Charter Of Liberties Research Articles

Абсурдизация действительности в сатирической пьесе Увидеть Солсбери Виктора Шендеровича

In 2018, the story of the unsuccessful poisoning of the Skripals by Russian special services shocked the world, and the further appearance of “Petrov” and “Boshirov” in an interview with Margarita Simonyan with completely implausible explanations led to the emergence of many memes and humorous works. The satirical play by Viktor Shenderovich To see Salisbury (2019) can be considered as one of the most significant reactions created by Russian-speaking society to the lies of the state. It is successfully performed abroad and, of course, has no chance of being staged in Russia. The author asks the question: what if everything that Petrov and Boshirov told in a scripted interview on the air of on Russia Today is true, and they are not unsuccessful spies, but a couple of gay lovers who are interested in Gothic cathedrals and the Charter of Liberties? Reflections on their own blurry unstable identity led the characters to an existential crisis in the spirit of the Theatre of the Absurd. This paper analyses how the absurdity of reality in the play serves to create a comic effect. Shenderovich grounds his satire based on direct citation of the precedent text of the interview, known a priori to every Russian-speaking recipient, on the intertexts of the Russian linguistic culture, fills the gaps of perception with paradoxes, and answers the questions asked by the audience after the RT broadcast (Why do the passport numbers differ by one digit? Why do the characters know Simonyan’s personal phone number? etc.).

Gendered innovations in orthopaedic science: From access to zygote: a gender and orthopaedics lexicon.

Gendered innovations in orthopaedic science: From access to zygote: a gender and orthopaedics lexicon.

The Treaty of Northampton (1290): A Scottish Charter of Liberties?

Although little detailed consideration has been given to the Treaty of Northampton of 1290 by Scottish historians, it seems to have been implicitly accepted as the sort of treaty which might have been expected in connection with the marriage of two independent rulers at that time. This is in spite of the fact that throughout the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth centuries the traditional practice of the rulers of the Angevin and Plantagenet dominions was to rule each constituent part according to its own law and customs. This article examines the reasons why the Scots were not prepared to rely on tradition but insisted on a written promise from Edward I that Scotland would remain independent of England. It also suggests that the treaty is more than a written expression of traditional practice. It has a number of specific clauses which, it is argued, give the treaty the character of a charter of liberties. These were intended to prevent the imposition on the Scots of particular aspects of Plantagenet rule in England which burdened its subjects much more severely than the rule of Scottish kings had burdened the Scots. The Scots' wish to remain independent after the proposed union of the crowns and their struggle to maintain that independence after the death of the Maid are generally seen as manifestations of a sense of community or regnal solidarity. The terms of the Treaty of 1290 suggest that it was not just from a desire to be a separate political entity per se that the Scots fought during the so-called Wars of Independence but also because the Scots were anxious to avoid the more oppressive aspects of Plantagenet rule even before they had experience of this after Edward I's conquest of 1296.

London's first charter of liberties: is it genuine?

As the earliest major document bearing on the history of English urban liberties, Henry I's charter for London has been the subject of much scholarly study over past generations. Its genuineness remained unquestioned until 1973, when Christopher Brooke, Gillian Keir, and Susan Reynolds, in a closely reasoned article, concluded that it was probably a forgery from Stephen's reign or a genuine charter of Stephen's misattributed to Henry I. As a result of their investigation, the subsequent literature on medieval English urban history expresses serious doubt that the charter was issued by Henry I. In the present article it is argued that the charter is almost certainly genuine. An examination of the manuscript tradition, protocol, witness list, and historical context leads to the conclusion that the charter was a product of Henry I's chancery and was probably issued in the summer of 1133.

Is the Intellectual Life an End in Itself?

AtAbout the time I received my first faculty assignment at Swarthmore College, an obituary notice of an old and admired professor made a deep impression on me. The subject was L. T. Hobhouse, the distinguished English sociologist and lifelong liberal. He had been one of the intellectual pillars upon which the Webbs and a few others had constructed the London School of Economics. I did not know Hobhouse well. But his obituary notice was written by a man I much admired, who was in a way my intellectual father: R. H. Tawney. You perhaps know him as the author of Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, but he was much better known then as a moral force in the British Labour party. To some of its members Tawney's Acquisitive Society, first published in 1921, seemed to offer a fresh charter of liberty, giving a kind of spiritual sanction, missing in Marxian philosophy, to the struggle to overcome misery and poverty with the help of political action.

Religion and Society in the Early Literature: The Religious Impulse in the Founding of Virginia

N January, i6i9, Virginia Company dispatched Sir George Yeardley to govern its hitherto not very successful colony, and armed him with a set of instructions. Accordingly, he summoned first meeting of House of Burgesses at Jamestown on July 30. Posterity has elevated these instructions into a charter of liberty no less momentous than Magna Charta, and has idealized Burgesses, cloaked and plumed, swords at their sides, seated in the Quire of Church, into forerunners of Patrick Henry. classic statement is Alexander Brown's, which even to repeat is to feel its thrill of conviction: The seedling, he said, after being fostered at home by advanced statemen, grew on this soil into political system of new nation, until our forefathers could rest under its shade, and under its expanding branches sons of cavaliers learned to defend liberties of subject from encroachments of crown. At moment Sir George set sail, a faction within Company, led by Sir Edwin Sandys, was wresting control from group that had ruled since beginning under Sir Thomas Smith. Therefore it seemed evident to Brown and to nineteenth-century narrators that Sandys was advanced statesman who issued instructions. creation of first local representative body was for a long time ascribed to him, and ultimate achievement of American independence has even been termed, with an irresistible, dramatic flourish, fulfillment of the dream of Sir Edwin Sandys.' During hectic life of Company, especially from i609 to i6i6, and again after Sandys took over, i6i9 to i622, interest of Englishmen in Virginia was expressed in, and excited by, a flood of publications, some from promoters in London, some by more infatuated settlers themselves. There were poems, broadsides, sermons, letters, reports, even

The Borough Business of a Suffolk Town (Orford), 1559–1660

Orford is an East Anglian town or village, not widely known, and apt to be confounded in the post with famous Oxford unless one complies with official instructions and adds Woodbridge, Suffolk, to the address on the envelope. In this present century there are two opinions possible with regard to it according to one's temperament and circumstances: it may appear to be either a derelict town fallen on evil days, to be left at the first opportunity, or a delightfully quaint, old, picturesque village, remote from the multitude, abode of peace and quiet, peace and quiet now not even periodically broken, as once it was, by the shrill noises of weekly market and occasional fair. Its history, authenticated by monument in stone—in church, castle and house; and by muniment in parchment,—in charter, actbook and deed,—goes back beyond the ancient legal line “when the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.” Even before that, in the 12th century, it was an established port, with considerable trade, as proved by the amount of customs-duties collected. Historically, its first charter of liberties and privileges was granted by King Henry III, which was confirmed by succeeding kings from reign to reign.

The Library World Volume 23 Issue 1

In sending forth the first number of a new volume of the Library World it is natural that we should desire to review the happenings of the year that has closed, and our own relation to them. We curb our desire, partly for lack of the necessary space, and partly because we wish to give attention to other matters. It is not superfluous, however, to repeat that 1919–20 will stand out in the history of libraries as no other year since 1850. We have gained what the Honorary Secretary of the Library Association has rightly called “our charter of liberty”; we are now breathing an atmosphere which is not bounded by the walls of a penny rate limitation; and our future is, relatively speaking, infinite. Liberty, nevertheless, has its own problems.

Free Speech and the Espionage Act

Whoever wilfully utters, prints, writes or publishes disloyal, profane, abusive or scurrilous language about our government, constitution, military forces or their uniforms or flags, or language intended to incite or encourage resistance to the United States or promote the cause of its enemies or advocates or defends any of the above acts is denounced by the amended Espionage Act. In view of the constitutional privilege of free speech, what shall be considered disloyal, what abusive, what promotive of the cause of the enemy? Are the acts and policies of Congress no longer subject to criticism? Is the conduct of the dominant political party above censure? If so, there are many men who say that the coercive control of opinion asserted by the Espionage Act is opposed to our charter of liberty. The protests of the outraged exponents of syndicalism rise even now from the streets, the courts and the internment camps. The tears of Rose Pastor Stokes mingle with the curses of the I. W. W., and find concord in the resigned resistance of Eugene V. Debs. Each a partisan of a different revolutionary doctrine, each has found his doctrine opposed to the ruling influence of the American spirit, and all believe that their constitutional liberties have been outraged because that spirit refuses them utterance of their heresies. Although it is but fair to grant these misguided propagandists acquittal of wanton intention to attack the cause of their countrymen, in the day of public danger, it is yet obvious that they are bearing the kaiser gifts for which, did they demand the price, he would pay a largess. And so, without much need as to them for submitting the act to the test of constitutionality, we turn material of this kind into the jails. Another variety of the zealots for free speech, however, present the act in another aspect. This consists of loyalists of independent mind. Obviously such men are not indifferent to the country's welfare. Obviously their activities are actuated by their enthusiasm for its best interest, and they speak, at least by intention, solely to that

The Abolition of Slavery in the Chinese Empire

The recent Imperial rescript of the Chinese Government abolishing slavery within the empire is a document of unusual interest,1 and adds one more to the many evidences that have been given lately of great changes going on among this ancient people. The farreaching effects of this reform can hardly be estimated at present, but the proclamation of emancipation which is to be posted far and wide throughout the empire will be a charter of liberty to myriads of the down-trodden and oppressed, and will mark for them the upward turning of the way toward freedom and enlightenment.

The Character and Antecedents of the Charter of Liberties of Henry I

The Character and Antecedents of the Charter of Liberties of Henry I

The Text of Henry I.'s Coronation Charter

The historical importance of Henry I.'s charter of liberties has been fully recognised by the leading writers of our time. Shortly quoted and confirmed by Stephen and Henry II. in their charters of liberties, it was called Magna Carta in the beginning of the thirteenth century, if not earlier; its influence on the constitutional struggle under King John has been often pointed out from the St. Albans chroniclers. Messrs. Round and Hall but lately showed its remarkable use in a French document of the same age. No apology, therefore, is needed, if herewith a first attempt is ventured to ascertain its authentic words from 28 texts. It has to be reconstructed, as none of the more than thirty originals once existing is preserved to us. Many former editors have, indeed, picked up in their notes one or other of the numberless variations between the manuscripts, but they have not tried to distinguish scribes' errors, intentional alterations, forging tendencies, and the differences resulting from the fact that several exemplars of equal authenticity went out from Westminster on or shortly after that fifth of August 1100, when Henry was crowned.

V.—The First Charter of Liberties given by Penn to Pennsylvania, described in a Letter from Richard Almack, Esq., F.S.A., to Augustus Wollaston Franks, Esq., formerly Director S.A., with Remarks by Henry Salusbury Milman, Esq., Director S.A.

At this period the system of government of the United States is exciting universal attention.I am the owner of the original Charter which founds the liberties of Pennsylvania.It is on two skins of parchment, dated 25th April, 1682.If you think it worthy of the attention of the Society of Antiquaries, I beg to produce it for their inspection.