupation of Lowland Britain by 600. Around this time, many Britons fled to Brittany (hence its name), Galicia and probably Ireland. A significant date in sub-Roman Britain is the Groans of the Britons, an unanswered appeal to Aetius, leading general of the western Empire, for assistance against Saxon invasion in 446. Another is the Battle of Deorham in 577, after which the significant cities of Bath, Cirencester and Gloucester fell and the Saxons reached the western sea.
Historians generally reject the historicity of King Arthur, who is supposed to have resisted the Anglo-Saxon conquest according to later medieval legends.
Trade
During the Roman period Britain's continental trade was principally directed across the Southern North Sea and Eastern Channel, focusing on the narrow Strait of Dover, with more limited links via the Atlantic seaways. The most important British ports were London and Richborough, whilst the continental ports most heavily engaged in trade with Britain were Boulogne and the sites of Domburg and Colijnsplaat at the mouth of the river Scheldt. During the Late Roman period it is likely that the shore forts played some role in continental trade alongside their defensive functions.
Exports to Britain included: coin; pottery, particularly red-gloss terra sigillata (samian ware) from southern, central and eastern Gaul, as well as various other wares from Gaul and the Rhine provinces; olive oil from southern Spain in amphorae; wine from Gaul in amphorae and barrels; salted fish products from the western Mediterranean and Brittany in barrels and amphorae; preserved olives from southern Spain in amphorae; lava quern-stones from Mayen on the middle Rhine; glass; and some agricultural products. Britain's exports are harder to detect archaeologically, but will have included metals, such as silver and gold and some lead, iron and copper. Other exports probably included agricultural products, oysters and salt, whilst large quantities of coin would have been re-exported back to the continent as well.
These products moved as a result of private trade and also through payments and contracts established by the Roman state to support its military forces and officials on the island, as well as through state taxation and extraction of resources. Up until the mid-3rd century, the Roman state's payments appear to have been unbalanced, with far more products sent to Britain, to support its large military force (which had reached c. 53,000 by the mid-2nd century), than were extracted from the island.
It has been argued that Roman Britain's continental trade peaked in the late 1st century AD and thereafter declined as a result of an increasing reliance on local products by the population of Britain, caused by economic development on the island and by the Roman state's desire to save money by shifting away from expensive long-distance imports. Evidence has been outlined that suggests that the principal decline in Roman Britain's continental trade may have occurred in the late 2nd century AD, from c. 165 AD onwards. This has been linked to the economic impact of contemporary Empire-wide crises: the Antonine Plague and the Marcomannic Wars.
From the mid-3rd century onwards, Britain no longer received such a wide range and extensive quantity of foreign imports as it did during the earlier part of the Roman period; vast quantities of coin from continental mints reached the island, whilst there is historical evidence for the export of large amounts of British grain to the continent during the mid-4th century. During the latter part of the Roman period British agricultural products, paid for by both the Roman state and by private consumers, clearly played an important role in supporting the military garrisons and urban centres of the northwestern continental Empire. This came about as a result of the rapid decline in the size of the British garrison from the mid-3rd century onwards (thus freeing up more goods for export), and because of 'Germanic' incursions across the Rhine, which appear to have reduced rural settlement and agricultural output in northern Gaul.
Economy
Mineral extraction sites such as the Dolaucothi gold mine were probably first worked by the Roman army from c. 75, and at some later stage passed to civilian operators. The mine developed as a series of opencast workings, mainly by the use of hydraulic mining methods. They are described by Pliny the Elder in his Natural History in great detail. Essentially, water supplied by aqueducts was used to prospect for ore veins by stripping away soil to reveal the bedrock. If veins were present, they were attacked using fire-setting and the ore removed for comminution. The dust was washed in a small stream of water and the heavy gold dust and gold nuggets collected in riffles. The diagram at right shows how Dolaucothi developed from c. 75 through to the 1st century. When opencast work was no longer feasible, tunnels were driven to follow the veins. The evidence from the site shows advanced technology probably under the control of army engineers.
The Wealden ironworking zone, the lead and silver mines of the Mendip Hills and the tin mines of Cornwall seem to have been private enterprises leased from the government for a fee. Mining had long been practised in Britain (see Grimes Graves), but the Romans introduced new technical knowledge and large-scale industrial production to revolutionise the industry. It included hydraulic mining to prospect for ore by removing overburden as well as work alluvial deposits. The water needed for such large-scale operations was supplied by one or more aqueducts, those surviving at Dolaucothi being especially impressive. Many prospecting areas were in dangerous, upland country, and, although mineral exploitation was presumably one of the main reasons for the Roman invasion, it had to wait until these areas were subdued.
By the 3rd and 4th centuries, small towns could often be found near villas. In these towns, villa owners and small-scale farmers could obtain specialist tools. Lowland Britain in the 4th century was agriculturally prosperous enough to export grain to the continent. This prosperity lay behind the blossoming of villa building and decoration that occurred between AD 300 and 350.
Britain's cities also consumed Roman-style pottery and other goods, and were centres through which goods could be distributed elsewhere. At Wroxeter in Shropshire, stock smashed into a gutter during a 2nd-century fire reveals that Gaulish samian ware was being sold alongside mixing bowls from the Mancetter-Hartshill industry of the West Midlands. Roman designs were most popular, but rural craftsmen still produced items derived from the Iron Age La Tène artistic traditions. Britain was home to much gold, which attracted Roman invaders. By the 3rd century, Britain's economy was diverse and well established, with commerce extending into the non-Romanised north.
Government
Further information: Governors of Roman Britain, Roman client kingdoms in Britain, and Roman auxiliaries in Britain
Under the Roman Empire, administration of peaceful provinces was ultimately the remit of the Senate, but those, like Britain, that required permanent garrisons, were placed under the Emperor's control. In practice imperial provinces were run by resident governors who were members of the Senate and had held the consulship. These men were carefully selected, often having strong records of military success and administrative ability. In Britain, a governor's role was primarily military, but numerous other tasks were also his responsibility, such as maintaining diplomatic relations with local client kings, building roads, ensuring the public courier system functioned, supervising the civitates and acting as a judge in important legal cases. When not campaigning, he would travel the province hearing complaints and recruiting new troops.
To assist him in legal matters he had an adviser, the legatus juridicus, and those in Britain appear to have been distinguished lawyers perhaps because of the challenge of incorporating tribes into the imperial system and devising a workable method of taxing them. Financial administration was dealt with by a procurator with junior posts for each tax-raising power. Each legion in Britain had a commander who answered to the governor and, in time of war, probably directly ruled troublesome districts. Each of these commands carried a tour of duty of two to three years in different provinces. Below these posts was a network of administrative managers covering intelligence gathering, sending reports to Rome, organising military supplies and dealing with prisoners. A staff of seconded soldiers provided clerical services.
Colchester was probably the earliest capital of Roman Britain, but it was soon eclipsed by London with its strong mercantile connections. The different forms of municipal organisation in Britannia were known as civitas (which were subdivided, amongst other forms, into colonies such as York, Colchester, Gloucester and Lincoln and municipalities such as Verulamium), and were each governed by a senate of local landowners, whether Brythonic or Roman, who elected magistrates concerning judicial and civic affairs. The various civitates sent representatives to a yearly provincial council in order to profess loyalty to the Roman state, to send direct petitions to the Emperor in times of extraordinary need, and to worship the imperial cult.
Demographics
Roman Britain had an estimated population between 2.8 million and 3 million people at the end of the second century. At the end of the fourth century, it had an estimated population of 3.6 million people, of whom 125,000 consisted of the Roman army and their families and dependents.[80] The urban population of Roman Britain was about 240,000 people at the end of the fourth century. The capital city of Londinium is estimated to have had a population of about 60,000 people. Londinium was an ethnically diverse city with inhabitants from the Roman Empire, including natives of Britannia, continental Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. There was also cultural diversity in other Roman-British towns, which were sustained by considerable migration, from Britannia and other Roman territories, including continental Europe, Roman Syria, the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa. In a study conducted in 2012, around 45 percent of sites investigated dating from the Roman period had at least one individual of North African origin.
Town and country
During their occupation of Britain the Romans founded a number of important settlements, many of which survive. The towns suffered attrition in the later 4th century, when public building ceased and some were abandoned to private uses. Place names survived the deurbanised Sub-Roman and early Anglo-Saxon periods, and historiography has been at pains to signal the expected survivals, but archaeology shows that a bare handful of Roman towns were continuously occupied. According to S.T. Loseby, the very idea of a town as a centre of power and administration was reintroduced to England by the Roman Christianising mission to Canterbury, and its urban revival was delayed to the 10th century.
Roman towns can be broadly grouped in two categories. Civitates, "public towns" were formally laid out on a grid plan, and their role in imperial administration occasioned the construction of public buildings. The much more numerous category of vici, "small towns" grew on informal plans, often round a camp or at a ford or crossroads; some were not small, others were scarcely urban, some not even defended by a wall, the characteristic feature of a place of any importance.
Cities and towns which have Roman origins, or were extensively developed by them are listed with their Latin names in brackets; civitates are marked C
Alcester (Alauna)
Alchester
Aldborough, North Yorkshire (Isurium Brigantum) C
Bath (Aquae Sulis) C
Brough (Petuaria) C
Buxton (Aquae Arnemetiae)
Caerleon (Isca Augusta) C
Caernarfon (Segontium) C
Caerwent (Venta Silurum) C
Caister-on-Sea C
Canterbury (Durovernum Cantiacorum) C
Carlisle (Luguvalium) C
Carmarthen (Moridunum) C
Chelmsford (Caesaromagus)
Chester (Deva Victrix) C
Chester-le-Street (Concangis)
Chichester (Noviomagus Reginorum) C
Cirencester (Corinium) C
Colchester (Camulodunum) C
Corbridge (Coria) C
Dorchester (Durnovaria) C
Dover (Portus Dubris)
Exeter (Isca Dumnoniorum) C
Gloucester (Glevum) C
Great Chesterford (the name of this vicus is unknown)
Ilchester (Lindinis) C
Leicester (Ratae Corieltauvorum) C
Lincoln (Lindum Colonia) C
London (Londinium) C
Manchester (Mamucium) C
Newcastle upon Tyne (Pons Aelius)
Northwich (Condate)
St Albans (Verulamium) C
Silchester (Calleva Atrebatum) C
Towcester (Lactodurum)
Whitchurch (Mediolanum) C
Winchester (Venta Belgarum) C
Wroxeter (Viroconium Cornoviorum) C
York (Eboracum) C
Religion
The druids, the Celtic priestly caste who were believed to originate in Britain, were outlawed by Claudius, and in 61 they vainly defended their sacred groves from destruction by the Romans on the island of Mona (Anglesey). Under Roman rule the Britons continued to worship native Celtic deities, such as Ancasta, but often conflated with their Roman equivalents, like Mars Rigonemetos at Nettleham.
The degree to which earlier native beliefs survived is difficult to gauge precisely. Certain European ritual traits such as the significance of the number 3, the importance of the head and of water sources such as springs remain in the archaeological record, but the differences in the votive offerings made at the baths at Bath, Somerset, before and after the Roman conquest suggest that continuity was only partial. Worship of the Roman emperor is widely recorded, especially at military sites. The founding of a Roman temple to Claudius at Camulodunum was one of the impositions that led to the revolt of Boudica. By the 3rd century, Pagans Hill Roman Temple in Somerset was able to exist peaceably and it did so into the 5th century.
Pagan religious practices were supported by priests, represented in Britain by votive deposits of priestly regalia such as chain crowns from West Stow and Willingham Fen.
Eastern cults such as Mithraism also grew in popularity towards the end of the occupation. The London Mithraeum is one example of the popularity of mystery religions among the soldiery. Temples to Mithras also exist in military contexts at Vindobala on Hadrian's Wall (the Rudchester Mithraeum) and at Segontium in Roman Wales (the Caernarfon Mithraeum).
Christianity
It is not clear when or how Christianity came to Britain. A 2nd-century "word square" has been discovered in Mamucium, the Roman settlement of Manchester. It consists of an anagram of PATER NOSTER carved on a piece of amphora. There has been discussion by academics whether the "word square" is a Christian artefact, but if it is, it is one of the earliest examples of early Christianity in Britain. The earliest confirmed written evidence for Christianity in Britain is a statement by Tertullian, c. 200 AD, in which he described "all the limits of the Spains, and the diverse nations of the Gauls, and the haunts of the Britons, inaccessible to the Romans, but subjugated to Christ". Archaeological evidence for Christian communities begins to appear in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Small timber churches are suggested at Lincoln and Silchester and baptismal fonts have been found at Icklingham and the Saxon Shore Fort at Richborough. The Icklingham font is made of lead, and visible in the British Museum. A Roman Christian graveyard exists at the same site in Icklingham. A possible Roman 4th-century church and associated burial ground was also discovered at Butt Road on the south-west outskirts of Colchester during the construction of the new police station there, overlying an earlier pagan cemetery. The Water Newton Treasure is a hoard of Christian silver church plate from the early 4th century and the Roman villas at Lullingstone and Hinton St Mary contained Christian wall paintings and mosaics respectively. A large 4th-century cemetery at Poundbury with its east–west oriented burials and lack of grave goods has been interpreted as an early Christian burial ground, although such burial rites were also becoming increasingly common in pagan contexts during the period.
The Church in Britain seems to have developed the customary diocesan system, as evidenced from the records of the Council of Arles in Gaul in 314: represented at the council were bishops from thirty-five sees from Europe and North Africa, including three bishops from Britain, Eborius of York, Restitutus of London, and Adelphius, possibly a bishop of Lincoln. No other early sees are documented, and the material remains of early church structures are far to seek. The existence of a church in the forum courtyard of Lincoln and the martyrium of Saint Alban on the outskirts of Roman Verulamium are exceptional. Alban, the first British Christian martyr and by far the most prominent, is believed to have died in the early 4th century (some date him in the middle 3rd century), followed by Saints Julius and Aaron of Isca Augusta. Christianity was legalised in the Roman Empire by Constantine I in 313. Theodosius I made Christianity the state religion of the empire in 391, and by the 5th century it was well established. One belief labelled a heresy by the church authorities — Pelagianism — was originated by a British monk teaching in Rome: Pelagius lived c. 354 to c. 420/440.
A letter found on a lead tablet in Bath, Somerset, datable to c. 363, had been widely publicised as documentary evidence regarding the state of Christianity in Britain during Roman times. According to its first translator, it was written in Wroxeter by a Christian man called Vinisius to a Christian woman called Nigra, and was claimed as the first epigraphic record of Christianity in Britain. This translation of the letter was apparently based on grave paleographical errors, and the text has nothing to do with Christianity, and in fact relates to pagan rituals.
Environmental changes
The Romans introduced a number of species to Britain, including possibly the now-rare Roman nettle (Urtica pilulifera), said to have been used by soldiers to warm their arms and legs, and the edible snail Helix pomatia. There is also some evidence they may have introduced rabbits, but of the smaller southern mediterranean type. The European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) prevalent in modern Britain is assumed to have been introduced from the continent after the Norman invasion of 1066. Box (Buxus sempervirens) is rarely recorded before the Roman period, but becomes a common find in towns and villas
Legacy
During their occupation of Britain the Romans built an extensive network of roads which continued to be used in later centuries and many are still followed today. The Romans also built water supply, sanitation and wastewater systems. Many of Britain's major cities, such as London (Londinium), Manchester (Mamucium) and York (Eboracum), were founded by the Romans, but the original Roman settlements were abandoned not long after the Romans left.
Unlike many other areas of the Western Roman Empire, the current majority language is not a Romance language, or a language descended from the pre-Roman inhabitants. The British language at the time of the invasion was Common Brittonic, and remained so after the Romans withdrew. It later split into regional languages, notably Cumbric, Cornish, Breton
live from hand to mouth
(verb) to satisfy one’s basic needs because of a lack of money
Example Sentences:
The University students are living from hand to mouth because they don’t have a lot of money from their part-time jobs.
Jana lived from hand to mouth while studying for her Masters.
While Rebecca is unemployed she willlive from hand to mouth, so she decided to cancel her vacation.
Devil Beside You
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. (March 2010)
Devil Beside You
Devil Beside You (Chinese: 惡魔在身邊; pinyin: Èmó zài shēnbiān) is a 2005 Taiwanese drama starring Mike He, Rainie Yang and Kingone Wang. It is based on Japanese manga Akuma de Sourou, The Devil Does Exist (悪魔で候 Akuma de Sōrō?), written by Mitsuba Takanashi. It was produced by Comic Ritz International Production (可米瑞智國際藝能有限公司) with Chai Zhi Ping (柴智屏) as producer and directed by Lin He Long (林合隆). The series was first broadcast in Taiwan on free-to-air China Television (CTV) (中視) from 26 June to 18 September 2005 and cable TV Eastern Television (ETTV) (東森) for 20 episodes.Characters[edit]
Major characters[edit]
Drama characterActorManga characterCharacteristics
Qi Yue (齊悅)Rainie YangKayano SaitouShe is a sweet and innocent sophomore in college who lives with her widowed mother. She is shy and sometimes clueless, but has a loyal and kind heart that shines even through the toughest of times. She harbors a crush on the captain of the basketball team, Yuan Yi, but her life is turned upside-down by Ah Meng. Eventually, she falls out of love with Yuan Yi and starts developing feelings for Ah Meng. She constantly worries about him and their relationship being discovered. Qi Yue is also one of the managers of the basketball team. Although it hurts for her to accept that Jiang Meng is her future brother, she still continues to love the devil boy.
Jiang Meng aka Ahmon (江猛)Mike HeTakeru EdogawaHe is the son of the president of the school. He is a freshman at the college, yet he has power over his teachers due to his father's position. Ah Meng is also frightening to a lot of people and is known to bully girls, yet he is also known as the "prince of seduction." Despite his cool composure and "bad" attitude, Ah Meng has a gentle side and often sticks up for what is right. Li Xiang has a crush on him, which he does not reciprocate, but Ah Meng has feelings for Qi Yue. Although she is his future stepsister (elder), he does love her and enjoys teasing her. He knows that she loves him but gets jealous when he finds out that there are new people that are pursuing her. Ah Meng also joins the basketball team and has faster reflexes than rival Yuan Yi's. Ah Meng also has a little brother.
Shang Yuan Yi (尚源伊)Kingone WangKamijou YuuichiHe is a boy in Qi Yue's class (teasingly nicknamed "Ah Yi (Auntie in Chinese)", and is the captain of the basketball team. Qi Yue is initially in love with Yuan Yi for his gentle personality. Yuan Yi reciprocates her feelings and they become a couple. When Qi Yue falls in love with Ah Meng, she breaks up with Yuan Yi, wishing not to lead him on. Yuan Yi is angry and hostile towards Ah Meng at first, but gets over it and realizes his feelings for Qing Zi after she kisses him and he admits that he has feelings towards Qi Yue but he also knows he has no more chance because of Ah Meng.
Qing Zi (晴紫)Tsai Pei Lin (蔡裴琳)Harukawa KyokoShe is Qi Yue's outspoken best friend. She and Xiao Cai are the ones who encourages Qi Yue to confess her love to Yuan Yi, even though Qing Zi herself had a crush on him. Qing Zi cares for Qi Yue a lot and spends a lot of effort in helping her. After Qi Yue and Yuan Yi break up, Qing Zi starts dating Yuan Yi. Qing Zi and Yuan Yi's relationship is tested when Qing Zi feels that Yuan Yi is spending more time playing basketball than being with her. Feeling dejected, she meets with a stranger she chatted with online. She later gets into a tussle with him and Yuan Yi comes to her rescue instead of playing in the team's basketball match. When her father gets a new job, he forces her to emigrate with him, taking her away from Yuan Yi and her friends. Yuan Yi, in order to keep her with him, challenges her father, a skilled swordsman.
Xiao Cai (小彩)Fu Xiao Yun (傅小芸)NanachanShe is Qi Yue and Qing Zi's friend. She and Qing Zi were the ones who supported Qi Yue to confess her love to Yuan Yi. Unlike Qing Zi, Xiao Cai appears to be more calm. She also alerted Yuan Yi of Qing Zi's escapade with the stranger because she was worried about Qing Zi's safety.
Xin Li Xiang (辛莉香)Fan Hsiao Fun (范筱梵)Rika MoroboshiIn high school, she was an anti-social girl and acted snotty to all the girls in the class. Whenever she got bullied, Ah Meng would protect her. Li Xiang has also developed a crush on Ah Meng, calling him "Prince". She would do anything to get Ah Meng to notice her, she would even go as far as hiring girls to beat her up so Ah Meng could "save" her. Finally she realizes that this is not the way to get him to love her. Yang Ping had a crush on her and she then starts to have feelings for him and goes out with him.
Yu Yang Ping (于陽平)Masuyama YukiYouheiHe is Ah Meng's best friend who supports him. He used to be mocked by the middle school basketball teacher because he was overweight and he could not play well. Ah Meng was defensive and protective over him and he beat up the teacher. This lead them to become good friends. He has feelings for Li Xiang, but she has a crush on Ah Meng. He is willing to do anything for her, even trying to beat up Qi Yue. Li Xiang then starts to develop feelings for him and they start to go out.
Yuan Chuan Rang aka Ah Rang (袁川讓)Figaro CengYuzuruHe is Ah Meng's younger brother. Their father tried desperately to forget about him, and named Ah Meng as the successor of the company. Ah Rang follows and stalks Qi Yue everywhere, trying to force her and blackmail her to like him, who in turn, does everything she can to stop him. He tries to ruin Ah Meng's name, and puts Ah Meng and Qi Yue in lots of danger. He is later softened by Qi Yue, who later feels sorry for him and reaches out to him, and becomes more open. Ah Rang actually really looks up to Ah Meng and sees him as a hero, and actually cares deeply about him. He also tried to act like him, which causes him to get bullied and beaten up in school. Ah Meng then teaches him how to protect himself and fight the boys who bulied him. His mother chose him instead of Ah Meng when his parents divorced, causing Ah Meng to envy his younger brother. Ah Meng would often ignore him and never look at him, and act coldly toward him. Ah Rang is also being helped by the university president's assistant who is in love with Ah Rang's mother, who does not reciprocate that love. Plus, Ah Meng had accidentally shoved Ah Rang into a vase that had severely injured and cut his neck when they were young. This caused Ah Meng to have felt really sorry to his younger brother over the years. Because of this injury, he usually is weak and can collapse due to breath failure. He has asthma and after a "fake" attack, he and Ah Meng rekindle their relationship and become brothers once more.
Liu Mei Di (劉美蒂)Katherine Wang Kai Di (王凱蒂)A girl who Ah Meng saved when she dropped her glasses in the middle of a road. He took her to an optician and bought new glasses for her. She never got a good sight of him as she broke her glasses, but she fell in love with him. Coincidentally, Ah Meng's grandmother arranged a marriage for him and Meidi to try to break Ah Meng and Qi Yue apart. She is well-sheltered because everyone thinks she is cute and innocent due to her appearance. Ah Meng is the only person, besides blunt Li Xiang, that didn't give her what she wanted which is one of the reasons she loves him so much. She also has anemia that causes her to be dependent on chocolate, notably Ferrero Rocher, so she always carries a box in her bag. She likes to give out the chocolates to thank people for their kindness.
Tian Si Shen (田思慎)Wu Zhong Tian (吳中天)Shin FujitaQi Yue's first crush. He was her father's student when they were younger. He and Qi Yue had spent a lot of time together, and he was her mentor. She had always said when she was younger that she wanted to marry him when she grew up. He studied overseas for some time. When he came back, he became a substitute professor for a short while at her college. He also became the coach for the basketball team. Though he has a girlfriend, he harbors feelings for Qi Yue. Once he knows that Qi Yue is not the same girl she used to be and is in a relationship with Ah Meng, he then tries to get back his girlfriend.
Anything that makes you weak physically intellectually and spiritually reject Quote Meaning
No explanation or meaning available. Be the first to write the meaning of this quote by commenting below. Write explanation in three sentences to get it featured here.
Main Topic: Wise Quotes Related...
www.braintrainingtools.org/skills/anything-that-makes-you...
#brainquotes #quotes
Rising from the darkness
I scream and aim for light
My sentence has now ended
I run towards the flare
As they long for my suffering
I stand fearless
I’ll never be silent
For this’s my inception
Give me the arms to break
Free from this slumber
And I’ll fight for them
Give back what was stolen
As one, we will shatter his word
Let the curtain fall
Proud, as chaos rules the land
Let the curtain fall
Their cries muted our wounds
Blood as vengeance, a red flag
A deep growl broke our pride
The time has come
Give me the arms to break
Free from this slumber
And I’ll fight for them
Give back what was stolen
Chorus;
As one, we will shatter his word
Let the curtain fall
Proud, as chaos rules the land
Let the curtain fall
Strong! We’ll rise
Fearless! We’ll fight
Mighty! They’ll perish
They shall not tear us down
The path’s now cleared
Mourning has ceased
Off with their screams
They did not tear us down
This brain teaser has circulated widely on business cards and in various media. In most versions, however, the sentence with the Fs begins with the words "finished files" rather than "fewer fatal failures."
For an experiment that sought to determine why it's difficult to spot all the Fs in this sentence, see J. Don Read, "Detection of Fs in a Single Statement: The Role of Phonetic Recoding," Memory and Cognition 11 (1983): 390-99 (the author first encountered the "finished files" version of the sentence on a motel business card).
How's Your IQ?
This is a trick--so don't say we didn't warn you. Read this sentence:
Fewer fatal failures are the result of scientific study combined with the experience of years.
Now, count the F's in that sentence only once. Don't go back and count them again.
-----
There are seven F's in the sentence you just read. Av. spots 4. Above av. 5, 6 you can turn your nose at most anybody. If you count all 7 you're a genius. A lot to good to waste your time with this.
It's now time to buy your new or used radio.
R. A Yost - "Printer"
Business cards, billheads, name cards, letterheads,
N. Main St., Manchester, Pa.
(My great Aunt Pearl (Pearl Davis) was Elzy Lay's sister in law. The outlaws Butch Cassidy, Lay and Meeks were frequent visitors to the Star Valley homestead)
Bub Meeks, the last of the old west outlaws, was sentenced to prison 35 years for the Montpelier bank robbery in 1896, but he had proof he was not in Montpelier that day.
Meeks was a member of Butch Cassidy's Hole in the Wall gang out of nearby Wyoming. He was convicted of robbing the Bank of Montpelier with Butch Cassidy and Elzy Lay, who were positively identified in Montpelier that day but never brought to trial.
“No doubt, in a modern courtroom trial, some of the evidence introduced in the sentencing would be introduced in the trial.” said former Idaho Attorney General and criminal defense attorney David Leroy. "That evidence might have set the outlaw free."
Meeks, who acknowledged he was guilty of many crimes but insisted he was not guilty of that bank robbery, said his innocence wore on him, every day he spent behind bars in Boise.
It all started on Thursday, August 13th, 1896 on a blazing hot day in Montpelier, Idaho. Three strangers rode horseback into town and turned onto dusty Washington Street. According to court records, they dismounted, tying their horses to a hitching post in front of the drug store 50 feet from the Bank of Montpelier. Then just after 3pm headed directly to the bank in single file.
According to court transcripts, Butch Cassidy, Elzy Lay, and Bub Meeks approached the boardwalk. Bank President G. C. Gray was out front of the bank talking to Montpelier City Councilmen Bill Perkins and Ed Hoover. Gray testified that when the strangers hit the boardwalk in front of the bank, they drew their guns.
The outlaws quietly forced the banker and councilmen inside the small bank. Gray calmly recalled later that the clock on the wall read 3:13. Inside, Lay forced the stenographer, Gray, Perkins, and Hoover against the west wall at gunpoint while Cassidy got in the cage with a sack in hand and emptied the cash drawers of silver and gold. Cassidy then ordered 19-year old bank clerk Bud Mackintosh to open the wall safe but when he protested saying it was empty, Cassidy called him a “damned liar” and cracked with the butt of his Colt .45 over his left eye.
Mackintosh led Cassady into the vault where he found the ‘bills’ and a fully loaded Winchester rifle that Mackintosh kept for situations like this. Cassidy took the new rifle as he backed out of the vault. Mackintosh testified that they had just completed a cash-drawer count and he gave up $7100 in hard cash. Others testified that there was another $9,000 in bills and banknotes. But bank President Gray, steadfastly testified that the outlaws only got away with $7,100.
When Cassidy came back out around the cage with a half-full sack in one hand and a revolver in the other, witness depositions reveal that outlaw Elzy Lay threatened everyone there to “be still” or they’d be shot.
As the outlaws left the building carrying the 65-pound bag of cash, the bloodied and dazed Mackintosh looked out the window and studied the face of the man holding the horses. In less than three minutes the daring daylight robbery was over and the mounted outlaws disappeared at a slow trot into the hot, afternoon and into old west infamy.
When the outlaws faded from sight, Gray ran from the building yelling, “robbery, robbery.” Deputy Sheriff Fred Cruikshank was first on the scene but there wasn’t a horse in sight so he took off on a bicycle in hot pursuit. City Prosecutor John Bagley got his horse and followed. They caught a glimpse of the outlaws far in the distance, but just enough to determine their direction.
A week later an arrest was made in Evanston, Wyoming. Henry Robert "Bub" Meeks was taken into custody by the Lincoln County Sheriff's and transported to the Bear Lake County Jail where for the next year he cooled his heels. According to Macintosh’s statement to the sheriff's office, there were problems with the State’s case. The man holding the horses was slight and short. Macintosh wore glasses, had been struck in the head by Cassidy, and testified in court that all he could see was a man from the waist up.
This is where the case against Bub Meeks falls apart.
According to arrest records, The 28-year-old Meeks stood 5’11, and a solid 170 pounds. But the Lincoln County Sheriffs' office in Wyoming knew this was Meeks, and that he and Butch Cassady and Elzy Lay were wanted in the Montpelier bank robbery.
At the arraignment, charges were read, an attorney was appointed which led to another problem, Sam Rich was the court-appointed attorney tasked with defending Bub Meeks. Rich was the brother of the Sheriff and a part-time deputy of the Bear Lake County Sheriff's office and that was a major point of concern for Meeks. Yet for the trial, two new attorneys were brought in, R.S. Spence and T. Glenn.
As bad as this looks today, Former Attorney General Leroy says he has no problems with the court-appointed attorney.
“There's nothing that says that someone's brother cannot be fair counsel,” said Leroy “But it does raise the question of will this person be compromised by his participation in the arrest. Would he be less than zealous in this defense because of his relationship with the custodial officer?”
(Leroy read the witness depositions and thought the line of questioning by the new attorneys was competent and would pass modern-day muster.)
Meeks pled not guilty but loudly stated over and over again that he was not even in Montpelier on August 13th, 1896. Meeks even produced a bill of sale from a George Wilson, a prominent rancher from Vernal, Utah, for a horse Bub sold him on August 12, 1896. The bill of sale was witnessed by two men, Del Colton and Charles Shannon, but oddly the letter was never introduced as evidence at the trial, yet was introduced during sentencing and ignored by the Judge.
From arraignment, through the preliminary and the trial itself, Meeks took on a belligerent tone.
The outlaw's outbursts were frequent and cussing out District Judge Drew Standrod was a daily occurrence according to the Montpelier paper.
“Competent counsel would have kept his client in line,” said Leroy. “I wonder how much Meeks trusted his court-appointed attorney,” he could have said something to Judge Standrod. So a lot went on here, that's lost to history. The Bill of sale clearly should have been introduced during the trial and this speaks loudly to the issue of counsel's competency."
The Montpelier Examiner reported that Meeks or his court appointed counsel “made no effort to provide an alibi,” said his nephew Gaile Meeks, who wrote about the robbery just a few years ago. “And it was rumored that he was involved in the Union Pacific railroad holdup at the same time and was afraid that it would be discovered and he would get a bigger sentence.”
After the trial, two weeks later at the sentencing, banker and witness, E.C. Gray sent a letter telling that the man they saw was short and slight and he didn’t think it was Bub Meeks, add to that the fact that the sheriff’s brother defended the man he arrested in Wyoming for the crime. Again, the letters were not brought up in the criminal trial, nor the alibi but afterward during sentencing.
“Letters from detective Joseph Jones, special agent of the Oregon Short Line Railway and Alfred Budge, county attorney for Bear Lake, supported leniency for Meeks. The day before the robbery, August 12, many say he was seen in Vernal,200-or-so miles away, where he traded a buckskin horse for a mare. That was a mighty long way on horseback,” wrote Gaile Meeks.
