A kippah (/kɪˈpɑː/ kih-PAH; also spelled as kippa, kipa, kipah; Hebrew: כִּיפָּה, plural: כִּיפּוֹת kippot; Yiddish: קאפל koppel or יאַרמולקע) or yarmulke (/ˈjɑːrməlkə/, pronunciation /ˈjɑːməkə/) is a brimless cap, usually made of cloth, worn by male Jews to fulfill the customary requirement held by Orthodox halachic authorities that the head be covered. It is usually worn by men in Orthodox communities at all times, and according to Pewforum.org, up to 82% of the people who wear kippot identify as Orthodox.[1] Most synagogues and Jewish funeral services keep a ready supply of kippot.
Etymology
The term kippah (Hebrew: כיפה) literally means "dome". The same concept is used in Islam, in which the term taqiyah, which refers to a skullcap worn for religious purposes, is derived from Persian ṭāq (طاق) which means 'arch'.
The Yiddish term yarmulke is derived from Ukrainian or Polish jarmulka,[2] though it is often associated with an Aramaic phrase (ירא מלכא) meaning "fear the King".[3]
Koppel is  another Yiddish term, mainly used by British Jews.[4]
Jewish law
There is debate among Halachic authorities as to whether or not wearing a kippah at all times is required.[5] According to the Rambam, Jewish law dictates that a man is required to cover his head during prayer.[6]
However, according to some authorities, it has since taken on the force of law because it is an act of Kiddush Hashem (lit., "sanctification of the Name", referring to actions which bring honor to God).[7] The 17th-century authority Rabbi David HaLevi Segal (The "Taz") suggested that the reason was to distinguish Jews from their non-Jewish counterparts, especially while at prayer. He held that nowadays, wearing a kippah is required by halacha.[5]
Other halachic authorities like Sephardi posek, the Chida (Rabbi Chaim David Yosef Azulai), hold that wearing a head covering is a midat hasidut, an additional measure of piety.[5] In a recent responsum, former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel Ovadia Yosef ruled that it should be worn to show affiliation with the religiously observant community.[8]
The Talmud states, "Cover your head in order that the fear of heaven may be upon you."[9] Rabbi Hunah ben Joshua never walked 4 cubits (6.6 feet, or 2 meters) with his head uncovered. He explained: "Because the Divine Presence is always over my head."[10] This was understood by Rabbi Yosef Karo in the Shulchan Arukh as indicating that Jewish men should cover their heads, and should not walk more than four cubits bareheaded.[11] Covering one's head, such as by wearing a kippah, is described as "honoring God".[12] The Mishnah Berurah modifies this ruling, adding that the Achronim established it as a requirement to wear a head covering even when traversing fewer than four cubits,[13] and even when one is standing still, indoors and outside.[14] Kitzur Shulchan Aruch cites a story from the Talmud (Shabbat 156b) about Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, who might have become a thief had his mother not saved him from this fate by insisting that he cover his head, which instilled in him the fear of God.[15] In Orthodox communities, boys are encouraged to wear a kippah from a young age in order to ingrain the habit.[16]

The Talmud also implies that unmarried men did not wear a kippah:
Rabbi Hisda praised Rabbi Hamnuna before Rabbi Huna as a great man. He said to him, 'When he visits you, bring him to me.' When he arrived, he saw that he wore no head-covering. 'Why do you not have head-covering?', he asked. 'Because I am not married', was the reply. Thereupon, he [Rabbi Huna] turned his face away from him, and said, 'See to it that you do not appear before me again before you are married.' [Tractate Kiddushin 29b]
The Tanakh implies that covering one's head is a sign of mourning:
And David went up the ascent of the Mount of Olives, and wept as he went, and his head was covered and he walked barefoot. Then all the people who were with him each covered his head and went up weeping as they went.—

[Judah mourns,] and their nobles send their lads for water: they come to the pits, and find no water; their vessels return empty; they are ashamed and confounded, and cover their heads. Because of the ground which is cracked, for there hath been no rain in the land, the plowmen are ashamed, they cover their heads.—
The argument for the kippa has two sides. The Vilna Gaon said one can make a berakhah without a kippah, since wearing a kippah is only an midos chassidus ("exemplary attribute"). Recently, there has been an effort to suppress earlier sources that practiced this leniency, including erasing lenient responsa from newly published books.[17]
According to Rabbi Isaac Klein, a Conservative Jew ought to cover his head when in the synagogue, at prayer or sacred study, when engaging in a ritual act, and when eating.[18] In the mid-19th century, Reformers led by Isaac Wise completely rejected the kippot after an altercation in which Rabbi Wise's kippah was knocked off his head.[19]
There is still debate about whether or not wearing a Kippah is Halachic law or simply a custom. Many Sephardic Jews wear a kippah only when praying and eating.
Types and variation

In the Middle Ages in Europe, the distinctive Jewish headgear was the Jewish hat, a full hat with a brim and a central point or stalk.  Originally used by choice among Jews to distinguish themselves, it was later made compulsory in some places by Christian governments as a discriminatory measure. In the early 19th century in the United States, rabbis often wore a scholar's cap (large saucer-shaped caps of cloth, like a beret) or a Chinese skullcap. Other Jews of this era wore black pillbox-shaped kippot.
Often, the color and fabric of the kippah can be a sign of adherence to a specific religious movement, particularly in Israel. Knitted or crocheted kippot, known as kippot serugot, are usually worn by Religious Zionists and the Modern Orthodox,[20] who also wear suede or leather kippot. In the United States, however, different kippot tend not to carry socio-religious connotations.
Members of most Haredi groups wear black velvet or cloth kippot.
More recently, kippot have been observed made in the colors of sports teams, especially football. In the United States, children's kippot with cartoon characters or themes such as Star Wars are popular. (In response to this trend, some Jewish schools have banned kippot with characters that do not conform to traditional Jewish values.[21]) Kippot have been inscribed on the inside as a souvenir for a celebration (bar/bat mitzvah or wedding). Kippot for women are also being made and worn.[22][23][24] A special baby kippah has two strings on each side to fasten it and is often used in a brit milah ceremony.[25]
Samaritans once wore distinctive blue head coverings to separate them from Jews who wore white ones, but today, they more commonly wear fezes with turbans similar to that of Sephardi Jews from the Middle East and North Africa. Today, Samaritans do not usually wear head coverings, except during prayer, Sabbath, and religious festivals.

Head coverings in ancient Israelite culture

The Israelites on Sennacherib's marble relief appear with headdress, and although the ambassadors of Jehu on the Shalmaneser stele have head coverings, their costume seems to be Israelite. One passage of the older literature is of significance: I Kings 20:31 mentions חֲבָליִם havalim,  which are placed around the head. This calls to mind pictures of Syrians on Egyptian monuments, represented wearing a cord around their long, flowing hair, a custom still followed in Arabia.
Evidently the costume of the poorest classes is represented; but as the cord gave no protection against the heat of the sun, there is little probability that the custom lasted very long. Much more common was the simple cloth skullcap, dating back to Egyptian times when those of high society routinely shaved their heads, to prevent lice. Conversely, their skullcaps also served as protection against irritation from their wigs.
The Israelites might have worn a headdress similar to that worn by the Bedouins, but it is unknown whether a fixed type of headdress was utilized. That the headdress of the Israelites might have been in the fellah style may be inferred from the use of the noun צַנִיף tzanif (the verb tzanaf meaning "to roll like a ball", Isaiah 22:18) and by the verb חַבָּש habash ("to wind", comp. Ezekiel 16:10; Jonah 2:6). As to the form of such turbans, nothing is known, and they may have varied according to the different classes of society. This was customary with the Assyrians and Babylonians, for example, whose fashions likely influenced the costume of the Israelites—particularly during and after the Babylonian Exile.[32] In Yemen, the wrap around the cap was called מַצַר matzar; the head covering worn by all women, according to Dath Mosha, was a גַּרגוּש gargush.[33]
In secular law

In Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986), the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5–4 decision that active military members were required to remove the yarmulke indoors, citing uniform regulations that state only armed security police may keep their heads covered while indoors.[34]
Congress passed the Religious Apparel Amendment after a war story from the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing about the "camouflage kippah" of Jewish Navy Chaplain Arnold Resnicoff was read into the Congressional Record.[35] Catholic Chaplain George Pucciarelli tore off a piece of his Marine Corps uniform to replace Resnicoff's kippah when it had become blood-soaked after being used to wipe the faces of wounded Marines after the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.[36] This amendment was eventually incorporated into U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) regulations on the "Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services".[37]

