“I am most serious. Figure to yourself, my friend, that the real rent of those flats is £350. I have just ascertained that from the landlord’s agents. And yet this particular flat is being sublet at eighty pounds! Why?”
"It was a good tournament," Doc said. "And the Machine has proven itself a grandmaster. It must make you feel good, Simon, after being out of tournament chess for twenty years."
arrangement adapted for ready reference. It is true that the botanists of the 17th century and Linnaeus himself often spoke of facility of use as a great object to be kept in view in constructing a system; but every one who brought out a new system did so really because he believed that his own was a better expression of natural affinities than those of his predecessors. If some like Ray and Morison were more influenced by the wish to exhibit natural affinities by means of a system, and others as Tournefort and Magnol thought more of framing a perspicuous and handy arrangement of plants, yet it is plain from the objections which every succeeding systematist makes to his predecessors, that the exhibition of natural affinities was more or less clearly in the minds of all as the main object of the system; only they all employed the same wrong means for securing this end, for they fancied that natural affinities could be brought out by the use of a few easily recognised marks, whose value for systematic purposes had been arbitrarily determined. This opposition between means and end runs through all systematic botany from Cesalpino in 1583 to Linnaeus in 1736.
But before the exhibition of the natural affinity gave birth to the first efforts at classification on the part of de l’Obel (Lobelius) and afterwards of Kaspar Bauhin, the Italian botanist Cesalpino (1583) had already attempted a system of the vegetable kingdom on a very different plan. He was led to distribute all vegetable forms into definite groups not by the fact of natural affinity, which impressed itself on the minds of the botanists of Germany and the Netherlands through involuntary association
“No!” ses she, and her voyce rung out pashunutly “Not that! I don’t meen that ingagemint——ef you considered it ever such” ses she, and her voyce catched oop in her throte which she hild wid her hand, “I mean” ses she, “yure ingagemint to Una Robbins. You——”
what went on on the west-ern side. Lee’s ar-my was the best of all the foe. Af-ter cross-ing the Po-to-mac the two ar-mies looked for each oth-er. Lee, fac-ing east, was com-ing from the west of the town of Get-tys-burg, and Meade was tak-ing his post on Cem-e-ter-y Ridge, at the south. It was not thought that a bat-tle, by all, would then be-gin, but “Meade’s Cav-al-ry,” led by Bu-ford, came up-on Lee’s front guard on Ju-ly 1, 1863, and they fought. The Un-ion men were forced back and had loss-es. Night then came on, and by that time both sides, each with a-bout 80,000 men, were in the moon-light up-on the ground. The troops were in good trim and of high cour-age. On the next day the foe car-ried works at both ends of the Un-ion line. The third day the Un-ion ar-my got back the lost ground on its right. The foe then made a fierce charge and broke through the cen-tre of the Un-ion ar-my, but were at last put down and sent back. The end of the charge was the end of the bat-tle and point-ed to the end of the war. In this fight Lee lost 36,000 men. With those he lost the first time he made a thrust at the North, and these, 90,000 of some of the best troops in the world laid down their lives for the cause they held dear.
(1) Socialism, i.e. a large, a slowly elaborating conception of a sane and organized state and moral culture to replace our present chaotic way of living,
Copyright © 2020