Newspapers reported that Judge Standrod took a bitter dislike of the young outlaw from the initial court appearance and during the contentious weeklong trial and during sentencing threw the book at Meeks. Judge Standrod sentenced Meeks 35 years, the maximum sentence for robbery, to the Idaho State Penitentiary for his part in the crime.
Bub Meeks arrived at the Idaho State Penitentiary east of Boise on Sept. 7, 1897, and it was just the start of a long string of bad luck.
Fast forward exactly four years to August 13, 1901, the Idaho Parole Board met to commute Meeks 35-year prison sentence. The Statesman stated that sentence was based testimony of witnesses who had serious doubts about Meeks's guilt. Bank clerk E. C. Gray wrote that “I did not get a good look at his face, excepting to notice a fake mustache. My impression has been that he was a smaller man than Mr. Meeks,” wrote Gray.
Bear Lake County Prosecutor Alfred Budge also took a merciful liking to Meeks and thought he got a raw deal. He wrote to the parole board that “35-years in other than murder cases is extortionate, unreasonable and unwarranted confinement.”
The board commuted the sentence from 35 years to 12, making him eligible for parole in January of 1902. But for reasons unknown only to himself, Meeks grew restless because his proclaimed innocence wouldn’t let him rest.
The Idaho Statesman ran a story on December 24th, 1901. “Bub Meeks, the notorious outlaw-bank robber from the Bear Lake area made a bid for freedom. The escape of the prisoner is the most daring ever made at the prison," declared the front-page story. In the dead of winter with 7 inches of snow on the ground, Meeks tasted just a day of freedom.
“He was captured Christmas Day up the Boise River,” said nephew Gaile Meeks. “ His sentence had previously been reduced to twelve years but the Boise judge was so angry he increased Bub's sentence to 35 years again. Later it was commuted to 20 years according to court documents.”
The Idaho Statesman declared that "His prison record had been one of the best and he had been a model prisoner. He was a semi-trusty. He was good-natured and jovial and quite popular among his fellow prisoners.” Meeks even apologized for breaking out of prison.
“Warden, You have been very good to me, and perhaps you didn't deserve the treatment I gave you,'" Meeks told the warden after his recapture, in a Statesman story. The outlaw was returned to prison in East Boise and was locked up in solitary confinement in the famed Siberia cellblock where prisoners bake in the summer and freeze in the winter and hardships there didn't agree with the affable outlaw.
In late January of 1903, Meeks got sick, according to prison papers he was suffering from tuberculosis and malnutrition. The prison doctor and administration granted the outlaw 3 hours of freedom in the yard each day so he could exercise and get sunshine and get his health back.
A month of rehab did wonders for the outlaw and on February 3rd, Meeks tried another daring escape, Meeks made it to the top of the sandstone prison wall and jumped to freedom. Meeks got at least 300 yards past the warden's house. But tower guard R.H. Fulton, a sharpshooter dropped Meeks in the snow-covered field, not far from Warm Springs boulevard. The escapee was wounded in the left thigh, six inches above the knee. Guards hauled the outlaw to Saint Alphonsus Hospital in the prison buckboard. The leg was shattered and doctors had to amputate the leg, eight inches below the hip.
After a month in the hospital, Prison administrators no longer considered Meeks an escape risk. But on March 30th, 1903 just a month and 17 days after amputation, Meeks climbed onto the roof of the prison hospital and rolled off. The Caldwell paper said it was an attempted suicide, other papers said it was another escape attempt.
Prison guards found Meeks on the ground, bleeding and unconscious. His barely healed amputation wound had split back open. He cracked his head open and was bleeding from the mouth and jaw. Meeks was hauled back into the hospital and doctors sewed his leg wound up. This go-around, Meeks was truly miserable. He was still sick from tuberculosis, in constant pain from the amputation and now the head injury left him deeply depressed. He tried to commit suicide again and the ongoing depression alerted doctors.
On Friday, April 24th, prison doctors judged Meeks insane and he was put on an eastbound train for Blackfoot. His shoulder and neck were in a cast, and he was just starting to get around on crutches. Before he left for Blackfoot Meeks agreed to an interview. The Caldwell Tribune wanted to know why he couldn't just do his time.
"Why did I escape? Well, that's easy," said the 'prisoner in his cell. "I saw what I believed was a good chance to get away, and availed myself of the opportunity. So I took the long chance and I suppose I will have to take my medicine for the effort that failed. No, I have no complaint to make about treatment while an inmate of the penitentiary. The warden and his assistants have been very kind to me, as well, as to the other prisoners, and what more can a poor outcast expect?”
The State Hospital in Blackfoot agreed with Meeks. He could walk around the hospital and could come and go freely behind the walls of confinement.
But after a pleasant summer in Blackfoot, On August 24th, 1903 the Pocatello Advance newspaper reported that outlaw Meeks had escaped the State Hospital. "The previous night Meeks stole a workhorse and fled East to the Blackfoot River. A month later he was spotted on Crow Creek road between Montpelier and Star Valley, Wyoming,"
Meeks had somehow broken out of the body cast and was making progress in a desperate attempt to get home to his parents and family. A month later on October 23rd, the Evanston News reported the one-legged, busted up outlaw had finally made it home.
“Bob Meeks, sentenced for 35 years for the bank robbery in Montpelier is home. He is nursing several broken bones at the family home near Fort Bridger. He's still nursing a broken shoulder from a fall. This cost him no end of suffering since. He now has the appearance of a decrepit old man although he is only 29 years old! Meeks escaped the Blackfoot Asylum last August. In doing so he sustained a broken shoulder in that fall,” according to Evanston News.
Meeks said in an interview that his innocence never let him rest.
“I tell you it's hard, 'old man, to do time for something you never did, and it rankles in a fellow's breast. But what can you do? Liberty is sweet and to a man isolated and behind bars … when the feeling comes over you, even with death staring you in the face, a lost soul is willing to take the big chance. I took it, but I failed. I am now satisfied, and I will take my punishment like a man,” said Meeks.
US Marshalls, Idaho State Prison, and a half dozen county sheriffs knew where Bub Meeks was. The Wyoming Governors office at one point sent a letter to Idaho authorities saying they would arrest and extradite the outlaw back to Idaho if ordered, Idaho declined. For the next seven years, Meeks lived free, but his paranoia, the fear of arrest wouldn't let the outlaw rest. His nephew Gaile Meeks says that outlaw spent many days up a tree at the family ranch with a loaded rifle waiting for his arrest.
In early 1911, Meeks's mental condition worsened, his family had the outlaw committed once again to an Asylum. On November 22, 1912, Bub Meeks took his life in the hospital, he was just 43 years old.
Sources: “The Outlaw Trail," Charles Kelly, Bonanza Books, 1938; “A History of Star Valley,” Forrest Kennington, Valley Graphics, Salt Lake, 1989; “A History of the Hub," Allgara West, Gateway, 1998. Idaho Daily Statesman, Caldwell Tribune, Pocatello Advance, Idaho State Journal, Evanston News, Montpelier Examiner.
(Studio Amsterdam)
This sentence is a lie.
Who can’t but be intrigued by this 'truth'? I certainly am.
"we hoed in like a horde of hungry locusts"
It’s like I have stopped writing. This is something I will have to get over, get beyond, I mean. It’s that feeling of dependency on others, on a correspondent, someone I feed off and attempt to feed. That principal someone has been, for 25 years, the eponymous Rack of ‘Rack and Ruin’. Image making is also directed towards ‘the other’, that ‘responder’ out there, the resplendent ‘Seven’, or whoever. It speaks of a ‘failing’. I don’t know if it might speak of a lack of imagination as well. But in ‘truth’, I don’t care. I am not sure I want to write like that anyway, that ‘showing’ rather than ‘telling’ Rack speaks of.
I certainly couldn’t describe places, in New York or wherever, through memories, details of a place that might bring those places alive. They would be fictional. Perhaps I could re-find them through Google ‘streetview’ walks, but they have so changed since last century. I sometimes try to Google-walk some of them, those streets, ones I knew well even, such as that stroll from my 27th Street loft to my 28th street studio, in Chelsea, but it is now somewhere else. But that’s not really how I want to tell a story. It’s the convoluted interior walks I want to re-find and pillage, and that seems more doable. This, perhaps, takes one more into fiction, perhaps not. If it is, it’s another type of fiction, more comprising of the lies I have always told to myself. I don’t see this as a problem, there is always the possibility that one might have lied to oneself extravagantly, but I am more of the mind that these lies were more or less the commonplace prevarications that any and everyone might engender in their own lives to make moving forward possible. Life’s ‘drives’, and ‘drivers’, might be at the engineering of these same lies, through us, to move itself instinctively forward, to evolve, to be constantly growing through decay. Again, we are back to that kernel, the embracing of one’s own mulch. That marriage of then and now, and the inherent fertilised bed of the self, that relentless and lifelong ‘hoeing in’ (and how I have hoed), in its own time as the possible seedbed for what is to come. I don’t mean to say that this makes one exceptional in any way, mulch being mulch and all that wondrous palaver, it just speaks of a blinding equality, an absorption into that clay.
I don’t think I could describe Amsterdam, though I am in, shared and voluntary, quarantine, living here blissfully even. But then I wouldn’t want to attempt such a description. Amsterdam is perfectly capable of describing itself. It doesn’t need a pale echo of itself, ditto New York, London, Paris, wherever.
I haven’t stopped writing, but I have stopped writing that way.
Hoe (hoed, past tense)
verb
gerund or present participle: hoeing
1.
use a hoe to dig (earth) or thin out or dig up (plants).
"we were out in the fields, planting crops and hoeing weeds"
2.
INFORMAL•AUSTRALIAN
eat eagerly.
"we hoed in like a horde of hungry locusts"
I lied. I don't just like that marriage, I love it.
HM Pentonville is a Category B/C prison holding adult males remanded by local magistrates' and crown court, and those serving short sentences or beginning longer sentences. It is operated by Her Majesty's Prison Service situated on the Caledonian Road in the Barnsbury area of the London which was opened in 1842 and is currently has a capacity of 1310 prisoners.
Two Acts of Parliament allowed for the building of Pentonville prison, designed by Captain Joshua Jebb, Royal Engineers, for the detention of convicts sentenced to imprisonment or awaiting transportation. Construction started on 10 April 1840 and was completed in 1842. The cost was £84,186 12s 2d.
It had a central hall with five radiating wings, all visible to staff at the centre. Pentonville was designed to hold 520 prisoners under the separate system, each having his own cell, 13 feet long, 7 feet wide and 9 feet high with little windows on the outside walls and opening on to narrow landings in the galleries. Pentonville became the model for British prisons; a further 54 were built to similar designs over six years and hundreds throughout the British Empire.
The prison also became an execution site following the closure of Newgate Prison in 1902. Condemned cells were added and an execution room built to house Newgate's gallows. It also became a training centre for future executioners. One hundred and twenty men were to be hanged at Pentonville between 1902 and 1961. Pentonville carried out the most 20th century British executions, many of them by Albert Pierrepoint.
