“In Bolków there is a monumental Piast dynasty castle, one of the largest fortresses of the Świdnica Duchy. This stronghold, erected in the 13th century, defended nearby trade routes. Its monumental walls are still very impressive, stirring the imagination. This fortress is testimony to the dramatic history of this part of Central Europe.”

The Highroad, p. 11<!-- Le Grand Chemin p. 564 -->
The Abyss (1968)

Semayne's Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 194, 195; 5 Co. Rep. 91, 195 (K.B. 1604).

Source: Jesus or Christianity: A Study in Contrasts (1929), p. 23
Context: It seems incredible that a man with such a message and such nobility of character should have been killed as an enemy of society. But is it surprising?... In a memorable passage Jesus refers to the fact that it is customary for one generation to stone the prophets and for another to erect monuments in their honor.

Source: Love in the Time of Cholera

The Education of Henry Adams (1907)
Context: As educator, Jean Jacques was, in one respect, easily first; he erected a monument of warning against the Ego. Since his time, and largely thanks to him, the Ego has steadily tended to efface itself, and, for purposes of model, to become a manikin on which the toilet of education is to be draped in order to show the fit or misfit of the clothes. The object of study is the garment, not the figure. The tailor adapts the manikin as well as the clothes to his patron's wants. The tailor's object, in this volume, is to fit young men, in universities or elsewhere, to be men of the world, equipped for any emergency; and the garment offered to them is meant to show the faults of the patchwork fitted on their fathers.

John Hale
The Crucible (1953)

Source: This Immortal (1965), p. 60

About the fortress Igi-hursaja.
Correspondence of the Kings of Ur, Letter from Shulgi to Puzur-Shulgi about work on the fortress Igi-hursanga http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/section3/tr3108.htm

From Critique of Everyday Life: Volume 1 (1947/1991)
Context: Everything great and splendid is founded on power and wealth. They are the basis of beauty. This is why the rebel and the anarchic protester who decries all of history and all the works of past centuries because he sees in them only the skills and the threat of domination is making a mistake. He sees alienated forms, but not the greatness within. The rebel can only see to the end of his own ‘private’ consciousness, which he levels against everything human, confusing the oppressors with the oppressed masses, who were nevertheless the basis and the meaning of history and past works. Castles, palaces, cathedrals, fortresses, all speak in their various ways of the greatness and the strength of the people who built them and against whom they were built. This real greatness shines through the fake grandeur of rulers and endows these buildings with a lasting ‘beauty’. The bourgeoisie is alone in having given its buildings a single, over-obvious meaning, impoverished, deprived of reality: that meaning is abstract wealth and brutal domination; that is why it has succeeded in producing perfect ugliness and perfect vulgarity. The man who denigrates the past, and who nearly always denigrates the present and the future as well, cannot understand this dialectic of art, this dual character of works and of history. He does not even sense it. Protesting against bourgeois stupidity and oppression, the anarchic individualist is enclosed in ‘private’ consciousness, itself a product of the bourgeois era, and no longer understands human power and the community upon which that power is founded. The historical forms of this community, from the village to the nation, escape him. He is, and only wants to be, a human atom (in the scientifically archaic sense of the word, where ‘atom’ meant the lowest isolatable reality). By following alienation to its very extremes he is merely playing into the hands of the bourgeoisie. Embryonic and unconscious, this kind of anarchism is very widespread. There is a kind of revolt, a kind of criticism of life, that implies and results in the acceptance of this life as the only one possible. As a direct consequence this attitude precludes any understanding of what is humanly possible.