OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Littell's Living Age/Volume 129/Issue 1670

LITTELL'S LIVING AGE.
| Fifth Series, Volume XIV. | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | No. 1670. — June 10, 1876. | $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ | From Beginning Vol. CXXIX. |
CONTENTS. :
| I. | Sir William and Caroline Herschel, | Quarterly Review, | 643 |
| II. | Janet Mason's Troubles. A Story of Town and Country, | Sunday Magazine, | 659 |
| III. | Society, | Blackwood's Magazine, | 668 |
| IV. | Whittlebridge, | Blackwood's Magazine, | 679 |
| V. | Madame de Maintenon, | Fortnightly Review, | 686 |
| VI. | For Pity's Sake. By the author of "Robert Holt's Illusion," etc., | Sunday Magazine, | 694 |
| VII. | The Pantheon, Paris, | Our Own Fireside, | 703 |
POETRY. :
| Primroses, | 642 | Dawn in the Mountains of the Tropics, | 642 |
| A Rhyme of One, | 642 | Dawn in the Mountains of the Tropics, | 642 |
| Comfort, | 642 | Spring Song, | 704 |
# Littell's Living Age/Volume 129/Issue 1670/Comfort

COMFORT.
If there should come a time, as well there may,
When sudden tribulation smites thine heart,
And thou dost come to me for help, and stay,
And comfort — how shall I perform my part?
How shall I make my heart a resting-place,
A shelter safe for thee when terrors smite?
How shall I bring the sunshine to thy face,
And dry thy tears in bitter woe's despite?
How shall I win the strength to keep my voice
Steady and firm, although I hear thy sobs?
How shall I bid thy fainting soul rejoice,
Nor mar the counsel by mine own heart-throbs?
Love, my love teaches me a certain way,
So, if thy dark hour come, I am thy stay.
I must live higher, nearer to the reach
Of angels in their blessed trustfulness,
Learn their unselfishness, ere I can teach
Content to thee whom I would greatly bless.
Ah me! what woe were mine if thou shouldst come,
Troubled, but trusting, unto me for aid,
And I should meet thee powerless and dumb,
Willing to help thee, but confused, afraid!
It shall not happen thus, for I will rise,
God helping me, to higher life, and gain
Courage and strength to give thee counsel wise,
And deeper love to bless thee in thy pain.
Fear not, dear love, thy trial hour shall be
The dearest bond between my heart and thee.
All The Year Round.
# Littell's Living Age/Volume 129/Issue 1670/A Rhyme of One

A RHYME OF ONE.
You sleep upon your mother's breast, Your race begun, A welcome, long a wish'd-for guest, Whose age is One.
A baby-boy, you wonder why You cannot run; You try to talk — how hard you try! — You're only One.
Ere long you won't be such a dunce; You'll eat your bun, And fly your kite, like folk, who once Were only One.
You'll rhyme, and woo, and fight, and joke, Perhaps you'll pun; Such feats are never done by folk Before they're One.
Some day, too, you may have your joy, And envy none; Yes, you, yourself, may own a boy Who isn't One.
He'll dance, and laugh, and crow, he'll do As you have done: (You crown a happy home, tho' you Are only One.)
But when he's grown shall you be here To share his fun, And talk of days when he (the dear!) Was hardly One?
Dear child, 'tis your poor lot to be My little son; I'm glad, though I am old, you see, — While you are One.
# Littell's Living Age/Volume 129/Issue 1670/Primroses

PRIMROSES.
Sweet primroses! I hold you dear,
That heedless are of me;
You have no ears, my words to hear,
No eyes, my gaze to see.
You love the rain, that swells each bud;
The sun, that bids you blow;
The breeze, that calms your gentle blood,
And sways you to and fro.
But I am least of all to you;
For what have I to give?
What can I add of pleasure new
To your one joy, — to live?
And yet the sunshine finds no bliss,
To smile, and win your smiles;
The breeze is careless of the kiss,
It takes or gives by whiles.
While I, who love, must yearn in vain,
For all I take of you,
To give to you such joy again,
As gives one drop of dew.
And you, fair flowers of joy and light,
Blessed above all remain,
To give such delicate delight,
And take no gift again!
# Littell's Living Age/Volume 129/Issue 1669/The Grafin von Rosenau