This story of the "camouflage kippah" was re-told at many levels,[38] including a keynote speech by President Ronald Reagan to the Baptist Fundamentalism Annual Convention in 1984,[39] and another time during a White House meeting between Reagan and the American Friends of Lubavitch.[40] After recounting the Beirut story, Reagan asked them about the religious meaning of the kippah.[40]  Rabbi Abraham Shemtov, the leader of the group, responded: "Mr. President, the kippah to us is a sign of reverence." Rabbi Feller, another member of the group, continued: "We place the kippah on the very highest point of our being—on our head, the vessel of our intellect—to tell ourselves and the world that there is something which is above man's intellect: the infinite Wisdom of God."[40]
Passage of the Religious Apparel Amendment and the subsequent DOD regulations were followed in 1997 by the passing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). However, the Supreme Court struck down RFRA as beyond Congress' powers to bind the states in the 1997 case City of Boerne v. Flores. RFRA is constitutional as applied to the Federal government, as seen in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal.
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 804, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2), upheld as constitutional in Cutter v. Wilkinson, 44 U.S. 709 (2005), requires by inference that Orthodox Jewish prisoners be reasonably accommodated in their request to wear yarmulkas.[41]
The French government banned the wearing of kippot, hijabs, and large crosses in public primary and secondary schools in France in March 2004.[42]
Wearing by non-Jews
It is considered a sign of respect for anyone in a synagogue to wear a kippah.[43] Yarmulkes are often provided to guests at a Bar or Bat Mitzvah.[44] They are also often provided at bereavement events and at Jewish cemeteries.  According to the Conservative Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, there is no halakhic reason to require a non-Jew to cover their head, but it is recommended that non-Jews be asked to wear a kippah where ritual or worship is being conducted out of respect for the Jewish congregation as well as out of respect for the non-Jew.[45]
Kippahs were adopted as a symbol by some of the non-Jewish African American marchers in the 1965 Selma to Montgomery marches,[46] most prominently by James Bevel.[47]
See also

Taqiyah (cap)
Zucchetto
The Philippi Collection
Kid Yamaka, Jewish American boxer
Knit cap


Main Page

The twelfth and final season of the American television sitcom The Big Bang Theory premiered on CBS on September 24, 2018.[1][2] The series returned to its regular Thursday time slot on September 27, 2018.
Production
In March 2017, CBS renewed the series for two additional seasons, bringing its total to twelve, and running through the 2018–19 television season.[3] On August 22, 2018, CBS and Warner Bros. Television officially announced that the twelfth season would be the series' last. This stems from Jim Parsons' decision to leave the series at the end of the season if the show were to be renewed for a thirteenth season.[1][4][5]
Cast

Main cast
Johnny Galecki as Dr. Leonard Hofstadter
Jim Parsons as Dr. Sheldon Cooper
Kaley Cuoco as Penny
Simon Helberg as Howard Wolowitz
Kunal Nayyar as Dr. Rajesh "Raj" Koothrappali
Mayim Bialik as Dr. Amy Farrah Fowler
Melissa Rauch as Dr. Bernadette Rostenkowski-Wolowitz
Kevin Sussman as Stuart Bloom
Recurring cast
Brian Posehn as Dr. Bertram “Bert” Kibbler
Brian George as Dr. V.M. Koothrappali
Lauren Lapkus as Denise
Keith Carradine as Wyatt
Rati Gupta as Anu
Bob Newhart as Dr. Arthur Jeffries/Professor Proton
Joshua Malina as President Siebert
John Ross Bowie as Dr. Barry Kripke
Brian Thomas Smith as Zack Johnson[6]
Lindsey Kraft as Marissa Johnson[6]
Guest cast
Christine Baranski as Beverly Hofstadter
Neil deGrasse Tyson as himself
Teller as Larry Fowler
Kathy Bates as Mrs. Fowler
Bill Nye as himself
Jerry O'Connell as George Cooper Jr.
Montana Jordan as Young George Cooper Jr.[7]
Robert Wu as Tam Nguyen
Maribeth Monroe as Dr. Lee
Iain Armitage as Young Sheldon[7]
Lance Barber as George Cooper Sr.[7]
Kal Penn as Dr. Campbell[8]
Sean Astin as Dr.  Pemberton[8]
William Shatner[9]
Kevin Smith
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Joe Manganiello
Episodes

Ratings

List of  on IMDb

How many seasons did The Big Bang Theory have?


History of JapanEmperor Meiji moving from Kyoto to Tokyo, end of 1868, as imagined by Le Monde Illustre
ListPaleolithicbefore 14,000 BCJōmon14,000 – 300 BCYayoi300 BC – 300 ADKofun300–538Asuka538–710Nara710–794Heian794–1185Kamakura1185–1333Kenmu Restoration1333–1336Muromachi (Ashikaga)
Nanboku-chōSengoku 1336–1573Azuchi–Momoyama
Nanban trade 1573–1603Edo (Tokugawa)
SakokuConvention of KanagawaBakumatsu 1603–1868Meiji
Boshin WarRestorationFirst Sino-Japanese WarBoxer RebellionRusso-Japanese War 1868–1912Taishō
World War I 1912–1926Shōwa
Financial crisisMilitarismWorld War IIOccupationEconomic miraclePost-occupationBubble economy1926–1989Heisei
Lost DecadeGreat Hanshin earthquakeGreat East Japan earthquakeImperial transition 1989–2019Reiwa2019–present
Topics
Currency
Earthquakes
Economy
Education
Empire
Historiography
Military
Naval
Post-war

Glossary
Timelinevt
The Meiji Restoration(明治維新,Meiji Ishin), also known as the Meiji Renovation, Revolution, Reform, or Renewal, was an event that restored practical imperial rule to the Empire of Japan in 1868 under Emperor Meiji. Although there were ruling Emperors before the Meiji Restoration, the events restored practical abilities and consolidated the political system under the Emperor of Japan.
The goals of the restored government were expressed by the new Emperor in the Charter Oath. The Restoration led to enormous changes in Japan's political and social structure and spanned both the late Edo period (often called the Bakumatsu) and the beginning of the Meiji period.
Foreign influence
The Japanese knew that they were behind the Western world when American Commodore Matthew C. Perry came to Japan in 1853 in large warships with armament and technology that far outclassed those of Japan with the intent to conclude a treaty that would open up Japanese ports to trade.[1] Figures like Shimazu Nariakira concluded that "if we take the initiative, we can dominate; if we do not, we will be dominated", leading Japan to "throw open its doors to foreign technology." Observing Japan's response to the Western powers, Chinese general Li Hongzhang considered Japan to be China's "principal security threat" as early as 1863, five years before the Meiji Restoration.[2]
The leaders of the Meiji Restoration, as this revolution came to be known, acted in the name of restoring imperial rule to strengthen Japan against the threat represented by the colonial powers of the day, bringing to an end the era known as sakoku (the foreign relations policy, lasting about 250 years, prescribing the death penalty for foreigners entering or Japanese nationals leaving the country). The word "Meiji" means "enlightened rule" and the goal was to combine "modern advances" with traditional "eastern" values.[3] The main leaders of this were Itō Hirobumi, Matsukata Masayoshi, Kido Takayoshi, Itagaki Taisuke, Yamagata Aritomo, Mori Arinori, Ōkubo Toshimichi, and Yamaguchi Naoyoshi.
Imperial restoration
The foundation of the Meiji Restoration was the 1866 Satsuma-Chōshū Alliance between Saigō Takamori and Kido Takayoshi, leaders of the reformist elements in the Satsuma Domain and Chōshū Domain. These two leaders supported the Emperor Kōmei (Emperor Meiji's father) and were brought together by Sakamoto Ryōma for the purpose of challenging the ruling Tokugawa shogunate (bakufu) and restoring the Emperor to power. After Emperor Kōmei's death on January 30, 1867, Emperor Meiji ascended the throne on February 3. This period also saw Japan change from being a feudal society to having a market economy and left the Japanese with a lingering influence of Modernity.[4]
End of the shogunate

The Tokugawa government had been founded in the 17th century and initially focused on reestablishing order in social, political and international affairs after a century of warfare. The political structure, established by Ieyasu and solidified under his two immediate successors, his son Hidetada (who ruled from 1616–23) and grandson Iemitsu (1623–51), bound all daimyōs to the shogunate and limited any individual daimyō from acquiring too much land or power.[5] The Tokugawa shogunate came to its official end on November 9, 1867, when Tokugawa Yoshinobu, the 15th Tokugawa shōgun, "put his prerogatives at the Emperor's disposal" and resigned 10 days later.[6] This was effectively the "restoration" (Taisei Hōkan) of imperial rule – although Yoshinobu still had significant influence and it was not until January 3, the following year, with the young Emperor's edict, that the restoration fully occurred.[7]
Shortly thereafter in January 1868, the Boshin War (War of the Year of the Dragon) started with the Battle of Toba–Fushimi in which Chōshū and Satsuma's forces defeated the ex-shōgun's army. This forced (or allowed) the Emperor to strip Yoshinobu of all power, setting the stage for official restoration. On January 3, 1868, the Emperor made a formal declaration of the restoration of his power:
The Emperor of Japan announces to the sovereigns of all foreign countries and to their subjects that permission has been granted to the Shōgun Tokugawa Yoshinobu to return the governing power in accordance with his own request. We shall henceforward exercise supreme authority in all the internal and external affairs of the country. Consequently, the title of Emperor must be substituted for that of Taikun, in which the treaties have been made. Officers are being appointed by us to the conduct of foreign affairs. It is desirable that the representatives of the treaty powers recognize this announcement.—Mutsuhito, January 3, 1868[8]

