Maitrayaniya Upanishad

The Maitrayaniya Upanishad (, ) is an ancient Sanskrit text that is embedded inside the Yajurveda. It is also known as the Maitri Upanishad (, ), and is listed as number 24 in the Muktika canon of 108 Upanishads.
The "Maitrayaniya Upanishad" is associated with the "Maitrayanas" school of the Yajurveda. It is a part of the "black" Yajurveda, with the term "black" implying "the un-arranged, motley collection" of content in Yajurveda, in contrast to the "white" (well arranged) Yajurveda where Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Isha Upanishad are embedded. The chronology of Maitrayaniya Upanishad is contested, but generally accepted to be a late period Upanishadic composition.
The "Maitrayaniya Upanishad" consists of seven "Prapathakas" (lessons). The first "Prapathaka" is introductory, the next three are structured in a question-answer style and discuss metaphysical questions relating to Atman (Self, Soul), while the fifth to seventh "Prapathaka" are supplements. However, several manuscripts discovered in different parts of India contain lesser number of "Prapathakas", with a Telugu language version showing just four, and another Burnell version showing just one section. The content and structure of the Upanishad is also different in various manuscript recensions, suggesting that the Upanishad was extensively interpolated and expanded over a period of time. The common kernel of the Upanishad across different recensions, states Max Muller, is a reverence for soul, that can be summarized in a few words as, "(Man) is the Self – the immortal, the fearless, the Brahman".
The "Maitri Upanishad" is an important ancient text notable, in its expanded version, for its references to theories also found in Buddhism, elements of the Samkhya and Yoga schools of Hinduism, as well as the Ashrama system. The text is also notable for its practice of "Anyatrapyuktam" (or "Ityevam Hyaha"), that is being one of the earliest known Sanskrit texts that embedded quotes with credits and frequent citations to more ancient Sanskrit texts.
Etymology.
The etymological root of the Maitrayaniya Upanishad are unclear. This has historically led to a variety of names and spellings for this Upanishad.
"Maitra" (Sanskrit: मैत्र) and "Maitri" (मैत्री) are related words which literally mean "kindly, benevolent, good will, amity, friend of all creatures". The likely root for the Upanishad is probably the name of an ancient Indian scholar, Maitra, sometimes spelled Maitri or Maitreya, giving the text the alternate name of Maitri or Maitra Upanishad. The ancient scholar is also credited with a school of thought, thus giving the text the name Maitrayaniya Upanishad. Other names for this text include Maitrayani Upanishad (मैत्रायणि उपनिषद्), Maitrayana Upanishad, Maitrayaniya-brahmana Upanishad, Sriyagussakhayam Maitrayaniya-brahmana Upanishad, Maitreyopanishad and Maitrayaniyopanishad.
Chronology.
The Maitrayaniya Upanishad was probably composed in late 1st millennium BCE, likely after Atharva Veda texts such as the Mundaka Upanishad and Prashna Upanishad, but its precise chronology is unclear and contested. The chronology is difficult to resolve because all opinions rest on scanty evidence, an analysis of archaism, style and repetitions across texts, driven by assumptions about likely evolution of ideas, and on presumptions about which philosophy might have influenced which other Indian philosophies.
Olivelle includes Maitri Upanishad among the list of principal Upanishads that were composed last, probably around the start of the common era. Mahony suggests an earlier date, placing Prashna along with Maitri and Mandukya Upanishads, as texts that probably emerged about early fourth century BCE. Jayatilleke states, "Buddhism is not far removed in time from, though it is prior to, the Maitri Upanishad". Nakamura states that "although Buddhistic influence can be seen in the Maitri Upanishad (from words used), the particular terms and modes of expression of Mahayana Buddhism do not yet appear (in it)".
Phillips, in contrast, lists Maitri Upanishad before and about the time the first Buddhist Pali canonical texts were composed. Ranade posits a view similar to Phillips, placing Maitri's chronological composition in the fifth group of ancient Upanishads and last of the Principal Upanishads. Cowell too considers Maitri Upanishad as late era Upanishad, with its later sections comparatively modern, because of the structural and style differences within texts, inconsistencies in Poona manuscript, Calcutta (Kolkata) manuscript, Eckstein manuscript, Burnell manuscript and other manuscripts, and because some version of the manuscripts insert quotes from Vaishnavism.
Deussen states that the Upanishad is chronologically significant because its author(s) takes for granted the concepts and ideas found in Samkhya and Yoga schools of Hinduism, which must have been established by the time Maitri Upanishad was composed.
Structure.
The extant recension of the text consists seven s (lessons), of which several sections are "Khilas" (appendices, supplements) added later. The last two are called as "khila" by medieval era Indian scholar Ramatirtha. Others consider the last three sections as supplements and appendices. Other discovered manuscript versions of the Maitri Upanishad present different number of sections, ranging from 1 to 4, without any appendices. There are also differences in style, structure and content among the discovered manuscripts when the text contains the same number of sections.
The text is a prose style Upanishad, with a motley collection of different sized paragraphs. The first section has four paragraphs, the second has seven, the third presents five paragraphs, while the fourth section contains six. As appendices, the fifth lesson has two paragraphs, while the sixth "Prapathaka" is the longest section with thirty eight paragraphs. The last supplementary section, or the seventh "Prapāṭhaka" has eleven paragraphs some with many sub-paragraphs.
The Maitrayaniya Upanishad is embedded after the Brahmana text of Yajur Veda, and in its opening passages refers to rituals contained therein. It contextually belongs to the Sannyasa Upanishads corpus. Hume includes it among his list of "Thirteen Principal Upanishads".
Contents.
Maitri Upanishad deals with the concept and nature of Atman (Soul, Self), the question of "how is joy possible?" and "how one can achieve moksha (liberation)?"; in later sections it offers a debate on possible answers.
Meditation of soul is the essence of religious activity - First Prapathaka.
The text begins with the following prelude,
The above prelude is followed by an answer, offered as a tale of a king named Brihadratha who renounces his kingdom, lives an austere life and therewith seeks the knowledge of the eternal, the soul. Sage appears before the king. The king admits, "I lack the knowledge of Soul, you know the essence of Soul", so please teach me. In the resulting reply, the sage first claims that the "seeking the knowledge of Atman" was a practice of the past, it is difficult and not in vogue, then urges the king to ask something else". The king insists, by asking a series of metaphysical questions to the sage.
The sage then shares with the king the philosophy of the Brahman (Universal Soul, Cosmic Principle, Ultimate Reality), described in the next lessons. Paul Deussen states that parts of the above questions, on sorrow and frailty of human life is found in the oldest Upanishads of Hinduism, for example in chapters 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.28 and 4.4 of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, yet its declamation in the question form above in Maitri Upanishad, mirrors those found in Buddhism and Samkhya school of Hinduism. It is likely, states Deussen, that these two philosophies influenced the formulation of these questions in the form presented in Maitri Upanishad.
Every individual has soul, which is serene, the highest light, the cosmic truth - Second Prapathaka.
Sakayanya answers the king's question, in verse 2.2 of Maitri Upanishad, by asserting that "Atman" (soul, self) exists in every individual, and it is that inmost being which "moves about without moving" (exists everywhere), which dispels darkness of ignorance and error, which is serene, immortal, fearless and soaring for the highest light. The Maitri Upanishad states that this is the message of all Upanishads,
Sage Sakayanya thereafter narrates an ancient dialogue between s and Kratu, which is sourced from Rig Veda. The dialogue states that "man was created in the image of its creator, innately has all its powers, and is driven by it". The dialogue raises a series of metaphysical objections and inconsistencies with this premise, and then offers theories to resolve the what, how and why this is so.
The Maitrayaniya Upanishad states that the "Prajapati" (lord of creatures) divided himself fivefold and entered all creatures of the world. The divided parts are "Prana", "Apana", "Samana", "Udana" and "Vyana". "Prana" is upward breath, "Apana" is downward breath (exhale). "Vyana" holds the "Prana" and "Apana" in balance, giving strength to the whole body. "Samana" is that which carries gross food to "Apana" and then subtler food throughout the body. "Udana" is that which delivers food up and down the body from what has been eaten or drunk.
Now the Upamsu-vessel (or prana) depends on the Antaryama-vessel (apana) and the Antaryama-vessel (apana) on the Upamsu-vessel (prana), and between these two the self-resplendent (Self) produced heat. This heat is the purusha(person), and this purusha is Agni Vaisvanara.
The Purusha resides within, assumes the nature of "Buddhi" (intellect, power to reason). However, having divided itself fivefold, its purpose unattained, it impulsively feels, "let me enjoy objects". It is distracted from its purpose, its Soul. The Upanishad, thereafter recites the "parable of chariot" found in older Upanishads. Max Muller summarizes it as, "the perceptive organs are his reins, the active organs his horses, the body his chariot, the mind the charioteer, the whip being the temperament (emotions). Driven by that whip, his body goes round and round like a wheel driven by the potter. This body is made intelligent, and he (Atman) is the driver thereof." He experiences the fruits of his Karma, his personality the weaving of the three Guṇas (sattvam, rajas, tamas).
In essence, however, man seeks the true bliss, the immortal happiness, the resplendent contentment, the calm freedom that is his Soul, states paragraph 2.7 of Maitri Upanishad. This Soul of his is pure, unchanging, unmoving, undefilable, serenely calm constant, the spectator within him, the self-abiding. The Soul is inherently good, enjoyer of Ṛta (that which is properly/excellently joined, natural perfection, harmonious, holistic, right, truth).
Human suffering, its causes and the nature of souls - Third Prapathaka.