Film: Fuji Neopan 1600. Shot and developed as 3200
Developer: D-76 (Stock)
Taken with: Nikon FM2 with Nikkor 45mm 1:2.8
Place: Moscow, Exhibition "Samurai. 47 Ronin"
In Brooklyn, New York, on September 4th, 2018, on the Coney Island Boardwalk at Stillwell Avenue.
-----------------------
Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names terms:
• Brooklyn (7015822)
• Coney Island (7015849)
• Kings (county) (1002551)
• Long Island (7015899)
• New York (7007567)
Art & Architecture Thesaurus terms:
• boardwalks (300189544)
• capital letters (300055061)
• orange (color) (300126734)
• signs (declatory or advertising artifacts) (300123013)
• trailers (vehicles) (300212903)
Wikidata items:
• 4 September 2018 (Q45921190)
• all caps (Q3960579)
• dot-matrix display (Q1751778)
• LED display (Q2411647)
• New York City Police Department (Q328473)
• Riegelmann Boardwalk (Q4380603)
• September 4 (Q2855)
• September 2018 (Q31179569)
• variable-message sign (Q1500964)
Library of Congress Subject Headings:
• Electric signs (sh85042000)
George Frederick Joffre Hartree (30 November 1914 – 27 October 1988), better known as Charles Hawtrey, was an English comedy actor.
[edit] Life
Born in Hounslow, Middlesex, England, as George Frederick Joffre Hartree, he took his stage name from a celebrated theatrical knight, Sir Charles Hawtrey. It has mistakenly been suggested, and encouraged by Hartree himself, that he was his son, but there is no foundation to this. His father was actually a London car mechanic[1].
Charles Hawtrey made an early start to a remarkable career that was to span a period of almost 60 years, and broke through in all the major entertainment media of the time. He began in the field of music as a renowned boy soprano, making several records before then moving onto the wireless where he performed in programmes for 'Children's Hour'. Following study at the Italia Conti Academy of Theatre Arts in London, he embarked on a career in the theatre as both actor and director. Finally he moved from the cinema where he regularly appeared supporting Will Hay in the 1930s and 40s in films such as The Ghost of St Michaels through the Carry On films, to the television screen.
Hawtrey was prone to elaboration on his career, as reported by Roger Lewis in his biography The Man Who Was Private Widdle. He elevated a cameo appearance at the piano in Passport to Pimlico to his having orchestrated the score. Very little is known about Hawtrey's private life as he guarded his relationships very carefully – perhaps no surprise in an age where male homosexual behaviour was illegal and punishable by a prison sentence. However during his life he never hid his homosexuality, and was one of the first actors in British cinema to be identifiably 'gay' in the characters that he played. His outrageous drunken promiscuity however, did not portray homosexuality in a positive light to an unsympathetic world, and nor did his general demeanour with those around him earn him many (if any) close friends[2]. Nevertheless a few anecdotes told by his Carry On colleagues shed a little light on the character off the screen. Kenneth Williams records several encounters with Hawtrey in his 'Diaries' and 'Letters' (both published). He remembers a visit to Deal where Hawtrey's house was full of old brass bedsteads which the eccentric actor had hoarded, believing that one day he would make money from them. He would also wave with gusto at the sailors on the beach[3].
A lot of strain was put on him by his mother who suffered senile dementia in later years. A popular anecdote recounted by Williams [4] described how his mother's handbag caught fire when her cigarette ash fell in. Hawtrey, without batting an eyelid, poured a cup of tea into it to put out the flames, snapped the purse shut and continued with his story. His mother would also collect toilet rolls and on another visit to the studios blocked the women's toilets with paper. Hawtrey was also prone to such tendencies and again in his diaries, Williams recounted his gathering up of the leftover sandwiches from a buffet for the Carry On cast[5].
The falling-out between Hawtrey and the Carry-On producer Peter Rogers came about partly through drink and partly because he had hoped for higher billing. Indeed the gag in Carry On Abroad where his character applies neat whisky instead of sun lotion was a specific reference to his chronic alcoholism. Since neither Sid James or Kenneth Williams was to star in the 1972 Christmas special, Hawtrey believed it was his due to get top billing. However, the producers went with Hattie Jacques, whom they believed was better known by TV viewers. Rogers tried to contact Hawtrey a day before filming began at the place where Hawtrey regularly dined to ask him to reconsider, but Hawtrey declined to do so. He never worked for the Carry-On again[6].
Hawtrey finally retired to Deal in Kent in the 1980s, where he devoted much time to the consumption of alcohol. He cut an eccentric figure in the small town and was well known for promenading along the seafront in extravagant attire and his frequenting of establishments patronised by students of the famous Royal Marine School of Music[7].
He made the news in August 1984 when his house caught fire after he went to bed with a male teenager and left a cigarette burning on the sofa. In October 1988, he was taken to hospital after breaking his leg in a fall in front of a public house. He was discovered to be suffering from peripheral vascular disease, a condition of the arteries brought on by a lifetime of heavy smoking. Hawtrey was told that in order to save his life, his legs would have to be amputated. He refused, allegedly saying he preferred to die with his boots on, and died almost a month later, aged 73. He died just months after fellow 'Carry On' star Kenneth Williams, who died on the 15th April that year. On his deathbed, Hawtrey supposedly threw a vase at his nurse who claimed to have asked him for a final autograph – it was the last thing he did. His ashes were scattered in Mortlake Crematorium, close to Chiswick in London and no friends or family attended[8].
[edit] Film career (1922-1972)
Hawtrey acted in films from an early age, appearing in an impressive array of movies while still a boy, and as an adult his youthful appearance and wit made him an excellent foil to Will Hay's blundering old fool in the comedy films Good Morning, Boys (1937), Where's That Fire? (1939), The Ghost of St Michael's (1941) and The Goose Steps Out (1942). In all he appeared in over 70 films, including Hitchcock's 'Sabotage'.
He became a core member of the Carry On series of films throughout the 1960s and 1970s, mostly playing characters that ranged from the wimpish through the effete to the effeminate. He would smoke Woodbines profusely and play cards between takes with Sid James and his gang[9]. His last film was Carry On Abroad (1972), after which he was dropped from the series. Hawtrey's growing alcohol consumption, which had began to noticeably worsen since Carry On Cowboy in 1965, was beginning to affect his work. In her autobiography, Barbara Windsor [10] wrote about the alcohol problem, and him flirting outrageously with football legend George Best. While filming Carry On Spying she thought he had fainted from fright at a dramatic scene on a conveyor belt - in fact he had passed out because he was drunk. When he came on set with a crate of R. White's Lemonade, everyone knew that he had been on another heavy drinking binge.
The last straw occurred in 1972 when, in a bid to finally gain higher billing, Hawtrey withdrew from a Carry On Christmas television programme in which he was scheduled to appear, giving just a few days' notice for his absence (and despite appearing in promotional material). After this producer Peter Rogers stopped using him for Carry On roles[11]. Without these films, Hawtrey slipped into the relative obscurity of pantomime and provincial summer seasons where he played heavily on his 'Carry On' persona.
Hawtrey also took a hand at directing films himself, including in 1945 What Do We Do Now? a musical-mystery written by the English author George Cooper, and starring George Moon (later to be seen as Mr Giles in Carry on Dick). In 1945, Hawtrey directed the distinguished British actress Dame Flora Robson in Dumb Dora Discovers Tobacco [12].
Tell Your Children (1922)
This Freedom (1923)
Marry Me (1932)
The Melody-Maker (1933)
Little Stranger (1934)
Kiddies On Parade (1935)
Well Done, Henry (1936)
Cheer Up (1936)
Sabotage (1936)
Melody and Romance (1937)
Good Morning, Boys (1937)
Where's That Fire? (1939)
Jailbirds (1940)
The Ghost of St. Michael's (1941)
Let the People Sing (1942)
The Goose Steps Out (1942)
Much Too Shy (1942)
Bell-Bottom George (1944)
A Canterbury Tale (1944)
Ten Year Plan (1945)
Meet Me at Dawn (1947)
The End of the River (1947)
The Story of Shirley Yorke (1948)
The Lost People (1949)
Dark Secret (1949)
Passport to Pimlico (1949)
Room to Let (1950)
The Smart Aleck (1951)
The Galloping Major (1951)
You're Only Young Twice (1952)
Hammer the Toff (1952)
Brandy for the Parson (1952)
To Dorothy a Son (1954)
Five Days (1954)
Simon and Laura (1955)
March Hare (1955)
Jumping for Joy (1955)
As Long as They're Happy (1955)
Man of the Moment (1955)
Timeslip (1956)
Who Done It? (1956)
I Only Arsked! (1958)
Carry On Sergeant (1958)
Please Turn Over (1959)
Carry On Nurse (1959)
Carry On Teacher (1959)
Inn for Trouble (1960)
Carry On Constable (1960)
What a Whopper! (1961)
Dentist on the Job (1961)
Carry On Regardless (1961)
Carry On Cabby (1963)
Carry On Jack (1963)
Carry On Spying (1964)
Carry On Cleo (1964)
Carry On Cowboy (1965)
Carry On Screaming (1966)
Don't Lose Your Head (1966)
The Terrornauts (1967)
Follow That Camel (1967)
Carry On Doctor (1967)
Carry On... Up the Khyber (1968)
Zeta One (1969)
Carry On Camping (1969)
Carry On Again Doctor (1969)
Carry On Loving (1970)
Carry On Henry (1970)
Carry On Up the Jungle (1970)
Carry On at Your Convenience (1971)
Carry On Matron (1972)
Carry On Abroad (1972)
OBITUARY.; Madam Eliza B. Jumel.
New York TImes
Published: July 18, 1865
A single sentence in this morning's TIMES serves to awaken many memories of the past, and revive remembrances of men and parties long since crumbled or forgotten. Thus it reads: "Died, on Sunday morning, July 16, at her late residence, Washington Heights, madam ELIZA B. JUMEL, in the 92d year of her age."
Madam JUMEL, whose death is chronicled above, was a very singular person, about whose name twined many marvelous stories, and with whose history the greatest men of colonial and Revolutionary days were intimately connected. According to one historian, she was born of an English, mother, Mrs. CAPET, in the cabin of a French frigate, which in the year of our Lord 1769 was carrying troops to the West Indies from La Brest. The mother died as the child drew the first breath of life. Somewhat embarrassed by the tender charge, the Captain concluded to keep her, but afterward, when driven into Newport, R.I., harbor, he placed her in the custody of an elderly lady named THOMPSON, who agreed to take good care of her. Mrs. THOMPSON was a good woman, and many clergymen visited her comparatively humble dwelling, so that the early years of the little one were passed amid good influences.
Many of His Britannic Majesty's officers dwelt in Newport. Among them was a certain Col. P. CROIX, whose personal appearance is reported to have been most taking -- whose position in society was excellent. The Colonel met Miss CAPET when she was about seventeen years of age, and fell in love with her pretty face and pleasant figure. She reciprocated the tender passion, which eventuated in an elopement, the indiscreet but entirely happy pair proceeding to New-York, where the lady lodged at a "handsome wooden structure," but recently standing where now rests the north wing of STEWART's marble palace.
Brought at once into contact with the best people in the city, the lady became a cultured woman of the world, fond of its pleasures, versed in its intrigues, interested in the cabals of politicians, and espousing with ardor one side or the other of the continual military emeutes with which the latter days of the eighteenth century were so cursed in New-York City. She was present at the opening of the first session of Congress at Philadelphia, in September, 1774, and at the inauguration of WASHINGTON as President, she created a decided impression by her beauty and general air of savoir faire. She was about twenty years of age then, and very elegant in person and distinguished in bearing. Mme. JUMEL first met AARON BURR when he ranked as a Captain in the army, and was greatly impressed by his power and expression. She was even then intimate with BENEDICT ARNOLD, whose wife she fancied her best friend, and with PATRICK HENRY, in whose breast of reserve she started a dangerous fire of love and passion; but, forgetful of those noted men, and of the scores who bent willingly before her shrine, she wrote thus of the man who, in after years, was destined to be her lord, if not her master. She says:
"Capt. AARON BURR, in the hey-day of his youth, as he now was, appeared to me the perfection of manhood personified. He was beneath the common size of men, only five feet and a half high, but his figure and form had been fashioned in the models of the graces. Petite as he comparatively was, he had a martial appearance, and displayed in all his movements those accomplishments which are only acquired in the camp and embellished in the boudior of the graces. In a word, he was a combined model of Mars and Apollo. His eye was of the deepest black, and sparkled with an incomprehensible brilliancy when he smiled; but if enraged, its power was absolutely terrific. Into whatever female society he chanced, by the fortune of war or by the vicissitudes of private life to be cast, he conquered all hearts without an effort; and, until he became deeply involved in the cares of State, and the vexations incident to the political arena, I do not believe a female capable of the gentle emotions of love ever looked upon him without loving him. Wherever he went he was petted and caressed by our sex, and hundreds vied with each other in a continuous struggle to offer him some testimonial of their adulation. And yet, with all this popularity in the polite circles, he never took advantage of his position, and I do not believe that any female ever had cause to complain of his seductive wiles, perfidy or injustice."
The casual meeting between the two took place at the rooms of Lady STIRLING, and resulted in Miss CAPET's acceptance of an invitation to accompany Capt. BURR that evening to the theatre. On the way to the house, BURR asked permission to stop for a friend, and so doing he brought into the carriage and introduced to Miss CAPET as his friend the afterward celebrated MARGARET MONCRIEF. A desperate flirtation followed, but beyond that nothing of any moment occurred between them, and he soon after was called away, so that for years they did not meet.
Continuing her gay career, Miss CAPET met and knew intimately the great leaders of the Revolutionary struggle. THOMAS JEFFERSON was a frequent visitor at her house, and a friendship formed between them which ceased only with his death, in 1826. Old BEN FRANKLIN called her his "Fairy Queen," and was on terms of such intimacy with her as permitted him to salute her lips in the presence of friends. Gen. KNOX was likewise a worshipper before her, and LAFAYETTE was greatly charmed. That such a woman as this should have gone through escapades and adventures is but natural; that she should take pleasure and pride in bringing men of loftiest position to her feet is quite understandable; that her reputation should materially suffer by the scandal of her rivals and the jealous tattlings of her female friends is what one would expect; but that she should finally accept the hand of, and marry, a quiet, hard-working, adventurous trader, is a vagary difficult of explanation. She did it, however. In the early days of this century she was wooed and won by a Frenchman named STEPHEN JUMEL, who, landing here poor, made an immense fortune in the wine trade. He became noted for his wealth, liberality and kind-hearted benevolence, and singular foresight in business matters. Of him our worthy but eccentric fellow-citizen, GRANT THORBURN, said:
"STEPHEN JUMEL, a Frenchman, was among our early merchant princes. One morning, about 10 o'clock, in the year 1806, this gentleman, in company with WILLIAM BAYARD, HARMON LE ROY, ARCHIBALD GRACIE, Gen. CLARKSON, and some dozen others, was reading and discussing the news just arrived from Liverpool in the extraordinary short passage of seven weeks. The matter mostly concerned NAPOLEON I. and the battle of Wagram. While thus engaged, a carman's horse backed his cart into the Whitehall-slip. The cart was got out, but the horse was drowned, and every one began pitying the poor carman's ill-luck. JUMEL instantly arose, and placing a ten-dollar bill between his thumb and finger, and holding it aloft while it fluttered in the breeze, and with his hat in the other hand he walked through the length and breadth of the crowd, exclaiming, "How much you pity the poor man? I pity him ten dollars. How much you pity him?" By this ingenious and noble coup he collected in a few moments about seventy dollars, which he gave over at once to the unfortunate and fortunate carman. This has since been imitated often, but of its originality with him there can be no question."
Shortly after this marriage, the downfall of the great NAPOLEON occurred, and the pacification of Europe was secured. This seemed a favorable opportunity for the wealthy Frenchman, who had long since retired from active business, to take his beautiful and accomplished wife to the centre of continental splendor. They went to Paris, purchased a magnificent establishment, and under the social patronage of LAFAYETTE and his contemporaries, Madame JUMEL became as noted in the salons of the French capital as in the parlors of the western metropolis. Her wit and talent placed her in the very van of the frequenters of the court, and while she never failed to make continual conquests, we are not of those who believe the slanderers of her reputation. Gaiety is not always guilt, frivolity not always the exponent of heartlessness, and despite Madame JUMEL's wonderful gaiety and never-ceasing frivolty, she was deep and shrewd and able enough to maintain her position against the combined attacks of those who envied her.
Her life of prodigious prodigality made sad inroads upon her husband's fortune, and he became low spirited. She rallied him, but investigation demonstrated the comparative wreck of his estate, and she failed to arouse him to the necessary exertion. Self-reliant, bold, independent and clear-sighted, she broke up their establishment in Paris and returned alone to New-York in 1822. Resolved to mend what she had broken, she retired to an estate of her own on the island, and devoted herself to the recuperation of her husband's fortune with such signal success that when, in 1828, at the age of sixty-four, he returned to this country, he found himself possessed of means at once abundant and satisfactory. They lived happily together until his death, which resulted in his seventieth year, from an accidental fall.
At this time Col. BURR was practicing law, with great success, in New-York. His legal position was in the front rank: triumph succeeded triumph and although old in years, he seemed but in the prime of life. There was talk of cholera in the city, and Madame JUMEL, who had large interests in real estate determined upon a carriage tour in the country siring, however, to take legal advice on some matters before leaving, she determined to consult Col. BURR, whose preeminence in real estate law was universally conceded. It was a long time since she had seen him. Years had changed them both; oceans and events had separated them; marriage and its consequences had turned the thoughts of each in other directions; and now, when the one was an old man and the other a well-advanced woman, they were to meet. He was perfect in all the subtleties of social life; she was the exponent, ne plus ultra, of fashionable life. The one could not hope to blind, mislead, or seduce the other. His office was at No. 23 Nassau-street, and she drove thither to consult him. Never forgetful of eye, or feature, or figure, he recognized her in a moment, and, as PARTON in his Life of Aaron Burr, says:
"He received her in his courtliest manner, complimented her with admirable tact, listened with soft deference to her statement. He was the ideal man of business -- confidential, self-possessed, polite -- giving his client the flattering impression that the faculties of his whole soul were concentrated upon the affair in hand. She was charmed, yet feared him. He took the papers, named the day when his opinion would be ready and handed her to her carriage with winning grace. At seventy-eight years of age, he was still straight, active, agile, fascinating.
On the appointed day she sent to his office a relative, a student of law, to receive his opinion. This young gentleman, timid and inexperienced, had an immense opinion of BURR's talents; had heard all good and all evil of him; supposed him to be, at least, the acutest of possible men. He went. BURR behaved to him in a manner so exquisitely pleasing, that, to this hour, he has the liveliest recollection of the scene. No topic was introduced but such as were familiar and interesting to young men. His manners were such as this age of slangy familiarity cannot so much as imagine. The young gentleman went home to Madame JUMEL only to extol and glorify him.
Madame and her party began their journey, revisiting Ballston, whither, in former times, she had been wont to go in a chariot drawn by eight horses; visiting Saratoga, then in the beginning of its celebrity, where, in exactly ten minutes after her arrival, the decisive lady bought a house and all it contained. Returning to New-York to find that her mansion had been despoiled by robbers in her absence, she lived for a while in the city. Col. BURR called upon the young gentleman who had been Madame's messenger, and, after their acquaintance had ripened, said to him, "Come into my office; I can teach you more in one year than you can learn in ten, in an ordinary way." The proposition being submitted to Madame JUMEL, she, anxious for the young man's advancement, gladly and gratefully consented. He entered the office. BURR kept him close at his books. He did teach him more in a year than he could have learned in ten in an ordinary way. BURR lived then in Jersey City. His office swarmed with applicants for aid, and he seemed to have quite lost the power of refusing. In no other respects, bodily or mental, did he exhibit signs of decrepitude.
Some months passed on without his again meeting Madame JUMEL. At the suggestion of the student, who felt exceedingly grateful to BURR for the solicitude with which he assisted his studies, Madame JUMEL invited Col. BURR to dinner. It was a grand banquet, at which he displayed all the charms of his manner and shone to conspicuous advantage. On handing to dinner the giver of the feast, he said: "I give you my hand, Madame; my heart has long been yours." This was supposed to be merely a compliment and was little remarked at the time. Col. BURR called upon the lady; called frequently; became ever warmer in his attentions; proposed, at length, and was refused. He still plied his suit, however, and obtained at lost, not the lady's consent, but an undecided no. Improving his advantage on the instant, he said, in a jocular manner, that he should bring out a clergyman to Fort Washington on a certain day, and there he would once more solicit her hand.
He was as good as his word. At the time appointed, he drove out in his gig to the lady's country residence, accompanied by Dr. BOGART, the very clergy, man who, just fifty years before, had married him to the mother of his THEODOSIA. The lady was embarrassed, and still refused. But then the scandal! And, after all, why not? Her estate needed a vigilant guardian, and the old house was lonely. After much hesitation, she at length consented to be dressed and to receive her visitors. And she was married. The ceremony was witnessed only by the members of Madame JUMEL's family and by the eight servants of the household, who peered eagerly in at the doors and windows. The ceremony over, Mrs. BURR ordered supper. Some bins of M. JUMEL'L wine cellar, that had not been opened for half a century, were laid under contribution. The little party was a very merry one. The parson, in particular, it is remembered, was in the highest spirits, overflowing with humor and anecdote. Except for Col. BURR's great age, (which was not apparent,) the match seemed not an unwise one. The lurking fear he had had of being a poor and homeless old man was put to rest. She had a companion who had been ever agreeable, and her estate a steward than whom no one living was supposed to be more competent.
As a remarkable circumstance connected with this marriage, it may be just mentionen that there was a woman in New-York who had aspired to the band of Col. BURR and who, when she heard of his union with another, wrung her hands and shed tears. A feeling of that nature can seldom, since the creation of man, have been excited by the marriage of a man on the verge of fourscore.
A few days after the wedding, the 'happy pair' paid a visit to Connecticut, of which State a nephew of Col. BURR's was then Governor. They were received with attention. At Hartford, BURR advised his wife to sell out her shares in the bridge over the Connecticut at that place and invest the proceeds in real estate. She ordered them sold. The stock was in demand and the shares brought several thousand dollars. The purchaser offered to pay her the money, but she said, "No; pay it to my husband." To him, accordingly, it was paid, and he had it sewed up in his pocket, a prodigious bulk, and brought it to New-York and deposited it in his own bank to his own credit.
Texas was then beginning to attract the tide of emigration which, a few years later, set so strongly thither. BURR had always token a great interest in that country. Persons with whom he had been variously connected in life had a scheme on foot for settling a large colony of Germans on a tract of land in Texas. A brig had been chartered and the project was in a state of forwardness, when the possession of a sum of money enabled BURR to buy shares in the enterprise. The greater part of the money which he had brought from Hartford was invested in this way. It proved a total loss. The time had not yet come for emigration to Texas. The Germans became discouraged and separated, and, to complete the failure of the scheme, the title of the lands, in the confusion of the times, proved defective. Meanwhile, Madame, who was a remarkable thrifty woman, with a talent for the management of property, wondered that her husband made no allusion to the subject of the investment, for the Texas speculation had not been mentioned to her. She caused him to be questioned on the subject. He begged to intimate to the lady's messenger that it was no affair of her's and he requested him to remind the lady that she now had a husband to manage her affairs and one who would manage them.
Coolness between the husband and wife was the result of this colloquy. Then came remonstrances. Then estrangement. BURR got into the habit of remaining in his office in the city. Then, partial reconciliation. Full of schemes and spebulations to the last, without retaining any of his former ability to act successfully, he lost more money, and more, and more. The patience of the lady was exhausted. She filed a complain accusing him of infidelity and praying that he might have no more control or authority over her affairs. The accusation is now known to have been groundless; nor, indeed, at the time was it seriously believed. It was used merely as the most convenient legal mode of depriving him of control over her property. At first, he answered the complaint vigorously, but afterward he allowed it to go by default and the proceedings were carried no further. A few short weeks of happiness, followed by a few alternate months of alternate estrangment and reconciliation, and this union, that begun not inauspiciously, was, in effect, though never in law, dissolved."
Since then Madame JUMEL, who has never resumed her late husband's name, has resided in her home at Washington Heights, comparatively alone. She knew but few, and cored not to extend her list of friends. She died on Sunday, possessed of considerable property, which her grand-children will doubtless inherit. Her funeral will be to-day.
Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.
A creator God (or supernatural first cause) has been made redundant and the final gap (pertaining to the so-called God of the gaps) has now been filled ... who says so?
Atheists, along with the secularist pundits in the popular media.
Why do they say that?
Because they believe that the greatest brain in atheism - Stephen Hawking, has finally discovered the secret of the origin of the universe and a naturalistic replacement for God.
The atheist replacement for God is summed up in a single sentence written by Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
That is it .... problem solved - apparently!
The secularists in the popular media loved it, as far as they were concerned the problem certainly was solved. Hawking had finally dealt the fatal blow to all religion, especially Christianity. No need to question it, if a revered scientist of his calibre, is so sure of how the universe came into being, it must be correct.
The new atheists loved it, they wasted no time in proclaiming the ultimate triumph of 'science' over religious mythology and superstition.
So just how credible is the atheist claim that God has been made redundant?
And just how 'scientific' is Hawking's replacement for God?
Shall we analyse it?
"Because there is a law of gravity ....
So, if the law of gravity existed, how is that nothing?
AND - where did the law of gravity come from?
AND - how can a law of gravity exist before that which gravity relates to ... i.e. matter?
"the universe can and will create itself from nothing"
How can something create itself, without pre-existing its own creation?
(A) could possibly create (B), but how could (A) create (A)? Of course it can't.
What about the 'nothing' that is not really nothing, as most people understand 'nothing', but a bizarre 'nothing' in which a law of gravity exists. A nothing which is actually a 'something' where a law of gravity is presumably some sort of eternally, existent entity?
AND - Is Hawking implying that the self-creation of the universe is made possible by the pre-existence of the law of gravity?
Of course, natural laws are not creative agents, they simply describe basic properties and operation of material things. They can't create anything, or cause the creation of anything. Something which is a property of something, cannot create that which it is a property of.
So, even if we ignore the law of cause and effect which definitively rules out a natural, first cause of the universe, the atheist notion of the universe arising of its own volition from nothing is still impossible, and can be regarded as illogical and unscientific nonsense. Hawking's naturalistic replacement for God, presented in his single sentence, and so loved by the new, atheist clique, is obviously just contradictory and confused nonsense.
The truth, which atheists don't want to hear, is that atheism is intellectually and scientifically indefensible. That is why they always duck out of explaining how the concept of an uncaused, inadequate, natural first cause is possible.
The best they ever come up with, is something like "we don't really know what laws existed at the start of the universe".
However, the atheist claim that - we don't really know... is completely spurious.
We certainly do know that the Law of Cause and Effect is universal, there is no way round it.
The only reason atheists don't want to accept it, is ideological.
And ... isn't it strange, that the only laws atheists dispute are precisely those that interfere with their beliefs. For example, atheists seem pretty sure that one law existed .... the law of gravity (even prior to that which gravity is a property of … matter).
Why are they so sure that the law of gravity existed?
Because their naturalistic substitute for God, summed up in the sentence by Stephen Hawking, apparently requires that the law of gravity existed before anything else …..
Here it is again ...
‘Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing’ Stephen Hawking.
So atheists DO KNOW for sure that the law of gravity existed, but they don’t really know what other laws existed at the start of the universe. They especially doubt that the Law of Cause and Effect existed.
AMAZING!
Well, how about this for a refutation of Hawking’s replacement for God, also summed up in a single sentence?
Because there is a Law of Cause and Effect, the universe can’t and won’t create itself from nothing!
That is something Stephen Hawking conveniently forgot.
Apparently, he accepts that the law of gravity existed, because he thinks it suits his argument, but he ignores the existence of other laws that positively destroy his argument.
So why is it atheists that try to dispute the universality of natural laws?
According to their claims, they are supposed to be the champions of science. Yet we find in practice that it is actually theists who end up defending natural laws and the scientific method against those atheists who try to refute any laws and scientific principles that interfere with their naturalistic beliefs.
What happened to the alleged conflict between science and religion? That is revealed as purely, atheist propaganda. There is obviously much more conflict between atheism and science.
Why is the law of cause and effect so important?
Because it tells us that all natural entities, events and processes are contingent.
They are all subject to preceding causes. It tells us that natural entities and events are not autonomous, they cannot operate independently of causes. That is such an important principle, it is the basis of the scientific method. Science is about looking for causes. A natural event without a cause, is a scientific impossibility.
Once you suggest such a notion you are stepping outside the bounds of science and violating the scientific method.
What about the first cause of everything? Well, the first cause was obviously a unique thing, not only unique, but radically different to all natural entities and occurrences. The first cause had to be an autonomous entity, it had to be eternally self-existent, self-reliant, non-contingent ... i.e. completely independent of causes and the limitations that causes impose.
The first cause, by virtue of being the very first, could not have had any preceding cause, and obviously didn't require any cause for its existence.
The first cause also had to be capable of creating everything that followed it. It is responsible for every subsequent cause and effect that is, or has ever been. That means nothing, or the sum total of everything that followed the first cause, can ever be greater in any respect than the first cause.
So the idea that the first cause could be a natural entity or event is just ludicrous.
The first cause is radically different to any natural entity, it is not contingent and that is why it is called a supernatural entity, the supernatural, first cause.
That is the verdict of science, logic and reason. Atheists dispute the verdict of science and insist that the first cause was a 'natural' event which was somehow able to defy natural laws that govern all natural events.
Consequently, atheism can be regarded as anti-science. And the real enemy of atheism is science, not religion.
An idea which seems to be popular with atheists at present, is a continuously, reciprocating universe, one which ends by running out of energy potential and then rewinds itself in an never ending cycle ..... this is an attempt to evade the fact that an uncaused, natural, first cause is impossible.
So is it a valid solution?
It is pretty obvious that the idea of the universe simply rewinding itself in a never ending cycle, which had no beginning, is complete, unscientific nonsense. How such a proposal can be presented as serious science, beggars belief.
It seems atheists will try anything to justify their naturalist ideology. They apparently have no compunction about completely disregarding natural laws.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out such atheist, pie-in-the-sky, origins mythology.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, the idea of a rewinding universe is tantamount to applying the discredited notion of perpetual motion - on a grand scale, to the universe.
Contingent things don't just rewind of their own accord.
The Second Law (not to mention common sense) rules it out.
Where does the renewed power or renewed energy potential come from?
If you wind up a clock, it doesn't rewind itself after it has stopped.
The universe had a beginning and it will have an end. That is what science tells us, it cannot rewind itself.
Such ridiculous atheist musings are just a desperate attempt to wriggle out of the inevitable conclusion of logic, and the Law of Cause and Effect which are the real enemies of atheist ideology.
Atheism is hoisted on its own petard by natural law and science, not by religion.
Atheists can’t refute the Law of Cause and Effect which is so devastating to their naturalist agenda, so they regularly invent bizarre scenarios which ignore natural laws, and hope people won’t notice. If anyone does they just brush it off with remarks like “we just don’t know ”.
Sorry, atheist apologists may not know …. but all sensible people do know, we certainly know what is impossible …. And we certainly know that you cannot blithely step outside the constraints of natural laws and scientific principles, as atheists do, and remain credible.
Atheists are anti-science, because they treat natural law and the whole principle of the scientific method with utter contempt, while they masquerade as the champions of science to the public.
A further nail in the coffin of bogus, atheist science is the existence of order.
Atheists assume that the universe is purposeless, but they cannot explain the existence of order.
The development of order requires an organizational element.
To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided.
Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.
The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA. Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup.
Natural laws are a type of information pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it.
They describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws based on their own properties. They cannot exceed the parameters of those laws.
The much acclaimed, Dawkinsian principle that randomness can develop into order by means of a sieving process, such as shaken pebbles being sorted by falling through a hole of a particular size is erroneous, because it completely ignores the regulatory influence of natural laws on the outcome, which are not at all random.
If we can predict the outcome in advance, as we can with Dawkins' example, it cannot be called random. We CAN predict the outcome because we know that the pebbles will behave according to the regulatory influence of natural laws, such as the law of gravity. If there was no law of gravity, then Dawkins' pebbles, when shaken, would not fall through the hole, they would not be sorted, they would act completely unpredictably, possibly floating about in the air in all directions. In that case, the randomness would not result in any order. That is true randomness.
Dawkins' randomness, allegedly developing into order, is not random at all, the outcome is predictable and controlled by natural laws and the inherent properties of matter. He is starting with 2 organizational principles, natural laws and the inherent, ordered structure and properties of matter, and he calls that randomness!
Bogus science indeed!
Order is already there at the beginning of the universe, in the form of natural laws and the ordered composition and structure of matter .... it doesn't just develop from random events.
A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from?
In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure, and we would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.
Furthermore, if we consider the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? Atheists are hoisted on their own petard, and the atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.
It is the atheist ideology that is anti-science, not necessarily individual scientists.
There may be sincere, atheist scientists who respect the scientific method and natural laws, but they are wedded to an ideology that - when push comes to shove, does not respect natural laws.
It is evident that whenever natural laws interfere with atheist naturalist beliefs, the beliefs take precedence over the rigorous, scientific method. It is then that natural laws are disregarded by atheists in favour of unscientific fantasies which are conducive to their ideology.
Of course, in much day-to-day practical science and technology, the question of violating laws doesn't even arise, and we cannot deny that in the course of such work, atheists will respect the scientific method of experiment and observation within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect and other established laws of science.
Bizarrely, It is a different matter entirely, when it comes to hypotheses about origins. It then becomes an 'anything goes' situation. The main criteria then seems to be that it doesn’t matter whether your hypothesis violates natural laws (all sorts of excuses can be made as to why natural laws need not apply), all that matters is that it is entirely naturalistic, and can be made to sound plausible to the public.
However, the same atheist scientists would not entertain anything in general, day-to-day science, that is not completely in accordance with the scientific method, they make an exception ONLY with anything to do with origins, whether it be the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, or the origin of species.
Atheism is not simply passive non-belief, you can only be a ‘genuine’ atheist if you proactively believe in the following illogical and unscientific notions:
A natural, first cause of the universe that was ‘uncaused’.
A natural, first cause of the universe that was patently not adequate for the effect, (a cause which was able to produce an effect far greater than itself and superior to its own abilities).
That the universe created ITSELF from nothing.
That natural laws simply arose of their own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.
That energy potential at the start of everything material was able to wind itself up from absolute zero, of its own accord, without any reason, purpose or cause.
That the effect of entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics) was somehow suspended or didn’t operate to permit the development of order in the universe.
That life spontaneously generated itself, of its own volition, from sterile matter, contrary to: the Law of Biogenesis, the laws of probability, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Information Theory and common sense.
That the complete human genome was created by means of a long chain of copying mistakes of the original, genetic information in the first living cell, (mutations of mutations of mutations, etc. etc.).
That the complex DNA code was produced by chemical processes.
That the very first, genetic information, encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, created itself by some unknown means.
That matter is somehow inherently predisposed to develop into living cells, whenever conditions are conducive to life. But such a predisposition for life just arose of its own accord, with no purpose and with no apparent cause.
That an ordered structure of atoms, guiding laws of physics, order in the cosmos, order in the living cell and complex information, are what we would expect to occur naturally in a purposeless universe.
The claim of Dawkins and other atheists to be the champions of science and reason is clearly bogus.
They think they can get away with it by pretending to have no beliefs.
However, when challenged, they indirectly espouse the unscientific beliefs outlined above, in their futile attempts to refute the evidence for a supernatural first cause.
Whenever possible, they avoid declaring those beliefs explicitly, but you don’t need to be very astute to realize that relying on those beliefs is the unavoidable conclusion of their arguments.
That is why atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is doomed to the dustbin of history. And that is why we are seeing such a rise in militant, evangelizing, atheist zealots, such as Dawkins.
Their crusading, bravado masks their desperation that the public is so hard to convince. What Dawkins needs to face is that he is in no position to attack what he considers are the bizarre beliefs of others, when his own beliefs (which he fails to publicly acknowledge) are much more bizarre.
Christianity and pagan gods?
Atheists frequently try to dismiss the idea of a Creator by comparing it to the numerous, pagan gods that people have worshipped throughout history.
Do they have a good point?
Certainly not, this is just a red herring ….
Other gods, cannot be the first cause or Creator.
An idol of wood or stone, or the Sun, Moon, planets, Mother Nature, Mother Earth etc. are all material, contingent things, they cannot be the first cause.
In fact, they are much more similar to the atheist belief in the powers of a naturalistic entity to create the universe, than they are to the one, Creator God of Christianity.
The Creator is a Supernatural, First Cause, which is not a contingent entity, nothing like the pagan gods, but rather a self-existent, necessary entity. As the very first cause of everything in the universe, it cannot be contingent (it cannot rely on anything outside itself for its existence, i.e. it is self-existent) and therefore it cannot be a material entity. The first cause is necessary because, not being contingent, it necessarily exists. If anything exists that is not contingent, it has to have within itself everything necessary for its own existence. If it is also responsible for the existence of anything outside itself (which as the first cause of the universe, we know it is) it is also necessary for the existence of those things, and has to be entirely adequate for the purpose of bringing them into being and maintaining their continued existence. It is not subject to natural laws, which only apply to natural events and effects, because, as the first cause, it is the initiator and creator of everything material, including the laws which govern material events, and of time itself.
The atheist view of a natural first cause is not even rational, to propose that all the qualities I have mentioned above could apply to a material entity is clearly ridiculous. But atheism has no regard for natural laws or logic. Atheists get round it by simply dressing up their irrational beliefs to make them appear ‘scientific’.
This combined with rants and erroneous and derisory slogans about religious myths and superstition makes it all seem perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, those with little knowledge, or who can’t be bothered to think for themselves are taken in by it.
Atheists repeatedly claim that they have refuted the law of cause and effect by asking : So what caused God then?
How true is that?
The ... what caused God? argument is a rather silly argument which atheists regularly trot out. All it demonstrates is that they don't understand basic logic.
The question to always ask them is; what part of FIRST don't you understand?
If something is the very FIRST, it means there is nothing that precedes it. First means first, not second or third.
That means that the first cause cannot be a contingent entity, because a contingent entity depends on something preceding it for its existence. In which case, if something precedes it, it couldn't be FIRST.
All natural entities, events and effects are contingent ... that is why the Law of Cause and Effect states that ... every NATURAL effect requires an adequate cause.
That means that the first cause cannot be a natural entity. An UNCAUSED, NATURAL event or entity is ruled out as not possible by the Law of Cause and Effect.
Therefore the very FIRST CAUSE of the universe, which we know cannot be caused, by virtue of it being FIRST (not second or third) CANNOT be a natural entity or event.
Thus we deduce that the first cause ... cannot be contingent, cannot be a natural entity, and cannot be subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So the first cause has to be non-material, i.e. supernatural.
The first cause also has to have the creative potential to create every other cause and effect that follows it.
In other words, the first cause cannot be inferior in any respect to the properties, powers or qualities of anything that exists...
The effect cannot be greater than the cause....
So we can thus deduce that the first cause is: UNCAUSED, SUPERNATURAL, self-existent, and capable of creating everything we see in the existing universe.
If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create life,
If there is intelligence in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create intelligence.
If there is information in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create information.
If there is consciousness in the universe, the first cause must have the ability to create consciousness. And so on and on. If it exists, the first cause is responsible for it, and must have the ability to create it.
That is the Creator God … and His existence is supported by impeccable logic and adherence to the demands of natural law.
Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.
But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?
Atheists also seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.
Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as it arising from nothing of its own volition, for no reason.
Or even the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
It's just still too cold and to o cloudy...and just plain yucky to go out on a photoshoot, at least that's the way I am feeling. My camera was feeling neglected. So, out comes the word cube game! We had some fun here with this a few years back...so here is round two! ; ) (as Mr A to Z, Jason Mraz, says...it's all about the wordplay!)
Arvid Pettersen (b. 1943) - Den nye broen [The new bridge] (1973). In the collection of KODE, Art Museums of Bergen, Norway.
As oil revenues started flooding the Norwegian state coffers in the 1970's, there was a big push by the political and economic establishment to develop the country's transportation infrastructure which, given the particular morphology of Noway with numerous mountains and fjords, inevitably meant lots of bridges, tunnels and tree felling. Like many fellow artists in Norway in that period, Arvid Pettersen was committed to intervene through his art in the political debates on issues such as the over-exploitation of natural resources, the environmental impact of development and the integration into the European Common Market.
Phillis Robinson was charged with stealing money from a person and sentenced to 1 month at Newcastle City Gaol.
Age (on discharge): 34
Height: 5.2½
Hair: Red
Eyes: Blue
Place of Birth: Alnwick
Status: Single
These photographs are of convicted criminals in Newcastle between 1871 - 1873.
Reference:TWAS: PR.NC/6/1/1199
(Copyright) We're happy for you to share this digital image within the spirit of The Commons. Please cite 'Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums' when reusing. Certain restrictions on high quality reproductions and commercial use of the original physical version apply though; if you're unsure please email archives@twmuseums.org.uk.
To purchase a hi-res copy please email archives@twmuseums.org.uk quoting the title and reference number.
John Scott was sentenced to carry out 6 months in Newcastle City Gaol for stealing lead in 1872.
Age (on discharge): 29
Height: 5.5½
Hair: Brown
Eyes: Grey
Place of Birth: Newcastle
Status: Married
Occupation: Labourer
These photographs are of convicted criminals in Newcastle between 1871 - 1873.
Reference:TWAS: PR.NC/6/1/1214
(Copyright) We're happy for you to share this digital image within the spirit of The Commons. Please cite 'Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums' when reusing. Certain restrictions on high quality reproductions and commercial use of the original physical version apply though; if you're unsure please email archives@twmuseums.org.uk.
To purchase a hi-res copy please email archives@twmuseums.org.uk quoting the title and reference number.
Richard Bradshaw was caught stealing money and was sentenced to 6 months to serve in Newcastle City Gaol in 1872.
Age (on discharge): 40
Height: 5.6½
Hair: Brown
Eyes: Grey
Place of Birth: Ireland
Status: Married
Occupation: Hawker
These photographs are of convicted criminals in Newcastle between 1871 - 1873.
Reference:TWAS: PR.NC/6/1/1171
(Copyright) We're happy for you to share this digital image within the spirit of The Commons. Please cite 'Tyne & Wear Archives & Museums' when reusing. Certain restrictions on high quality reproductions and commercial use of the original physical version apply though; if you're unsure please email archives@twmuseums.org.uk.
To purchase a hi-res copy please email archives@twmuseums.org.uk quoting the title and reference number.
Please don't post your photos here nor GLITTERY IMAGES. They will be removed. Don't invite me to any group. I will not accept ;-)
Meaning of defeatism in Hindi
SYNONYMS AND OTHER WORDS FOR defeatism
पराजयवाद→defeatism दब्बूपन→defeatism,lambhood,sheepishness,tameness पराजयवादिता→defeatism हार मान लेने की प्रवृति→defeatism निराशावाद→defeatism
Definition of defeatism
0
Example Sentences of d...
Meaning of defeatism matlab, meaning defeatism hindi, synonyms defeatism hindi
#DefeatismMatlab, #MeaningDefeatismHindi, #SynonymsDefeatismHindi