princeton-nlp/datasets-for-simcse · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 1 2.56k
James R. Randlett
James R. Randlett (born 1942) is an American politician from Michigan.
He was Mayor of Warren, Michigan From November 7 1981 to November 5, 1985.
James Randlett was a Warren police officer before becomming Mayor.
In 1981 Randlett assumed office after a long hold on the Mayor's office by Ted Bates, after a heated campaign against him.
Also, he ran for mayor in 1977 and 1999.
Randlett campaigned in the daytime because he worked the midnight shift.
So the incumbent, Ted Bates ordered the police commissioner to reschedule him to the day shift.
Randlett spent much of his term in office fighting the City Council and some department heads; occasionally, those conflicts were settled in court at the expense of Warren's taxpayers.
After completing his first term Randlett sued the city of Warren to get his job back as a police officer.
After leaving office in 1985 he was able to resume his service as a police officer and retired in 2001.
On May 1 of 1985 Randlett appointed Ronald Muschong who was Warren`s first police chief confined to a wheelchair.
Some journalist referred to him as a "real-life Chief Ironside."
In 2012 Warren commissioned a portrait of him.
James Randlett now resides in Shelby township.
In 2009 he was appointed to the Shelby township planning commission.
Photograph of James Randlett
Edward Henchy
Edward Henchy (d. 1895) was an American Catholic priest.
For most of his career, he was a Jesuit, and ministered to mission parishes on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
In 1870, he became the president of Loyola College in Maryland, but resigned just six months later due to illness.
He returned to his ministry work in eastern Maryland, but resigned from the Jesuit order, becoming a diocesan priest, because the eastern part of Maryland had been transferred from the Archdiocese of Baltimore, where the Jesuits operated, to the Diocese of Wilmington.
He died there around 1895.
Edward Henchy received his tonsure and minor orders from Michael Portier, the Bishop of Mobile, on June 21, 1855.
He eventually became a Catholic priest and a member of the Society fo Jesus.
He became the Jesuit mission priest at St. Joseph's Church in Cordova, Maryland, which served the rural Maryland counties of Talbot, Queen Anne's, Kent, Caroline, and Dorchester, as well as Kent and Sussex counties in Delaware as a priest from 1867 to 1870.
While there, he organized the first St. Joseph's Jousting Tournament on August 26, 1868.
Henchy was appointed to succeed John Early in 1870 as president of Loyola College in Maryland and pastor of St. Ignatius Church.
His presidency lasted only six months, however, as he became ill and retired in January 1871, and was succeeded by Stephen A. Kelly.
He again returned to the areas of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, where he previously was a Jesuit missionary.
However, in 1868, ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the part of Maryland east of the Chesapeake Bay region had been transferred from the Archdiocese of Baltimore, in which the Jesuits operated, to the newly erected Diocese of Wilmington.
Therefore, in order to continue ministering to the Catholics there, he left the Society of Jesus, and became a diocesan priest.
In this capacity, he ministered to the area again from 1874 to 1878, as the pastor of the Church of Saints Peter & Paul in Easton, Maryland.
He also served briefly as pastor of St. Joseph's on the Brandywine in Greenville, Delaware.
Henchy died on the Eastern Shore around 1895.
He was buried in St. Peter's Church in Queenstown, Maryland.
Hafez's Shirazi Turk
Hafez's "Shirazi Turk", the third poem alphabetically in the collection of "ghazals" by the 14th-century Persian poet Hāfez of Shiraz, has been described as "the most familiar of Hafez's poems in the English-speaking world".
It was the first poem of Hafez to appear in English, when William Jones made his paraphrase "A Persian Song" in 1771, based on a Latin version supplied by his friend Károly Reviczky.
Edward Granville Browne wrote of this poem: "I cannot find so many English verse-renderings of any other of the odes of Ḥáfiẓ."
More recently Hafez's poem has inspired a number of scholarly articles and some controversy.
Should it be taken at face value, as a poem in which the poet describes his unrequited love for a handsome youth, and turns to wine as a consolation?
Or does it also conceal a hidden Sufi meaning describing the path of Love leading to union with God?
Is the Turk male or female?
Was he or she a real person or an imaginary one?
Another topic that has been discussed is whether the poem is coherent, or whether it fails to have a unified theme.
In Iran, a famous anecdote was told of how the Mongol conquerer Timur (Tamerlane) met Hafez and criticised him for writing so disrespectfully of Bokhara and Samarkand in this poem.
This story first appears in a work called "Anis al-Nas" by Shoja' Shirazi (1426), and it was elaborated on in a collection of biographies of poets ("Tazkerāt aš-Šo'arā") completed in 1486 by Dawlatshah Samarqandi.
If this meeting took place, which is not certain, it must have been during Tamerlane's first visit to Shiraz in 1387, two years before Hafez's death.
It has been argued that the poem is likely to have been written after 1370, when Tamerlane began to develop Samarkand and make it famous as his capital; that is, it was probably written later in Hafez's life, since in 1370 he was 53 or 55.
Prose translations of the poem can be found in Clarke (1891), pp.
40–43, Windfuhr (1990), Hillmann (1995), and Ingenito (2018).
A number of poetic versions are quoted in part or in full by Arberry (1946).
The Persian text of the poem, and recordings in Persian, are available on the Ganjoor website: see External links below.
The transliteration given here is based on that approved by the United Nations in 2012, which represents the current pronunciation of educated speakers in Iran, except that to make scansion easier, the long vowels are marked with a macron (ā, ē, ī, ō, ū).
(See Romanization of Persian.)
The glottal stop is written ('), and "kh" (as in "Khayyām") is written "x".
The metre is the "hazaj".
Like the Indian "śloka", each "bayt" or verse is made of two 16-syllable half-verses; these half verses or hemistichs in turn are divided into two halves of eight syllables each.
Hafez uses this metre in its 16-syllable form in 25 of his 530 poems.
Underlined syllables in the transcription indicate "overlong" syllables, which take up the length of a long + short syllable combined (see Persian metres).
The text of the poem is not entirely certain.
The version given above is that of Muhammad Qazvini and Qasem Ghani (1941).
However, of ten manuscripts examined by Mas'ud Farzaad, in fact only two have the above text.
Nine of the ten manuscripts agree on the order of verses 1–5 and 9.
But concerning verses 6–8 there is more disagreement.
One manuscript has the order 1, 2, 7, 6, 3, 9, omitting 4, 5 and 8.
Another manuscript omits verses 6 and 7.
In the other manuscripts verses 6, 7, and 8 are found in various orders: 7, 8, 6; 8, 7, 6; and 6, 8, 7.
Bashiri (1979) argued that verses 6 and 7 are interpolations, and Rehder (1974) suggested that one or both of verses 4 and 8 might be spurious.
Eight of the manuscripts have a different version of verse 6, namely
The first of these two lines is actually a quotation from a "ghazal" of Saadi.
The sex of the Turk is not expressed grammatically in Persian.
The earliest translators of this poem all translated it as though the Turk were feminine, beginning with William Jones, whose version begins: "Sweet maid, if thou wouldst charm my sight...".
In fact, however, although in the great Persian narrative epics and romances the love interest was always female, there was also a long tradition of love poetry in Persian in which, in the great majority of cases, the person whose beauty was praised was male.
Among the poets who wrote love poems of this kind were Farrokhi (11th century), Manuchehri (11th century), Sanai (12th century), Anvari (12th century), Iraqi (13th century), Saadi (13th century) and Awhadi (14th century).
Often the object of the poet's admiration was described as a "Turk" (Turks were supposed to be especially good-looking), as in the couplet below from a "qasida" of Manuchehri:
Saadi, a poet of Shiraz, used the phrase "Shirazi Turk" a century before Hafez:
Khwaju Kermani, another poet resident in Shiraz a generation before Hafez, wrote:
In poems of the early part of the period the object of the poet's love was often a soldier; later he became any kind of adolescent youth, but military metaphors continued to be used to describe the effect his beauty had on the poet.
Modern scholars are therefore in agreement that Hafez's "Shirazi Turk" was almost certainly male.
It is possible that he was even an imaginary figure introduced as the topic of the poem.
The 16th-century Bosnian-Turkish commentator on Hafez, Ahmed Sudi wrote: "Turk: the word originally means the Tatar people.
Since Tatars are known as cruel, merciless and bloody people, Persian poets metaphorically compare their beloveds to them.
And this is why these poets call their beloveds 'Turks'."
But Sudi also reports another theory: "Some people from Shiraz say that many soldiers in [the Mongol ruler] Hulagu’s army made the city of Shiraz their home and lived there for successive generations.
So, literally speaking, it is not incorrect to call their descendants 'Turks of Shiraz'."
A suggestion by Qasem Ghani that the Turk might have been the son of Shah Shoja', the ruler of the time, is dismissed as "improbable" by Hillmann in view of the fact that "Turk" usually simply means "beloved" and that the phrase had already been used by Saadi.
The practice of Sufism (Islamic mysticism) was widespread in Iran at these centuries and greatly influenced Persian poetry.
In a tradition which started with Ahmad Ghazali (11th–12th century) brother of the more famous Mohammad al-Ghazali, and which continued in the Sufi poets Attar (12th century) and Iraqi (13th century), mystical doctrines were often expressed using the idioms of love poetry, in accordance with Ghazali's teaching that the contemplation of a beautiful youth was a way to contemplate the beauty of God.
However, how far this poem of Hafez is to be taken in a mystical sense is disputed.
One of those who interpreted it mystically is Clarke (1895), who explains that the Turk symbolises God, Samarkand and Bukhara signify this world and the next, the wine is the mysteries of love, and so on.
E. G. Browne, however, did not entirely favour this approach.
In volume 3 of his "Literary History of Persia" he wrote:
Gertrude Bell, in her "Poems from the Divan of Hafiz" (1897), p. 129, wrote: "The whole poem has received a mystical interpretation which seems to me to add but little to its value or to its intelligibility."
Similarly in the 16th century, the Turkish commentator on Hafez, Ahmed Sudi, adopted a literal approach to Hafez's poetry, rejecting the excessively mystical interpretations of his predecessors Sürūrī and Şemʿī.
The ruler of Shiraz in Hafez's time, Shah Shoja', also found both aspects, spiritual and worldly, in Hafez's poems.
He is said to have complained that Hafez's poetry was "at one moment mystical, at another erotic and bacchanalian; now serious and spiritual, and again flippant and worldly".
Many modern commentators agree with Browne and Bell, and the majority accept the ode at its face value.
Iraj Bashiri on the other hand argues strongly for a Sufi interpretation of this poem.