All Tokugawa lands were seized and placed under "imperial control", thus placing them under the prerogative of the new Meiji government. With Fuhanken sanchisei, the areas were split into three types: urban prefectures(府,fu), rural prefectures(県,ken) and the already existing domains.
In 1869, the daimyōs of the Tosa, Hizen, Satsuma and Chōshū Domains, who were pushing most fiercely against the shogunate, were persuaded to "return their domains to the Emperor". Other daimyō were subsequently persuaded to do so, thus creating, arguably for the first time, a central government in Japan which exercised direct power through the entire "realm" (天下).
Some shogunate forces escaped to Hokkaidō, where they attempted to set up a breakaway Republic of Ezo; however, forces loyal to the Emperor ended this attempt in May 1869 with the Battle of Hakodate in Hokkaidō. The defeat of the armies of the former shōgun (led by Enomoto Takeaki and Hijikata Toshizō) marked the final end of the Tokugawa shogunate, with the Emperor's power fully restored.
Finally, by 1872, the daimyōs, past and present, were summoned before the Emperor, where it was declared that all domains were now to be returned to the Emperor. The roughly 280 domains were turned into 72 prefectures, each under the control of a state-appointed governor. If the daimyōs peacefully complied, they were given a prominent voice in the new Meiji government.[9] Later, their debts and payments of samurai stipends were either taxed heavily or turned in to bonds which resulted in a large loss of wealth among former samurai.[10]
Military reform

The Meiji Emperor announced in his 1868 Charter Oath that "Knowledge shall be sought all over the world, and thereby the foundations of imperial rule shall be strengthened."[2]
Under the leadership of Mori Arinori, a group of prominent Japanese intellectuals went on to form the Meiji Six Society in 1873 to continue to "promote civilization and enlightenment" through modern ethics and ideas. However, during the restoration, political power simply moved from the Tokugawa shogunate to an oligarchy consisting of these leaders, mostly from Satsuma Province (Ōkubo Toshimichi and Saigō Takamori), and Chōshū Province (Itō Hirobumi, Yamagata Aritomo, and Kido Takayoshi). This reflected their belief in the more traditional practice of imperial rule, whereby the Emperor of Japan serves solely as the spiritual authority of the nation and his ministers govern the nation in his name.
The Meiji oligarchy that formed the government under the rule of the Emperor first introduced measures to consolidate their power against the remnants of the Edo period government, the shogunate, daimyōs, and the samurai class. The oligarchs also endeavored to abolish the four divisions of society.

Throughout Japan at the time, the samurai numbered 1.9 million. (For comparison, this was more than 10 times the size of the French privileged class before the 1789 French Revolution. Moreover, the samurai in Japan were not merely the lords, but also their higher retainers—people who actually worked.) With each samurai being paid fixed stipends, their upkeep presented a tremendous financial burden, which may have prompted the oligarchs to action.
Whatever their true intentions, the oligarchs embarked on another slow and deliberate process to abolish the samurai class. First, in 1873, it was announced that the samurai stipends were to be taxed on a rolling basis. Later, in 1874, the samurai were given the option to convert their stipends into government bonds. Finally, in 1876, this commutation was made compulsory.
To reform the military, the government instituted nationwide conscription in 1873, mandating that every male would serve for four years in the armed forces upon turning 21 years old, followed by three more years in the reserves. One of the primary differences between the samurai and peasant classes was the right to bear arms; this ancient privilege was suddenly extended to every male in the nation. Furthermore, samurai were no longer allowed to walk about town bearing a sword or weapon to show their status.
This led to a series of riots from disgruntled samurai. One of the major riots was the one led by Saigō Takamori, the Satsuma Rebellion, which eventually turned into a civil war. This rebellion was, however, put down swiftly by the newly formed Imperial Japanese Army, trained in Western tactics and weapons, even though the core of the new army was the Tokyo police force, which was largely composed of former samurai. This sent a strong message to the dissenting samurai that their time was indeed over. There were fewer subsequent samurai uprisings and the distinction became all but a name as the samurai joined the new society. The ideal of samurai military spirit lived on in romanticized form and was often used as propaganda during the early 20th-century wars of the Empire of Japan.
However, it is equally true that the majority of samurai were content despite having their status abolished. Many found employment in the government bureaucracy, which resembled an elite class in its own right. The samurai, being better educated than most of the population, became teachers, gun makers, government officials, and/or military officers. While the formal title of samurai was abolished, the elitist spirit that characterized the samurai class lived on.
The oligarchs also embarked on a series of land reforms. In particular, they legitimized the tenancy system which had been going on during the Tokugawa period. Despite the bakufu's best efforts to freeze the four classes of society in place, during their rule villagers had begun to lease land out to other farmers, becoming rich in the process. This greatly disrupted the clearly defined class system which the bakufu had envisaged, partly leading to their eventual downfall.
The military of Japan, being strengthened by nationwide conscription and the infusion of a samurai military spirit, became emboldened to see themselves as a growing world power after winning both the Sino-Japanese War and the Russo-Japanese War.
Centralization
Besides drastic changes to the social structure of Japan, in an attempt to create a strong centralized state defining its national identity, the government established a dominant national dialect, called "standard language"(標準語,hyōjungo), that replaced local and regional dialects and was based on the patterns of Tokyo's samurai classes. This dialect eventually became the norm in the realms of education, media, government, and business.[11]
The Meiji Restoration, and the resultant modernization of Japan, also influenced Japanese self-identity with respect to its Asian neighbours, as Japan became the first Asian state to modernize based on the Western model, replacing the traditional Confucian hierarchical order that had persisted previously under a dominant China with one based on modernity.[12]
Industrial growth
The Meiji Restoration accelerated industrialization in Japan, which led to its rise as a military power by the year 1895, under the slogan of "Enrich the country, strengthen the military"(富国強兵,fukoku kyōhei).
Japan's economic powers are a major influence on the industrial factor of its country as well. Economics and market are both influenced how the people used the market as a place of growth. The nation of Japan had gone under a mass transformation that helped them economically. Japan had help from Western nations when it came to the industrial growth. This is important to the growth and ideas that came with the reforms and transformation Japan was undergoing during the Meiji period.
During the Meiji period powers such as Europe and the United States helped transform Japan and made them realize a change needed to take place. Some leaders went out to foreign lands and used the knowledge and government writings to help shape and form a more influential government within their walls that allowed for things such as production. Despite the help Japan received from other powers, one of the key factors in Japan's industrializing success was its relative lack of resources, which made it unattractive to Western imperialism.[13] The farmer and the samurai classification were the base and soon the problem of why there was a limit of growth within the nation's industrial work. The government sent officials such as the samurai to monitor the work that was being done. Because of Japan's leaders taking control and adapting Western techniques it has remained one of the world’s largest industrial nations.
The rapid industrialization and modernization of Japan both allowed and required a massive increase in production and infrastructure. Japan built industries such as shipyards, iron smelters, and spinning mills, which were then sold to well-connected entrepreneurs. Consequently, domestic companies became consumers of Western technology and applied it to produce items that would be sold cheaply in the international market. With this, industrial zones grew enormously, and there was a massive migration to industrializing centers from the countryside. Industrialization additionally went hand in hand with the development of a national railway system and modern communications.[14]

With industrialization came the demand for coal. There was dramatic rise in production, as shown in the table below.

Coal was needed for steamships and railroads. The growth of these sectors is shown below.

See also
Bakumatsu
Datsu-A Ron
Land Tax Reform (Japan 1873)
Modernization of Japanese Military 1868–1931
Meiji Constitution
Four Hitokiri of the Bakumatsu
Gwangmu Reform, the similar process in neighboring Korea
Notes
1. Although the political system was consolidated under the Emperor of Japan, power was mainly transferred to a group of people, known as the Meiji oligarchy (and Genrō), who helped in the restoration of imperial power.[10]

Further reading

CS1 maint: Extra text: authors list (link)

Breen, John, 'The Imperial Oath of April 1868: ritual, power and politics in Restoration Japan', Monumenta Nipponica,51,4 (1996)
Francisco Barberan & Rafael Domingo Osle, Codigo civil japones. Estudio preliminar, traduccion y notas (2 ed. Thomsons Aranzadi, 2006).
Harry D. Harootunian, Toward Restoration (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970), "Introduction", pp 1 – 46; on Yoshida: chapter IV "The Culture of Action – Yoshida Shōin", pp 184 – 219.
Najita Tetsuo, The Intellectual Foundations of Modern Japanese Politics (Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press), chapter 3: "Restorationism in Late Tokugawa", pp 43 – 68.
H. Van Straelen, Yoshida Shōin, Forerunner of the Meiji Restoration: A Biographical Study (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1952).
David M. Earl, Emperor and Nation in Japan (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972), on Yoshida: "Attitude toward the Emperor/Nation", pp 161 – 192. Also pp.82 – 105.
Marius B Jansen, Sakamoto Ryōma and the Meiji Restoration (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994) especially chapter VIII: "Restoration", pp 312 – 346.
W. G. Beasley, The Meiji Restoration (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1972), especially chapter VI: "Dissenting Samurai", pp 140 – 171.
Conrad Totman, "From Reformism to Transformism, bakufu Policy 1853–1868", in: T. Najita & V. J. Koshmann, Conflict in Modern Japanese History (New Jersay: Princeton University Press, 1988), pp.62 – 80.
Jansen, Marius B.: The Meiji Restoration, in: Jansen, Marius B. (ed.): The Cambridge history of Japan, Volume 5: The nineteenth century (New York: Cambridge UP, 1989), pp.308–366.
Robert W. Strayer, Ways of the World with Sources Vol. 2 (2nd ed.), pp 950 (2013)

 on the About Japan, A Teacher's Resource website
 from famous 19th-century Japanese and European photographers


