Dataset Viewer
text
stringlengths 50
10.5k
| source
stringclasses 1
value | article_title
stringlengths 4
78
| article_url
stringlengths 34
120
| article_id
int64 71.4M
80.5M
| section
stringlengths 2
86
| metadata
dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Beginning in 1860 and continuing for several years, Britain replaced its copper coinage with bronze pieces. The copper coins (principally the penny, halfpenny and farthing) had been struck since 1797 in various sizes, all of which were seen as too large. Over time the copper metal wore or oxidised, or had advertising punched into it, and there were also counterfeits and foreign coins in circulation.
The state of the copper coinage was ascertained by a survey in 1856 and 1857 in connection with the Royal Commission on Decimal Coinage. Though the commission recommended no action on moving toward decimalisation, the Master of the Mint, Thomas Graham, persuaded the chancellor of the Exchequer, William Gladstone, that it would be an opportune time to replace the copper coinage with smaller, lighter coins of bronze, which would be more durable. Gladstone secured authorising legislation and a vote of funds in parliament. The chief engraver of the Royal Mint, Leonard Charles Wyon, was tasked with rendering designs for the new coinage.
Wyon produced an obverse for the new coins depicting Queen Victoria, who modelled for him multiple times and let her views be known, leading to delays as Wyon sought to secure her approval. The reverse featured Britannia, as Wyon had been directed. There was initially some controversy over the Latin abbreviations in the inscriptions on the new issue, with some believing that there were errors that might require it to be withdrawn. With the aid of two outside firms, the Royal Mint struck enough of the new bronze coins to start calling in the copper pieces in 1861, a process complete after 1877, though less than half, in terms of value, of the extant coppers were paid in. The new coins remained current until the run-up to decimalisation in 1971, except for the farthing, which was demonetised from 1 January 1961.
|
wikipedia
|
1860s replacement of the British copper coinage
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860s_replacement_of_the_British_copper_coinage
| 77,170,269 |
Introduction
|
{
"word_count": 308,
"char_count": 1865,
"is_intro": true
}
|
By the late 1850s it had become clear that the copper penny and its fractions were unacceptably large. Copper was an expensive metal to be used for small denominations. There were enough copper coins in circulation to satisfy demand in Great Britain, thanks in large part to the huge numbers of coins struck under contract by Matthew Boulton fifty or more years previously. Nevertheless, the copper coinage (the penny, halfpenny, farthing and the rarely seen twopence and half-farthing pieces) remained, according to the numismatic scholar G. P. Dyer, "heavy, cumbersome and inconvenient".
Those copper coins depicting Queen Victoria showed her as she had looked as a young woman, a design created twenty years previously. Three newly struck pennies weighed 2 ounces (57 g), as did six halfpennies or twelve farthings. Boulton's 1797 pennies, of which many remained in circulation, weighed in at 1 ounce (28 g), though many had become lighter through the wearing of the soft copper metal. Confusion was increased by there being coins struck to two other standards also remaining in trade: halfpennies and farthings struck by Boulton beginning in 1799, and Irish coins made legal currency in Great Britain in the 1820s. Coins of each of these standards often showed considerable wear, which could make it difficult to ascertain whether a coin was a large halfpenny or a small, worn penny. Also circulating were counterfeits, coins that had been stamped with advertising, and foreign issues. Chambers's Edinburgh Journal wrote in 1860
|
wikipedia
|
1860s replacement of the British copper coinage
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860s_replacement_of_the_British_copper_coinage
| 77,170,269 |
Background
|
{
"word_count": 245,
"char_count": 1533,
"is_intro": false
}
|
what a bruised, battered, ill-matched, ill-conditioned lot are a shilling's worth of halfpence [24 pieces]: large and small, thick and thin, old and new, pierced with holes, dented and scarred by wanton ill-treatment, disfigured by advertising newspaper proprietors, or that numerous but disgusting class of people who persist in placing vulgar names or initials where they are least to be desired.
|
wikipedia
|
1860s replacement of the British copper coinage
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860s_replacement_of_the_British_copper_coinage
| 77,170,269 |
Background
|
{
"word_count": 61,
"char_count": 398,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The poor state of the copper coinage was demonstrated by investigations carried out by the Royal Mint in 1856 and 1857 in connection with the Royal Commission on Decimal Coinage, for it was considered likely that if decimal coinage was adopted, the copper coinage would have to be replaced. That commission had been appointed following the advocacy of the master of the Mint, the scientist Sir John Herschel, who had served on two previous inquiries into decimal coinage. Herschel resigned as master in 1856, the year of the commission's appointment, due to ill health. Although the final report found the idea of decimalisation had "few merits", the new master, Thomas Graham, persuaded the chancellor of the Exchequer, William Gladstone, that the copper coinage should be replaced. Bronze was chosen as it was harder than pure copper, and the Royal Mint had some experience with it, having recently struck bronze coins for Nova Scotia and for the Province of Canada. Graham evidently enjoyed the contact with cabinet ministers, writing to his sister, "it is a little curious to find myself taken into council by the Government ... and to be talking over affairs of state with the Chancellor of the Exchequer ... over a parlour fire in Downing Street".
|
wikipedia
|
1860s replacement of the British copper coinage
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860s_replacement_of_the_British_copper_coinage
| 77,170,269 |
Background
|
{
"word_count": 208,
"char_count": 1253,
"is_intro": false
}
|
On 4 August 1859 Gladstone, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, succeeded in gaining a vote of £10,000 (equivalent to £1,265,000 in 2023) to be used to replace the copper coinage. The original request had been for £50,000, but Gladstone told the House of Commons that the lesser sum would be sufficient to call in the heavy copper coinage and restrike it into lighter bronze pieces. He reminded members that there was a bill pending before parliament to make the forgery of coins of mixed metal (such as bronze) as punishable as the forgery of coppers. He stated that the Royal Mint would profit on the exchange, but the £10,000 was needed for preliminary expenses. The bill extending the laws relating to copper coins to those of mixed metal gained royal assent on 13 August 1859.
Although there were calls for a public competition, Leonard Charles Wyon, the Engraver to the Royal Mint, was called upon to prepare designs for the new bronze coins. He was already working on the project, and several days after the vote in the House of Commons, Gladstone expressed his satisfaction with pattern coins that Graham had sent him. The prospect of new coins excited some reaction in the press: The Literary Gazette desired that the new coin designs would be a credit to the country and that they would show the Queen, by then a grandmother, as "more matronly"; The Mechanics' Magazine similarly hoped the new coins would "tell the truth" (the current portrait of Victoria had been on the penny since 1839).
Wyon was instructed that Britannia should be on the reverse of the new bronze penny; she had appeared on the copper coinage since the reign of Charles II in the 17th century. According to the numismatic scholar Howard Linecar, it was felt that to remove Britannia from the coinage would be to signify that Britain no longer ruled the waves.
After Wyon had worked on designs for both sides of the coins, he went to the royal residence at Osborne House on the Isle of Wight on 7 December 1859 where, according to Wyon, Victoria "sat, or rather stood, to me, and told me that she would do so again when I was ready". Wyon went to Osborne House again on 16 December, and both the Queen and Prince Albert expressed their pleasure at the work so far.
On 20 February 1860 William Ewart asked in the House of Commons why the coins had not yet appeared. Gladstone responded that the artist had not yet completed the work and that he was loath to interfere, lest he cause the work to suffer. This exchange caused The Mechanics' Magazine to express astonishment that six months' work had not yet produced designs for three coins, and to regret that there had not been a public competition. On 23 February Wyon went to the Royal Mint to show Graham two pattern coins for the penny, which the Master of the Mint thought were satisfactory.
Wyon continued to prepare pattern coins. One was probably given to the Queen by Gladstone in late March for, on 27 March, Wyon went to Buckingham Palace, where both the Queen and Prince Albert criticised the work. He returned on 30 March; Albert was not there, but Victoria had slight criticisms. Wyon went to Windsor Castle on 9 April; he did not see the royal couple, but the coin he had brought was taken up and was returned with the Queen's approval. According to one account, the example that the Queen approved was stolen when posted to the Royal Mint.
Graham took a coin, possibly the one Victoria had approved, to show Gladstone on 16 April. Wyon had been instructed to have the inscription on the obverse of the coins read, VICTORIA D.G. BRITANNIAR. REG. F.D. (short for "Victoria, by the grace of God, Queen of the Britains, Defender of the Faith"). He found, though, he did not have room for F.D. unless he shortened BRITANNIAR, which was already short for Britanniarum (genitive plural of Britannia). Wyon had put BRIT on the approved coin. Gladstone concurred with the inclusion of F.D., likely remembering the public outrage when in 1849, the new florin had omitted D.G. (Dei Gratia, by the grace of God), and been dubbed the "godless florin". Gladstone, a classical scholar as well as a politician, insisted on BRITT rather than BRIT, noting that the abbreviation of a plural noun in Latin should have its final consonant doubled. Graham checked Gladstone's ruling with Edward Hawkins of the British Museum, who agreed with the Chancellor.
The alteration to BRITT was completed by 20 May 1860, after which Wyon worked on the master coinage dies and other necessary equipment. He had completed all but the reverse of the farthing by 13 June, and that followed two days later. Production began, and on 30 June, Graham submitted examples of the new bronze coinage to Gladstone, seeking final approval.
Wyon entered in his diary for 4 July 1860, "bad news today:—The Queen wishes the portraits on the new copper [sic] coins to be altered". It is not clear what Victoria was dissatisfied with, but approval of revisions came on 9 July. There were, however, still unspecified difficulties. On 16 July Gladstone was questioned in the Commons about the delays; he blamed the problems on "a mysterious secret of art". The delays threatened Wyon's departure to the Continent on holiday, but he departed as planned on 23 July. Work continued in his absence, and on 6 August, Gladstone wrote to Graham that the Queen had approved the new coins. By the end of September they were being produced in large numbers. The result was the Bun penny, called after the Queen's hairstyle; examples remained in circulation until decimalisation 110 years later.
|
wikipedia
|
1860s replacement of the British copper coinage
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860s_replacement_of_the_British_copper_coinage
| 77,170,269 |
Preparation
|
{
"word_count": 966,
"char_count": 5575,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The new bronze coins were released beginning 26 November 1860, although they had not been made current by proclamation; this did not occur until 17 December. There was considerable reaction, much of it focused on the use of BRITT. There were rumours that this was an error and that the coins would soon be called in. BRITT had appeared on the sixpences and shillings of 1816, but BRIT on the current issue of florins, which were not altered to read BRITT until 1868. The BRITT controversy resulted in a series of letters to The Times, with one likely written by Graham, and a paper read before the Numismatic Society of London. Stated The Mechanics' Magazine: "The advantages which will accrue to the public from the introduction of the new money form a consideration of much more practical importance than pedantic quibblings about the second t in 'Britt'."
The new coins were 95 per cent copper, 4 per cent tin and 1 per cent zinc. The penny weighed 0.333 ounces (9.45 g) and was 1.213 inches (30.81 mm) in diameter, with the halfpenny 0.200 ounces (5.66 g) and 1.003 inches (25.47 mm) and the farthing 0.100 ounces (2.83 g) and 0.794 inches (20.16 mm). Ten pennies, twelve halfpennies or fifteen farthings laid side by side measured 1 foot (0.30 m).
|
wikipedia
|
1860s replacement of the British copper coinage
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860s_replacement_of_the_British_copper_coinage
| 77,170,269 |
Release and reaction
|
{
"word_count": 219,
"char_count": 1252,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The Morning Post opined that the likeness of Victoria is "unsatisfactory, as, except on the halfpenny, it bears no resemblance whatever to the Queen". The Globe found that the new bronze coinage had "many advantages", including the hardness of the metal, but "as a work of art it hardly comes up to what might have been expected at the present day." The Morning Chronicle predicted that the new coins "will prove a great convenience when time has made the public accustomed to them".
The Mechanics' Magazine felt that Wyon had captured the Queen's features adequately, but there was something inaccurate about the form of her head. It disliked the rendition of Britannia, though stating that Wyon had done the best he could. Other than these criticisms, it felt that the new coins were a "complete success": their lightness and the fact that the denomination of the coin was stated on the reverse (ending confusion about the value of worn pieces) would benefit the public. Sebastian Evans, in a paper read for him before the Numismatic Society by John Evans, questioned the likeness of Victoria and disliked the placement of a sailing ship and a lighthouse of almost equal size on either side of Britannia: "altogether, on both obverse and reverse, the design is feebler and the work less satisfactory than in any former coin of the reign".
|
wikipedia
|
1860s replacement of the British copper coinage
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860s_replacement_of_the_British_copper_coinage
| 77,170,269 |
Release and reaction
|
{
"word_count": 227,
"char_count": 1340,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Rapid, large-scale production of bronze coins was new to the Royal Mint. Accordingly, several difficulties were encountered at the start, resulting in broken or prematurely-worn coinage dies. Replacing the copper coinage with bronze was beyond the capacity of the Royal Mint, which was busy with the production of silver and gold coins. The Mint put out to tender a contract to strike 1,720 long tons (1,750 t; 1,930 short tons) of the new bronze pennies, halfpennies and farthings. It was awarded to James Watt & Co of Birmingham. When the company proved slow to begin, Ralph Heaton & Sons, also of Birmingham, were awarded a supplemental contract to strike 60 long tons (61 t; 67 short tons) of coins. This was not fulfilled in its entirety, as by mid-1861 Watt's were making progress towards fulfilling their contract, which they completed on 11 June 1863: Heaton's had struck 41 long tons (42 t; 46 short tons) by March 1862 and did not again strike British bronze coins for several years. These two firms were experienced in the production of bronze coinage, having struck between them much of the recent French and Belgian bronze issues. Each charged £4 10s. (decimalised as £4.50 (equivalent to £1,000 in 2023)) per 1 long ton (1.0 t; 1.1 short tons) more than it would cost to strike the same number of coins at the Royal Mint.
The weight of the penny was halved, so that 48 of them would weigh a pound avoirdupois (454g), and it was made thinner to make it as large in diameter as possible. Out of concerns that the farthing would be too small if lightened to the same degree, that coin and the halfpenny were put on a standard so that 40 pence worth would weigh a pound avoirdupois. The Royal Mint were concerned that the public would object to the new bronze coins as having metal worth considerably less than their face values but found that the public did not expect a penny to contain copper worth a penny.
Since speed of production was a priority, and there were three different sources of supply, there are a large number of varieties in the early years of the bronze coinage. Over £1 million in bronze coins was struck during the first three years of issue, and by 1877 the figure had increased to £1,367,963 (equivalent to £163,000,000 in 2023), of which about £60,000 (equivalent to £7,100,000 in 2023) was transported to the colonies.
To get the new coins quickly into circulation, the Royal Mint paid for their shipment to any part of the country; this programme led to local surpluses and was stopped at the end of 1872. Calling in of the copper coinage began in mid-1861, and the facilities of the Post Office were used. In urban areas copper quickly vanished from circulation, but in country districts the transition took several years.
The Royal Mint offered a premium of two per cent for the old copper coins to the end of 1869, at which time the coppers were demonetised within the United Kingdom, but the Mint still redeemed them at face value. In February 1873 Charles William Fremantle, Deputy Master of the Royal Mint, recommended that the coppers no longer be accepted, as the amounts being submitted had become insignificant, and this was done with effect from 31 July 1873. The Royal Mint continued to receive applications to exchange the old copper coinage, generally from those in country districts, for several years afterwards. All were refused. An extension was granted to the colonies as no steps had been taken in some of them to call in old coppers. Originally, the date of demonetisation was to be 30 June 1876, but it was extended to 31 December 1877.
On 20 June 1876 the Royal Mint received a shipment of old copper coins of total face value £256 5s. (256 pounds and five shillings), from the Crown Agents for the Colonies, who requested that payment of £200 be made in the form of pennies, halfpennies and farthings, with the remaining sum to be paid in the form of newly-minted third farthings. All were to be sent to Malta, where the third farthings were legal tender. The Royal Mint did so, striking 162,000 third farthings.
In the Australian colonies the copper coinage could be exchanged at the Sydney Mint from 1868 to 1877, and at the Melbourne Mint in 1877. In the colony of South Australia, a proclamation was issued on 17 December 1876 declaring the copper coins no longer legal tender, but in January 1877 it was announced the colony's treasury would accept the coppers in amounts of not less than five shillings until 11 April 1877.
|
wikipedia
|
1860s replacement of the British copper coinage
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860s_replacement_of_the_British_copper_coinage
| 77,170,269 |
Production and aftermath
|
{
"word_count": 785,
"char_count": 4495,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Little was done in Cape Colony in South Africa or in New Zealand to call in the coppers, but £32,000 (equivalent to £3,800,000 in 2023) came from Ceylon (later Sri Lanka). A total of £580,000 (equivalent to £64,900,000 in 2023) in the old coppers was withdrawn from the United Kingdom, with £44,000 (equivalent to £5,200,000 in 2023) more taken from overseas. This still left £656,376 (equivalent to £79,300,000 in 2023) in coppers struck between 1797 and 1860 unredeemed. Fremantle suggested that much of the unredeemed copper, especially from the early, heavier issues, was melted down privately for its metal, and therefore that most of the pre-1860 coins had been accounted for.
The Bun penny, with Wyon's obverse, and its analogue for the halfpenny and farthing, continued to be struck until replaced with the Old Head coinage in 1895. The three coins continued to bear the same reverses until the halfpenny and farthing were given their own designs in 1937 under George VI; the penny continued to display Wyon's Britannia reverse, with slight modifications, until decimalisation in 1971, ceasing to be legal tender on 31 August. Remaining Bun halfpennies were no longer legal tender from 31 July 1969, and the farthing after 31 December 1960. Despite the change to bronze, the term "copper" continued in colloquial usage as a noun and adjective describing the low-denomination coins.
|
wikipedia
|
1860s replacement of the British copper coinage
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860s_replacement_of_the_British_copper_coinage
| 77,170,269 |
Production and aftermath
|
{
"word_count": 225,
"char_count": 1389,
"is_intro": false
}
|
During the 1905–06 English football season, New Brompton F.C. competed in the Southern League Division One. It was the 12th season in which the club competed in the Southern League and the 11th in Division One. The team began the season in poor form; they failed to score any goals in six of their first eight Southern League games. By the midpoint of the season, the team had won only three times and were close to the bottom of the league table. The team's form improved in the new year, with three wins in the first seven Southern League games of 1906, but they ended the season in similar fashion to how they had started it, failing to score in eight of the final nine league games. New Brompton finished the season in 17th place out of 18 teams in the division.
New Brompton also competed in the FA Cup, reaching the second round. The team played a total of 37 league and cup matches, winning 8, drawing 9 and losing 20. Bill Marriott was the club's top goalscorer, with four goals in the Southern League and one in the FA Cup; this figure was the lowest to date with which a player had finished a season as New Brompton's top scorer. Joe Walton made the most appearances, playing in 36 of the team's 37 competitive games. The highest attendance recorded at the club's home ground, Priestfield Road, was 5,500 for a game against Portsmouth on 27 January 1906.
|
wikipedia
|
1905–06 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905%E2%80%9306_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 71,871,554 |
Introduction
|
{
"word_count": 249,
"char_count": 1364,
"is_intro": true
}
|
New Brompton, founded in 1893, had played in the Southern League since the competition's formation in 1894. The 1905–06 season was the club's 11th season in Division One, the league's top division, following promotion from Division Two at the first attempt in 1895. In the 1904–05 season New Brompton had finished 9th out of 18 teams in the division, only the third time in 11 seasons that they had finished in the top half of the league table. At the time, only a handful of teams from the south of England played in the ostensibly national Football League, with most of the south's leading teams playing in the Southern League.
The club did not employ a manager at the time and secretary William Ironside Groombridge had overall responsibility for the team. He was assisted by a trainer called F. Craddock. James Barnes was chairman of the club's board of directors. The team wore the club's usual black and white striped shirts. Several new players joined the club prior to the season, including Bill Floyd, a full-back from Gainsborough Trinity, and three forwards, Bill Marriott from Northampton Town, Jim Sheridan from Stoke, and Harry Phillips from Grimsby Town. Walter Leigh, the team's top goalscorer of the previous season, moved on, joining Clapton Orient, newly elected to the Football League Second Division.
|
wikipedia
|
1905–06 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905%E2%80%9306_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 71,871,554 |
Background and pre-season
|
{
"word_count": 220,
"char_count": 1321,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The club's first match of the season, on 2 September, was away to Queens Park Rangers; Floyd, Phillips, Sheridan and Marriott all made their Southern League debuts for New Brompton. Queens Park Rangers scored two goals in each half to win 4–0; the correspondent for The Daily News stated that the home team were "the better side at every point" and well deserved their large victory. The first Southern League game of the season at New Brompton's ground, Priestfield Road, a week later against Bristol Rovers, resulted in a 3–0 win for the away team. Phillips scored New Brompton's first Southern League goal of the season on 16 September and the team achieved their first victory, beating Northampton Town 2–0, before losing again in their next game, a 4–0 defeat away to Portsmouth. After a goalless draw with Swindon Town, New Brompton were 15th out of 18 teams in the Division One table at the end of September.
On 7 October, New Brompton lost 5–0 away to Millwall, the first time the team had conceded as many goals in a Southern League match since December 1903. Two weeks later, they failed to score a goal for the sixth time in eight Southern League games and were defeated 6–0 by Tottenham Hotspur, the team's biggest defeat of the season. The correspondent for the Daily Telegraph said that New Brompton had been "completely outplay[ed]". The team ended the month with their second Southern League victory of the season, a 2–1 win over Brentford. The first match of November, however, resulted in another defeat as New Brompton lost 4–1 to Norwich City; the result left New Brompton 16th in the table. Their record of having conceded 28 goals in 10 games was by far the worst in the division; no other team had conceded more than 20 and only one other had conceded more than 16. The team's winless run continued for the rest of the month as they drew with Plymouth Argyle and Southampton and lost to Reading. John Campbell, a former Scottish international forward newly signed from Hibernian, made his debut against Reading.
New Brompton began December with a game away to Watford; they twice took the lead only for Watford to equalise and the game ended in a draw. The team lost their next two games, away to West Ham United and at home to Fulham. On Christmas Day, New Brompton beat Brighton & Hove Albion 1–0; Campbell scored the winner from a penalty kick, his first goal for the club. New Brompton ended 1905 with a 2–0 home defeat to Queens Park Rangers; John Martin, normally a full-back, played as goalkeeper in place of Fred Griffiths. The Athletic News referred to this as a trial arrangement, but Martin retained the position for most of the remainder of the season. The reporter for the Athletic News wrote that on the whole New Brompton played as well as their opponents but that their forwards "proved quite incapable of turning to account the many openings which fell their way".
|
wikipedia
|
1905–06 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905%E2%80%9306_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 71,871,554 |
September–December
|
{
"word_count": 507,
"char_count": 2905,
"is_intro": false
}
|
New Brompton's first Southern League game of 1906 was away to Bristol Rovers, who were reduced to ten men before half-time when their goalkeeper went off injured. For the second time in three games, Campbell scored the winning goal with a penalty kick. The team next beat Northampton Town, the only time during the season that they won two consecutive Southern League games. New Brompton's next game drew an attendance reported at 5,500, the largest of the season at Priestfield Road; the Athletic News attributed the large turnout to "the recent smart performances of the local eleven". The match, however, ended in the first of two consecutive 1–0 defeats for New Brompton.
The team's winless Southern League run extended to four games with defeats away to Luton Town on 17 February and Brentford on 3 March. New Brompton then defeated Tottenham Hotspur, who were second in the league table ahead of the game, at Priestfield Road. Paddy Travers scored the only goal to give his team what the Daily Telegraph's reporter described as their best result of the season; the writer praised the New Brompton defence as "very sound". After this victory, the team played five more games in March and failed to score in any of them. After a goalless draw at home to Norwich City, they lost 5–0 away to Plymouth Argyle. According to the Athletic News, New Brompton were "quite outclassed" by Plymouth and "had [Plymouth] doubled the number of their goals they would have occasioned little surprise". Three further defeats left New Brompton bottom of the table at the end of March. Goalkeeper Harry Metherell, who had played one Southern League game two years earlier but not been included in the team since, was included in the line-up against Reading and retained his place for the rest of the season.
After five games without scoring, New Brompton defeated Watford 2–0 in the first match of April. Their next two games resulted in goalless draws against Brighton & Hove Albion and West Ham United; the Athletic News was again critical of New Brompton's forwards against West Ham, saying that the team's "lack of success was mainly due to the inability of their front line to accept the gifts which the fortune of the game offered". New Brompton's final game of the season was away to Fulham, who had already clinched the championship of Division One, and resulted in a 1–0 defeat. New Brompton finished the season 17th out of 18 teams in the league table, above only Northampton Town. The team had failed to score in eight of the last nine games of the Southern League season; the final total of 20 league goals was half the figure recorded in the previous season and the lowest figure New Brompton had registered in 12 seasons of competitive football.
|
wikipedia
|
1905–06 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905%E2%80%9306_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 71,871,554 |
January–April
|
{
"word_count": 470,
"char_count": 2745,
"is_intro": false
}
|
New Brompton entered the 1905–06 FA Cup at the first-round stage, where they played at home to fellow Southern League Division One club Northampton Town. New Brompton took the lead in the first half and, although their opponents equalised after the interval, Marriott scored a winning goal for the home team. In the second round, New Brompton played at home to another Southern League Division One team, Southampton; the match finished 0–0, necessitating a replay at the Dell. Southampton scored the only goal of the second game in the final minute to eliminate New Brompton from the competition.
|
wikipedia
|
1905–06 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905%E2%80%9306_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 71,871,554 |
FA Cup
|
{
"word_count": 98,
"char_count": 596,
"is_intro": false
}
|
During the season, 23 players made at least one appearance for New Brompton. Joe Walton made the most; he played in 36 of the team's 37 competitive games, missing only one league game. Travers and Joe Elliott also made 30 or more appearances and four others played more than 25 times. Two players made only one appearance each: Albert Webb and a player recorded only as Page. Marriott was the top goalscorer; he scored four times in the Southern League and once in the FA Cup. His total of five goals was the lowest with which a player had finished a season as top scorer in the club's history. Arthur Beadsworth scored four goals and two players scored three each; no other player scored more than once.
|
wikipedia
|
1905–06 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905%E2%80%9306_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 71,871,554 |
Players
|
{
"word_count": 127,
"char_count": 704,
"is_intro": false
}
|
At the annual meeting of the Southern League, the member clubs voted unanimously to increase the number of teams in Division One and New Brompton were re-elected to the division for the subsequent season. The team's performance improved slightly in the following season, as New Brompton finished 16th in a 20-team division. The club, which changed its name to Gillingham in 1912, remained in the Southern League Division One until 1920 when the entire division was absorbed into the Football League to form its new Third Division.
|
wikipedia
|
1905–06 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905%E2%80%9306_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 71,871,554 |
Aftermath
|
{
"word_count": 87,
"char_count": 530,
"is_intro": false
}
|
During the 1906–07 English football season, New Brompton F.C. (named Gillingham F.C. since 1912) competed in the Southern League Division One. It was the 13th season in which the club competed in the Southern League and the 12th in Division One. The team started the season poorly, with only one win in the first four games, but then won three consecutive games to climb to 9th out of 20 teams in the league table. After another poor run between mid-October and the end of November, during which the team lost five out of six games and dropped to 19th, the directors appointed Steve Smith as player-manager. Although the team won their first game following his appointment, their results in the second half of the season remained inconsistent, with another six-game winless run in February and March. In April, however, New Brompton won four out of six games to finish the season 16th in the table.
New Brompton also competed in the FA Cup, reaching the second round. The team played a total of 42 league and cup matches, winning 13, drawing 11 and losing 18. Dan Cunliffe was the club's top goalscorer with 15 goals. Smith and John Martin made the most appearances; both played in all 42 of the team's competitive games. The highest attendance recorded at the club's home ground, Priestfield Road, was 7,000 for a game against Portsmouth on 1 April 1907.
|
wikipedia
|
1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906%E2%80%9307_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 73,628,126 |
Introduction
|
{
"word_count": 235,
"char_count": 1355,
"is_intro": true
}
|
New Brompton, founded in 1893, had played in the Southern League since the competition's formation in 1894. The 1906–07 season was the club's 12th season in Division One, the league's top division, following promotion from Division Two at the first attempt in 1895. In the preceding seven seasons, the team had only finished in the top half of the league table twice, reaching a low point in the 1905–06 season when New Brompton had finished 17th out of 18 teams in the division but were re-elected to Division One after the Southern League opted to increase the number of clubs in the division. At the time, only a handful of teams from the south of England had been elected into the ostensibly national Football League, with most of the south's leading teams playing in the Southern League.
Following a season in which New Brompton had scored only 20 goals in 34 games, by far the lowest in the division, the club signed four players, all forwards, from division rivals Portsmouth: Joe Warrington, Billy Lee, and the former England internationals Dan Cunliffe and Steve Smith. A fifth forward, Jimmy Hartley, arrived from Brentford. Billy Morgan, a half-back who had last played for Leicester Fosse, joined the club, as did former Crystal Palace player George Walker, who was expected to replace Joe Walton, a full-back who had been transferred to Chelsea. The Athletic News reviewed the club's new-look squad and wrote that "with such a list of players, the "Hoppers" should be able to hold their own against most comers". New Brompton did not employ a team manager at the start of the season and all team matters fell within the remit of William Ironside Groombridge, the club's secretary. The team also had a trainer named Craddock. The players wore New Brompton's usual kit of black and white striped shirts, white shorts, and black socks.
|
wikipedia
|
1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906%E2%80%9307_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 73,628,126 |
Background and pre-season
|
{
"word_count": 313,
"char_count": 1845,
"is_intro": false
}
|
New Brompton's first game of the season was at their own ground, Priestfield Road, against Bristol Rovers. Cunliffe, Lee, Warrington, Smith, Walker and Morgan all made their debuts in a game which ended in a 1–0 defeat for the home team. A week later, Cunliffe scored the team's first goal of the season in a 2–1 defeat away to Plymouth Argyle. The Athletic News praised John Martin, New Brompton's goalkeeper, for keeping the score down. Cunliffe added two more goals in New Brompton's first victory of the campaign, a 4–3 win at home to Brighton & Hove Albion on 15 September. After New Brompton lost 3–0 to last-placed Reading, Cunliffe took his total to four goals in five games with the first in a 2–0 win over Watford in New Brompton's final match of September. Enoch Lunn, a forward signed from Chesterfield Town, made his debut against Watford in place of Warrington. In both of the first two games of October, away to Northampton Town and at home to Queens Park Rangers (QPR), New Brompton conceded a goal, equalised, and went on to win 2–1 after Cunliffe scored a second goal. The win over QPR moved New Brompton into the top half of the league table.
Following three consecutive wins, the team began a run of six games without victory. On 20 October, New Brompton lost 2–1 away to Fulham, the previous season's Southern League champions. A week later, they lost 2–0 at home to Southampton, having to play for 70 of the 90 minutes with only ten players after Walker was injured.[a] Lunn's first goal for the team secured a 1–1 draw against West Ham United in the final game of November but New Brompton then lost three consecutive games without scoring a goal, being defeated 1–0 at home to Tottenham Hotspur, 2–0 away to Swindon Town, and 1–0 at home to Norwich City. Following this run, New Brompton had slipped to 19th in the league table. In the final week of November, the club's board of directors took the decision to appoint Smith to the position of player-manager; it was the first time the club had appointed someone specifically as team manager, distinct from Groombridge's role as club secretary. New Brompton's first match following Smith's appointment resulted in a 2–0 victory away to Luton Town on 1 December, ending a winless run which stretched back to mid-October.
On 8 December, New Brompton drew 2–2 at home to West Ham despite both Walker and Lunn being missing due to injury and Mavin due to influenza. A week later they lost 3–0 to Brentford; the Athletic News wrote that New Brompton never recovered from the inauspicious start of Bill Floyd scoring an own goal. Cunliffe took his goal tally for the season into double figures when he scored twice in a 2–1 victory at home to Millwall on 22 December, but failed to score against his former team on Christmas Day as New Brompton lost 3–1 away to Portsmouth. The team's final game of 1906 was away to Bristol Rovers on 29 December and resulted in a 4–0 defeat; the game was the last Warrington played for the club. New Brompton finished the calendar year once again in 19th place in the table, ahead only of Northampton.
|
wikipedia
|
1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906%E2%80%9307_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 73,628,126 |
September–December
|
{
"word_count": 547,
"char_count": 3103,
"is_intro": false
}
|
New Brompton began 1907 with a third consecutive defeat and a second in a row without scoring a goal, losing 2–0 to Plymouth at Priestfield Road on 5 January; Morgan missed a penalty kick. A forward named Daws made his debut in the next league game against Brighton and scored a goal, but New Brompton lost 4–1. In the team's final game of January, New Brompton dominated play against Reading but failed to score; both Hartley and Cunliffe had apparent goals disallowed for offside and the game finished 0–0. The team's first league win of 1907 came at the fourth attempt on 9 February as goals from Hartley, Bill Godley and Smith gave them a 3–1 victory over fellow strugglers Northampton. Godley made his debut in the game having joined New Brompton from Reading. Four days after the victory, New Brompton lost 2–1 at home to Leyton. The game, which was originally scheduled to be played on Boxing Day but was postponed due to snow, drew an attendance of only 1,000, the lowest of the season at Priestfield Road.
On 16 February, New Brompton lost 3–0 away to Queens Park Rangers and the team's winless run was extended to four games with 1–1 draws against both Fulham and Southampton. William Marriott scored New Brompton's goal in both games, having not previously scored since September. On 16 March, New Brompton lost 2–0 away to Tottenham. The result made Tottenham the second team of the season to defeat New Brompton both at home and away without conceding a goal. In the next game, against Watford on 20 March, New Brompton took the lead after just three minutes, fell behind to two goals from their opponents, but came away with a draw after Cunliffe scored his first goal since December. The reporter for the Bucks Examiner wrote that "Brompton were good value for a draw" and praised Martin's performance in goal. The team ended their run of games without a victory by defeating Swindon at Priestfield Road on 23 March; after both teams had scored in the first half, a goal late in the game from Smith made the final score 2–1. The final two games of March resulted in draws against Leyton and Norwich.
New Brompton's first game of April was at home to Portsmouth, who were challenging Fulham for the Southern League championship. Hartley gave New Brompton the lead in the first half and Marriott scored after the interval. Despite having to play much of the second half with ten men while Walker was off the pitch receiving treatment for an injury, New Brompton won 2–0. Following a goalless draw with Luton, New Brompton beat Crystal Palace 3–1; Hartley scored all three goals in the victory, the team's only hat-trick of the season. He added two more a week later as the team defeated Brentford 5–0, their biggest victory of the season; the correspondent for the Daily Telegraph wrote that Brentford's defence went "all to pieces" as New Brompton scored three goals in the second half. It was the first time since October that New Brompton had won two consecutive matches. Hartley was absent for the game against Millwall on 27 April with Godley playing in his place. The team's unbeaten run came to an end after seven games with a 2–0 defeat. Two days later, New Brompton played their final game of the season. Hartley was back in the line-up and scored twice in a 4–2 victory at home to Crystal Palace, meaning that he had scored seven goals in his final three appearances of the season after only scoring three times in the previous eighteen. The result meant that New Brompton finished the season in 16th place in the league table.
|
wikipedia
|
1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906%E2%80%9307_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 73,628,126 |
January–April
|
{
"word_count": 622,
"char_count": 3550,
"is_intro": false
}
|
As a Southern League Division One team, New Brompton were exempt from the qualifying rounds of the 1906–07 FA Cup and entered the competition in the first round proper in January; their opponents were Burton United of the Football League Second Division. The match at Burton's ground, Peel Croft, ended in a 0–0 draw, necessitating a replay at Priestfield Road, which took place four days later. The second match was also goalless at the end of the regulation ninety minutes; New Brompton's Morgan had an apparent goal disallowed for offside. The match went to extra time, but ten minutes into the extra half hour, with the score still 0–0, the referee decided that it was too dark to continue and abandoned the game. The second replay took place at a neutral venue, Fulham's Craven Cottage. After a Burton player scored an own goal, Hartley added a second goal and New Brompton won 2–0.