The third "Prapathaka" of Maitri Upanishad presents a theory of Soul that is different than the Vedanta school of Hinduism, rather it resonates with its Samkhya school. It enumerates different types of Atman, the three "Gunas" and how these "qualities of personality" overwhelm him from his essential nature into egoistic life of cravings, the source of evil and sorrow in a man's life, and other terminology from the Samkhya philosophy.
The third Prapathaka opens with the question, "if soul is inherently great, then who is this soul that suffers from the 'bright and dark fruits' of karma, rebirth and is overcome by "Dvandva" (pairs of opposite such as heat and cold, health and disease, etc)?"
As answer, the Maitrayaniya Upanishad states that there is another, different soul, calling it "Bhutatman" (the elemental soul), which transmigrates. In paragraph 3.2, the Upanishad presents the "theory of gross elements and subtle elements" which combine to form "Sarira" (शरीर, body). The "elemental soul" resides in this body, and is overcome by "prakrti guna" (inner nature of an individual's personality). This, states the text, is cause of confusion, conflicting desires, unsteady behaviors and self-conceit. Man, because of this confusion, binds himself with suffering, just like a bird binds itself inside a net. Human suffering is the result of human actions (Karma) and complex interplay of human psychology (Guṇas). However, the "immortal soul" is, states the text, unaffected by the elemental soul's confusion and drifts. The third Prapathaka explains the two souls and human personalities using the metaphor of "fire, iron and forge" as follows,
The Maitri Upanishad in paragraph 3.4 states that true essence of man is not his body, but his immortal soul. The elemental soul is mere reflection of his "Gunas" (psychology), a source of his suffering, which manifests itself as quality of "Tamas" (darkness), such as "confusion, fear, grief, sloth, carelessness, decay, sorrow, hunger, thirst, infidelity, anger, ignorance, cruelty, meanness, envy, shamelessness, pride, folly, dishonesty, arrogance, miserliness". The quality of "Rajas" () too, states the Upanishad, is a result of this interplay of overpowered elemental soul and "guna", and lists the manifold manifestation of this as, "greed, covetousness, craving, possessiveness, unkindness, hatred, deceit, restlessness, mania, fickleness, wooing and impressing others, servitude, flattery, hedonism, gluttony, prodigality and peevishness". While the elemental Self is thus affected, the inner Self, the immortal soul, the inner spectator is unaffected, asserts the Upanishad.
Realization of True Self, union with Brahman - Fourth Prapathaka.
The fourth Prapathaka begins with the question, "how can the elemental Self obtain union with the true Self"?
The Maitri Upanishad answers that the elemental Self is distracted, intoxicated and attached to numerous things in life, craving for false delights, which prevents its ability to know the true Self. The remedy for elemental Self, in order to realize the true Self, is to acquire the knowledge of the Veda, perform "svadharma" (one's duty) based on one's age, be part of Rta, devote oneself to "Ashrama" stage one is in. The Upanishad, in paragraph 4.3 acknowledges the inherent tension between ascetic life of renouncing society for Self-knowledge and the "svadharma" in each "Ashrama" stage of life with devotion to society. It calls asceticism qua asceticism wrong, and then immediately calls asceticism right, necessary and praises asceticism for the inner perfection and Self-knowledge it helps bring. The fourth prapathaka does not resolve the inherent conflict it acknowledges. In paragraph 4.4, the Upanishad asserts that meditation, austerities, perseverance and knowledge leads to Brahman state, of bliss that is imperishable, infinite and unchangeable. It is this union of Brahman that frees the true Self unto bliss.
Deity worship can be rewarding, but must be temporary, replaced with meditation and self knowledge - Fourth Prapathaka.
In paragraph 4.5, the Maitrayaniya Upanishad presents the question as to which of the gods is best for worship. The text answers that they are merely forms of Brahman, that one should meditate upon, worship, yet ultimately deny them and reject the gods. They are means to man's liberation, which is obtained through Soul meditation and in Self-knowledge. This is expounded on, as follows,
Hume states that the construct of the question above is notable, as it thus incorporates the three triads of thought found in ancient Indian philosophies - the Vedic trinity, the philosophical trinity in different schools of Hinduism, as well as the Brahmanic trinity.
Appendix: Pantheistic soul and Samkhya theory of Gunas - Fifth Prapathaka.
The fifth Prapathaka then presents a motley collection of a hymn and various theories, all focussed on the pantheistic premise that everything is manifested form of Cosmic Soul, all is One Brahman-Atman.
A hymn, inserted into paragraph 5.1 and called the "Kutsayana Hymn", states that the Soul (Self) is the hidden unchanging reality, the tranquil, the unlimited, the one without beginning or end. The Soul, states this pantheistic hymn, is Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Prajapati, Agni, Varuna, Vayu, Indra, Moon, Anna (Food), Yama, Earth. All life, all existence is manifold manifestation of the Soul. The hymn calls the Soul as "Prabhu" (Lord) of all pleasure and delight.
The paragraph 5.2 of the Upanishad asserts the Guna theory of Samkhya school of Hinduism. The text states that in the beginning the universe was darkness ("Tamas") alone. The Brahman impelled "Tamas" to differentiate, thus arose passion (action qua action, "Rajas"). The Brahman impelled "Rajas" to continue differentiating, and thus arose purity (right action, truth, "Sattva"). These three Gunas reside in everything. The aspect of Brahman that characterizes "Tamas" is Rudra. The aspect of Brahman that characterizes "Rajas" is Brahma. The aspect of Brahman that characterizes "Sattva" is Vishnu. These threefold concepts have differentiated manifold into eightfold, elevenfold, into infinite number of parts, states the Upanishad. These, all creatures, and the "Visva" (विश्व, world, empirical universe) are manifestations of one Supreme Soul, within and without. Soul's existence is reflected by the development of goodness (virtues). It is this Soul that is reflected in man, just like sun is reflected in different vessels of water, posits paragraph 5.2 of the fifth Prapathaka.
Appendix: Enumeration of souls - Sixth Prapathaka.
The sixth Prapathaka enumerates soul into two, the one that is within each human being and one without that is in Sun. These correspond to two paths, one inner and one outer. The existence of inner Self can only be inferred, while the outer Self can be perceived. The outer Self is the evidence of the inner Self, and the inner Self is the evidence of the outer Self. In Paragraph 6.1, the Maitri Upanishad refers to more ancient texts of this teaching of Soul and its relation to ethical life and introspective behavior, as follows,
Just like in time ("kala"), the solar fire ultimately consumes all beings and the outer world as food, asserts the Upanishad, it is the man's soul that consumes inner food. The outer soul and inner soul are, assuredly, states the Upanishad, one and same thing. Man should meditate on both these souls with the symbol Om (), revere them through "Vyahrtis" and the Savitri verse, asserts paragraph 6.2 of the text.
Appendix: The symbol Om and its significance - Sixth Prapathaka.
Om represents Brahman-Atman. The three roots (or three-footed nature) of the word are "A" + "U" + "M". The sound is the body of Soul, and it manifests in three: as gender-endowed body - feminine, masculine, neuter; as light-endowed body - Agni, Vayu and Aditya; as deity-endowed body - Brahma, Rudra and Vishnu; as mouth-endowed body - Garhapatya, Dakshinagni and Ahavaniya; as knowledge-endowed body - Rig, Saman and Yajur; as world-endowed body - Bhūr, Bhuvaḥ and Svaḥ; as time-endowed body - Past, Present and Future; as heat-endowed body - Breath, Fire and Sun; as growth-endowed body - Food, Water and Moon; as thought-endowed body - intellect, mind and psyche. Brahman exists in two forms - the material form, and the immaterial formless. The material form is changing, unreal. The immaterial formless isn't changing, real. The immortal formless is truth, the truth is the Brahman, the Brahman is the light, the light is the Sun which is the syllable "Om" as the Self.
The world is Om, its light is Sun and the Sun is also the light of the syllable Om. Meditating on Om, is acknowledging and meditating on the Brahman-Atman (Soul, Self).
Savitri prayer and meditation with the rising sun, a means to Self worship
Anyone who loves his Self, states paragraph 6.7 of the Upanishad, loves the "Savitri" – literally, that which "vivifies, ray of light that enlivens knowledge". The Sun is "Savitri", and thus one who loves his Soul, loves the splendor of the Sun. The text thereafter explains the meaning of Savitri verse from Rig Veda 3.62.10, its emphasis on "may the Sun inspire our thoughts, stimulate our thoughts". To think is to meditate, states paragraph 6.7 of Maitri Upanishad. To worship Sun, is to worship Self.
The sixth Prapathaka includes etymologies of six Sanskrit words, stating that these are all related to stimulating Self-knowledge. It is this Self, this Soul that is the immortal inside man, the perceiver, thinker, goer, doer, evacuator, begetter, speaker, taster, smeller, seer, hearer, toucher and all-prevader. The Soul underlies the senses yet is more than the sensory capabilities of man, it is pristine unity beyond cause, effect and action.
Appendix: Types of knowledge, all gods are nothing but Soul, that Soul is within each human being - Sixth Prapathaka.
Knowledge is of two types, asserts the Maitri Upanishad: subjective and objective. The subjective knowledge is about the external world dependent on the person, the objective knowledge is about the Self and inner, hidden principles of the world. It is the Soul of man that comes to know subjective and objective knowledge.
The Self of man is identical with various gods and powers, it is the deities Isana, Sambhu, Bhava, Rudra, Prajapati, Visvarij, Hiranyagarbha, Satyam, Prana, Hamsa, Sastri, Vishnu, Narayana, Arka, Savitri, Dhatri, Vidhatri, Samraj, Indra, Indu and Sun. It is this Self that is to be thought after, sought after. Man should find this Self within him.
Appendix: The metaphorical theory of food, of time - Sixth Prapathaka.
Sections 6.9 through 6.17 of the Maitri Upanishad is motley collection of three parts, all relating to the metaphysical interpretation of food. This is connected with the much older metaphorical discussion of "food" in chapter 5 of the Chandogya Upanishad. Everything is food to everything else, and taking of food is described by the Upanishad as a form of worship, a sacrifice offered by the Self to the Self.
In the first part of discussing food, the section discusses the feeding of one's own body as a form of religious ritual, and includes a hymn that is "food prayer" and that urges "Atman" to gratify the reciter as well as gratify all creatures in the universe. In the second part, the Upanishad calls apparent form of Brahman as food, then differentiates between food and the eater of food, and metaphorically maps food all to the nature of existence, of Prakrti (nature) and Purusha (consciousness).
In the third part, in paragraphs 6.11 to 6.17, the text states that food is the cause of all that is in space and hidden principles, then expands the idea to include time by calling "Kala" (Time) is the cause of food, and then celebrates Time as Brahman. Food, states the sixth Prapathaka, is the source of the world, Time is the origin of food, and Sun is the origin of Time. It symbolically maps the Time and Timeless as changing reality and the unchanging Brahman, respectively.
There is a motley collection of ideas in the discussion of "Kala" (Time), within the sixth Prapathaka of the Upanishad. For example, in section 6.14, it sets out to prove Time exists, acknowledges the difficulty in proving Time exists by Pramana (epistemology in Indian philosophy), then inserts a theory of inductive inference for epistemological proof as follows,
The section includes the concept of Time and non-Time, calling these as two forms of Brahman, mirroring the Upanishad's earlier discussion of Material and non-Material universe. It defines non-Time as "what was there before the appearance of Sun", and Time as "what began with the appearance of Sun". Non-Time is indivisible, Time is divisible. Year is the "Murti" (idol) of time. Time ripens everything, asserts the Upanishad. Sun is the foundation for Time, Sun is the Self (the Atman) of Brahman. The Brahman is the eternal, the boundless, the unborn, the immeasurable, the infinite, that which existed before Time, the light in the Sun, the colors in the smokeless fire, and all are only that one, one alone.
Appendix: Yoga, Samkhya and Vaishnava doctrines - Sixth Prapathaka.
Sections 6.18 through 6.30 of the Maitri Upanishad is another motley collection of various theories. The supplementary section starts with the theory of Yoga, as the way by which the highest human goal of Self-knowledge can be attained. Paul Deussen states that this highest goal is the knowledge of "Atman" (Soul, Self, one's inmost being), and with that knowledge realized, becoming one with the "Atman". Along with Katha Upanishad and Shvetashvatara Upanishad, the Maitri Upanishad offers one of the oldest known descriptions of Yoga theory. The sixth Prapathaka enumerates six limbs, a shorter list than the eight limbs of Patanjali's Yogasutra. The identified Yoga steps for Self-knowledge in Maitrayaniya Upanishad are: "Pranayama" (regulation of breath), "Pratyahara" (withdrawal of senses inwards), "Dhyana" (meditation), "Dharana" (concentration of mind on one idea), "Tarka" (creative, contemplation of idea), "Samadhi" (absorption with the idea, a state of being one with the idea).
After enumerating the sixfold yoga, the Upanishad states that the path to Self-knowledge is yogic meditating on Self and Brahman. This meditation leads to the state that "unites everything in the eternal, highest Atman". The one who thus knows Atman, asserts the text, becomes innately one of goodness, liberated, limitless, blissful.
In section 6.23, the Upanishad re-asserts that Brahman is the syllable Om, and then adds that Brahman is manifested in the name of Vishnu, recommending the worship of both. In section 6.30, the Maitri Upanishad acknowledges a debate, based on the Samkhya theories, whether it is the Prakrti or Purusha who attains moksha. The text asserts that it is Purusha, because man by default is controlled by his senses and mind, all emotions such as fear and bashfulness are products of a mind in bondage; man is what his mind is, and for freedom (moksha) man needs to recognize and know his soul.
Appendix: Soul exists, it is everywhere - Sixth Prapathaka.
In section 6.31, the Maitri Upanishad acknowledges concepts, such as "Sūnya" (voidness) found in Buddhism, in a form that suggests a challenge to its premise, as follows,
The text answers that Soul exists, that reason, steadfastness, recollection, consciousness are related to Soul, as plants are related to seeds, as smoke is related to flame and sparks to fire. The Soul (Atman), states the Upanishad, is the source of all life-forces, all worlds, all the Vedas, all gods, all beings, all knowledge, all nature, all literature, all sciences, all explanations, all commentaries, it is in everything. The Upanishad (secret meaning) of the Soul is that "it is the Reality of the realities".
Appendix: What a man thinks, that he becomes - Sixth Prapathaka.
The goal of meditation, states Maitri Upanishad in section 6.34, is to reach liberation and tranquility of mind through Self-realization. This liberation is achieved through one's mind, by refining one's thoughts, through knowing Atman. The text includes a hymn, which in abridged form expresses these ideas as follows,
The mind of man, states the Upanishad, is the cause of his bondage and his freedom. The one whose mind is controlled by objects of sense is unfree, the one whose mind is guided by his soul is free (mukti).
Appendix: Soul is unlimited and there is Oneness in the whole world - Seventh Prapathaka.
The seventh Prapathaka of Maitrayaniya Upanishad states that the Soul is "the inmost being of everything", it is unlimited and it is manifestation of one Brahman. It is Soul, it is deep, it is pure, it is brilliant. The Soul is tranquil, it is fearless, it is sorrowless, it is indescribable joy. It is intelligent, it is patient, it is truth, it is harmony. It is self-dependent, it is steadfast, it is immortal, it is without limits. It is Vishnu, it is Shiva, it is Aditya, it is Indra. It is everywhere, it is in creatures, it is in nature, it is in music. It is in gods, it is in seasons, it is in planets, it is in hymns. It is the Self, it is the Lord, it manifests in many, they are all one and the same.
Appendix: Beware of false teachers and non-Vedic doctrines; seek your own truth - Seventh Prapathaka.
The final supplement of the Maitri Upanishad is a polemic against philosophies that declared antagonism to the Vedic teachings and its doctrine of soul. The section does not name any specific philosophy, but scholars have included Carvakas and Buddhism among the likely candidates. Paul Deussen states that the description though probable, is not concrete enough to prove that this section targets Buddhism. Max Muller expresses stronger doubts that the target was Buddhism. Jayatilleke, on the other hand, states that Buddhism is the likely target.
The paragraph eight of seventh Prapathaka opens by stating that there are hindrances to knowledge, and it is false teaching by those who continually beg, preach hedonism, wear red robes, ear rings and skulls, rogues as religious mendicants, who "for a price, offer that they can remove the evil influences of spirits, demons, ghosts, goblins and the like". In this group of false teachers, are others who misrepresent Vedas, have developed the strategy of deceptive circular arguments, false claims, faulty reasoning and irrational examples against the Vedic literature. All false teachers declare good to be evil, evil to be good, knowledge to be ignorance, and ignorance to be knowledge. They compel a dharma that destroys Vedas and other "Sastras" (scriptures, sacred books). One must not associate with these people, states the text, because they are robbers and love to oppress the believers in the Veda. The text quotes a passage to express its sentiment as follows,
In sections 7.9 and 7.10, the Upanishad refers to Katha Upanishad, and recommends that man should seek to know both knowledge and non-knowledge, the real and the delusion, the truth and untruth. Don't be "like blind men led by one who is himself blind", states the Maitri Upanishad.
Similarities and differences with Buddhist teachings.
The Maitri Upanishad shows signs of influence, or at least awareness of Buddhist teachings. Rhys Davis, about a 100 years ago, stated that Maitri Upanishad is the earliest Sanskrit literary usage of the term 'samadhi', a word also found in early texts of Buddhism. However, the concept of meditation and union is far older than the known literally use of the term "Samadhi". The idea of "union", expressed with terms such "Samadhi"-root or related words, occur in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, the oldest and longest Upanishad of the Hinduism. There are many other words and ideas that are shared between Maitri Upanishad and earliest known Buddhist texts.
Maitri Upanishad explicitly mentions, in seventh "Prapathaka", a sect of thought whose teachers wear "reddish robe" ("kasaya"–), who deny the "existence of soul, self" premise ("nairatmyavada"–), preach a "dharma destructive of Vedas and Upanishads" ("vedadisastra himsaka dharmabhidhyanam"–) and whose goal is hedonistic "attainment of pleasure" ("ratimatram phalam asya"–). This sect reference could potentially be Carvakas, Ajivakas, Buddhism, Jainism or another unknown sect of thought that existed in ancient India. Jayatilleke states that this reference in Maitri Upanishad is likely to be to the Buddhists since,
Jayatilleke additionally notes that there are many words as well as ideas such as the contemplation of the organic substances of the body and "brahma-kosa" theory in the sixth "Prapathaka" of this Upanishad that has "a Buddhist flavor".
Despite the similarities in words and some ideas, the teachings in the Upanishads of Hinduism, including Maitrayaniya Upanishad, however, are founded on the premise that "the Soul, Self and Brahman exists", and these texts discuss the paths to know, realize one's Soul (Self) and Brahman. This makes the fundamental premise of Maitrayaniya and other Upanishads of Hinduism distinctly different than Buddhism's key premise that there is "no Self, no Soul".
Anatman and Niratman.
The term "niratman" appears in the "Maitrayaniya Upanishad" such as in verses 6.20, 6.21 and 7.4. "Niratman" literally means "selfless". The verses 6.22 and 6.23 discuss sound-Brahman (Om, "sabda-brahman", lower Brahman) and soundless-Brahman (empty, "asabda-brahman", higher Brahman), then teaches that both should be known. The "niratman" concept has been interpreted to be analogous to "anatta" doctrine ("anatman") of Buddhism. The ontological teachings, however, are different. In the Upanishad, states Thomas Wood, numerous positive and negative descriptions of various states – such as "niratman" and "sarvasyatman" (the self of all) – are used in "Maitrayaniya Upanishad" to explain the nondual concept of the "highest Self". According to Ramatirtha, states Paul Deussen, the "niratman" state discussion is referring to stopping the recognition of oneself as an individual soul, and reaching the awareness of universal soul or the metaphysical Brahman.
Reception.
The Maitri Upanishad is oft cited text in comparative studies of Buddhism and Hinduism, as well as the likely influence of one on the other. Monier-Williams referred to Maitrayaniya Upanishad, among other Vedic literature, in his review of the relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism.
In studies on the earliest discussion of Yoga theory, Maitri Upanishad is among the most referred to.


Darcia Narvaez

Darcia Narvaez (dar-sha narv-eyes) is a Professor of Psychology Emerita at the University of Notre Dame who has written extensively on issues of character and moral development.
Biography.
Narvaez was born in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Her father, Richard Narvaez, was a professor of Spanish linguistics at the University of Minnesota. Darcia Narvaez spent part of her childhood in Puerto Rico, Mexico, Colombia, and Spain. Her first job was with the local public television station (KTCA) in St. Paul, Minnesota, as a 7-and 8-year-old: she was the voice of the puppet, Maria, on the Spanish-language-teaching program "Ya Hablamos Español".
Narvaez subsequently worked as a church musician (organist, choir director), classroom and private music teacher (Brent International School in Baguio City, Philippines; King of Kings School in Roseville, Minnesota), middle school Spanish teacher (The Blake School in Hopkins, Minnesota), and business owner. She also earned a master of divinity degree from Luther Seminary in St. Paul and is a published poet.
Narvaez earned her PhD in educational psychology from the University of Minnesota in 1993, and joined the College of Education and Human Development there in the department of curriculum and instruction and the department of educational psychology. In 2000, she joined the department of psychology at Notre Dame.
Narvaez was married to Professor James Rest until his death in 1999. She is married to Daniel Lapsley, a professor of psychology at Notre Dame.
Career.
Narvaez was the design leader of the Minnesota Community Voices and Character Education project funded with $1 million by the US Department of Education during 1998-2002. She is co-author with James Rest, Steve Thoma and Muriel Bebeau of the book "Postconventional Moral Thinking" (1999).
Narvaez was one of five psychologists to be invited to speak at the White House's Conference on Character in Community in 2002.
Narvaez's work emphasizes moral development over the lifespan, and the interaction between implicit and explicit processes in moral functioning. She emphasizes the importance of early experience in shaping moral capacities. Her current work is on the evolved developmental niche for young children (natural birth, extensive on-demand breastfeeding, constant touch, caregiver responsiveness, free play, multiple adult caregivers and extensive positive social support). She is studying the effects of early life experience on moral development in the US and in China.
A recent emphasis in Narvaez's work involves indigenous wisdom, starting with her 2013 paper "The 99%--Development and socialization within an evolutionary context: Growing up to become 'A good and useful human being.'” She organized a conference in September 2016 called "Sustainable Wisdom: Integrating Indigenous Knowhow for Global Flourishing" resulting in the volume, Indigenous Sustainable Wisdom (2019).
Narvaez's blog, "Moral Landscapes," at "Psychology Today" has over 14 million hits (as of mid 2020) with the most popular posts being "Dangers of 'Crying it Out'" with over 2.8 million hits, Five Things NOT to do to Babies, and Myths about Circumcision You Likely Believe.
Honors.
Narvaez is a fellow of the American Psychological Association and of the American Educational Research Association. She is former editor-in-chief of the "Journal of Moral Education".
Narvaez's book "Neurobiology and the Development of Human Morality: Evolution, Culture and Wisdom" won the 2015 William James Book Award from Division I of the American Psychological Association. It also won the 2017 Expanded Reason Award.
Several of Narvaez's books have won awards from the special interest group, Moral Development and Education, at the American Educational Research Association:


Jackie Stacey

Jackie Stacey is a feminist film theorist. She has contributed to the fields of cultural studies, ethnography, and feminist film theory, particularly in regards to star studies and examining the spectatorial response to film. She is a currently professor of Media and Cultural Studies and the director of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Arts and Languages (CIDRAL) at the University of Manchester. She previously worked in the Department of Sociology at Lancaster University as a professor of women's studies and cultural studies. She has served as co-editor of "Screen" since 1994. As an author, she has been largely collected by libraries.
Education.
Stacey received a Bachelor of Arts degree in European Studies in 1982 from the University of Sussex and a Master of Arts degree in Women's Studies in 1985 from the University of Kent. She received her doctorate in 1992 from the University of Birmingham.
Theory and Thought.
Female Spectatorship and Homoerotic Desire.
In her 1987 article "Desperately Seeking Difference," Stacey posits that there is a very strong connection between lesbian films and films that feature female bonding and friendship. She argues that there is inherently a "homoerotic component" in films about women with intimate friendships, even if there is no explicit homosexual contact between the female characters. Stacey links this argument to her work in spectatorial theory by comparing the homoerotic way in which the female characters on screen interact with one another to the way the female spectators in the audience form a connection with the films' female stars. Stacey suggests that the way female spectators view the stars they see on screen must pertain to some element of desire, as their idealisation of the stars negates the concept of purely narcissistic identification. Rather than viewing the female spectatorial experience through the lens of either male desire or female identification, Stacey calls for a deconstruction of the binary and a more nuanced spectrum with which to explore female spectatorship.
Jackie Stacey's theory of female spectatorship's relation with homoerotic desire has stemmed much academic debate. Opposition to Stacey's theory has been most notably come from Teresa de Lauretis. In contrast to Stacey, de Lauretis, a proponent of orthodox Freudianism, claims that the dichotomy between object libido and the desexualised ego libido that centres on narcissistic identification can not be combined or otherwise dismantled. While Stacey argues for the eroticisation of identification, de Lauretis very staunchly insists that the dichotomy be maintained.
The Future of Women's Studies.
In 1992, along with Hilary Hinds and Ann Phoenix, Jackie Stacey co-edited "Working Out: New Directions for Women's Studies," an anthology that attempted to answer the question of where women's studies belonged. Stacey and her co-editors were especially interested in addressing the ambiguities and uncertainties that exist in the field. The title reflects their claim that women's studies is still "working out" how to respond negotiate its marginal standing inside mainstream academia.
In her written and editorial work, Stacey has expressed concern over whether or not women's studies's pursuit of academic legitimacy would diminish open political feminist debate. In regards to selecting texts to form a feminist canon, Stacey has warned that doing so runs the risk of creating a "hierarchy of knowledge" that may exclude the voice of the Other.
Summary of Academic Work.
Stacey is noted for her work in film spectatorship analysis. In her book, "Stargazing: Hollywood Cinema and Female Spectatorship" (1993), Stacey surveyed the responses women had to the Hollywood starlets of the 1940s and 1950s, such as Doris Day and Rita Hayworth. Through examining letters the respondents sent to her, she examined the spectatorial reaction of the female viewers, an area of inquiry she claims has been much neglected in feminist film theory. With this study's focus on the female spectatorial experience to film and Hollywood mythology, Stacey pushes against the traditional cine-psych mode of analysis (using psychoanalysis as a tool for interpreting the text), a mode of analysis that emphasises meaning as exclusively governed by the text.
Along with Annette Kuhn, Stacey co-edited "Screen Histories: A "Screen" Reader" (1999), an anthology of essays that address the concept of "history" in screen studies. The essays were originally published in academic journal of film and television studies "Screen" over the preceding twenty years.
In "Global Nature, Global Culture" (2000), Stacey, along with Sarah Franklin and Celia Lury, addresses the problematic inherent masculinity of the theory of globalisation. Their argument against this gendered imbalance and their proposition for a field of globalist feminist cultural studies is situated around three case studies. The authors include and analyse cultural images, references, texts, and artworks that are widely distributed to Western audiences, such as The Body Shop, Benetton commercials, and "Jurassic Park". While other works in globalisation theory have indeed touched on "how global forces shape and reshape landscapes of culture and nature," few have engaged with it so extensively.
Selected bibliography.
Books.
"Stargazing: Hollywood Cinema and Female Spectatorship" (1993)
"Teratologies: A Cultural Study of Cancer" (1997)
"Gender, Theory and Culture series : Global Nature, Global Culture" (2000) (co-authored with Sarah Franklin and Celia Lury)
"The Cinematic Life of the Gene" (2010)
Anthologies.
"Working Out: New Directions for Women's Studies" (1992) edited by Hilary Hinds, Ann Phoenix, and Jackie Stacey
"Romance Revisited" (1995) edited by Lynne Pearce and Jackie Stacey
"Screen Histories: A "Screen" Reader" (1999) edited by Jackie Stacey and Annette Kuhn
"Queer Screen: The Queer Reader" (2007) edited by Jackie Stacey and Sarah Street
Notable Critical Articles.
"Dyketactics for Difficult Times: A Review of the 'Homosexuality, Which Homosexuality?' Conference, Amsterdam, 15–18 December 1987" (1988) (co-written with Sarah Franklin) in "Feminist Review"
"Masculinity, Masquerade, and Genetic Impersonation: Gattaca's Queer Visions" (2005) in "Signs"
"Crossing over with Tilda Swinton–the Mistress of 'Flat Affect'" (2015) in the "International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society"


Honor (given name)

Honor is a primarily feminine given name derived from the word "honour", taken from a Latin root word "honos", "honoris". It was a virtue name in use by the Puritans. It is still in occasional use in England, but is an extremely rare name in the United States, where it has never ranked among the top 1,000 names for girls or boys.


Objectivist periodicals

Objectivist periodicals are a variety of academic journals, magazines and newsletters with an editorial perspective explicitly based on Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Several early Objectivist periodicals were edited by Rand. She later endorsed two periodicals edited by associates, and a number of others have been founded since her death.
Periodicals edited by Ayn Rand.
From 1961 to 1976, Rand was publisher and editor (sometimes co-editor) for three different periodicals: "The Objectivist Newsletter", "The Objectivist", and "The Ayn Rand Letter". In addition to editing, Rand wrote many articles for these publications.
"The Objectivist Newsletter".
The first Objectivist periodical was "The Objectivist Newsletter", a four-page newsletter that began publishing in January 1962. The newsletter was co-published by Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden and grew out of the previous success of the Nathaniel Branden Institute (NBI), which Branden had founded in 1958 (originally as Nathaniel Branden Lectures) to promote Objectivism. By late 1961, NBI had accumulated a mailing list of over 10,000 people, which was used to announce the newsletter.
A number of different writers contributed articles to "The Objectivist Newsletter", including Martin Anderson, Barbara Branden, Edith Efron, Alan Greenspan, Robert Hessen, and Leonard Peikoff. However, the majority of the articles were written by either Ayn Rand or Nathaniel Branden.
In 1965, Rand and Branden decided to change the format of the publication. In October 1965, they announced that "The Objectivist Newsletter" would become "The Objectivist". This was purely a change of name and format, with business operations, including subscriptions, continuing unchanged.
"The Objectivist".
In January 1966, "The Objectivist" replaced "The Objectivist Newsletter", with Rand and Branden continuing as co-editors. The renamed publication used a sixteen-page magazine format in place of the previous newsletter format. The number of subscribers continued to climb, reaching 21,000 by the end of 1966. Contributors during this period included economists Alan Greenspan and George Reisman, historian Robert Hessen, neurophysiologist Robert Efron, novelists Erika Holzer and Kay Nolte Smith, and philosopher Leonard Peikoff.
In August 1968, Rand broke off her relationships with both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. Nathaniel Branden resigned from "The Objectivist" and signed over his half of the magazine to her. In the May 1968 issue, which appeared at this time because the magazine was then behind schedule, Rand issued a public statement denouncing the Brandens and disassociating herself from them. From this point forward, Rand acted as the sole editor for the magazine, bringing in Peikoff as an associate editor.
In 1971, Rand decided on another format change, going back to a newsletter style publication, in the hope that this would allow her to reach a larger audience. The final issue of "The Objectivist" was published in September 1971.
"The Ayn Rand Letter".
In October 1971, Rand began publishing "The Ayn Rand Letter". This new publication was produced in the style of a typewritten letter and was published fortnightly. Rand's initial hopes for reaching a wider audience with the newsletter format were not fulfilled. The "Letter" actually lost subscribers compared to "The Objectivist", largely because of the "Letter"'s higher subscription price. The newsletter was usually four or six pages long with a single major article per issue, plus occasional announcements and the continuing "Objectivist Calendar" entries. Rand wrote most of the articles herself, in addition to acting as editor and publisher. Leonard Peikoff served as a contributing editor and wrote the articles for six of the newsletter's eighty-one issues.
Beginning in 1973, outside circumstances began to cause delays in production. In March 1973, Rand discovered that a sister she believed to have died was in fact still alive and in the Soviet Union. Rand worked hard to arrange a visit to the United States for her sister. When her sister finally arrived, their reunion turned into fighting over political and philosophical differences. As Hessen described it, "This incident, stretching across eight months, took a heavy toll on her writing and publication schedule, which allocated no time for unexpected interruptions." Several issues of the "Letter" published during this period bore a postscript: "This "Letter" was written later than the date that appears on its heading."
Rand attempted to bring the "Letter" back on schedule, but further delays occurred when she was diagnosed with lung cancer. Each issue continued to bear the date when it should have appeared on the original fortnightly schedule, with the "written later" postscript. By the middle of 1975, issues were appearing eight months behind schedule, with the issue dated August 26, 1974 actually being written in May 1975. In that issue, Peikoff announced that the "Letter" would become a monthly publication, rather than fortnightly. Rand was unable to sustain this schedule either, and announced at the end of 1975 that the newsletter would cease publication. The final issue appeared in February 1976. It was the last periodical that Rand edited, although she did serve as an adviser to "The Objectivist Forum" when that magazine began in 1980.
Article reprints.
The articles from Rand's three periodicals did not appear only in their respective pages. They were frequently reprinted as pamphlets. Initially these were sold by the NBI Book Service, an affiliate of the Nathaniel Branden Institute. When NBI and its affiliates were closed in 1968, a new Objectivist Book Service began selling the reprints. The Objectivist Book Service later sold reprints from "The Ayn Rand Letter" until shortly after that publication was discontinued.
In addition to pamphlets, many articles from these periodicals also appeared in books. Articles from "The Objectivist Newsletter" by Rand and Nathaniel Branden made up most of the content for "The Virtue of Selfishness". Rand's next book, ', included articles from her and Branden, plus Greenspan and Hessen. Reprints of Rand's articles also appeared in "The Romantic Manifesto", ' (later revised as "Return of the Primitive"), "", and "The Voice of Reason". The content of Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" was serialized in "The Objectivist", and the published book also includes an article by Leonard Peikoff reprinted from that same magazine. Peikoff's articles for "The Ayn Rand Letter" were material later incorporated into his book "The Ominous Parallels".
In 1969, a brief dispute arose between Rand and Nathaniel Branden, over the use of some of his articles from "The Objectivist". The copyrights for the articles had been registered in the name of the magazine. When Branden signed over his interest in the company to Rand, he believed they had an understanding that he could re-use the material in his articles for his planned book, "The Psychology of Self-Esteem". Rand threatened to withhold her consent to use the material, but took no action when Branden's publisher decided to go forward anyway.
All three of the periodicals edited by Rand were later published in hardcover collections by Palo Alto Book Service. In 2001, all the articles by Rand and Peikoff were incorporated into the "Objectivism Research CD-ROM", a searchable e-book of their writings (which was subsequently discontinued).
Other Objectivist periodicals.
"The Intellectual Activist".
"The Intellectual Activist" (TIA) was founded in 1979 by Peter Schwartz. It was subsequently edited by Robert Stubblefield (1991–1996) and then by Robert Tracinski. From 1985 onward, TIA was aligned with the Ayn Rand Institute, but in 2005 Tracinski stopped working for the institute, citing internal disputes about political issues as one of his reasons. TIA ceased publishing as a print issue and published only as an online newsletter called "TIA Daily". In 2012, Tracinski changed its name to "The Tracinski Letter".
"The Objectivist Forum".
"The Objectivist Forum" was an Objectivist bimonthly journal published from February 1980 through December 1987.
Rand helped establish it and served as its philosophic consultant until her death in 1982. Harry Binswanger was publisher and editor; Peikoff served as consulting editor.
"The Objective Standard".
"The Objective Standard" is a quarterly journal on culture and politics founded by Craig Biddle and Sidney J. Gunst Jr. in 2006, which describes itself as providing "commentary from an Objectivist perspective." Biddle serves as editor for "The Objective Standard". Several fellows from the Ayn Rand Institute, such as Yaron Brook, Andrew Bernstein, Tara Smith, Elan Journo, and Alex Epstein, have written for the journal.
"The Undercurrent".
"The Undercurrent" has been published since 2005. It is available at college campuses and other outlets. It is a student-run 8-page quarterly that applies the philosophy of Objectivism to current events.
Others.
Other Objectivist periodicals include "Full Context", "Objectivity", and "The New Individualist".
In 1988, Karen Reedstrom (later Minto) began publishing a newsletter for the Objectivist Club of Eastern Michigan. In 1990 the newsletter became "Full Context", which billed itself as "An International Objectivist Publication." The magazine was published until October 2000. Contributors included Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Tibor Machan, and the magazine published a number of interviews with people associated with Objectivism, including Barbara Branden, Nathaniel Branden, Erika Holzer, and David Kelley.


Canadian Screen Award for Best Editing in a Documentary

The Canadian Screen Award for Best Editing in a Documentary is an annual award, presented as part of the Canadian Screen Awards program to honour the year's best editing in a documentary film. It is presented separately from the Canadian Screen Award for Best Editing for narrative feature films.
An award for Best Editing in a Non-Feature, with its nominees consisting entirely of short or television documentary films, was presented at the 1st Genie Awards in 1980s and an award for Best Editing in a Documentary was presented at the shortlived Bijou Awards in 1981, although the Academy never presented an award for editing in theatrical feature documentaries until the 3rd Canadian Screen Awards in 2015. The non-feature winners from 1980 and 1981 have, however, been included below.


Simon Gaunt

Simon Gaunt is a professor of French literature at King's College London. He is also president of the Society for French Studies.
Gaunt did his graduate studies at the University of Warwick and then taught at the University of Cambridge before moving to King's College in 1998.
In July 2018 Gaunt was elected Fellow of the British Academy (FBA).


Petre P. Panaitescu

Petre P. Panaitescu (March 11, 1900 – November 14, 1967) was a Romanian literary historian. A native of Iași, he spent most of his adult life in the national capital Bucharest, where he rose to become a professor at its main university. As such, he challenged various aspects of the dominant nationalist historiography. However, he also joined the ultra-nationalist Iron Guard, and headed the university during the movement's brief time in power. After the Guard was violently suppressed at the beginning of 1941, he lost his professorial position. When a communist-dominated government entered office in early 1945, he was arrested and imprisoned. Panaitescu was freed by the end of the year, the new authorities finding useful his theories of Slavic influence on Romania's national trajectory. He worked as a researcher in the latter part of his career, retiring in 1965, two years before his death.
Biography.
Education and early career.
Born in Iași to engineer Panait Panaitescu and his wife Leonia ("née" Greceanu), he attended primary school in his native city, followed by high school in Bucharest. He attended the literature and philosophy faculty of the University of Bucharest from 1918 to 1922, and took specialty courses at Jagiellonian University in Kraków from 1923 to 1924. From 1924 to 1926, he was a member of the Romanian school at Fontenay-aux-Roses. His first published work appeared in "Revista istorică" in 1917; the article dealt with a court case in the Danubian Principalities. Other magazines to which he contributed include "Convorbiri Literare", "Studii", "Arhiva românească", "Buletinul Comisiei Istorice a României", "Romanoslavica", "Studii și cercetări de istorie medie", "Revista Fundațiilor Regale", "Memoriile Secției Istorice a Academiei", "Mélanges de l’École Roumaine en France" and "Viața Românească", as well as Polish and Soviet reviews. His first book, from 1923, was a biographical study of Nicolae Bălcescu.
In 1925, he earned a doctorate in history; his thesis analyzed the Polish influence on the works and personalities of the chroniclers Grigore Ureche and Miron Costin. Subsequently, he became a professor at his alma mater, and was elected a corresponding member of the Romanian Academy in 1934.
View of history, Guardist affiliation and downfall.
Together with Gheorghe I. Brătianu and Constantin C. Giurescu, Panaitescu was a member of the "new school" of Romanian history that published in "Revista istorică română" and defined itself in opposition to Nicolae Iorga and his "Revista istorică". He wrote a 1936 study of Michael the Brave that de-emphasized the dominant narrative of Michael as hero, and focused instead on the social class that dictated his actions, namely the "boyars". The book drew a harsh review from Iorga, who claimed Panaitescu was bringing Michael down from his pedestal, and even committing lèse-majesté by claiming he was not the son of Pătrașcu the Good.
He questioned major elements of other Romanian historical myths, prioritizing material, social and cultural structures over the heroic and personalized approach. In a 1944 article, he asserted that the Ottoman Empire failed to directly incorporate the Principalities not because of the struggles of Romanians against the Turks (an important theme in mainstream historiography), but because the Ottomans' thrust into Europe lay along a different path, and they found it more advantageous to exploit the area indirectly. Like Ioan Bogdan, he considered that the Slavs were important in medieval Romanian history, even considering the indigenous boyar class to be of Slav origin; on the other hand, he followed Dimitrie Onciul in downplaying the notion of Daco-Roman continuity. Challenging Alexandru Dimitrie Xenopol's thesis regarding the Byzantine influence on national culture, he asserted that Romanians between the ninth and the eighteenth century had adopted a Slavo-Byzantine culture. For him, far from being a misfortune of history, this development was necessary given the prevailing social, economic and spiritual conditions. It also fostered national cohesion, allowing Romanians in the three historical provinces of Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania to resist foreign invasion and denationalization. He added that early Romanians failed to adopt Western culture because its technical and urban nature was alien to them.
Despite his anti-nationalist stance as a historian, Panaitescu belonged to the extreme nationalist Iron Guard for a time. Under the National Legionary State (September 1940-January 1941), he was the University of Bucharest's rector as well as editor of "Cuvântul" newspaper, which was replete with historical-mythological constructs. The sole full professor in the literature faculty who belonged to the Guard, he had kept his position and perhaps his life during the National Renaissance Front regime's wave of repression against the movement in 1938-1939 thanks to the intervention of Giurescu, Mihai Ralea and Alexandru Rosetti. Ralea, a close friend of Interior Minister Armand Călinescu, spent more than three hours arguing with Călinescu until the latter removed Panaitescu's name from a list of Guardists to be interned. Many of those interned were subsequently killed. Following the assassination of Iorga in late November 1940, Panaitescu and dean Alexandru Marcu did fly the flag at half-mast, but this was quickly replaced by Guardist students with the movement's green banner.
As a result of the January 1941 suppression of the Guard, Panaitescu's university career was over, and he was suspended from his department effective March 1. Starting in June 1943, he worked at the Peace Bureau, an office created by Foreign Minister Mihai Antonescu with the scope of formulating Romanian demands at the peace conference that was bound to follow when the ongoing World War II came to an end.
Under communism.
Due to his enthusiasm for the Iron Guard and his articles in "Cuvântul", he was arrested in April 1945, under the new Romanian Communist Party-dominated government; following an agreement between former Guard leaders and Soviet agent Alexandru Nicolschi, Panaitescu and those imprisoned alongside him were released that December. Starting in 1946 and through the end of 1948, he was a technical adviser at the Romanian-Russian Museum. Meanwhile, in the summer of 1948, he became section director of the Balkan studies and research institute, which was soon folded into the Academy's history institute, where he remained until his retirement in 1965. Also that summer, he was stripped of his Academy membership.
It was only in 1954 that he managed to resume work openly as a researcher, at the Nicolae Iorga Institute. For several years prior, he was obliged to write under the pseudonym Al. Grecu. Despite his undesirable past, the regime found him useful as a Slavist who focused on historical ties between Romanians and Russians, or the activities of the peasantry. In his later years, he wrote several weighty volumes about early Romanian history, including a 1958 study of Dimitrie Cantemir's life and work, a 1965 analysis of written Romanian's beginnings and a posthumous 1969 introduction to Romanian cultural history.


Mark Twain in popular culture

Mark Twains legacy includes awards, events, a variety of memorials and namesakes, and numerous works of art, entertainment, and media.
Awards.
Awards in his name proliferate:
Places.
Schools.
Several schools are named after him, including:
Structures.
Many sites have been named after Twain. Many buildings associated with the writer, including some of his many homes, have been preserved as museums.


The Carpe Diem Trust

The Carpe Diem Trust is a UK-based charitable trust. It was registered on 4 July 2006 with the UK Charity Commission, with the registered number 1115061.
According to the Trust's website its purpose is:
"The Carpe Diem Trust is a new charity, due to begin operation in the second half of 2007. It will be a grant awarding body aimed at helping and motivating ordinary people to take control of their lives and to stretch the boundaries of their potential further than they thought possible".


Giovanni Ciampoli

Giovanni Ciampoli or Giovanni Battista Ciampoli (Florence, 1589 – Iesi, 8 September 1643) was a priest, poet and humanist. He was closely associated with Galileo Galilei and his disputes with the Catholic Church.
Education and friendship with Galileo.
With modest family origins, he was prepared from an early age for a literary career and had a talent for poetry. He was educated at the Universities of Padua and Pisa, where he met Galileo and became his pupil. Their relationship was renewed at the Medici court, where he was among Galileo’s circle of friends.
His correspondence with Galileo stretched over many years. In February 1615 he wrote to reassure him that the furore about his Copernican opinions had died down, and 'the Friars don't seem to talk or think about that business any more.' In 1619, when Galileo published his "Discourse on the Comets", Ciampoli warned him that the Jesuits 'were much offended and were preparing to strike back.'
Church and literary career.
In 1614, after completing his studies, Ciampoli moved to Rome where he took holy orders. He was soon introduced to the circles of the Roman Curia and when Galileo was first investigated in 1615-16, out of consideration for his loyalty to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, kept up regular communication with his friend Galileo about developments within the senior ranks of the Catholic Church. Thereafter, in 1618, thanks to the good offices of Galileo, he was inducted into the Accademia dei Lincei together with his friend Virginio Cesarini.
In 1621 he was promoted to Secretary of Briefs to Pope Gregory XV and in 1623 he became chamberlain to Pope Urban VIII, whom he had come to know when, as Maffeo Barberini, he had been Cardinal legate to Bologna. With a lively intellect and an amiable character, he maintained an extensive correspondence with many of the scientists of his time, including Ippolito Aldobrandini, Michelangelo Buonarroti the Younger, Federigo Borromeo, Giovanni Battista Strozzi the younger, and Evangelista Torricelli.
Galileo controversy.
Ciampoli read a draft of Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in 1630, after which he wrote to Galileo assuring him of the Pope’s favourable view. At the same time, he indicated to the Pope that Galileo had faithfully followed the directions he had given him concerning how the book was to be written. His influence was pivotal in ensuring that the book obtained the necessary authorisation of the Church for publication in 1632. This turned to his disadvantage after the book was published, when Urban VIII decided that both Ciampoli and Galileo had deceived him about the book’s arguments. The Pope also regarded Ciampoli as too sympathetic to radical philosophical ideas espoused by Galileo and others in his circle. The Pope removed Ciampoli from his office in April 1632 and he left Rome in November of that year.
Exile and later years.
Before handing over his post as chamberlain to his successor, Monsignor Herrera, Ciampoli had taken care to have two sets of copies made of his diplomatic archives. When he was dismissed he was ordered to leave his copies in his office, but he had already secured the second set of copies, which he took with him together with his large personal archive when he left Rome. This included his books and scientific papers, correspondence with Galileo, and many other works.
Ciampoli was exiled first to the town of Montalto delle Marche, where he served as governor, and later to governorships in Norcia (1636), San Severio della Marca (1637), Fabriano (1640), and Iesi. He maintained contact by letter with many important figures, including Cardinal Mazarin and Prince Maurice of Savoy. He also remained in contact with Valerianus Magnus, theologian and philosopher at the court of Władysław IV Vasa, King of Poland. Through his good offices, Ciampoli was appointed official historiographer to the King.
When he died in 1643, Ciampoli bequeathed not only four volumes on the history of Poland, but all his manuscripts, including both his scientific and his poetic works, to the King of Poland. He intended his collected archive to be transported to Poland, but before the necessary arrangements could be made, representatives of the Holy Office appeared with a sequestration order, seized everything, and took it to Rome. Of his scientific work and his correspondence with Galileo, no further trace remains. Some of his historical and literary works were passed on to the Barberini and Casanatense libraries and to other collections. His poetry and prose writings, together with his History of Poland, were published through the Holy Office, edited by his friend Francesco Sforza Pallavicino.


Pebibit

The pebibit is a multiple of the bit, a unit of digital information storage, prefixed by the standards-based multiplier pebi (symbol Pi), a binary prefix meaning 250. The unit symbol of the pebibit is Pibit.
The pebibit is closely related to the petabit, the corresponding unit using the metric prefix peta, which is 1015 bits.


Weyl curvature hypothesis

The Weyl curvature hypothesis, which arises in the application of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity to physical cosmology, was introduced by the British mathematician and theoretical physicist Sir Roger Penrose in an article in 1979 in an attempt to provide explanations for two of the most fundamental issues in physics. On the one hand one would like to account for a universe which on its largest observational scales appears remarkably spatially homogeneous and isotropic in its physical properties (and so can be described by a simple Friedmann–Lemaître model), on the other hand there is the deep question on the origin of the second law of thermodynamics.
Penrose suggests that the resolution of both of these problems is rooted in a concept of the entropy content of gravitational fields. Near the initial cosmological singularity (the Big Bang), he proposes, the entropy content of the cosmological gravitational field was extremely low (compared to what it theoretically could have been), and started rising monotonically thereafter. This process manifested itself e.g. in the formation of structure through the clumping of matter to form galaxies and clusters of galaxies. Penrose associates the initial low entropy content of the universe with the effective vanishing of the Weyl curvature tensor of the cosmological gravitational field near the Big Bang. From then on, he proposes, its dynamical influence gradually increased, thus being responsible for an overall increase in the amount of entropy in the universe, and so inducing a cosmological arrow of time.
The Weyl curvature represents such gravitational effects as tidal fields and gravitational radiation. Mathematical treatments of Penrose's ideas on the Weyl curvature hypothesis have been given in the context of isotropic initial cosmological singularities e.g. in the articles. Penrose views the Weyl curvature hypothesis as a physically more credible alternative to cosmic inflation (a hypothetical phase of accelerated expansion in the early life of the universe) in order to account for the presently observed almost spatial homogeneity and isotropy of our universe.


San Diego Film Critics Society Award for Best Editing

The San Diego Film Critics Society Award for Best (Film) Editing is an award given by the San Diego Film Critics Society to honor the finest directing achievements in filmmaking.


Episodic learning


Gigabyte

The gigabyte () is a multiple of the unit byte for digital information. The prefix "giga" means 109 in the International System of Units (SI). Therefore, one gigabyte is one billion bytes. The unit symbol for the gigabyte is GB.
This definition is used in all contexts of science, engineering, business, and many areas of computing, including hard drive, solid state drive, and tape capacities, as well as data transmission speeds. However, the term is also used in some fields of computer science and information technology to denote (10243 or 230) bytes, particularly for sizes of RAM. The use of "gigabyte" may thus be ambiguous. Hard disk capacities are described and marketed by drive manufacturers using the standard metric definition of the gigabyte, but when a 400 GB drive's capacity is displayed by, for example, Microsoft Windows, it is reported as 372 GB, using a binary interpretation. To address this ambiguity, the International System of Quantities standardizes the binary prefixes which denote a series of integer powers of 1024. With these prefixes, a memory module that is labeled as having the size "" has one gibibyte () of storage capacity. Using the ISQ definitions, the "372 GB" reported for the hard drive is actually 372 GiB (400 GB).
Definition.
The term "gigabyte" has a standard definition of 10003 bytes, as well as a discouraged meaning of 10243 bytes. The latter binary usage originated as compromise technical jargon for byte multiples that needed to be expressed in a power of 2, but lacked a convenient name. As 1024 (210) is approximately 1000 (103), roughly corresponding to SI multiples, it was used for binary multiples as well.
In 1998 the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) published standards for binary prefixes, requiring that the gigabyte strictly denote 10003 bytes and gibibyte denote 10243 bytes. By the end of 2007, the IEC Standard had been adopted by the IEEE, EU, and NIST, and in 2009 it was incorporated in the International System of Quantities. Nevertheless, the term gigabyte continues to be widely used with the following two different meanings:
Base 10 (decimal).
Based on powers of 10, this definition uses the prefix giga- as defined in the International System of Units (SI). This is the recommended definition by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). This definition is used in networking contexts and most storage media, particularly hard drives, flash-based storage, and DVDs, and is also consistent with the other uses of the SI prefix in computing, such as CPU clock speeds or measures of performance. The file manager of Mac OS X version 10.6 and later versions are a notable example of this usage in software, which report files sizes in decimal units.
Base 2 (binary).
The binary definition uses powers of the base 2, as does the architectural principle of binary computers.
This usage is widely promulgated by some operating systems, such as Microsoft Windows in reference to computer memory (e.g., RAM). This definition is synonymous with the unambiguous unit gibibyte.
Consumer confusion.
Since the first disk drive, the IBM 350, disk drive manufacturers expressed hard drive capacities using decimal prefixes. With the advent of gigabyte-range drive capacities, manufacturers based most consumer hard drive capacities in certain size classes expressed in decimal gigabytes, such as "500 GB". The exact capacity of a given drive model is usually slightly larger than the class designation. Practically all manufacturers of hard disk drives and flash-memory disk devices continue to define one gigabyte as , which is displayed on the packaging. Some operating systems such as OS X express hard drive capacity or file size using decimal multipliers, while others such as Microsoft Windows report size using binary multipliers. This discrepancy causes confusion, as a disk with an advertised capacity of, for example, (meaning , equal to 372 GiB) might be reported by the operating system as "".
The JEDEC memory standards use IEEE 100 nomenclature which quote the gigabyte as (230 bytes).
The difference between units based on decimal and binary prefixes increases as a semi-logarithmic (linear-log) function—for example, the decimal kilobyte value is nearly 98% of the kibibyte, a megabyte is under 96% of a mebibyte, and a gigabyte is just over 93% of a gibibyte value. This means that a 300 GB (279 GiB) hard disk might be indicated variously as "300 GB", "279 GB" or "279 GiB", depending on the operating system. As storage sizes increase and larger units are used, these differences become more pronounced.
US lawsuits.
The most recent lawsuits arising from alleged consumer confusion over the binary and decimal definitions used for "gigabyte" have ended in favor of the manufacturers, with courts holding that the legal definition of gigabyte or GB is 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 (109) bytes (the decimal definition) rather than the binary definition (230) for commercial transactions. Specifically, the courts held that "the U.S. Congress has deemed the decimal definition of gigabyte to be the 'preferred' one for the purposes of 'U.S. trade and commerce' ... The California Legislature has likewise adopted the decimal system for all 'transactions in this state'."
Earlier lawsuits had ended in settlement with no court ruling on the question, such as a lawsuit against drive manufacturer Western Digital. Western Digital settled the challenge and added explicit disclaimers to products that the usable capacity may differ from the advertised capacity.
Seagate was sued on similar grounds and also settled.
Other contexts.
Because of their physical design, the capacity of modern computer random access memory devices, such as DIMM modules, is always a multiple of a power of 1024. It is thus convenient to use prefixes denoting powers of 1024, known as binary prefixes, in describing them. For example, a memory capacity of is conveniently expressed as 1 GiB rather than as 1.074 GB. The former specification is, however, often quoted as "1 GB" when applied to random access memory.
Software allocates memory in varying degrees of granularity as needed to fulfill data structure requirements and binary multiples are usually not required. Other computer capacities and rates, like storage hardware size, data transfer rates, clock speeds, operations per second, etc., do not depend on an inherent base, and are usually presented in decimal units. For example, the manufacturer of a "300 GB" hard drive is claiming a capacity of , not 300 × 10243 (which would be ) bytes.
Unicode character.
The "gigabyte" symbol is encoded by Unicode at code point ❰ ❱.


Somewhere in Time (film)

Somewhere in Time is a 1980 American romantic fantasy drama film directed by Jeannot Szwarc. It is a film adaptation of the 1975 novel "Bid Time Return" by Richard Matheson, who also wrote the screenplay. The film stars Christopher Reeve, Jane Seymour, and Christopher Plummer.
Reeve plays Richard Collier, a playwright who becomes obsessed with a photograph of a young woman at the Grand Hotel, a hotel located on Mackinac Island in Michigan. Through self-hypnosis, he wishes himself back in time to the year 1912 to find love with actress Elise McKenna (portrayed by Seymour), but comes into conflict with Elise's manager, William Fawcett Robinson (portrayed by Plummer), who fears that romance will derail her career and resolves to stop him.
The film is known for its musical score composed by John Barry, featuring pianist Roger Williams. The 18th variation of Sergei Rachmaninoff's "Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini" also appears several times.
Plot.
In 1972, college theatre student Richard Collier celebrates the debut of his new play. During the celebration, an elderly woman places a pocket watch in his hand and pleads, "Come back to me." Richard does not recognize the woman, who returns to her own residence and dies in her sleep that same night.
Eight years later, Richard is a successful playwright living in Chicago. While struggling with writer's block, he decides to take a break from writing and travels to a resort, the Grand Hotel. While exploring the hotel's hall of history, he becomes enthralled with a vintage photograph of Elise McKenna, a beautiful and famous early-20th century stage actress. Upon further research, he discovers that she is the same woman who gave him the pocket watch. Richard visits Laura Roberts, Elise’s former housekeeper and companion. While there, he discovers a music box that plays the 18th variation of "Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini" by Rachmaninoff, his favorite musical piece. Among Elise's personal effects is a book on time travel written by his old college professor, Dr. Gerard Finney. Richard becomes obsessed with traveling back to 1912 and meeting Elise, with whom he has fallen in love.
Richard seeks out Professor Finney, who believes that he briefly time-traveled through the power of self-suggestion. Finney warns Richard that such a process would leave one very weak physically, perhaps dangerously so. Richard is determined to try. Dressed in an early 20th-century suit, he removes all modern objects from his hotel room and attempts to will himself to 1912 using tape-recorded suggestions. The attempt fails because he lacks real conviction, but after finding a hotel guest book from 1912 containing his signature, Richard realizes that he will eventually succeed.
Richard hypnotizes himself again, this time allowing his absolute faith in his eventual success to serve as the engine that transports him to 1912. Richard finds Elise walking by the lake. Upon meeting him she asks, "Is it you?" Her manager, William Fawcett Robinson, abruptly intervenes and sends Richard away. Although Elise is initially uninterested, Richard pursues her until she agrees to accompany him on a stroll the next morning. During a boat ride, Richard hums his favorite melody by Rachmaninoff, which Elise has not heard before as it has yet to be written. Richard asks what Elise meant by "Is it you?" She reveals that Robinson had predicted that she would meet a man who will change her life, and that she should be afraid. Richard shows Elise the pocket watch that she will give him in 1972.
Richard attends Elise's play where she gives an impromptu monologue dedicated to him. During the intermission, Elise poses formally for a photograph but seeing Richard, breaks into a radiant smile. It is the same image which Richard sees 68 years later. Afterward, Richard receives an urgent message from Robinson requesting a meeting. Robinson wants Richard to leave Elise, saying it is for her own good. When Richard says he loves her, Robinson has him bound and locked inside the stables. Robinson then tells Elise that Richard has left, though she does not believe him and professes her love for Richard.
Richard wakes the next morning and frees himself. The acting troupe has already left for Denver, though Elise has returned to the hotel to find him. They go to her room and make love. They agree to marry and Elise promises to buy Richard a new suit, as his is about a decade out of style. Inside one of the suit pockets, Richard discovers a penny with a 1979 mint date. This modern item breaks the hypnotic suggestion, pulling Richard into the present as Elise screams in terror.
Richard awakens back in 1980. His attempts to return to 1912 are unsuccessful. After wandering the hotel grounds despondently, physically weakened by the time travel and brokenhearted, he dies in despair. His spirit is drawn into the afterlife, where he is reunited with Elise.
Cast.
Sean Hayden plays 5-year-old Arthur in 1912.
Tim Kazurinsky appears briefly as the photographer in 1912.
Richard Matheson, who wrote the original novel and screenplay, appears in a cameo role as a 1912 hotel guest. He is astonished by Richard's having cut himself shaving with a straight razor.
A then-unknown William H. Macy has a bit role as a critic in the 1972 scene before Elise hands the watch to Richard.
George Wendt is credited as a student during this same scene, but his appearance was cut from the film during editing.
Richard Matheson's daughter, Ali, is similarly credited as a student.
Many Mackinac Island residents were cast as extras.
Differences from the novel.
In the novel, Richard travels from 1971 to 1896 rather than from 1980 to 1912. The setting is the Hotel del Coronado in California, rather than the Grand Hotel in Michigan. The book has Richard knowing that he is dying of a brain tumor, and it ultimately raises the possibility that the whole time-traveling experience was merely a series of hallucinations brought on by the tumor.
The scene where the old woman hands Richard a pocket watch (which he had given to her in the past) does not appear in the book. Thus, the ontological paradox generated by this event (that the watch was never made, but simply exists eternally between 1912 and 1980) is absent. In the book, there are two psychics, not William Fawcett Robinson, who anticipate Richard's appearance, and Richard's death is brought about by his tumor, not by heartbreak.
Also, in the film Elise witnesses Richard's return to his own time, while in the book she is asleep and does not.
Reception.
Although the film was well received during its previews, it was derided by critics upon release and underperformed at the box office. In 2009, in an interview with WGN America, Jane Seymour stated "It was just a little movie... "The Blues Brothers" came out the same week, and ["Somewhere In Time"] was a $4 million budget, so Universal didn't really support it. There was also an actors' strike, so Chris [Reeve] and I weren't allowed to publicize it. And they barely put it out because I don't think anyone really believed in it."
Critical response.
Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reports that 61% of 18 film critics have given the film a positive review; the rating average is 6 out of 10. Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average score out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, gives the film a score of 29 based on 7 reviews, signifying "Generally unfavorable reviews".
Accolades.
"Somewhere in Time" received several awards, including Saturn Awards for Best Costume, Best Music, and Best Fantasy Film. The film was also nominated for the Academy Award for Best Costume Design (Jean-Pierre Dorleac).
The film is recognized by the American Film Institute in these lists:
Soundtrack.
The original musical score for the film was composed and conducted by John Barry, who was suggested by Jane Seymour, a personal friend. The producers had been considering a score based on The 18th variation of Sergei Rachmaninoff's "Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini" which is used in the film several times. In lieu of a fee, Barry took a percentage of the royalties on the soundtrack, which went on to become his best-selling film score.
The film was not a success at the box office and a very limited run above promotional copies of the album was pressed with very limited circulation. Universal Pictures used "Somewhere in Time" as a test bed for soundtrack sales and did not expect it to do well at all. It was cable television the following spring where the film garnered a huge fan audience and interest in the music was tremendous. So many requests were made at record stores across the country that Universal pressed 500,000 more copies and the soundtrack, now into several pressings, still sells well on CD. The music became one of the most requested at weddings for a decade after the film's release.
Barry wrote the score at a creative and prolific time in his career, scoring the music for films such as "Raise the Titanic", "High Road to China" and the highly acclaimed "Body Heat" all within an 18-month period, yet the score for "Somewhere in Time" is considered to be among the best of his career. The music from the film is often credited for much of its success by invoking a deeply emotional pull for the viewers. In the years since the film's release the music has become as famous as the film, if not more so, with many hearing it and then seeking the film on video.
The music has been released on two albums, neither of which are from the original sessions from the film itself. Like most soundtracks of the time, the album was a series of re-recordings with highlights of the score recorded to fit onto two sides of an LP. The original release from MCA has nine tracks.
A later release of the score was released on the Varèse Sarabande label. It was recorded in 1998 by the Royal Scottish Orchestra conducted by John Debney.
Certifications.
There has yet to be a release of the original scoring session music, although bootlegs circulate on the Internet.
Legacy.
Despite reviews calling the film "horrible" and a "superficial tear jerker", the International Network of Somewhere In Time Enthusiasts (I.N.S.I.T.E.), an official fan club, was formed in 1990 and continues to meet regularly. During the month of October, the Grand Hotel hosts a "Somewhere in Time" Weekend, with events such as a large-screen screening of the film, panel discussions with some of the film's principals and crew, and a costume ball of members dressed in Edwardian attire.
The film was also listed as an example of pop-culture time travel in the 2019 blockbuster film "".
Adding to the film's legacy is a Ken Davenport-produced theatrical adaptation of the story with assistance from Matheson on the story book. The adaptation received New York workshops and a full production at Portland Center Stage.


Bridge House Estates

The Bridge House Estates is a charitable trust, established by Royal charter in 1282 by the City of London Corporation in London, England. It was originally established to maintain London Bridge and, subsequently, other bridges. Funded by bridge tolls and charitable donations, the trust acquired an extensive property portfolio which made it more than self-sufficient. As well as maintaining the bridges, the estates also makes other charitable grants through the City Bridge Trust, their grant-making arm. It is one of three funds managed by the City of London, the other two being the City Fund and the City's Cash.
Since it was established, the trust has maintained, and on several occasions replaced, London Bridge. The trust also built Blackfriars Bridge and Tower Bridge, and purchased Southwark Bridge from the toll-exacting private company that built it. Most recently it took over ownership and maintenance of the pedestrian-only Millennium Bridge, having provided a large amount of the funding for its construction. The estate owns significant amounts of property in the City of London, including the Old Bailey.
Until 1995, the trust was permitted to use its income only for expenditure on its bridges. However, with a surplus of income over expenditure, a cy-près scheme was adopted in that year to allow any surplus income to be used for other charitable purposes benefiting Greater London. These grants are made though the City Bridge Trust.
Bridge House.
The Trust took its name from "Bridge House", which was the administrative and maintenance centre of Old London Bridge located on the south bank of the River Thames, near the site of St Olave's Church (since replaced by "St Olaf House" in Tooley Street). The site, now covered by the London Bridge Hospital and the Cotton's Centre, was constituted of at least two properties in Southwark. The first was that of Peter of Colechurch the warden of the bridge from 1163, and probably a monastic dwelling. The second property was the house left by will of Henry Fitz Ailwyn, first named Mayor of London, in 1215.
The bridge became part of the City's jurisdiction from 1282, and this led to the City attempting to extend control over Southwark, succeeding in acquiring the 'vill of Southwark' alias the Guildable Manor in 1327.
Logo.
Known as the "Bridge Mark", the logo of Bridge House Estates is one of the oldest logos in continuous use and can be found carved into stonework in many places along the riverfront. It has been the identifying emblem of the Bridge House Estates for many centuries, but the latter now uses the City of London arms as an emblem. The City Bridge Trust uses the mark as a logo.
It was thought likely that the mark as we know it today was designed by a famous 17th-century surveyor, William Leybourn. It appears drawn on a plan of 1680 which it is thought he adapted from a similar mark drawn against plots owned by Bridge House Estates on an earlier plan of St George's Fields in Southwark. The City sword rest from the church of St Olave, Southwark (now in the north transept of Southwark Cathedral) has the Bridge Mark carved onto it to balance the City's shield, and shows a date of 1674.
Governance.
The trust was established by the grant of a royal charter on 24 May 1282, and the sole trustee is the City of London Corporation. The trustee does not own the property of the trust—it may only be used for the legitimate purposes for which the fund was created.
The funding arm of Bridge House Estates is called the City Bridge Trust, which is run by a committee of the City of London Corporation (the City Bridge Trust Committee), the chairmanship of which is held by a Common Councilman on a three-year rotation. The current Chair is Dhruv Patel.
In addition to its royal charter of 1282, the Bridge House Estates operates with respect to various legislative powers e.g. the "Blackfriars Bridge Act 1863", the "Blackfriars and Southwark Bridge Act 1867", the "Corporation of London (Tower Bridge) Act 1885" for its maintenance role and for its general charitable role under the "Charities (The Bridge House Estates) Order 1995" (Statutory Instrument 1047), and the "Charities (The Bridge House Estates) Order 2001" (Statutory Instrument 4017).
Finances.
Originally funded by tolls on London Bridge, the rents and leases of the buildings that were on it and also by charitable donations, the Bridge House Estates acquired an extensive property portfolio which made it self-sufficient.
The fund administered by the Bridge House Estates is solely responsible for the five City Bridges. There is no financial support from the government or any other fund. If one of the bridges happened to collapse, the charity would have to rebuild it out of the endowment. The good stewardship of the property and investments of the estates by the City has led to the accumulation of surplus funds over any such demand on its resources. Therefore, the City sought from the Charity Commission to implement a cy-près scheme to extend its objects (purposes) since September 1995 to make charitable grants within the Greater London area.
In 2019, total income of the Bridge House Estates was £43.1 million (£ as of ), and total expenditure and reinvestment was £53.1 million (£ as of ). The total funds held by the estates are in excess of £1.5 billion.


The Morose Mononokean

 is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Kiri Wazawa. An anime television adaptation aired from June to September 2016. A second season aired from January to March 2019.
Media.
Manga.
Kiri Wazawa launched the series in online Square Enix's "Gangan Online" magazine in September 2013. The series is published digitally in English by Crunchyroll Manga.
Anime.
A 13-episode anime television series adaptation was announced by Square Enix on 11 February 2016. The series is directed by Akira Iwanaga and written by Takao Yoshioka, with animation by the studio Pierrot Plus. Yasuharu Takanashi composed the music. Character designs for the anime were provided by Atsuko Kageyama. The opening theme song is , performed by the duo The Super Ball, while the ending theme is by Tomoaki Maeno and Yūki Kaji. Crunchyroll simulcasted the first season, while Funimation released the series in North America. The series aired between 28 June 2016 to 21 September 2016, and was broadcast on AT-X, Tokyo MX, Yomiuri TV, Chukyo TV, and BS11.
A 13-episode second season has been announced, and aired from 5 January 2019 to 30 March 2019. Itsuro Kawasaki replaced Akira Iwanaga as the director, and Mizuki Aoba replaced Atusko Kageyama as the character designer. The cast reprised their roles. The opening theme for the second season is by mono palette, while the ending theme is "1%" by Wolpis Kater. Crunchyroll simulcast the second season, while Funimation produced an English dub.
Reception.
"Gadget Tsūshin" listed "melon soda", a phrase from the ending theme, in their 2019 anime buzzwords list.