Governmental Attempts to Regulate the Stage after the Jeremy Collier Controversy

PMLA ◽  
1923 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-174
Author(s):  
Joseph Wood Krutch

Although Jeremy Collier's attack on the drama of his time and the subsequent “reform” of the stage in the direction of propriety and dullness have been regarded ever since as commonplaces of literary history, the relation between them has never been adequately investigated, and about this the greatest difference of opinion still exists. Ward declares: “In truth the position in which he [Collier] stood … had been proved impregnable. From this time forward a marked change became visible in the attitude of the Court, the Government, and a section at least of the ruling classes, towards the stage, and its own consciousness of the purposes and restrictions proper to the exercise of its art.” On the other hand, Mr. Whibley asserts: “The poets bowed their knee not an inch in obedience to Collier. They replied to him, they abused him, and they went their way… . The pages of Genest … make evidence the complete failure of Collier's attack.”

Edupedia ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-64
Author(s):  
Agus Supriyadi

Character education is a vital instrument in determining the progress of a nation. Therefore the government needs to build educational institutions in order to produce good human resources that are ready to oversee and deliver the nation at a progressive level. It’s just that in reality, national education is not in line with the ideals of national education because the output is not in tune with moral values on the one hand and the potential for individuals to compete in world intellectual order on the other hand. Therefore, as a solution to these problems is the need for the applicationof character education from an early age.


Author(s):  
Christine Cheng

During the civil war, Liberia’s forestry sector rose to prominence as Charles Taylor traded timber for arms. When the war ended, the UN’s timber sanctions remained in effect, reinforced by the Forestry Development Authority’s (FDA) domestic ban on logging. As Liberians waited for UN timber sanctions to be lifted, a burgeoning domestic timber market developed. This demand was met by artisanal loggers, more commonly referred to as pit sawyers. Out of this illicit economy emerged the Nezoun Group to provide local dispute resolution between the FDA’s tax collectors and ex-combatant pit sawyers. The Nezoun Group posed a dilemma for the government. On the one hand, the regulatory efforts of the Nezoun Group helped the FDA to tax an activity that it had banned. On the other hand, the state’s inability to contain the operations of the Nezoun Group—in open contravention of Liberian laws—highlighted the government’s capacity problems.


1978 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-208
Author(s):  
Dennis A. Rubini

William of Orange tried to be as absolute as possible. Inroads upon the power of the executive were fiercely resisted: indeed, William succeeded in keeping even the judiciary in a precarious state of independence. To maintain the prerogative and gain the needed supplies from parliament, he relied upon a mixed whig-tory ministry to direct court efforts. Following the Glorious Revolution, the whigs had divided into two principle groups. One faction led by Robert Harley and Paul Foley became the standard-bearers of the broadly based Country party, maintained the “old whig” traditions, did not seek office during William's reign, tried to hold the line on supply, and led the drive to limit the prerogative. The “junto,” “court,” or “new” whigs, on the other hand, were led by ministers who, while in opposition during the Exclusion crisis, held court office, aggressively sought greater offices, and wished to replace monarchy with oligarchy. They soon joined tory courtiers in opposing many of the Country party attempts to place additional restrictions upon the executive. To defend the prerogative and gain passage for bills of supply, William also developed techniques employed by Charles II. By expanding the concept and power of the Court party, he sought to bring together the executive and legislative branches of government through a large cadre of crown office-holders (placemen) who sat, voted, and directed the votes of others on behalf of the government when matters of importance arose in the Commons. So too, William claimed the right to dissolve parliament and call new elections not on a fixed date, as was to become the American practice, but at the time deemed most propitious over first a three-year and then (after 1716) a seven year period.


1906 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 149-169
Author(s):  
B.D. John Willcock

The idea that at the Restoration the Government of Charles II. wantonly attacked a Church that otherwise would have remained at peace and in the enjoyment of hardly-won liberties is not in accordance with facts. The Church was divided into two warring factions—that of the Remonstrants or Protesters and that of the Resolutioners. The former were the extreme Covenant party and had as their symbol the Remonstrance of the Western army after the Battle of Dunbar, in which they refused to fight any longer in the cause of Charles II. The Resolutioners were the more moderate party, which accepted him as a Covenanted King, and they derived their name from their support of certain Resolutions passed in the Parliament and General Assembly for the admission of Royalists to office under certain conditions. The Protesters—who numbered perhaps about a third of the Presbyterian clergy—claimed, probably not without reason, to be more religious than their opponents. They were very eager to purge the Church of all those whose opinions they regarded as unsatisfactory, and to fill up vacant charges with those who uttered their shibboleths. In their opposition to the King they naturally drew somewhat closely into sympathy with the party of Cromwell, though, with the fatal skill in splitting hairs which has afflicted so many of their nation, they were able to differentiate their political principles from what they called ‘English errors.’ The Resolutioners, on the other hand, adhered steadily to the cause of Charles II., and came under the disfavour of the Government of the Commonwealth for their sympathy with the insurrection under Glencairn and Middleton which had been so troublesome to the English authorities.


2021 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Tunde Abioro ◽  

The cycle of individual and communal lives from birth to death is supposedly preserved by the government through institutions. However, political, social, and economic activities are engaged to make ends meet wherein the government is to serve as an unbiased regulator. The activities that play out in Southern Kaduna reflected politics of being on one side with interplay on origin, identity, religion, and locality. On the other hand, it reflects politics of belonging that play on kin, reciprocity, and stranger status. It has thus resulted in violence, suspicion, and persistent conflict. The study examines citizen’s inclusiveness in peacebuilding initiatives and the people’s perception of the sincerity of the government. The research relies on secondary sources where governmental and non-governmental publications and documents from relevant and reliable sources enriched the socio-historical approach, particularly those relating to contestation in the region. The study found out that just like situations in the other northwest states of the country, the crisis exacerbates by the government’s inability to mediate fairly between warring parties to ensure fairness and justice as well as failure to apprehend and punish the culprits, even as recommendations from the various interventions were unimplemented. Thus, the spate of violence continues.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-133
Author(s):  
Rikson Siburian ◽  
Minsyahril Bukit ◽  
Herlince Sihotang ◽  
Saur Lumban Raja ◽  
Minto Supeno ◽  
...  

Evaluation of environment of seaport is needed as well as our responsibility to nature sustainability. The Alor’s seaport belongs to Pelindo III. In order to know the air quality of Alor’s seaport, we did this study. Our aims are to know level quality of air at Alor’s seaport and compare to the government regulation. This study refers to Pararosaniline (SOx), Saltzman (NOx), Particle Calculation (dust) and decibel (noisy) methods. We used four locations, those are A-1 (Entrance gate of PELINDO (8013’09.12”S, 124031’07.21”E)); A-2 (In front of passengers terminal (8013’08.75”S, 124031’01.60”E)); A-3 (Exit  gate Kalabahi’s seaport (8013’08.2”S, 124031’00.87”E)) and A-4 (In front of port of the people (8011’09.12”S, 124031’07.21”E)). Results show that the averages level of SOx, NOx and dust of A-1, A-2 and A-3 are 103.01, 104.65 and 107.47 (µg/Nm3), 37.87, 30.62, and 39.73 (µg/Nm3), 56.64, 47.47 and 50.72 (µg/Nm), respectively. On the other hand, the level of noisy of A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 are 68.76, 65.69, 65.20 and 73.60 (dBA), respectively. Base on all of data, we conclude that the air quality of Alor’s seaport is still appropriate according to government regulation (PP. No. 4, 1999).


2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 234-247
Author(s):  
Joyjit Sanyal ◽  
Sujit Sikidar

Labour plays a very important role in the industrial production of the country. The human resource managers are concerned with the management of people at work. It is necessary to secure the co-operation of labour force in order to increase the production and earn higher profits. The co-operation of labour force is possible only when they are fully satisfied with their employer and the working conditions on the job. In the past, industrialists and the employers believed that their only duty towards their employees was to pay them satisfactory wages and salaries. But in due course of time, in addition to providing monetary benefits, human treatment given to employees started to play a very important role in seeking their co-operation. Labour or employee welfare activities benefit not only the workers but also the management in the form of greater industrial efficiency. The welfare activities pay a good dividend in the long run, because they contribute a lot towards the health and efficiency of the workers and towards a high morale. On the other hand, social security has come up as a dynamic concept which is considered in all advanced countries of the world as an indispensable chapter of the national programme. Social security is that security which the society furnishes through appropriate organisation against certain risks or certain contingencies to which its members are exposed. These risks are essentially contingencies against which the individual cannot afford by his small means and by his ability or foresight alone. As the name stands for general well- being of the people it is the duty of the state to promote social security which may provide the citizens with benefits designed to prevent or cure disease, to support him when he is not able to earn and to restore him to gainful activity. The state as an employer has provided for certain measures for the welfare and social security of the labourers, who contribute towards the economic development of a country and in this regard, the government has to see towards the proper implementation of such measures to maintain a harmonious industrial relation on the one side and on the other hand towards the upliftment of the members of the society. Thus, there arise the vital needs for the detailed assessments of the measures so provided, its quality of implementation so far and the level of satisfaction of the same among the different class of employees. The present study acts as a working paper with an objective to gather the opinion of the organized workforce in the Central Public Sector Enterprises with regards to their acceptance and satisfaction level of the various ‘Employees welfare and Social Security’ measures by the employers. However, the present study is restricted to two enterprises only and is undertaken with the following objectives: To analyze the opinions of the employees in respect of the labour welfare measures & social security benefits. To analyze the level of satisfaction or otherwise of the workers in respect of social security measures.


1981 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 221-250
Author(s):  
Derek P.H. Allen

A difference of opinion exists among some philosophers who have recently inquired whether Marx thinks that capitalism is distributively unjust. What has to be determined is whether in Marx's view the wage worker suffers an injustice in not receiving most or all of the surplus value he creates. Allen Wood argues that this is not Marx's view, and George Brenkert agrees, for quite similar reasons; but Ziyad Husami and Gary Young, on the other hand, argue in reply to Wood, and on overlapping grounds, for the opposite interpretation; Wood, in turn, has defended himself against Husami.


1980 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilferd Madelung

The problem of the lawfulness of accepting and holding office under an illegitimate ruler posed itself in the Imāmī Shī'a from an early date. Imāmī Shī‘ism considered the historical caliphate, with the exception of the reign of 'Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, as invariably usurpatory and illegitimate. The rule of the Muslim community in succession to the Prophet was the exclusive right of 'Alī and the Imams from among his descendants. They had been pushed aside from their rightful position, first by the three caliphs preceding 'Alī and later, by the Umayyads and the 'Abbāsids. On the other hand, the Imams from the fourth, 'Alī Zayn al-'Ābidīn, had ceased actively to seek to rule through the overthrow of the usurpatory caliphate. The sixth Imam, Ja'far al-Ṣādiq, rejected in particular any offer of help to restore him to his rightful position by force and strictly forbade his followers to engage in revolutionary activity on behalf of the Imams until the rise of the Qā'im Imam who would claim his right to rule with the sword. This quietist policy was consistently followed by his successors and came to be reflected in Imāmī belief and doctrine which did not anticipate a return of the Imams to rule before the coming of the eschatological Mahdī.


Philosophy ◽  
1940 ◽  
Vol 15 (57) ◽  
pp. 3-6
Author(s):  
J. H. Muirhead

Second in importance only to the question raised by the short editorial in the last number of Philosophy: Why are we at War? is that on which there is at present a lively discussion going on in The Times and elsewhere under the title of “German Rulers and People”: With Whom are we at War? On one point there is no difference of opinion: we are at war with the blood- and crimestained group that, with Hitler at their head, hold the reins of government. Difference begins when it is asked what share the people of Germany as a whole has in their crimes. On the one side are those who hold that, as you cannot, in historical words, “bring an indictment against a whole nation,” neither can you be at war with a whole people, and that the main problem we have before us is the discovery of the means to appeal to the intelligence and hearts of the mass of the nation in order to enlist it against its Government as a common enemy. On the other side are those who quote the equally historic words that “every nation gets the kind of government it deserves,” from which “it follows that it deserves no immunity for the acts of the Government by which it chooses, or allows itself, to be governed.” This argument is reinforced first by a general philosophy of war as the “natural” order of things from which man is only gradually emerging into an exceptional and precarious condition of peace; and secondly, with regard to Germany in particular, that “the lust for dominance through force is, and will be for generations, at the root of the German character.” The importance of the issue as thus stated requires no emphasis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document