James R. Randlett

James R. Randlett (born 1942) is an American politician from Michigan.

He was Mayor of Warren, Michigan From November 7 1981 to November 5, 1985.

James Randlett was a Warren police officer before becomming Mayor.

In 1981 Randlett assumed office after a long hold on the Mayor's office by Ted Bates, after a heated campaign against him.

Also, he ran for mayor in 1977 and 1999.

Randlett campaigned in the daytime because he worked the midnight shift.

So the incumbent, Ted Bates ordered the police commissioner to reschedule him to the day shift.

Randlett spent much of his term in office fighting the City Council and some department heads; occasionally, those conflicts were settled in court at the expense of Warren's taxpayers.

After completing his first term Randlett sued the city of Warren to get his job back as a police officer.

After leaving office in 1985 he was able to resume his service as a police officer and retired in 2001.

On May 1 of 1985 Randlett appointed Ronald Muschong who was Warren`s first police chief confined to a wheelchair.

Some journalist referred to him as a "real-life Chief Ironside."

In 2012 Warren commissioned a portrait of him.

James Randlett now resides in Shelby township.

In 2009 he was appointed to the Shelby township planning commission.

Photograph of James Randlett

Edward Henchy

Edward Henchy (d. 1895) was an American Catholic priest.

For most of his career, he was a Jesuit, and ministered to mission parishes on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

In 1870, he became the president of Loyola College in Maryland, but resigned just six months later due to illness.

He returned to his ministry work in eastern Maryland, but resigned from the Jesuit order, becoming a diocesan priest, because the eastern part of Maryland had been transferred from the Archdiocese of Baltimore, where the Jesuits operated, to the Diocese of Wilmington.

He died there around 1895.

Edward Henchy received his tonsure and minor orders from Michael Portier, the Bishop of Mobile, on June 21, 1855.

He eventually became a Catholic priest and a member of the Society fo Jesus.

He became the Jesuit mission priest at St. Joseph's Church in Cordova, Maryland, which served the rural Maryland counties of Talbot, Queen Anne's, Kent, Caroline, and Dorchester, as well as Kent and Sussex counties in Delaware as a priest from 1867 to 1870.

While there, he organized the first St. Joseph's Jousting Tournament on August 26, 1868.

Henchy was appointed to succeed John Early in 1870 as president of Loyola College in Maryland and pastor of St. Ignatius Church.

His presidency lasted only six months, however, as he became ill and retired in January 1871, and was succeeded by Stephen A. Kelly.

He again returned to the areas of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, where he previously was a Jesuit missionary.

However, in 1868, ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the part of Maryland east of the Chesapeake Bay region had been transferred from the Archdiocese of Baltimore, in which the Jesuits operated, to the newly erected Diocese of Wilmington.

Therefore, in order to continue ministering to the Catholics there, he left the Society of Jesus, and became a diocesan priest.

In this capacity, he ministered to the area again from 1874 to 1878, as the pastor of the Church of Saints Peter & Paul in Easton, Maryland.

He also served briefly as pastor of St. Joseph's on the Brandywine in Greenville, Delaware.

Henchy died on the Eastern Shore around 1895.

He was buried in St. Peter's Church in Queenstown, Maryland.

Hafez's Shirazi Turk

Hafez's "Shirazi Turk", the third poem alphabetically in the collection of "ghazals" by the 14th-century Persian poet Hāfez of Shiraz, has been described as "the most familiar of Hafez's poems in the English-speaking world".

It was the first poem of Hafez to appear in English, when William Jones made his paraphrase "A Persian Song" in 1771, based on a Latin version supplied by his friend Károly Reviczky.

Edward Granville Browne wrote of this poem: "I cannot find so many English verse-renderings of any other of the odes of Ḥáfiẓ."

More recently Hafez's poem has inspired a number of scholarly articles and some controversy.

Should it be taken at face value, as a poem in which the poet describes his unrequited love for a handsome youth, and turns to wine as a consolation?

Or does it also conceal a hidden Sufi meaning describing the path of Love leading to union with God?

Is the Turk male or female?

Was he or she a real person or an imaginary one?

Another topic that has been discussed is whether the poem is coherent, or whether it fails to have a unified theme.

In Iran, a famous anecdote was told of how the Mongol conquerer Timur (Tamerlane) met Hafez and criticised him for writing so disrespectfully of Bokhara and Samarkand in this poem.

This story first appears in a work called "Anis al-Nas" by Shoja' Shirazi (1426), and it was elaborated on in a collection of biographies of poets ("Tazkerāt aš-Šo'arā") completed in 1486 by Dawlatshah Samarqandi.

If this meeting took place, which is not certain, it must have been during Tamerlane's first visit to Shiraz in 1387, two years before Hafez's death.

It has been argued that the poem is likely to have been written after 1370, when Tamerlane began to develop Samarkand and make it famous as his capital; that is, it was probably written later in Hafez's life, since in 1370 he was 53 or 55.

Prose translations of the poem can be found in Clarke (1891), pp.

40–43, Windfuhr (1990), Hillmann (1995), and Ingenito (2018).

A number of poetic versions are quoted in part or in full by Arberry (1946).

The Persian text of the poem, and recordings in Persian, are available on the Ganjoor website: see External links below.

The transliteration given here is based on that approved by the United Nations in 2012, which represents the current pronunciation of educated speakers in Iran, except that to make scansion easier, the long vowels are marked with a macron (ā, ē, ī, ō, ū).

(See Romanization of Persian.)

The glottal stop is written ('), and "kh" (as in "Khayyām") is written "x".

The metre is the "hazaj".

Like the Indian "śloka", each "bayt" or verse is made of two 16-syllable half-verses; these half verses or hemistichs in turn are divided into two halves of eight syllables each.

Hafez uses this metre in its 16-syllable form in 25 of his 530 poems.

Underlined syllables in the transcription indicate "overlong" syllables, which take up the length of a long + short syllable combined (see Persian metres).

The text of the poem is not entirely certain.

The version given above is that of Muhammad Qazvini and Qasem Ghani (1941).

However, of ten manuscripts examined by Mas'ud Farzaad, in fact only two have the above text.

Nine of the ten manuscripts agree on the order of verses 1–5 and 9.

But concerning verses 6–8 there is more disagreement.

One manuscript has the order 1, 2, 7, 6, 3, 9, omitting 4, 5 and 8.

Another manuscript omits verses 6 and 7.

In the other manuscripts verses 6, 7, and 8 are found in various orders: 7, 8, 6; 8, 7, 6; and 6, 8, 7.

Bashiri (1979) argued that verses 6 and 7 are interpolations, and Rehder (1974) suggested that one or both of verses 4 and 8 might be spurious.

Eight of the manuscripts have a different version of verse 6, namely

The first of these two lines is actually a quotation from a "ghazal" of Saadi.

The sex of the Turk is not expressed grammatically in Persian.

The earliest translators of this poem all translated it as though the Turk were feminine, beginning with William Jones, whose version begins: "Sweet maid, if thou wouldst charm my sight...".

In fact, however, although in the great Persian narrative epics and romances the love interest was always female, there was also a long tradition of love poetry in Persian in which, in the great majority of cases, the person whose beauty was praised was male.

Among the poets who wrote love poems of this kind were Farrokhi (11th century), Manuchehri (11th century), Sanai (12th century), Anvari (12th century), Iraqi (13th century), Saadi (13th century) and Awhadi (14th century).

Often the object of the poet's admiration was described as a "Turk" (Turks were supposed to be especially good-looking), as in the couplet below from a "qasida" of Manuchehri:

Saadi, a poet of Shiraz, used the phrase "Shirazi Turk" a century before Hafez:

Khwaju Kermani, another poet resident in Shiraz a generation before Hafez, wrote:

In poems of the early part of the period the object of the poet's love was often a soldier; later he became any kind of adolescent youth, but military metaphors continued to be used to describe the effect his beauty had on the poet.

Modern scholars are therefore in agreement that Hafez's "Shirazi Turk" was almost certainly male.

It is possible that he was even an imaginary figure introduced as the topic of the poem.

The 16th-century Bosnian-Turkish commentator on Hafez, Ahmed Sudi wrote: "Turk: the word originally means the Tatar people.

Since Tatars are known as cruel, merciless and bloody people, Persian poets metaphorically compare their beloveds to them.

And this is why these poets call their beloveds 'Turks'."

But Sudi also reports another theory: "Some people from Shiraz say that many soldiers in [the Mongol ruler] Hulagu’s army made the city of Shiraz their home and lived there for successive generations.

So, literally speaking, it is not incorrect to call their descendants 'Turks of Shiraz'."

A suggestion by Qasem Ghani that the Turk might have been the son of Shah Shoja', the ruler of the time, is dismissed as "improbable" by Hillmann in view of the fact that "Turk" usually simply means "beloved" and that the phrase had already been used by Saadi.

The practice of Sufism (Islamic mysticism) was widespread in Iran at these centuries and greatly influenced Persian poetry.

In a tradition which started with Ahmad Ghazali (11th–12th century) brother of the more famous Mohammad al-Ghazali, and which continued in the Sufi poets Attar (12th century) and Iraqi (13th century), mystical doctrines were often expressed using the idioms of love poetry, in accordance with Ghazali's teaching that the contemplation of a beautiful youth was a way to contemplate the beauty of God.

However, how far this poem of Hafez is to be taken in a mystical sense is disputed.

One of those who interpreted it mystically is Clarke (1895), who explains that the Turk symbolises God, Samarkand and Bukhara signify this world and the next, the wine is the mysteries of love, and so on.

E. G. Browne, however, did not entirely favour this approach.

In volume 3 of his "Literary History of Persia" he wrote:

Gertrude Bell, in her "Poems from the Divan of Hafiz" (1897), p. 129, wrote: "The whole poem has received a mystical interpretation which seems to me to add but little to its value or to its intelligibility."

Similarly in the 16th century, the Turkish commentator on Hafez, Ahmed Sudi, adopted a literal approach to Hafez's poetry, rejecting the excessively mystical interpretations of his predecessors Sürūrī and Şemʿī.

The ruler of Shiraz in Hafez's time, Shah Shoja', also found both aspects, spiritual and worldly, in Hafez's poems.

He is said to have complained that Hafez's poetry was "at one moment mystical, at another erotic and bacchanalian; now serious and spiritual, and again flippant and worldly".

Many modern commentators agree with Browne and Bell, and the majority accept the ode at its face value.

Iraj Bashiri on the other hand argues strongly for a Sufi interpretation of this poem.