* THE GRAFIN VON ROSENAU.
* There is a lady crown'd so high,
* She hath equal none beneath the sky;
* When in the world there is war's wild stir,
* Millions of hearts beat strong for her.
* No diadem bediamonded
* On haughty autocrat's heavy head
* Rivals the circlet on her brow,—
* She is the Gräfin von Rosenau.
* Heiress she, from her queenly hour,
* Of a loyal love that is greater than power —
* Of a knightly worship, known of old
* When a lady grasps the sceptre of gold —
* Of an ancient, glorious name, so great
* That to change it were to anger fate;
* Loftiest throne in the world, I trow,
* That of Gräfin of Rosenau.
* Heiress of high Elizabeth,
* Her people ask, with eager breath,
* Wherefore fly from the fair home scene,
* While a pliant premier disposes his queen,
* And with ancient history dares to play tricks,
* Ruling us all with his Imperatrix?
* Thus all men ask, who loyalty vow
* To the Gräfin von Rosenau.
* Will it be well, when another shall reign
* Over England's empire, land and main,
* For the future lord of the realm to say,
* "Throw this despot name away!
* An emperor is a trivial thing;
* English and Indians, I am your king"?
* Better to check the madness now, —
* Think of it, Gräfin von Rosenau.
* Spectator.
# Littell's Living Age/Volume 129/Issue 1670/Spring Song

* SPRING SONG.
* A baby joy is awake in my heart,
* And flutters her wings in song;
* For now the wintry winds depart,
* And summer days are long.
* The woods that late were cold and bare,
* With jocund babble ring;
* Slides on still fans adown the air
* A bird too glad to sing.
* O buoyant air! O joyous air!
* You thrill the weary throng,
* As rhythmical with music rare,
* And filled with sunlight everywhere,
* You touch our lips with song.
* Blackwood's Magazine.
# Marx and Engels on Revolution in America

Originally published as "Marx und Engels über die Rolle der Kommunisten in Amerika", Die Kommunistiche Internationale 6.6, p. 672-685 (June, 1925)
The Little Red Library
No. 6
Marx and Engels
on
Revolution in America
By HEINZ NEUMAN
TEN CENTS
DAILY WORKER PUBLISHING COMPANY 1915 W. WASHINGTON BLVD. Chicago-ILL. 190
page
New Numbers—
of the
Little Red Library
Will be issued in as rapid succession as suitable material will allow.
| TITLES NOW READY: No. 1.— TRADE UNIONS IN AMERICA, by Wm. Z. Foster, J. P. Cannon and E. R. Browder. No. 2.— CLASS STRUGGLE vs. CLASS COLLABORATION, by Earl R. Browder. No. 3.— PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNISM, by Frederick Engels. Translation by Max Bedacht. No. 4.— WORKER CORRESPONDENCE, by Wm. F. Dunne. No. 5.— POEMS FOR WORKERS, Edited by Manuel Gomez. | IN PREPARATION:     THE DAMNED AGITATOR and Other Stories, by Michael Gold.     THE WORLD RULE OF WALL STREET, by Manuel Gomez. |
| FOR $1.00 | Twelve copies will be sent of any single number—choice of number—or following numbers as soon as off the press. |
page
Marx and Engels
on
Revolution in America
by
HEINZ NEUMANN
290
page
* Introduction
* Chapter 1
* II. Method
* III. The Historical Peculiarities of the American Labor Movement
* IV. The Formation of an Independent Working Class Party
* V. The Role of the Marxist Nucleus Within the Working Class Party.
* VI. The Role of the Farmers
* VII. The Modern Development of America
* VIII. The International Role of the American Labor Movement
page
Proletarian Authors—
Will find in the Little Red Library a rare opportunity for their development. Manuscripts on any subject will be given most careful attention: Trade Unions, Communism, History, Poetry, Literature, Art, etc.
The only requirements are these: the manuscript must he definitely proletarian in character and treatment; it must contain from 10,000 to 15,000 words; it must be typewritten and stamps must be included for return postage if not accepted.
Address:
THE DAILY WORKER PUB. CO., 1113 W. Washington Blvd., CHICAGO, ILL.
page
The Little Red Library
All the booklets of this series will carry carefully selected material on all phases of the Labor movement: Trade Unions, Communism, Philosophy, History, Literature, Art and other subjects—to form a little library of real value to Labor. New numbers will be issued steadily.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in 1925, before the cutoff of January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1937, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 86 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Marks v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Marks v. United States."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* 1896 • Marks v. United States (161 U.S. 297),
* 1938 • Marks v. United States (98 F.2d 564),
* 1958 • Marks v. United States (260 F.2d 377),
* 1977 • Marks v. United States (430 U.S. 188),
# Marlborough's note to his wife Sarah at the end of the Battle of Blenheim

After victory at the Battle of Blenheim was assured John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough wrote this brief note on the back of a tavern receipt to his wife Sarah
Sources
* Coxe, William (1818). Memoirs of John, duke of Marlborough, with his original correspondence. p. 305.
* Plaidy, Jean (2012). The Queen's Favourites: (The Stuarts). Random House. p. 67. ISBN 978-1-4481-5037-3.
August 13, 1704
I have not time to say more, but to beg you will give my duty to the Queen and let her know her Army has had a glorious victory. Monsieur Talland and two other Generals are in my coach and I am following the rest: the bearer, my aide-de-camp, Colonel Parke, will give her an account of what has passed. I shall do it in a day or two, by another more at large.
    Marlborough
# Marks v. Shoup

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
181 U.S. 562
Marks v. Shoup
Argued: February 28, 1901. --- Decided: May 13, 1901
Messrs. W. W. Dudley, L. T. Michener, W. E. Crews, and J. H. Cobb for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. S. M. Stockslager, George C. Heard, and Arthur K. Delaney for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Marks v. United States (430 U.S. 188)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Concurrence/Dissents

    Brennan
    Stevens
Supreme Court of the United States
430 U.S. 188
Marks v. United States
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
No. 75-708 Argued: November 1-2, 1976 --- Decided: March 1, 1977
Petitioners were convicted of transporting obscene materials in violation of a federal statute. The conduct that gave rise to the charge occurred before Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, was decided, announcing new standards for "isolat[ing] 'hard core' pornography from expression protected by the First Amendment." id., at 29.
Held: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment precludes retroactive application to petitioners of the Miller standards, to the extent that those standards may impose criminal liability for conduct not punishable under the standards announced in Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347. Specifically, petitioners are entitled to jury instructions requiring the jury to acquit unless it finds that the materials involved are "utterly without redeeming social value." At the same time, any constitutional principle announced in Miller that would serve to benefit petitioners must be applied in their case. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 102. Pp. 189-197.
520 F.2d 913, reversed and remanded.
Powell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and White, Blackmun, and Rehnquist, JJ., joined. Brennan, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Stewart and Marshall, JJ., joined, post, p. 197. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 198.
Robert Eugene Smith argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Gilbert H. Deitch and Andrew Dennison.
Solicitor General Bork argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Thornburgh and Jerome M. Feit.
# Marks v. United States (430 U.S. 188)/Concurrence-dissent Stevens

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurrence/Dissents Brennan Stevens
Mr. Justice Stevens, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
There are three reasons which, in combination, persuade me that this criminal prosecution is constitutionally impermissible. First, as the Court's opinion recognizes, this "statute regulates expression and implicates First Amendment values." Ante, at 196. However distasteful these materials are to some of us, they are nevertheless a form of communication and entertainment acceptable to a substantial segment of society; otherwise, they would have no value in the marketplace. Second, the statute is predicated on the somewhat illogical premise that a person may be prosecuted criminally for providing another with material he has a constitutional right to possess. See Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557. Third, the present constitutional standards, both substantive and procedural, which apply to these prosecutions are so intolerably vague that evenhanded enforcement of the law is a virtual impossibility. Indeed, my brief experience on the Court has persuaded me that grossly disparate treatment of similar offenders is a characteristic of the criminal enforcement of obscenity law. Accordingly, while I agree with everything said in the Court's opinion, I am unable to join its judgment remanding the case for a new trial.

#### Notes

* ↑ . How, for example, can an appellate court intelligently determine whether a jury has properly identified the relevant community standards?
# Marks v. United States (430 U.S. 188)/Concurrence-dissent Brennan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurrence/Dissents Brennan Stevens
Mr. Justice Brennan, with whom Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Marshall join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join the opinion of the Court insofar as it holds that the retroactive application of the definition of obscenity announced in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), to the potential detriment of a criminal defendant, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964).
I cannot join, however, in the judgment remanding the case for a new trial. Petitioners were convicted of transporting obscene materials in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1465. I adhere to the view that this statute is "'clearly overbroad and unconstitutional on its face.'" See, e. g., Cangiano v. United States, 418 U.S. 934, 935 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting), quoting United States v. Orito, 413 [p. 198] U.S. 139, 148 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting). I therefore would simply reverse.
# Love's Labour's Lost (1925) Yale/Appendix E

Layout 2
APPENDIX E
Suggestions for Collateral Reading
Walter Pater: Essay on Love's Labour's Lost in Appreciations (1889), pp. 167–175. (Written in 1878.)
S. L. Lee: 'A New Study of Love's Labour's Lost.' Gentleman's Magazine, Oct., 1880, vol. 249, pp. 447–458.
Andrew Lang: 'The Comedies of Shakespeare, with Illustrations by E. A. Abbey and Comment by Andrew Lang.' X Love's Labour's Lost. Harper's Magazine, May, 1893, pp. 900–913.
J. M. Robertson: Shakespeare and Chapman. London, 1917, pp. 107–120. (A superior example of 'heretical' criticism. Holofernes is explained as a satire on Chapman.)
H. D. Gray: The Original Version of 'Love's Labour's Lost,' with a Conjecture as to 'Love's Labour's Won.' Stanford University Publications, 1918. (Well-informed but over-imaginative. )
H. B. Charlton: The Date of 'Love's Labour's Lost.' Modern Language Review, July, October, 1918, vol. xiii, pp. 257–266, 387–400. (See discussion, Appendix B, p. 132 ff.)
Abel Lefranc: Sous le Masque de 'William Shakespeare.' Paris, 1919. Chap. vii, vol. ii, pp. 17–103. (The book argues that William Stanley, Earl of Derby, wrote Shakespeare. The chapter cited contains interesting data illustrative of Love's Labour's Lost.)
Austin K. Gray: The Secret of 'Love's Labour's Lost.' Publ. Mod. Lang. Assoc., September, 1924, vol, xxxix, pp. 581–611. (An attempt to explain the play in the light of Lord Southampton's nugatory betrothal to Elizabeth Vere, 1591.)
​The Furness Variorum edition of Love's Labour's Lost, Philadelphia, 1904, is excellent even beyond the average of its series. That in the Arden series, edited by H. C. Hart, 1906 (2d ed., 1913), contains much valuable illustrative material (the critical conclusions in the Introduction are often exceptionable). The edition of Sir A. Quiller-Couch and Mr. J. Dover Wilson for the Cambridge University Press (1923) exploits the modern methods of bibliographical annotation, often with over-imaginative results.
# Love's Labour's Lost (1925) Yale/Text

Notes originally placed at the bottom of each page appear below, following the Dramatis Personæ.
Where these notes refer to an end note (cf. n. = confer notam; "consult note"), a link to the accompanying end note is provided from the Footnotes section. The end notes begin on page 107 of the original volume.
Layout 2
Love's Labour's Lost
* Act I
* Act II
* Act III
* Act IV
* Act V
[DRAMATIS PERSONÆ.
Ferdinand, King of Navarre
| Berowne, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | three Lords attending upon the King in his retirement |
| Longaville, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | three Lords attending upon the King in his retirement |
| Dumaine, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | three Lords attending upon the King in his retirement |
| Boyet, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Lords attending upon the Princess of France |
| Marcade, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Lords attending upon the Princess of France |
Don Adriano de Armado, a fantastical Spaniard
Nathaniel, a Curate
Dull, a Constable
Holofernes, a Schoolmaster
Costard, a Clown
Moth, Page to Don Adriano de Armado
A Forester
Princess of France
| Rosaline, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Ladies attending on the Princess |
| Maria, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Ladies attending on the Princess |
| Katharine, | $\scriptstyle {\left.{\begin{matrix}\ \\\\\ \\\ \ \end{matrix}}\right\}\,$ | Ladies attending on the Princess |
Jaquenetta, a country Wench
Officers and Other Attendants upon the King and Princess
Scene: Navarre]
Footnotes
​Love's Labour's Lost; cf. n.
​Dramatis Personæ; cf. n.
# McLean v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
226 U.S. 374
McLean v. United States
Argued: November 6, 1912. --- Decided: December 23, 1912
Mr. Archibald King for appellant.
Mr. William W. Scott, Assistant Attorney, and Assistant Attorney General John Q. Thompson, for appellee.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# McLemore v. Louisiana State Bank

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
91 U.S. 27
McLemore v. Louisiana State Bank
ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Charles B. Singleton for the plaintiff in error. Messrs. E. and A. C. Janin, contra.
MR. JUSTICE DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Lockhart v. Fretwell/Concurrence Thomas

Cite as: Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring).
* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions O'Connor Thomas
* Dissenting Opinion Stevens
* Wikipedia article
JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion in its entirety. I write separately to call attention to what can only be described as a fundamental misunderstanding of the Supremacy Clause on the part of the Court of Appeals.
In concluding that respondent had been prejudiced by his attorney's failure to make an objection based upon Collins v. Lockhart, 754 F.2d 258 (CA8), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1013 (1985), the Court of Appeals said the following: "[S]ince state courts are bound by the Supremacy Clause to obey federal constitutional law, we conclude that a reasonable state trial court would have sustained an objection based on Collins had Fretwell's attorney made one." 946 F.2d 571, 577 (CA8 1991). I do not understand this statement to mean that there is a reasonable probability that the Arkansas trial court would have found Collins persuasive, and therefore would have chosen to follow it. Instead, the Court of Appeals appears to have been under the impression that the Arkansas trial court would have been compelled to follow Collins by the Supremacy Clause.
[p376] It was mistaken. The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court's interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court's interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court's interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located. See Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n.3 (1974) (REHNQUIST, J., concurring); United States ex rel. Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075–1076 (CA7 1970), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 983 (1971); Shapiro, State Courts and Federal Declaratory Judgments, 74 Nw. U. L. Rev. 759, 771, 774 (1979). An Arkansas trial court is bound by this Court's (and by the Arkansas Supreme Court's and Arkansas Court of Appeals') interpretation of federal law, but if it follows the Eighth Circuit's interpretation of federal law, it does so only because it chooses to and not because it must.
I agree with the Court's holding that the Court of Appeals misinterpreted the Sixth Amendment. I wish to make it clear that it misinterpreted the Supremacy Clause as well.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# McCargo v. Chapman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
61 U.S. 555
McCargo v. Chapman
THIS case was brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the southern district of Mississippi.
The facts of the case are set forth in the opinion of the court.
It was argued by Mr. Bradley for the plaintiff in error, and by Mr. Badger for the defendant, upon which side there was also a brief by Mr. Badger and Mr. Carlisle.
Mr. Justice McLEAN delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse