Thorfinn the Mighty

Thorfinn Sigurdsson (1009?– 1065), also known as Thorfinn the Mighty, (Old Norse: "Þorfinnr inn riki") was an 11th-century Earl of Orkney. He was the youngest of five sons of Earl Sigurd Hlodvirsson and the only one resulting from Sigurd's marriage to a daughter of Malcolm II of Scotland. He ruled alone as earl for about a third of the time that he held the title and jointly with one or more of his brothers or with his nephew Rögnvald Brusason for the remainder. Thorfinn married Ingibiorg Finnsdottir, daughter of Finn Arnesson, Jarl of Halland.
The "Heimskringla" of Icelandic historian Snorri Sturluson, and the anonymous compiler of the "Orkneyinga Saga" wrote that Thorfinn was the most powerful of all the earls of Orkney and that he ruled substantial territories beyond the Northern Isles. A sizeable part of the latter saga's account concerns his wars with a "King of Scots" named Karl Hundason whose identity is uncertain. In his later years he went on a pilgrimage to Rome and he was instrumental in making Orkney and Shetland part of mainstream Christendom. On his death in the latter half of the 11th century he was followed as earl by his sons Paul and Erlend.
There are numerous problems associated with the chronology of Thorfinn's life and in identifying his relationships to the southern polities of the Kingdom of Alba (the precursor to modern Scotland) and the Kingdom of Moray. His diplomacy with the Norwegian court has also been interpreted in various ways. His life has been the subject of various works of historical fiction.
Sources.
The sources for Thorfinn's life are almost exclusively Norse sagas, which were written down long after the time of the events in his life they record. The main sources are "St Olaf's saga" and the more detailed "Orkneyinga Saga", which were first compiled in Iceland in the early 13th century. Much of the information the latter contains is "hard to corroborate" although it is a "generally credible" narrative in this context.
Background.
Thorfinn was the youngest of the five known sons of Earl Sigurd Hlodvirsson, but the only son of Sigurd's marriage to an unknown daughter of King Malcolm II (Máel Coluim mac Cináeda). His elder half-brothers Einar, Brusi and Sumarlidi survived to adulthood, while another brother called Hundi died young in Norway, a hostage at the court of King Olaf Trygvasson.
Earl Sigurd was killed at the Battle of Clontarf on 23 April 1014. Before setting out for Ireland, he had sent Thorfinn, then aged five, to be fostered by his maternal grandfather, the King of Scots. When the news of Sigurd's death came, Thorfinn's older half-brothers divided Orkney and Shetland between them. King Máel Coluim set Thorfinn up as ruler of Caithness and Sutherland with Scots advisors to rule for him. Earl Sigurd had also been a ruler of the "Suðreyar" but these holdings appear to have escaped the control of the earls of Orkney at the time of his death or shortly thereafter.
The "Orkneyinga Saga" provides this description of Thorfinn:He was unusually tall and strong, an ugly-looking man with a black head of hair, sharp features, a big nose and bushy eyebrows, a forceful man, greedy for fame and fortune. He did well in battle, for he was both a good tactician and full of courage.
Joint rule.
With Einar and Brusi.
Joint earldoms were a frequent feature of the Norse earldom of Orkney, although the "Orkneyinga saga" is less than explicit about how these shares were divided up geographically. Sumarlidi died in his bed not long after his father, most likely no later than 1018 and Einar took his share, ruling two-thirds of the earldom with the remaining third held by Brusi. Einar soon became unpopular, demanding heavy taxes and frequent military service from the farmers, and gaining little booty on his raids. He was, the saga says, "a great bully", whereas Brusi was "well liked by everyone".
The farmers of the isles opposition to Einar's rule were led by Thorkel Amundason and, in danger of his life, he fled to Thorfinn's court in Caithness. He became his foster-father, hence his by-name, "Thorkel Fosterer". After Sumarlidi's death the disposition of his third share in Orkney and Shetland became a matter of dispute when Thorfinn claimed it as his. While Brusi was willing to grant it to him, Einar, who was "ruthless and grasping, a hard and successful fighting man" and somewhat like Thorfinn in temperament was not. Einar and Thorfinn each began raising an army to settle matters by force, but Earl Brusi made peace between them by raising his own men to come between them and then persuading Einar to give Thorfinn what he asked for. It was also agreed that on the death of either Brusi or Einar, the surviving brother would inherit the other's share.
Thorfinn appointed Thorkel Fosterer as his tax-gatherer in the islands, but Einar had not forgotten their earlier dispute and Thorkel again left the islands in fear of his life, returning to Thorfinn's base in Caithness (probably at Duncansby). Thorkel then travelled to Norway with Thorfinn's support, to meet with King Olaf Haraldsson. He was well received there, for Olaf bore his own grudge against Einar for the killing of his comrade Eyvind Aurochs-Horn some years earlier. Olaf invited Thorfinn to Norway, and he too was welcomed to Olaf's court. Thorfinn and Thorkel returned to Orkney to find Einar raising an army against them. Brusi again made peace between them, and it was agreed that Einar and Thorkel would entertain one another to a feast.
In October 1020 Einar attended Thorkel's hall at Hlaupandanes in Deerness in a sour mood. On the last day of the feast Thorkel was supposed to travel with Einar for the reciprocal event, however his spies reported to him that ambushes had been prepared against him along his route. Thorkel therefore delayed his departure, leaving Einar to wait for his arrival by the fire in his great hall. Thorkel arrived by stealth, walked into the hall with one of his men and they killed Einar. Thorkel then escaped to Norway.
With Brusi.
The death of Einar did not end the dispute over Sumarlidi's third of the islands. Brusi considered that it belonged to him, as he and Einar had agreed when Thorfinn received a third of the islands. Thorfinn thought that the islands should be divided equally. However, Thorfinn could count on the assistance of his grandfather, King Malcolm, while Brusi had only the forces he could raise from his share of the islands, making any conflict a very unequal one. Brusi went to Norway to have King Olaf judge the dispute, and Thorfinn joined him there. Brusi surrendered the earldom to Olaf, who granted a third to each brother, and kept a third for himself. Thorfinn attempted to use his relationship with the King of Scots as a means to avoid acknowledging Olaf as his overlord in Orkney and Shetland, but Olaf threatened to appoint another to rule Thorfinn's share. Following Thorkel Fosterer's advice, Thorfinn agreed to Olaf's settlement. After Thorfinn left Norway, Olaf gave Brusi the disputed third to rule on his behalf, but kept Brusi's son Rognvald in Norway as a hostage. These events have been dated to 1021.
This arrangement lasted while Olaf was king but in 1030 he was overthrown by the Danish king Cnut the Great at the Battle of Stiklestad. After this Orkney was raided by Norwegians and Danes and Brusi agreed to give the King's third to Thorfinn in return for his seeing to the defence of the islands. This agreement lasted until Brusi's death, some time between 1030 and 1035. After that, Thorfinn was sole ruler of the Orkney earldom as a vassal of the King of Norway and as Earl of Caithness responsible to the King of Scots.
War with Karl Hundason.
The "Orkneyinga Saga" says that a dispute between Thorfinn and Karl Hundason began when the latter became "King of Scots" and claimed Caithness, his forces successfully moving north and basing themselves in Thurso. In the war which followed, Thorfinn defeated Karl in a sea-battle off Deerness at the east end of the Orkney Mainland. Then Karl's nephew Mutatan or Muddan, appointed to rule Caithness for him, was killed in Caithness by Thorkel Fosterer. Finally, a great battle at "Torfness" (probably Tarbat Ness on the south side of the Dornoch Firth) ended with Karl either being killed or forced to flee. Thorfinn, the saga says, then marched south through Scotland as far as Fife, burning and plundering as he passed.
Joint rule with Rognvald.
At some point around 1034 Thorfinn is said to have conquered the Hebrides and he is likely to have been a "de facto" ruler of the Kingdom of the Isles, in whole or in part until his death (although the assumption of Echmarcach mac Ragnaill as "King of Mann" from 1052–1061 may have encroached on his territories).
Thorfinn ruled alone in Orkney until the return of his nephew Rognvald Brusason in about 1037. Rognvald had received the favour of King Magnus "the Good" Olafsson, who granted him Brusi's share of the islands and the third which Olaf Haraldsson had claimed after Einar's death. Thorfinn agreed to this division, but presented the transfer of the third claimed by the Norwegian king as a gift to Rognvald in return for aid in Thorfinn's wars in the Hebrides and the Irish Sea.
King Sigtrygg Silkbeard had died c. 1036, and the kingship in Dublin had come to Echmarcach mac Ragnaill, who was challenged by Imar mac Arailt and driven out in 1038. This instability in Dublin can only have helped Thorfinn and Rognvald, who raided far and wide and established their rule over various lands around the Irish Sea. They are said to have won a major victory beside "Vatzfjorðr", perhaps Loch Vatten on the west coast of Skye, and to have raided in England, with mixed success.
In time, Thorfinn and Rognvald fell out. The vivid account of the war between Thorfinn and Rognvald in the "Orkneyinga Saga" which survives may well be only a part of a much longer saga now lost. Their enmity arose with the arrival of Kalf Arnesson and his followers in Orkney. Kalf was the uncle of Thorfinn's wife Ingibiorg and he had been instrumental in the death of King Olaf. He later left Norway to escape King Magnus Olafsson. Rognvald, with Kalf's brothers, had shared Magnus's exile in Kievan Rus under the protection of Prince Yaroslav the Wise and the saga says that when Kalf and Einar Belly-Shaker came to Ladoga to invite Magnus back to Norway, Rognvald had been on the brink of attacking Kalf until Einar explained the reason for their visit and that Kalf had repented for his part in overthrowing Olaf.
Thorfinn found hosting Kalf and his men a burden, and in time asked Rognvald to return the third of the earldom "which had once belonged to Einar Wry-Mouth". Rognvald refused, saying that it was for King Magnus to settle matters. Thorfinn began raising an army, and Rognvald's islanders were unwilling to fight Thorfinn, so Rognvald sailed to Norway where King Magnus supplied him with ships and men. He returned to the islands, facing Thorfinn and Kalf Arnesson in a sea battle which Arnór the skald commemorated in verse. The battle went Rognvald's way to begin with, but in the end he was defeated and forced again to seek refuge with King Magnus.
King Magnus offered to fit out another expedition for Rognvald, but he decided to take just one ship and a picked crew. He sailed to Shetland in winter and, learning that Thorfinn was staying on a farm on the Orkney Mainland with only a few men, he set out at once to attack him. Rognvald's men surprised Thorfinn, and set the farm ablaze. The saga says that Thorfinn had to break down a wall and escape, carrying his wife in his arms, flying south to Caithness for safety. Rognvald ruled in Kirkwall over the winter, believing Thorfinn dead, but in the spring, while staying on Papa Stronsay, Thorfinn and his men turned the tables, taking Rognvald by surprise, just as he had surprised Thorfinn. Rognvald escaped the house Thorfinn had surrounded, but was tracked down, given away by the barking of his lap dog, and killed by Thorkel Fosterer.
The "Orkneyinga Saga" offers this assessment of Rognvald: "Everyone agrees that of all the Earls of Orkney he was the most popular and gifted, and his death was mourned by many".
Pilgrimage.
Even with Rognvald dead, Thorfinn was not entirely secure. The saga recounts an attempt to make peace with Magnus Olafsson, who had sworn vengeance for the death of his men in Thorfinn's attack on Rognvald. Magnus was at war with the Danish king Sweyn Estridsson, and died before he could take any action. Magnus's uncle and successor, Harald Hardrada, was more friendly towards Thorfinn, and made peace, accepting Thorfinn's gifts.
Thorfinn had two sons, both by his wife Ingibiorg, and unlike a number of his predecessors he appears to have married only once. Furthermore, unlike his brothers, Thorfinn had been raised as a Christian. Among the signs of the changes in Orkney society was Thorfinn's pilgrimage to Rome, which took place after his meeting with King Harald, probably beginning in 1048. The saga says that he travelled through Saxony, meeting with Emperor Henry III on the journey. It is thought that he also met with Archbishop Adalbert of Hamburg-Bremen.
The "Orkneyinga saga" suggests that, as a result of Thorfinn's request, the first Bishop of Orkney was appointed at about this time. Named Thorulf, he may have been the same person as "Roolwer", Bishop of the Isles. The original seat of the bishops of Orkney was Thorfinn's new Christ Kirk at Birsay, (or perhaps the Brough of Birsay), near the Earl's palace where Thorfinn had his residence in his later years.
Death and legacy.
The "Orkneyinga saga" dates Thorfinn's death no more precisely than placing it "towards the end" of Harald Sigurdsson's reign, who died at the battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066. Thorfinn was buried at the Christ Church he himself had built. He is known to history as "Thorfinn the Mighty", and at his height of power, he controlled all of Orkney and Shetland, the Hebrides, Caithness and Sutherland, and his influence extended over much of the north of Scotland. The saga also makes a grander and more unlikely claim – that he controlled a total of seven earldoms in Scotland.
He was followed as earl by his sons Paul and Erlend and his widow Ingibiorg the "Earls' Mother" later married Malcolm Canmore, King of Scots. "St Olaf's saga" states that following Thorfinn's decease "many of the dominions that the earl had laid under himself were lost".
Interpretations.
There is clearly some doubt about the historicity of many of the claims in the "Orkneyinga saga". Just as the backdrop to the supposed great expedition to the west undertaken by King Harald Fairhair that led to the founding of the Orkney earldom was the mid-13th century Norwegian contest with the Kings of Scots over the Hebrides we can see parallels with later events that have been included as embellishments to the life of Thorfinn. The saga writer would have had access to Arnór jarlaskáld's "Þórfinnsdrápa" and whatever oral history was available in the early 13th century. There are also a number of parallels with the life of Harald Maddadsson and Woolf (2007) speculates that aspects of Thorfinn's story may have been included to legitimise the latter's adventures.
Descent.
The saga states that Thorfinn's grandfather was "King Malcolm of Scotland" and it is often assumed that this was Malcolm II. However, both the Irish annals for this period and the Norse sagas have a tendency to refer to a "king of Scots" when discussing a regional chief or mormaer. Woolf (2007) suggests that the reference may then be to Máel Coluim mac Máil Brigti a Pictish Mormaer of Moray or alternatively that, as elsewhere in Icelandic literature, "Melkólmr" was simply used as a generic name, in this case for Scottish royalty.
Chronology.
The chronology of Thorfinn's life is problematic, the dating of his assumption of the earldom being an example. The "Heimskringla" states that Thorfinn was 5 years old when his father Sigurd was killed at Clontarf, reliably dated to 1014. "When Thorfinn came of age he asked Earl Einar for a third of the islands" and it is clear from the text of the "Orkneyinga saga" that Einar, Brusi and Thorfinn were joint earls for a period. Muir (2005) states that Einar died in October 1020 but if Thorfinn was five years old in 1014 this would have made him only eleven by then. A rather earlier birthdate for Thorfinn is thus implied, with a coming of age c. 1016 at about the time of Sumarlidi's death. Similarly, Thorfinn is often stated as dying c. 1064, although Woolf (2007) states that "there is no reason why a date in the late 1050s is not just as credible."
"St Olaf's saga" states that Thorfinn "took the earldom when he was five winters old, and he ruled for more than sixty winters" although this implies a very late death date of 1074. One version of the "Icelandic Annals" has his rule lasting 52 years, providing the more commonly quoted year of death as c. 1065.
Ingibiorg.
Related to this are the actions of his widow. Historians offering a later date for Thorfinn's death have proposed that Malcolm Canmore married a postulated daughter of Thorfinn named Ingibiorg rather than his widow. If a date in the 1050s is presumed, then Malcolm could well have married Ingibigiorg as the saga suggests.
Duncan (2002) argued that Malcolm came to marry Thorfinn's widow because he spent some or all of the period of MacBeth's reign in Orkney or Caithness at Thorfinn's court. Thorfinn and Malcolm were both descendants of Malcolm II, daughter's son and daughter's grandson respectively, and both had good reason to be hostile to MacBeth and his Moray kinsmen. Malcolm Canmore became king of Scots c. 1058 and the "Orkneyinga Saga" records that he and Ingibiorg had a son, Duncan who was later king. There is some circumstantial evidence that Ingibiorg may have backed Malcolm's claim to the kingship which adds further weight to a slightly earlier death date for Thorfinn, although the evidence for her marriage to Malcolm is not entirely convincing.
Who was Karl Hundason.
The identity of Karl Hundason, unknown to Scots and Irish sources, has long been a matter of dispute. His existence rests solely on the "Orkneyinga saga", and more particularly on those elements of "Þórfinnsdrápa" which are preserved within it.
Robertson (1862) proposed that Hundason should be identified with Duncan I. Skene (1902) suggested that Karl (or Kali) Hundason should be identified with "Malcolm MacKenneth", a son of Kenneth III. Another candidate is MacBeth whose father may be called "jarl Hundi" in "Njál's saga". Woolf (2007) proposes that Hundason, rather that being some hitherto unknown Scots king, was the son of Thorfinn's brother Hundi. However, Thomson (2008) notes that both the "Orkneyinga saga" and "St Olaf's saga" suggest Hundi only lived "a short while" and was unlikely to have had a son himself. Anderson (1990) suggested that this is "a fabulous story" and concluded that "[n]o solution to the riddle seems to be justified".
Muir (2005) points out that a literal translation of "Karl Hundisson" is "peasant son-of-a-dog", an insult that would have been obvious to Norse-speakers hearing the saga and that "we can assume this wasn't his real name". The implication is that there is no purpose in seeking phonetic parallels with known Scots personages. Thomson points out that both "Karl" and Hundi" are names used in other contexts without disparaging intentions although the combination is otherwise unknown.
Thomson (2008) notes that the war with Hundasson seem to have taken place between 1029 and 1035 and that the "Annals of Ulster" record the violent death of Gillacomgain, brother of Máel Coluim mac Máil Brigti and Mormaer of Moray, in 1032. He too is thus a candidate for Thorfinn's Scots foe—and the manner of his death by fire bears comparison with Arnór's poetic description of the aftermath of the battle at Torfness.
Whoever Karl son of Hundi may have been, it appears that the saga is reporting a local conflict with a Scots ruler of Moray or Ross:[T]he whole narrative is consistent with the idea that the struggle of Thorfinn and Karl is a continuation of that which had been waged since the ninth century by the Orkney earls, notably Sigurd Rognvald's son, Ljot, and Sigurd the Stout, against the princes or "mormaers" of Moray, Sutherland, Ross, and Argyll, and that, in fine, Malcolm and Karl were "mormaers" of one of these four provinces.
It is therefore entirely possible that Thorfinn's campaign was not fought against the Scottish crown as such but that rather the Scots may have been his allies in a struggle they both had against the power of Moray. According to local tradition, a series of stone mounds on a hillside near Kirkhill, west of Inverness, marks the site of a battle between Thorfinn and 'Malcolm'. The location may have been close to the northern boundary of the medieval lordship of Moray at the time.
Christianity, morality and power.
The joint rulership of earls was a recurring theme in the period up to 1214 and was "inherently unstable and usually ended in violence". Thomson (2008) identifies these family feuds as being the main theme of the "Orkneyinga saga", culminating in the martyrdom of St Magnus c.1115, and that the saga writer regularly emphasises the doom of "kin-slaying". In this case the Sigurdsson brothers do not assassinate one another, but rather Thorkel Fosterer becomes an intermediary, killing both Einar "rangmunnr" and, at a later date, Rögnvald Brusasson on behalf of Thorfinn.
It is also clear that there is a moral element to the tale, with Brusi cast as the peacemaker who is father to the noble Rögnvald and who stands in contrast to his greedy half-brother. Notwithstanding these roles, Thorfinn's Christianity is emphasised in the saga materials. The Norse in the Northern Isles would have been strongly influenced by the neighbouring Christian countries and it is likely that marriages to individuals from such polities would have required baptism even before his time. Informal pagan practice was likely conducted throughout his earldom, but the weight of archaeological evidence suggests that Christian burial was widespread in Orkney even during the reign of Sigurd Hlodvirsson, Thorfinn's father.
Furthermore, Brusi has a relatively minor role to play compared to Thorfinn "the Mighty", whose conquests included expansion well into north mainland Scotland and whose rule may have marked the zenith of Scandinavian influence in Scotland. As there were only seven traditional Scottish earldoms in total, the sagas claim that he held this many seems to suggest that he was King of Scots. However, this may reflect either a royal pretension of Thorfinn's, or given that his conquests were in the north and west rather than in the lowland heartland of Scotland, that they are references to local chieftainships.
Although the saga suggests that the first Bishop of Orkney was installed towards the end of Thorfinn's time as earl, the first recorded bishop was Henry of Lund (also known as "the Fat") who was appointed sometime prior to 1035. He may have been more of a missionary bishop than a permanent resident in the islands, indeed there is no record of his ever having visited Orkney. The bishopric appears to have been under the authority of the Archbishops of York and of Hamburg-Bremen at different times during this early period.
Relations with Norway.
The role of the Norwegian crown is another recurring aspect of the saga. Crawford (1987) observes several sub-themes: "submission and of overlordship; the problem of dual allegiance and the threat of the earls looking to the kings of Scots as an alternative source of support; the Norwegian kings' use of hostages; and their general aim of attempting to turn the Orkney earls into royal officials bound to them by oaths of homage, and returning tribute to them on a regular basis." King Olaf was a "skilled practitioner" of divide and rule and the competing claims of Brusi and Thorfinn enabled him to take full advantage.
Thorfinn's journey in 1020 is the first occasion on which an earl of Orkney is known to have visited the royal court in Norway. The Icelandic annals have little to say about Orkney but under the year 1021 it is recorded that "Earl Thorfinn and earl Brusi, Sigurd's sons, gave the Orkneys into the power of King Olaf." Although the saga writer paints a vivid and plausible picture of the scene, this "merely tell us that the thirteenth-century saga writer knew his Orkney traditions and the recurring factors which did indeed come to the fore on occasions during the thirteenth century when the kings and earls fought or negotiated from their related positions of strength".
Although Thorfinn is clearly stated to be fighting in and around Fife Thomson (2008) suggests that his presence so far south may have been as an ally of his grandfather rather than at the head of an invading army. He adds that King Cnut was in Scotland c. 1031 receiving the submission of Malcolm II, MacBeth and a third king called "Iehmarc" and that the location of the meeting is stated as being in Fife in a verse by Sigvatr Þórðarson. Thomson therefore speculates that Thorfinn's visit to Fife may have involved an attempt by Cnut to avoid a threat to his position from Orkney and that this issue was one of the factors involved in the feud between Thorfinn and earl Rögnvald, who supported Cnut's rival Magnus Olafsson.
Finally, Thorfinn's death may have created a power vacuum and been a cause of the invasion of the Irish Sea region nominally led by King Harald "harðraði" 's young son Magnus Haraldsson dated to 1058.
In fiction etc..
The basis of Dorothy Dunnett's 1982 novel "King Hereafter" is a point made by W. F. Skene, who noted that the historical sources which mention Thorfinn do not refer to MacBeth, and vice versa. Pursuing this idea, Dunnett wrote the novel on the premise that MacBeth and Thorfinn were the same person (Thorfinn is his birth name and Macbeth his baptismal name).
In his historical novel "MacBeth the King" Nigel Tranter portrayed Thorfinn as a half-brother of Macbeth, with a common mother. It also seeks to tie together the pilgrimages made to Rome by both, as one and the same.
The MV "Earl Thorfinn" is a Ro-Ro vehicle ferry operated by Orkney Ferries on the northern route to Westray, Stronsay and neighbouring isles. It is identical to its sister ship MV "Earl Sigurd".