The Recollects (French: Récollets) were a French reform branch of the Order of Friars Minor, commonly known today as the Franciscans (Latin: Ordo fratrum minorum recollectorum). They used the post-nominal initials O.F.M. Rec.[1] or O.M.R.  Denoted by their gray habits and pointed hoods, the Recollects took vows of poverty and devoted their  lives to prayer, penance, and spiritual reflection. Today, they are best known for their presence as missionaries in various parts of the world, most notably in early Canada.
Created as an Order at the end of the fifteenth century, the origin of the name "Recollects" is still debated; some historians attribute it to the Recollection houses, while others credit it to the orders’ practice of accepting only those who possessed the ability of recollection. In Latin 'Ordo fratrum minorum recollectorum', this last word is related to French receuillement gathering one's thought in contemplation, meditation (). In 1897 Pope Leo XIII officially dissolved the Recollects order and integrated it as a part of the Franciscan order, officially changing their name to Friars Minor.
France

The Recollect branch of the Friars Minor developed out of a reform movement of the Order which began in 16th-century Spain under figures such as Peter of Alcantara, where the followers of the reform were known as Alcantarines. It was observed by communities of friars in France in Tulle in 1585, at Nevers in 1592, at Limoges in 1596 and in Paris at Couvent des Récollets in 1603. The distinctive character of Recollection houses was that they were friaries to which brothers desirous of devoting themselves to prayer and penance could withdraw to consecrate their lives to spiritual reflection. At the same time, they were also active in many pastoral ministries, becoming especially known as military chaplains to the French Army.
The French Recollects had 11 provinces with 2,534 friaries by the late 18th century. The branch was suppressed during the French Revolution.[2]
Recollects in New France
Canada
The Recollects were important as early missionaries to the French colonies in Canada, although they were later displaced by the Jesuits. When Samuel de Champlain returned from his sixth voyage to Canada on the 26th of May 1613, he made plans to bring missionaries on his next voyage.[3] Champlain had initially turned to the Recollects after receiving advice from his friend Sieur Louis Houel, Secretary to King Louis XIII and controller-general of the salt works at Hiers-Brouage.[4] Houel was familiar with the Recollects who had been established in Brouage since 1610. Since the merchants from the Société des Marchands de Rouen et de Saint-Malo were paying Champlain's expensive transportation costs, they insisted he and Houel choose effective yet inexpensive missionaries to join the voyage[5] Thus, the vows of poverty observed by Friars played in their favor. Champlain was also influenced by the successful Franciscan missions in the New World and in Japan.[6] Furthermore, the Jesuit Acadian mission had failed in 1613 following a British raid led by Captain Samuel Argall against Port Royal in present-day Nova Scotia.[7] There had also been resentment towards Jesuits in France at the time when Champlain was planning his mission. Echoes of controversies between the Jesuits and Jean de Biencourt de Poutrincourt et de Saint-Just, the lieutenant-governor of Acadia, involving comments made about the regicide of King Henry IV on May 14, 1610, resonated in France.These events persuaded Champlain that the Recollects were the right religious order to bring to New France.The Recollects travelled to New France with Champlain in 1615, where they first arrived at Tadoussac in May 1615, and later travelled to Quebec City in June 1615.[8]
Father Denis Jamet, the commissary overseeing the establishment of the mission in New France, Fathers Joseph Le Caron, Jean Dolbeau [d’Obleau], and Brother Pacifique Duplessis [du Plessis] were chosen as missionaries to accompany Champlain.[9] Although the Recollects were not the first religious order in New France (the Jesuits had been in Acadia since 1611), they were the first to enter and establish themselves as an order in the province of Quebec. Upon arrival the Recollet Fathers formed a conclave to divide the territory of Quebec. Jean Dolbeau was assigned the northern shore of the Saint-Lawrence Valley, the territory of the Montagnais (Innu), as well as the post of Tadoussac. Joseph Le Caron was given the Huron Mission and other Amerindian populations in the regions of Grands Lacs. Denis Jamet receives missions between Quebec City and Trois-Rivières.[10]
As part of the Anglo-French War of 1626-1629 in Europe, the British captured Quebec City on July 20, 1629.[11]
On September 9 of that same year, the Recollects were forced to return to France along with the Jesuits, who were forcibly removed on July 21. The two groups of Friars were transported to Calais, France, where they arrived on October 29, 1629.[12] The Recollects petitioned the French government several times between 1630 and 1637 to return to New France, but were blocked by Cardinal Richelieu and his agents, who were determined to keep both the Jesuits and the Recollects out of New France.[13] Several Recollects, including veteran missionary Joseph Le Caron, appealed to the Capuchin missionaries, originally from New England, to return the Quebec mission to them. The Capuchins acquiesced, but Cardinal Richelieu ordered that the Jesuits replace the Capuchins in Quebec, additionally forbidding the Recollects from traveling on French ships to New France.[14] Frustrated with the French bureaucracy, the Recollects petitioned the papacy in Rome to return to New France, and succeeded in gaining permission to undertake their endeavour in 1637.[15] However, they were once again denied passage aboard French ships. This conflict continued in 1643 when Queen Anne of Austria, the regent of France, who granted their request, but once again no transport was obtained. The Recollects would not re-enter New France until 1670, nearly forty years since their expulsion[16] After returning, they reestablished missions at Quebec, Trois-Rivières, and Montreal. In 1759, British conquest once again interfered with the Franciscans. Five years later, the Bishop of Quebec, Jean-François Hubert, annulled the vows of any friar professed after 1784. Their numbers gradually decreased until, by 1791, only five friars remained.  The last Canadian Recollect, Father Louis Demers, died in Montreal in 1813.[17]
Newfoundland
In Newfoundland, Recollect friars established a friary in 1689 at the island's capital, Plaisance (now Placentia), which was staffed until 1701 by friars from Saint-Denis, near Paris. In 1701, they were replaced by friars from Brittany, an arrangement which lasted until the expulsion of the French from Newfoundland in 1714 after the Treaty of Utrecht. In English-speaking Newfoundland, Recollect priests from Ireland played a significant role in the introduction and early leadership of Roman Catholicism on the island, following the public announcement of religious liberty to Roman Catholics by Governor John Campbell in 1784.
The evangelization missions taking place between 1615 and 1629 can be divided into three periods. The first, from 1615-1623, was a period of discovery: it marked their initial effort at understanding and discovering the regions of Huronia and Tadoussac. During the second phase, from 1623-1625, the Recollects concentrated their efforts of evangelization in Huronia. The third period, from 1625 until their expulsion from New France in 1629, marks a time frame in which the Recollects shared their territory with the Jesuits, as the latter only arrived in New France in 1625.[18]
Relations with native populations in New France
Recollect and Jesuit missionaries were very much the same, in the sense that both orders sought to Christianize natives, while at the same time using similar methodologies. Within the Recollect theory of conversion, the French settlers in New France played a primordial role in the Christianization of indigenous peoples. They believed that colonization and evangelization were inseparable. This is compared to the Jesuits, who held their evangelization efforts completely separate from their involvement in the French colony. The Recollects never neglected the French settlers in favour of devoting themselves entirely to the conversion of natives. French settlers were seen by the Recollects as the key to creating their ideal society; they wished to promote French and native intermarriage, in the hopes of eventually building a larger Christian settlement. In practice, however, the native populations encountered by the Recollects had no intentions on settling permanently in the French colony. This led the missionaries to instead travel alongside indigenous communities in the hopes of teaching them about the Catholic faith, much like their Jesuit counterparts.[19]
The goal of the Recollects in New France was to undertake missionary work among the indigenous peoples who lived there. This work was not without its challenges; for example, language proved a difficult barrier to overcome. To solve this problem, the Recollects recruited “truchements” (a term literally translated to “helpers”), who were young and resourceful men from humble backgrounds, to interpret indigenous linguistic patterns and respond with gestures and miming. The “truchements” were supported financially by the missionaries, giving some the opportunity to rise within New France’s social ranks. For example, Nicolas Marsolet was granted a seigneury, while Pierre Boucher became governor of Trois-Rivières, later founding the town of Boucherville.[20]
Their return to New France in 1670 was led by Father Germain Allart, accompanied by Gabriel de la Ribourde, Simple Landon, Hilarion Guenin, Anselme Bardoun, and Brother Luc. The territory of Quebec had since been carved up amongst the Jesuits, who claimed the Laurentian Valley and other western territories, and the Sulpicians who owned Montreal and its surrounding region.[21]  At this point, the conversion of Amerindians to Christianity was no longer the main priority of the Recollects, as they were more concerned with rebuilding infrastructure that had been left behind following their expulsion by the British in 1629.[22] Nonetheless, they continued to partake in evangelization missions in Gaspesie, in Acadia, and in Louisiana.[23]
The Recollects usually had close connections to the natives. In fact, when they first arrived in New France, they openly welcomed “unruly” native children within their walls in order to teach them the way of God. Even though they quickly realized that they did not have enough money to continue this mission, they still maintained relatively good relations with the natives, especially with the Hurons. As the Recollect Gabriel Sagard shows in his writings, their convent was very close to a few indigenous settlements, and he himself was very good friend with some Hurons. Some even addressed him with Huron kinship terms; some called him Ayein, meaning “son” and others called him Ataquen, meaning “brother”. He also writes about what a typical day with them looked like: he would usually eat with them, and then he would sometimes follow them as they went about their everyday lives. They taught him about their beliefs, their customs, and they taught him their language, which would later help him in creating a useful dictionary.[24]
Legacy of the Recollects
Despite their limited financial resources and small numbers, the Recollects were the first to carry out significant missionary work in New France. For example, they were the first pastors in the colony at Port Royal.[25] Jean Dolbeau celebrated the first Mass ever said in Quebec. He became Provincial Commissary of the mission in 1618 and preached the first jubilee accorded to Canada. He built the first friary of the Recollects at Quebec in 1620.
Texts written by Recollect missionaries combined aspects of natural history and ethnography, as they generally paid very close attention to the environments these men lived in. In the case of Sagard, he describes everything that he sees, from plants, to animals, to his relations with the natives he encounters. Compared to the Jesuits, Recollect presence in New France was minimal. The writings of the Recollects were less popular than those of the Jesuits, who targeted a wider audience. Consequently, their works were less influential for the Jesuit writings on New France were considered more authoritative sources on the New World. When writing about their missions, the Recollects emphasized the importance of observing, interacting with and understanding indigenous societies prior to writing about them. Their works often spoke of the difficulties encountered by missionaries when converting natives, which led to these texts being dismissed by readers as pessimistic. This explains, in part with the burning of the Recollects convent in 1796, the small quantity of texts related to the missions which have survived to this day.[26]
Recollects were important in the documentation of indigenous life in New France. Chrestien Leclercq wrote Nouvelle Relation de la Gaspésie, which concerns itself with the ways of life of those indigenous communities that he resided with as a result of his missions among the Mi’kmaq of Gaspésie.[27][28][29]
As a result of spending so much time among the Mi’kmaq people, Leclercq was able to learn their language. His fluency in their dialect allowed him to compose a dictionary of the Mi’kmaq language, meant to serve as an aid for future missionaries who would live among these First Nations people.[30]
Pacifique Duplessis was later sent to Trois-Rivères, where he evangelized Aboriginal communities, cared for the sick, and educated children. Because of the latter, he has been considered the first schoolmaster in  New France. In 1620, the Recollects completed construction on the Notre-Dame-des-Agnes convent in Quebec, the first Canadian convent and Seminary.[31]
	Father Nicolas Viel travelled to Huronia with Gabriel Sagard and other missionaries to assist Father Le Caron. As a result of this voyage, Sagard published one of his more notable works Le grand voyage du Pays des Hurons (1632) and later his Histoire du Canada (1636) in which he described the daily life, customs, and habits of the Hurons.
To this day Leclercq's Nouvelle Relation de la Gaspésie and Sagard's Le grand voyage du Pays des Hurons is considered an important piece belonging to the large corpus of texts published on eastern Canada during its French regime.[32]
Recollects in other Countries
The Recollects were also present in other parts of the world. In 1521, the Province des Anges sent a few missionaries, R.P. Martin de Valence with nine priests and two fathers in the Occidental Indies, and there, they converted in a very short time more than one thousand and two hundred Indians. They also created twelve provinces, four of them in New Spain, the largest was the Monastery of Recoleta in Buenos Aires Argentina, four in Peru, and then again four others in New Spain and in the Philippines.[33]
Guatemala
The Recollects established a friary in Antigua, Guatemala. It was destroyed by the Santa Marta earthquakes of 1773 and is preserved today as a national monument, La Recolección Architectural Complex.
Germany and the Lowlands
Through the presence of Spanish rule in the Low Countries, the reform took hold there, and then spread to the German friars. By the end of the 17th century, all of the provinces of the German-Belgian Nation of the Order of Friars Minor were Recollect. This branch of the Recollects did not die out with the French Revolution but survived and was reinvigorated in the 19th century.[34]
By that period, it was one of the four major branches of the Order of Friars Minor, all of which lived under obedience to the Minister General of the Order, but under their own Procurators General. All of them were merged in the Great Union of 1897 mandated by Pope Leo XIII. At that time, there were seven provinces of Recollects.[35]
Recollect Provinces
Names of the Four Provinces in New Spain
1. Province du Saint Evangile
2. Des Apostres Saint Pierre & Saint Paul Mechiocam
3. de Saint Joseph de Jucatam
4. Du Tres-Saint Nom de Jesus de Gutamala
Names of the Four Provinces of Peru
1. Des Douze Apostres de Lima
2. De Saint Francois de Quito
3. De la Tres-Sainte Trinité de Chilo
4. De Saint Foy au Royaume de Grenade
Names of the Other Four Provinces
1. Province de Saint George de Nicaraga
2. De Saint Gregoire des Iles Philippines
3. La Custodie de Saint Antoine du Bresil
4. La Custodie de Saint François de Malaca[36]
Notable Recollect friars
Jan Boeksent - Baroque Sculptor from Flanders.
Francis Davenport-An English Catholic theologian and Recollect friar best known for his treatise on the Thirty-nine Articles.
Joseph de La Roche Daillon—A missionary, he discovered that the indigenes in  what is now New York State were using petroleum.
Jean Dolbeau-One of the original four Recollects in Canada, he served successively as Master of novices, Guardian, definitor, and provincial delegate at the General Chapter of the Order held in Spain in 1633.
Louis Hennepin-Tasked by his superior to accompany La Salle on his expedition to explore Western New France, helped bring attention to Saint Anthony Falls and Niagara Falls.
Denis Jamet-Leader of the first Recollects in New France, he completed the first regular convent of the Recollects in 1621. He also celebrated the first mass by the Recollect in the New Land, at Rivière-des-Prairies, on June 24, 1615.
Joseph Le Caron-Once tutor to the Duke of New Orleans, he became a Recollect and took a vow of poverty in 1611. One of the four original Recollects in New France. Le Caron compiled one of the first dictionaries on the Huron language.
Gabriel Sagard-Arriving in New France in 1623, Sagard began his missionary work in a small Huron village on the shore of Lake Huron. He is best known for his efforts to record the Huron language. Sagard published in Paris in 1632 two important documents entitled Le grand voyage du pays des Hurons, followed by Dictionnaire de la langue Huronne.
Nicholas Viel-The first Franciscan martyr in Canada, he was drowned by the Hurons while returning to Quebec City.
Chrétien Le Clercq—The first Recollect missionary to be assigned to the missions of the Mi’kmaq in Gaspésie, author of a French-Mi’kmaq dictionary and Nouvelle Relation de la Gaspésie.
Pacifique Duplessis—One of the original four Recollects in New France.
Timeline
1606: Marie de Medicis laid down the first stone of the first Recollect chapel in France.
1610: Champlain is trying to find missionaries to go to the New World, he will ask to the Jesuits and then to the Recollects.
1611: Joseph le Caron becomes a Recollect.
1615: Father Chapouin sends four Recollect to accompany Champlain in his trip to Canada. Father le Caron is the first lettered European to go to the Huronia. He will then have to come back to France to write a report, but he will return later to continue his mission in Quebec and Tadoussac.
1619: the Recollects Sébastien, Jacques Cardon, Jacques de la Foyer and Louis Fontinier start a mission in Acadia on the river Saint Jean.
1619-1621: Construction of the Recollect convent in Quebec, on the river Saint-Charles. It was called after Charles de Boves, grand Vicaire de Pontoise, that died soon after 1620, and who protected the Canadian mission of the Recollect.
1623: Sagard arrives in Quebec on June the 28th, accompanied by Father Nicolas Viel and Father Joseph Le Caron. On July the 16th, he leaves Quebec to go in Huronia where he arrives on August 20. He then settles first in Quieuindahian and then later in Quieunonascaron.
1624: Sagard and the others leave Huronia to go back to Quebec and then to France in autumn.
1632: Father Joseph Le Caron dies. A new edition comes out of Voyages by Champlain deletes any allusion of the Recollect missionaries from precedent years. On this year, it was also refused to a few Recollect to embark on a boat to Quebec, three Jesuits went instead of them, including Father Paul Le Jeune.
1670: After a change in the colony’s politics, the Recollect of Saint-Denis were finally allowed to come back to their old convent in Quebec.
1691: Parisian editor Auroy publishes two new books written by Chrestien Leclercq, the first one Nouvelle Relation de Gaspésie and the second, Premier Etablissement de la foi dans la Nouvelle-France.
See also

Le Clercq, Chrestien (1910). William Ganong ed. New Relation of Gaspesia, with the Customs and Religion of the Gaspesian Indians. The Publications of the Champlain Society.[37]

Bibliography
Champlain, Samuel (1907). Voyages of Samuel de Champlain.  1604-1618. New York: Scribener's Sons. pp.272–276.
Deslandres, Dominique (2003). Croire et faire croire: Les missions françaises au XVIIe siècle (1600-1650). Paris: Fayard. p.204.
Dumas, G.M. "Chrestien Leclercq". Dictionary of Canadian Biography. Retrieved 26 February 2015.
Galland, Caroline (2012). Pour La Gloire De Dieu Et Du Roi: Les Récollets En Nouvelle-France Au XVII Et XVIII Siècles. Éditions Du Cerf. pp.49–52.
Le Clercq, Chrestien. First Establishment of the Faith in New France. Charleston, South Carolina: Nabu Press. pp.304–306.
Le Fèbvre, Hyacinthe (1677). Histoire Chronologique de la Province des Récollets de Paris (Denys Thierry ed.). Paris: Bibliothèque Québécoise. p.32.
Lenhart, John (1945). "Who kept the Recollects out of Canada in 1632?". Franciscan Studies 5 (3): 280-284.

 from Library and Archives Canada
 &  (in French)

Where did the Catholic Recollet Order originate?


The tennis scoring system is a way to keep track of tennis matches (including pick-up games). Some tennis matches are played as part of a tournament. (Tournaments may have various categories, such as singles and doubles.) The great majority are organised as a single-elimination tournament, with competitors being eliminated after a single loss, and the overall winner being the last competitor without a loss. Optimally, such tournaments have a number of competitors equal to a power of two in order to fully fill out a single elimination bracket. In many professional and top-level amateur events, the brackets are seeded according to a recognised ranking system, in order to keep the best players in the field from facing each other until as late in the tournament as possible; additionally, if byes are necessary because of a less-than-full bracket, those byes in the first round are usually given to the highest-seeded competitors.
A tennis match is composed of points, games, and sets. A set consists of a number of games (a minimum of six), which in turn each consist of points. A set is won by the first side to win 6 games, with a margin of at least 2 games over the other side (e.g. 6–3 or 7–5). There is usually a tie-break if the set is tied at six games per player. A match is won when a player or a doubles team has won the majority of the prescribed number of sets. Matches employ either a best-of-three (first to two sets wins) or best-of-five (first to three sets wins) set format. The best-of-five set format is usually only used in the men's singles or doubles matches at Grand Slam and Davis Cup matches.
Game score
Description
A game consists of a sequence of points played with the same player serving, and is won by the first side to have won at least four points with a margin of two points or more over their opponent. Normally the server's score is always called first and the opponent's score second. Score calling in tennis is unusual in that (except in tie-beaks) each point has a corresponding call that is different from its point value.  The current point score is announced orally before each point by the judge, or by the server if there is no judge.

For instance if the server has won three points so far in the game, and the non-server has won one, the score is "40-15".
When both sides have won the same number of points then: when each side has won one, or two, points, the score is described as "15-all" and "30-all" (or "15-up" and "30-up"), respectively. However, if each player has won three points, the score is called as "deuce", not "40–all".  From that point on in the game, whenever the score is tied, it is described as "deuce", regardless of how many points have been played.
In standard play, scoring beyond a "deuce" score, in which both players have scored three points each, requires that one player must get two points ahead in order to win the game. This type of tennis scoring is known as "advantage scoring" (or "ads"). The side which wins the next point after deuce is said to have the advantage. If they lose the next point, the score is again deuce, since the score is tied. If the side with the advantage wins the next point, that side has won the game, since they have a lead of two points.  When the server is the player with the advantage, the score may be called as "advantage in". When the server's opponent has the advantage, the score may be called as "advantage out". These phrases are sometimes shortened to "ad in" or "van in" (or "my ad") and "ad out" (or "your ad"). Alternatively, the players' names are used: in professional tournaments the umpire announces the score in this format (e.g. "advantage Nadal" or  "advantage Williams").
In the USTA rule book (but not the ITF rules) there is the comment: ‘"Zero," "one," "two," and "three," may be substituted for "Love," "15," "30," and "40." This is particularly appropriate for matches with an inexperienced player or in which one player does not understand English.’[2]
For tie-breaks the calls are simply the number of points won by each player.

History
The origins of the 15, 30, and 40 scores are believed to be medieval French. The earliest reference is in a ballad by Charles D'Orleans in 1435 which refers to quarante cinque ("forty-five"), which gave rise to modern 40. In 1522 there is a sentence in Latin "we are winning 30, we are winning 45". The first recorded theories about the origin of 15 were published in 1555 and 1579. However, the origins of this convention remain obscure.[3]

It is imagined that clock faces were used on court, with a quarter move of the hand to indicate a score of 15, 30, and 45. When the hand moved to 60, the game was over. However, in order to ensure that the game could not be won by a one-point difference in players' scores, the idea of "deuce" was introduced. To make the score stay within the "60" ticks on the clock face, the 45 was changed to 40. Therefore, if both players had 40, the first player to score would receive ten, and that would move the clock to 50. If the player scored a second time before the opponent is able to score, they would be awarded another ten and the clock would move to 60. The 60 signifies the end of the game. However, if a player fails to score twice in a row, then the clock would move back to 40 to establish another "deuce".[4][5]
Although this suggestion might sound attractive, the medieval period ran until around the end of the 15th century (i.e. until about 1500), and at that time clocks recorded only the hours (1 to 12). It was not until about 1690, when the pendulum system was invented, that clocks regularly had minute hands. So the concept of tennis scores originating from the clock face could not have come from medieval times.[6]
Another theory is that the scoring nomenclature came from the French game jeu de paume (a precursor to tennis which initially used the hand instead of a racket). Jeu de paume was very popular before the French Revolution, with more than 1,000 courts in Paris alone. The traditional court was 90ft (pieds du roi) in total with 45ft on each side. When the server scored, he or she moved forward 15ft. If the server scored again, he or she would move another 15ft. If the server scored a third time, he or she could only move 10ft closer.[7]
The origin of the use of "love" for zero is also disputed. The most likely explanation is that it derives from the French expression for "the egg" (l'œuf) because an egg looks like the number zero.[8][9] This is similar to the origin of the term "duck" in cricket, supposedly from "duck's egg", referring to a batsman who has been called out without completing a run. One possibility comes from the Dutch expression iets voor lof doen, which means to do something for praise, implying no monetary stakes.[10] Another theory on the origins of the use of "love" comes from the notion that, at the start of any match, when scores are at zero, players still have "love for each other".[11]
Alternative ("no-ad") game scoring
A popular alternative to advantage scoring is "no-advantage" (or "no-ad") scoring, created by James Van Alen in order to shorten match playing time.[12] No-advantage scoring is a scoring method in which the first player to reach four points wins the game.  No-ad scoring eliminates the requirement that a player must win by two points.  Therefore, if the game is tied at deuce, the next player to win a point wins the game.  This method of scoring is used in most World TeamTennis matches.[13][14] When this style of play is implemented, at deuce, the receiver then chooses from which side of the court he or she desires to return the serve.  However, in no-ad mixed doubles play gender always serves to the same gender at game point and during the final point of tiebreaks.[15]
Set score
Description
In tennis, a set consists of a sequence of games played with alternating service and return roles. There are two types of set formats that require different types of scoring.[16]
An advantage set is played until a player or team has won at least 6 games and that player or team has a 2-game lead over their opponent(s). The set continues, without tiebreak(er), until a player or team wins the set by 2 games. Advantage sets are no longer played under the rules of the United States Tennis Association;[17] however, they are still used in the final sets in men's and women's singles in the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon, and Fed Cup. Mixed doubles at the Grand Slams (except for Wimbledon) are a best-of-three format with the final set being played as a "Super Tie Break" (sometimes referred to as a "best of two" format) except at Wimbledon, which still plays a best-of-three match with the final set played as an advantage set and the first two played as tie-break sets.
A tie-break set is played with the same rules as the advantage set, except that when the score is tied at 6–6, a tie-break game (or tiebreaker) is played. Typically, the tie-break game continues until one side has won seven points with a margin of two or more points. However, many tie-break games are played with different tiebreak point requirements, such as 8 or 10 points. Often, a 7-point tie-breaker is played when the set score is tied at 6-6 to determine who wins the set.[18]
The score of games within a set is counted in the ordinary manner, except that when a player or team has a score of no games it is read as "love". The score is written using digits separated by a dash. This score is announced by the judge or server at the start of each game.

In doubles, service alternates between the teams. One player serves for an entire service game, with that player's partner serving for the entirety of the team's next service game. Players of the receiving team receive the serve on alternating points, with each player of the receiving team declaring which side of the court (deuce or ad side) they will receive serve on for the duration of the set.
Comparison
Advantage sets sometimes continue much longer than tie-break sets. The 2010 Wimbledon first-round match between John Isner and Nicolas Mahut, which is the longest professional tennis match in history, notably ended with Isner winning the fifth set by 70–68. The match lasted in total 11 hours and five minutes, with the fifth set alone lasting eight hours, 11 minutes.
Nevertheless, even tie-break sets can last a long time. For instance, once players reach 6–6 set score and also reach 6–6 tiebreaker score, play must continue until one player has a 2-point advantage, which can take a considerable time. Sets decided by tiebreakers, however, are typically significantly shorter than extended advantage sets.
The set is won by the first player (or team) to have won at least six games and at least two games more than his or her opponent. Traditionally, sets would be played until both these criteria had been met, with no maximum number of games. To shorten matches, James Van Alen created a tie-breaker system, which was widely introduced in the early 1970s. If the score reaches 6–5 (or 5-6), one further game is played. If the leading player wins this game, the set is won 7–5 (or 5-7). If the trailing player wins the game, the score is tied at 6–6 and a special tiebreaker game is played. The winner of the tiebreak wins the set by a score of 7–6 (or 6-7).
The tiebreak is sometimes not employed for the final set of a match and an advantage set is used instead. Therefore, the deciding set must be played until one player or team has won two more games than the opponent. Of the major tennis championships, this now only applies in the French Open. In the US Open, a tiebreak is played in the deciding set (fifth set for the men, third set for the women) at 6–6. Starting in 2019, in Wimbledon, a tiebreak will be played if the score reaches 12-12 in the final set. In the Australian Open, a "first to 10" tiebreak is played in the deciding set if it reaches 6-6.[19][20]  (When the tiebreak was first introduced at Wimbledon in 1971, it was invoked at 8–8 rather than 6–6.) The US Open formerly held "Super Saturday" where the two men's semi-finals were played along with the women's final on the second Saturday of the event; therefore a tie-break was more prudent where player rest and scheduling is more important.
Scoring a tiebreak game
At a score of 6–6, a set is often determined by one more game called a "twelve point tiebreaker" (or just "tiebreak"). Only one more game is played to determine the winner of the set; the score of the resulting completed set is 7–6 or 6–7 (though it can be 6-6 if a player retires before completion).[21]
Points are counted using ordinary numbering. The set is won by the player who has scored at least seven points in the tiebreak and at least two points more than their opponent. For example, if the score is 6 points to 5 and the player with 6 points wins the next point, they win the tiebreak (7 points to 5), as well as the set (7 games to 6). If the player with 5 points wins the point instead (for a score of 6-6), the tiebreak continues and cannot be won on the next point (7-6 or 6-7), since no player will be two points ahead.  In the scoring of the set, sometimes the tiebreak points are shown as well as the game count, e.g., 710–68. Another way of listing the score of the tiebreak is to list only the loser's points. For example, if the set score is listed as 7–6(8), the tiebreak score was 10–8 (since the 8 is the loser's score, and the winner must win by two points). Similarly, 7–6(3) means the tiebreak score was 7–3.
The player who would normally be serving after 6–6 is the one to serve first in the tiebreak, and the tiebreak is considered a service game for this player. The server begins his or her service from the deuce court and serves one point. After the first point, the serve changes to the first server's opponent. Each player then serves two consecutive points for the remainder of the tiebreak. The first of each two-point sequence starts from the server's advantage court and the second starts from the deuce court. In this way, the sum of the scores is even when the server serves from the deuce court. After every six points, the players switch ends of the court; note that the side-changes during the tiebreak will occur in the middle of a server's two-point sequence.  At the end of the tiebreak, the players switch ends of the court again, since the set score is always odd (13 games).
An alternative tie-break system called the "Coman Tie-Break" is sometimes used by the United States Tennis Association. Scoring is the same, but end changes take place after the first point and then after every four points. This approach allows the servers of doubles teams to continue serving from the same end of the court as during the body of the set. It also reduces the advantage the elements (e.g. wind and sun) could give playing the first six points of a seven-point tiebreak on one side of the court.
History of the tiebreak
The tiebreaker – more recently shortened to just "tiebreak", though both terms are still used interchangeably – was invented by James Van Alen and unveiled in 1965 as an experiment at the pro tournament he sponsored at Newport Casino, Rhode Island,[22] after an earlier, unsuccessful attempt to speed up the game by the use of his so-called "Van Alen Streamlined Scoring System" ("VASSS"). For two years before the Open Era, in 1955 and 1956, the United States Pro Championship in Cleveland, Ohio, was played by VASSS rules. The scoring was the same as that in table tennis, with sets played to 21 points and players alternating five services, with no second service.  The rules were created partially to limit the effectiveness of the powerful service of the reigning professional champion, Pancho Gonzales. Even with the new rules, however, Gonzales beat Pancho Segura in the finals of both tournaments. Even though the 1955 match went to 5 sets, with Gonzales barely holding on to win the last one 21–19, it is reported to have taken 47 minutes to complete.[23] The fans attending the matches preferred the traditional rules, however, and in 1957 the tournament reverted to the old method of scoring.
Van Alen called his innovation a "tiebreaker", and he actually proposed two different kinds or versions of it: best-five-of-nine-points tiebreaker and best-seven-of-12-points tiebreaker.[22] The first lasts a maximum of 9 points, and awards victory in the set to whichever player or team first reaches 5 points – even if the other player or team already has 4; the margin of victory can be a single point.  Because this "9-point" tiebreaker must end after a maximum of 9 points, even if neither player or team has a 2-point (or greater) margin, Van Alen also called it a "sudden-death tiebreaker" (If and when the score reached four points all, both players faced simultaneous set point and/or match point.). This type of tiebreaker had its Grand Slam debut at 1970 US Open and was employed there until 1974. Apart from being used for 5 years at US Open it was also used 1 year at Wimbledon and for a while on the Virginia Slims circuit and in American Colleges.
The other type of tiebreaker Van Alen introduced is the "12-point" tiebreaker that is most familiar and widely used today.  Because it ends as soon as either player or team reaches 7 points – provided that that player or team leads the other at that point by at least two points – it can actually be over in as few as 7 points.  However, because the winning player or team must win by a margin of at least two points, a "12-point" tiebreaker may go beyond 12 points – sometimes well beyond.  That is why Van Alen derisively likened it to a "lingering death", in contrast to the 9-point (or fewer) "sudden-death tiebreaker" that he recommended and preferred.
The impetus to use some kind of a tie-breaking procedure gained force after a monumental 1969 struggle at Wimbledon between Pancho Gonzales and Charlie Pasarell. This was a 5-set match that lasted five hours and 12 minutes and took 2 days to complete. In the fifth set the 41-year-old Gonzales won all seven match points that Pasarell had against him, twice coming back from 0–40 deficits. The final score was 22–24, 1–6, 16–14, 6–3, 11–9 for Gonzales.
The tiebreaker gave tennis a definite "finish line".
In what follows, the "final set" means the fifth set for best-of-five matches, and the third set for best-of-three matches.
In 1971, the nine-point tiebreaker was introduced at Wimbledon (the first scoring change at Wimbledon in 94 years).[22]
In 1972, Wimbledon put into effect a 12-point tiebreaker when the score in a set reached 8–8 in games unless the set was one in which one of the players could achieve a match victory by winning it.[22]
In 1979, Wimbledon changed their rules so that a (12-point) tiebreak would be played once any set except the final set reached 6–6 in games.
In 1989, the Davis Cup adopted the tie-break in all sets except for the final set, and then extended it to the final set starting in 2016.
In 2001, the Australian Open replaced the deciding third set of mixed doubles with an eighteen-point "match tiebreak" (first to ten points and win by two points wins the match).[24] Despite some criticism of the change by fans and former pros,[25] the US Open and the French Open have since gone on to join the Australian Open in using the same format for mixed doubles. Wimbledon continues to play a traditional best of three match, requiring an advantage set for the third set.
Tie-break sets are now nearly universal in all levels of play, for all sets in a match; however, the tie-break is not a compulsory element in any set, and the actual formatting of sets and tie-breaks depends on the tournament director in tournaments, and, in private matches, on the players' agreement before play begins. Tie-breaks are not used in the final set in the Australian Open for singles before 2019, the French Open for singles, Wimbledon before 2019, or the Fed Cup, nor were they used for final sets in Davis Cup play or the Olympics before 2016. The US Open now uses a tiebreak in the final set, both in singles and in doubles, and was the only major tournament to use a tiebreak in the final set for singles before 2019, but the Australian Open and French Open do use a final set tiebreak in both men's and women's doubles.
In 2019, the Australian Open introduced a "super-tiebreak" for singles in the final set, replacing the previous format in which the final set would continue until one player was ahead by two games. The new format for the final set is similar to the "12-point tiebreaker", but with the winner being the first to 10 points instead of 7 (and they must still win by 2 points).[26] Tennis Australia has called this a "10-point tiebreak", though this is inconsistent with the reasoning behind the naming of the "12-point tiebreaker", which represents the minimum total number of points (a score of 7-5); the same reasoning would make the new format an "18-point tiebreaker" with a minimum winning score of 10-8.[27]
Wimbledon has announced that it will be introducing a tiebreak for the 2019 tournament singles matches. They will use the standard "12-point tiebreaker" system (first to 7, must win by 2) once the score reaches 12–all in the final set.[28][29]
As of 2019, the French Open will remain the only one among the grand slam tournaments that does not utilize any form of a tie-break for singles in the final set; all four grand slam tournaments will have different rules governing how the final set for singles will be concluded in close matches.
Alternative set scoring format
While traditional sets continue until a player wins at least six games by a margin of at least two games there are some alternative set scoring formats in use.  A common alternative set format is the eight or nine game pro set.  Instead of playing until one player reaches six games with a margin of two games, one plays until one player wins eight or nine games with a margin of two games.  A tie-break is then played at eight or nine games all.  While the format is not used in modern professional matches or recognized by the ITF rules, it was supposedly used in early professional tours.  It is commonly utilized in various amateur leagues and high school tennis as a shorter alternative to a best of three match, but longer than a traditional tie-break set. In addition, eight game pro sets were used during doubles for all Division I college dual matches, until the 2014-2015 season.[30]
Another alternative set format are so called "short sets" where the first to four games to win by two games.  In this format a tie-break is played at four games all.  The ITF experimented with this format in low level Davis Cup matches, but the experiment was not continued.  Nevertheless, this alternative remains as an acceptable alternative in the ITF rules of Tennis.[31]
Another alternative set format is seen in World Team Tennis where the winner of a set is the first to win five games and a nine-point tie-break is played at 4–4.
Match score
Description
The winner is the side that wins more than half of the sets, and the match ends as soon as this is achieved. Men's matches may be the best of either three or five sets, while women's and mixed doubles matches are usually best of three sets.
The alternation of service between games continues throughout the match without regard to sets, but the ends are changed after each odd game within a set (including the last game). If, for example, the second set of a match ends with the score at 6–3, 1–6, the ends are changed as the last game played was the 7th (odd) game of the set and in spite of it being the 16th (even) game of the match. Even when a set ends with an odd game, ends are again changed after the first game of the following set. A tiebreaker game is treated as a single game for the purposes of this alternation. Since tiebreakers always result in a score of 7–6, there is always a court change after the tiebreaker.
The score of a complete match may be given simply by sets won, or with the scores in each set given separately. In either case, the match winner's score is stated first. In the former, shorter form, a match might be listed as 3–1 (i.e. three sets to one). In the latter form, this same match might be further described as "7–5, 6–7(4–7), 6–4, 7–6(8–6)". (As noted above, an alternate form of writing the tiebreak score lists only the loser's score—e.g., "7–6(6)" for the fourth set in the example.) This match was won three sets to one, with the match loser winning the second set on a tiebreaker. The numbers in parentheses, normally included in printed scorelines but omitted when spoken, indicate the duration of the tiebreaker following a given set. Here, the match winner lost the second-set tiebreaker 7–4 and won the fourth-set tiebreaker 8–6.
Total points won
Because tennis is scored set by set and game by game, a player may lose a match despite winning the majority of points and/or games played.
Consider a player who wins six games in each of two sets, all by a score of game–30. The winner has scored 4×12 = 48 points and the loser 2×12 = 24. Suppose also that the loser wins four games in each set, all by a score of game-love. The loser has scored 4×8 = 32 points and the winner zero in those games. The final score is a win by 6–4, 6–4; total points 48–56.
An example of this in actual practice was the record-breaking Isner-Mahut match in the Wimbledon first round, 22–24 June 2010. American John Isner beat Nicolas Mahut of France 6–4, 3–6, 6–7(7–9), 7–6(7–3), 70–68 – Mahut winning a total of 502 points to Isner's 478.[32]
Total games won
Likewise, a player may lose a match despite winning the majority of games played (or win a match despite losing the majority of games). Roger Federer won the 2009 Wimbledon final over Andy Roddick (5–7, 7–6(8–6), 7–6(7–5), 3–6, 16–14) despite Roddick's winning more games (39, versus Federer's 38).
Announcing the score
When playing a match, it is usually best to report each score out loud with one's opponent to avoid conflicts. During a game, the server has the responsibility to announce the game score before serving. This is done by announcing the server's score first. If, for example, the server loses the first three points of his or her service game, he or she would say "love–40". This is to be done every time. After a set is complete, the server, before serving for the first game of the next set, announces the set scores so far completed in the match, stating his or her own scores first. If the server has won the first two sets and is beginning the third, he or she would say, "two–love, new set." If the server had lost the first two sets, he or she would say, "love–two, new set." Finally, after the completion of the match, either player, when asked the score, announces his or her own scores first.
As an example, consider a match between Victoria Azarenka and Ana Ivanovic. Azarenka wins the first set 6–4, Ivanovic wins the next set 7–6(7–4), and Azarenka wins the final set 6–0.
At the end of each set, the umpire would announce the winner of each set:
Game, first set, Azarenka.
Game, second set, Ivanovic.
At the completion of the match, the result would be announced as:
Game, set, match, (Victoria) Azarenka, two sets to one, six–four, six–seven, six–love.
The result would be written as:
 Victoria Azarenka defeated  Ana Ivanovic 6–4, 6–7(4–7), 6–0
The score is always written and announced in respect to the winner of the match. The score of the tiebreak is not included in announcing the final result; it is simply said "seven–six" or "six–seven" regardless of the score in the tiebreak.
If a match ends prematurely due to one player retiring or being disqualified (defaulting), the partial score at that point is announced as the final score, with the remaining player as the nominal winner. For instance, the result in the final of the 2012 Aegon Championships is written:
 Marin Čilić defeated  David Nalbandian 6–7(3–7), 4–3 (default)
Variations and slang
During informal play of tennis, especially at tennis clubs in the U.S. (also in other English speaking countries), score announcements are frequently shortened with the use of abbreviations. For example, a score 15 is replaced with "five", or in some cases "fif". "Love" is often substituted to indicate "zero".  Similarly, the scores of 30 and 40 may sometimes be spoken as "three" or "four" respectively. A score of 15-all may sometimes be announced as "fives." To further confuse score announcements, a score of 30-all (30–30) may often be called "deuce", and the following point referred to as "ad in" or "ad out" (or "my ad" or "your ad"), depending on which player (or team) won the point. The logic for this is that a 30-all score is effectively the same as deuce (40–40).[33]
Scorecards

For formal scorekeeping, the official scoring the match (e.g. the chair umpire) fills out a scorecard, either on paper or electronically. The scorecard allows the official to record details for each point, as well as rule violations and other match information. Standard markings for each point are:[34]
⁄ – point won
A – point won via ace
D – point won via double-fault
C – point won via code violation
T – point won via time violation
An additional dot is marked in a score box to indicate a missed first serve fault.
Notes

Faulkner, Trish & Lemelman, Vivian, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Tennis. New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1999.


Megève (French pronunciation:[məʒɛv]; Arpitan: Megéva) is a commune in the Haute-Savoie department in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region in south-eastern France with a population of over 4,000 residents. The town is well-known due to its popularity as a ski resort near Mont-Blanc in the French Alps. Conceived in the 1920s as a French alternative to Saint-Moritz by the Rothschilds, it was the first purpose-built resort in the Alps. Originally it was a prime destination for the French aristocracy. It remains one of the most famous and fanciest ski resorts in the world.[1]
History
The town started its development as a ski resort in the 1910s, when the Rothschild family started to spend their winter vacations there after becoming disenchanted with the Swiss resort, St. Moritz. In 1921, Baroness Noémie de Rothschild (1888–1968) opened the Domaine du Mont d'Arbois, a luxury hotel which boosted the resort's development.[2] By the 1950s Megève was one of the most popular ski resorts in Europe and attracted many wealthy individuals and celebrities.[2] Nowadays it is still visited largely by affluent people  as is evidenced by the real estate prices.[3]
Development
For the 2015–2016 winter season a six-seater chair opened replacing the two old Mont Joux chairs. Further additions include the latest branch of Folie Douce at the top of Mont Joux, introducing the chain’s trademark Austrian-style afternoon party scene, which opened for the 2014–2015 season. This will be the fifth in the Folie Douce chain, which started in Val d’Isère and then spread to Val Thorens, Méribel and Alpe d’Huez.[4]
Sports
Winter sports
Megève's Alpine skiing area, known as the "Domaine Évasion Montblanc", comprises Megève itself (Mont d'Arbois, L'Alpette, Rochebrune and Côte 2000); Saint-Gervais-les-Bains; Combloux; La Giettaz; Les Contamines-Montjoie and Saint-Nicolas-de-Véroce. The "Evasion Mont-blanc" range covers approx 445km of the ski slopes.[5]
On an area of 8km² there are 116 lifts providing access to 219 slopes totalling 445km.
The 445km of slopes are thus divided: (from hardest to easiest) 35Km blacks, 58km reds, 110km blues and 76km greens.[6] (See ski trail rating)
The lifts: 67 platter lifts, 35 chairlifts and 13 gondola lifts and 1 cable car.[5]
In addition, the "Domaine Évasion Mont-Blanc" includes 18 cross-country skiing trails totalling 65km.[7]
The first three World Junior Figure Skating Championships were held in Megève in 1976, 1977, & 1978. [8]
The "Megève Polo Masters" is an international polo tournament played on snow. The "Snow Golf Cup" is a unique golf tournament, held on snow on Megève's Mont d'Arbois plateau.
As well as these winter sports, Megève also hosts winter events including an international curling tournament, a ski cross World Cup and a mogul skiing cup. There is also night skiing in February, a ski-cross slope, an open-air ice rink, snowshoeing and dog sledding. Plus 38km (24 miles) of Nordic skiing in the region.[9]
Summer sports
Megève is also a popular summer holiday destination and is especially renowned for its golfing opportunities.  It was the finishing town for stage 18 and the start town for stage 20 of the 2016 Tour de France.
Twin towns
Oberstdorf in Germany has, since 1970, been a twin town of Megève. It is also located in the mountains and famous for summer and winter holidays.
Honorary citizens
People awarded the honorary citizenship of Megève are:

Media
Megève is the ski resort featured in the beginning of the 1963 film Charade, where Audrey Hepburn's Regina Lampert meets Cary Grant's character.[12] It is also the title of one of the tracks by composer Henry Mancini on the film's soundtrack.
Megève was one of four World Cup venues in the Alps featured in the 1969 film Downhill Racer, starring Robert Redford and Gene Hackman.[13][14]

See also
Communes of the Haute-Savoie department
Megève Aerodrome

 (in French)/(in English)
 (in French)
 (in French)

What is the most popular ski town in The Alps?