In the second round, New Brompton played Bury of the Football League First Division, who had won the competition twice in the previous seven seasons. It was the first time New Brompton had played a team from the First Division in a competitive match. Although the correspondent for the Daily Mirror wrote that New Brompton "played cleverer football" and had repeated shots on goal, the match at Bury's Gigg Lane ground remained goalless until the final minute; with what proved to be the last kick of the game, Peter Gildea scored for Bury to secure a 1–0 victory and eliminate New Brompton from the competition.
|
wikipedia
|
1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906%E2%80%9307_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 73,628,126 |
FA Cup
|
{
"word_count": 258,
"char_count": 1500,
"is_intro": false
}
|
During the season, 21 players made at least one appearance for New Brompton. Smith and Martin made the most, both appearing in all 42 of the team's competitive games. Cunliffe missed only two games and three other players made more than 35 appearances. Two players, Albert Webb and J. Brisley, played only once and four others played in five games or fewer. Ten players scored at least one goal for the team. Cunliffe was the top scorer with 15 goals, all in the league. Hartley also reached double figures, scoring 10 times in the league and once in the FA Cup. No other player scored more than six goals.
|
wikipedia
|
1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906%E2%80%9307_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 73,628,126 |
Players
|
{
"word_count": 109,
"char_count": 606,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Cunliffe, the team's top goalscorer, left the club after a single season and joined Millwall. In the following season, his replacement Charlie McGibbon scored 22 goals but New Brompton finished in last place in the league table. Despite this, they were again reprieved from relegation to Division Two. The club, which changed its name to Gillingham in 1912, remained in the Southern League Division One until 1920 when the entire division was absorbed into the Football League to form its new Third Division.
|
wikipedia
|
1906–07 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906%E2%80%9307_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 73,628,126 |
Aftermath
|
{
"word_count": 83,
"char_count": 508,
"is_intro": false
}
|
During the 1911–12 English football season, New Brompton F.C. competed in the Southern League Division One. It was the 18th season in which the club competed in the Southern League and the 17th in Division One. The team lost their second game of the season 8–1 to Exeter City, and their results continued to be poor in the first half of the season; from the start of October until the end of December, they won only once in fourteen matches and scored only four goals. At the end of 1911, New Brompton were in 19th place out of 20 teams in the league table. The team suffered another heavy defeat in January, losing 7–1 to Brentford, and by late March had dropped to last place in the table. In their final eight matches of the season, however, they secured six victories and finished the campaign in 18th place, safe from relegation to Division Two. At the end of the season, the club changed its name to Gillingham F.C.
New Brompton also competed in the FA Cup, losing in the fourth qualifying round in a match which had to be replayed after being abandoned due to heavy rain. The team played 39 competitive matches, winning 11, drawing 9, and losing 19. Fred Corbett, Abel Lee, and Jock Taylor were the joint highest goalscorers, with six goals each. Jack Mahon made the most appearances, playing in every game. The highest attendance recorded at New Brompton's home ground, Priestfield Road, was 7,000 for the game against Norwich City in April.
|
wikipedia
|
1911–12 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911%E2%80%9312_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 73,628,132 |
Introduction
|
{
"word_count": 257,
"char_count": 1449,
"is_intro": true
}
|
New Brompton, founded in 1893, had played in the Southern League since the competition's formation in 1894. At the time, only a small number of teams from the south of England had been elected into the ostensibly national Football League, with many of the south's leading teams playing in the Southern League. The 1911–12 season was the club's 17th season in Division One, the league's top division, following promotion from Division Two at the first attempt in 1895. In the preceding six seasons, New Brompton had only once finished in the top half of the league table, and in the 1910–11 season they had finished 18th, narrowly avoiding relegation back to Division Two.
As was often the case in the early 20th century, the club did not employ a full-time team manager; most tasks associated with a modern manager, such as the signing of new players, were among the responsibilities of the club's secretary, William Ironside Groombridge. J. Craddock was newly appointed to the position of team trainer. A number of players who had been regulars during the previous season left the club, and constraints caused by a significant financial loss over the course of the previous twelve months made it hard to recruit good-quality replacements. New Brompton signed two new half-backs, Abel Lee and Tom Kelly, both of whom had previously played for Grimsby Town. Forwards joining the club included Dick Goffin from Clapton Orient and Edward Whiteside, formerly of Norwich City. No new goalkeepers were signed, but it was anticipated that Albert Bailey, the goalkeeper for the club's reserve team during the previous season, would step up to the first team in place of Thomas Holmes, one of the departing players. The team wore New Brompton's usual black and white kit.
|
wikipedia
|
1911–12 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911%E2%80%9312_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 73,628,132 |
Background and pre-season
|
{
"word_count": 293,
"char_count": 1763,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The club's first match of the season was on 2 September at their own ground, Priestfield Road, against Luton Town; Kelly, Goffin, and Whiteside all made their debuts. Whiteside had several shots on goal for New Brompton but the match finished 0–0. New Brompton's first away game of the season came a week later against Exeter City. Exeter scored five goals in the first half and, although Whiteside scored New Brompton's first goal of the season after the interval, the final result was an 8–1 victory for Exeter. It was New Brompton's heaviest defeat since the opening day of the 1907–08 season. The Athletic News reported that New Brompton "were a very plucky side and never gave up trying", although the writer was critical of the performance of almost all their players. A week later, New Brompton achieved their first win of the season; goals from Lee and Goffin gave them a 2–1 victory at home to Brentford. On 23 September they lost 3–0 to Queens Park Rangers, beginning a run of 13 league games without a win. New Brompton's final game of September resulted in a 3–1 loss to Millwall; Whiteside scored the goal but would then be absent from the team for over a month and feature only intermittently for the remainder of the season.
During October, New Brompton played four matches and scored only one goal. The first two games of the month both ended in goalless draws, away to West Ham United and at home to Bristol Rovers. On 21 October, New Brompton played away to the previous season's Southern League champions, Swindon Town, and lost 5–0. The Athletic News wrote that New Brompton "worked hard but lacked ability". A week later, Jock Taylor scored New Brompton's first and only goal of the month, but his team lost 3–1 to Northampton Town at Priestfield Road; two of Northampton's goals were due to goalkeeping errors by Bailey. November began with another heavy defeat, as New Brompton were beaten 7–0 by Brighton & Hove Albion. On 11 November, the former Bristol Rovers forward Fred Corbett made his debut for New Brompton against Stoke. Although the Athletic News reported that he "did nothing out of the ordinary", he was a regular in the team for the rest of the season. After Stoke had taken the lead, Albert Court scored for New Brompton, only the third goal they had scored in the last eight games, to secure a draw. Stoke thought they had scored a winning goal late on but it was disallowed because a player had handled the ball. New Brompton's final match of November was a 2–0 defeat at home to Leyton, who had lost their preceding six games.
New Brompton again struggled to score goals in December, recording only two in seven matches. The month began with a 1–0 defeat away to another of the division's lowest-scoring teams, Norwich City; the margin of victory could have been greater but Norwich had two goals disallowed. A week later, Corbett scored his first goal for the team in a 1–1 draw at home to Crystal Palace. New Brompton lost 3–0 to Southampton on 16 December; the Athletic News, describing New Brompton's defence as "feeble", expressed surprise that Southampton failed to score more goals and opined that New Brompton were "heading straight for relegation". A week later, Plymouth Argyle won 1–0 at Priestfield Road; Taylor had a late chance to score an equaliser but his shot hit the goalpost. On Christmas Day, a goal from Lee gave New Brompton a 1–0 win over Reading at Priestfield Road, their first victory for more than three months. The Daily Telegraph reported that New Brompton would have won by a wider margin had it not been for the performance of Reading's goalkeeper. The two teams met again the following day at Elm Park, Reading's home ground; Reading dominated the game but it remained goalless until New Brompton conceded two late goals and lost 2–0. New Brompton's final game of 1911 was away to Luton Town, who took the lead in the first half and scored twice more in the second to win 3–0. The result meant that at the end of 1911, New Brompton were in 19th place in the Division One league table, above only Leyton.
|
wikipedia
|
1911–12 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911%E2%80%9312_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 73,628,132 |
September–December
|
{
"word_count": 714,
"char_count": 4076,
"is_intro": false
}
|
New Brompton's first game of 1912 was at home to Exeter City. The home team took a 3–0 lead in the first half; the Athletic News wrote that New Brompton "took a lot out of themselves by the fierceness of their onslaughts in the first half" and that in the second half Exeter began to dominate over their tiring opponents. Nonetheless, the final score was 4–1 to New Brompton; it meant that the team had scored as many goals in a single game as in the preceding 14 league matches combined. Albert Court scored two goals, the first time a New Brompton player had scored more than once in a game since December 1910. New Brompton's next game was away to Brentford; the home team scored four goals in the first half and went on to win 7–1. Goffin, back in the team for the first time since Christmas Day, scored New Brompton's only goal. A. Bell made his debut in goal in place of Bailey; the Athletic News reported that he could not be blamed for any of the seven goals and that he "saved several others in good style". New Brompton lost again a week later, being defeated 2–1 by Queens Park Rangers, and then began February with a 1–1 draw away to Millwall and a 3–0 defeat to West Ham United at Priestfield Road. At the conclusion of the game against West Ham, the referee had to be protected by police officers and club officials as New Brompton supporters, incensed that he had disallowed a goal for their team and allowed two contentious West Ham goals to stand, threw objects at him.
On 17 February, New Brompton won an away game for the first time during the season when a goal in the second half from Lee secured a 1–0 victory over Bristol Rovers. After a 3–2 defeat to Coventry City, New Brompton won 2–1 away to Northampton Town, the first time their opponents has lost on their own ground all season; despite the result New Brompton were in 20th and last place in the league table. Their next two games resulted in a goalless draw with Brighton & Hove Albion and a 2–0 defeat to Stoke. On 23 March, New Brompton played Coventry City at Priestfield Road. The visitors took a 2–0 lead in the first half; Goffin scored in the second half but New Brompton were then reduced to ten players when Andrew Mosley was injured.[a] Despite the numerical disadvantage, New Brompton drew level when Lee scored. Coventry took the lead again but Jack Mahon scored in the final minute to secure a 3–3 draw for New Brompton in what the Athletic News called the most exciting game to have taken place at the ground all season; New Brompton remained in 20th place. Beginning on 30 March, New Brompton won four consecutive games; having scored only once in 14 previous games since joining the club, Corbett scored five goals in the four matches. The run began with a 2–0 victory over Leyton, which moved New Brompton above their opponents into 19th place.
During the Easter period, New Brompton won two games on consecutive days. On 5 April, a late goal from Corbett secured a 1–0 victory over Watford at Priestfield Road. Corbett scored twice the following day as New Brompton won 3–1 at home to Norwich City, whose players arrived late, delaying the start of the game by nearly 45 minutes. Two days later, New Brompton played Watford again and once again Corbett scored to give his team a 1–0 victory. The unbeaten run continued with a 1–1 draw with Crystal Palace. New Brompton beat Swindon Town 3–1 on 17 April, and three days later defeated Southampton 1–0 to ensure that they could not finish in the relegation positions. Their final game of the season was away to Plymouth Argyle; the team's eight-match unbeaten run ended with a 2–0 victory for Plymouth. The Athletic News described the game as one-sided and said that New Brompton were lucky not to have lost by a wider margin. The result meant that New Brompton ended the season in 18th place, level on points with Southampton and Bristol Rovers but below them based on goal average. Luton Town and Leyton, the two teams that finished below New Brompton, were relegated to Division Two; prior to the following season Leyton withdrew from the Southern League completely.
|
wikipedia
|
1911–12 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911%E2%80%9312_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 73,628,132 |
January–April
|
{
"word_count": 736,
"char_count": 4117,
"is_intro": false
}
|
As a Southern League Division One team, New Brompton entered the 1911–12 FA Cup in the fourth of the five qualifying rounds; their opponents were Croydon Common of the Southern League Division Two. New Brompton took a 2–0 lead but the referee abandoned the game due to heavy rainfall. The game was replayed four days later. New Brompton took the lead through A. Church but then conceded two goals and lost 2–1, meaning that they were eliminated from the competition.
|
wikipedia
|
1911–12 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911%E2%80%9312_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 73,628,132 |
FA Cup
|
{
"word_count": 80,
"char_count": 466,
"is_intro": false
}
|
During the season, 23 players made at least one appearance for New Brompton. Mahon made the most, playing in all 39 of the team's games. Mosley was absent for only one game, and Bailey, Lee, and Taylor missed only two matches. At the other end of the scale, Charlie Frost and C. Gudgeon played only once; in Gudgeon's case it was the only appearance he made for New Brompton's first team. Lee, Taylor, and Corbett were joint top goalscorers with six goals each. This was the lowest figure with which a player had ended the season as New Brompton's top scorer since the 1905–06 season.
|
wikipedia
|
1911–12 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911%E2%80%9312_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 73,628,132 |
Players
|
{
"word_count": 105,
"char_count": 584,
"is_intro": false
}
|
On 6 June, New Brompton's board of directors took the decision to change the club's name to Gillingham Football Club to reflect the fact that in the decades since the club's formation the previously small settlement of Gillingham had outgrown and absorbed New Brompton. The name change would not be formally approved by the shareholders until the following summer; nonetheless the team played under the new name in the 1912–13 season. Along with the new name, the club adopted a new kit featuring red shirts with blue sleeves, replacing the previous black and white stripes, and for the first time added the coat of arms of the borough to the shirts. Although the team's performance in the first season under the new name improved, they still finished in the bottom half of the league table and would continue to do so each season until competitive football was suspended in 1915 due to the First World War.
|
wikipedia
|
1911–12 New Brompton F.C. season
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1911%E2%80%9312_New_Brompton_F.C._season
| 73,628,132 |
Aftermath
|
{
"word_count": 156,
"char_count": 907,
"is_intro": false
}
|
An unsuccessful attempt was made to pass an amendment to the Constitution of New Jersey in 1926 and 1927. The intent of the amendment was to have members of the New Jersey General Assembly serve two-year terms instead of one and lengthen the terms of state senators and the governor from three years to four. The proposed amendment was passed twice by the legislature, and the text was approved by the attorney general. Before the proposal could be put before the voters for final approval, it was noticed that although the legislature had intended that Assembly members be elected biennially (once in two years), the proposed amendment provided that they were to be chosen "biannually", meaning they were to be elected twice a year. After this discovery, the legislature passed a resolution defining "biannually" to mean "biennially", and proceeded with the referendum. On September 20, 1927, the people of New Jersey voted down the proposal, and Assembly members were elected annually until New Jersey instituted a new constitution in 1947.
New Jersey was governed at the time under a constitution adopted in 1844, and votes to amend it were allowed only once in five years. Among the amendments proposed initially by the 1926 legislature, and passed again in 1927, was one known as the "term extender", which would lengthen the terms of legislators and the governor. It would also require the gubernatorial election to be in the same year as the presidential election. New Jersey, despite being strongly Republican, had elected several Democratic governors recently, and Democrats believed such a change would give the Republicans an advantage. However, the Republican majority in the legislature meant Democrats could not block passage there. The original version, passed by the Assembly in 1926, did not mention "biannually", but the version passed by the Senate and then accepted by the Assembly did use the word. After the revised proposed amendment passed the 1927 legislature, a vote was set for September 27, 1927.
When Jewish organizations protested that September 27 was Rosh Hashanah that year, Governor A. Harry Moore convened the legislature into special session to set a new date. A Democratic clerk then pointed out the meaning of biannually, and others of that party urged that the amendment be scuttled. Instead, the Republican majority, relying on authorities who stated that biannually and biennially meant the same thing, chose to pass a resolution stating that the intent was to have elections every other year and set the referendum date for September 20, 1927. There was considerable amusement at the situation, both in New Jersey and nationwide. Frank Hague, the Jersey City Mayor and Democratic political boss of Hudson County, campaigned against the provision moving the election for governor to the presidential year, alleging it was political manipulation and the mixture of state and federal politics. Republicans stated that having the larger number of voters who cast ballots for president also help choose the governor was a good thing. The Democrats were so against the proposal that they successfully opposed three of the other four amendments that were on the ballot at the same time, lest the term extender amendment pass through confusion. The term extender failed with just over 41 percent in favor, defeated by a huge turnout in Hague's Hudson County bailiwick, which voted overwhelmingly against the proposal, contrasted with light turnout and lukewarm support through the rest of the state.
|
wikipedia
|
New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_1927_biannual_elections_proposal
| 72,305,213 |
Introduction
|
{
"word_count": 567,
"char_count": 3533,
"is_intro": true
}
|
New Jersey's 1776 constitution was rewritten in 1844. That document, which remained in force until 1947, provided for annual elections for the New Jersey General Assembly, the lower house of the legislature, and for three-year terms for members of the state Senate. The governor of New Jersey was also to serve a three-year term.
To amend the constitution, each house of the legislature would have to pass a proposed amendment in successive years, which would put the proposed amendment on the ballot to be approved or rejected by the people. There could be votes on amendments to the constitution only once in five years. Before 1927, the voters of New Jersey had six times been called upon to decide whether to amend the 1844 constitution, most recently in 1915, but they had done so only in 1875 and 1897. In 1915, amendments to guarantee women the vote, permit excess condemnation (the power to acquire by eminent domain more land than actually needed for a public purpose) by cities and counties, and remove the prohibition on amending the constitution more often than once in five years had each been voted down by a comfortable margin. An amendment to increase the terms of the legislature and governor had been voted down in 1909. In the first quarter of the 20th century, three governors of New Jersey, including Woodrow Wilson, advocated a constitutional convention to thoroughly revise the state constitution, but legislative commissions that considered the question in the early 1920s did not agree, and the constitution continued in force.
|
wikipedia
|
New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_1927_biannual_elections_proposal
| 72,305,213 |
Background
|
{
"word_count": 257,
"char_count": 1552,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Beginning in February 1926, the legislature's joint Republican conference committee, which steered policy for that majority party in the legislature, began to consider a constitutional amendment to increase the terms of Assembly members to two years, and of senators to four years; the legislature would meet every two years instead of annually. The term of the governor would also be increased to four years, and election to that office scheduled to be at the same time as the election for U.S. president. This was seen as political to benefit the state's Republicans, who generally had greater strength in presidential election years, whereas the Democrats did better in off-year elections. Democrats had won the three most recent gubernatorial elections, with the Republicans last winning in 1916, a presidential election year. No Democratic presidential candidate had won the state with a majority of the vote since Grover Cleveland in 1892, though Wilson had won the state in his 1912 presidential run with fewer votes than William Howard Taft and Theodore Roosevelt combined. Calvin Coolidge had won New Jersey by a margin of 378,000 votes in 1924, but the following year, Democrat A. Harry Moore had been elected governor by 39,000 votes.
The passage by the legislature in March 1926 of a proposed constitutional amendment allowing it to enact laws permitting municipalities to pass zoning regulations caused Republican leaders to again consider what other amendments should be proposed to the voters. These included the various term-extending provisions. The efforts to pass a zoning amendment followed the New Jersey Supreme Court striking down a zoning ordinance as violative of the right of landowners to use their property. The 1925 legislature had passed amendments concerning zoning, and to have the legislature meet every two years instead of one, but these were not passed again by the 1926 legislature, as was necessary for them to be submitted to the voters. Republicans had, in their 1925 state platform, called for amendments regarding zoning and the extension of the terms of legislators and the governor.
Several amendments, sponsored by Assemblyman Clifford R. Powell of Burlington County, a Republican, were passed by the General Assembly on March 24, 1926. First, the provision for biennial sessions of the legislature passed by a vote of 54–0, and one requiring legislative elections to take place every other year, with the legislature to convene the following January, passed by 44–7. Then, an amendment that required, among other things, "The General Assembly shall be composed of members elected by the legal voters of the counties", passed the Assembly by 43–11. The provisions altering the terms of the senators passed by 44–11, as did the provision extending the governor's term. These amendments were subsequently considered by the Senate as a single package for fear some would pass and some would not, resulting in "a jumble".
The term-extending provisions were scheduled in the Senate for the portion of the session intended for bills vetoed by the governor, to begin March 31, 1926. Debate on another proposed constitutional change, to allow amendments to be voted on at a general election rather than at a special election, took place on April 2, but some senators wanted more time to consider the various amendments, and all were postponed until June 22. Distracted by a dispute over who should be the state treasurer, on June 29, the Senate adjourned until July 7, having not acted on the proposed constitutional amendments.
Late on the evening of July 19, just prior to adjourning until November, the Senate passed the term-extending provisions. The amendment that passed had been sponsored by Senator Henry A. Williams of Passaic County and was a substitute for a version prepared by a Senate committee. It provided that "the General Assembly shall be composed of members biannually elected by the legal voters of the counties". The text had been approved by Attorney General of New Jersey Edward L. Katzenbach. The proposal also would allow the Speaker of the Assembly and President of the Senate, acting together, to call a special session of the Legislature, which would allow Republican legislators to bypass a Democratic governor. It passed the Senate by a vote of 16–2.
Since the Senate had amended the proposals, they returned to the Assembly, where, also on July 19, the majority leader, Anthony J. Siracusa Jr. (R-Atlantic County) moved to suspend the rules in order to consider them. This being allowed, the package passed by a vote of 34–0. A total of eight proposals (counting the term extenders as a single amendment) passed the legislature for the first time in 1926, including two proposals dealing with zoning. The second proposal was necessary because although the first zoning proposal had passed both houses of the legislature, the General Assembly had neglected to print it verbatim in its legislative journal, as required by the constitution.
|
wikipedia
|
New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_1927_biannual_elections_proposal
| 72,305,213 |
1926 passage
|
{
"word_count": 805,
"char_count": 5006,
"is_intro": false
}
|
In his annual message on January 11, 1927, Governor Moore stated his support for a constitutional convention to revise New Jersey's governing document. He opposed, though, the lengthening of the gubernatorial term and having the governor elected at the same time as the president, describing the effort to confuse state with national politics as vicious. Senate President Francis B. Davis (R-Gloucester County), in a speech after his election as presiding officer, pledged that the proposed constitutional amendments "must have our best thought and be thoroughly considered before submission to the people".
Powell introduced the term-extender amendment in the Assembly on January 24, 1927, and it was reported from committee and given a second reading in the General Assembly in early February. It passed the Assembly on February 7 on a vote of 47–12, along party lines. Morris E. Barison of Hudson County, the minority leader, stated to the Republican majority, "you cannot elect a governor in the off years and so you have adopted this means. But let me say the battle is only beginning. Get ready for a real fight."
The amendment was reported from committee in the Senate on February 15, 1927. It passed 13–2 on February 22, with two of the Senate's four Democrats opposing (the other two were absent), On March 25, both houses of the legislature passed legislation to set a special election for September 27, 1927, to consider the proposed constitutional amendments, and this was enacted into law on March 31. There were continued reports of Democratic opposition to the amendment, spearheaded by the powerful Hudson County political boss, Mayor Frank Hague of Jersey City.
|
wikipedia
|
New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_1927_biannual_elections_proposal
| 72,305,213 |
1927 passage
|
{
"word_count": 271,
"char_count": 1678,
"is_intro": false
}
|
On April 5, 1927, it was reported in The Morning Call of Paterson that Jewish organizations were protesting against the election date, as September 27 was Rosh Hashanah (the Jewish New Year and one of the High Holidays) in 1927. This would prevent many Jews from voting. The same day, Governor Moore announced he would meet with legislative leaders and fix a date for a special session of the legislature to change the law setting September 27 as the date the people would vote on the five constitutional amendment proposals. On April 11, Moore called the legislature into special session on April 14, to consider such a change, and to pass on the addition of two judgeships. This was the first time the full legislature had been called into special session since 1915; as in 1927, an extra session was needed to remedy defects in a law setting proposed amendments for a popular vote, and this had happened also in 1897. The legislature was not limited to the subjects mentioned by Moore and could consider in special session any legislation it wanted.
When the legislature convened on April 14, bills were introduced to change the date of the election, and to authorize two more judges and make provision for their salaries. As the Republicans maneuvered to secure enough votes on the judicial bills, the legislature was told that biannually meant twice yearly, as opposed to biennially, once in two years, and by providing for biannual elections for the Assembly, it was calling for them to occur twice a year. Former assemblyman Alexander Crawford of Hudson County, Barison's clerk, who was described by The Daily Record of Long Branch as the "mouthpiece of Mayor Frank Hague", pointed out the issue and stated his belief that the amendment was defective. There was speculation that Mayor Hague, through his legal advisors, might be behind the insertion of the word "biannually", but there was no evidence. A six-member committee, with three members from each house, was appointed to find a path forward.
A number of newspapers, both within New Jersey and nationwide, commented on the situation. The Newark Call suggested the best thing to do was for the legislature to take the amendment up again "and drop it in the wastebasket". Brooklyn Life and Activities of Long Island Society deemed the situation "laughable in the extreme", and The Salt Lake Tribune deemed what had occurred as good for a laugh. The Tennessean commented that New Jersey legislators had gotten into trouble because "they were careless about, or ignorant of, their Latin derivatives". The St. Louis Post-Dispatch suggested that lawmakers might want to consult the dictionary "biennially, or better still biannually; and they might find it illuminating for them to peruse it bimonthly, or biweekly". The Los Angeles Times similarly suggested, "Evidently, Mr. Webster's illuminating book is not especially popular in New Jersey".
Legislators could have repassed the amendment at a special session in 1927, passed it again in 1928, and placed it before the voters later that year, in time to be implemented at the November election. This solution, though, would have left those running in the primary election in June not knowing the length of their terms, and it was discarded. Instead, the legislature relied on two experts: Dr. Frank A. Vizetelly of New York – editor of the Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary – and Professor Robert K. Root, head of the English department at Princeton University, who stated that in its root and structure, "biannually" meant biennially, and, in addition to passing the law changing the election date to September 20, passed a resolution stating that in using the word "biannually", it meant every two years. The resolution stated that in using the word "biannually", the legislature "has used and does use the said word as a synonym for the word 'biennially', meaning every second year".
The Democrats, including Minority Leader Alexander Simpson of Hudson County, urged that the amendment be abandoned. Republican Clarence E. Case of Somerset County, who had served on the six-member committee, stated that Simpson should have pointed out the word "biannually" the previous year. Simpson stated that he was not recorded as voting on the amendment, but "I would be a 99-carat fool to call the attention of the Republican conference to a blunder of this sort". Simpson also pointed out another problem with the amendment, that the existing constitution required county officials to be elected at the same time as the Assembly, but for three- or five-year terms, which would clash with the Assembly only being elected every two years. He deemed the definition resolution an "inglorious attempt to cover up a retreat" and predicted that Hague would cause the public to vote down the term extender by 120,000 votes. Nevertheless, the resolution stating that "biannually" and "biennially" were synonyms passed the Senate on April 21, 15–3, and that body then passed the bill altering the election date, 19–0. Also on April 21, the Assembly passed the bill changing the election date, 42–0, and then passed the resolution regarding the meaning of "biannually", 35–7. Both houses had the statements by Vizetelly and Root printed in their journals.
|
wikipedia
|
New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_1927_biannual_elections_proposal
| 72,305,213 |
Discovery and reaction
|
{
"word_count": 862,
"char_count": 5253,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Following the special session, state politicians began to endorse or oppose the proposed amendments. On May 14, 1927, former U.S. senator Joseph S. Frelinghuysen, a Republican, endorsed them, saying that the electorate should not base their votes on whether certain politicians supported them or not, but on whether they were good for the state. Republican U.S. Senator Walter E. Edge also endorsed the amendments in a speech to party leaders in Asbury Park, stating that the less frequent elections would lead to monetary savings. Mayor Hague went to Bergen County to give a speech at the court house in Hackensack on May 17. He called the term extender amendment "a dastardly piece of politics" and stated that, "the Republicans want to change for no reason other than to regain control of the governor's office. They think that in the presidential year, the national issues will overshadow state issues and their gubernatorial candidate will be pulled through during this confusion."
|
wikipedia
|
New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_1927_biannual_elections_proposal
| 72,305,213 |
Campaign
|
{
"word_count": 159,
"char_count": 986,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Hague refused to regard 1927 as an off-year election, fearing passage of the amendment would cut into his power as boss of the party. Democratic State Chair Harry Heher called a meeting of the state party committee at the request of Hague, to meet in Trenton, Mercer County, on June 24. The state committee issued a resolution supporting the zoning amendment but opposing the term extender. At the same time, New Jersey Republicans appointed a fundraising committee led by Morris County Clerk E. Bertram Mott.
In early July, the Democratic state convention passed a platform supporting the zoning amendment on the September ballot and opposing the term extender. U.S. Senator Edward I. Edwards, a Democrat, was by mid-July leading the rhetorical battle for his party, while Senator Edge and former governor Edward C. Stokes led for the Republicans. On July 22, the Republican state committee issued a pamphlet which among other matters discussed the proposed amendments. Regarding the term extender, the pamphlet noted that the greatest number of votes were cast in presidential years, and there should be no objection to having the governor elected by the most voters. Democrats argued that voting the party ticket had become routine in presidential years and that national issues would dominate the debate.
|
wikipedia
|
New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_1927_biannual_elections_proposal
| 72,305,213 |
Campaign
|
{
"word_count": 210,
"char_count": 1308,
"is_intro": false
}
|
On August 1, Secretary of State Joseph Fitzpatrick, a Democrat, addressed Passaic County Democrats. He urged the defeat of all of the proposed amendments except the zoning one. U.S. Representative Mary T. Norton of New Jersey, the Democratic Party's only female member of the federal House of Representatives, spoke in Hackensack on August 9, and suggested that the zoning measure had been put on the ballot to increase support for the term extender. She stated that the Republican Party's policies were increasing Democratic support. On August 31, Senator Edge called the Democratic opposition to the term extender, "the most brazen partisan appeal in the history of the state", stating that the Democrats' only argument was that "more citizens will vote, which will make more difficult the future election of Democratic governors".
Hague spoke in Camden on September 1, supporting the zoning amendment (listed as first on the ballot) but he opposed the other four, especially the term extender, the fourth on the ballot. He stated that defeat of the term extender was so vital to the Democratic Party that the final four amendments were all being opposed lest the term extender pass through confusion. He indicated that the party was not opposed to a four-year term for the governor, only to coupling the election with that of the president. Mayor Hague predicted, "Hudson County will come through with one of the greatest majorities against the last four amendments it ever rolled up". Edge responded in Atlantic City two days later, asking for Republicans to turn out in their usual two-to-one majority, "When Mayor Hague goes out of his own county to tour the state as he is now doing, he knows that the passage of these amendments will end the succession of Democratic governors."
The New York Times reported on September 10 that Republicans feared defections by woman voters persuaded by the Democratic arguments. On September 13, the Democrats held a dinner meeting at the Sea Girt Inn in Sea Girt, Monmouth County, featuring Governor Moore, Senator Edwards and former assemblyman John Matthews of Essex County. There were 1,428 present who had dinner, not counting late arrivals who stood in the room. Matthews stated that passing the amendments would give the party of Teapot Dome more power in the state. The same night, Hague spoke in Cliffside Park, Bergen County, to a crowd of about 1,300 which included many Republicans. He accused Edge and Stokes of trying to fool the people, and that they were trying to prevent the election of Democratic governors, whom the people had placed as watch dogs to guard against Republican excesses; he deemed the term extender "purely partisan". Republicans held a meeting in Trenton that day, and Edge predicted a victory if Republicans turned out; he stated that if the amendments were defeated, it would be because Republicans who had for years criticized Hague's power failed to act to break it. Mott predicted that the amendments would be passed by about 50,000 votes.
Moore had stated that having the gubernatorial election in an election year when national issues would be paramount would be "unjust and unfair"; on September 14, state Senator William B. Mackay of Bergen County responded in an address to his county's Republican committee. He said that Moore and the two other Democratic governors elected since 1916 had each used the national question of Prohibition to gain election, an issue not used by Edge when he was elected governor in 1916. The next night, thousands of Democrats crowded the Newark Armory for a rally against the amendments, with speeches by Moore, Edwards, Norton, Hague and Heher. The governor spoke against Republican arguments that the term extender would increase the number of voters in the gubernatorial election, noting that turnout for the election for governor had nearly equaled that for president in recent years. Camden County Republicans scheduled several meetings for September 19, with the main rally to feature Congressman Charles A. Wolverton, and with other meetings focused on Italian-American, African-American, Jewish and rural voters.
|
wikipedia
|
New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_1927_biannual_elections_proposal
| 72,305,213 |
Campaign
|
{
"word_count": 671,
"char_count": 4140,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Five proposed amendments were on the ballot on September 20, 1927. The first permitted the legislature to pass legislation allowing municipalities to enact zoning ordinances, the second allowed for the establishment of water supply and sewerage districts, while the third provided that future constitutional amendment proposals would be on the ballot at general, rather than special elections. The fourth was the term extender, and the fifth was to repeal an obsolete provision regarding the selection of judges and prosecutors. Polls were open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., except in rural districts that did not observe Daylight Savings Time, where votes could be cast from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m.
|
wikipedia
|
New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_1927_biannual_elections_proposal
| 72,305,213 |
Election and aftermath
|
{
"word_count": 110,
"char_count": 685,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The term extender amendment was defeated, 219,749 against to 153,960 for (41.2 percent), a margin of 65,789. Of the five amendments, only the zoning amendment passed; the term extender lost by the largest margin of the defeated amendments. Hudson County voted against it by 98,492 against to 28,338 for (22.3 percent), a margin of 70,152. Hudson County provided the margin of defeat on the four beaten amendments and voted for zoning by over 90,000 votes, providing nearly half of the margin of victory there. Turnout was 31.0 percent statewide, but 72.2 percent in Hudson County, which was the county with the greatest number of registered voters, though it was second in population to Essex County per the 1920 census. One in every three votes was cast in Hudson County. The light turnout outside of Hudson County, together with the fact that counties normally Republican by large margins voted against the proposed amendment or supported it only narrowly, meant that the Hudson County vote could not be overcome, and defeated the proposal.
Mayor Hague stated that he was "highly pleased" by the result. He called it "a bad thing to use the state constitution for political purposes". Stokes stated that the result was unsurprising, as "it is a difficult thing to educate the people to an interest in abstract organic law". Senator Edge regretted that the state "for at least five more years will remain in a class by itself, with expensive and wholly unnecessary annual legislative sessions and hybrid terms for state officials". Governor Moore said that the vote "shows that the people of New Jersey hold the constitution too sacred to permit political manipulation".
The Bergen Evening Record editorialized that the term extender amendment had been "more or less an insult to the high-minded people of New Jersey ... it was so bunglingly framed that it might well have been the handiwork of the pages in the Senate instead of the members. If it had been adopted it would have plunged us into endless confusion." That newspaper also pointed out that though Stokes had long lived in and represented Cumberland County, and that county had returned a Republican to the Assembly the year before with almost 80 percent of the vote, it had voted down the amendment. The Morning Post of Camden ascribed the Republican defeat to conservatism among New Jersey's voters when it came to changing the constitution, a feeling among them that state and national politics should be separated and that the term extender was unfair, as well as Hague's power and ability. The New York Times opined that the result showed that Hague was more powerful than ever. The Passaic Daily News argued that "the pity of the situation is that the Democrats, in their zeal to beat the 'Extender', also defeated three other amendments, which should have been carried". The Newark Daily Call stated, "outside the ranks of intense partisans there were many who would have supported the term extender amendment had it not been so crudely drawn. As a piece of botch-work it was unique and deserved its fate. It was impossible to defend it with the same enthusiasm displayed by its enemies".
After 1938, when New York rewrote its constitution, New Jersey was the only state electing members of its legislature's lower house for a one-year term. In 1939, New Jersey voters passed an amendment to allow parimutuel betting at horse races. Over the next several years, repeated attempts were made to pass a new constitution, but they failed in part because of the opposition of Hague, who considered them partisan (Edge, who had been elected governor again in 1943, supported them). In 1947, a convention that even Hague supported assembled to consider a new draft. The new constitution increased terms of members of the General Assembly to two years and of the Senate to four years, to allow legislators to give more time to state affairs and less to campaigning. According to John E. Bebout and Joseph Harrison in their study of the 1947 New Jersey Constitution, "The old system of annual selection exacted a high price in time, money, wasted experience, and diversion from the main business of the legislature." The term of the governor was increased to four years. Elections for governor and for the legislature were placed in odd-numbered years, allowing for a separation between state and federal affairs. It was passed by the voters overwhelmingly on November 4, 1947 and provided that the General Assembly shall consist of members "elected biennially".
|
wikipedia
|
New Jersey's 1927 biannual elections proposal
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey%27s_1927_biannual_elections_proposal
| 72,305,213 |
Election and aftermath
|
{
"word_count": 753,
"char_count": 4523,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The U.S. state of Illinois held an election on November 3, 1964, for all 177 members of the state's House of Representatives for the 74th Illinois General Assembly, alongside other state and federal elections. Due to the state's failure to redistrict, all of the seats were elected at-large by plurality block voting, with voters choosing up to 177 candidates to support. Each party was only allowed to nominate 118 candidates. All 118 Democratic candidates won, flipping control of the chamber to Democrats with a two-thirds supermajority.
From 1901 to 1954, the state had failed to conduct legislative redistricting, at which point a constitutional amendment to force regular redistricting of the House was passed. Under its provisions, if the legislature and a backup redistricting commission failed to enact a map, an election would be held at-large. For the 1960 redistricting cycle, the state's governor was Democrat Otto Kerner Jr., while both chambers of the legislature were controlled by Republicans. The legislature passed a map along partisan lines which was vetoed by Kerner, and the commission faced similar partisan deadlock. Following a ruling by the Supreme Court of Illinois, an at-large election was held.
The ballot for the election was 33 inches (84 cm) long. Both parties nominated their candidates at party conventions, which were made up of delegates elected on the old legislative lines. Candidates did little campaigning outside of their home regions. Due to straight-ticket voting and the coattails of Lyndon B. Johnson in the concurrent presidential election, every Democrat was elected, receiving more votes than every Republican. The Republicans elected were mainly those endorsed by Chicago-area newspapers.
Reactions to the election were mixed. Politicians in both political parties received significant criticism for their failure to redistrict. Some pundits predicted significant voter confusion, and a high number of undervotes, but this did not happen. The legislature elected in 1964 pushed for governmental reform, starting the process that eventually led to the 1970 rewrite of the Constitution of Illinois. This election is the only time the lower house of a state legislature has been elected entirely at-large in the United States.
|
wikipedia
|
1964 Illinois House of Representatives election
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_election
| 73,418,002 |
Introduction
|
{
"word_count": 350,
"char_count": 2273,
"is_intro": true
}
|
Prior to the 1960s, Illinois had redistricted its House of Representatives only once since 1901. While the Constitution of Illinois stated that the legislature was required to redistrict the state after each United States census, it did not provide any method of enforcement if the legislature did not. Population shifts in the state had resulted in Chicago having a higher percentage of the state's population, and downstate legislators did not want their region to lose influence. Therefore, starting in the cycle after the 1910 United States census, legislators chose not to redistrict the state and the courts chose not to intervene to force redistricting. A constitutional convention, approved by voters in 1918, aimed to deal with the issue, but voters rejected its proposed constitution in 1922. The 1901 legislative map had 51 districts, with 19 located in Cook County, which contains Chicago and many of its suburbs.
As the population of Chicago and Cook County grew, the level of malapportionment continued to increase. In the 1930 United States census, Cook County contained a majority of the state's population, but it continued to contain only 37.3% of the state's legislative districts. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, residents of the Chicago area, most notably John B. Fergus and John W. Keogh, argued before both state and federal courts in unsuccessful attempts to force redistricting. In the 1930s, there were various efforts supported by governors Louis L. Emmerson and Henry Horner to allow Cook County proportional representation in either the Illinois House of Representatives or the Illinois Senate, while limiting its representation in the other, but these proposals died due to strong bipartisan opposition from downstate politicians.
By 1953, William Stratton, the newly elected governor of Illinois, viewed redistricting as a priority amidst increasing public pressure over malapportionment. Through a number of compromises, he managed to convince the legislature to pass a constitutional amendment to establish new redistricting procedures. The amendment allotted the 58 districts of the Illinois Senate into three areas: 18 to Chicago, 6 to Cook County, and 34 to downstate. The amendment, written to keep the Senate in downstate control, did not provide for periodic reapportionment of the Senate, intending to lock in the districts drawn in 1954 indefinitely, but it did provide that for the House's 59 districts, requiring redistricting after every decennial U.S. census. Initially, 23 districts would be assigned to Chicago, 7 to suburban Cook County, and 29 to downstate. To ensure regular reapportionment, the constitution contained two separate procedures in case the legislature failed to redistrict. First, redistricting would be done by a ten-member commission, with five members appointed from each political party by the governor. If that commission failed to create districts after four months, an at-large election would be held.
Opposition to the amendment was disorganized, while supporters included many state politicians and newspapers. The new redistricting process was approved by voters in a 1954 referendum with about 80% of the vote. Following the passage of the amendment, new districts were drawn in 1955. At this time, both chambers were Republican-controlled, as was the governorship, leading to a relatively non-controversial redistricting cycle. Each chamber created a map for their own chamber and passed the map that the other chamber created, with the maps being signed by Stratton. The map used for the House of Representatives was fairly apportioned, while the Senate's map still retained significant malapportionment. However, the maps were overall considered a significant improvement.
|
wikipedia
|
1964 Illinois House of Representatives election
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_election
| 73,418,002 |
Constitutional procedure
|
{
"word_count": 571,
"char_count": 3751,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Following the 1962 elections, Republicans controlled both chambers of the legislature, albeit with a one-seat majority in the House. Governor Otto Kerner Jr., however, was a Democrat, resulting in a divided government. Redistricting for the House was required to take place in 1963, in preparation for the 1964 elections. In data from the 1960 census, the state's population had shifted towards suburbs of Chicago, particularly in Cook County, Lake County, and DuPage County. Using population-based apportionment, two districts would be shifted from Chicago to the suburbs, and two more from southern Illinois to northeastern Illinois. On April 23, 1963, Republicans in the legislature introduced a plan to that effect. Democrats responded on the same day with a plan to instead have districts that would include parts of both Chicago and its suburbs, allowing the city to have control of 23 districts, arguing that this was fair given Chicago's under-representation in the Senate.
Democrats received no Republican support for their redistricting plan, while Republicans failed to pass their plan over southern Illinois lawmakers in their caucus, who objected to the plan's proposed removal of two districts from their area. As a compromise, Republicans passed a plan that would only remove one district from southern Illinois, at the expense of a district planned for Lake County. However, this bill was vetoed by Kerner on July 1, as he deemed it "unfair". Kerner had previously promised to veto any partisan redistricting plan, and his veto message referred to the deliberate under-representation of Republican areas (which occurred as a result of the compromises made to appease downstate lawmakers). Kerner's veto was challenged at the Supreme Court of Illinois, where it was upheld. The failure of the legislature to redistrict caused the responsibility to fall to the backup commission.
|
wikipedia
|
1964 Illinois House of Representatives election
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_election
| 73,418,002 |
1960 redistricting cycle
|
{
"word_count": 294,
"char_count": 1893,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Each party's state central committee nominated ten candidates for the redistricting commission. Kerner appointed five from each party on August 14, 1963. The five Democrats appointed were George Dunne, finance chairman (and future president) of the Cook County Board of Commissioners; Ivan Elliott, former Illinois Attorney General; Alvin Fields, mayor of East St. Louis; Daniel Pierce, a member of the Democratic state central committee; and James Ronan, the chairman of the Democratic state central committee. The five Republicans appointed were Edward Jenison, a former U.S. representative; David Hunter, a former state legislator; Michael J. Connolly, the Republican leader in Chicago's 5th Ward; Eldon Martin, an attorney from Wilmette; and Fred G. Gurley, former president of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. Dunne served as the Democratic spokesman on the commission, while Gurley served as the Republican spokesman. Kerner avoided appointing some of the more prominent politicians whom parties nominated for the commission: he did not appoint former governor Stratton, nominated by Republicans, and did not appoint Paul Powell, the Democratic minority leader in the House, or John Touhy, the Democratic minority whip.
The redistricting commission deadlocked over a similar issue to what prevented a bipartisan map from passing the legislature – namely, the number of districts in Chicago. Democrats on the commission argued for maintaining 23 districts in Chicago, and refused to accept a map with less than 22, while Republicans would only accept a map with 21 districts in the city, with two districts being moved to the Cook County suburbs. Starting on November 14, the Republicans on the commission began boycotting the meetings due to Democrats' insistence that Chicago control 23 districts. Republicans only resumed attending the meetings on December 12, two days before the final deadline to agree on a new map. Negotiations continued up until the deadline, with Democrats eventually proposing a map with only 22 Chicago-based districts, but the commission ultimately could not reach a compromise. The commission faced harsh criticism in editorials for its failure to agree on a map, with particularly strong criticism directed at the Democratic members for insisting on more Chicago-based districts than the city's population warranted.
|
wikipedia
|
1964 Illinois House of Representatives election
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_election
| 73,418,002 |
Special commission deadlock
|
{
"word_count": 357,
"char_count": 2362,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Before the commission's ultimate failure to create maps, Republican state representative Gale Williams sued to overturn Kerner's veto of the legislative map, arguing that the governor had no authority to veto a redistricting bill. Kerner's actions were defended by the Illinois Attorney General, William G. Clark. This lawsuit was initially dismissed by Sangamon County Circuit Court judge Dewitt S. Crow on July 16. Williams appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which dismissed his case on November 13.
Two lawsuits were decided by the Supreme Court on January 4, 1964. First, a lawsuit filed by Republican state representative Fred Branson challenged the legality of the commission, arguing that since the legislature had not "failed to act" on redistricting, as they had passed a map, a commission could not be established. This lawsuit instead requested that the election be held using the previous redistricting cycle's map. The court rejected this argument, ruling that an at-large election had to take place. Secondly, a lawsuit filed by Chicago lawyer Gus Giannis argued that an at-large election also had to take place for the State Senate. In response to this case, Attorney General Clark issued a ruling stating that an at-large election would be required for the Senate as well. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, ruling that the constitution would only mandate an at-large election for the Senate if the chamber had not been redistricted in 1956, as the constitution did not otherwise require the Senate to be redistricted.
Following the court's decisions, Kerner called a special session of the legislature on January 6 to set up procedures for the at-large election. Kerner proposed procedures for the election, which the legislature was to consider. Notably, Illinois's practice of cumulative voting for the House of Representatives would be suspended, and instead minority party representation was to be guaranteed by only allowing each party to nominate 118 candidates for the 177 seats available.
An initial bill was passed unanimously by the House, but sunk by Republicans in the Senate over concerns that each party would choose to nominate fewer than 118 candidates, leading to an uncompetitive election unfairly favorable to incumbents. The Senate passed an amendment requiring that at least 118 candidates be nominated. However, the House refused to adopt this amendment. On January 28, nearing the deadline for the legislation, the Senate passed the House's bill, which suggested each party nominate 100 candidates while limiting each party to 118 candidates. The vote on the final bill was 161–0 in the House and 46–6 in the Senate. Kerner signed the bill on January 29.
|
wikipedia
|
1964 Illinois House of Representatives election
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_election
| 73,418,002 |
Court rulings and special legislative session
|
{
"word_count": 428,
"char_count": 2706,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Under the terms of the special session's emergency bill, each party could nominate up to 118 candidates at their party convention. Delegates to each party's convention were elected using the previous districts during the state's April primary. The House recommended that each party nominate 100 candidates, to protect incumbent House members and ensure the minority party would have at least 77 seats. Third-party and independent candidates could also run, though they needed to gather 25,000 signatures to make the ballot.
The election was held on November 3, 1964, as part of the 1964 Illinois elections.
|
wikipedia
|
1964 Illinois House of Representatives election
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_election
| 73,418,002 |
Election procedure and campaign
|
{
"word_count": 95,
"char_count": 606,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Both the Democratic and Republican conventions were held on June 1 in Springfield. The Republican convention, held at a local Elks Club building, was controlled by delegates loyal to Charles H. Percy, the party's candidate for governor. Delegates loyal to Percy refused to renominate nine incumbent legislators from the Chicago area, a part of the so-called "West Side bloc", who were viewed as loyal to the Democratic political machine in Cook County. In the end, 70 Republican incumbents were renominated. The Democratic convention, held at the St. Nicholas Hotel, delegated the responsibility for preparing a slate of candidates to an executive committee. The convention met again on June 20 to approve the candidates; all 68 incumbents who chose to run were renominated with little controversy. Both parties nominated slates of 118 candidates in total.
There were multiple attempts to run a "Third Slate" of candidates. The Better Government Association of Chicago, along with some downstate politicians, presented a "blue ribbon" slate of candidates. However, with both parties putting up what were deemed to be acceptable slates of candidates, and Republicans choosing not to renominate the West Side bloc and nominating some blue ribbon candidates instead, this Third Slate effort disbanded.
Another attempt to put a Third Slate on the ballot was backed by various civil rights groups and labor unions, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the United Auto Workers. Their planned platform focused on election reform and civil rights. The Third Slate intended on nominating 59 candidates, allowing a voter to straight-ticket vote for the slate as well as one of the two major parties. However, this Third Slate failed to make the ballot, with the Illinois State Board of Elections ruling on August 21 that they had failed to gather the 25,000 signatures necessary.
Popular names were picked to run on each party's ticket. Democrats nominated Adlai Stevenson III, the son of Adlai Stevenson II (a popular former governor), and John A. Kennedy, a businessman with a similar name (but no relation) to president John F. Kennedy, who had been assassinated the previous year. Republicans ran Earl D. Eisenhower, the brother of popular former president Dwight D. Eisenhower.
|
wikipedia
|
1964 Illinois House of Representatives election
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_election
| 73,418,002 |
Candidate selection
|
{
"word_count": 362,
"char_count": 2301,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The ballot for the State House election was separate from the ballot for other concurrent elections. Voters were allowed to cast up to 177 votes, with a straight-ticket voting option available to vote for all 118 candidates of a party's slate. Voters who voted straight-ticket could also vote for up to 59 candidates from the other party. Both parties recommended utilizing straight-ticket voting. The ballot was 33 inches (84 cm) long and was often referred to as the "bedsheet ballot".
Both parties used the same method to order their candidates on the ballot. Incumbent legislators were placed at the top, ordered by seniority, alternating between candidates from Cook County and downstate. The remaining candidates were then listed, also alternating between Cook County and downstate candidates.
There were four ballots given to voters in 1964: a white ballot, containing most of the typical races (such as for president and governor); a green ballot, voting on the retention elections for various judges; a blue ballot, containing two constitutional amendments to be voted on; and the orange ballot, solely reserved for the House of Representatives election. Before the election, the sheer number of ballots to be voted on led to predictions of a high number of undervotes in the House of Representatives election, but post-election analysis revealed that this did not take place.
|
wikipedia
|
1964 Illinois House of Representatives election
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_election
| 73,418,002 |
Ballot
|
{
"word_count": 220,
"char_count": 1385,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Both parties encouraged a straight-ticket vote. Republicans explicitly discouraged voting for any Democratic candidates, arguing that voting for Democrats would cause the legislature to become controlled by Richard J. Daley, the mayor of Chicago. The Democratic campaign, run by the Democratic State Central Committee, argued that a straight-ticket vote would "assure representation from every district in Illinois". Individual candidates for the legislature generally avoided campaigning across the state, instead only campaigning around their home region, if at all.
Many newspapers endorsed a partisan slate. The Field Enterprises newspapers, the Chicago Tribune, the Champaign News-Gazette, and the Illinois State Journal endorsed the Republican slate. However, the Illinois State Register, which was, like the Illinois State Journal, under Copley ownership, had a different editorial team and endorsed the Democratic slate. Given the unique electoral system allowing voters to vote for candidates of both parties, some newspapers made bipartisan endorsements of candidates, either in addition to their partisan endorsements, or without making an overall partisan endorsement. The Lindsay-Schaub group of newspapers endorsed 48 Democrats and 48 Republicans after sending a questionnaire to all candidates in the election, suggesting voters choose a straight-ticket and all of the newspaper's endorsed candidates of the opposing party. Likewise, the Daily Herald, a newspaper serving the suburbs of Chicago, endorsed seven candidates (four Republicans and three Democrats) who they believed had a good understanding of suburban issues.
|
wikipedia
|
1964 Illinois House of Representatives election
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_election
| 73,418,002 |
Campaigning and endorsements
|
{
"word_count": 229,
"char_count": 1638,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Results were not known immediately after the election; while the results in other statewide races were known on November 4, the statewide tally and canvass for the House elections took multiple weeks. Based on early reported returns in some downstate precincts, Democrats declared victory on November 4, predicting that they had elected their entire slate. However, Republicans did not yet concede, believing they still had a chance of victory. Cook County's results were fully counted by November 9, though not reported until later. Unofficial results for 100 counties, excluding Cook and DuPage, were reported on November 26, showing a strong performance by Democrats. Unofficial statewide results were reported on December 3, showing that every Democratic candidate had won, with many Republican incumbents losing re-election.
Five Republican candidates obtained an injunction over the results in DuPage County, claiming that there were errors in the vote count in five precincts. The injunction was issued by circuit judge Philip Locke on November 30. After the release of statewide results, it became apparent that the discrepancies would not affect the overall balance of power in the legislature. On December 14, Democratic Attorney General William G. Clark filed a motion to move the case to the Illinois Supreme Court, to force the vote count to be released. The Illinois Supreme Court acted on this on January 6, 1965, releasing the DuPage results only hours before legislators were sworn in. Locke interpreted the Supreme Court's order as allowing him to order recounts in certain precincts, which he did. The recounts found only minor errors with no significant impact on the results.
|
wikipedia
|
1964 Illinois House of Representatives election
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_election
| 73,418,002 |
Reporting
|
{
"word_count": 265,
"char_count": 1696,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Straight-ticket votes elected Democrats to the majority, with every Democrat receiving more votes than any Republican, resulting in the election of all 118 Democratic candidates. The strong Democratic performance was attributed to coattails from Democratic president Lyndon B. Johnson's victory over Republican Barry Goldwater in the 1964 United States presidential election in Illinois. However, voters who did not vote only straight-ticket had a significant impact as well: they determined the 59 Republicans who were elected, as well as the order of the winning Democratic candidates.
Contrary to many preelection predictions, voting was not driven by ballot order, with little correlation between where candidates were placed on the ballot and how many votes they received. The top-placing Democrat was Adlai E. Stevenson III, while the top-placing Republican was Earl D. Eisenhower. Both were listed on the bottom half of their respective side of the ballot (Stevenson was the 102nd Democratic candidate listed, and Eisenhower the 79th Republican). The results were strongly influenced by endorsements. In downstate Illinois, these were mainly those of the Illinois Agricultural Association and the Illinois AFL-CIO, as well as the Lindsay-Schaub group of downstate newspapers. However, the election was mainly decided in Chicago and its suburbs, where the endorsements of the Field Enterprises newspapers, and to a lesser extent the Chicago American, were mostly responsible for the results. There were also relatively few undervotes; post-election estimates showed that only about 5% of those who voted in the presidential election did not vote in the House election.
Among the Democrats elected, 68 were incumbents while 50 were new members, and among the Republicans, 31 were incumbents and 28 were new members. 37 incumbent Republicans who ran for reelection lost their seats. Geographically, candidates living in Cook County won a narrow majority of seats. About half of counties had no representatives, and a majority of representatives from both Cook County and from downstate were Democrats.
|
wikipedia
|
1964 Illinois House of Representatives election
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_election
| 73,418,002 |
Analysis
|
{
"word_count": 316,
"char_count": 2105,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The results provided a significant shake-up of the balance of power in the state. While Republicans maintained control of the Illinois Senate, Democrats held the governorship and won a two-thirds supermajority in the State House. Democrats elected John P. Touhy as the speaker of the House.
|
wikipedia
|
1964 Illinois House of Representatives election
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_election
| 73,418,002 |
Aftermath
|
{
"word_count": 46,
"char_count": 290,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The election of many "blue ribbon" candidates in both parties led to a focus on governmental reform, especially improvements to the operation of the legislature. The legislature formed the Illinois Commission on the Organization of the General Assembly, chaired by state representative Harold A. Katz. In 1967, the commission published a report—Improving the State Legislature—detailing 87 improvements it found that could be made to state government. Building on this, the 75th General Assembly (elected in 1966) proposed a constitutional convention, which was approved by voters in 1968, creating the Sixth Illinois Constitutional Convention. The convention was successful in creating a new constitution, which was approved by voters in 1970.
|
wikipedia
|
1964 Illinois House of Representatives election
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_election
| 73,418,002 |
Governmental reform
|
{
"word_count": 109,
"char_count": 744,
"is_intro": false
}
|
One of the first matters the newly elected legislature had to consider was redistricting. New maps for the State House had to be passed to avoid another at-large election, while new maps for the State Senate had to be passed to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Reynolds v. Sims, which required that state legislature districts be roughly equal in population. There was again difficulty in passing maps, with downstate and Chicago legislators not wanting to give up representation in favor of the suburbs, which had grown their relative share of the population. In the end, the Illinois Supreme Court and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois agreed on a new map for the State Senate in compliance with Reynolds v. Sims, while a legislative committee appointed by the governor was responsible for redistricting the House. The resulting maps were relatively fair to both parties, although they caused a significant shift of power from downstate to the Chicago area.
Illinois's constitution was rewritten in 1970. The new constitution modified the procedures for redistricting, adding a tie-breaking member to the redistricting commission that would be established if the legislature failed to redistrict. The tie-breaking member would only be added if the commission deadlocked, and would be randomly chosen by the Secretary of State, with one candidate nominated by each party.
The legislative process was not successful for redistricting in 1971, 1981, 1991, or 2001, necessitating a commission be formed in each case. In 1971, the commission was successful without a tie-breaker. A tie-breaker was needed in 1981, with a Democrat being chosen by Secretary of State Jim Edgar; the resulting map was biased in favor of the Democratic Party. In 1991, the legislature, controlled by Democrats, passed a map that was vetoed by now-governor Edgar. With the commission initially unsuccessful, Secretary of State George Ryan chose a Republican for the tie-breaker. However, the Illinois Supreme Court, controlled by Democrats, rejected the commission's initial plan, threatening an at-large election if the commission could not create a valid plan. Ryan described this as a potential constitutional crisis. The commission eventually enacted a map that survived court challenges after a Democrat on the court voted with the court's Republicans to uphold the map. In 2001, the commission needed a tie-breaker, with Secretary of State Jesse White selecting a Democrat by pulling a name out of a stovepipe hat; the commission passed its maps on a party-line basis.
The failure of the legislature to redistrict in six consecutive redistricting cycles (between 1963 and 2001), as well as the commission failing in most of those years without a tie-breaker, has received significant criticism. Politicians have been described as choosing to play "redistricting roulette" in attempts to get a favorable map, instead of compromising to draw a fair one. As of 2001, Illinois was the only state to use a randomly selected tie-breaker for its redistricting commission.
This was the only time in which a state legislative election was held at-large in the United States. However, at-large elections have been held for all of a state's congressional seats when states have failed to pass a congressional map.
|
wikipedia
|
1964 Illinois House of Representatives election
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_election
| 73,418,002 |
Redistricting
|
{
"word_count": 527,
"char_count": 3334,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The 1964 election helped launch the political careers of certain Democrats, including Adlai E. Stevenson III, who later represented Illinois in the U.S. Senate, and Harold Washington, who eventually became mayor of Chicago. The last member elected in 1964 to leave the House was Edolo J. Giorgi, a Democrat from Rockford, who served until his death in 1993.
In 2000, Pat Quinn, a state politician and future governor, proposed that some members of the Illinois legislature should be elected at-large, arguing that the 1964 election had produced many good legislators.
|
wikipedia
|
1964 Illinois House of Representatives election
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Illinois_House_of_Representatives_election
| 73,418,002 |
Members elected
|
{
"word_count": 90,
"char_count": 567,
"is_intro": false
}
|
An earthquake struck Western Greece near the coastal city of Aigio at 03:15:48 local time on 15 June 1995. The second destructive earthquake to strike Greece in a month, it measured 6.4–6.5 on the moment magnitude scale (Mw ). It was assigned a maximum Modified Mercalli intensity of VIII (Severe) and EMS-98 intensity of IX (Destructive). The horizontal peak ground acceleration reached 0.54 g and ground velocity peaked at 52 cm/s (20 in/s)—the strongest ground motion ever recorded in Greece. Fifteen minutes after the mainshock, a large aftershock struck, causing further damage to Aigio. Faulting occurred on either the Aigion fault or an unnamed offshore fault. Other faults in the region have the potential to produce earthquakes up to Mw 6.9, which poses a risk to Aigio and the surrounding Gulf of Corinth.
Monetary damage from the earthquake reached $660 million (in 1995 USD). Significant destruction occurred; the collapse of two buildings left 26 dead and up to 200 injured. In the aftermath, several countries and organizations provided disaster aid, including search and rescue and refugee assistance operations. Many countries also donated medical supplies, temporary shelter, water treatment equipment, and a ship to house survivors. The Greek government issued seismic loans to aid in the rebuilding of Aigio, though it may have encouraged the construction of taller buildings—increasing Aigio's future seismic hazard. Controversy arose over the lack of a warning for the earthquake, as several sources warned officials that a major earthquake would occur.
|
wikipedia
|
1995 Aigio earthquake
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Aigio_earthquake
| 71,664,795 |
Introduction
|
{
"word_count": 244,
"char_count": 1575,
"is_intro": true
}
|
Western Greece is affected by the ongoing back-arc extension within the Aegean Sea plate caused by the subduction of the African plate in the Hellenic subduction zone. Stresses in the region create normal faults to accommodate the 10–15 mm (0.39–0.59 in)/yr extensional strain. In the Gulf of Corinth, faults have formed as a result of these stresses to accommodate some of the fastest known rates of continental extension. Crustal normal faults do not extend further than 40 km (25 mi) deep in this region, as at that depth the crust transitions to mantle at the Mohorovičić discontinuity.
The Aigion fault is a north-dipping, west-northwest trending (fault direction), young (at most 300,000 years old) fault that has been growing in the past couple of hundred thousand years through the linking of several fault segments. The fault is composed of two main segments: an offshore and an onshore portion, and they extend for 8.621–12 km (5.357–7.456 mi) combined. The fault is also 7–12 km (4.3–7.5 mi) wide. It started developing at earliest 300,000 years ago, and its slip has increased over time. The onshore Aigion fault has a slip rate between 2.5–4.5 mm (0.10–0.18 in)/yr and 9–11 mm (0.35–0.43 in)/yr at a dip angle of 50 to 60 degrees with a strike of 100 degrees; the offshore segment slips at 1.8–3.2 mm (0.07–0.13 in)/yr at a dip angle of 60 degrees. It has a throw of 200 m (660 ft) and a dip of 55 degrees to the north. The Aigion fault reactivated during this earthquake. It showed surface rupturing and produced the largest aftershock. The Aigion fault influences the physical malforming of fan-deltas and associated alluvial plains, thus controlling the geomorphology of a 15-kilometre-long (9.3 mi) by 5-kilometre-wide (3.1 mi) area.
There are two other major faults near Aigio. The Eliki fault, which runs near the town of Eliki, and the Psathopyrgos fault, which is near the village of Psathopyrgos. The Eliki fault initially developed between 0.7 and 1 million years ago. The fault is split into two segments: the West Eliki and East Eliki faults. The West Eliki fault is 11–13 km (6.8–8.1 mi) long, and has a dip of 60 degrees; the East Eliki fault runs for 9 km (5.6 mi). The Psathopyrgos fault is a major fault structure lying at the western end of the Gulf of Corinth. The fault is 8.505 km (5.285 mi) long, 7 km (4.3 mi) deep, has a dip of 60 degrees, and a strike of 87 degrees.
|
wikipedia
|
1995 Aigio earthquake
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Aigio_earthquake
| 71,664,795 |
Tectonic setting
|
{
"word_count": 415,
"char_count": 2404,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Before the earthquake struck, strange phenomena were reported in the region. Minutes before the Mw 6.4–6.5 earthquake struck, people from several areas near the epicenter claimed to have heard the sound of a strong wind in otherwise calm weather. There were also multiple reports of strange animal activity such as dogs running away, and cats being frightened. Earthquake lights were also reported before the shock within a 17 km (11 mi) radius of the epicenter. A "bright red glow" was reported shortly before the earthquake struck. Fifteen minutes after the mainshock, the largest aftershock (Mw 5.6) struck and had a maximum Modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) of VI. Thousands of aftershocks were recorded daily while temporary seismometers were stationed in the vicinity of the epicenter.
|
wikipedia
|
1995 Aigio earthquake
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Aigio_earthquake
| 71,664,795 |
Geology
|
{
"word_count": 124,
"char_count": 793,
"is_intro": false
}
|
This earthquake struck only a few weeks after a devastating Ms 6.6 earthquake struck Greece. That event took place near Kozani on May 13, as the result of normal faulting. The Aigio earthquake a month later also took place as the result of normal faulting, on either the Aigion fault or an offshore fault. Studies disagree over the rupture characteristics. Computed and recorded accelerogram values indicate that inhabitants near the epicenter experienced 0.54 g of horizontal acceleration, as well as up to 0.20 g of vertical acceleration, which was double the maximum expected in the region according to the new Greek Seismic Code, updated only months before. Ground velocity peaked at 52 cm/s (20 in/s), the strongest ground motion ever recorded in Greece. The peak ground motion lasted for 0.45 seconds, and strong ground motion lasted for 5 seconds. Aigio experienced the strongest shaking, and as a result, had the most damage from the earthquake. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) ShakeMap for the event overestimates shaking near Aigio in comparison to synthetic modeling, likely as the result of the strong ground motion that was recorded at one station near Aigio. The maximum MMI was VIII (Severe), and the maximum EMS-98 was IX (Destructive).
|
wikipedia
|
1995 Aigio earthquake
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Aigio_earthquake
| 71,664,795 |
Strong ground motion
|
{
"word_count": 204,
"char_count": 1263,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The Aigion fault showed detectable surface rupturing of less than 4 cm (1.6 in). There are two main theories as to how the mainshock occurred. The first is that it occurred on the Aigion fault. The given length of rupture along the Aigion fault is 6.7–7.2 km (4.2–4.5 mi). The length of visible surface ruptures align with expectations for an earthquake of this size. The other theory explaining the mainshock is rupture along a low-angle normal fault 15 km (9.3 mi) to the northeast of Aigio, and north of the Eliki fault. The fault has estimated dimensions of either 9 km (5.6 mi) east to west, and 15 km (9.3 mi) along dip, or a length of 12.61 km (7.84 mi), with a width of 9.45 km (5.87 mi). Slip estimates range from 0.87 m (2 ft 10 in) to 1.483 m (4 ft 10.4 in). This scenario explains the surface rupture as secondary features created as the result of the high ground motion of the mainshock rather than true slip along the Aigion fault—as proven by GPS and InSAR data. The study also concludes that the earthquake likely increased the chances of an earthquake on the Aigion fault itself.
|
wikipedia
|
1995 Aigio earthquake
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Aigio_earthquake
| 71,664,795 |
Surface faulting
|
{
"word_count": 200,
"char_count": 1096,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The shallow depth and strong ground motion contributed to the death toll and monetary costs. The earthquake caused 26 deaths. Sources disagree on the number of injuries; reports soon after the earthquake claimed 60 injuries occurred, but papers published decades later report 200 injuries. The event also left 2,100 homeless in Aigio alone, and 15,000 people total were displaced. Deaths occurred in two parts of Aigio: at a collapsed apartment on Despotopoulon Street, and in the village of Valimitika where a hotel collapsed, killing 16. At the same hotel, an 8-year-old boy was successfully rescued after being stuck under rubble for 44 hours. Among the dead were 10 French tourists. Aigio and Eratini sustained substantial damage, most occurring in northern Aigio. Six buildings totally collapsed, but reports also differ on how many buildings were damaged beyond repair. A 1999 research paper claims 1071 structures were irreparable, and a 2017 conference paper claims this number to be 1887. In Aigio, 2.5 percent of all buildings were designated unsafe to enter and many were demolished. In downtown Aigio, at least 163 buildings had non-reparable damage, and a further 443 suffered repairable damage. Damage was most prevalent in central and eastern Aigio. The event was felt in Athens, Ioannina, Kalamai, Kardhitsa, Kozani, and Kefallinia; up to 225 km (140 mi) away from the epicenter. The aftershock caused further damage including several building collapses.
|
wikipedia
|
1995 Aigio earthquake
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Aigio_earthquake
| 71,664,795 |
Impact
|
{
"word_count": 230,
"char_count": 1470,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Many surface effects were attributed to this earthquake, including liquefaction, submarine landslides, coastal retreat, and ground fissures. East-west oriented scarp formed from this event in the vicinity of Aigio. Scarps measuring 0.5–1 m (1 ft 8 in – 3 ft 3 in) were observed near the Eliki River Delta. The main shock caused widespread liquefaction to several types of infrastructure. Liquefaction reportedly occurred over a 10 km (6.2 mi) area near the coast between the mouth of the Selinountas River and Cape Trypias. Sand boils formed near Diakofto. In Erateini, liquefaction, underwater landslides, coastal changes, and rockfalls were reported. Along the north coast, liquefaction was sparse, mostly occurring near Erateini. Ground fissures were observed along the coast near Aigio between the Selinountas and Vouraikos rivers, as well as near Avythos. They varied in length up to dozens of meters, with a maximum depth of 60 cm (24 in). These fissures formed as a result of the strong shaking. Sediment failure was found at four sites within a 9 km (5.6 mi) radius of the epicenter.
Drastic coastal changes were observed, such as at Erateini, where the shoreline moved 2–3 m (6 ft 7 in – 9 ft 10 in) inland. Cape Trypias experienced dozens of meters of inundation. On land, there were only a few scattered rockfalls, although the coastal retreat and some other factors indicated a large submarine landslide. Later oceanographic surveys of the area provided more evidence and detail of these landslides. A tsunami with a run-up of 1 m (3 ft 3 in) was measured near Aigio's coast.
|
wikipedia
|
1995 Aigio earthquake
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Aigio_earthquake
| 71,664,795 |
Geological effects
|
{
"word_count": 261,
"char_count": 1587,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Shortly after the earthquake struck, the United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs sent a team of six rescue dogs along with an advanced rescue team from the Swiss Disaster Relief unit. A French team with dogs and medical supplies arrived to the scene to help out with search and rescue (SAR) operations. A second Swiss team with a 35-strong SAR team was also deployed to the affected areas. Other countries such as Germany and Denmark offered extra assistance, but the Greek authorities decided that the French and Swiss operations were sufficient for the relatively small scale disaster. By the next day, UK, German, and Danish-based rescue organizations had offered SAR assistance, and the government of Italy alerted an SAR team, its fire brigade, and health assistance unit. SAR operations in Aigio ceased a week after the earthquake, which rescued 68 people. Italy also offered 20 houses for 100 people, power generators, potable water treatment equipment, and the rescue ship San Marco to sustain the living needs of 400 people, which Greece accepted. Japan's government released 50 large tents and 1,000 blankets to help the affected people. To aid in reconstruction in the aftermath of the event, the government created a financing program to ease monetary losses. The program allowed people to take out 'seismic loans', of which 30% was free, and the remaining 70% was interest-free. These loans actually encouraged building bigger and taller buildings, which may have made the area more vulnerable to future earthquakes. Some buildings damaged by the earthquake were reinforced with concrete to make them more stable.
|
wikipedia
|
1995 Aigio earthquake
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Aigio_earthquake
| 71,664,795 |
Response
|
{
"word_count": 261,
"char_count": 1636,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Concern arose regarding the lack of an issued earthquake warning for the area by Greece's Earthquake Planning and Protection Agency. Panayiotis Varotsos, a University of Athens professor, employed his controversial VAN technique which he developed to forecast earthquakes. The system works by using electrical signals in the ground to predict earthquakes. Another warning came from Gerasimos Papadopoulos, a professor at the Geodynamic Institute of the National Observatory of Athens. His reasoning for issuing the alert was that a recent previous earthquake in northwestern Greece would cause another event within two months. As a result, a prosecutor accused Dimitris Papanikolaou—the director of the Greek earthquake planning and protection agency—of ignoring multiple warnings about the earthquake. This was met with outrage by the scientific community, and the acting director of the Geodynamic Institute of the National Observatory of Athens stated that the prosecutor would have changed his mind if he listened to Papanikolaou's colleagues.
|
wikipedia
|
1995 Aigio earthquake
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Aigio_earthquake
| 71,664,795 |
Controversy
|
{
"word_count": 152,
"char_count": 1047,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The city of Aigio, and more broadly the Gulf of Corinth, lies atop a large seismogenic zone (100–130 km (62–81 mi) long and 20–40 km (12–25 mi) wide) that accommodates 1–1.5 cm (0.39–0.59 in)/yr of north–south rifting within the Aegean Sea plate. A network of normal faults have developed to accommodate the deformation, including a series of linked large faults near populated areas such as the Psathopyrgos, Aigion, and Eliki faults. Many of these faults are in the later stages of their earthquake cycles, and may be ready to produce Mw 6.0–6.7 earthquakes in the coming decades. The Aigio area is struck by Mw 6 events roughly every 120 years, and the area in the southern Gulf of Corinth can generate events up to Mw 6.9 in a multi-fault rupture scenario.
On the Psathopyrgos fault, major earthquakes occur at a frequency of every 350 years, with an estimated uncertainty of 175 years. The last known major earthquake to occur on this section of fault struck in 1756, which means that the fault is around 75% of the way through its cycle. Simulations show earthquakes with maximum moment magnitudes up to Mw 6.42 taking place along the fault, and the maximum accumulated slip deficit (amount of built up energy since the last major earthquake) could cause a Mw 6–6.5 event. The 1995 Aigio earthquake may have put more strain on the fault, allowing it to slip sooner.
Earthquake activity along the Aigion fault is well documented, with events recorded in 1748, and 1817. The recurrence interval between large ruptures on the Aigion fault is roughly 390 ± 195 years. The eastern portion of the Aigion fault lies near where the Eliki fault slipped in an earthquake in 1861, although the Aigion fault is a few kilometers to the north and may act as a step-over. The fault could rupture with the Psathopyrgos fault to its west and create a Mw 6.42 event, and empirical relations, as well as accumulated slip deficit, suggest a maximum of a Mw 6.5 earthquake.
The Eliki or Helike faults are responsible for three known major events, occurring in 373 BC, 1861, and 1888. The role of the western fault is unknown, due to the lack of earthquake activity along its western portion. In 373 BC, a strong earthquake, potentially occurring on the Eliki fault, destroyed the ancient city of Helike. In 1861, an Ms 6.6 earthquake struck the area and ruptured 13 km (8.1 mi) of the Eliki fault. Maximum observed offset from the event was 220 cm (87 in). In 1888, another event struck, but this time on the western portion of the fault system. It was a magnitude 6-6.6 event with slip of 0.5–1.20 m (1 ft 8 in – 3 ft 11 in). This section of the fault may be close to rupturing, and can produce another earthquake of similar size to the one in 1888. Slip rate is estimated at 2.4–5 mm (0.094–0.197 in)/yr. The accumulated slip deficit on only the western portion of the fault is enough to create a Mw 6.6 earthquake. The 1995 Aigio earthquake may have accommodated some of the stress that the Eliki fault was experiencing, thereby increasing the amount of time until the next major earthquake on the fault.
|
wikipedia
|
1995 Aigio earthquake
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Aigio_earthquake
| 71,664,795 |
Future hazard
|
{
"word_count": 543,
"char_count": 3101,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The Aineta aryballos is an ancient Greek aryballos (a small, spherical flask or vase), made between approximately 625 and 570 BCE in the city of Corinth in southern Greece. Approximately 6.35 centimetres (2.50 in) in both height and diameter, it was intended to contain perfumed oil or unguent, and is likely to have been owned by a high-class courtesan (hetaira) by the name of Aineta, who may be portrayed in a drawing on its handle. The vase's illegal sale to the British Museum in 1865 led to the prosecution of its seller, the Athenian professor and art dealer Athanasios Rhousopoulos, and exposed his widespread involvement in antiquities crime.
The vase is inscribed with a portrait, generally agreed to be that of a woman and probably that of Aineta, who is named in the inscription on the vase. Below the portrait are the names of nine men, usually taken to be Aineta's admirers or lovers. The Aineta aryballos is likely to have been found in a grave, probably that of Aineta. According to Rhousopoulos, it was discovered in Corinth around 1852. In 1877, Panagiotis Efstratiadis, the Ephor General of Antiquities in charge of the Greek Archaeological Service, had Rhousopoulos fined for selling the vase in contravention of Greek law. Writing in 2012 for the Center for Hellenic Studies, Yannis Galanakis called the case "a milestone in the trafficking of Greek antiquities", in that it represented a relatively rare successful use of state power against the illegal trade in ancient Greek artefacts.
|
wikipedia
|
Aineta aryballos
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aineta_aryballos
| 73,749,568 |
Introduction
|
{
"word_count": 250,
"char_count": 1509,
"is_intro": true
}
|
The Aineta aryballos is made from yellowish clay. It is a small vase, with a spherical body and a disc-shaped neck, connected by a handle. The entire aryballos is approximately 6.35 centimetres (2.50 in) in height and diameter. Its base is flat, allowing it to stand on its own. The opening of the jar is approximately 8 millimetres (0.31 in) in diameter, within a mouth approximately 4.2–4.8 centimetres (1.7–1.9 in) in diameter. The handle is 3.0 centimetres (1.2 in) wide and 2.5 centimetres (0.98 in) tall, and tapers slightly towards the bottom. The vase itself was made on a potter's wheel in two pieces – the globular body and the disc-shaped neck – which were subsequently joined to each other and to the handle.
The Athenian art dealer Athanasios Rhousopoulos, a professor at the University of Athens, made the first scholarly publication of the aryballos in 1862, in which he described it as "rather rough, but diligently cleaned". In his initial publication, Rhousopoulos said that it resembled a quince; later, he would describe it as "the size of an apple".
Aryballoi were small, spherical flasks or vases, typically used to store small amounts of perfumed oil or unguent. Rhousopoulos believed that the vase may have been a gift from her lovers to a high-class courtesan (hetaira) named Aineta, or perhaps deposited as a grave good in her tomb. In support of this latter hypothesis, Rhousopoulos suggested that the vase's excellent state of preservation, as well as the lack of any post-manufacture inscriptions (such as the kalos inscription common on Attic vases) indicated that it had never been used. Matthias Steinhart and Eckhard Wirbelauer wrote in 2000 that it is universally considered to have been a gift of some nature; Rudolf Wachter concurred in 2001 with Rhousopoulos's assessment that the vase was probably a "love-gift".
|
wikipedia
|
Aineta aryballos
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aineta_aryballos
| 73,749,568 |
Description
|
{
"word_count": 304,
"char_count": 1850,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The body and mouth of the vase are decorated with rosettes. Rhousopoulos considered the mouth, with its flower-like motif centred on the opening, as the finest part of the vase, writing "here we trace a fully Greek taste". He contrasted this with the decoration of the vase body, where, he judged, "we immediately find ourselves in unknown regions of Asia: magnificent, ... but strange and exotic".
The vase was made in the city of Corinth, in southern Greece. On the basis of its decoration, Rhousopoulos dated the vase to the 30th Olympiad (660–656 BCE), which would have made the Aineta aryballos the oldest-known inscribed Corinthian vase, and place it in the ceramic period known as Middle Protocorinthian II. Its date has since been disputed: in his 1931 work on Corinthian pottery, Humfry Payne dated it to approximately 625 BCE on the basis of the letter-forms used in the inscription, an assessment endorsed by Lilian Hamilton Jeffery in 1961. In 1979, Fritz Lorber argued that Payne's date was too early: he discussed the vase among those of the Early Corinthian period (620/615–595/590 BCE), and wrote that the letter-forms show features, such as the serpentine form of the letter iota, characteristic of sixth-century inscriptions. Darrell A. Amyx suggested in 1988 that it most likely dates to the Middle Corinthian period (595/590–570 BCE), a view upheld by Wachter.
|
wikipedia
|
Aineta aryballos
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aineta_aryballos
| 73,749,568 |
Decoration and date
|
{
"word_count": 225,
"char_count": 1380,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The handle of the vase is inscribed with a drawing of the head of a woman, with a list of nine men's names on the vase body below it, separated from each other and the portrait by three dividing lines. Similar female portraits are common on other Corinthian vases of the type. All of the names, as well as the drawing, were inscribed at the time of the vase's manufacture. The writing uses the Corinthian alphabet.
Descending from the mouth of the woman's portrait is an inscription, Aineta emi (Αἰνέτα ἐμί): the word emi means "I am", and Aineta is a name, meaning "the famous one" or "the praised one". It is generally considered to be a woman's name, probably of a hetaira, as it fits the common tendency for hetairai to have self-descriptive "speaking names". Scholars debate whether Aineta is in the nominative or the genitive case: if the former, the inscription translates as "I am Aineta"; if the latter, it means "I am Aineta's". In support of the nominative reading, Wachter and Margherita Guarducci point out that the words are written descending from the portrait's mouth, as if representing the portrait's speech. This is the earliest known example in Greek pottery of a speech-inscription; they became reasonably common in the sixth century BCE.
In 1976, Carlo Gallavotti argued that the portrait was that of a man's head, that the name was that of Ainetas, a male dancer, and that the other names were members of his troupe, including a musician named Menneas. This view has generally been rejected. Payne had earlier dismissed the "Ainetas" hypothesis on the grounds that the name is otherwise unknown in Greek. Aineta is sometimes considered to be a pseudonym or the name of a fictional hetaira, though Wachter considers it most likely to be real. The name Meneas (or Menneas) comes first in the list and is written slightly larger and more boldly than the others, and so seems to have been given particular prominence.
Rhousopoulos interpreted the female face as a drawing of the goddess Aphrodite. Most subsequent assessments have considered it more likely to be a portrait of Aineta. Katerina Volioti and Maria Papageorgiou have associated the portrait with similar depictions connected to the coming of age of upper-class women. In a 1942 article, Majorie Milne considered that the presence of multiple male names showed a "co-operative spirit" between Aineta's admirers, and contrasted the vase with a pyxis showing three female names that she suggested were those of hetairai. Wachter has described the list of names on the Aineta aryballos as good evidence for Corinthian prosopography and onomastics at the time of the vase's use.
|
wikipedia
|
Aineta aryballos
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aineta_aryballos
| 73,749,568 |
Inscription
|
{
"word_count": 444,
"char_count": 2655,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The vase was first mentioned in scholarship by Rhousopoulos, in an 1862 article in the journal of the German Archaeological Institute at Rome. According to Rhousopoulos's publication, the vase had been discovered around 1852 in Corinth, and had "come into [his] possession" a few years later.
Rhousopoulos was a part of the illegal trade in ancient artefacts excavated surreptitiously and without official permission. In the early 1870s, he boasted to the Oxford professor George Rolleston that he was able to call upon "all the Athens grave-diggers who dig for tombs throughout Attica". Though his activities had not yet attracted official notice, Nikolaos Papazarkadas has written that Rhousopoulos "was heavily involved in dubious transactions involving illegally-excavated antiquities". The main law governing antiquities was the Archaeological Law of 22 May [O.S. 10 May] 1834, which Galanakis has characterised as "loosely interpreted and even more loosely enforced". Under the 1834 law, private excavators – often referred to as "grave-robbers" – required the permission of the Ephor General to excavate, but the Ephor General was obliged to grant that authorisation if the excavation took place on private land and had the landowner's consent. Furthermore, antiquities discovered in such excavations were considered the joint property of the state and the private excavators, and would be shared between the landowners and the excavators. Such artefacts could be sold freely overseas, provided that their owners secured the judgement of a state committee of three experts that the object was "useless" to Greek museums.
|
wikipedia
|
Aineta aryballos
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aineta_aryballos
| 73,749,568 |
Discovery
|
{
"word_count": 246,
"char_count": 1627,
"is_intro": false
}
|
In 1865, Panagiotis Efstratiadis, the Ephor General in charge of the Greek Archaeological Service, wrote in his diary of the size and richness of Rhousopoulos's antiquities collection, marking the first time that Rhousopoulos's activities had come to official attention. Rhousopoulos sold the aryballos to the British Museum for 1,000 drachmae in 1865, via Charles Merlin, a British banker and diplomat resident in Athens who often acted as an intermediary for antiquities purchases. Charles Newton, the museum's Keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities, had previously selected the object for purchase, and subsequently received it from Merlin. Rhousopoulos made the sale without securing the required permission from the state committee, but defended himself in the newspaper Elpis on 16 February [O.S. 4 February] 1867, arguing that the aryballos was "of no artistic value, the size of an apple, only valued for 25 drachmae". Efstratiadis, meanwhile, denounced Rhousopoulos as a "university professor; antiquities looter".
Efstratiadis's ability to respond to Rhousopoulos's breach of the law was limited: the state had few financial, human or legal resources to address the illegal excavation and trade of antiquities, and his superiors in government had little political will to do so. He also needed to maintain good relations with Athens's art dealers, who undertook more excavations in this period than either the Greek Archaeological Service or the closely aligned Archaeological Society of Athens, and usually offered to sell the artefacts they uncovered to the state. Furthermore, Rhousopoulos was periodically a member of the appraising committee of three, and often acted as a consultant to it, further limiting Efstratiadis's ability to use the state's archaeological apparatus against him.
Rhousopoulos was fined 1,000 drachmae (the same amount for which he had sold the aryballos) later in 1867 for exporting antiquities without the Ephor General's permission. His actions were condemned by the Minister for Education and Religious Affairs, who oversaw the Archaeological Service, and by the Archaeological Society of Athens, which expelled him at some point in the 1870s. Rhousopoulos subsequently endeavoured to keep his antiquities dealing outside the knowledge and scrutiny of the state. Writing for the Center for Hellenic Studies in 2012, Galanakis called the case over the aryballos "a milestone in the trafficking of Greek antiquities", in that it represented a rare successful prosecution for the unauthorised export of an ancient artefact under the 1834 law.
|
wikipedia
|
Aineta aryballos
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aineta_aryballos
| 73,749,568 |
Sale to the British Museum
|
{
"word_count": 388,
"char_count": 2581,
"is_intro": false
}
|
American Writers is a work of literary criticism by American writer and critic John Neal. Published by Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine in five installments between September 1824 and February 1825, it is recognized by scholars as the first history of American literature and the first substantial work of criticism concerning US authors. It is Neal's longest critical work and at least 120 authors are covered, based entirely on Neal's memory. With no notes or books for reference, Neal made multiple factually inaccurate claims and provided coverage of many authors that modern scholars criticize as disproportionate to their role in American literature. Scholars nevertheless praise the staying power of Neal's opinions, many of which are reflected by other critics decades later, notably "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses" by Mark Twain. Theories of poetry and prose in American Writers foreshadowed and likely influenced later works by Edgar Allan Poe and Walt Whitman. Neal argued American literature relied too much on British precedent and had failed to develop its own voice. He offered sharp criticism of many authors while simultaneously urging critics not to offer writers from the US undeserved praise, lest it stifle the development of a truly distinct American literature. Poe's later critical essays on literature reflected these strictures.
Neal wrote the series in London, where he lived between 1824 and 1827. Having moved there from Baltimore, his goals were to establish himself as America's leading literary figure, encourage the development of a uniquely American writing style, and reverse British disdain for literature from the US. He soon became the first American published in any British literary journal, American Writers being the longest and best-remembered of his works on American topics in multiple UK periodicals. He wrote for Scottish publisher William Blackwood under an English pseudonym, which Neal assumed was convincing. Blackwood and British readers likely realized they were reading the work of an American, and multiple leading American periodicals revealed Neal as the author before the series was completed.
The series was well received in the UK and exerted influence over British critics, some of whom copied Neal's analyses and misinformation into their own essays. It conversely drew considerable ire from US journalists, none more severe than William Lloyd Garrison, who warned Neal to be on guard should he return to his home country. When he did, Neal found inflammatory broadsides and in-person hostility in his hometown of Portland, Maine, leading to a fistfight. In defiance, he decided to stay in Portland, where he lived until his death forty-nine years later. The first postmortem republication of a substantial work by Neal was 1937, when Fred Lewis Pattee collected American Writers for the first time into one publication. That 1937 edition remains the most accessible of Neal's literary productions.
|
wikipedia
|
American Writers
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Writers
| 77,889,882 |
Introduction
|
{
"word_count": 456,
"char_count": 2965,
"is_intro": true
}
|
After eight years in Baltimore, John Neal sailed to England in late 1823. He pursued three primary goals: supersede Washington Irving and James Fenimore Cooper as the leading US literary figure, usher into existence a new uniquely American literary style, and reverse British disdain for American literature. To accomplish the third goal, Neal sought publication in British literary journals to expose UK readers to writing from the US and convince them of its value. A "man of grievances" according to English scholar George L. Nesbitt, Neal envisioned those journals as a "blazing rocket-battery" he could turn to fire upon the readership of "swarming whipper-snappers" in Great Britain. Thinking highly of his own abilities, he was confident he would fast become a leading literary figure in London.
|
wikipedia
|
American Writers
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Writers
| 77,889,882 |
Blackwood engages Neal
|
{
"word_count": 126,
"char_count": 802,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Neal's resources were running low after three months in England with no income. Capitalizing on Europeans' interest in US politics sparked by recent news of the Monroe Doctrine, he wrote an article on the five US presidents and current presidential candidates and submitted it to Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. His letter said he was about to leave London to explore Europe, but: "In the mean time, I must have some sort of employment to keep me out of mischief." Biographer Donald A. Sears says "the situation was desperate" when Neal received a response from Scottish publisher William Blackwood: "You are exactly the correspondent that we want". The payment of five guineas was more than Neal had ever received for any magazine submission.
Early American literature scholar William B. Cairns considered Blackwood's the most important literary periodical in 1820s Great Britain, a period when such periodicals were more influential than ever before. Neal was already familiar with it and had read it in Baltimore. The editors of a six-volume 2016 academic collection of Blackwood's articles called it "the most brilliant, troubling, acerbic and imaginative periodical of the post-Napoleonic age". Literature scholar Fritz Fleischmann described the magazine as subscribing to an "aesthetic belief in original thoughts expressed in bold and forceful language". The editor of a 1959 academic Blackwood's collection used the words "riotous" and "blackguardly". The magazine had not published a single piece on an American topic from June 1822 until Neal's first piece in May 1824.
Neal felt he was a good fit for Blackwood's, having sought it out as "the cleverest, the sauciest, and most unprincipled of our calumniators", he later wrote. Cairns agreed, writing: "Neal's slashing style and the somewhat sensational nature of his utterances fitted well with the manner of Blackwood's". Blackwood seemed to enjoy Neal's style and wanted it in his magazine. Neal was one of many new contributors adopted by Blackwood in the early 1820s; alongside Eyre Evans Crowe, he was one of two to exhibit the publisher's desired style notably well. Neal's article in the May 1824 issue was the first by an American to appear in any British literary journal, and it was soon republished by the New European in multiple languages throughout mainland Europe.
|
wikipedia
|
American Writers
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Writers
| 77,889,882 |
Blackwood engages Neal
|
{
"word_count": 371,
"char_count": 2341,
"is_intro": false
}
|
During his three years in England, Neal contributed articles to eight other British periodicals, including The European Magazine, The London Magazine, Monthly Magazine, The New Monthly Magazine, and The Westminster Review. He had an article in the European Review's inaugural (June 1824) issue, and editor Alexander Walker paid more than Blackwood, but Walker also rejected all of Neal's subsequent submissions after learning Neal was American. Neal sent five more articles to Blackwood with a letter explaining his willingness to cover any manner of topics; Blackwood rejected them all. His sixth submission to Blackwood was accepted, and Neal became a regular contributor, finding himself "warmly welcomed and handsomely paid", according to Sears. As the magazine's first major American contributor, Neal authored at least one article for every issue between May 1824 and February 1825. Neal's presence in its pages was substantial enough that literary historian Fred Lewis Pattee called it a "complete surrender" on the part of "Blackwood's to the swashbuckling young American".
Neal later wrote that he traveled to the UK on a mission to write about American topics, but biographer Irving T. Richards argues Neal more likely settled into that pattern after connecting with Blackwood. Either way, he quickly became Blackwood's primary authority on US topics. This series of articles highlighted cultural similarities between the US and UK, making the case for an improved transatlantic relationship. It served to counterpoise ample content from contemporary UK authors that predominantly disparaged the US, when they considered the new nation at all. A decade later, Neal called Blackwood's "the first British Magazine that ever allowed an American fair play". He further claimed Blackwood "published for me what no other magazine-proprietor in the three kingdoms would have dared to publish".
The first installment of the American Writers series was published in the September 1824 issue. Before publishing the second installment, Blackwood requested some changes, particularly that Neal tone down his attack on John Elihu Hall and refrain from calling him a blackguard. After publishing the last installment in February 1825, Blackwood sent Neal a letter congratulating him on completing the series. He encouraged standalone articles in the future, but to continue on American topics. Neal did not publish anything else substantial in Blackwood's until September, however.
|
wikipedia
|
American Writers
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Writers
| 77,889,882 |
Steady contributorship
|
{
"word_count": 373,
"char_count": 2477,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Neal was convinced that anything submitted by an American to any British periodical would be rejected if it did not disparage the US. For his writing to be accepted, "Neal treated the venture as an undercover operation", according to literature scholar Ellen Bufford Welch. Pattee said, "he considered [it] an impenetrable disguise". Neal started by introducing himself as Carter Holmes in his first communication with Blackwood, and continued using the pseudonym in all correspondence with him while writing American Writers. He made clear it was a pseudonym, but maintained he was English. Scholars believe Blackwood and his editors figured out quickly they were dealing with an American.
The American Writers series appeared in Blackwood's under the initials X.Y.Z., which Neal borrowed from fellow contributors John Wilson and John Gibson Lockhart. He used other names for other Blackwood's pieces. Despite describing himself in those pages as English, Cairns and Pattee believe most British readers knew they were reading the work of an American. Likely reflecting British readership in general, The Westminster Review stated years later in 1831: "There is no mistaking the hand of John Neal" in his work published in British periodicals.
US readers also largely knew American Writers was the work of an American, and many connected the series to Neal. Based on his reading of the first two installments, Philadelphian John Elihu Hall outed Neal as author in The Port Folio in late 1824. The United States Literary Gazette followed suit the following May. When reviewing his own work in American Writers, Neal hinted at his identity, saying, "we know him well" and describing his anonymously-published novels: "No matter whose they are—mine or another's ... I shall neither acknowledge, nor deny them." In his last piece for Blackwood's, published after the final installment of American Writers, Neal proclaimed his true nationality and signed it with his last initial. He revealed his name to Blackwood in a letter around the same time. The protagonist of Neal's 1830 novel Authorship was named Carter Holmes, which the book called a "fictitious name" connected to "Blackwood".
|
wikipedia
|
American Writers
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Writers
| 77,889,882 |
Anonymity
|
{
"word_count": 344,
"char_count": 2184,
"is_intro": false
}
|
American Writers comprises about 50,000 words over 80 magazine pages. Literature scholars Alfred Fiorelli, Benjamin Lease, and Hans-Joachim Lang counted 120 names among the authors covered by Neal. Both biographer Irving T. Richards and scholar Alberta Fabris put the number at 135. Those figures, both living and dead at the time, included novelists, poets, political writers, scientific writers, philosophers, theologians, journalists, historians, geographers, and even painters. Each figure is covered with at least a paragraph, though some get multiple pages. Richards said the coverage of each writer "frequently grossly violated" their comparative importance, such as the half page on James Fenimore Cooper, six pages on Charles Brockden Brown, eight on himself, and ten on Washington Irving.
Aside from familiarizing British readers with American authors, Neal's central message in American Writers is that the US had not yet developed its own voice: there is "no such thing in the United States of North America, as a body of native literature ... bearing any sort of national character." He offered specific recommendations for bringing one about by encouraging natural originality over studied adherence to established models. He said: "If you go in your natural shape, in the true garb of your nation, you will never be laughed at." Neal also advised literary critics to give US writers more attention, but to avoid undeserved praise, for fear it would stifle creative growth. "Let us never make a prodigious fuss about any American book, which if it were English, would produce little or no sensation ... it is only insulting the Americans", he said. Following his own advice, his assessment of individual writers was "brutally honest", according to Welch. Where he did find what he considered truly American literature, he named only Brown, himself, and James Kirke Paulding.
He wrote about all authors from recollection, having brought neither any of their works nor any notes on them from America. As a result, Neal devoted more space in some cases to anecdotes he could remember about an author than to analysis of their work. According to the editors of a 2016 collection of Blackwood's articles: "The series is notoriously riddled with factual errors". He wrote it all in a conversational tone unique to himself, despite external pressures to adhere to established models. That style was nevertheless more controlled than his other work to maintain his English pseudonym. Literature scholars Edward Watts and David J. Carlson contended the series foreshadowed a clash on the literary horizon between genteel traditions and popular vulgarity in Anglophone literature.
Neal critiqued his own works and included a short biography of himself in American Writers. Richards considered that coverage to be far out of proportion to his role in American literature. Literature scholar Jonathan Elmer called it "brazen". The coverage offers mixed reviews, saying of himself "he overdoes everything" in his novels, "hardly one of which it is possible to read through." He nevertheless judged Seventy-Six to be "one of the best romances of the age". Logan "is full of power—eloquence—poetry—instinct" but still "so outrageously overdone, that no-body can read it through." Lease and Cairns considered Neal's coverage of Cooper to be disproportionately brief. In it, he dismissed Cooper's female characters as "nice, tidy, pretty—behaved women, who ... talk very much like a book". Neal summed him up as "a man of sober talent—nothing more." Seven decades later, Mark Twain struck a very similar tone in his own essay, "Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offenses". Neal also included a discussion of John Dunn Hunter, which was based to a degree on their time in the same London boarding house. That section is a largely accurate prediction of Hunter's future reputation as an untrustworthy imposter and filibuster. Neal's critique of William Cullen Bryant was likely the basis for the section on Bryant in James Russell Lowell's satirical poem A Fable for Critics over twenty years later.
|
wikipedia
|
American Writers
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Writers
| 77,889,882 |
Content
|
{
"word_count": 642,
"char_count": 4087,
"is_intro": false
}
|
American Writers exerted influence over British periodicals and the way they treated literature from the US; many used quotes from the series to substantiate their own work, including multiple instances of misinformation unwittingly copied from Neal. For instance, the Quarterly Review's March 1825 review of Irving was presumably copied from Blackwood's, rather than based on an original interpretation. Being published in a respected journal likely convinced British readers of American Writers's validity. The British Critic in April 1826 said Neal's novels were too extreme, but praised American Writers, saying it "shows him to be well worth the trouble of breaking in". Cairns credits Neal's coverage of himself with ushering a brief period of increased critical attention to his novels among British reviewers.
Blackwood's contributor David Macbeth Moir called American Writers the best assessment of US literature yet published, praising "its knowledge of a subject concerning which we sit in darkness." Conversely, fellow contributor William Maginn wrote to Blackwood, attacking the series as "a tissue of lies from beginning to end". Citing the broadly positive feedback he had already received from his readership, Blackwood responded, "there are not manny [sic] articles I have had which have done so much for [Blackwood's] as these of this writer." To Neal, he wrote after the last installment: "You have finished your series in capital style. The whole is spirited and most original."
|
wikipedia
|
American Writers
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Writers
| 77,889,882 |
United Kingdom
|
{
"word_count": 228,
"char_count": 1498,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Neal had written five novels in Baltimore and published extensively in periodicals throughout the US before moving to London, but by mid-1825, American readers generally associated his name with American Writers more than any of his previous works. At the same time, the reception there was much worse than in the UK. American readers were generally offended by Neal's sharp criticism, particularly because he wrote and published it in a country with which they had been at war twice in the previous half century. Neal expected this reaction and was aware of it before he returned to the US. His friend Tobias Watkins in Baltimore wrote him in July 1825 to inform him of the poor reaction from American journalists, including many with whom Neal had associated before leaving Baltimore. Years later he wrote, "the whole paperhood of America, were baiting and badgering me, at every turn, ... because, forsooth, in dealing with our American authors, ... I had told the truth of them."
Theophilus Parsons, called a "blockhead" by Neal in American Writers, wrote in the United States Literary Gazette for May 1825 that Neal's authorship rendered the series invalid. Joseph T. Buckingham called it an "unnatural" and "unprincipled" attack on Neal's country. Hall called Neal a "slimy reptile" and "impudent scribbler" in the Port Folio, suggesting controversy drove him from Baltimore to London "where he earns his crust by defaming his native land", such that he "should be spit upon or cowskinned". After reading the installment of American Writers that mentions him, Hall called Neal "a liar of the first magnitude" and a "nauseous reptile". A New York critic said Blackwood's Magazine's value had "sadly fallen off when a man who could not find a reader in America, goes to England, and ranks first quill." The Boston Commercial Gazette, reacting to the series's first installment, called Neal "a half educated, half crazy headed author" who was "kicked from every city in the United States" to "escape to England, to sell their venom, froth, and lies, to mercenary journalists." Hezekiah Niles, who briefly employed Neal in Baltimore, referred to Neal as "some fool" and a "renegado" in the Weekly Register, suggesting American Writers was published to intimidate America's developing literary community. The most severe reaction came from William Lloyd Garrison, whose May 1825 reaction to American Writers was Garrison's most substantial contribution to the Newburyport Herald, whereat he was apprenticing. He said: "We cannot express sufficiently, our Indignation at this renegade's base attempt to assassinate the reputation of this country", warning Neal to be on guard should he return to the US, "or you may reap that reward for your vile labors, which you so richly merit." This was the beginning of a feud between the two men that continued for years. Speaking for the minority of US literary figures who favored Neal's piece in Blackwood's, Sumner Lincoln Fairfield in the New York Literary Gazette in April 1826 said Neal "has really and truly done much service to his country ...; his treatment in America was cruel and abominable".
|
wikipedia
|
American Writers
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Writers
| 77,889,882 |
United States
|
{
"word_count": 510,
"char_count": 3145,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Neal left England and returned to his hometown of Portland, Maine, in July 1827, probably expecting the ire sparked by his British publications to have died down and for a warm welcome to be in its place. He instead found hostility in Portland to be greater than the nation as a whole. Many still resented him for not only American Writers and his Blackwood and Sons–published novel Brother Jonathan (1825), but his 1823 Baltimore novels Randolph and Errata, the latter of which being a semi-autobiographical story that disparaged well-respected locals. Pattee summarized: "For a time he felt like a man without a country". He was accosted on the street by locals waiting for him on the stoop of a tavern. The confrontation led to a fistfight in which the group's leader left with a bloody nose. Neal also found broadsides posted throughout the city sarcastically proclaiming his writing in London and Baltimore had driven him insane and he was recovering with help from an "African Physician", who was in actuality a local Black man hired by the broadside's authors to follow him in public. Neal allowed the man to follow until Neal's detractors could no longer afford to pay him to continue. Neal had not planned on staying in Portland, but changed his mind in defiance of the opposition to his return. He stayed in Portland until his death forty-nine years later.
|
wikipedia
|
American Writers
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Writers
| 77,889,882 |
Portland, Maine
|
{
"word_count": 232,
"char_count": 1366,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Along with Neal's essays on drama in The Yankee and the preface to his poem The Battle of Niagara (1818), American Writers was likely a primary influence on Edgar Allan Poe's theory of poetry. Poe's own involvement with Blackwood's supports this theory among scholars. Neal said: "The day is rapidly approaching, when the poetry of conventional meter must give way to a mightier poetry in prose." Neal's theory "boldly prophesies the organicism of" Ralph Waldo Emerson and Walt Whitman, according to Lease, and probably had a direct influence on Whitman, according to literature scholar Joseph Jay Rubin. Neal's pleas not to stifle US literature by fluffing undeserving American writers likely influenced Poe's critical essays, which contained similar language. Neal's criticism of Harriet Vaughan Cheney's A Peep at the Pilgrims in 1636 (1824) contended the book did a great job of presenting dry history while failing to communicate the spirit of the experience. This analysis probably influenced Nathaniel Hawthorne's similar take on Views and Reviews in American History by William Gilmore Simms (1845) two decades later. By claiming the US did not yet have a distinct literature, Neal made it possible for authors of the later American Renaissance to feel justified in disregarding a half century of American precedent and thinking themselves the first in their country's history.
|
wikipedia
|
American Writers
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Writers
| 77,889,882 |
Influence on American writers
|
{
"word_count": 217,
"char_count": 1385,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Scholars have called American Writers the first history of US literature and the first substantial criticism of American literature. Some contend it is the work for which Neal is best known, at least among his British publications, or for that period of his life. Of all Neal's works of literary criticism, it is the most extensive, and according to literature scholar Abbate Badin, his most interesting to a modern audience. Fleischmann called it "an unprecedented success" in terms of educating British readership.
Pattee acknowledged Neal's misinformation and unfair attacks, but otherwise judged the work as "sound criticism" and praised the staying power of Neal's critiques, saying, "his critical judgments have held. Where he condemned, Time has almost without exception condemned also." Literature scholar Alexander Cowie issued a similarly balanced assessment, concluding that American Writers is "generally rich in acute critical perceptions". This was also echoed by Sears, Lease, and the editors of a 21st-century collection of Blackwood's articles, who pointed to "caustic one-liners or generic praise" Neal used for works with which he was less familiar but "cogent, authoritative and lucid" comments for his favorite works. An example of Neal's misinformation and unfairness was captured by the 1930 biographer of Fitz-Greene Halleck, who referred to Neal's critique of Halleck as "difficult to match for hopeless inaccuracy and unabashed egotism." Richards summarized American Writers as "altogether honest, reasonably just, and exceedingly shrewd in its judgments." Richards contended a century after American Writers that scholars generally still agreed with Neal's assessment of many of the authors the piece considers, particularly Bryant and Irving. The introduction to the 1927 edition of Irving's A History of New York claimed Neal's to be "the most intelligent review" of that work since its publication in 1809.
|
wikipedia
|
American Writers
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Writers
| 77,889,882 |
Scholarship
|
{
"word_count": 290,
"char_count": 1936,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Referred to by Neal as a book, American Writers was originally published as five successively-numbered installments between September 1824 and February 1825. Their first collection in one publication was American Writers: A Series of Papers Contributed to Blackwood's Magazine (1824–1825), edited by Fred Lewis Pattee in 1937. That edition includes "Late American Books", an essay originally published in Blackwood's in September 1825. Scholar Robert Bain considered that piece the sixth installment of American Writers.
The 1937 edition also includes a bibliography of Neal's other works and excerpts from his 1823 novel Randolph. Randolph includes what Pattee and Badin considered a more interesting version of Neal's ability to produce a series of sketches of American figures, which is why Pattee decided to include the excerpt. This was the first republication of a substantial work by Neal since his death. It was also the first of a series in the twentieth century that included Observations on American Art: Selections from the Writings of John Neal in 1943, "Critical Essays and Stories by John Neal" in 1962, Rachel Dyer in 1964, Seventy-Six in 1971, and The Genius of John Neal in 1978, the last of which includes Neal's review of Irving from American Writers and his review of Cooper from "Late American Books". Of those, Pattee's collection is the most accessible to modern readers.
|
wikipedia
|
American Writers
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Writers
| 77,889,882 |
Publication history
|
{
"word_count": 221,
"char_count": 1395,
"is_intro": false
}
|
The following authors are critiqued in American Writers:
|
wikipedia
|
American Writers
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Writers
| 77,889,882 |
Authors covered
|
{
"word_count": 8,
"char_count": 56,
"is_intro": false
}
|
Bæddel and bædling are Old English (Anglo-Saxon) terms theorised to refer to non-normative sexual or gender categories. They occur in only five medieval glossaries and penitentials (guides for religious penance). Scholars debate their exact meanings (and their distinction, if any), but both are linked to effeminacy and adultery. Bæddel appears in one glossary, where it glosses "hermaphrodite" and a "man of both sexes", while bædling glosses an "effeminate" or "soft" person. The Oxford English Dictionary states that bæddel may be related to the English adjective "bad"; scholars have proposed that the word may share a root with both bæddel and bædling.
The Old English translation of the medieval penitential Paenitentiale Theodori distinguishes men from bædlings; it describes men having sex with other men or with bædlings as separate offences, and states that bædlings must atone for having sex with other bædlings. The term has been variously conjectured to refer to people assigned male at birth who exhibited gender-nonconforming behaviour or took on a feminine social role, or to intersex people, and it is also suggested that it may have included people assigned female at birth who took on a masculine social role. Some scholars have associated the term with gender non-normative burials from the period, and have suggested that bædlings could represent a third gender outside the gender binary, or a form of gender nonconformity in Anglo-Saxon society. The 11th-century English Antwerp Glossary associates bæddel with the uniquely attested wæpenwifestre, seemingly denoting a woman with a phallus or one displaying masculine characteristics.
|
wikipedia
|
Bæddel and bædling
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling
| 78,462,563 |
Introduction
|
{
"word_count": 252,
"char_count": 1657,
"is_intro": true
}
|
Bæddel and bædling are Old English terms referring to some category of gender, sex, or sexuality outside the norm of Anglo-Saxon England, although their precise meaning and scope are debated by scholars. The terms are quite obscure; bædling is attested in a small number of sources, including two glossaries and two penitentials (guides for religious penance)—while bæddel is only attested from two entries in the 11th-century Antwerp Glossary. The linguist and etymologist Anatoly Liberman describes the terms as synonyms.
In the Antwerp Glossary bæddel is used to gloss two Latin phrases: anareporesis, i. homo utriusque generis ('andreporesis, i.e. man of both sexes') and hermafroditus ('hermaphrodite'). These are the two extant glosses which use the word. The Antwerp Glossary associates bæddel with scritta (scrætte, "adulteress") and the hapax legomenon wæpenwifestre, which all gloss the word "hermaphrodite". Wæpenwifestre literally means a wif (woman) with a wæpen (weapon); it seems, metaphorically, to mean a 'woman with a phallus' or displaying manly characteristics, along the lines of the common term wæpnedman (a male, lit. 'weapon-person').
Bædling is probably derived from bæddel, either with the patronymic suffix -ing or the diminutive patronymic suffix -ling. It is used to gloss three different Latin words in the four extant sources, including mollis 'soft person' and effeminati molles 'effeminate soft ones'. Bædling glosses a third word from the Harley Glossary, cariar, which is difficult to interpret and possibly a reference to the Anatolian region of Caria. Caria is the location of the legendary spring Salmacis, with the supposed power of feminising and softening men. The putative reference to Anatolia in the glossary may also indicate a connection with eunuchs, who were commonly associated with the Byzantine Empire and the Orient more broadly. Like other glosses, the Cleopatra Glossaries (dating to the reign of Æthelstan, between 924 and 939) associate bædling with effeminacy and softness.
An Old English translation of the penitential handbook Paenitentiale Theodori makes a distinction between men and bædlings, describing "sex with other men" and "sex with bædlings" as separate (although equal) offences for men. It states that bædlings who have sex with other bædlings must atone for ten winters, describing them as "soft like an adulteress"; the Antwerp Glossary also associates bæddels with adultery, as noted above. The penitential also specifies that both adults and children can be bædlings, setting aside different lengths of atonement for bædlings of different ages. The historian Jacob Bell theorises that the reference to a sexual relationship between two bædlings may refer to pederasty.
|
wikipedia
|
Bæddel and bædling
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling
| 78,462,563 |
Definition
|
{
"word_count": 414,
"char_count": 2743,
"is_intro": false
}
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 359