Parterre (theater audience)

The word parterre comes from the French "par" and "terre" and literally translated means "on the ground". Originally, the term was used in the 16th century to refer to a formal ornamental garden, but by the mid-17th century, it was increasingly used to refer both to the ground level of a theatre where spectators stood to watch performances and to the group of spectators who occupied that space.
Although the word "parterre" originated in France, historians use the term interchangeably with its English equivalent, "the pit", to designate the same part of the audience in England, present-day Italy, and Austria. While parterre audiences differed in social status, size, inclusion of women, and seating arrangements, they shared the characteristic of being noisy, often boisterous, interactive audiences.
Today, historians are divided over whether or not parterre audiences deliberately challenged political authority, what role they played in constructing public opinion, and whether they contributed to the formation of a public sphere in early modern Europe.
Audience.
It is impossible to categorize parterre audiences as belonging exclusively to one social class, but historians agree that cheaper parterre tickets drew a proportionately higher number of lower-level professionals and commercial labourers, such as artisans, students, journalists, and lawyers, to the pit. However, the occupation, wealth, sex, and social standing of parterre spectators differed depending on geographical location.
Historians studying theater audiences in France have traditionally identified the parterre as the exclusive domain of lower-class males, with the exception of female prostitutes. More recently, scholars such as Jeffrey Ravel argue that parterre audiences were more socially heterogeneous than previously believed. For one, spectators who sat in the more expensive loges (balcony boxes) were free to meander into the parterre as they wished, and it was fashionable for younger well-off men to stand in the parterre. As well, despite restrictions against women entering the parterre, cross-dressing was not uncommon.
England's parterre audiences differed from France because of the relatively high number of elites and "fashionable women" who socialized in the pit. Historian Jennifer Hall-Witt provides several possible explanations for the unique character of England's parterre. In English theaters some bench seats were available to parterre spectators, while theatergoers who could not find seats socialized in wide corridors known as fop-allies that ran down the sides and centre of the benches. Also in England, unlike in France or Austria, parterre tickets were not the cheapest; a galley ticket was less than the average half-guinea price of a parterre seat in a "London" theater. Ultimately, the pit in England was more socially respectable than elsewhere in Europe.
If separation between "nobles and commoners" in English or French theaters was informal, in Austrian theaters, the parterre formally differentiated between elites and non-elites. For instance; in 1748, Vienna's Kärntnertor theater partitioned a section of the standing parterre to create a second parterre behind the orchestra where only elites could sit.
Practices.
Parterre practices ranged from harmless gossiping to violent rioting. Talking, laughing, whistling, drunken brawls, and hissing, even dancing and singing was common behaviour. Prostitution was normal and individuals who ventured into the parterre could expect to be pick-pocketed, spied upon, and jostled about, in spite of the police or doormen who were charged with maintaining order. Yet, according to historian and musicologist James Johnson,
Few complained about the noise and bustle ... eighteenth-century audiences considered music little more than an agreeable ornament of a magnificent spectacle, in which they themselves played the principal part.
The antics of parterre audiences included mimicking performances, ogling at the women in the boxes, and making fun of people, as in one performance when "a few misfits in the parterre made sure the whole hall noticed one unlucky woman whose wig was taller than the door to her box." It is not surprising then, that for theatergoers the spectacle in the pit was the primary source of "endless amusement".
The parterre as critic.
Audience members in the parterre did not hesitate to approve, or censure, plays, performers, royal edicts, or offending individuals. For example, "it was in the parterre that Jean-Jacques Rousseau received "kicks in the rear: after his withering attack on French music". Responses could take less-intrusive forms of applause or booing, but the parterre was not always so kind. James Van Horn Melton writes that "audiences at London's Drury Lane Theater expressed their dissatisfaction by pelting the stage with oranges."
What influence did parterre audiences have? Though only informal critics, the size of the parterre, which ranged from around 500 to over 1000 spectators, meant their voice carried some weight with theater managers, whose commercial success depended partly on their patronage. On many occasions, for example, audience members from the parterre succeeded in forcing performers to switch programs mid-act, or repeat their favourite arias.
By the mid-18th century the word "parterre" acquired additional meaning as contemporaries increasingly identified the parterre as a "public judge", whose response to a performance could determine the success of a play or even the careers of actors, actresses, and playwrights. The wide range of 18th century sources defining the parterre as a judge, include personal letters, memoirs, and published periodicals, such as Joseph Addison and Richard Steele's "The Spectator" and "The Tatler", which circulated in London's Coffeehouses. Historians frequently quote portions from the French philosopher and playwright, Jean-François Marmontel's entry for "parterre", published in the 1776 supplement to Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d'Alembert's Encyclopédie, which declares, "the parterre is the best of all judges".
However, scholars caution against equating the parterre with "the public", especially since the latter term has changed meanings in the past two centuries. While parterre audiences were located at, or near, the bottom of the theater's social hierarchy, attending the theater was still an exclusive activity, limited mostly to the middle ranks of people and above. Thus, "the public" that was the parterre was distinct from "the people" who could not afford even the cheapest theater tickets.
Enforcing order.
In the late 17th century, royal authorities in England, France, and regions in present-day Italy published numerous edicts threatening to discipline unruly behaviour, from interrupting performances to wearing hats, that were distributed as pamphlets or read aloud in theaters. These edicts where directed at the parterre, and many theater managers, performers, music critics, and individuals from the loges applauded such efforts to enforce order in the parterre. Disciplinary measures varied, but police records from the 18th century tell of police banning disruptive individuals after fights, and punishing unacceptable behaviour, such as defecating in the parterre, as well as guarding against petty crime, such as theft.
Yet, parterre behaviour continued largely unchanged. In Rome and Parma, efforts to regulate start times were ineffective and ignored, especially by "the notorious minor abbots who littered the parterre. Even a request from a bishop in England to lower the curtain before the start of the Sabbath at midnight could not prevent the pit from rioting and trashing the theater when the stage manager attempted to comply. Whether the inability of all efforts to impose order in the parterre reflects poor policing capabilities, the declining authority of the monarchy, or the deliberate resistance of the parterre is undecided.
19th-century changes.
Between the late 18th and early 19th centuries there was a transformation in theater audiences from active participants to passive viewers, most noticeably in the parterre. While there is consensus among scholars that such a transformation occurred, how and why it occurred is highly contested.
Improved lighting and staging techniques.
Towards the end of the 18th century, theater designs and lighting technology improved dramatically. Previously, the theaters' lighting came from individual candles surrounding the stage, small chandeliers hanging from the boxes, or larger chandeliers that illuminated the whole theater. The smoke from the candles often surrounded the stage with a cloud of haze, leading one historian to remark, "spectators sometimes saw one another more clearly than the performers". New lighting systems, such as the innovation of gaslights in England, reduced smoke and the invention of a system of pulleys to manipulate chandeliers enabled stage managers to direct the theater's primary light-source, and thus the audiences' gaze, towards the stage.
Changes in theater design complemented the new lighting. Early 17th century theater-houses, which were often converted tennis courts, were not conducive to creating the illusion of a single vantage point on the stage. Instead, the boxes often faced each other and an audience member in the parterre would be equally comfortable looking into the loges.
While historians agree that technological changes affected the attentiveness of parterre audiences, they also agree that these innovations alone do not account for silent audiences.
Seating arrangements.
Historians specializing in the history of the parterre in France attribute the movement to install seats in playhouses with efforts to silence the unwieldy parterre. Seats were installed in the Comédie-Française in 1782 and in 1788 benches were installed in the Comédie-Italienne.
In 1777 Jean-François de La Harpe's proposal to install seats in the parterre sparked the debates between philosophes, playwrights, and officials about the desirability and motives behind seating the parterre. Marmontel insisted that plans to seat the parterre was really an imposition of the "aristocracy" on "theatrical democracy". The theater architect, Claude Nicolas Ledoux, saw the plans for seating in a more positive light, and wrote that "[T]he cabal will end, and we will judge authors more rationally once we have destroyed what is incorrectly called the enthusiasm of the parterre." Among those who favoured seating the parterre were stage managers and independent music critics, who linked the boisterous parterre to moral decline in the theatre and saw benches as a way to "tame" them. Regardless of whether individuals advocated for or against installing benches, what is consistent is the belief that seating would pacify the parterre. Other records indicate that the move was also prompted by the series of fires in theater-houses and the realization that packed parterre crowds were a possible fire hazard.
How silent was the seated parterre? Evidence shows that noise and disruptions continued throughout the first half of the 19th century. In England and in regions, such as Rome and Parma, partial seating had always been available for parterre audiences and did not guarantee calmer audiences. According to Martha Feldman, the theaters in Rome were "the wildest in Europe". However, for historians who identify the parterre as a site of public opinion, the debates over seating are significant because they provide evidence that disorder in the parterre was an act of disobedience against authorities and that the parterre was able to withstand attempts to pacify them and continued to act as arbiters of public opinion outside the realm of the monarchy.
New codes of polite behavior.
Another explanation for the transformation of parterre audiences by the end of the 18th century is that changes in elite culture and in their behavior at the theater was mirrored by the parterre and the growing "bourgeois" audience whose values, according to some historians, included "politeness and emotional self-restraint".
Changing prescriptions for appropriate theater behavior found in conduct books reflect such a shift. Where it was once fashionable to arrive late and not pay too much attention to the performances, the new culture of politeness emphasized the importance of silence and attentiveness. Hall-Witt argues that the shift in elite behavior in theatres was prompted by changes to the theater's subscription to the loges, which meant that box seats would be available to non-elites. As a result, the social hierarchy that was mirrored in the seating arrangements of the theater were blurred. By adhering to a new etiquette of politeness that valued silence and attentiveness, elites could replace old methods of differentiation based on seating, with 'superior' behavior.
Changes in music.
Scholars analyzing parterre audiences from a musicology perspective argue that changes in musical composition, illustrated by the works of composers such as Christoph Willibald Gluck and Ludwig van Beethoven, changed how spectators listened. James Johnson is foremost among the scholars who argue that new styles of music precipitated quieter audiences. In his work, "Listening in Paris: A Cultural History", Johnson argues that in pre-19th century theaters, listening was superficial. The transformation to "engaged listening, and by extension, from talkative to silent audiences", paralleled new theories of music that required more attentive listening.
Other scholars writing on the listening habits of audiences in the 18th and 19th century are critical of Johnson's approach. William Weber writes that current "ideological construct[s] of taste and proper listening dates ... from the early nineteenth century" and cautions that approaching the 18th century listening habits from this perspective undermines their musical culture. In Weber's view, socializing and talking did not exclude listening.
Historians' views on the parterre & the public sphere.
Jürgen Habermas's influential work "The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere" provides historians with the theoretical foundation for scholarship on the rise of a public sphere in Europe. For Habermas the public sphere constitutes a "realm of communication" that is open, egalitarian, rational, and critical and can be traced to the rise of the "bourgeois" in the 17th and 18th centuries. Significantly, for scholars interested in the history of the theater Habermas argues that the "realm of arts" served as training grounds for a critical public opinion, which later manifested itself in the realm of politics. Keith Baker's work, which builds on Habermas's model of the public sphere, provides historians of theater audiences with another useful framework. Baker's analysis of the 18th century rhetorical construction of "public opinion" as a tribunal and symbol of political culture is especially influential.
According to Jeffrey Ravel.
Jeffrey Ravel's recent work, which is a cultural history of "The Contested Parterre: Public Theatre and French Political Culture: 1680-1791", is the first scholarly study devoted to writing the history of the parterre. The significance of the parterre for Ravel is how it functioned as a critical segment of public opinion in an absolutist state, eventually becoming a symbol of political culture in France. Ravel writes that in France, public opinion had already emerged by the 1750s, decades before the date most historians associate with the emergence of public opinion. Ravel finds evidence of an emerging public opinion in the parterre audiences of the theater, which in his view was "one of the first forums in France where the subjects of the Bourbon Crown insisted on their place in French political culture".
Using 18th century police records, Ravel argues that disorderliness in the pit demonstrates the critical nature of parterre audiences, who were not merely responding to performances and the social activates around them, but were undermining the very authority of the court, who remained, at the same time, the patrons of France's "privileged" theaters, the Comédie-Française, Comédie-Italienne, and the" Paris Opera". In other words, "the public theatre ... did not reproduce the forms of political and cultural authority generated at Versailles."
As part of his analysis, Ravel examines representations of the parterre in literature, from the 17th to 18th centuries. Ravel demonstrates how writers constructed an image of the parterre as a legitimate public critic, endowing it with an authority equivalent to that of the king. By the end of 18th century, the parterre was synonymous with the nation. Thomas Kaiser summarized the effect of this process well when he wrote, "the evolution of arts and letters ... created an international tribunal of public judgement that it did not control."
According to Paul Friedland.
In 2002 Paul Friedland published his work "Political Actors: Representative Bodies and Theatricality in the Age of the French Revolution". Friedland disagrees with the "equation of the theatrical parterre with the nation" and with the way historians have "imbued" the parterre "with political culture". More than Ravel, Friedland is highly critical of Habermas and writes that for historians of the theater the implications of Habermas's model of the "public sphere" is "a reading of public opinion in the arts as if it were veiled political metaphor". "Theater", according to Friedland, "was not 'really' about politics any more than politics was 'really' about theater". What theater and politics did share was the "same underlying representative process".
18th century transformations in modes of political representation paralleled new theories of representation on the stage. Friedland writes that Antoine-François Riccoboni's "L'art du Theatre" marked the shift in theories of theatrical representation, from a system where the performers' "representation of a character necessarily entailed the actor's actual physical experience of the character's emotions", to a new system of representation where the actors performance was not 'true' but resembled what was true. In Friedland's words "... this new, artificial system depended, not on the actors' belief – or, as we tend to refer to it today, on the spectator's suspension of disbelief". At the same time, as modes of representation shifted in the world of theater, parallels emerged in the representation of the king. In an absolutist monarchy the king was the source of his own legitimacy, whereas under the new system of representation the king's legitimacy came from the critical judgement of the individual.
Thus, Friedland's examination of theater audiences and the political sphere does not see parterre audiences as the basis of political culture in France. Rather the "participatory" parterre audiences of the 18th century reflected a particular mode of representation, just as the possibility of shaping a modern silent spectator emerged with new conditions of theatergoing that were dictated by changes in theories of representation.


Naomi (given name)

Naomi or Noemi is a given name in various languages and cultures.
Hebrew.
Naomi (nah-o-mi) () is a feminine Jewish name of Hebrew origin. In Hebrew, it means "pleasantness" and was originally pronounced with the stress on the "a" (the "o" is a "hataf qamatz", marked with a "shva" to indicate that it is very short). In Judaism and Christianity, Naomi is Ruth's mother-in-law. Because Naomi appears in the Old Testament, this makes the name Naomi a Biblical name.
Japanese.
, pronounced is a Japanese name. Though it is a unisex name, it is primarily used by women. Naomi can be spelled using hiragana, katakana, kanji, or a combination of kana and kanji.
For example;


Music Channel Charts


Sigtrygg Silkbeard

Sigtrygg II Silkbeard Olafsson (also Sihtric, Sitric and Sitrick in Irish texts; or Sigtryg and Sigtryggr in Scandinavian texts) was a Hiberno-Norse king of Dublin (possibly AD 989–994; restored or began 995–1000; restored 1000 and abdicated 1036) of the Uí Ímair dynasty. He was caught up in the abortive Leinster revolt of 999–1000, after which he was forced to submit to the King of Munster, Brian Boru. His family also conducted a double marriage alliance with Boru, although he later realigned himself with the main leaders of the Leinster revolt of 1012–1014. He has a prominent role in the 12th-century Irish "Cogadh Gaedhil re Gallaibh" and the 13th century Icelandic "Njal's Saga", as the main Norse leader at the Battle of Clontarf in 1014.
Sigtrygg's long reign spanned 46 years, until his abdication in 1036. During that period, his armies saw action in four of the five Irish provinces of the time. In particular, he conducted a long series of raids into territories such as Meath, Wicklow, Ulster, and perhaps even the coast of Wales. He also came into conflict with rival Norse kings, especially in Cork and Waterford.
He went on pilgrimage to Rome in 1028 and is associated with the foundation of Christ Church Cathedral in Dublin. Although Dublin underwent several reversals of fortune during his reign, on the whole trade in the city flourished. He died in 1042.
Life.
Family.
Sigtrygg was of Norse and Irish ancestry. He was a son of Olaf Cuarán (also called Kváran), King of York and of Dublin, and Gormflaith ingen Murchada. Gormflaith was the daughter of the King of Leinster, Murchad mac Finn, and the sister of his successor, King Máel Mórda of Leinster. She had previously been married to the King of Meath and High King of Ireland, Máel Sechnaill — the first of her three husbands. She was a beautiful, powerful and intriguing Irish woman, who according to the 13th-century Icelandic "Njál's saga", was "the fairest of all women, and best gifted in everything that was not in her own power, but it was the talk of men that she did all things ill over which she had any power". Sigtrygg's paternal half-brother was Glúniairn, "Iron-knee", who ruled as King of Dublin from 980–989.
An incident involving the ransom of one of Sigtrygg's sons late in his reign, in which "seven score British horse" were mentioned in the list of demands, suggests that Dublin was one of the main ports for importing horses into 11th century Ireland, and that Sigtrygg and his family may have been personally involved in animal husbandry.
King of Dublin.
Sigtrygg may have succeeded his paternal half-brother Glúniairn as king of Dublin in 989, but it is just as likely his rival Ivar of Waterford came to power in the city then. The Irish annals record little information about Sigtrygg, his family or Dublin during these first five years of his reign. Benjamin Hudson claims this was because of the arrival of the future King of Norway, Olaf Tryggvason, who took up residence in Dublin for a few years after marrying Sigtrygg's sister Gytha. Tryggvason had met Gytha while raiding along the coasts of the Irish Sea. The presence of a powerful Viking leader in Dublin was a deterrent to Irish raids, and Trygvason may have weakened Sigtrygg's foes by plundering them.
Hudson argues that Tryggvason's return to Norway in 994 coincided with the temporary expulsion of Sigtrygg from Dublin by his rival Ivar of Waterford. Ivar may have already ruled there from 989 until forced out by Sigtrygg in 993. Much depends on the interpretation. Either way, Sigtrygg was back within a year. In 995, he and his nephew, Muirchertach Ua Congalaich, attacked the church at Donaghpatrick in County Meath. In retaliation, Máel Sechnaill entered Dublin and took the ring of Thor and the sword of Carlus. Sigtrygg then attacked Kells and Clonard in 997. In 998, Máel Sechnaill and the King of Munster, Brian Boru, forced Sigtrygg to recognise their lordship by giving hostages.
Sigtrygg realised that Dublin's wealth made him a target, and that his city needed powerful allies and walls. The Dublin countryside did not provide sufficient resources for competition against powerful Irish princes. Sigtrygg first allied with his maternal uncle, Máel Mórda mac Murchada, King of the Uí Fáeláin of north Leinster. In 999, they defeated their cousin the King of Leinster Donnchad mac Domhnaill, and imprisoned him in Dublin.
First Leinster revolt against Brian Boru.
Late in 999, the Leinstermen, historically hostile to domination by either the Uí Néill overkings or the king of Munster, allied themselves with the Norse of Dublin and revolted against Brian Boru. This provided the opportunity for Sigtrygg's second alliance with Máel Mórda mac Murchada. Brian's forces inflicted a crushing defeat on the united Leinster-Dublin army at the Battle of Glenmama, and followed the victory with an attack on the city of Dublin. The 12th-century "Cogadh Gaedhil re Gallaibh" gives two accounts of the occupation: Brian remained in Dublin from Christmas Day until Epiphany (6 January), or from Christmas Day until St. Brigid's Day (1 February). The later "Annals of Ulster" date the Battle of Glenmama to 30 December 999, while the "Annals of Inisfallen" date Brian's capture of the city to 1 January 1000. In any case, in 1000 Brian plundered the city, burned the Norse fortress and expelled Sigtrygg.
According to the "Cogadh Gaedhil re Gallaibh", Sigtrygg's flight from the city took him north, first to the Ulaid and then to Aéd of Cenél nEógain. Both tribes refused to help him. As Sigtrygg could find no refuge in Ireland, he eventually returned, submitted to Brian, gave hostages and was restored to Dublin three months after Brian ended his occupation in February. In the meantime, Sigtrygg may have temporarily "turned pirate" and been responsible for a raid on St David's in Wales.
Brian's daughter by his first wife was married to Sigtrygg, and Brian in turn took Sigtrygg's mother, the now three-times-married Gormflaith, as his second wife.
Years between the revolts.
Dublin enjoyed a sustained period of peace while Sigtrygg's men served in the armies of Brian. Sigtrygg never forgot the Ulaid's refusal of aid when he fled from Dublin, and in 1002 he had his revenge when his soldiers served in Brian's campaign against the Ulaid and ravaged their lands. His fleet raided Ulster, and he plundered Kilclief and Inis Cumhscraigh, taking many prisoners from both. They served under Brian against the Ulaid again in 1005, and against the Northern Uí Néill in 1006 and 1007. Cenél Conaill, the last of the Northern Uí Néill Kingdoms, submitted in 1011, and Brian was formally recognised as High King throughout Ireland.
A remembrance of Sigtrygg's reign during these years is preserved in the late medieval Icelandic "Saga of Gunnlaug Serpent's Tongue". Only fragments survive of the verses in the "Sigtryggsdrápa", a "drápa" composed by the skald Gunnlaug Illugason while visiting Sigtrygg's court. The verses praise Sigtrygg for his royal ancestry, and describe Dublin as a busy, thriving port. Archaeological excavations of ships, gold, clothing, and pieces for games from around this time seem to confirm the description. According to the prose, Sigtrygg considered rewarding the poet with ships and gold, but instead granted him a new suit of clothes.
Second Leinster revolt against Brian Boru.
Some time during the 1010s, Brian Boru divorced Queen Gormflaith, and she began to engineer opposition to the High King. Around 1012, relations between Brian and Leinster had become so strained that revolt broke out among the Leinstermen. Sigtrygg aligned himself with the forces of Máel Mórda, leader of the revolt, and the chiefs Ua Ruairc, Ua Néill, and others. Together, they defeated Brian's ally Máel Sechnaill near the town of Swords, and Brian for the moment was unable to render assistance.
Sigtrygg sent his son Oleif to lead a fleet south to Munster to burn the Viking settlement of Cork. The fleet also attacked Cape Clear, crippling Brian's naval power, which was concentrated in Cork.
According to "Njál's saga", Gormflaith "egged on her son Sigtrygg very much to kill King Brian", sending him to win the support of Earl Sigurd of Orkney, and Bróðir and Óspak of Man at any price. Sigtrygg arrived in Orkney for Sigurd's Yule feast, where he sat in a high seat between the two brothers-in-law, Earl Sigurd of Orkney and Earl Gilli of the Southern Isles. The saga also records that Sigtrygg was very interested in the Burning of Njáll Þorgeirsson at Bergþórshvoll and what had happened since. Afterwards, Sigtrygg bade Sigurd to go to war with him against Brian. Despite Sigurd's initial hesitance and against the advice of his men, he eventually agreed to arrive in Dublin by Palm Sunday with all his men, on the condition that if Brian was slain, Sigurd would marry Gormflaith and become King of Ireland.
Sigtrygg went next to Man, where he also persuaded Bróðir to be in Dublin by Palm Sunday, and he promised Bróðir too that, if successful, he would be allowed marry Gormflaith and become King of Ireland; the terms of this agreement were kept secret. Óspak was dissatisfied with the arrangement, and refused to "fight against so good a king".
The two forces met at the Battle of Clontarf, on Good Friday in 1014, a battle that claimed the lives of the main commanders on both sides: Brian and his son Murchad on the Munster side; and Máel Mórda, Sigurd and Bróðir on the Leinster-Norse side. According to Irish sources, Sigtrygg did not take part in the battle, but held his garrison in reserve in Dublin. The "Cogadh Gaedhil re Gallaibh" records that Sigtrygg was able to observe the progress of the battle and the movement of the battle standards from the ramparts of his fortress. As the modern Irish medievalist historian Donnchadh Ó Corráin notes, Sigtrygg "wisely kept within the city and lived to tell the tale".
Earlier Scandinavian sources (the "Orkneyinga saga", "Njál's saga" and the "Darraðarljóð", composed soon after the battle) contend that he did actually fight valiantly at Clontarf. The "Darraðarljóð", showing the persistence of paganism among the Vikings of Dublin, describes the Valkyries as following the "young king" Sigtrygg into battle. "Njal's Saga" records that Sigtrygg was on the wing opposite Óspak of Man for the whole battle, and that Óspak eventually put the king to flight.
Reign after Clontarf.
Immediately after Clontarf, Sigtrygg's fortunes appear to have declined, even though he emerged with his kingdom intact. Máel Sechnaill, now again recognised as high king, was undoubtedly the battle's main beneficiary. In 1015, plague struck Dublin and Leinster, and Máel Sechnaill seized the opportunity to march south to burn Dublin's suburbs. While Sigtrygg was able to ally with Leinster for another attack on Meath in 1017, the alliance was dissolved when Sigtrygg blinded his cousin Bróen, Máel Morda's son and heir, in Dublin.
In 1018, Sigtrygg plundered Kells; he "carried off innumerable spoils and prisoners, and slew many persons in the middle of the church". These captives would either have been ransomed or sold off into Dublin's lucrative slave trade. When Sigtrygg raided south in 1021, he was defeated at Delgany in County Wicklow where the new King of Leinster, Augaire mac Dúnlainge, "made a dreadful slaughter of the foreigners" in the Kingdom of Breifne. In 1022, the Dublin fleet sailed north against the Ulaid, only to be destroyed in a naval battle against Niall mac Eochaid, after which the Norse crews and ships were taken prisoner.
According to the American medievalist historian Benjamin Hudson, "matters went from bad to worse" for Sigtrygg after the death of Máel Sechnaill in 1022. The great Irish princes began to compete for the High Kingship, and the political situation in Ireland became chaotic as there was no clear choice for supremacy. Accordingly, "Dublin became a prize for those who would rule Ireland and wanted the town's wealth to finance their ambitions."
Hostages were taken from Sigtrygg by Flaithbertach Ua Néill, King of Cenél nEógain and the Uí Néill, and Donnchad mac Briain of Munster in 1025 and 1026 respectively, in support of their bids for the high kingship. These hostages brought no security, and Dublin was raided in 1026 by Niall mac Eocada of the Ulaid in revenge for the naval attack of 1022. Sigtrygg formed a new alliance with the men of Brega. In 1027, Sigtrygg's son Olaf joined Donnchad of Brega in a raid on Staholmock, County Meath. Sigtrygg and Donnchad's army was defeated by the men of Meath under their king, Roen Ua Mael Sechlainn. Sigtrygg rallied to the fight again at Lickblaw (near Castlepollard, Westmeath) where Donnchad and Roen were slain.
In 1029, Sigtrygg's son Olaf was taken prisoner by the new lord of Brega, Mathghamhain Ua Riagain. Sigtrygg was forced to pay a ransom of 1,200 cows, 140 British horses, 60 ounces of gold and of silver, "the sword of Carlus", the Irish hostages of Leinster and Leath Cuinn, "four hostages to Ua Riagain as a security for peace, and the full value of the life of the third hostage". An additional 80 cows "for word and supplication" were to be paid to the man who entreated for Olaf's release. The incident illustrates the importance of ransoming noble captives, as a means of political manipulation, increasing one's own revenues and exhausting the resources of one's foes.
Sigtrygg's fortunes improved in the 1030s. In 1030, he allied with the King of England, Cnut, and together their fleets raided Wales. A Dublin colony was established in Gwynedd, and for the following years Sigtrygg was at the height of his power. In 1032, without allies, Sigtrygg won a victory on the Boyne estuary of a type previously unseen by his dynasty for two decades, against a coalition of three kingdoms: over 300 members of the Conailli, the Ui Tortain, and the Ui Meith were captured or killed at the Battle of Inbher Boinne. In 1035, he plundered the celebrated stone church of Ardbraccan in Meath, burned 200 men inside, and carried another 200 off into captivity. (In revenge, the church at Swords was plundered and burned by Conchobhar Ua Maeleachlainn, who took away cattle and captives.)
Meanwhile, in a renewal of ancient feuds that same year, Sigtrygg executed Ragnall King of Waterford, in Dublin. Ragnall was the grandson of the Ivar, Sigtrygg's earliest rival, who had contested for Dublin decades before. Echmarcach mac Ragnaill, King of the Isles forced Sigtrygg to abdicate in 1036. Sigtrygg died in exile, at an unknown place, in 1042.
Issue and legacy.
Sigtrygg married Brian Boru's daughter, Sláine, and they had one son: Olaf (d. 1034). According to the "Annals of the Four Masters", Olaf "was slain by the Saxons" on his way on a pilgrimage to Rome. Olaf was survived by a daughter, Ragnhild, who was the mother of Gruffudd ap Cynan and from whom the Kings of Gwynedd were descended.
Separately from Sláine, Sigtrygg had five children: Artalach (d. 999), Oleif (d. 1013), Godfrey (d. 1036), Glúniairn (d. 1031) and Cellach (d. 1042). The annals record the death of Oleif—"son of the lord of the foreigners"—who was killed in revenge for the burning of Cork. Glúniairn was killed by the people of South Brega in 1031. Godfrey was killed in Wales in 1036 by one Sitric, "son of Glúniairn"—as factionalism was common among Viking settlers, this could have been the same Glúniairn as Sigtrygg's half-brother, thus making Godfrey and his killer cousins. Sigtrygg's daughter Cellach died in the same month as her father.
Sigtrygg was also, according to the "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography", "a patron of the arts, a benefactor of the church, and an economic innovator". In the 990s, he established Ireland's first mint, in Dublin. He established a bishopric at Dublin and in 1028 he made a pilgrimage to Rome. It is thus possible to attribute the origins of the establishment of territorial bishoprics in Ireland on the Roman model, one of the most important results of 11th-century Irish Church Reform, to Sigtrygg. He went on to found Christ Church Cathedral in Dublin, which today is the oldest building in Dublin, but relatively young in comparison to the many monastic cathedrals in the rest of Ireland. Like many of the other coastal cathedrals in Ireland, it is of Hiberno-Norse origin. The cathedral, initially a wooden building, was rebuilt in stone in the 1180s following the arrival of the Anglo-Normans to Ireland, led by Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke.


Nevatim

Nevatim () is a moshav in southern Israel. Located in the northern Negev desert around south-east of Beersheba, it falls under the jurisdiction of Bnei Shimon Regional Council. In it had a population of .
The nearest settlements are the Bedouin towns of Tel as-Sabi to the north and Shaqib al-Salam to the south. At a greater distance to the northeast lies Nevatim Israeli Air Force Base, named after the moshav.
History.
Nevatim was originally established in 1946 by Jewish olim from Hungary as one of the 11 points in the Negev, its name taken from the Tanakh. In the 1948 Arab–Israeli War the surrounding area, including the city of Beersheba, was briefly captured by the Egyptian Army.
The Egyptians besieged Nevatim, along with the neighboring village of Beit Eshel which was destroyed and subsequently abandoned. Nevatim managed to hold on throughout the siege, as the villages received air-dropped supplies and most Egyptian efforts were concentrated on continuing northwards.
Although both were dismantled after the war, Nevatim was re-established at a slightly different location in 1954 by Cochin Jews, who had immigrated from Kochi, India.
Economy.
About half of Nevatim's workers are employed in the village, primarily in agriculture, while the rest work in the nearby industrial areas of Beersheba, Dimona and Ramat Hovav. Local employment has gradually diversified, especially into the tourism and service, a move sustained by the moshav's guest houses and the Cochin heritage center.
The moshav's synagogue is a duplicate of one in Cochin, and incorporates some elements of the original building. It also houses a cultural center and museum about the Jews of Cochin. A restaurant serving Cochini food and pastries caters to tourists. The community also has a swimming pool and a mikvah.
In May 2017, an extension of the railway from Beersheba to Arad via Kuseife was approved. The line would connect to the existing Beersheba-Dimona rail line at a proposed new rail station at Nevatim.


The Honor of Rameriz

The Honor of Rameriz (often incorrectly referred to with the correct spelling of 'Ramirez': The Honor of Ramirez) is a 1921 American silent short Western film produced by Cyrus J. Williams and distributed by Pathé Exchange. It was directed by Robert North Bradbury and stars Tom Santschi, Bessie Love, and Ruth Stonehouse.
This short film was part of the "Santschi Series", which included the other short films "The Spirit of the Lake", "The Heart of Doreon", "Lorraine of the Timberlands", and "Mother o' Dreams", all of which starred Santschi.
The film is presumed lost.
Plot.
Near the Mexico–United States border, when a woman's (Love) gold is stolen by a thief (Hearn), the woman seeks help from Rameriz (Santschi). Rameriz's jealous wife (Stonehouse) and the woman's geologist husband (Morley) assume that the woman and Rameriz are having an affair. In the end, the gold is returned and the honor of Rameriz is restored.
Production.
Some outdoor scenes were filmed at Keen's Camp in Riverside County.


Hozyusz coat of arms

Hozyusz is a Polish coat of arms. It was used by several szlachta families.
Notable bearers.
Notable bearers of this coat of arms include:


Early Christian churches in Milan

Early Christian churches in Milan are the first churches built immediately after the Edict of Milan (Edictum Mediolanense) in February 313, issued by Constantine the Great and Licinius, which granted tolerance and religious liberty to Christianity within the Roman Empire.
Historical and artistic context.
Ever since the fall of the Severan dynasty, which ruled the Roman Empire between 193 and 235, rivals for the imperial throne had bid for support by either favouring or persecuting Christians. During the following period known as the crisis of the Third Century (AD 235–284) the Roman Empire nearly collapsed under the combined pressures of invasion, civil war, plague, and economic depression. The Crisis began with the assassination of Emperor Alexander Severus at the hands of his own troops, initiating a fifty-year period in which 20–25 claimants to the title of Emperor, mostly prominent Roman army generals, assumed imperial power over all or part of the Empire.
During the Civil wars of the Tetrarchy, starting in 306 AD with the usurpation of Maxentius and the defeat of Flavius Valerius Severus, and ending with the defeat of Licinius at the hands of Constantine I in 324 AD, Diocletian moved the capital of the Western Roman Empire from Rome to Mediolanum, the ancient Milan. Diocletian chose to reside at Nicomedia in the Eastern Empire, leaving his colleague Maximian at Mediolanum. Maximian built several gigantic monuments, the large circus (), the "thermae" or "Baths of Hercules", a large complex of imperial palaces, and other services and buildings of which fewer visible traces remain. Maximian increased the city area surrounded by a new, larger stone wall (about long) with many 24-sided towers.
An edict of toleration was issued by the emperor Galerius from Serdica and posted at Nicomedia on 30 April 311. By its provisions, the Christians, who had "followed such a caprice and had fallen into such a folly that they would not obey the institutes of antiquity", were granted an indulgence. Their confiscated property, however, was not restored until 313 when instructions were given for the Christians' meeting places and other properties were to be returned and compensation paid by the state to the current owners: The Christian community of Mediolanum is alleged to have contributed its share of martyrs during the Persecutions of the Church, but the first bishop of Mediolanum who has a firm historical presence is Mirocles, who was at the Council of Rome of 313.
It was from Mediolanum that the Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, granting tolerance to all religions within the Empire, thus paving the way for Christianity to become the dominant religion of the Empire. Constantine was in Mediolanum to celebrate the wedding of his sister to the Eastern Emperor, Licinius. The agreement between Constantine and Licinius directed the provincial magistrates to execute its orders at once and with all energy, so that public order may be restored and the continuance of the Divine favour may "preserve and prosper our successes together with the good of the state." It marked the beginning of profound and radical transformations; the encouragement of Christian worship led to the methodical destruction of Christian monuments invisible to the authorities.
Stones taken from the amphitheatre have been recognized in the foundations of the Basilica of San Lorenzo (; ), indicating the demolition of the large building () This use was justified because of the presence of waterways around the area where San Lorenzo was built, and because there was a scarce presence of large stones in Milan, being in a plain clay. Whether this fact, the positioning of the famous columns before the courtyard indicates that the building of the great cathedrals of the imperial era was also done at the expense of Roman buildings.
Constantinian churches.
The early Christian basilicas in Mediolanum can be divided into several categories, corresponding to their periods.
The first basilicas we know are divided into two separate churches, one for the baptized, being the sacrament of baptism at that time granted only upon completion of a process of conversion and spiritual purification, and the other for catechumens. This particular arrangement perhaps derived from horrea, a type of public warehouse used during the ancient Roman period, such as the ancient buildings of Aquileia. The Basilica di Santa Tecla (), whose ruins can be visited under the Milan Cathedral, has apse of traditional type, reminiscent of those of the churches annexed to great civic buildings.
A later stage corresponds to that of the great cathedrals of the late Roman Empire. They are formed by a polygonal shape and cross-stitch. These churches were the models adopted for some of the largest most famous basilicas of the late Roman Empire, such as those in Constantinople.
The religious center of the city, now Piazza del Duomo, included two cathedrals: the basilica vetus or basilica minor, used during the winter season, and basilica nova or basilica major, used during the summer. These churches are only partly known because the Milan Cathedral has been built over there.
Ambrose, a late 4th-century bishop of Mediolanum, dominated the life and development of the city during his episcopate. He was appointed bishop of on 7 December 374. One of the four original doctors of the Church, he is patron saint of Milan.
When Auxentius, the Arian Christian bishop of Mediolanum died, the sectarian violence in the city increased between the Nicene Christians and Arians. The new Nicene bishop Ambrose, who was also "consularis" (governor) of the conjoined Liguria-Aemilia provinces, arrived with soldiers from the Roman army to suppress the violence by force. According to Ambrose's "Sermon Against Auxentius" and his "76th Epistle" when the bishop was summoned to the court of the boy-emperor Valentinian II () and his Arian Christian mother Justina in 385, the Nicene Christians appeared en masse to support him, threatening the emperor's security and offering themselves to be martyred by the army. In March 386, the court asked that the city's summer-time cathedral, the Basilica Nova, be made available for the Arians for Easter; Ambrose refused. On Palm Sunday, Ambrose rejected the court's request to use the Portian Basilica instead, and the Nicene Christians occupied the building. On Holy Wednesday, the army surrounded the Portian Basilica, but Ambrose held a service at the wintertime Basilica Vetus, after which the Nicenes moved to rescue their co-religionists in the Portian Basilica, among them Augustine of Hippo and his mother, chanting Psalm 79.
Ambrosian churches.
With the Roman governor and bishop Ambrose began a program to build basilicas dedicated to various categories: a basilica for the prophets, one for the apostles (San Nazaro in Brolo), one for the martyrs (martyrium, which later housed his remains and became the Basilica of Sant'Ambrogio), one for the virgins (Basilica of San Simpliciano).
Other churches.
Other early Christian churches in Milan that preserve some of their Palaeo-Christian appearance are:


Order of the Dragon

The Order of the Dragon (, literally "Society of the Dragonists" and "Order of the Dragon" respectively) was a monarchical chivalric order only for selected higher aristocracy and monarchs, founded in 1408 by Sigismund of Luxembourg, who was then King of Hungary (r. 1387–1437) and later became Holy Roman Emperor (r. 1433–1437). It was fashioned after the military orders of the Crusades, requiring its initiates to defend the cross and fight the enemies of Christianity, particularly the Ottoman Empire.
The Order flourished during the first half of the 15th century, primarily in Germany and Italy. After Sigismund's death in 1437, its importance declined in Western Europe. However, after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, it continued to play a role in Hungary, Croatia, Albania, Serbia and Romania, which bore the brunt of the Ottoman incursions. The Prince of Wallachia Vlad II Dracul, the father of Vlad the Impaler, took his name from the Order of the Dragon.
Historical background.
Sigismund faced fierce struggles for power leading up to the foundation of the order in 1408. In 1387, the Bohemian royal son Sigismund of Luxembourg was elected King of Hungary and Croatia, a title which he owed chiefly to his marriage to Queen Mary of Hungary in 1385. During the next decade, he constantly sought support or employed ruthless methods to strengthen his unsteady hold on the throne. His rule was weakened in 1395 when Mary, who was pregnant, died in a horse riding accident. In 1389, the Ottoman Sultan Murad I fought Lazar, Prince of Serbia at the Battle of Kosovo Polje, in which both leaders died, leading to an uncertain outcome of the battle. Two years later, the Turks had taken the Bulgarian fortress of Nicopolis.
In 1396, Pope Boniface IX proclaimed a crusade against the Ottomans, and a campaign was organised to liberate Bulgaria from the Turks, save Constantinople, and put a halt to the Ottoman expansion. Sigismund was nominally in charge; however, in the 1396 Battle of Nicopolis the French leader, John of Nevers, commanded the French half of the forces and ignored Sigismund's entreaties by charging the Turks. About 12,000 crusaders died with only a few leaders, including Sigismund, escaping. Sigismund returned to Hungary in 1401 and, facing a number of revolts, gradually resumed control and re-asserted himself as the King of Hungary. This was achieved by allying himself with the political party of Stibor of Stiboricz, Nicholas II Garay, and Hermann II of Celje, in return for their military support, which enabled him to fight off domestic rivals. Sigismund campaigned against the Croatian nobility which culminated in 1408 with the Battle of Dobor in Usora. In the aftermath of this battle, and events unfolding in what is known as the Bloody Sabor of Križevci, 171 members of Bosnian nobility were also massacred. His pact with Hermann II was secured in 1408, when Sigismund married Herman II's daughter Barbara von Cilli (also called Cilli).
Foundation and purpose.
On December 12, 1408 Sigismund and his queen, Barbara von Cilli, founded the league known today as the Order of the Dragon. Its statutes, written in Latin, call it a society ("societas") whose members carry the "signum draconis" (see below), but assign no name to it. Contemporary records, however, refer to the order by a variety of similar if unofficial names, such as "Gesellschaft mit dem Drachen", "Divisa seu Societas Draconica", "Societas Draconica seu Draconistarum", and "Fraternitas Draconum". It was to some extent modelled after the earlier Hungarian monarchical order, the Order of St. George ("Societas militae Sancti Georgii"), founded by King Charles I of Hungary in 1318, the grandfather of Sigismund's first wife Mary. The order adopted St. George as its patron saint, whose legendary defeat of a dragon was used as a symbol for the military and religious ethos of the order.
The aim of the order was to fight the Ottoman Empire, defend the Hungarian monarchy from foreign and domestic enemies, and the Catholic Church from heretics and pagans. It also included foreigners (and non-Catholics), such as the Orthodox Serbian ruler Stefan Lazarević and the Wallachian rulers.
The primary representatives of "the perfidious Enemy" remained the Ottoman Turks, who continued to be a problem for Sigismund's successors. The Order's outward focus on foreign threats was also aimed at achieving a level of domestic cohesion. The statutes go on to describe the order's symbols of the "ouroboros" and the red cross, which were worn by its members and gave the order its corporate identity (see below). They also list the mutual obligations of the king and his nobles. The members were to swear loyalty to the king, queen, and their future sons and to protect the royal interests. Boulton argues that "the Society of the Dragon was clearly intended to serve [...] as the institutional embodiment of the royal faction its founder had created". In return for their services, the nobles could expect to enjoy royal protection, honors, and offices.
The creation of the order was an instance within a larger fashion of founding chivalric orders during the 14th and early 15th centuries, not infrequently dedicated to organizing "crusades", especially after the disaster of the Battle of Nicopolis (1396). Sigismund's order was particularly inspired from the Order of Saint George of 1326. Another influential model may have been the Sicilian Order of the Ship, founded in 1381.
The statute of the Order, which was expanded by Bishop Eberhard of Nagyvárad, chancellor of Sigismund's court, survives only in a copy made in 1707, which was published in an edition in 1841. The prologue to these statutes of 1408 reports that the society was created:
in company with the prelates, barons, and magnates of our kingdom, whom we invite to participate with us in this party, by reason of the sign and effigy of our pure inclination and intention to crush the pernicious deeds of the same perfidious Enemy, and of the followers of the ancient Dragon, and (as one would expect) of the pagan knights, schismatics, and other nations of the Orthodox faith, and those envious of the Cross of Christ, and of our kingdoms, and of his holy and saving religion of faith, under the banner of the triumphant Cross of Christ...
Symbol and other artifacts.
The edict of 1408 describes two insignia to be worn by members of the Order:
...we and the faithful barons and magnates of our kingdom shall bear and have, and do choose and agree to wear and bear, in the manner of society, the sign or effigy of the Dragon incurved into the form of a circle, its tail winding around its neck, divided through the middle of its back along its length from the top of its head right to the tip of its tail, with blood [forming] a red cross flowing out into the interior of the cleft by a white crack, untouched by blood, just as and in the same way that those who fight under the banner of the glorious martyr St George are accustomed to bear a red cross on a white field...
The dragon described here, with its tail coiled around its neck, bears comparison to the ouroboros. On the back of the dragon, from the base of the neck to the tail, is the Red Cross of Saint George, with the entire image on an "argent" field. The Order's dragon emblem has not survived in any original form, but it has been referenced on coins, art, and in writing. An embroidered badge from c.1430 is found at the Bavarian National Museum.
A University of Bucharest annotation to the original edict reads "O Quam Misericors est Deus, Pius et Justus" (O how merciful is God, faithful and just), which may have been officially part of the emblem. The various classes of the order had a slight variation of the dragon symbol. Common changes included the addition of inscriptions like "O Quam Misericors est Deus" ("Oh, how merciful is God") and "Justus et Paciens" ("Just and patient"). One of the highest classes may have worn a necklace with a seal, while a period painting of Oswald von Wolkenstein depicts another type of class variation.
Few historical artifacts of the Order now remain. A copy, dating to 1707, of the statutes of 1408 is the oldest known literary artifact of the society. Today, known materials are archived within the University of Budapest.
Membership.
Members of the order are referred to in the statutes as barons ("barones", occasionally "socii"). They were mostly Sigismund's political allies and supporters, who were at first largely confined to the political factions of Stefan Lazarević, Nicholas II Garai, and Hermann II of Celje, including such magnates as Stibor of Stiboricz and Pippo Spano. The initial group of inductees for Sigismund's Order numbered 21 men, which extended to about 24 in 1418.
After some time, Sigismund chose to expand the ranks of the Order. A second group of inductees was initiated between 1431 and 1437. As membership grew, the Order of the Dragon came to have two degrees. There was a superior class, which between 1408 and 1418 wore both the dragon and the cross as the Order's emblem and a more elaborate version afterwards. The second degree had a large number of members, and its symbol was only the dragon.
Following Sigismund's death in 1437, the Order lost prominence. However, the prestigious emblem of the Order was retained on the coat of arms of several Hungarian noble families, including Báthory, Bocskai, Bethlen, Szathmáry, Benyovszky, Kende and Rákóczi.
Founding members.
The 21 original members of the Order of the Dragon were enumerated in the 1408 founding charters. These were, in original order and Latin description:


List of Pennsylvania state historical markers in Forest County

This is a list of the Pennsylvania state historical markers in Forest County.
This is intended to be a complete list of the official state historical markers placed in Forest County, Pennsylvania by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC). The locations of the historical markers, as well as the latitude and longitude coordinates as provided by the PHMC's database, are included below when available. There are 11 historical markers located in Forest County.


Piphat

A piphat (, ) is a kind of ensemble in the classical music of Thailand, which features wind and percussion instruments. It is considered the primary form of ensemble for the interpretation of the most sacred and "high-class" compositions of the Thai classical repertoire, including the Buddhist invocation entitled "sathukan" () as well as the suites called "phleng rueang". It is also used to accompany traditional Thai theatrical and dance forms including "khon" () (masked dance-drama), "lakhon" (classical dance), and shadow puppet theater.
Piphat in the earlier time was called phinphat. It is analogous to its Cambodian musical ensemble of pinpeat and Laotian ensemble of pinphat.
Types of "piphat".
The smallest "piphat", called "piphat khrueang ha", is composed of six instruments: "pi nai" (oboe); "ranat ek" (xylophone); "khong wong yai" (gong circle); "taphon" or other Thai drums; "glong thad", a set of two large barrel drums beaten with sticks; and "ching" (small cymbals). Often other small percussion instruments such as "krap" or "chap" are used.
A slightly larger "piphat" ensemble is called "piphat khrueang khu", and consists of eight musical instruments. The other two instruments are the "ranat thum" (xylophone), which produces a deeper sound than the "ranat ek", and "khong wong lek", a gong circle that is higher in pitch than the "khong wong yai".
The largest form of "piphat" ensemble is the "piphat khrueang yai", which consists of ten musical instruments. Another ones are "ranat ek lek" and "ranat thum lek"; these are almost the same as their ancestors, the "ranat ek" and "ranat thum", but they have keys made from metal instead of wood.
Piphat khrueang ha.
"Wong piphat khrueang ha" (, ) is an ensemble consisting of:
Piphat khrueang khu.
"Wong piphat khrueang khu" (, ) is developed from "piphat khrueang ha", by arranging instruments in pairs of treble-bass. It consists of:
Piphat khrueang yai.
"Wong piphat khrueang yai" (, ) is arranged by adding "ranat ek lek" (ระนาดเอกเหล็ก; treble metallophone) and "ranat thum lek" (ระนาดทุ้มเหล็ก; bass metallophone) to the "wong piphat khrueang khu".
Piphat nang hong.
"Wong piphat nang hong" (, ) is an ensemble used in funerals. It is arranged by replacing the "pi nai" and "pi nok" with a "pi chawa". The name "nang hong" comes from name of its main music, which is intended for funeral ceremonies. A royal variant, "Wong piphat nang hong khruang yai" (for the King) or "Wong piphat nang hong khrueang khu" (for senior members of the Royal Family), introduced during the reign of King Vajiravudh (Rama VI) for use in royal funerals of the Chakri Dynasty, was reinstated during the reign of King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX) in 1995, during the state funeral rites for Srinagarindra, the Princess Mother, upon the initiative of Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, the Princess Royal, after years of absence. If playing for the king, the royal funeral ensemble has 10 to 12 instruments played, a few more than the simple ensemble, for senior members 8 to 9 instruments are used.
In some funerals in Thailand the "nang hong" variant ensemble is supplemented by Western instruments like trumpets, saxophones, clarinets and even a drum kit, guitars and an electric piano. Some of these have also appeared in the normal ensembles.
Piphat duek dam ban.
"Wong piphat duek dam ban" (, , literally "ancient ensemble") was proposed by Prince Naris for using in Thai opera. It consists of:
Piphat mon.
The "piphat mon" is believed to derive from the Mon people, an ancient Mon-Khmer-speaking people of mainland Southeast Asia, and uses special instruments such as an upright gong circle called "khong mon". "Wong piphat mon" (, ) has three sizes:
Piphat mon khrueang ha.
"Wong piphat mon khrueang ha" (, ) consists of:
Piphat mon khrueang khu.
"Wong piphat mon khrueang khu" (, ) is arranged by adding "ranat thum" and "khong mon wong lek" to the "piphat mon khrueang ha".
Piphat mon khrueang yai.
"Wong piphat mon khrueang yai" (, ) is arranged by adding "ranat ek lek" and "ranat thum lek" to the "piphat mon khrueang khu".
The "piphat mon" ensemble is usually used in funerals, but it can be used for other events as well.
The "piphat" ensemble can be mixed with the "khrueang sai" ensemble to create a new ensemble called "khrueang sai prasom piphat" (เครื่องสายประสมปี่พาทย์ or เครื่องสายผสมปี่พาทย์).
Similar ensembles.
The Cambodian equivalent of the "piphat" is called "pinpeat". The Myanmar equivalent to "piphat" is known as "hsaing waing". The instrumentation is very similar to the Piphat Mon, which indicates a common origin.
Gong-chime ensembles are also found in other Southeast Asian nations, such as Gamelan in Indonesia, and Kulintang in the Philippines.
Gong-chime ensembles can also be found in Vietnam, although they're no longer played among the ethnic Viet, they're still played among the indigenous peoples in the Space of gong culture, as well as among the Muong people and the Thổ people.


List of New York State Historic Markers in Delaware County, New York

This is an incomplete list of New York State Historic Markers in Delaware County, New York. A fuller list is available from the Association of Public Historians of New York State.


William Peyton

General Sir William Eliot Peyton, (7 May 1866 – 14 November 1931) was a British Army officer who served as Military Secretary to the British Expeditionary Force from 1916 to 1918. He was also Delhi Herald of Arms Extraordinary at the time of the Delhi Durbar of 1911.
Early life.
The third son of Colonel John Peyton, commanding officer of the 7th Dragoon Guards, Peyton was educated at Brighton College.
Army career.
In 1885, Peyton enlisted in the ranks in the 7th Dragoon Guards, a regiment that his father had commanded between 1871 and 1876. The explanation of this was his failure to pass the entrance examination of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst. Having risen to sergeant, Peyton was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the 7th Dragoon Guards on 18 June 1887, and promoted lieutenant in 1890. He was appointed regimental adjutant in 1892. In 1896 he transferred to the 15th Hussars and was promoted captain.
He was seconded to the Egyptian Army and saw service with the Dongola Expeditionary Force in 1896, and was Mentioned in Despatches, then in the Sudan in 1897 and 1898, where he was dangerously wounded and his horse killed under him by a spear. In the Sudan he was again Mentioned in Despatches, and received the Distinguished Service Order. He was also awarded the Order of the Medjidieh, Fourth Class.
Peyton fought next in South Africa, 1899–1900, where he served with Alexander Thorneycroft's Mounted Infantry, was promoted major and brevet lieutenant colonel, again Mentioned in Despatches, and received the Queen's South Africa Medal with three clasps, but his service was cut short by illness and he was invalided back to England. He passed the Army's Staff College in December 1901.
From 1903 until 1907 Peyton commanded the 15th Hussars, being granted the brevet rank of colonel in 1905. In 1907 he went to India to become Assistant Quartermaster-General, India, and, as a temporary brigadier general, to command the Meerut Cavalry Brigade from 1908 to 1912. In India, he served as Delhi Herald of Arms Extraordinary at the Coronation Durbar held on 12 December 1911, and was made a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, and from July 1912 was Military Secretary to the Commander-in-Chief, India.
Peyton returned to England in 1914 on the outbreak of the First World War and took up a new post as chief of staff of the 1st Mounted Division Territorial Force (TF). Promoted to major general in 1914 (first as temporary promotion, from October as substantive rank), he commanded the 2nd Mounted Division TF on the Gallipoli Peninsula, seeing action on 21 August 1915 and taking part in the final evacuation of 19 December 1915. The division suffered severe casualties at Suvla. Peyton then commanded the Western Frontier Force in Egypt in 1916, leading an expedition against the Senussi and re-occupying Sidi Barrani and Sollum, again being Mentioned in Despatches. For rescuing the shipwrecked British prisoners of from Bir Hakkim (by a force of armoured cars led by Hugh Grosvenor, 2nd Duke of Westminster) he received the special thanks of the Admiralty and was again Mentioned in Despatches.
In May 1916, after success as a combat commander, Peyton was transferred to become Sir Douglas Haig's Military Secretary in Flanders, remaining with Haig until March 1918. The post was at the heart of the operation of the management of appointments, promotions, removals, honours and awards of the British Expeditionary Force. In December of the year he was granted the colonelcy of the 15th The King's Hussars, holding the position until their merger with the 19th Hussars in 1922 and thereafter the colonelcy of the combined 15th/19th Hussars until his death.
Peyton was knighted in 1917, being made a Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order when King George V visited the troops in the field.
In April and May 1918, Peyton nominally commanded the Reserve Army. Fifth Army had been defeated on the Somme in March 1918 and taken over by the Fourth Army, and the former Fifth Army staff formed a reserve HQ at Crécy-en-Ponthieu. On 23 May, the Fifth Army was reconstituted and given to Sir William Birdwood, and for six weeks (as a temporary lieutenant general) Peyton took command of X Corps, though his Corps was held back from the fighting. However, from 3 July 1918 until March 1919 he returned to active service as commander of the 40th Infantry Division during operations in France and Flanders, leading it through the Hundred Days advance through Flanders.
Peyton's feelings about his postings between May 1916 and July 1918 were expressed silently by his omitting any mention of them from his entry in "Who's Who".
Peyton next returned to India, to command the United Province district and the 3rd Indian Division at Meerut between 1920 and 1922. He was promoted substantive lieutenant general in 1921.
Peyton was next posted as Military Secretary to the Secretary of State for War, from 1922 to 1926 and as Commander-in-Chief of Scottish Command, 1926 to 1930. This was his last post before retirement in 1930; he had been promoted general in 1927.
A member of the Army and Navy Club, he died there suddenly on 14 November 1931. He is buried in Brompton Cemetery, London just to the north-west of the chapel.
He was unusually tall, with a height of six feet, six inches.
Family.
On 27 April 1889, Peyton married Mabel Maria, daughter of late Lt-General the Hon. E. T. Gage CB, third son of Henry Gage, 4th Viscount Gage, and of Ella Henrietta Maxse, a granddaughter of the 5th Earl of Berkeley. With Mabel, he had one daughter, Ela Violet Ethel. After his wife's death in 1901, Peyton remarried in 1903 with Gertrude, daughter of Major-General A. R. Lempriere and the widow of Captain Stuart Robertson of the 14th Hussars. They had one son and his second wife died in 1916.
In 1921, Peyton's daughter Ela married Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Edward Daymonde Stevenson KCVO (1895–1958) and she died in 1976, leaving one son. Peyton's son-in-law was Gentleman Usher of the Green Rod, 1953–1958, and Purse Bearer to the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1930–1958.
Freemasonry.
He was Initiated in Lodge Logonier, No.2436, (England) and was made an Honorary Member of Lodge Holyrood House (St. Luke's), No.44, (Edinburgh) on 24 March 1923. He was the Grand Sword-bearer of the Grand Lodge of Scotland 1927–1928.


Enright

Enright is a family name, possibly derived from the Irish "Innreachtaigh", "Irraghty", or "indrecht".
People whose family name is or was Enright include: