Wikia

Coman Wiki

Encyclopedia of World History B

Talk0
675pages on
this wiki

The Ancient World Edit

Babylon, early period Edit

Babylon was the most famous Mesopotamian city in antiquity, located along the Euphrates River, 55 miles southwest of modern Baghdad. Major excavations began in 1899 by the Germans and, in recent times, have been continued by Iraq’s Department of Antiquities. The city is fi rst mentioned by the Agade king, Shar-kali-sharri (2217–2193 b.c.e.), who built two temples in Babylon. During the Ur III period (2112– 2004 b.c.e.), various offi cials bore the title “governor of Babylon.” In the following centuries Mesopotamia experienced a large infl ux of west Semitic nomads, who settled into new cities or populated existing ones. The Sumerians designated these migrants as Martu (the west), from which the Akkadians derived Amurru (Amorites). In 1894 b.c.e. the Amorite Sumu-abum founded a dynasty at Babylon. His successor, Sumu-la-el, extended Babylon’s power by capturing the city-states of Sippar, Kish, and Dilbat. Others, however, were also expanding their kingdoms. Shamshi-Adad I succeeded in conquering all of Upper Mesopotamia, including the important cities of Ashur and Mari. Rim-Sin of Larsa dominated the south, eventually annexing the longtime rival kingdom of Isin. The balance of power further depended on major city-states such as Eshnunna, Qatna, and Yamhad (Aleppo). The Old Babylonian period began in 1792 b.c.e., with Hammurabi’s ascent to Babylon’s throne. He is perhaps best known for his Law Code, which contains many parallels with laws in the Jewish scriptures. In Hammurabi’s fi rst 28 years only three campaigns are recorded. Most of his time was spent building Babylon’s military defenses, economic infrastructure, and temples, as well as establishing diplomacy with foreign powers. After Shamshi-Adad died in 1782 b.c.e., Assyrian power slowly declined. Hammurabi, nonetheless, continued a defensive coalition with Rim-Sin, motivated by the proximity between their respective territories. He also formed friendly relations with Zimri-Lim, the native ruler who reclaimed Mari’s throne from Yasmah-Adad (Shamshi-Adad’s son). From 1764 b.c.e. Hammurabi began to adopt a more aggressive military stance. A coalition of troops from Elam, Assyria, and Eshnunna was defeated by Babylon. The very next year, aided by Mari and Eshnunna, Hammurabi turned against his ally, Rim-Sin. With Larsa subjugated, the southern cities under its control capitulated to Babylon. For the fi rst time since the great third-millennium empires, both Sumer and Akkad were united under one kingdom. Conscious of the signifi cance of this, Hammurabi took for himself Naram-Sin’s title “King of the Four Quarters (of the World).” Despite changes in ruling dynasties, Babylon would remain the region’s capital until the time of Alexander the Great. Indeed, all of south Mesopotamia would later be named “Babylonia.” Hammurabi’s ambition now turned toward Upper Mesopotamia. He betrayed Zimri-Lim and conquered Mari in 1761 b.c.e. The prologue to Hammurabi’s Law Code mentions that northern cities such as Ashur, B 41 Nineveh, and Tuttul were united under his control. Babylon’s hegemony, however, did not survive Hammurabi for long. Barely a decade after his death his son Samsu-iluna was threatened by the invasion of the Kassites, whose homeland was in the Zagros Mountains. To the south the rise of the First Sealand dynasty encroached on Babylon’s territories. For one and a half centuries Hammurabi’s successors clung to a dynasty that was a mere shadow of its former glory. In 1595 b.c.e. Murshili I, king of the Hittites, sacked Babylon, terminated its dynasty, and marked the end of the Old Babylonian period. See also Fertile Crescent; Ur. Further reading: Frayne, Douglas R. Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595 BC). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1990; Oates, Joan. Babylon. London: Thames and Hudson, 1986. John Zhu-En Wee

Babylon, later periods Edit

Shortly after Murshili I, king of the Hittites, sacked Babylon in 1595 b.c.e., political intrigue in the Hittite court compelled him to return to Hatti. Two contenders fi lled the sudden power vacuum in southern Mesopotamia. In the southern marshlands was a kingdom later known as the First Sealand dynasty. Its kings adopted names that suggest a proclivity to revive the ancient culture of Sumer. In the north were the Kassites, a tribal group originating from the Zagros Mountains. Already known from the time of Hammurabi, their dynasty lasted an unprecedented 576 years. By c. 1475 b.c.e. the Kassites defeated the Sealand dynasty and ruled over all of Babylonia (southern Mesopotamia), which they called “Karduniash.” The remarkable stability of Kassite rule consolidated the region’s identity as a single territorial state (rather than individual city-states), a unity that persisted even after Kassite times. Although foreigners in origin, the Kassites assimilated well into the local culture, adopting native Babylonian customs, language, and religion. Several scholars have dated the Babylonian creation epic Enuma Elish to the Kassite period. This epic elevates Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon, to the head of the Mesopotamian pantheon, thus refl ecting the political primacy of the city of Babylon. Under the Kassites, Babylonia became an international power. During c. 1500–1200 b.c.e. the rulers whom pharaoh regarded as equals were addressed as Great Kings and included the leaders of Babylonia, Hatti, Mittani, Assyria, Alashiya (Cyprus), and Arzawa (in southwest Anatolia). Their courts kept in contact by direct messenger service, using the Babylonian dialect as the lingua franca. During the reign of the Kassite king Kurigalzu I, so much gold was being imported from Egypt that, for the only time in Babylonian history, gold replaced silver as the standard for transactions. In turn, Babylonia was sought after for its trade in lapis lazuli and fi ne horses. Assyria achieved its independence with the decline of Mitanni, and a succession of particularly capable kings ruled Assyria in the 14th and 13th centuries b.c.e.. Understandably, Babylon began to express concerns about the growing power of this near neighbor. The Kassite king implored the pharaoh not to recognize Assyrian independence and renewed alliances with the Hittites against this common enemy. Nonetheless, in less than a century the Assyrian monarch Tukulti- Ninurta I conquered Babylon and deposed King Kashtiliash IV. A series of puppet kings was appointed in Babylon, until local rebellion returned control to the Kassites. Eventually, however, the Elamites raided Babylonia and plundered such national treasures as Naram-Sin’s Victory Stela, Hammurabi’s Law Code, and even Marduk’s cult statue from Babylon. In c. 1155 b.c.e., the Elamites deposed King Enlil-nadin-ahi, hence terminating the longlasting Kassite dynasty. The following period is noteworthy as the only time in Babylonian history when native dynasties ruled the region. Situated in the south, the city of Isin perhaps evaded Elamite devastation in northern Babylonia. A second Isin dynasty (1157–1026 b.c.e.) was quick to ascend Babylon’s throne. The most famous of its rulers was Nebuchadnezzar I (r. 1124–03 b.c.e.), who was celebrated as a national hero for avenging Elam’s raid on Babylon and for recovering Marduk’s cult statue. When the Babylonian Marduk-nadin-ahhe raided Ekallatum, the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser I retaliated by attacking Babylon and burning its royal palaces. Animosity between Assyria and Babylonia, however, was temporarily halted by the rise of a common threat: the Aramaeans. These were a nomadic Semitic people in northern Syria, who ravaged Mesopotamia during times of famine, eventually contributing to the demise of the second Isin dynasty. Some scholars think that the civil upheavals narrated in the Epic of Erra describe conditions resulting from Aramaean invasions. Northwest Babylonia was the area most debilitated by the Aramaeans, and perhaps it was natural 42 Babylon, later periods that native resurgence should now fi nd its strength from the south. In any case the Second Sealand dynasty, 1026–1005 b.c.e., followed by the Kassite Bazi dynasty (1004–985 b.c.e.) and even an Elamite dynasty (984–979 b.c.e.). The few written records of 979–814 b.c.e. seem to indicate good relations between Babylonia and Assyria, which were ratifi ed by treaty agreements. During 814–811 b.c.e., however, the Assyrian king Shamshi-Adad raided Babylonia, deported two Babylonian rulers, and reduced the region to a state of anarchy. When Assyria declined after his reign, the Chaldeans readily fi lled the power vacuum in Babylonia. These were a tribal people in southern Babylonia, who were more sedentary than the Aramaeans and had well assimilated into Babylonian culture. Under the leadership of Eriba-Marduk from the Bit-Yakin tribe, the Chaldeans seized Babylon from the Assyrians. The ascension of Nabonassar (747–734 b.c.e.) marks the point when the Babylonian Chronicle and the Ptolemaic canon begin their systematic account of Babylonian history. It is questionable whether this monarch himself was Chaldean, as he appeared in confl icts with both Aramaeans and Chaldeans. According to Hellenistic tradition, the Nabonassar Era was the time when astronomy became highly developed and the name Chaldean became synonymous with the avocation of astronomer. Nabonassar received strong military support from the Assyrian Tiglath-pileser III, and Babylonia may actually have come under vassalage to Assyria during this time. The growing power of the Neo-Assyrian empire resulted in a polarization of Babylonian opinion: Cities in northern Babylonia, closer to the Assyrian border, tended to be pro-Assyrian. By contrast, the Chaldeans and other southern tribes tended to be anti-Assyrian. The reign of Tiglath-pileser saw a change in Assyrian policy toward Babylonia. With the exception of Tukulti- Ninurta I, the Assyrian monarchs had traditionally restrained their efforts to control Babylonia, in deference to the latter’s antiquity as the ancestral origin of Assyria’s own culture and religion. In 729 b.c.e., however, Tiglath-pileser established a precedent by deposing the Babylonian king and uniting Assyria and Babylonia in a dual monarchy. Merodach-baladan II, an important sheikh from the Bit-Yakin tribe, took over Babylon after Shalmaneser V (Tiglath-pileser’s son) died. This Chaldean had succeeded in buying an alliance with the Elamite army. He was to prove a recurring threat to Assyria and remembered as a hero of Babylonian nationalism. It was only after 710 b.c.e. that Sargon II reasserted Assyrian supremacy and chased the Chaldeans back to the south. The Assyrian king Sennacherib experimented with various methods of governing Babylonia. Shortly after his ascension to Babylon’s throne in 703 b.c.e., he was ousted in another coup by Merodach-baladan. After defeating the Chaldean, Sennacherib tried to install a pro-Assyrian native on Babylon’s throne. When this failed, the Assyrian king entrusted the control of Babylonia to his son, Ashur-nadin-shumi. Unfortunately, the crown prince was kidnapped by the Elamites, and a certain Nergal-ushezib replaced him. This Elamite stooge was, in turn, replaced by Mushezib-Marduk, a ruler of the Bit-Dakkuri tribe. In 689 b.c.e. Sennacherib razed Babylon, plundered its temples, and removed Marduk’s cult statue to Assyria. Esarhaddon (680–669 b.c.e.) preferred a strategy of conciliation. He attained a measure of peace with the Babylonians by rebuilding Babylon and undoing his father’s damage. At his death Marduk’s statue was returned to Babylon, and the empire was divided between two sons: Ashurbanipal in Assyria and Shamash- shuma-ukin in Babylonia. Civil war, however, soon broke out between the two kingdoms. By 648 b.c.e. the Assyrians were once again in control of Babylon. Moreover, numerous tablets and writing boards were bought or confi scated from Babylonian scholars to stock Ashurbanipal’s library at Nineveh. Among the texts were literary masterpieces such as the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Babylonian creation epic (Enuma Elish). By the fi rst century b.c.e., most of the city of Babylon was in ruins. This basalt lion was photographed in 1932 in modern-day Iraq. Babylon, later periods 43 satrap (governor) of Bactria, Bessus, fought with Darius III against Alexander at the Battle of Guagamela, then fl ed with the Persian ruler. Bessus eventually killed Darius III and tried to rally his army against Alexander. After Alexander’s conquest of Bactria in 328 b.c.e. Bessus was maimed and crucifi ed. Upon Alexander’s death only fi ve years later, Bactria— like most of his kingdom—endured civil war and strife, eventually becoming part of the Seleucid Empire set up by Alexander’s military heir, Seleucus I, and his son, Antiochus I. Greek cities with temples and gymnasiums were built, and mints were established. Likely, the indigenous tribes were nomadic, probably ancestors of the Tajik people. They coexisted with the Greeks. In 255 b.c.e. Diodotus, satrap of Bactria, overthrew the Seleucids and established his own dynasty, the Diodotids. They were in turn overthrown by Euthydemus I and his descendents, the Euthydemids. The Seleucids attempted a reconquest, described by the Greek historian Polybius, which ended in 206 b.c.e. with a marriage between the Bactrian king’s son, Demetrius, and a daughter of the Seleucid ruler, Antiochus III. At about the same time Sogdiana in the north became independent of Bactria. When he assumed the Bactrian throne around 185 b.c.e., Demetrius I conquered parts of Iran, Pakistan, Punjab, and northern India. Demetrius I was killed by Eucratides, who may have been a cousin of the Seleucids. Eucratides came out the victor in a civil war between Bactria and the recently conquered Bactrian provinces in India. The last Greek ruler of Bactria was probably a descendant of Eucratides named Heliocles, who was driven away by nomadic tribes from the north and east. These tribes then absorbed Bactria into their Kushan Empire. Demetrius I’s Indo-Greek provinces remained independent for another 140 years, until 10 c.e. Under the Kushans, Bactria was known as Tokharistan, after the Western name (Tocharian) of the Yuezhi nomads, who had emerged from central China centuries before. In the third century c.e. the Sassanids of Persia gained control. Several other changes in ownership took place until Arabs conquered the land in the seventh century c.e. See also Sogdians; Zoroastrianism. Further Reading: Holt, Frank L. “A History in Silver and Gold.” Saudi Aramco World (May/June 1994); ———. Thundering Zeus: The Making of Hellenistic Bactria. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999; Tarn, W. W. The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951. Vickey Kalambakal

Bamiyan Valley Edit

The modern-day Bamiyan Valley was part of ancient Indian culture. It is one of the 34 provinces of modern - day Afghanistan and lies in the geographic center of the country. Its capital city is also called Bamiyan. Bamiyan became one of the largest cities along the Silk Road. Before the rise of Islam in the seventh century c.e., central Afghanistan thrived from the Silk Road merchants who passed through the valley on their way to trade with the Roman Empire, China, and India. The Bamiyan Valley provided an important passageway for caravans and merchants attempting to cross the Hindu Kush mountain range. Xuan Zang (Hsuan Tsang), a Chinese monk traveling through the valley in 634 c.e., reported that it contained a large population and was a center of Buddhist thought and theology. He described specifi - cally the events and rituals he witnessed there. As a result Bamiyan city became the center of a melting pot of cultures and religious infl uences. In Bamiyan elements of Greek, Persian, and Buddhist cultural infl uences merged into a new expression known as Greco-Buddhist art. Buddhism spread outside India along the Silk Road to Bamiyan city where it thrived in the fourth and fi fth centuries c.e. A Buddhist monastery was founded, along with many sculptures and carvings including several giant Buddha statues carved along the cliffs overlooking Bamiyan Valley. During the third and fourth centuries c.e. and before the introduction of Islam to this region, a large Buddhist colony inhabited the valley. At one time more than 1,000 monks lived and prayed there in caves carved into the cliffs. From the second century c.e. until the introduction of Islam, a period of approximately fi ve centuries, Bamiyan Valley was a western Buddhist cultural center. Islam overtook the region and dominated the valley for hundreds of years, but the statues remained until March 2001 when the Taliban in Afghanistan destroyed them with explosives. Historians marveled at their enormous size, some more than 180 feet in height, which were probably the largest representations of Buddha in the world at the time of their creation. Bamiyan Valley was the most far-fl ung colony of Buddhism that took root in India with a substantially large following. The artistic and architectural remains Bamiyan Valley 45 of Bamiyan Valley and its importance as a Buddhist center on the Silk Road, are outstanding representations of the complex combination of Indian, Hellenistic, Roman, and Sassanian ancient cultural infl uences. See also Buddhism in China; Gandhara; Hellenistic art. Further reading: Baker, Piers H. B., and Allchin, F. Raymond. Shahr-I Zohak and the History of the Bamiyan Valley, Afghanistan. Ankara, Turkey: B.A.R. International Series, 1991; Dupree, Nancy Hatch. The Valley of Bamiyan. Afghan Tourist Organization, 1967; Holt, Frank L. Discovering the Lost History of Ancient Afghanistan (Hellenistic Bactria). Ancient World, 1984; Payhnak, Rahman. Afghanistan (Ancient Aryana): Brief Review of Political and Cultural History and the Modern Development of the Country. Unpublished, 1959; Raychaudhuri, Hemchandra. Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Steven Napier

Ban Biao (Pan Piao) Edit

(3–54 c.e.) historian The Ban family was famous during the fi rst century of the Common Era under the Eastern Han dynasty in China for producing famous historians (one of them the most famous female historian and intellectual in ancient China) and a great general. Ban Biao, the father, began writing a monumental history titled the Hanshu (Hanshu), Book of Han or History of the Former Han Dynasty. It was commissioned and produced under court patronage and was the fi rst historical work devoted to a dynasty (the Western Han, 202 b.c.e.–23 c.e.). Although Ban Biao died long before its completion, his essay on sovereignty, which was included in the work, became a basic document on political ideas. However, most of the 100 chapters (divided into 10 volumes) of this work belonged to his son Ban Gu (Pan Ku, 32–92 c.e.). His younger sister Ban Zhao (Pan Ch’ao, c. 48–116 c.e.) fi nished the history. She was the outstanding female intellectual in early imperial China. The classic historical work followed the organizational pattern set by the fi rst great Chinese historian, Sima Qian (Ssu-ma Ch’ien), who wrote the Shiji (Shihchi), or Records of the Historian, but applied to events of a single dynastic period. Its 100 chapters were organized into separate sections consisting of 12 chapters of basic annals, eight of chronological tables, 10 of treatises, and 70 of biographies and bibliography. Although critics think the prose style of this work is drier and less elegant than Sima Qian’s work, subsequent historians have admired the two and have aspired to follow their examples. Ban Zhao was educated at home, married, had children, and was widowed young. In addition to completing her father and brother’s unfi nished history, she was often summoned to the palace by the emperor to lecture to the empress and ladies of the court. She lectured on classical writings, history, astronomy, and mathematics. She became adviser to the empress regent and was so infl uential that the empress fi red her own powerful brother on the basis of Ban Zhao’s memorial indicting him. The same empress regent was so saddened by Ban Zhao’s death that she ordered the court into mourning. Ban Zhao wrote poetry, edited, and added to a fi rst-century c.e. work titled Biographies of Eminent Women and a short book of seven chapters titled Lessons for Women on proper behavior for ladies that was intended for her young daughters but became widely read and circulated during her lifetime and later. She was the fi rst thinker to formulate a complete statement on feminine ethics and the idea of relative ethics. Signifi cantly, she advocated giving girls an education up to the age of 15 to ensure intellectual compatibility between husbands and wives. After her death her daughter-in-law compiled and published her collected writing, some, including poetry and memorials, have survived. The fourth member of this distinguished family was Ban Chao (Pan Ch’ao, 32–102 c.e.), who was the twin brother of Ban Gu. A man of action who distinguished himself as a young offi cer, Ban Chao was a key general who established Chinese supremacy in modern Chinese Turkestan across to Central Asia. In 92 c.e. he was appointed protector-general of the Western Regions (the Chinese name for Central Asia). As both general and diplomat he supervised affairs and protected Chinese interests in the oasis states and guarded commerce along the Silk Road for three decades. In 97 c.e. he led an army all the way to the Caspian Sea and sent forward units further west that reached either the Black Sea or the Persian Gulf before turning back. In the same year he also sent an offi cer under his command to proceed to Da Qin (Ta Ch’in), the Chinese name for the Roman Empire. But the mission was intercepted in Parthia (modern Iran) and forbidden to proceed further. Parthia lay along the Silk Road between China and Rome and benefi ted from trade between the two empires. It naturally wanted to thwart any direct relations between China and Rome. As the author of 46 Ban Biao the Hou Hanshu (Hou Han-shu), or History of the Later Han Dynasty, wrote: “During the Han period, however, Chang Ch’ien . . . and Pan Ch’ao . . . eventually succeeded in carrying out expansion to the far west and in bringing foreign territories into submission. Overawed by military strength and attracted by wealth, none [of the rulers of the states of the Western Regions presented] strange local products as tribute and his loved sons as hostages . . . Therefore . . . the command of the protector-general was established to exercise general authority. Those who were submissive from the very beginning received money and offi cial seals as imperial gifts, but those who surrendered later were taken to the capital to receive punishment. Agricultural garrisons were set up in fertile fi elds and post stations built along the main highways. Messengers and interpreters traveled without cessation, and barbarian merchants and peddlers came to the border for trade everyday.” After three decades of service in Central Asia, for which he had been elevated to the rank of marquis, the aged general asked to retire and returned to the capital city, Luoyang (Loyang), where he died a month later. Further reading: Dubs, Homer H. The History of the Former Han Dynasty by Pan Ku, a Critical Translation with Annotations. Baltimore, MD: Waverly Press, 1938–55; Grousset, René. The Empire of the Steppes, A History of Central Asia. Trans. by Naomi Walford. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994; Swann, Nancy Lee. Pan Chao, Foremost Woman Scholar of China, First Century A.D. New York: Century, 1932; Twitchett, Denis, and John K. Fairbank, eds. The Cambridge History of China, Volume I, The Ch’in and Han Empires 221 B.C.–A.D. 220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur

Baruch Edit

(Sixth century b.c.e.) religious scribe and prophet The Bible portrays “Baruch, son of Neriah” as the companion and secretary to Jeremiah, the famous prophet at the time of the Babylonian deportation of Judah (587 b.c.e.). His dedicated service to Jeremiah brought him into the same ignominy and hardship as his master, though most likely he was born an aristocrat and received the benefi t of education. He compiled two scrolls of prophecies, one for the king of Judah, which was burned later, and the other for the possession of Jeremiah. This latter scroll may be the core of the biblical book of Jeremiah. Baruch’s role as Jeremiah’s scribe may be why he is cited as author in several sequels to the book of Jeremiah. When Jeremiah was forced to fl ee from Jerusalem to Egypt (582 b.c.e.) in the aftermath of the Babylonian invasion, Baruch accompanied him. This is the last mentioned abode for Baruch in the Hebrew Bible, though Jeremiah elsewhere in his book promises that Baruch would survive the general turmoil but live the life of a refugee. According to Christian biblical scholar Jerome, Baruch shared the fate of Jeremiah, who presumably died in Egypt. Later Jewish sources disagree. Rabbinic authorities assume that Baruch went to Babylon. It is here that the deuterocanonical book of Baruch (accepted by Catholic and Orthodox Christians) locates him. This book consists of several distinct parts and is probably an assortment of writings intended to encourage the scattered people of Israel in the centuries following the Babylonian invasion. An even later book called Second Baruch or the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (parts of which are accepted by the Syriac Christians) shows the scribe speaking, praying, and writing mainly in the environs of Jerusalem just as the Babylonians are on the verge of conquering Jerusalem. In this text Baruch overshadows his master. He commands Jeremiah to depart and encourage the exiles in Babylon. Afterward the stage is empty except for Baruch, who dominates the rest of the book with his visions, prayers, and instructions. The focus of Baruch’s ministry in Jerusalem is the training of the surviving elders, but he increasingly addresses larger audiences, fi rst the remaining residents of the city and then the people scattered in the Diaspora. The latter group he reaches through a letter that concludes the book. The tradition of Baruch survived outside the rabbinic Jewish tradition. Spurious books (parts of books) attributed to Baruch have appeared in many languages, including Latin, Greek, Syriac, Hebrew, and Arabic. Other names for Baruch in Hebrew are Berechiah and Barachel. His name has been found on a clay seal impression, or bulla, reading, “[belonging] to Berechiah, son of Neriah, the scribe,” a relatively rare reference to a biblical person from a contemporary non-biblical source. See also Apocalypticism, Jewish and Christian; Babylon, later periods; Christianity, early; Israel and Judah; prophets; Syriac culture and church. Further reading: Whitters, Mark F. The Epistle of Second Baruch. London: Sheffi eld Academic Press, 2008; Wright, Baruch 47 J. E. Baruch Ben Neriah: From Biblical Scribe to Apocalyptic Seer. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003. Mark F. Whitters

Basil the Great Edit

(c. fourth century c.e.) religious leader Basil attained a reputation in the early church for his efforts in liturgy, monasticism, and doctrine. The honors extended to him single him out among the greatest Christian teachers of his age: one of the “Three Holy Hierarchs” (the others are John Chrysostom and Gregory Nazianzus), one of the three “Cappadocian Fathers” (the others are his brother Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzus), and generally referred to as Basil the Great. Among the achievements credited to him are the Liturgy of St. Basil (commonly used in Greek Church services), the Philokalia (spiritual sayings of Origen, compiled by Basil and Gregory Nazianzus), and the Rule of Basil (the constitution followed by many Orthodox monasteries), to say nothing of his untiring efforts to unite Greek culture with the Christian Church emerging from the darkness of persecution and isolation of Semitic origins. He was born into a wealthy and devout Christian family in Pontus (modern Kayseri, Turkey) around 330 c.e. His privileged status allowed him to receive the best classical education: He sat at the feet of Libanius, a celebrated teacher of Neoplatonism in Constantinople and rubbed shoulders with the likes of Julian the Apostate. His family, however, did not cling to their social status for they became leaders in the ascetical movement, a trend among Christians to deny themselves worldly comfort and status in order to return to spiritual priorities. Consequently, his grandmother Macrina, his parents Basil and Emilia, his sister Macrina, and his younger brothers Gregory and Peter all are venerated as saints by Christians. Though Basil had the learning of a scholar, he chose the ascetical life. His upbringing, the infl uence of an early teacher, and his pilgrimages to the Holy Land induced him to start his own community in Cappadocia. His brilliant friend Gregory Nazianzus and many others joined Basil in this life, attracted by young Basil’s zeal and spiritual refl ection. The new way of life begun by Basil was not intended for the spiritually elite or mystical individual. Rather Basil wanted it for all Christians, not just monks. The ideals included corporate and private prayer, obedience to a spiritual superior, voluntary poverty, charitable outreach, and manual labor. In spite of its ascetical origins, community life was valued more than solitary life, and moderation, more than extreme individual exercises. These ideas became the core of the Rule of Basil, and they had a profound effect on Benedict and the Benedictines, the Latin Church counterpart to Greek monasticism. He became bishop in 370 and so had to divide his time between monastic and more active life. He became infl uential among his pastoral charges for his social programs and charitable work. For example, he built a complex of buildings to serve the sick, the poor, the pilgrims, and strangers, thus he became the champion of the common person. Even the emperor Valens, an advocate for Arianism and not Orthodox Christianity, supported Basil’s outreach to the disadvantaged of his region. Toward the end of his life Basil became more and more absorbed in ecclesial disputes. He worked hard at building unity between the Greek and Latin Churches, as well as giving direction to theological discussions on the nature of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth. He died in 379 c.e. See also Cappadocians; monasticism; pilgrimage. Further reading: Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. New York: Penguin, 1990; Smith, Richard Travers. St. Basil the Great. New York: Kessinger Publishing, 2003. Mark F. Whitters

Benedict Edit

(c. 480–c. 547 c.e.) religious leader Benedict was born in Norcia, Italy. What is known of this Christian hero is drawn almost entirely from his biographer, (St.) Gregory the Great, who records the life and miracles of the great monastic founder in the second book of his Dialogues. Although Benedict began higher studies at Rome, the depraved lives of his fellow students led him to abandon the city and to seek solitude in the nearby mountains of Subiaco. For three years he lived in a cave as a hermit until disciples came and a community eventually formed around him. Gregory relates that the community grew into 12 monasteries of 12 monks each. The jealousy of a neighboring priest, however, forced Benedict to leave Subiaco and to establish a monastery at Monte Cassino (c. 523 c.e.). The hill on which this monastery was established is at a strategically impor- 48 Basil the Great tant position beside the road that leads from Rome to Naples. Since no one could have occupied such a site without government approval, Benedict must have had connections at court. His fame also spread to the invading barbarians, as we learn from the story of his meeting with Totilla, the king of the Goths, who stopped to visit the man of God on his way to sack Rome. Totilla was impressed by the holiness and prophetic gifts of the abbot, which may account for his subsequent entrance into the Eternal City without destroying it. When Benedict fi rst took possession of Monte Cassino, he found at the summit a temple to Apollo, whom the local inhabitants at the foot of the mountain were still worshipping. The holy abbot tore down the altar to Apollo, turned the temple into a chapel dedicated to the famous saint Martin, and converted the local inhabitants. Gregory also relates that Benedict had a sister, (St.) Scholastica, who—also consecrated to virginity—would visit him once a year. When she died, Benedict laid his sister to rest in a tomb he had prepared for himself and which he would soon (within 40 days) come to share with her in death (c. 547). Benedict’s greatest gift to posterity is his Rule, which outlines a way of life founded on the Holy Scriptures and on several monastic rules prior to Benedict. Benedict’s life spanned a time of political upheaval in Italy, as the barbarian tribes slowly gained control of the peninsula. Within 30 years of his death the Lombards destroyed Monte Cassino. (The monastery would undergo several destructions and rebuildings in its history, down to a famous World War II bombing and subsequent reconstruction.) The Rule of St. Benedict was followed in other monasteries at fi rst in a mixed form, alongside other monastic rules. It began, however, slowly to supersede other rules, due primarily to its intrinsic wisdom and moderation but also to its relation to Gregory the Great and thus to Rome and to the authority of the pope. This was the case in England, which has the oldest extant copy of the Rule dating to the fi rst half of the eighth century. And it was also an Anglo-Saxon, the missionary Boniface, who promoted the Rule of St. Benedict in the Frankish kingdom at the “German Council” of 743 on the continent. A year later Boniface founded the abbey of Fulda in Bavaria, which is the fi rst known abbey to follow only the Rule of St. Benedict. Its rise to universal prominence, however, was the work of Benedict of Aniane who convinced Emperor Charlemagne—who was looking for a way to unify and reform the monasteries of his realm—that Benedict’s Rule was the most balanced and moderate of all the existing rules, capable of being adapted by each monastic house, and had in its commitment to the scriptures and the liturgy the cultural element Charlemagne needed for his reform. The emperor and his successor, Louis the Pious, then imposed the Rule of St. Benedict on all the monasteries (c. 816). Benedictine monasteries fl ourished and spread throughout the world. See also Christianity, early; Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth; Latin Church; monasticism; Rome’s fall. Further reading: Gregory the Great. Dialogues. Trans. by The Fathers of the Church. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1983; Kessler, Sister Ann, O.S.B. Benedictine Men and Women of Courage: Roots and History. Sioux Falls, SD: Pine Hill Press, 1996. Gertrude Gillette

Bhagavad Gita Edit

The Bhagavad Gita is regarded as one of the most beautiful and infl uential of Hindu poems. The translation from Sanskrit is the “Song of God.” It forms part of chapter 6 of the Mahabharata (epic of the Bharata dynasty). It was probably written in the fi rst–second century c.e., which is later than that of the remainder of the Mahabharata and has an unknown author or authors. It consists of 18 verse chapters with a total of 700 verses in the Sanskrit language, each of which consists of 32 syllables. As part of one of the great epics of Indian thought expressed in the Sanskrit language (together with the Ramayana), the Bhagavad Gita has gone on to inspire a large number of adaptations to contemporaneous settings in both oral and written forms. Its characters have become deeply loved by millions, many of whom consider them to be exemplars for everyday action. The subject matter of the Bhagavad Gita is a lengthy conversation between Prince Arjuna, an important fi gure in the Mahabharata, and Krishna, who is his charioteer and also the incarnation of the god Vishnu on Earth. Krishna uses the opportunity to expound on many important theological topics for the education of both Arjuna and the audience. The exposition is centered on, but not limited to, the concept of duty and the role that humankind is expected to play in the world. Arjuna, at the moment when the dialogue begins, is standing in the ranks of soldiers about to stage the crucial battle between the Pandavas and the Kauravas. He is unsure whether the forthcoming carnage is worthwhile and whether he should throw down his weapons Bhagavad Gita 49 and surrender himself to fate. Krishna advises him that it is appropriate for man to take part in a virtuous enterprise being mindful of God and without seeking earthly rewards or power as the price for participation. The lesson expands into the ways in which humanity can know and understand God. The Hindu concept of mystic union with God is presented as a threefold approach to transcendence, through merging with the immanent spirit of the universe, through understanding God as the ultimate state of nature, and through the transcendence of the human spirit. The physical world, in which Krishna is addressing Arjuna, and Arjuna’s interaction with the universe are both real and also a refl ection of the spiritual realm in which he is expected to undertake his duties. Lord Krishna speaks of the variety of Yogas, which are the forms of unity between self and the universe that are the true goal of the individual. The role of the individual is to become closer to union with the universe through yogic practices and meditation. Many cogent commentaries on the work have added to the signifi cance of the Bhagavad Gita. One of the most well known is that provided by Mohandas Gandhi, who provided a series of talks to followers over a period of some months in 1926. He used the poem to enthuse his audience with the delights and fulfi llment to be found in the true performance of duty. Many Western scholars and academics have also found inspiration in the work, including Carl Jung, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Aldous Huxley, and Hermann Hesse. It continues to have an important inspirational infl uence on believers in yogic faiths and for those who wish to continue the Indian tradition of argumentative discourse in the search for truth. See also Hindu philosophy. Further reading: Dass, Ram. Paths to God: Living the Bhagavad Gita. New York: Harmony, 2004; Gandhi, Mohandas. The Bhagavad Gita According to Mahatma Gandhi. Edited by John Strohmeier. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Hills Books, 2000; Mascaro, Juan, trans. Bhagavad Gita. New York: Penguin Classics, 2003; Sen, Amartya. “Argument and History.” New Republic (v.233/6, 2005). John Walsh

Bible translations Edit

There are two major parts to the Bible: the Jewish scriptures, or Tanakh (largely identical to the Christian Old Testament), and the New Testament (NT), the distinctively Christian scriptures. The ancient texts of these two parts developed in different ways, into the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. HEBREW BIBLE The text of the Bewish Bible, which includes both Hebrew and a little Aramaic, is preserved chiefl y in the Masoretic text (MT), a product of the mainstream ancient Judaism. The Hebrew Bible attained its fi nal form sometime in the fi rst or second century c.e., but the MT was not recorded until about 1,000 years later. The MT includes the consonants with which Hebrew and Aramaic are primarily recorded, along with a set of markers or diacritical signs indicating the vowels and the singing pattern associated with each word. The MT refl ects liturgical usage, both as a sung text and in its use of various euphemisms and clarifying notes. During the European Renaissance, with its emphasis on the need to return to the sources of learning and culture, other forms of the Hebrew text began to be studied, and this study has continued to the present time. Renaissance scholars realized that the version of the Pentateuch used in the tiny Samaritan religious communities in the Holy Land was an independent ancient witness to part of the Hebrew Bible. (A few of the differences between the MT and the Sam are the result of doctrinal changes introduced by the Samaritans.) In the middle of the 20th century a series of caves in Qumran near the Dead Sea were found to contain a large number of scrolls (the Dead Sea Scrolls, or DSS), many of them containing parts of the Bible. Some of the Qumran texts were identical to the MT, and some, witness to a slightly different text. The DSS biblical text is sometimes identical to that behind the Septuagint. The ancient versions or translations fall into two groups. One group includes those that are based entirely or in part on a Hebrew text. These are the Greek (Septuagint, or LXX), the Latin (Vulgate), the Targums, and the Syriac (Peshitta). All other ancient versions are daughter versions of one of these. The versions used in the east are based on the Greek; these include various translations in Coptic, Classical Ethiopic or Geez, Armenian, and Georgian. Nearly all the pre-Reformation European versions are based on the Vulgate. Of the four major ancient versions, the Septuagint is the most important. It is the oldest and most independent; both the Vulgate and the Peshitta are based on the Hebrew text but show some familiarity with the Septuagint. Bilingualism, the regular use of two (or more) languages by one person, was common in the ancient world, among merchants, scribes, and even com- 50 Bible translations mon people. The bilingual presentation of a single text is found throughout the ancient Near East. There are bilingual teaching texts from ancient Mesopotamia and Anatolia; there are bilingual public inscriptions from every corner of the Near East, including Egypt. The distinctive feature of the Septuagint is that it is the earliest translation that is very long (thousands of times longer than any other ancient translation), that is purely religious in orientation (rather than educational or propagandistic), and that can claim to be literary. The translation of the Septuagint began in the third century b.c.e. A legend preserved in various forms, including the Letter of Aristeas, attributes the work to the desire of the Greek Ptolemies of Egypt to have a complete library of all world thought and literature. This legend also claims that the work was done under direct divine inspiration. Scholars believe rather that Jews undertook the work for Jews, for use in the liturgy. The portion translated in the third century c.e. was the Pentateuch, consisting of the fi ve books of Moses (also known as the Torah), and the term Septuagint strictly applies to this portion only. (Thus some scholars use the term Old Greek for the rest of the ancient translation.) After the rise of Christianity, which largely used the Septuagint in worship, Jews prepared various revised versions of it for their own special use. These revisions, associated with the scholars Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, are closer to the Hebrew than the Septuagint proper, sometimes so close that they are unintelligible in Greek. Origen collected all these Greek versions in his Hexapla. The Christian community in western Europe developed out of the earlier, Eastern community and took over its scripture in a direct translation from the Septuagint. (In the Greek Church the LXX is still the offi cially used version of the Old Testament.) This direct translation, the Old Latin, was largely replaced by the Vulgate translation of Jerome. Scholars consult the surviving portions of the Old Latin as a witness to the Septuagint and for clues to the earliest Latin Church understanding and use of scripture. The language culturally closest to ancient Hebrew was Aramaic, which was the common language of the ancient Near East for more than a millennium, from the seventh or sixth centuries b.c.e. until the rise of Islam. There are various ancient Aramaic translations of the Bible. Those made by and for Jews are called the Targums. They are written in literary forms of Aramaic that would have been understood throughout the Jewish world prior to the rise of Islam. There are many Targums (translations), and some of the later Targums used elaborate paraphrases and offer extensive additions to the text. The chief form of Aramaic used among Christians is Syriac, and the Syriac translation of the Hebrew Bible is known as the Peshitta, or Simple, text. Some portions of the Peshitta refl ect knowledge not only of the Hebrew Bible but also of the Targums. NEW TESTAMENT In contrast to the Hebrew Bible, which is completely attested in only one form, the Greek New Testament is attested in many forms, in thousands of ancient and medieval manuscripts. The study of these manuscripts began with the 16th-century Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus, who attempted to fi nd the best form of the text by looking for the one most commonly used. Now scholars identify the oldest text (rather than the most common) as the best form. From Erasmus’s work emerged the earliest NT Greek text developed after the Reformation. This was based largely on minuscule manuscripts (late antique and medieval texts written with lower-case letters). This text, the basis of the NT in the King James Version, is known as the textus receptus and has largely been superseded by later textual study. The earliest witnesses to the Greek NT include extensive quotations in the works of the fathers of the church and early translations. Translations into Syriac and Latin go back to the second century c.e.; the Syriac traditions include both the Diatessaron (a harmony of all four Gospels) as well as translations of the separate Gospels. Coptic translations emerge in the third century c.e.; the earliest are in the Sahidic dialect. Other ancient versions (Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Old Church Slavonic) are sometimes of value for the text traditions. The best large texts of the Greek are uncial manuscripts (those written entirely in capital letters), dating to the fourth and fi fth centuries. The intensive study of these during the 17th–19th centuries led to the recognition of various families of texts, into which individual manuscripts can be grouped. The Byzantine manuscript group provided the basis for the textus receptus, but this is inferior to the Alexandrian and Caesarean groups, which have been the basis for NT editions and translations since the late 19th century. The most important uncials, most of which are complete Bibles and thus include the LXX as well as the NT, are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, from the fourth century c.e., and Alexandrinus and Bezae, from the fi fth century c.e. During the late 19th and 20th centuries about 100 NT papyri were discovered. These were nearly all older than the uncials and thus closer to the time of the original composition of the NT. They generally confi rmed the patterns of manuscript distribution proposed during the 19th century. The papyri can be dated to the Bible translations 51 second and third centuries c.e. None can be taken as identical to the autograph of any part of the NT; all show various changes. See also Aramaeans; Armenia; Christianity, early; Ethiopia, ancient; Georgia, ancient; Judaism, early (heterodoxies); libraries, ancient; Oriental Orthodox Churches; Syriac culture and church. Further reading: Barrera, Julio Trebolle. The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible. Trans. by W. G. E. Watson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman, 1998; Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987. M. O’Connor

Boethius Edit

(480–c. 526 c.e.) philosopher Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus Boethius was a statesman and philosopher during the reign of Theodoric, Ostrogothic emperor of Rome. Boethius had a good classical education (educated in Athens and Alexandria) and was particularly infl uenced by Neoplatonism, Aristotle and Aristotelianism, and Stoicism. He was in the midst of a project to translate and even unite Aristotle and Plato when he broke off his academic career in order to serve as an imperial consul in 510 c.e. Power had shifted away from Italy to Constantinople, leaving the Italian emperor a weak rival. When Boethius was unfairly condemned for a conspiracy allied with the Constantinople authorities, he was imprisoned for a couple of years and then executed sometime between 524 and 526. Because his writings were circulated and appreciated by many later intellectuals, Boethius has been called the pioneer of medieval thought and founder of the early Middle Ages. His knowledge of Greek made him a natural link with Greco-Roman civilization at a time when the West was losing its knowledge of Greek. His translation of Aristotle was one of the few that the West had until the days of Thomas Aquinas. His attempts to utilize Aristotle for the advantage of theology were 550 years ahead of the Scholastics. He composed Consolation of Philosophy while he brooded and waited for his execution in prison. He also wrote on true education (trivium and quadrivium), translations of Porphyry, and commentaries on Cicero, and his own treatises on logic, mathematics, and theology. Although questions have been raised about the authorship of several of his works and the depth of his Christian convictions, strong evidence for his sympathies with the faith appear in fi ve compositions (the Opuscula sacra, or Theological Tractates) written before 520. All these works show fresh vocabulary and borrowing of Greek philosophies, perhaps even excelling the ideas of Augustine of Hippo. The tract De fi de catholica (On the Catholic Faith) tells of his objections to Arianism, the Sabellians, and Mani and the Manichaeans, while it confi rms the ecclesial teachings. Because of its clear-cut support for the Latin Church, its authorship is often called into question. Consolation of Philosophy was mandatory reading for every respectable intellectual for the next 1,000 years after Boethius. He imagines Lady Philosophy, the heroine of such religious works as the biblical book of Proverbs, consoling him in his dark night of the philosophical soul. She helps him to realize the fi ckleness of success and the faithfulness of divine providence. She tells him that true happiness fl ows from being at peace with God. If success will not crown present virtuous efforts, the balance will be restored in the next life. God stands outside of time and is present at all of our time (past, present, and future) and offers eternal life simultaneously without impeding our free will to choose virtue. Though Consolation does not bring up such Christian mysteries as the incarnation, the crucifi xion, and the resurrection, its fundamental premises are in line with orthodox Christian teaching. It is anchored in Augustinian foundations and may subtly show biblical and liturgical allusions. Historians view Consolation, together with the Opuscula sacra, as evidence that Boethius turned toward religion and particularly the Christian faith as he got older. He is the fi rst one to use the word theology as a technical Christian term denoting the study of the nature of God. Because the emperor that he served was an Arian, Boethius was regarded as a Christian martyr and in Italy especially is regarded as a Catholic saint. His writings were some of the fi rst translations made into the “vulgar” tongues (Anglo-Saxon, German, Greek, and French—all before 1300), and many great scholars of the Middle Ages continued to debate his arguments up until the time of Thomas Aquinas. See also Christianity, early; martyrologies; wisdom literature. Further reading: Green, Richard H. The Consolation of Philosophy: Boethius. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1962. Mark F. Whitters 52 Boethius


Book of the Dead Edit

The Egyptian Book of the Dead is a collection of texts that were used to accompany the souls of corpses into the afterlife and assist them in fi nding a satisfactory resting place. It should be distinguished from the Tibetan Book of the Dead, which is a Vajrayana Buddhist set of texts aimed at achieving personal enlightenment. The Egyptians were the fi rst people to conceive of an afterlife in which human souls were judged on a primarily moralistic basis rather than on the basis of adherence to some particular religious dogma, which was more common in later peoples. In Egyptian belief the soul progresses into the presence of the god of the dead, Osiris, when its heart is measured against the scales of truth (maat). If found wanting, the Eater of the Dead (Am-mut) awaits; if found to be virtuous, then the soul enters a place where eternal bliss awaits. Both coffi n texts and pyramid texts were used to assist the soul to reach the court of Osiris and to pass through the truth-testing process. These texts might be inscribed onto stone in the tomb or sarcophagus, painted onto coffi ns, or else written onto papyrus to accompany the corpse. A total of some 200 different verses or chapters of this sort have been discovered and have been combined to make the Book of the Dead. However, no individual cache of texts has been found that contains all of the verses, and Egyptian thinkers conceived of no offi cial canon of the Book of the Dead. Instead, individual bodies were accompanied by personalized selections of texts determined on a case-bycase basis. Suffi ciently wealthy or powerful individuals could have new verses or spells written for their particular use, while others made do with existing texts. Pyramid writings were the fi rst of these texts and are most notably found at Saqqarah, where they were created in approximately 2400 b.c.e. The fi rst pharaoh to receive these texts was Unas, who was the last king of the Fifth Dynasty. The texts included hymns of praise, magical spells, and invocations of various sorts to assist the dead king. They also include valuable historic records, including a battle scene against the Bedouins, trade with Syria and Phoenicia, and the transportation of granite blocks to help build the pyramids. Subsequent pyramid texts also combine religious beliefs with what are presumed to be contemporaneous historical beliefs. Coffi n texts were painted onto coffi ns and are fi rst recorded during the First Intermediate Period (c. 2130– 1939 b.c.e.). They are similar in nature to pyramid texts but denote a widening of the possibilities of obtaining access to the afterlife to more social classes. Texts generally were combinations of hieroglyphics representing spells and other uses of language and illustrations. Pyramid texts most commonly featured praise for the sun god Ra, while coffi n texts generally favored Osiris. The concept of the fi eld of reeds was also subsequently introduced; in which the soul that was granted continued happy life would be expected to labor on agricultural tasks for eternity. This in turn led to the creation of magical ushabtis, which were small statuettes that were enchanted, it was hoped, so that they would come to life and take responsibility for this labor, leaving the soul to enjoy an eternity of ease. The belief was that the soul could be alive within the burial chamber while still laboring in the fi eld of reeds and also touring the heavens in the company of the gods. It was considered possible for these multiple forms of reality to be experienced at the same time. See also Egypt, culture and religion; Pyramids of Giza. Further reading: Hornung, Erik. The Ancient Egyptian Books of the Afterlife. Trans. by David Lorton. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999. Seleem, Ramses. The Egyptian Book of Life: A True Translation of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Featuring Original Texts and Hieroglyphs. London: Watkins/Duncan Baird Publishers, 2004; Wallis Budge, E. A. The Book of the Dead. New York: Random House, 1995. John Walsh

Boudicca Edit

(c. 30–c. 61 c.e.) Celtic military leader Boudicca (Boadicea) was born into the aristocracy. Little otherwise is known of her—some researchers even say that her true name is unknown, that her followers named her Boudiga for the Celtic goddess of victory, which the Romans Latinized as Boudicca. Around 48 c.e., she became the wife of Prasutagus, king of the Iceni (50–60 c.e.), a Celtic tribe in modern East Anglia in eastern Britain. Boudicca bore Prasutagus two daughters. The Iceni were among the tribes that had submitted to Julius Caesar after his invasions of 55 and 54 b.c.e. The Iceni prospered through trade with the Roman Empire between 65 b.c.e. and 61 c.e. The Romans invaded Britain in 43 c.e. and made Prasutagus a client. In 60 c.e., with Roman forces busy fi ghting the Druids in Wales, the Iceni rebelled. Claudius, needing a quick popularity boost at home, sent 60,000 troops to Gaul. The Iceni reaffi rmed their submission, and Prasutagus kept his crown. Rome gave him military Boudicca 53 protection, funding and loans, employment, and education— as well as serfdom, slavery, and subordination. The daughters’ names are unknown, but they were teens when Prasutagus died in 60 c.e. Boudicca became either queen or regent of the Iceni and guardian of the daughters’ inheritance. Prasutagus left his daughters half his wealth, enough to cover dowries plus Roman taxes, tributes, and other expenses. He gave half his wealth to Rome to fulfi ll his client-ruler obligation. Nero seized all his property because it was illegal to will to others over the emperor. Rome also drove Iceni nobles from their lands, enslaved and plundered, and demanded return of money given for the upkeep of the Iceni court. Boudicca protested. The Romans took her hostage, stripped her, and “put her to the rods.” Meanwhile, Roman soldiers raped the daughters. Once freed, Boudicca led the Iceni, Trinivantes, and several tribes in a rebellion that lasted several months. The Iceni minted large numbers of silver coins to fi nance the rising of 60–61 c.e. Boudicca was ruthless. Her army of 100,000 proud and warlike Celts gave no quarter. Men and women together, they had fought the Romans for centuries and earned Roman respect. Reportedly, one Roman legion refused to fi ght her. Boudicca’s forces destroyed Londinium (London), Verulamium (St. Albans), and Camulodunum (Colchester) and killed thousands before the Roman governor, Suetonius Paullinus, crushed the rising. In the fi nal battle the Romans massacred Celtic warriors and camp followers alike. Boudicca took poison. The rebellion killed more than 100,000 people. After the defeat the Romans relocated the Iceni to Caistor-by-Norwich (also Caistor St. Edmunds) on the river Tas. Further reading: “Boudicca, Queen of the Iceni, led a revolt against the Roman military in AD 60–61.” Athena Review (v.1/1). Available online. URL: http://www.athenapub.com/ boudicca.htm (May 2007); Wilson, S. “Boadicea: Queen Boudicca and the Events Leading to the Iceni Rebellion of 60 A.D.” Available online. URL: http://members.tripod.com/ ~ancient_history/boad.html (May 2007). John H. Barnhill


Brendan the Navigator Edit

(c. 484–577 c.e.) explorer and church leader For centuries the legend of an Irish monk named Brendan (also called Brenainn, Brandan, or Borodan) circulated among explorers and navigators of late Middle Ages Europe. Some historians speculate that Christopher Columbus might have relied on maps with St. Brendan’s Isle on it, located somewhere in the Atlantic off to the far west. Others say that the 10th-century Hiberno-Latin romance called the Voyage of Brendan might have been on Columbus’s reading list before he did his travels to the New World. The life of Brendan is mostly based on legends and secondhand reports. Thus, it is diffi cult to state with confi dence many of the facts of his life. He was a native Irishman, born at a time when Celtic Christianity was beginning to fl ourish as the Roman Empire receded. His mother supposedly was Ita, an Irish saint, in County Kerry on the west coast. He was educated by Irish saints and ordained by a famous Irish bishop around the year 512 c.e. Then he began his vocation as an explorer and missionary in Ireland and Scotland and the hinterlands of western Europe. According to legend he founded many monasteries and achieved a high place in the honor roll of Celtic spirituality, which values its heroes on the basis of supernatural feats and sanctity. One of his monasteries was Cluain Fearta in Clonfert (559 c.e.), which reportedly had 3,000 members. His own home monastery was on Mt. Brandon, Ireland’s second highest peak, which today shows a ruined oratory and cells for monks. Consistent with Celtic spirituality Brendan devised his own discipline and structure for his monasteries. He called his monks to a life of missionizing, seafaring, and exploring, an ideal for which the Irish were already known. One of the ancient Hiberno-Latin chroniclers, Adamnan (c. 10th century), corroborates this adventuresome spirit when he writes that Brendan was a fellow crew-member with Columba of Iona who sailed to the “Isles of the Blessed”—perhaps the Danish Faeroe Islands or Iceland. He is also mentioned in an ancient church litany of St. Aengus the Culdee (eighth cen tury) as sailing with some (perhaps dozens) of his fellow monks. The account mentioned above, Voyage of St. Brendan, is a travel adventure story like Sinbad the Sailor or the Odyssey. Historians have collected many such Irish tales and suggest that Voyage is a deliberate Christian imitation of the Virgil’s great travel adventure, the Aeneid. Most likely Voyage was originally written to teach Irish monks about discipline and monastic ideals but soon was translated into the European vernacular languages and read for entertainment. The natural trajectory of his travels following winds and currents may well have landed Brendan in Canadi- 54 Brendan the Navigator an Newfoundland 1,000 years before Columbus. The types of adventures that the Voyage describes can easily be situated in the North Atlantic and in the New World. The trip was replicated in modern times with a boat built in Celtic fashion. Even more recently claims have been made that Celtic symbols and alphabetical characters were found in the New World farther south in New Hampshire, Vermont, and even West Virginia. See also Celts; monasticism; Patrick; Roman Empire. Further reading: Adam, David. Desert in the Ocean: The Spiritual Journey According to St. Brendan. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2000; Severin, Tim. The Brendan Voyage. New York: Modern Library, 2000. Mark F. Whitters

Buddha Edit

See Gautama Buddha.


Buddhism in ChinaEdit

The practice of Buddhism spread in the centuries after the death of Gautama Buddha through the actions of pilgrims, wandering evangelists, and strong believers who wished to spread the faith to remote lands and also through observation of Buddhist practices by those who traveled overseas from India and Sri Lanka. The various routes that composed the Silk Road were important conduits for Buddhism making its way into China, more so than the maritime routes that were more infl uential in the transmission of the belief into Southeast Asia. Buddhism was recorded as being present in China from the time of the Han dynasty, and according to legend, the emperor Mingdi (Ming-ti , 57–75 c.e.) received a divine vision that inspired him to seek out knowledge of the Buddha from India. Chinese monks and scholars were dispatched at regular intervals to seek out Indian knowledge and texts that could be brought back to China and translated into the Chinese language. In nearly every case, when Buddhist concepts were introduced to China they were combined with preexisting Chinese religious concepts or else were subsequently modifi ed. Notably, Buddhism was combined with the Daoist (Taoist) philosophy of Laozi (Lao Tzu), both to show respect to the latter and also to make the new, foreign concepts more intelligible to a Chinese audience. The sheer size and degree of diversity within China meant that variations in interpretation inevitably occurred. Since most Chinese Buddhists had little knowledge of Pali or Sanskrit, the rituals in which all monks recited in unison the accepted Buddhist canon had less effect than it did in India. At times Buddhism was suppressed as a foreign religion that was interfering with native Chinese beliefs. Forced underground during such periods, the rate at which variations in philosophy developed accelerated because of diffi culties in communicating with other communities of believers. A number of different schools of Buddhist thought have consequently emerged in China. TIANTAI (T’IEN T’AI) Tiantai Buddhism was founded on Mount Tiantai in southeastern China by the monk Chiyi (Chih-I, 538–597 c.e.), during the Sui dynasty. It focused on the Lotus Sutra (Saddharmapundarika-sutra, or Fahua-ching in Chinese) as its central text. The Tiantai school taught that existence was real but impermanent and insubstantial and the need to adhere to the middle path in the search for personal enlightenment. Chiyi’s belief was that Sakyamuni knew the entire canon of Buddhist thought at the time of his enlightenment, but it has only subsequently been released into human awareness because of the inability of people to comprehend the entirety of the message. Tiantai Buddhism was introduced into Japan at the beginning of the ninth century under the name Tendai by the monk Saicho. HUAYAN (HUA-YEN) The Avatamsaka school of Buddhist thought is known as Huayan in China and Kegon in Japan. It is based on the Avatamsaka-sutra, which is also known as the Garland Sutra or Wreath Sutra. Huayan Buddhism is associated with the monk Fazang (Fa-tsang, 643–712 c.e.), also known as Xianshou (Hsien-shou), the third patriarch who did much to develop the lessons of the school. The basis of Huayan Buddhism is that all elements of reality depend on each other and arise because of each other, spontaneously. At every moment an infi nite number of possibilities exist, and it is possible, therefore, for an infi nite number of Buddhas (who can internalize all of the possible variations within a harmonious whole) to emerge into the world. Advanced training of the mind and meditation are necessary to be able to comprehend the nature of reality and of how to strive for enlightenment. Fazang was born into a Sogdian family from Chang’an (Ch’ang-an), and the system he established Buddhism in China 55 is often regarded as one of the most advanced and complete of all the schools of Buddhism to be created in China. It continues to be infl uential in Japan even in the modern age. In China itself the Huayan form lost popularity as a result of the general suppression of Buddhism during the later Tang (T’ang) dynasty. It reemerged in part in the fostering of Neo-Confucianism, which fl ourished from the 11th century c.e. PURE LAND The Pure Land form of Buddhism, known in Chinese as Qingtu (Ching-tu), is based on the Pure Land Sutra (Sukhavativyuha-sutra), which was created in the north of India in the second century c.e. The sutra concerns the process of a monk who sought enlightenment by, in part, vowing to create a pure land in which all could live happily to a long and fulfi lled age. Those who practice Pure Land Buddhism commit themselves to various vows that are believed to help them achieve enlightenment. The 18th vow in particular is signifi cant and holds that pronouncing the name of the Buddha at the point of death is suffi cient to ensure that the soul will be reborn in the Pure Land. This form of Buddhism became very popular, largely because it offered the opportunity for ordinary people to aspire to enlightenment within their own lifetime. The belief is that the monk in the Pure Land Sutra, whose name was Dharmakara, did achieve enlightenment and now resides in the Pure Land in the form of the Buddha Amitabha, or, in Chinese, O-mi-to-fo. There, together with the goddess Guangyin (Kuan Yin) and Mahasthamaprapta, he assists humans to achieve their goal of being reborn in the Pure Land. Clearly the teachings of Pure Land Buddhism diverge considerably from the other forms of Buddhism taught in the past. Instead of the historical Buddha’s insistence that only what can be personally evaluated and experienced can be used in the struggle for enlightenment, which is the single ultimate goal of human existence, people can rely on the benevolence of the trinity led by Amitabha and have as an ultimate goal rebirth in the paradise of the Pure Land. ZAN (CH’AN) Zan Buddhism focuses on the role of meditation in the search for enlightenment. It is known as Dhyana Buddhism in Sanskrit and zen in Japan, where it reached its greatest level of popularity. The Indian monk Bodhidharma brought it to China in 520 c.e. Zan Buddhism is centered on the belief that all living creatures have within themselves an aspect of Buddhahood and that it is possible, through intensive meditation, to realize this existence, which results in wu, or enlightenment. Similar to the teaching of the historical Buddha, it teaches that the realization of the presence of the internal Buddha aspect can by no means be taught or explained by anyone else but can only be appreciated through internal cultivation of consciousness. An intensive regimen of meditation was not something that many people had the opportunity to pursue, which is one reason why the Pure Land school achieved a greater level of popularity. After the death of the fi fth patriarch of the Zan school, a split occurred between northern and southern adherents. The southern tendency, which was named after Huineng (Huineng), taught that enlightenment through meditation could be achieved much more swiftly and immediately than was proposed by the northern tendency. Huineng was more successful than the gradualist approach of the northern school, which eventually disappeared from China. See also Buddhist councils; Daoism (Taoism); Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. Further reading: Cleary, Thomas F. Entry into the Inconceivable: An Introduction to Hua-Yen Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1995; Gernet, Jacques. A History of Chinese Civilization. Trans. by J. R. Foster and Charles Hartman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996; Gernet, Jacques. Buddhism in Chinese Society. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998; Kieschnick, John. The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003; Wright, Arthur F. Buddhism in Chinese History. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1959. John Walsh


Buddhist councils Edit

After the death of Gautama Buddha (483 b.c.e.), monks and scholars concerned with practicing the lessons he taught met several times at formal councils at which the canon of Buddhist thought was established, the rules of monastic life were agreed, and matters of dogma and ideology were debated and confi rmed. The exact number, location, and importance of the councils have been contested, but it is commonly considered that there were three early councils that were of particular importance. 56 Buddhist councils THE FIRST COUNCIL The First Buddhist Council convened shortly after the death of the Buddha. The council was attended by 500 arahants, who had already achieved nirvana, the path to enlightenment. The council wished to itemize and systematize the teachings of the Buddha and was held at Rajagha, in the modern Indian state of Bihar. Of those present one of the most prominent was Ananda, who had attended the Buddha as companion and assistant for three decades. It is believed that since the monks concerned were consistent practitioners of yogic disciplines, their memories were enhanced and, thus, their ability to recall lengthy speeches and lessons with some accuracy. Ananda, for example, is said to have recited not only every word he heard from the Buddha but also the location and circumstances under which each was uttered. Others who had also been present then confi rmed Ananda’s responses, where possible. The main achievements of the fi rst council were the assembly of the aphoristic sutras under the supervision of Ananda and the collection of the vinayas, the rules to be followed by the sangha, or monkhood, under the elder Upali. At the fi rst council, the Tripitaka was established and continues to be used today. The three Pitakas, or baskets, were separate receptacles in which the Buddha’s teachings were categorized into discourse, discipline, and expressions of higher knowledge. THE SECOND COUNCIL The Second Buddhist Council was held approximately 100 years after the death of the Buddha. It was held at Vaisali, also in the modern Indian state of Bihar. It was convened to settle the confl ict that had arisen out of an ideological difference among the sangha. This difference was not resolved and resulted in the creation of the two major schools of Buddhist thought, the Mahayana and the Theravada. Controversy is thought to have arisen over the 10 rules (vinayas) monks were obliged to follow. These included whether it was acceptable to drink sour milk after the midday meal, using a rug of an inappropriate size, accepting gold and silver as alms, and the storage of salt. The debate centered on two interpretations of the vinayas, one of which was much stricter than the other. It is said that the Vaisali monks were practicing a more relaxed regime of vinayas than the remainder of the sangha, and after debate their lifestyle was ruled unlawful. In return, the Vaisali faction created its own school. This explanation ignores the issues of dogma that must have underpinned this confl ict and the division between Theravada and Mahayana forms of Buddhism has little to do with the regimen to be followed by their practitioners. The Chinese version of the original Sanskrit report created by the Mahasanghika school, which later became the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, records that the debate concerned the nature of the arahant and the relationship with the physical universe. There is little agreement as to the exact nature of the debates that took place. However, it is clear that after the second council, Buddhists divided into a number of different sects, and unity among them was no longer possible because there was no agreement on Buddha’s teachings, nor of the order in which they were to be recited. THE THIRD COUNCIL The Third Buddhist Council was held under the auspices of the great Buddhist patron King Ashoka (Asoka) at Pataliputra, which is the modern-day Patna in India, in or around 247 b.c.e. The purpose of the council convened under Ashoka’s direction was to resolve the differences between the numerous Buddhist sects that had fl ourished since the second council. The council resulted in the creation of the Kathavatthu, which has become the fi fth book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. A version of the Buddha’s teaching, royally approved as the Vibhajjavada, was declared to be appropriate for the monks to learn and to recite once they sought out converts. This doctrine followed the Theravadin school of thought. The sending out of monk evangelists under Ashoka was of considerable importance in the dissemination of the religion. The councils represented the attempt to resolve different interpretations of dogma through discussion rather than violence, and in this, they were largely successful. By causing the assembled monks to recite the canon they held in common in unison, they focused on what united the sangha rather than what set them apart. See also Buddhism in China; Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. Further reading: Barua, Sumangal. Buddhist Councils and Development of Buddhism. Calcutta, India: Atisha Memorial Publishing, 1997; Prebish, Charles S. “A Review of Scholarship on the Buddhist Councils.” Journal of Asian Studies (v.33/2, 1974); Seneviratna, Anuradha. King Asoka and Buddhism. Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society, 1995; Thomas, Edward Joseph. The History of Buddhist Thought. New York: Routledge, 1996. John Walsh Buddhist councils 57


Byblos Edit

The site of ancient Byblos lies on the Lebanese coast about 25 miles north of Beirut. It has been continuously occupied since the late Neolithic Period (c. 5000 b.c.e.), and its tradition claims that it is the oldest city in the world. The Greeks gave the name Byblos to the site because they imported Egyptian papyrus, or byblos, through the city. The Egyptians called it Kebeny, but the name of the city was Gubal to its inhabitants, and later Gebal. Byblos persists as the name of the archaeological site, but the town’s name in Arabic is Jebeil. For centuries the location of the ancient city was forgotten until discovered by the French scholar Ernest Renan in 1860. It lay under the town of Jebeil, the walls of its houses containing inscribed stones from the city’s ancient past. Between 1919 and 1924 Pierre Montet’s excavations revealed the tombs of nine ancient rulers of Byblos. Maurice Dunand succeeded Montet, conducting excavations from 1925 to 1975. The fourth-century c.e. geographer Strabo described Byblos as a “city on a height only a short distance from the sea.” It had an excellent geographical situation where trade routes from north and south met. The city was built on a promontory, behind which the mountains of Lebanon came closest to the sea, providing easy access to vast forests of cedar wood and reserves of copper ore. On either side of the promontory were bays that provided natural harbors, the larger one to the south. On the north side lay the upper town, or acropolis, holding the palaces and temples. The harbors were not particularly large but quite capable of handling the goods that fl owed in and out of Byblos. Exports included Canaanite wine and oil and the all-important timber. The earliest example of the Phoenician alphabet (c. 1000 b.c.e.) is found on the sarcophagus of King Ahiram of Byblos. Remains from nearly 3,000 years of contact with Egypt survive, including artifacts inscribed with names of pharaohs from all periods. Trade was disrupted around 2300 b.c.e. by Amorite tribes from the desert invading the coastal plain and attacking Byblos. The city soon recovered and entered on a period of great prosperity that lasted until the coming of the Sea Peoples in the 13th century b.c.e. The Iron Age (1200–586 b.c.e.) ushered in the Phoenician age of Byblos: the blend of the coastal Canaanites and the Sea Peoples. After 1000 b.c.e. the city was never completely independent of the great powers, Assyria, Babylon, and Persia. Byblos always put trade fi rst and submitted to its overlords, including Alexander the Great, to whom it surrendered and was spared. After Alexander’s conquest the city slowly adopted Greek culture and language. The arrival of the Romans in 64 b.c.e. brought three centuries of peace and prosperity to the city, along with the building of temples, theaters, and baths. Byzantine imperial rule brought a Christian bishop to the city, but there are few remains from this period. In 636 c.e. the city passed under Arab rule until taken by the crusaders in 1104. Around 1215 the crusaders built the Church of St. John the Baptist. In 1289 the city surrendered to the Mamelukes, and in the 15th century Byblos was taken over by the Ottoman Turks, under whose rule Jebeil operated as an obscure fi shing port. See also Egypt, culture and religion; Phoenician colonies. Further reading: Gibson, John C. L. Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions, Vol. 3 Phoenician Inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982; Herm, Gerhard. The Phoenicians. New York: Book Club Associates, 1975; Markoe, Glenn E. Peoples of the Past: Phoenicians. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. John Barclay Burns

Byzantine-Persian wars Edit

In the third century c.e. the Sassanid dynasty replaced Parthian rule in the Persian Empire. Rome and Persia soon ran into confl ict over disputed territorial claims, particularly in the Caucasus region. Diocletian stabilized the frontier by forcing the Persians from the region and establishing suzerainty in 299 c.e. Hostilities resumed when the Persians invaded Armenia, trying to regain dominance, and continued throughout much of the fourth century. In 363 Emperor Julian the Apostate was killed fi ghting the Persians. Afterward Rome yielded territory, including Armenia. Relations remained tense (and sometimes hostile) for decades until confl ict resumed in the early fi fth century. Another factor that led to confl ict was religion. The Eastern Roman Empire was set on Christianity, while the Sassanid Empire was set on Zoroastrianism. When the Persians began to persecute Christians, Theodosius II declared war, which resulted in another treaty. In 442 relations were ameliorated when both faced the scourge of the Huns and mobilized for defense. Peace was broken in 502 when the Persians demanded tribute and invaded Syria and Armenia. 58 Byblos Hostilities continued on and off throughout the sixth century, concluding in 591 with the Caucasus region returning to Roman suzerainty under Emperor Maurice. When a military revolt led to the murder of Maurice and the installation of Phocas in 602, the Persians invaded—allegedly acting on behalf of Maurice’s family. Thus began the last Byzantine-Persian war (602– 629). During the war the Roman governor of Byzantine North Africa sent his son Heraclius (Herakleios) to overthrow the tyrant Phocas in 610. Despite his ability, the war turned badly for Heraclius, who became emperor in 610. Over the next decade the Persians seized Syria, Palestine, and Egypt and plundered Anatolia. Heraclius now strove to shift the war to Persia. With the support of the patriarch of Constantinople, he used church money to buy off the Avars (a hostile people to his north) and rebuild his army with which, in eastern Anatolia in 622, he won his fi rst victory. Operations then focused on the Caucasus region. In 626 the Persians attempted to besiege Constantinople with the aid of the Avars and Slavs. The city withstood the Avars, while the Byzantine navy defeated the Slav boats that were to ferry the Persians to the European side. The Byzantines credited the Virgin Mary with the defense of their city. While they turned to their faith, the Persians sought to undermine this fervor. When they had captured Jerusalem, for example, they deported Christians to Persia (including the patriarch) and also took captive the holy relic of the True Cross. Finally, they called for Jews to resettle Jerusalem as a Jewish city. The momentum began to shift to the Byzantines who were strengthened by an alliance with the Khazars, a Turkic people from the steppes. In 627 Heraclius defeated the Persians and led his army into Persia. Peace was established after Kavad II overthrew his father King Khosraw II. Heraclius obtained the return of the True Cross. The cost of the war was great. It was at this juncture that Islam appeared outside Arabia as the “rightly guided caliphs,” the successors of the prophet Muhammad, led the new Muslim armies out of Arabia at the very moment that Persia, having been defeated, and Byzantium, victorious but gravely damaged, could offer little resistance. Persia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa were soon in Muslim hands. See also Persian invasions; Persian myth. Further reading: Haldon, J. Byzantium in the Seventh Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990; Treadgold, W. A History of the Byzantine State Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997. Mathew Herbst Byzantium See Constantinople.

The Expanding World 600 CE to 1450 Edit

Bacon, Roger Edit

(1214–1294) philosopher and theologian Known as doctor mirabilis (“wonderful teacher”), Roger Bacon was born to wealthy parents at Ilchester, Somersetshire, England in 1214. He was educated at Oxford and later went to Paris in 1235. Bacon was profi cient in arithmetic, astronomy, classics, geometry, and music. After receiving his master of arts, he lectured on Aristotle. Between 1247 and 1257 he was deeply involved in study of alchemy and mathematics. He did not believe in claims made by contemporaries and loved doing scientific experiments. He argued strongly for his beliefs. Some give him credit for laying the foundation of modern science three centuries later. Bacon gave hints for making gunpowder. His experiments on the nature of light were notable. He observed the eclipses of the Sun by means of a devise that projected images through a pinhole. A practicing alchemist, Bacon believed in the elixir of life and also tried to create the philosopher’s stone (which would change base metals into gold). His powers of observation led him to anticipate later inventions like fl ying machines, spectacles, steam ships, and microscopes. Bacon was greatly infl uenced by the Franciscans in his student days and entered the Franciscan order in 1255. Bacon had contempt for those not sharing his views, and criticized them harshly. His works were banned by superiors, who directed their members not to publish anything without permission. He appealed to Pope Clement IV against this prohibition and it was revoked in 1266. Within two years he fi nished a threevolume work, with volumes entitled Opus Majus (great work), Opus Minus (lesser work), and Opus Terilium (third work). Clement IV was a supporter of Bacon, but after his death in 1268, Pope Nicholas IV condemned his ideas. The friars, having different views from their superiors of the Franciscan order, were put behind bars. Bacon was imprisoned in the covenant of Ancona, Italy around 1278. After 12 years he was released, and returned to England. Bacon had not changed his convictions in prison. He wrote about his sufferings in 1293 in his last book entitled Compendium studii theologiae. Some scholars do not believe that Bacon was really imprisoned. Bacon held his views in spite of adverse circumstances. One of the greatest scholars, he was against subscribing to preconceived notions. Bacon tried his best to urge theologians to study the sciences, and called for reform in the study of theology. He recommended the study of language in order to read original documents. Bacon saw the Bible as the focus of attention, and not a minor distinction in philosophical discourse. The medieval monk and proponent of experimental science died at Oxford on June 11, 1294, a legendary fi gure in the world of scholarship and science. See also Scholasticism. Further reading: Bridges, John Henry. The Life and Work of Roger Bacon. London: Williams and Norgate, 1914; Bridges, John Henry, ed. The “Opus Majus” of Roger Bacon. London: Williams and Norgate, 1900; Cleggy, Brian. The First Scientist: A Life of Roger Bacon. New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2003; Frankowska-Terlecka, Magorzata. Scientia as Interpreted by Roger Bacon. Springfi eld, IL: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1971; Goldstone, Nancy and Lawrence. The Friar and the Cipher: Roger Bacon and the Unsolved Mystery of the Most Unusual Manuscript in the World. New York: Doubleday Books, 2005; Kent, Roland Grubb, and William Romaine Newbold. Cipher of Roger Bacon. Kila, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2003; Redgrove, H. Stanley. Roger Bacon: The Father of Experimental Science and Medieval Occultism. Kila, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2003. Patit Paban Mishra



Baghdad Edit

The Abbasid dynasty founded the city of Baghdad as a new capital in 762, shortly after the overthrow of the Umayyad dynasty. This shift of the center of power in the Muslim world from Syria toward the Abassid support base in Persia allowed the young dynasty to establish its dominance under the leadership of the caliph, al-Mansur. However, the move from Syria also saw the caliphate’s infl uence in Mediterranean affairs decline and rival dynasties emerge as far away as Spain, where the Umayyad dynasty regrouped, and as near as Egypt, from where the Fatimid dynasty dominated much of North Africa from the 10th through the 12th century. The fi rst two centuries of Baghdad’s history were marked by political strife as the Abassids repressed revolts; the dynasty underwent civil war from 811 to 819. During this civil war the caliph Amin besieged the city. Despite this unrest, Baghdad found itself at the center of a Muslim cultural golden age during these centuries. In the 940s a group of soldiers, the Buyid princes, who had been gaining in strength for a decade, took power in Baghdad; lacking legitimate claim to rule, they become protectors of the caliphate and ruled through Abbasid puppet caliphs. In 1055 the Seljuk Turk Toghrulbeg came to Baghdad and ultimately relieved the caliph of the Buyid protectorate. Toghrulbeg was named sultan, and the caliph was again reduced to little more than a puppet. But the Seljuk leader’s ambitions led him to rule from outside of Baghdad, visiting only on occasion, and this would give future caliphs at least some small measure of freedom. The Crusades and internal turmoil challenged the Seljuks’ control of the region, and the caliphs began to challenge their overlords. The breakup of Turkish rule in the late 12th century saw a renewal on a regional scale of the city’s importance, but the city and the region were continually plagued by confl icts between Sunnis and Shi’i. THE MONGOLS In faraway Mongolia, warring Turko-Mongol tribes were uniting under the leadership of one man, Temuchin. In 1206 an assembly of tribal nobility awarded him the title Genghis Khan—Universal Ruler. From central Mongolia, Genghis set out on a mission of world conquest. He immediately began consolidating his power for an attack against the Chinese kingdoms to the south, but full control of China was far off. The Mongols would invade western Asia and establish a dynasty in Iran before they unifi ed China under their rule. During the early years of Mongol expansion Genghis Khan led armies against the sultan Ala ad-Din Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, as a punishment for his challenge to Mongol authority in the region of Central Asia. Gen ghis’s punishment of the Persian leader helped establish a reputation for Mongol brutality. The caliph in Baghdad, al-Nasr, felt threatened by the onslaught against Sultan Muhammad and appealed to the Ayyubids in Syria for aid. The Ayyubids were battling the crusaders and did not send aid, but the threat of Genghis Khan never materialized. Genghis died in 1227, and Ogotai Khan, his son, succeeded him. In 1232 Mongol forces had penetrated as far as Azerbaijan, and the caliph annexed Arbela in Upper Mesopotamia, possibly as a defensive measure. In 1236 the caliph mobilized his armies against the Mongols, who were moving south into Upper Mesopotamia, and in 1238 the caliph went to Baghdad’s great mosque and called for holy war against the invaders. This time Ayyubid reinforcements arrived, but the ensuing battle was a defeat for the caliph. The Mongols withdrew deep into Persia, and terms were reached, though raids into Mesopotamia continued with accounts of the period reporting various Mongol harassments of Baghdad. The Mongol conquest of the Middle East began during the reign of Mongke Khan. In 1252 Mongke dispatched his brother Hulagu Khan to take control of the region. Some sources suggest that the arrival of Hulagu in Azerbaijan was instigated by a mission by the Qadi of Qazvin, in an attempt to subdue the Isma’ilis, known as the Assassins for their frequent tactic of the same name. The Isma’ilis operated from their stronghold in the mountainous region of northern Iran. The repression of the Isma’ilis was one of Hulagu’s fi rst goals. Hulagu dispatched Baichu to the west to repress the Seljuk’s in Rum, and in 1256 Mongol forces defeated the sultan and recognized his younger brother, 34 Baghdad establishing Mongol overlordship of Rum. In the same year, the Mongols completed their mission against the Isma’ilis, destroying the last of their mountain strongholds and executing their leader, Khurshah. Having secured his base and the vicinity to its west, Hulagu focused his attention on the caliphate in Baghdad. Hulagu sought to dominate both Baghdad and its caliph, despite their dramatic decline in prestige. The court of the caliph, al-Musta‘sim, was divided over how to respond. The caliph, presented with an ultimatum, could surrender—saving his life, his position, and his city—or resist. Indecision left al-Musta‘sim largely unprepared for the onslaught that would follow his disregard and disrespect of Hulagu and his armies. The Mongol forces besieged the city for several weeks before storming it on February 6, 1258. The damage to the city was extensive. Al-Musta‘sim, his sons, and much of their entourage were killed; as it was against Mongol belief to shed royal blood on the ground, the caliph was rolled into a carpet and trampled to death by horses. Al-Musta‘sim was the last Abbasid caliph of Baghdad. From Baghdad, Hulagu’s forces moved into northern Syria, taking Aleppo in January of 1260. The Ayyubid ruler in Damascus, An-Nasir Yusuf, fled his capital, and the city surrendered to Hulagu’s general Kitbuqa. Hebron, Jerusalem, and Ashkalon were raided, and various Ayyubid princes submitted to the invaders. Again, much of the Mongol army was unilaterally withdrawn to Azerbaijan, where Maragheh was chosen as the capital of the new Il-Khanate (one of four khanates of the Mongol Empire). The Ayyubids’s conquest by the Mongols marked the end of their dynasty, as they had already been replaced in Egypt by the Mamluk dynasty. General Kitbuqa remained to solidify the new conquests in Syria, while Hulagu became embroiled in the Mongol succession crisis and began to battle the Golden Horde to his north. In the eastern Mediterranean region the crusaders in Jerusalem were not prepared to surrender to the Mongols and issued calls for reinforcements to the western European kingdoms, while they temporarily tried to appease Kitbuqa. When the crusaders did not dismantle their fortresses, however, Kitbuqa retaliated, sacking Sidon in August 1260. The crusaders responded by allowing the Mamluks of Egypt to dispatch troops through their territory and even provided the Muslim forces with supplies to battle the Mongols. In September 1260 the Egyptian army defeated the Mongols in Galilee, and Kitbuqa was either killed in the battle or executed after his defeat. The Il-Khanid Mongols retreated beyond the Euphrates to their power base. Within the Il-Khanate, Hulagu and his son Abaqa would enjoy stability despite threats at the border. The Il-Khanids continued to work diplomatically against their Mamluk enemies in Syria, at times approaching the crusaders to propose coordinated attacks. In 1299 Ghazan Khan, a Muslim convert, attacked the Mamluk forces, which retreated to Egypt in defeat. Syria and Palestine were briefly reoccupied until Ghazan withdrew to Mesopotamia, and it was not until 1320 that the Mongols made peace with the Mamluks. After the death of Abu Sa‘id in 1235, the Il-Khanate disintegrated into rival, mostly non-Mongol, dynasties. The Mongol leader Timurlane emerged as a great force in the region at the end of the 14th century, regaining Mongol control of Persia and doing battle as far east as the Ottoman Empire. But Timurlane’s death in 1405 saw the Mongolian empire in Persia again disintegrate and effectively ended Mongolian influence in the region of the Middle East. The immediate and lasting effects of the Mongols in the Middle East are varied in degree. The Mongol conquest of Hulagu ended two institutions of Islamic rule, finally ending the Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad and Ayyubid dynasty, the realm of which was already confined to Syria and parts of Palestine. This allowed Mamluk rule to fill the power vacuum. A century and a half later that power vacuum would be re-created by Timurlane’s temporary conquests and the subsequent disintegration of Mongol rule in the Middle East following his death, only to be filled by the Ottomans. Culturally, the impact of the Mongols was minimal, with the exception of Persia, to which area their lasting presence in western Asia was confined. It is in the period of the Sitt Zumurrud Khatun’s tomb is the most famous mausoleum in Baghdad and was constructed before 1202. Baghdad 35 Il-Khanate that the greatest impact of far eastern culture on Persia is witnessed. See also Crusades; Shi’ism. Further reading: Allsen, Thomas. Mongol Imperialism: The Policies of the Grand Qan Möngke in China, Russia, and the Islamic Lands, 1251–1259. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987; Jackson, Peter. The Mongols and the West, 1221–1410. New York: Pearson Longman, 2005; Kennedy, Hugh. The Court of the Caliphs: The Rise and Fall of Islam’s Greatest Dynasty. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2004; Lane, George. Genghis Khan and Mongol Rule. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2004; Levy, Reuben. A Baghdad Chronicle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929; Wiet, Gaston. Baghdad: Metropolis of the Abbasid Caliphate. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971. James A. Grady

Bantu Edit

The Bantu people of the African continent include some 400 different ethnic groups that cover most of sub-Saharan Africa and speak a tongue from a common language group. The fi rst time the word Bantu (meaning “people” in many Bantu languages) was used in its current sense was by Dr. Wilhelm Bleek in his book A Comparative Grammar of South African Languages (1862). Up to that point, few linguists had tried to draw similarities between the different languages in Africa on such a wide scale. Much of what is known about Africa before the 11th century has been surmised by linguistic analysis, which, along with recent archaeology, has shown a clear picture of society and life in prehistoric Africa. Before the spread of the Bantu much of central and southern Africa is believed to have been populated by the Khoisan-speaking people who still exist around the Kalahari Desert in modern-day Namibia and Botswana, and also in some isolated pockets of modern-day Tanzania. There were (and still are) pygmies in Central Africa, and the northern and northeastern parts of Africa were dominated by people who spoke Afro-Asiatic languages, who have retained their identity from the Bantu. Gradually from the fi rst millennium b.c.e. to the fi rst millennium c.e., the Bantu spread out throughout much of the African continent. The origins of the Bantu were fi rst raised by Joseph H. Greenberg (1915–2001) in 1963, based on linguistic theories. Using dictionaries and work lists of these languages, he was able to isolate the 500 different distinct languages of the Bantu subgroup. Many showed regional and geographical variations—including the names of crops and/or animals not found elsewhere in Africa— and Greenberg’s thesis was that there was an original language, which he called Proto-Bantu, from which the others were derived. As the languages spoken in the southeastern part of Nigeria, and along the border with Cameroon, contain more words similar to those used elsewhere in the continent, and that the Bantu languages spoken further away have more variations, he concluded that the Bantu had their origins along the modern-day Nigeria-Cameroon border. However, the theories of Greenberg were quickly challenged by Malcolm Guthrie, whose research pointed to the Bantu language having originated in Zambia and the southern part of modernday Democratic Republic of the Congo. If the origins of the Bantu are disputed, the reason for the migration of the Bantu throughout Africa is generally accepted. George P. Murdock (1897–1985), an American scholar, argued that it was infl uenced by the availability of crops. Murdock felt that it was the Bantu acquisition of crops from the East Indies—through trade with Madagascar—such as banana, taro, and yam, which helped a spread westwards from the fi rst millennium b.c.e. onwards. It was the cultivation of these crops, Murdock felt, that enabled the Bantu to start settling in the previously largely impenetrable tropical rain forest of central Africa, and from there southwards, establishing the civilization of Great Zimbabwe in the 10th century c.e. Others saw the migratory route, following the ideas of Greenberg, lay in the move east across the southern area of what is now the Sahara, into southern Sudan, and from there south past the Great Lakes. If the Bantu originated in the area of southeastern Nigeria and the borders with Cameroon, they would have gradually spread eastwards to the Great Lakes, where, on Lake Victoria, the settlement of Katuruka has been dated to the fi fth century b.c.e. A separate group also spread southwards through Gabon and the Congo and to modern- day Angola—the settlement at the Funa River, in modern-day Democratic Republic of the Congo, dating from 270 b.c.e. That group gradually spread south into modern-day Angola, while the eastern migration split south of Lake Victoria, with some heading for the coast and establishing a settlement near Kwale, near Mombasa. Another group moved south, along the eastern shores of Lake Nyassa, forming the civilization of Great Zimbabwe by the 10th century c.e., with a third group heading inland, into modern-day Zambia. The result of this migration was that, by about 1000 c.e., the Bantu domi- 36 Bantu nated central and southern Africa, except for much of modern-day South Africa, Namibia, and Botswana. The survival of the Khoisan people in these places is pointed to as further evidence of this migration. Knowledge about the divisions within Bantu tribes is known from archaeological evidence. The existence of tribal chiefs can be assumed from early settlements where wealth inequality was seen through the existence of larger and smaller residences. Similarly the objects that were found, made from precious metals, and pots of intricate design, were too few to sustain an entire village with the view adopted by archaeologists that poorer members of Bantu tribes would have had wooden objects that have not survived. However, it is also clear that some tribes, such as the Kikuyu in modernday Kenya, did not have hereditary chiefs but, rather, a person who assumed the role of an elder and was responsible for tax collection and family counseling. Unlike the Khoisan and pygmies, the Bantu fought in confl icts and maintained armies. Many of the tribal chiefs maintained large numbers of wives and hence had many children who were often assimilated with commoners. The nature of the rule of the tribes has been surmised through linguistic evidence of the Bantu kinship terminology. Although some groups, such as the Masai, use the standard patrilineal system, many others follow matrilineal traditions. In addition the Mayombe people of modern-day Democratic Republic of the Congo believe that their “blood,” and hence their descent, goes through a woman, with villagers tracing the origin of their village to an ancestress. This is also believed to be the system used by the Bantu in the Kongo (modernday Angola and the Democratic Republic of the Congo). As a result the chief in wartime was often the husband of the senior woman, with the government operating through the female line. Few archaeological remains have been found of early Bantu civilization, when compared to Europe of the same period. This may have been because of the Bantu use of wood for their buildings. Some 85 million Bantu people now exist in Africa, with most divisions of the Bantu being largely linguistic. Although the term has been used for 150 years, because of its pejorative use by the apartheid government in South Africa—whereby blacks were designated as “Bantu”—it is not used much today except as a cultural term to describe the great migration that took place in ancient and medieval Africa. Further reading: Beach, D. N. The Shona and Zimbabwe 900–1850. Gwelo: Mambo Press, 1980; Clark, J. Desmond. The Prehistory of Southern Africa. Harmondsworth, UK.: Penguin Books, 1959; Cole, Sonia. The Prehistory of East Africa. Harmondsworth, UK.: Penguin Books, 1954; Dalby, David, ed. Language and History in Africa. New York: Africana Publications Company, 1970; Fage, J. D. A History of Africa. London and New York: Routledge, 1997; ———, ed. The Cambridge History of Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978; Greenberg, Joseph. The Languages of Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1966; Greenberg, Joseph. “Linguistic evidence regarding Bantu origins,” Journal of African History 13, no.2 (1972); Herbert, Eugenia W. Red Gold of Africa: Copper in Precolonial History and Culture. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984; Radcliffe- Brown, A. R., and Forde, Daryll. African Systems of Kinship and Marriage. London: International African Institute, Oxford University Press, 1967; Sutherland-Harris, Nicola. “Trade and the Rozwi Mambo.” In Richard Gray and David Birmingham, eds. Pre-colonial African Trade. London: Oxford University Press, 1970; Seligman, C. G. Races of Africa. London: Oxford University Press, 1957. Justin Corfi eld


Bayezid I Edit

(c. 1360–1403) Ottoman sultan Bayezid I was declared sultan following the death of Sultan Murad on the battlefi eld at Kosovo in 1389. To ensure his uncontested succession to the sultanate, Bayezid had his brother Yakub assassinated; subsequently the practice of fratricide became commonplace among heirs to the Ottoman throne. To cement Ottoman control over Serbia, Bayezid married a Serbian royal princess. Bayezid immediately embarked on a series of successful military conquests, personally leading his troops throughout Thrace. Under Bayezid’s rule, only the heavily fortifi ed cities on the coast, including Athens and Constantinople, remained outside Ottoman control. Recognizing the importance of sea power in any attempt to seize Constantinople, the Ottomans began to build up their navy. Fearful of the mounting Ottoman threat, the Hungarian king and later Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund rallied Christian forces in Europe to attack the Ottomans at Nico polis in 1396. The Europeans were resoundingly defeated by the Ottoman troops, who were personally led on the battlefi eld by Bayezid who then conquered virtually all of the Balkans, the Turkoman areas of Karaman, Anatolia, and the eastern Mediterranean. Because of his military prowess, Ottoman troops called Bayezid the “thunderbolt” (yildirim). Bayezid I 37 However, Bayezid’s love of luxury and increasing arrogance alienated many of his subjects and offended many traditional Muslims. Some amirs (local governors) fl ed to the court of Timurlane, whose mounting power posed a serious threat to Bayezid’s conquests. In 1402 Ottoman and Mongol forces met on the battlefi eld at Ankara, where Bayezid was captured. Brought before Timurlane, Bayezid was initially treated with respect, but after a failed attempt to escape, he was placed in an iron cage; he died several months later. Timurlane went on to conquer the rest of Anatolia but divided his newly gained territories among four of Bayezid’s sons. Although they pledged loyalty to Timurlane, upon his death three years later, they promptly resumed the Ottoman quest for empire. See also Ottoman Empire. Further reading: Barber, Noel. The Sultans. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1973; Shaw, Stanford J. History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey: Vol. 1, Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire, 1280–1808 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976; Creasy, Sir Edward S. History of the Ottoman Turks London: R. Bentley, 1854–1856. Reprint, Beirut: Khayats, 1961. Janice J. Terry


Becket, Thomas (Thomas à Becket)Edit

(1118–1170) archbishop, martyr, saint Saint Thomas Becket was the archbishop of Canterbury in England during the reign of King Henry II. He was the son of Gilbert Becket, who was born in Rouen, but became a merchant in London. Becket received an excellent education despite his middle-class origins. He completed his degree at the University of Paris and then studied law at Bologna and Auxerre. Theobald of Bec, archbishop of Canterbury since 1139, made him deacon and assistant archbishop of Canterbury. Becket and Henry became close friends and spent considerable time together. Henry made Becket chancellor. Theobald was seriously concerned that the trappings of the royal lifestyle would turn Becket against the needs of the church. Upon Theobald’s death in 1163, Henry offered Becket the position of archbishop of Canterbury, but he initially declined, realizing it would cause great havoc between Henry and himself. Once Becket became archbishop in 1164, he set aside the hedonistic lifestyle, became excessively ascetic, and resigned as chancellor. His efforts focused on the church rather than on the interests of the man who had befriended and promoted him. In 1163 at the Council of Westminster, Henry passed a law that would try “criminous clerks” who had already been tried by the ecclesiastical courts. Some of the canonical laws were ambiguous, imprecise, and contradictory, and Henry wanted clearly stated laws that would govern accurately. Becket disagreed, but withdrew his dissent when Pope Alexander III (pope from 1159 to 1181) pressured him. Henry then implemented the constitutions of Clarendon to which Becket orally agreed. The constitutions accurately refl ected traditional church and state relations, which Henry II wished to guarantee. When Becket discovered that some of the sections would reduce ecclesiastical power, he vehemently objected to the changes. However, several of the Crown’s practices were quite divergent from canon law, so that Alexander refused to assent. Becket had little choice but to admit publicly that he had committed perjury regarding the Constitution of Clarendon. Becket was forced to appear at the Council of Northampton in October 1164 and was charged with misappropriating funds during his chancellorship. He quickly contravened the Constitutions of Clarendon, denying its jurisdiction and declaring that the church and the pope had greater jurisdiction than the Constitutions. Becket had no option but to fl ee abroad. While Becket lived in exile for six years, he garnered scant support from Alexander because the pope and Henry had their own disagreements to solve. Yet both Henry and Becket went to extremes to maintain their quarrel. The situation was exacerbated when Becket was murdered by four knights of Henry II in Canterbury cathedral, which astonished and repulsed Christians. 38 Becket, Thomas Henry, who was quite ill, had his son and heir, Henry the Younger, (1155–83) crowned as joint king by the archbishop of York in June 1170; this was a direct violation of customary practices. Becket threatened an interdict with Alexander’s support and then aggravated the situation by suspending and excommunicating the bishops who had partaken in the coronation. The irate Henry then uttered the phrase “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?” Four knights took this phrase literally, traveled to Canterbury, and murdered Becket on December 29, 1170. This event astonished and repulsed Christians everywhere. Becket was canonized three years later; his tomb became a well-visited shrine. In 1174 Henry was forced to offer penance publicly at Becket’s tomb. See also English common law. Further reading: Duggan, Alfred. L The Falcon and the Dove: A Life of Thomas Becket. New York: Pantheon Books, 1966; Knowles, D. “Archbishop Thomas Becket: a character study.” Proceedings of the British Academy XXXV (1949); Staunton, Michael. The Lives of Thomas Becket. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001. Annette Richardson


BedeEdit

(c. 673–735) historian and scholar A monk, teacher, historian, and biblical interpreter usually called “the Venerable,” Saint Bede was the most infl uential scholar from Anglo-Saxon England. At the age of seven, Bede was given as an oblate (child dedicated to religious life) to the monastery of Wearmouth, newly founded by Benedict Biscop. When Jarrow was founded in 682, Bede was transferred to this abbey and to Ceolfrith, its abbot. Bede was ordained a deacon at age 19 and a priest at 30. He never traveled beyond Northumbria (northeast England) and spent the remainder of his life at Jarrow reading, writing, teaching, and explicating Scripture. Bede was a prolifi c writer whose interests and expertise were wide-ranging. He wrote treatises on grammar, poetry, computation, and natural phenomena (for example, On Orthography, On Metrical Art, On Time, On the Nature of Things). Each of these works survives in many manuscript copies, suggesting the important role they played in the medieval liberal arts curriculum. Bede was also well known as an hagiographer (a biographer of saints’s lives), composing works on Saints Felix and Cuthbert as well as revising Jerome’s Martyrology. Yet Bede was perhaps most renowned in the medieval period for his commentaries on biblical books, which were based largely on the prior interpretive work of Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, Ambrose, and Gregory the Great. Bede composed commentaries on the Old Testament books of Genesis, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Ezra, Nehemiah, Isaiah, the 12 Minor Prophets, and Daniel. In the New Testament he commented formally on the Gospels of Mark and Luke, the Acts of the Apostles, the Catholic Epistles (James; 1 and 2 Peter; 1, 2 and 3 John; and Jude), and the Apocalypse (Revelation). Bede is best known as a historian, and is sometimes described as the “Father of English History.” His Ecclesiastical History of the English People, completed in 731, remains one of the great works of medieval historiography and the single most important source for our understanding of the religious history of early England. The Ecclesiastical History is also particularly noteworthy because it introduces anno Domini (abbreviated a.d., meaning “in the year of the Lord”) as a way of dating events in the Christian era. We know from the eyewitness account of one of his devoted students (the Letter of Cuthbert on the Death of Bede) that Bede continued to teach, write, and interpret Scripture until the end of his life. Cuthbert’s letter to Cuthwin, another of Bede’s disciples, relates that their teacher was producing an Old English translation of the Gospel of John when he died on May 26, 735. Bede was buried at Jarrow, the place of his death, but in the 11th century his relics (bones) were moved to Durham, where a conspicuous tomb in the cathedral still commemorates him. Within a century after his death Bede was honored with the title “Venerable,” and in 1899 Pope Leo XIII declared him a “Doctor of the Church” (a title given since the medieval period to certain Christian theologians of outstanding merit and remarkable saintliness). Bede’s feast day is celebrated on May 25 (formerly May 27). Further reading: Wormald, Patrick. The Times of Bede: Studies in Early English Christian Society and its Historian. Edited by Stephen Baxter. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006; Ward, Benedicta. The Venerable Bede. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse, 1990. Franklin T. Harkins

Benin Edit

Extending at its peak from the Niger River in the east to the port of Lagos on the western coast, Benin was a dynastic kingdom in what is now southern Nigeria, in the West African forested region. Present- day Benin City (called Ibinu; it was founded in 1180) was once where the kingdom was centered, and the modern Benin kings trace their lineage to its original dynasties. Early southern Nigeria had been inhabited since 9000 b.c.e., with the Iron Age beginning around the second Benin 39 century b.c.e. Ironworking appears to have displaced Neolithic techniques without an intermediate bronze period, suggesting that iron smelting was probably introduced by outsiders, perhaps the Berbers of early antiquity. There is little information about the fi rst millennium c.e. in the area, other than the prosperity and subsequent disappearance from the historical record of the Nok people in what is now northeastern Nigeria. The found ers of the Benin kingdom were the Bini (an ethnic subgroup of the Edo language group to which many modern inhabitants belong), but they or their ruling dynasties had a signifi - cant relationship to the Yoruba people of Ife. According to one version of the founding of Benin, people called for the Ife prince Oranmiyan to come to their aid and displace the tyrannical rule of the Ogisos dynasty, which founded the city of Ibinu and had ruled the area for the previous few centuries or more (36 Ogiso dynastic rulers are known). Another version omits the plea for help, painting Oranmiyan as a simple invader. At the time of the Ife incursion—whether it was invited or not—most of the power in Benin rested in the hands of the council of chiefs, the uzama. Beginning with Oranmiyan’s son Eweka (1180–1246), the uzama was presided over by the oba, a war leader who over time became a more powerful monarch with religious signifi cance. As the oba became paramount, the kingdom became an empire. Beginning with Ewuare (1440–73), the title of oba became a hereditary one, while Ibinu was rebuilt with military fortifi cations in order to protect the Benin center of power, as Ewuare’s forces expanded to conquer the lands surrounding them. The port of Lagos was established around this time, and diplomatic and trade relations began with Eu rope, beginning with the Portuguese. Early trade was primarily in ivory, pepper, and palm oil, before the slave trade became prominent. The kingdom of Benin is not related to the modernday Republic of Benin, except insofar as that nation took its name in 1975 from the Bight of Benin, the bay along which both entities are or were situated. Further reading: Diop, Cheikh Anta. Precolonial Black Africa. Chicago: Lawrence Hill Books, 1988; Isichei, Elizabeth. A History of African Societies to 1870. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997; Millar, Heather. The Kingdom of Benin in West Africa. New York: Benchmark Books, 1996. Bill Kte’pi

BerbersEdit

The Berbers are the earliest known inhabitants of northwestern Africa’s Mediterranean coast, plains, and mountain ranges. Living as nomadic herders or farmers in Morocco’s Atlas and Rif mountain ranges, Algeria, the Sahara Desert, east into Libya and Egypt, the exact ethnic and cultural origins of the Berbers is unknown, though their languages, called Tamazight, belongs to a family of Afro-Asiatic languages. In ancient times, Berber religions were polytheistic. Although ancient Berber history is sketchy because of the fact that there was no written form of their langu ages, references to them do exist in chronicles from ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome. Beginning around 600 b.c.e. some Berber regions of North Africa came under foreign occupation, fi rst by the mighty city-state of Carthage, and then by the Roman republic. Under Carthaginian and Roman rule, Berber merchants linked the Mediterranean coastal settlements with West Africa, trading in slaves, gold, and ivory. Under the Roman Empire, some Berbers residing on the Mediterranean coast became imperial citizens, though Berber communities living in the North African interior mountain ranges and other rural areas remained largely independent. After the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West, large sections of North Africa’s seacoast remained under the control of the Byzantine Empire of Asia Minor. After the rise of Islam in the fi rst half of the seventh century c.e. Arab Muslim expansion into North Africa began in earnest, beginning in 642 during the reign of the second al-Rashidun caliph, ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab. The new religion slowly spread among segments of the Berber tribes, replacing Byzantine Christianity, which many Berbers practiced in some form, and Judaism. Although many Berbers accepted the basic tenets of Islam, their method of practice generally remained unorthodox. This led to a growing level of tension between them and the Arab Umayyad Caliphate of Syria by the middle of the eighth century. A large number of Berbers joined the fundamentalist movement of the Kharijites, who opposed the Umayyads and preached that any qualifi ed Muslim could lead the community. Berber opposition to the centralized power of the caliphate continued after the collapse of the Umayyads in 750 by the Abbasid Revolution. The Fatimids, an Isma’ili Shi’i movement that arose in 969, received substantial Berber support in their takeover of Egypt and parts of North Africa from the Abbasid caliphs in Baghdad, Iraq. During the Fatimid dynasty, there is evidence that there was an attempt to instill Arab culture within Berber societies, which had largely retained their own cultural practices and languages. In 711 during the reign of the Umayyad Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik, the fi rst Muslim expeditions to the Iberian Peninsula were launched under the command of a Berber, Tariq ibn al-Ziyad, and other Berber Muslims. A mixed party of Arabs and Berbers under the Umayy- 40 Berbers ad commander Musa ibn Nusayr followed al-Ziyad’s landing the next year and Berber soldiers continued to play a major role in Muslim expansion throughout Iberia and southern France for centuries. The fi rst major Berber political-military state to emerge was the Almoravid Empire, which was founded in Mauritania and the Sahara around 1050 and practiced a more orthodox form of Sunni Islam. With the founding of their capital city, Marrakesh, in Morocco in 1062, Almoravid expansion continued under the joint rule of Yusuf ibn Tashfi n and his cousin, Abu Bakr. In 1086 Almoravid armies landed in Iberia, where Yusuf defeated Alfonso VI, the Christian king of Castile, which allowed the Berber empire to establish a fundamentalist Sunni Muslim state with control over much of southern Iberia, all of Morocco, and parts of West Africa. By 1150 another Berber movement, the Almohads, under ‘Abd al-Mu’min overthrew the Almoravids, taking over Morocco and southern Spain while expanding east across North Africa. Like their predecessors, the Almohads founded a fundamentalist and militaristic Sunni Muslim state, and Christians and Jews often faced imperial persecution. Unlike the Almoravids the Almohad Empire slowly broke apart into smaller states, and the last Almohad caliph, Idris II, ruled only the city of Marrakesh before his murder in 1269. Under the Almoravid and Almohad periods, the majority of the Berber tribes converted to Sunni Islam, following the Maliki School of Islamic jurisprudence. Although the Berbers continued to hold onto aspects of their culture and continued to speak Berber languages, many also adopted some Arab cultural practices. Berbers continue to live throughout present-day North Africa and form a large segment of the populations in Morocco and Algeria, with some tribes continuing to reside in Mauritania, Tunisia, and Mali. See also Abbasid dynasty; Muslim Spain; Umayyad dynasty. Further reading: Brett, Michael, and Elizabeth Fentress. The Berbers. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 1997; Hagopian, Elaine C. “Islam and Society-Formation in Morocco Past and Present.” Journal for the Scientifi c Study of Religion (Autumn 1963); Norris, H. T. The Berbers in Arabic Literature. New York: Longman, 1982; Rodd, Francis. “Kahena, Queen of the Berbers: A Sketch of the Arab Invasion of Ifrikiya in the First Century of the Hijra.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London (Winter 1925); Shatzmiller, Maya. The Berbers and the Islamic State: The Berbers 41 Berber cave dwellings and mosque on a hill in Chenini, Tunisia. Berbers continue to live in modern North Africa and form a large segment of the populations in Morocco and Algeria, with some tribes continuing to reside in Mauritania, Tunisia, and Mali. Marinid Experience in Pre-Protectorate Morocco. Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2000. Christopher Anzalone


Bernard of ClairvauxEdit

(1090–1153) religious leader Saint Bernard of Clairvaux was born in 1090 in Fontaine (now a suburb of Dijon in Burgundy, France) of noble parents: Tescelin, a relative of the lord of Châtillon, and Aleth, daughter of the lord of Montbard. His fi ve brothers trained for military careers, but Bernard had fragile health and enrolled in the religious institute of Saint-Vorles (at Châtillon) for instruction leading to an ecclesiastical profession. He studied there for 10 years. Hesitating about his future, he fi nally decided to embrace the monastic life. Even before he entered the monastery, he convinced many relatives and friends to join him in the preparation for religious calling. He entered the abbey of Cîteaux (close to Dijon) in 1113. The so-called New Monastery had been founded 15 years before by former Benedictine monks from Molesme, eager to follow the Rule of Saint Benedict more authentically. Cîteaux is the cradle of the Cistercian Order. Two years later the abbot sent Bernard to be the founding superior of a new monastery, Clairvaux, in the region of Champagne. It rapidly became economically and spiritually prosperous. Bernard’s zeal attracted many young people, and Clairvaux counted more than 60 foundations or affi liated religious communities at his death. This success disturbed some more conservative monks and involved Bernard in a controversy with the Benedictine abbey of Cluny. Advised by his close Benedictine friend and fi rst biographer William of Saint-Thierry, he wrote the Apology to defend the Cistercian reform. Renowned as a reformer, he was often invited by councils bishops to help carry out policies of ecclesial change within the church. Civil authorities even consulted Bernard to fi nd solutions that would bring peace and justice. In 1130, as the church faced a major crisis with the election of two popes, he was consulted about a way to reunite the church. Innocent II, the pope confi rmed instead of Anacletus II, then asked Bernard to accompany him throughout Europe and to consolidate the church by his skillful preaching. For eight years he served in this way. Meanwhile, he remained abbot of Clairvaux and kept on writing major spiritual works, especially his 86 Sermons on the Song of Songs. In the last period of his life he was involved in various ecclesial forays. He formally criticized the writings of the theologians Peter Abelard and Arnold of Brescia at the Council of Sens (1140), leading to their judicially questionable censure. He also participated in Gilbert de la Porée’s condemnation in 1141. He defended the church against heretics. He preached on the eve of the Second Crusade at Vézelay in 1146. In spite of his powerful spiritual message and appeal to inner conversion, the crusade was a total failure and left Bernard embittered. He died on August 20, 1153, and was recognized as a saint 21 years later. In 1830 he was declared a Doctor of the Church. Apart from his many treatises and sermons overfl owing with biblical references, more than 300 of his letters are extant. His spiritual infl uence has been constant and extensive, even touching the Protestant reformer Martin Luther (1483–1546). His message inspires many scholars and religious teachers to this day. See also crusades. Further reading: Bredero, Adrian H. Bernard of Clairvaux: Between Cult and History. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971; Evans, Gillian R. Bernard of Clairvaux. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Emmanuelle Cazabonne


bhakti movements (devotional Hinduism)Edit

The word bhakti is derived from a Sanskrit word for “sharing.” It was used to describe a new type of path to moksha (“liberation from the cycle of reincarnations”). Bhakti devotees (bhaktas) usually committed themselves to one of the Trimurti of Brahman (“the supreme spirit reality”). The three gods of the Trimurti are Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva, or in many cases bhaktas devoted themselves to some avatar, like Krishna, of the Trimurti in an emotional way. This emotional commitment marked the bhaktas as followers of bhaktimarga. Bhakti movements called people to ardent devotion to a god or goddess as a thankful expression of gratitude for benefi ts received. Or it could express the hope for aid to be received. Most commonly it took the form of a passionate love of the deity. As they developed the bhakti movements became the bhaktimarga, or one of the three Hindu paths (margas) for escaping from the 42 Bernard of Clairvaux wheel of reincarnation. The margas were “paths” or “roads” or “ways” for achieving the fi nal liberation of the soul from the karma-caused cycle of repeated reincarnations. The basic problem of human life was suffering. To escape the repeated cycles of reincarnation was the goal of life. Until the development of the bhaktimarga there were only the two paths of karmamarga (“religion of rituals and ethical deeds”) and the gyanamarga (jnanamarga, or “religion of the head through meditation”). The path of bhakti was the religious way of the heart, the way of loving devotion. The bhakti movements arose in South India among Tamil-speaking people at some time in the seventh to ninth centuries. It provides its devotees salvation through loving devotion to the ultimate deity. The Alvars (“one who had dived” or “one who is immersed”) were Tamilspeaking poets whose works promoted bhakti worship in South India. The Alvars are counted as 12 poets of the bhakti movement who lived in South India between 650 and 940. They promoted the worship of Vishnu using poetry as a vehicle for expressing a passionate love of the god. The object of the writing was to show how any bhakta could express deep devotion to the god as a path to the god’s or goddess’s heaven. The Alvas and other wandering singers of the times included people from all castes. They used the inclusion of outcasts to show the potential for universal salvation (universalism). Monotheistic challenges from Islam with its fi rm emphasis on the unity of God may have infl uenced bhakti movements in northern India. However, Hinduism, while not Vedic religion, takes its starting point from the Vedas, so bhakti scholars have found their roots in the Vedic worship of the Rig Veda god Veruna. Vedic knowledge was passed from guru to disciple through the centuries. This spiritual lineage is called sampradayas. Others see bhakti in portions of the Sanskrit texts the Ramayana or the Bhagavad Gita or in other portions of the Mahabharata. Still others see its origin in the Padma Purana. Bhakti worship tended toward monotheistic practice. Bhakti also suppressed the numerous iconographic expressions of the multiple expressions of the Brahma, which outsiders regarded as idolatry. Some bhakti movements were connected with Shiva, the god of sexuality, fertility, and destruction. Others are connected with Krishna worship. The defi ning characteristic of Tamil Bhakti was its expression of devotion in songs sung in vernacular languages. Singing in the languages of the common people was not only very egalitarian but also very emotional. Those who advanced in devotion became bhakti saints. Around them communities (satsang) of good people would gather. It was believed that the gathering together of goodness would overcome evil and would also have the power to transform lives. Bhakti movements combined songs (bhajan) with devotion. Two groups of singer-saints, the Alvars and the Nayanars, fl ourished in South India after the 600s. These two groups, the Alvars and the Nayanars, were devoted to promoting the worship of Shiva and the other the worship of Vishnu. At times the singing was chanting that continued for a very long period of time. Many of the bhajans contain elements of love expressed passionately and may be compared to the passionate love expressed in the Song of Solomon. Others are more explicitly sexual deriving their themes from the stories of Krishna cavorting with the gopis (cow girls) or Krishna as a divine lover. Some bhakti devotees have produced love poetry. For example, Jayadeva produced the Gitagovinda (Song of Govinda) in the 12th century. Women have been heavily involved in bhakti movements since the beginning, with some becoming poetesses. Other bhakti practices have included recitation of the name of the devotee’s God. During the medieval period the bhakti schools developed devotional practices based upon the emotions of relationships. These emotional expressions were interpreted as analogous of the relationship of the devotee with the god. Among these emotional expressions is that of a woman’s love for her beloved. A feature of the bhakti movements was the making of bhakti saints. For example, Purandaradas (c. 1540) was a great literary fi gure of the bhakti movement. He was revered as the father of Carnatic classical that is called Karnataka music of South India. His classifi cation of swaravali, jantivarase, alamkara, and lakshana factors are the standard today throughout South India. Most Hindus chose the Trimurti gods of Vishnu or Shiva. Few chose Brahma. Those who chose Vishnu or his avatars are called Vaishnavites. Among Vishnu’s avatars were Krishna, Rama, and Buddha. Consorts included Radha the beloved of Krishna, and Sita an incarnation of Lakshmi. In the Ramayana Sita and Rama are presented as the perfect couple. Their mutual devotion in love is offered as the example to follow. Bhaktas who follow Shiva are called Shaivites. They are devoted to the lord of the dance who in Kapalakundala’ hymn in Bhavabhuti’s Malatimadhava has Shiva engaged in a mad dance that destroys worlds, but also renews them. Shiva’s consorts include Parvati who is kind and gentle, Kali who spreads disease and death, and Durga who is a warrior goddess that seeks sacrifi ces, including human sacrifi ces. bhakti movements 43 Another form of bhakti is yoga bhakti. In yoga bhakti the yogin meditates in order to fi nd release into a meditative absorption with the deity. Many ascetics (sadhus) and yogins are devotees of Shiva because he is known as the great yogin. In the 16th century the famous saint Chaitanya (1486–1533) added devotional singing, chanting, and dancing in the streets. Along with his followers numerous Krishna temples were built. Chaitanya promoted Vishnu bhakti widely across northern India, particularly in Bengal. From this group came the International Society for Krishna Consciousness that is popularly known as the Hare Krishnas. See also Hindu epic literature. Further reading: Chaitanya, Narendra Nath Bhattacharyya. Medieval Bhakti Movements in India: Sri Caitanya Quincentenary Commemoration Volume. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1989; Hardy, Friedhelm. Viraha Bhakti: The Early Development of Krsna Devotion in South India. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981; Lele, Jayant. Tradition and Modernity in Bhakti Movements. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981; Narayanan, Vasudha. The Way and the Goal: Expressions of Devotion in the Early Sri Vaisnava Community. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Vaishnava Studies, 1987; Pande, Susmita. Medieval Bhakti Movement, Its History and Philosophy. Meerut, India: Kusumanjali Prakashan, 1989; Rao, R. R. Sundara. Bhakti Theology in the Telugu Hymnal. Madras: Christian Literature Society, 1983; Shobha, Savitri Chandra. Medieval India and Hindi Bhakti Poetry: A Socio- Cultural Study. New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications, 1996; Zelliot, Eleanor. “The Medieval Bhakti Movement in History: An Essay on the Literature in English.” In Hinduism: New Essays in the History of Religion. Ed. by Bardwell L. Smith. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1976. Andrew J. Waskey


Black DeathEdit

The Black Death (Black Plague, The Plague, Bubonic Plague) was so named because the skin on many of its victims turned black, a result of massive blood clots. Although there have been many plagues throughout history, the three most associated with the term Black Plague are pandemics (epidemics that affect huge geographic areas) that occurred in Byzantium during the sixth century b.c.e., throughout Europe and the British Isles during the 14th century, and in 1894 in Asia. The fi rst outbreak in 540 c.e., often referred to as the Plague of Justinian, began in Egypt, according to Procopius. The disease spread from the coasts to inland areas, killing thousands of people each day. Allegedly, corpses were put on ships and sent out to sea to be abandoned. The power shift from south to north and from the Mediterranean to the British Isles is attributed to this devastation. It was the second pandemic—a series of outbreaks that escalated from an early episode in 1331 to the disastrous events in 1346—that is most frequently referred to as the Black Death. In 1346 a Mongol prince and his armies attempted to lay siege to Caffa, in the Crimea. However, the soldiers were stricken with this dreadful disease and withdrew, but not before catapulting infected corpses over the city wall. The Christian defenders, who thought they were now safe from attack, left to return home but perished from the plague. The few who reached home spread the disease throughout Europe and as far north as Greenland. Within a year 80 percent of Marseille had died. According to various sources, the death rate varied from 12 to 50 percent. It is estimated that in Europe 20–25 million, and throughout the world 42 million people died. There are three forms or types of the disease: bubonic, pneumonic, and septicemic. The most dramatic is the septicemic version. Immense numbers of bacteria cause DIC (disseminated intravascular coagulation), a condition where there is so much debris in the bloodstream, the blood hemorrhages under the skin and the affl icted person’s body, or parts of it, becomes black. These victims died almost immediately, within one to three days after they showed symptoms of the disease. Giovanni Boccaccio (1313–75), the author of the Decameron, a bawdy collection of stories that were told by Italian travelers trying to escape the plague in Florence, wrote, “They generally died the third day after the appearance without fever.” In the bubonic form of the disease, victims were stricken with a headache, nausea, achy joints, high fevers, vomiting, and a general feeling of malaise. It took from one day to one week for the patient to exhibit the characteristic symptoms after being exposed. The most painful symptom was swelling of the lymph glands in the armpit, groin, and neck. These enlargements would become buboes, painful abscesses; skin infections fi lled with pus. When the bubo broke and drained, the purulent material inside was infectious and therefore spread to whomever touched the patient or the anything the patient’s clothing, bedding, or items that he handled. Boccaccio wrote, “. . . in men and women alike there appeared, at the beginning of the malady, certain swellings, either on the groin or under the armpits, whereof some waxed of the bigness 44 Black Death of a common apple, others like unto an egg, some more and some less, and these the vulgar named plagueboils . . . to appear and come indifferently in every part of the body; wherefrom, after awhile, the fashion of the contagion began to change into black or livid blotches, which showed themselves in many, first on the arms and about the thighs and after spread to every other part of the person . . . a very certain token of coming death . . .” Patients with the bubonic form spread the pneumonic form via fine droplets from a cough or sneeze. Although it was less lethal than the septicemic version, victims suffered from painful coughing episodes and eventually they coughed so much that the lining of their lungs became irritated and they coughed up blood. People were so fearful of catching the plague that they abandoned their own family members, friends, homes, and public spaces in order to escape contact with anyone stricken with the disease. Doctors who were still willing to treat patients donned hoods with masks, beaks and hats in order to avoid breathing the air around a plague victim. They had no way of understanding the natural history or cause of this disease. They blamed an unlucky conjunction of astrological influences, such as Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, and poison from the tails of comets, or blamed Jews for allegedly poisoned the wells. But even after the wells had been sealed, people continued to get the plague. Some of the treatments such as cupping, purging and bleeding, although acceptable in the 14th century, did more harm than good and weakened anyone who remained alive after such insults to their feeble bodies. Amazingly some people survived and because of their illness, developed antibodies that provided immunity against a future attack. the spread of the Black Plague This second pandemic was facilitated by a number of factors. Populations had reached such high numbers in Europe that there was not enough food to feed everyone. Consequently those who could not afford the rising cost of food lacked adequate nutrition, and became easy targets for any new threat to health. There were trade routes connecting urban centers and increased travel in the form of caravans. Returning crusaders were spreading Christianity and, at the same time, the plague. The causative organism Pasturella pestis (now called Yersinia pestis) was already present in the burrowing rodents of the Manchurian-Mongolian steppes but did not create a plague until the black rat (Rattus rattus) spread to Europe with a specific kind of flea. Rattus rattus originated in Asia but reached Europe during the early Middle Ages. They thrived in environments where people lived, near water, and traveled by ship. The black rat’s flea Xenophylla cheopsis would bite the rat, but instead of being satisfied with its blood meal, its digestive tract would get plugged with plague bacteria, thus creating a constant hunger. It would voraciously bite anything in its path, including humans. When it found a human host, it spread the disease through repeated bites. Europe had eradicated both the opportunity and the infection, but Asia suffered acutely. In the early 1890s an epidemic broke out in southern China, then in the city of Guangzhou in January of 1894, where 100,000 were reported dead. By May it had spread to the Tai Ping Shan area of Hong Kong. As in any epidemic high population density, poor hygiene, inadequate health education, and the government’s inability to maintain a decent water supply and sewer treatment facility added to the poor defenses of the population. That year, 2,552 people died. Trade was affected and many Chinese left the colony. Plague continued to be a problem in Asia for the next 30 years. The causative organism of the plague was not isolated and described until the third pandemic in 1894. Shibasaburo Kitasato and Alexandre Yersin simultaneously discovered the bacteria responsible for the plague, soon after they arrived in Hong Kong to assist in the eradication of the plague there. Originally named Pasturella pestis, the organism responsible for causing the Black Death was renamed Yersinia pestis after it was reclassified into a different genus on the basis of its similarities to other Enterobacteriaceae species. See also Crusades; medieval Europe: sciences and medicine. Further reading: Bibel, D. J., and T. H. Chen. “Diagnosis of Plague: An Analysis of the Yersin-Kitasato Controversy.” Bacteriological Review 40, 3 (1976); Hawthorne, J., et al. Literature of All Nations. Chicago, IL: E.R. DuMont, 1900; Gutman, Laura T. “Yersinia.” In W. Joklik, et al., eds. Zinsser Microbiology. Norwalk, VA: Appleton & Lange, 1992; McNeil, William. Plagues and Peoples. Garden City, NJ: William Hardy McNeill, 1976. Lana Thompson

Blanche of CastileEdit

(1185–1252) French queen Blanche was born in Palencia, present-day Spain, the third daughter of Alfonso VIII, the king of Castile, and Eleanor, daughter of English king Henry II and Blanche of Castile 45 Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine. She married Louis VIII (1187–1226) of France, the son of Philip II (1165– 1223) of France, on May 23, 1200 at Portmouth, in English territory, as part of a treaty between Philip and King John of England (1167–1216). The aging Queen Eleanor (1122–1204), her maternal grandmother, personally escorted the vivacious Blanche to France. John granted to Blanche as fi efs Gracay and Issoudun, as well as some English Crown lands. Blanche and Louis had 12 children over an 18-year period, but six children died. Their son Louis IX (1214–70) was the heir to the French throne and was later canonized as Saint Louis because of his pious and kind-hearted nature. While waiting for the French crown, Louis claimed the English crown in Blanche’s name and she offered him her avid support, although Philip dissented. Blanche worked tirelessly and organized the invasion from Calais. Louis’s invasion of England was initially well received by the barons, but he later received only scant support from the other inhabitants. It was also unsuccessful because King John died, and after 18 months the novelty wore off and most people offered allegiance to young King Henry III (1206–72). The Treaty of Lambeth ended Louis’s English adventure. Louis was crowned on July 14, 1223. He became ill with dysentery upon his return to Paris from the Albigensian Crusade that he had quelled and died at Montpensier on November 8, 1226. Blanche was left to act as regent for 12-year-old Louis, and she served as legal guardian of the other children. Seeing an opportunity, the barons and the counts of Champagne, Brittany, and LaMarche (to name a few) revolted against Blanche’s somewhat suppressive hand, secretly aided by Henry. With astounding capability Blanche broke up the league of barons. She also repeatedly repelled assaults by Henry III, who fought to have lands obtained by Philip returned to England. Blanche forced Robert de Sorbon (1201–74), founder of the University of Paris, to accept her authority. Blanche also extended French territory by adding the area of the Midi to the Crown lands, and made benefi cial alliances. Upon Louis’s service on the Seventh Crusade, Blanche served as regent from 1248 until 1250, when she served as co-regent with her son Alphonse until 1252. Blanche helped raise the exorbitant ransom for Louis’s release from prison in the Holy Land. Her infl uence on Louis remained strong until her death. Blanche’s health failed on November 1252 at Melun. She was moved to Paris but died soon thereafter and was buried at Maubuisson. Blanche is remembered as one of the most capable rulers of the Middle Ages. Saint Louis, known in history as the best of France’s medieval monarchs, was aided during his reign by Blanche’s advice and determination. See also Crusades. Further reading: Berger, Elie. Histoire de Blanche de Castile: reine de France. Paris: Thorin, 1895; Brion, Marcel. Blanche de Castile. Paris: Éditions de France, 1939; Pernoud, Regine. Blanche of Castile. New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1975. Annette Richardson


Boccaccio, GiovanniEdit

(1313–1375) Italian humanist and author Boccaccio is the most recent of the three “great minds” of 14th-century Italian humanism, after Dante Alighieri and Petrarch. He was a poet, a scientist, and, most important, a creator of the early modern short story genre. Boccaccio’s ancestors were peasants, but his father became a wealthy merchant in Florence not long before his son’s birth. Boccaccio’s mother is unknown. Some reports suggest the writer’s birthplace was Paris, but most historians agree that it was either Florence or Certaldo (Tuscany). Born illegitimately, Boccaccio was nevertheless offi cially recognized by his father, who was reported to have been a crude and ill-mannered man. Wishing Giovanni to enter business, his father sent him to Naples to learn the profession. Soon, however, it became evident that the boy had no aspiration to follow in his father’s footsteps and greatly disliked mercantile business. He was then ordered to study canon law, but this discipline was equally incompatible with Boccaccio’s demeanor, which was better suited to the vocation of poetry and letters. His father’s money and position gave Boccaccio access to Naples’s high society and introduced him into the literary-scientifi c circle gathered around King Robert of Anjou. Naples of the fi rst half of the 14th century was one of the largest cultural centers of western Europe, and Boccaccio’s affi liation with it, as well as his love affair with the king’s daughter Fiammetta, greatly stimulated the young man’s literary and poetic talent. During this fi rst Neapolitan period of creativity, Boccaccio wrote numerous poems eulogizing Fiammetta, then produced the novel Filocolo (1336–39) and two lengthy poems, Filostrato and Teseida (both fi nished in 1340). Today almost forgotten, these works were widely read by Boccaccio’s contemporaries and played an 46 Boccaccio, Giovanni important role in the development of Italian literature. In 1333–34 Boccaccio was first exposed to the poetry of Petrarch, whose verses began to reach Naples. After having heard Petrarch’s sonnets for the first time, Boccaccio went home and burned all his youthful works, disgusted with his own “petty” attempts at verse composition. In 1340 two major Florentine banks collapsed, and Boccaccio’s father lost almost all his savings; the young poet returned to Florence to assist his suddenly poor family. The Black Death of 1348, which took the lives of his father, stepmother, and numerous friends, crashed Boccaccio emotionally and took what was left of his family’s money. In spite (or maybe because of) these disasters, the Florentine period was especially productive for Boccaccio. In Florence he created his most important works: Comedia Ninfe (1341–42), also known as the Commedia delle ninfe fiorentine (dedicated to Niccolò di Bartolo Del Buono); the first draft of De vita et moribus domini Francisci Petracchi; the first version of the Amorosa visione (1342–43); Elegia di Madonna Fiammetta (1343–44); Ninfale fiesolano (1344–45); and, finally, the Decameron (1349–51), Boccaccio’s most mature masterpiece of witty satire that greatly influenced further development of Italian literature. From the 1350s Boccaccio fell increasingly under the influence of Petrarch and began to write more in Latin and more on religious, devotional, and philosophical subjects. His last years were dedicated to Dante, whose works he studied and conducted a series of lectures on the Divine Comedy. Italian humanism is greatly indebted to the author of the Decameron. Boccaccio died on December 21, 1375 in Certaldo. See also Florentine Neoplatonism; Italian Renaissance. Further reading: Bartlett, Kenneth R. The Civilization of the Italian Renaissance: A Sourcebook. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1992; Bernardo, Aldo S.,“The Plague as Key to Meaning in Boccaccio’s Decameron.” In Daniel Williman, ed. The Black Death. Binghamton, NY: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, 1982. Victoria Duroff


BohemiaEdit

Bohemia was a kingdom in central Europe, a vassal from the 10th century and later an electorate of the Holy Roman Empire. The earliest known historical inhabitants of the country were the Boii, a Celtic tribe, from whom Bohemia derives its name. By the first century Slavic tribes, including the Czechs, arrived, becoming predominant in the region from the sixth century. The only early Slavic rulers known by name are Samo, who defeated the neighboring Avars and Franks and established the first strong Slavic kingdom in Bohemia in the early seventh century, and the semimythical Krok, whose daughter Libusa, according to legend, married a plowman named Prˇemysl, founding the Prˇemyslid dynasty. In the ninth century the still-pagan Bohemians were subject to increasing political and religious pressure from the Christianized Franks active in southwest Germany. Resistant to the missionary efforts of the German bishoprics, the Bohemians were more receptive to the Christian message delivered through Moravia by the Greek monks Cyril and Methodios. In 873 Methodios baptized the Bohemian duke Borˇioj, leading to the rapid conversion of the Bohemians to Christianity. Continued disagreement in the Bohemian court about the degree of German influence led to the murder of Duke Václav (St. Wenceslas) by his brother Bolesław I in 935. Under Bolesław I and his son, Bolesław II, Bohemian rule expanded to include Moravia, Silesia, and part of southeastern Poland. The establishment of the bishopric of Prague secured ecclesiastical independence. At Bolesław II’s death, the kingdom was split by civil war among his sons Bolesław III, Jaromir, and Ulrich and lost territory to Bolesław I (the Brave) of Poland. In 1003–04, with Bohemian support, the Polish king briefly established his brother Vladivoj in Prague and consented to his vassalage to the German emperor as duke of Bohemia. This arrangement continued after Vladivoj’s death, though Prˇemyslid rule of Bohemia was restored. Under Brˇetislav I (1037–55), Bohemia recovered Moravia and Silesia, and the Bohemian nobles accepted hereditary rule in the Prˇemyslid dynasty. Brˇetislav’s son Vratislav supported Henry IV in the investiture struggle with Pope Gregory VII, obtaining recognition as king of Bohemia in return (1086). Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa made the title hereditary in 1156 as a condition for Vladislav (Ladislaus) II’s participation in his Italian campaigns. Vladislav II’s abdication in 1173 was followed by an extended struggle for the crown. In this conflict, the nobles gained power at the expense of the contesting royal candidates, who were obliged to extend new privileges in exchange for continued support. German influence, too, increased in the absence of a strong and independent Bohemian monarch. In 1197 Otokar I defeated his rivals and emerged as the unchallenged ruler, reestablishing the sovereignty of the Bohemian king. Bohemia 47 The medieval kingdom of Bohemia reached a height of power under Prˇemysl Otokar II. Otokar II’s rule began with a brief struggle against his father, Václav I, followed by a reconciliation and orderly succession. During his reign he sought to reduce the infl uence of the nobles by encouraging the immigration of German settlers to towns to which he gave legal privileges. Otokar II also extended Bohemian rule over much of central Europe, through possession of the Austrian archduchies and the counties of Carinthia, Istria, and Styria. In 1260 he defeated Hungarian King Béla IV, his most serious rival. Otokar faced a stronger enemy in the fi rst Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor, Rudolph I, who reclaimed for the empire most of Otokar’s possessions outside Bohemia. At Dürnkrut in 1278 Rudolph’s army defeated the Bohemian and Moravian forces; Otokar II was killed in the battle, leaving the kingdom to his seven-year-old son, Václav II. After a troubled regency during which the nobles again asserted their independence from the central authority of the crown, Václav II assumed personal rule in 1290. Under his rule, order was restored in the countryside and Bohemia regained a measure of its earlier power, subjugating Poland and intervening in the succession struggle that followed the death of András III of Hungary. Václav II died in 1305 while preparing for war with Archduke Albrecht of Austria (later Holy Roman Emperor), and his son Václav III was assassinated the following year, ending the Prˇemyslid dynasty. A brief succession of royal candidates followed, with the Bohemian estates insisting on their right to elect the king, over the objections of Emperor Al brecht who declared the throne vacant and awarded the crown to his son Rudolf. The new king died within the year, followed by his father, but the Bohemian candidate, Duke Henry of Carinthia, proved to be unpopular and after a short reign was deposed by the estates in 1310. His replacement was John of Luxemburg, the husband of Václav II’s daughter Elizabeth and the son of the new emperor, Henry VII. John spent little time in the kingdom during his long reign, preferring to involve himself in wars throughout western Europe. In his absence, the power of the wealthiest nobles and the church increased, leading to frequent feuds among the Bohemian nobles and towns. In 1346, aged and blind, John died fi ghting for France in the Battle of Crécy. His son, Emperor Charles IV, succeeded him. Unlike his father, Charles devoted considerable attention to his Bohemian possessions, making Prague his chief residence. He founded the University of Prague and built the landmark bridge across the Vltava River, both of which bear his name. Charles’s extended presence in the country restored order, though the king was ultimately unsuccessful in reforming the kingdom’s laws in the face of powerful resistance by the nobility. He rejected his father’s support of France and opened closer relations with England, leading to scholarly exchanges between Prague and Cambridge. Charles promoted the early activities of religious reformers, including the popular preacher Ján Milíc of Kromeríž, laying the groundwork for subsequent theological debate. The reign of Charles’s son Václav IV was marked by a gradual decline in the authority of the crown and increasing tensions between the church and nobles on the one hand and religious reformers, lesser nobility, and townsmen on the other. Václav’s weak efforts to retain his authority provoked further disputes, leading to the formation of a baronial party led by his cousin Jobst of Moravia. The barons twice captured the king and forced him to renounce his centralizing policies, which he quickly restored under pressure from the towns and gentry. Relations with the church were threatened by the execution of John of Nepomuk, the vicar of the archbishop of Prague, and Václav’s support for religious reformers led by John Huss, a master of theology at the University of Prague. Huss and his colleagues and followers condemned the immorality of the clergy and the worldliness of the church authorities. Called by the church to recant certain of his teachings, Huss refused and was brought before the Council of Constance under a safe passage granted by Václav’s brother, Emperor Sigismund. The trial and execution of Huss by the council in 1415 provoked popular unrest in the kingdom In July 1419 a public procession of Huss’s adherents in Prague led to a riot in which the magistrates of the new town were thrown from the windows of the town hall (the Defenestration of Prague). Václav died soon after, and Sigismund claimed the crown, leading a crusade against the Hussites in 1420. Sigismund failed in this and in a second attempt in 1422. In subsequent crusades the Hussites easily defeated their enemies and even took the offensive, launching raids into Hungary and neighboring German states. Convinced of the impossibility of conquering Bohemia by force, Sigismund agreed to negotiations with the Hussites at the Council of Basel in 1431. A split within the Hussite movement between moderates and radicals ended in 1434 with the victory of the moderate party at the Battle of Lipany. This opened the path to a settlement with Sigismund and the church, by which the emperor was recognized by the Hussites as king of Bohemia. Hussites were granted 48 Bohemia religious concessions by the council in return, ending the Hussite wars. Sigismund died in 1437, ending the reign of the Luxemburg dynasty in Bohemia. See also Frankish tribe; Habsburg dynasty. Further reading: Agnew, Hugh. The Czechs and the Lands of the Bohemian Crown. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004; Kaminsky, Howard. A History of the Hussite Revolution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967; Teich, Mikuláš, ed. Bohemia in History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Brian A. Hodson


BonifaceEdit

(c. 675–754) missionary Known as the Apostle of the Germans, Saint Boniface was educated in England under the infl uence of Benedictine monasteries in the late seventh century. He could have followed in the steps of the Venerable Bede, so polished was his Latin, but the monks instilled in him a zeal for spreading the Christian faith to the European continent, in the throes of the Dark Ages. He, along with many Anglo-Saxon and Irish missionaries, brought back to Europe a semblance of religion, education, and culture before the emergence of Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire. His missionary career had three phases, punctuated by visits to Rome for consultation and patronage. First, the pope delegated him for work over a broad area, and he targeted Frisia, Hesse, and Thuringia (719–735). Second, he received a special papal commission to penetrate Germany, and he concentrated on Bavaria for establishing monasteries (738–742). Third, he settled in the western part of the Frankish territory (742–747), where he organized the church and encouraged accountability and training for its leaders. As an old man, he retired from his offi cial duties and pioneered again as a simple missionary to Frisia on the German coast of the North Sea. Here he encountered fi erce opposition from the natives, who martyred him along with 53 of his companions in 754. Early on in his career (722) he gained advantages for his missionary program because of Charles Martel and his line. He had won their guarantees for safety during a time of constant invasion and terrorism by marauding tribes. In his initial work in Frisia legend has it that he cut down the sacred oak tree of Thor, and when no adverse reaction occurred, the locals fl ocked to him. One of his most famous monasteries was the Abbey of Fulda, founded to consolidate the gains he had made in Bavaria. Fulda was put directly under the pope, and for centuries it was the center of German religious and intellectual life. Here Boniface’s body was transported and buried. It is the site for the German Conference of Catholic Bishops. Boniface epitomizes the return of civilization to Europe in several respects. First, he represents centralized discipline and accountability by his emphasis on unity with the Roman pontiff. It must be remembered that the people had long since seen the demise of the Roman Empire, and there was as yet no overarching political structure to unite the disparate towns and regions. Second, he represents culture by his embracing the Benedictine ideals of literacy and art in all of his monasteries. Again, the classical notion of the “good life” had been defunct for many generations, and the output of literary compositions and visual art had diminished considerably. Third, he believed that all of his clergy must be educated. Boniface had to drive out rustic church leaders so that the Continental church could cooperate with his bishops and pope. In addition he set up institutions for women, who throughout this period had been denied the privileges of men, and he made education available. In his home country of England, it was the custom to train convent leaders (abbesses) to appreciate books and music and art so that they could run their own communities of women. This practice spilled over into Boniface’s mission land of Germany. See also Frankish tribe. Further reading: Barraclough, Geoffrey. The Medieval Papacy. History of European Civilization Library. Norwich, England: Jarrold and Sons, 1968; Emerton, Ephraim, trans. The Letters of St. Boniface. New York: Columbia University Press, 2000. Mark F. Whitters


BorobudurEdit

Borobudur, the largest Buddhist monument in the world, is located in central Java. Surrounded by fertile rice fi elds and coconut plantations, the Buddhist stupa is located on a small hill above Kedu Plain. It was built in 760 to resemble a mountain and was completed in 830. Borobudur is associated with two Buddhist powers—the Sanjaya rulers and the Sailendra Borobudur 49 dynasty—which displaced the Sanjayas in 780, though the latter regained power in 850. The monument is made from more than a million blocks of stone, each weighing about 100 kilograms. These stones were arduously carried up a hill from a nearby riverbed. These blocks of stone were then cut and carved by skilled Javanese craftsmen to form rich artistic depictions of stories familiar to Buddhist pilgrims. These bas-relief panels relate ancient fables, fairytales, and the life of Buddha. The panel reliefs were based on earlier Tantric designs. The complex meaning of Borobudur is found in deciphering the architecture and the reliefs carved into stone. Borobudur yields multiple layers of meaning rather than one single concept, although the skilful builders managed to combine different elements into a harmonious whole. The impressive structure was built in the Maha yana tradition of Buddhism, which focuses on the personal, solitary, ascetic journey to achieve Nirvana. Ancient pilgrims made their way up the stupa to attain spiritual merit. Borobudur has a simple structure, consisting of a series of concentric terraces. An aerial view reveals that the Borobudur temple is actually a large mandala, often employed to initiate Buddhists into higher levels of consciousness and spiritual power. As Buddhist pilgrims progress upwards, they are moving through increasingly higher planes of consciousness, with the aim of ultimately attaining Nirvana. In order to achieve enlightenment, pilgrims had to make 10 rounds in the monument. At the summit, there is a large stupa surrounded by 72 smaller stupas. Built to visually stimulate, Borobudur enables pilgrims to forget the outside world, as the visitor walks through enclosed galleries. On the round terraces the pilgrim witnesses a view of surrounding green fi elds, feeling a sense of elation symbolizing enlightenment, the ultimate aim of such a pilgrimage. The awesome structure of Borobudur provides Buddhist pilgrims with physical space to achieve spiritual enlightenment as they pass through 10 stages of development. It was a place to achieve the practical end of becoming a bodhisattva, an exalted being who is actively seeking enlightenment. Further reading: Demarcay, Jacques. Borobudur. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985; Forman, Bedrich. Borobudur: The Buddhist Legend in Stone. London: Octopus, 1980; Miksic, John. The Mysteries of Borobudur. Berkeley, CA: Periplus, 1999; Miksic, John. Golden Tales of the Buddha. Berkeley, CA: Periplus, 1990. Nurfadzilah Yahaya


BrahmaEdit

Brahma is one of the three major gods of the Hindu religion, together with Shiva and Vishnu. Worship of Brahma began in the Vedic Age of Indian history and its importance was gradually outweighed by the worship of Shiva and Vishnu over time. Brahma the god should be distinguished from Brahman the embodiment of the universal spirit—the two words derive from a common source, but have been attached to separate concepts subsequently. Temples dedicated to either Shiva or Vishnu must contain a representation of Brahma, but temples specifi cally dedicated to him are rare, with only two still active in modern India. He is often remembered in rites for other deities. Brahma is the creator god of the Hindu Trimurti (a triune of gods). He is commonly identifi ed with the Vedic deity Prajapati, and the two share similar features. Brahma is most commonly represented with four faces and arms. Each face speaks one of the four Vedas, which are the most sacred of the Indian scriptures and is further redolent of the four ages of the world and the four classes in Indian society. His consort Saraswati, a female deity associated with learning, frequently accompanies him. His mount is a swan, which represents a spirit of discrimination and of justice. Brahma is also considered the lord of sacrifi ces and, by reference to the Puranas, to have been self-creating; without parents. The Vedic deity Prajapati had become identifi ed as the lord of creation and all of the creatures within it, through the performance of ascetic rites and feats known as tapas. The worship of Brahma eventually saw that god supersede the role of Prajapati, who became identifi ed with a series of 10 children born from the mind of Brahma. Brahma is represented in the great Sanskrit epics of Indian literature, although his role in intervening within the realms of humanity or the gods is limited. Once he created something, Brahma tended to permit the preservative force of Vishnu and the destructive force of Shiva to take the foreground. Modern scientists have used this conception as a metaphor for the nature of the universe, which exists according to particle physics in a form of stasis in which creative and destructive forces contend. See also Hindu epic literature. Further reading: Bailey, Greg M. The Mythology of Brahma. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983; Daniélou, Alain. The Myths and Gods of India. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 1991. John Walsh 50 Brahma


Brunelleschi, FilippoEdit

(1377–1446) architect Born the son of a lawyer in Florence in 1377, Filippo Brunelleschi rejected his father’s choice of a law career and trained as a goldsmith and sculptor. After six years of his apprenticeship he passed the exam and offi cially became a master in the goldsmith’s guild. During his apprenticeship, he was a student of Polo Pozzo Toscandli, a merchant and medical doctor, who taught him the principles of mathematics and geometry and how to use the latest technology. Goldsmithing gave him the opportunity to work with clocks, wheels, gears, and weights, a skill that would come in handy for an architect destined to design his innovative dome of the cathedral in Florence. In 1401–02, he entered a competition for the design of the new Florence Baptistery doors, but he was defeated by another goldsmith and sculptor, Lorenzo Ghiberti. This failure led him to architecture in addition to his artistic career. In 1418 he entered another competition to design the dome of the Cathedral Maria del Fiore, (also known as the Duomo), in Florence. His design for the octagonal ribbed dome, not fi nished until 1434, is the work for which he is best known and one of his most important contributions to architecture and construction engineering. Brunelleschi designed special hoisting machines to raise the huge wood and stone elements into place. He solved the problem of constructing a huge cupola (dome) without a supporting framework and invented a beltlike reinforcement of iron and sandstone chains to stabilize the outward thrusts at the base of the great dome. His innovative brick-laying techniques were refi ned in response to the requirements of the steep angles of the vaulting in the dome. It remains the largest masonry dome in the world. In 1430 and again in 1432 Brunelleschi visited Rome with his friend, Donatello, where he became interested in Roman engineering, especially the use of vaulting and proportion. Infl uenced by Roman architecture, he used ancient principles in his projects, using Corinthian columns, geometrical balance, and symmetrical order. Brunelleschi’s oeuvre includes the Ospedale degli Innocenti (Foundling Hospital, 1419–45), the reconstruction of San Lorenzo (1421–60), the Medici Chapel in San Lorenzo (1421), the New Sacristy at San Lorenzo (now known as the Old Sacristy; 1428), the Pazzi Chapel in the Cloisters of Santa Croce (1430), and Santo Spirito (1436). These works renewed the appearance of Florence. His architectural works in other cities include the Ponte a Mare at Pisa, Palazzo di Parte Guelfa (1425), the unfi nished Rotonda degli Angeli (1434), and the Pitti Palace (commissioned by Luca Pitti in 1440 when Brunelleschi was 60 years old) in Rome. Brunelleschi’s design for the Ospedale degli Innocenti is mathematically based on repeated squares, and by a series of arches supported on columns—a motif later widely borrowed by renaissance architects. Brunelleschi often used the simplest materials: local gray stone (pietra serena) and whitewashed plaster. The sober, muted colors give an air of peaceful tranquility to the walls of Brunelleschi’s buildings. Brunelleschi reintroduced the pendentive dome (developed long before by the Byzantines) in the Old Sacristy. The arched colonnade from the Ospedale degli Innocenti is again repeated inside the Church of San Lorenzo. After his death in 1446, Brunelleschi was buried in Santa Maria del Fiore in a tomb that, though it lay unrecognized for centuries, was identifi ed in 1972. There is also a commemorative statue of the architect in the Piazza del Duomo, facing the cathedral. He was a well-known and widely respected designer during his lifetime, and his fame continued long after his death. See also Italian Renaissance. Further reading: Argan, G. C. “The Architecture of Brunelleschi and the Origins of Perspective Theory in the Fifteenth Century.” J. Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 9 (1946); Battisti, Eugenio. Filippo Brunelleschi. Milan: Electa, 1976; Cable, Carole. Brunelleschi and His Perspective Panels. Monticello, IL: Vance Bibliographies, 1981; Hyman, Isabelle. Brunelleschi in Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974; King, Ross. Brunelleschi’s Dome: How a Renaissance Genius Reinvented Architecture. New York: Penguin, 2001; Prager, Frank D., and Gustina Scaglia. Brunelleschi: Studies of His Technology And Inventions. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1970; Saalman, Howard. Filippo Brunelleschi: The Buildings. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. Mohammad Gharipour and Marietta Monaghan


Bruni, LeonardoEdit

(1370–1444) Italian humanist Leonardo Bruni was one of the foremost humanists of the early 15th century in Italy. He dedicated himself to a career of studying and writing about classical Greek and Roman culture and drawing lessons from the era of the Roman republic that he felt could be applied to Bruni, Leonardo 51 the circumstances of his adopted city of Florence in the early 15th century. His translations of numerous classical Greek works made many of these available for the fi rst time in Europe and helped to bring attention to several classical Greek authors whose writings had been lost during the Middle Ages. Because of his skills as an orator and his knowledge of Latin, Bruni twice served as chancellor of the Florentine republic (in 1410 and again from 1427–44) and also served as apostolic secretary for four different popes. Born in Arezzo, not far from Florence, Bruni moved to the latter city at an early age, where he initially began studying rhetoric and law. However, he soon came under the infl uence of the Florentine humanist Coluccio Salutati (1331–1406) who represented the fi rst generation of Florentine humanists who strove to renew the study of the Roman poets and historians and who polished their rhetorical skills by studying classical oratory. From Salutati, who served as an early apologist for the liberty and freedom of the Florentine republic, Bruni received his lifelong belief that humanism, with its emphasis upon rhetoric and classical learning, should serve the state. He, probably more than any other humanist in the Italian Renaissance, embodied the idea of “civic humanism.” In 1397 the Greek scholar Manuel Crisoloras took up residence in Florence and began teaching Greek there. He quickly attracted a group of young humanists around him, eager to learn the language, and Bruni was among them. Bruni subsequently made excellent use of his command of the Greek language, translating a number of the works of Aristotle, Plato, Plutarch, and Demosthenes into Latin. One of Bruni’s most original and infl uential writings was his Laudatio fl orentiae urbis (Panegyric to the City of Florence, 1401–06), in which he attempted to refute the long-held notion that Florence had been founded by Julius Caesar. A strong backer of an independent republic of Florence, Bruni felt that it ill suited the city to tie its founding to a man he considered a tyrant and destroyer of the Roman republic. Basing his arguments upon the recently discovered manuscript of Tacitus’s Historiae and the writings of Sallust and Cicero, Bruni argued that Florence had been founded during the fl ourishing of the Roman republic by veterans of Sulla’s army. Direct heirs to these sturdy Romans from republican times, the Florentines were quick to defend their liberties against all aggression. In both this work and especially in his Historiae fl orentini populi (History of the Florentine people, 1414), Bruni helped to pioneer new standards in historical writing and scholarship. He eschewed the notion that providence was the driving force behind causality and events, and instead looked to solid historical records and documentation to uncover the course of history, as well as to explain why events had unfolded. Because of his learning and service to the republic of Florence, upon his death, he was given a state funeral and buried in the church of Santa Croce, with a marble tomb sculpted by Bernardo Rossellino. See also Florentine Neoplatonism. Further reading: Baron, Hans. The Crises of the Early Italian Renaissance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1966; Witt, Ronald. In the Footsteps of the Ancients: The Origins of Humanism from Lovato to Bruni. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000. Ronald K. Delph


Bulgarian EmpireEdit

The origins of the Bulgarian Empire are usually traced to the Bulgaro-Slavic state established by an alliance between the Bulgar Khan Asparuh and the league of the seven Slavic tribes around 679. Although this state had been founded within the bounds of the Byzantine Empire, Emperor Constantine IV was compelled to make a treaty with Asparuh in 681, which acknowledged the existence of the Bulgaro-Slavic state and agreed to pay it an annual tribute. Slavs made up an overwhelming part of the population of the new state, but its leadership was Bulgar. What differentiated the Bulgars from the Slavs, apart from language and ethnicity, was their highly developed sense of political organization, in addition to a formidable military reputation. The assimilatory processes between the two groups were long and not always smooth, but by the 10th century the Slavic language had become the offi cial language of the state, while Bulgarian became its offi cial appellation. The study of the Bulgarian Empire is generally divided into two periods: the First Bulgarian Empire (681– 1018) and the Second Bulgarian Empire (1185–1393). In both periods, the Bulgarian Empire had to contend with external pressures coming from Byzantium in the south and various migratory invaders from the north, as well as domestic dissent among the aristocracy. THE FIRST BULGARIAN EMPIRE Initially the First Bulgarian Empire enjoyed almost a century of expansion. After Asparuh’s death, supreme power passed to Khan Tervel (700–721). He not only continued to expand the new state in the Balkans but 52 Bulgarian Empire also intervened in the internal affairs of Byzantium. Tervel sheltered the exiled Emperor Justinian II and assisted him to regain his throne in Constantinople in 704. In 716 Tervel forced a treaty on Byzantium, which awarded northern Thrace to Bulgaria and reiterated Constantinople’s annual tribute. Because of this treaty, Tervel came to the aid of Byzantium during the Arab siege of the town in 717, crucial to averting the fall of Constantinople. Tervel’s attack surprised the Arab forces, and many of them were slaughtered (some count 100,000). After Tervel’s death the remainder of the eighth century was a time of internal strife, until the rule of Khan Kardam (777– 802). Kardam infl icted a number of severe defeats on the Byzantine army and in 796 forced Constantinople to renew its annual tribute to Bulgaria. It was Kardam’s successor Khan Krum (803–814) who achieved one of the greatest expanses of the First Bulgarian Empire. Krum is believed to have spent his youth establishing his authority over large swaths of modern-day Hungary and Transylvania. When he became khan, Krum added these territories to Bulgaria. Thus his realm stretched from Thrace to the northern Carpathians and from the lower Sava River to the Dniester, and bordered the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne along the river Tisza. Krum’s expansionist policy brought him into confl ict with Byzantium. In 809 he sacked the newly fortifi ed town of Serdica (present-day Sofi a) and surged into the territory of Macedonia. The imperial army destroyed the Bulgarian capital at Pliska. Krum, however, besieged the Byzantine troops in a mountain pass, where most of them were massacred. Emperor Nikephoros I lost his life, and Krum ordered that Nikephoros’s skull be encrusted in silver and used it as a drinking cup. After his military success Krum unleashed a total war against Byzantium, laying waste to most of its territory outside the protected walls of Constantinople. He died unexpectedly in 814 in the midst of preparations for an attack on the metropolis. The emphasis on Krum’s military prowess often neglects his prescience as state-builder. He was the fi rst Bulgarian ruler that began centralizing his empire by providing a common administrative and legal framework. His son Khan Omurtag (r. 814–831) followed his father in further consolidating the state. Omurtag’s main achievement was to improve the legal system developed by Krum. He was also an avid builder of fortresses. Under Omurtag’s successors, Malamir (r. 831–836) and Pressian (r. 836–852), the First Bulgarian Empire penetrated further into Macedonia. Their reign, however, saw an increase in the internal crisis of the state because of the spread of Christianity. Both the Slavs and the Bulgars practiced paganism, but a large number of the Slavs had begun converting to Christianity. However, the Bulgars and especially their boyars (the aristocracy) remained zealously pagan. Krum and, in particular, Omurtag became notorious for their persecution of Christians. A new era in the history of the First Bulgarian Empire was inaugurated with the accession of Khan Boris (r. 852–888). Boris confronted the social tensions within his state as a result of the distinct religious beliefs of the population. In 864 he accepted Christianity for himself and his country. With this act, Boris increased the cohesion of his people. Internationally he also ensured the recognition of his empire, as all the powers of the day were Christian. In 888 Boris abdicated and retired to a monastery. The throne passed to his eldest son, Vladimir (r. 889–893), who immediately abandoned Christianity and reverted to paganism, forcing Boris to come out of his retirement in 893. He removed and blinded Vladimir and installed his second son, Simeon, to the throne. The reign of Simeon the Great (893–927) is known as a golden age. Simeon extended the boundaries of the Bulgarian Empire west to the Adriatic, south to the Aegean, and northwest to incorporate most of present-day Serbia and Montenegro. He besieged Constantinople twice, and Byzantium had to recognize him as basileus (czar, or emperor); the only other ruler to whom Constantinople extended such recognition was the Holy Roman Emperor. In order to indicate the break with the pagan past, Simeon moved the Bulgarian capital from Pliska to nearby Preslav. In Preslav, Bulgarian art and literature fl ourished with unprecedented brilliance. Despite these exceptional developments, Simeon’s reign was followed by a period of political and social decay. His son Petar (927–970) was involved in almost constant warfare; the nobility was engaged in factionalist strife, and the church fell to corruption. The general corrosion of the state was refl ected by the spread of heresies among the Bulgarians. By the end of the 10th century the Bulgarian Empire was in rapid decline. In 971 the capital, Preslav, and much of eastern Bulgaria was conquered by Byzantium. Under the leadership of Czar Samuil (997–1014), Bulgaria had a momentary resurgence, with the capital moving to Ohrid. Under Samuil the country expanded into present-day Albania, Montenegro, and parts of Thrace. However, in 1014 Emperor Basil II “Bulgaroktonus” (the Bulgarian-slayer) captured 15,000 Bulgarian troops and blinded 99 out of every 100; the remainder were left with one eye to guide their comrades back to their czar. When Samuil Bulgarian Empire 53 saw his blinded soldiers he immediately died. By 1018 the last remnants of Bulgarian resistance were quashed and the First Bulgarian Empire came to an end. THE SECOND BULGARIAN EMPIRE The Bulgarian state disappeared until 1185, when the brothers Petar and Asen organized a rebellion against Byzantium. The revolt initiated the Second Bulgarian Empire, whose capital became Turnovo (present-day Veliko Turnovo). In a pattern that became characteristic of the reconstituted state, fi rst Asen and then Petar were assassinated by disgruntled boyars. It was their youngest brother, Kaloyan (r. 1197–1207), who managed to introduce temporary stability to Bulgaria. At the time, most of the troubles in the Balkans were coming from the crusaders. In 1204 they captured Constantinople and proclaimed that the Bulgarian czar was their vassal. Offended, Kaloyan marched against the armies of the Fourth Crusade and defeated them in a battle near Adrianople (present-day Edirne). Kaloyan captured Emperor Baldwin and took him as prisoner to his capital, Turnovo, where he died. The Bulgarian forces also decapitated the leader of the Fourth Crusade, Boniface. Kaloyan himself was assassinated shortly afterwards, by dissident nobles, while besieging Thessalonica. After Kaloyan, Boril took the throne (1207–18). In 1218 the son of Asen, Ivan Asen II, returned from exile and deposed Boril. His reign (1218–41) saw the greatest expansion of the Second Bulgarian Empire which reached the Adriatic and the Aegean. Besides his military successes, Ivan Asen II also reorganized the fi nancial system of Bulgaria and was the fi rst Bulgarian ruler to mint his own coins. After his death, decline quickly set in. The external sources for this decay were the Mongol onslaught of Europe and the rise of Serbia as a major power in the Balkans. The royal palace in Turnovo saw 13 czars in less than a century. Perhaps the most colorful of those was the swine-herder Ivailo, who rose from a common peasant to the Bulgarian throne. With a band of determined followers, he managed to defeat local detachments of the Mongol Golden Horde and push them across the Danube. In 1277 he entered Turnovo and personally killed the czar. His rule lasted only two years, and he was removed by troops dispatched from Constantinople. The end of the Second Bulgarian Empire came during the rule of Czar Ivan Alexander (1331–71). He managed to consolidate the territory of Bulgaria, and the country enjoyed economic recovery. Ivan Alexander was also a great patron of the arts. However, he contributed to the breakup of the Bulgarian realm. He separated the region of Vidin from the Bulgarian monarchy and set up his eldest son, Ivan Stratsimir, as a ruler there. He proclaimed the son from his second marriage, Ivan Shishman, as the inheritor of the Bulgarian throne. As czar, Ivan Shishman (1371–93) fought a losing battle both against the Ottoman Turks and against the breakaway ambitions of Bulgarian boyars. Turnovo fell to the Ottomans in 1393, and three years later Vidin also succumbed, causing the end of the Second Bulgarian Empire. See also Bulgar invasions; Byzantine Empire; Constantinople, massacre of; Crusades. Further reading: Anastassoff, Christ. The Bulgarians. Hicksville, NY: Exposition Press, 1977; Crampton, Richard J. A Concise History of Bulgaria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Khristov, Kristo. Bulgaria, 1300 Years. Sofi a: Sofi a Press, 1980; Vasilev, Vasil A. Bulgaria. Sofi a: Sofi a Press, 1979. Emilian Kavalski


Bulgar invasionsEdit

The earliest records of Bulgar invasions in Europe come from the fi fth century. In 481 Emperor Zeno employed Bulgar mercenaries against the Ostrogoths who had invaded the Danubian provinces of the Eastern Roman Empire. During the reign of Emperor Anastasius (491– 518), the Bulgars made several incursions into Thrace and Illyricum. During the sixth century the Bulgars raided the Balkan Peninsula twice, and in 568 hordes of them surged into Italy from central Europe. Further invasions of Bulgars into present-day Italy took place around 630. At the time, the bulk of Bulgar invasions were focused on the lands of Byzantium south of the Danube River. The original homeland of the Bulgars was somewhere between the northern coast of the Caspian Sea and the expanses of Central Asia and China. The name “Bulgar” is of Turkic origin—from the word Bulgha, which means “to mix.” This derivation underlines the complex ethnic makeup of the Bulgars and suggests that they were a hybrid people with a Central Asian, Turkic, or Mongol core combined with Iranian elements. The Bulgars were stockbreeders, who chiefl y raised horses. The Bulgar army was dominated by its fast-moving cavalry. It is often argued that the semilegendary leader of the Bulgars, Avitokhol, who alleg- 54 Bulgar invasions edly commanded them into Europe, was none other than Attila the Hun (406–453). During the sixth century the Bulgars consolidated much of their European possessions into a state called Great Bulgaria, which extended over the North Caucasian steppe and what is now Ukraine. The capital of this state was at Phanagoria (modern-day Taman in Russia). The leader of Great Bulgaria was Khan Kubrat (c. 585–650). After his death his fi ve sons divided the Bulgar tribes and continued invading European territories. The eldest son, Baian, remained in Great Bulgaria. The second son, Kotrag, crossed the river Don and settled on its far side. The descendants of either Kotrag’s or Baian’s Bulgars (or both) are reputed to be the founders of Volga Bulgaria in the eighth century, which is considered to be the cultural and ethnic predecessor of the present-day Tatarstan in the Russian Federation. Kubrat’s fourth son, Kubert, moved to Pannonia and later settled in the area of present-day Transylvania. The fi fth son, Altchek, moved on to Italy and took Pentapolis, near Ravenna. Kubrat’s third son, Khan Asparuh (644–701), moved his part of the Bulgar tribes in southern Bessarabia and established himself on an island at the mouth of the river Danube. From there he began attacks against the territory of Byzantium. By that time, Slavs had colonized most of the territory of the Balkan Peninsula. Asparuh entered into an alliance against Byzantium with the league of the seven Slavic tribes, which occupied the territory between the Danube and the Balkan mountain range. Soon the Bulgars began settling in the territory south of the Danube River. Around 679 a Bulgaro-Slavic state was formed with its center at Pliska (in modern-day northern Bulgaria). Under the leadership of Asparuh the new state defeated the armies of Emperor Constantine IV in 680. This forced Byzantium to recognize the existence of an independent Bulgaro-Slavic state within the territory of its empire in 681. Although the Bulgar invasions were to continue in the following decades, these became wars for the establishment and enlargement of the new Bulgaro-Slavic state. The Bulgaro-Slavic state established by Asparuh grew into the Bulgarian Empire and became the predecessor of modern-day Bulgaria. See also Byzantine Empire. Further reading: Anastassoff, Christ. The Bulgarians: From Their Arrival in the Balkans to Modern Times. Hicksville, NY: Exposition Press, 1977; Crampton, Richard J. A Concise History of Bulgaria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; Lang, David M. The Bulgarians from Pagan Times to the Ottoman Conquest. Southampton: Thames and Hudson, 1976; Vasilev, Vasil A. Bulgaria: Thirteen Centuries of Existence. Sofi a: Sofi a Press, 1979. Emilian Kavalski


BurmaEdit

The classical civilization of Burma (Myanmar) is centered at Pagan. After the collapse of the Pyu state, the Mrammas (Sanskritized Brahma), or Burmans, founded their chief city, Pagan (Arimarddanapura or “City Where Enemies Were Exterminated”) around 849 c.e. The ethnic Chinese had pushed them back around the second millennium b.c.e. from Northwest China to eastern Tibet, after which they moved to Myanmar over several centuries. The fi rst Burman center developed in the rice-growing Kyawkse Plain at the confl uence of the Irrawaddy and Chindwin Rivers. According to the local chronicles, Pagan began as a group of 19 villages, each having its nat, or local spirit, which were later fused into a cult of a common spirit. Burmese legends speak of intrigue and bloodshed in the early Pagan history until the emergence of King Anawratha, or Aniruddha (1044–77). Aniruddha conquered the Mon country of Thaton in 1057 c.e., resulting in an infusion of Mon culture into Pagan. He maintained friendly contact with King Vijayabahu of Sri Lanka. The Cola ruler Kulottunga I was threatening the latter. Vijayabahu asked for help from the Pagan king, who sent military supplies. Sri Lanka’s king sent Aniruddha the tooth relic of Buddha, which was enshrined in the Shwezigon Pagoda. Pagan was brought into the maritime trading network linked to the eastern coast of India. Along with the Mon monk and scholar Shin Arhan, Aniruddha was responsible for spreading Hinayana Buddhism among his people. This quickly spread all over Myanmar and eventually to mainland Southeast Asia. Aniruddha also is credited with constructing a large number of pagodas, including the Shwezigon Pagoda. He visited the Bengal region and married an Indian princess. Aniruddha developed the small principality of Pagan into an extensive kingdom, and a distinct Burmese civilization grew based on Mon literature, script, art, and architecture. The second prominent king of Pagan was Thileuin Man (Kyanzittha), who ruled from 1084 to 1112. He crushed the Mon uprising that had claimed the life of the earlier king’s son and successor, Man Lulan, and made peace with the rival Thaton faction of the Mons through matrimonial alliances. The Thervada monkhood Burma 55 fl ourished under his patronage. He even fed eight Indian monks daily for three months. Having heard about Buddhist monuments like the famous Ananta Temple in the Udayagiri hills of Orissa, he constructed the magnifi cent Ananda Temple in imitation. Kyanzittha also visited Bodhgaya and helped repair Buddhist shrines. He tried to bring assimilation of different cultural traditions prevalent in Myanmar, and the Myazedi pillar of 1113 c.e. had identical inscriptions in four languages: Burmese, Pali, Pyu, and Mon. He sent a mission to China, which recognized the sovereignty of Pagan. The transition from Mon to Burman culture occurred during the rule of the grandson of Kyanzittha, Alaungsithu (Cansu I), who had a long reign from 1112 to 1165. He undertook punitive expeditions to Arakan and Tenasserim. Relations with Sri Lanka deteriorated over interference with trade between Angkor and Sri Lanka. Alaungsithu nurtured Buddhism and completed the imposing Thatpinnyu Temple in 1144. The last of the important kings of Myanmar was Narapatisithu (Cansu II, 1174–1211), who ended the Mon infl uence in the Pagan court. Relations with Sri Lanka improved, resulting in the end of the friendship of Burmans with Colas and a promise of noninterference by Pagan in Sri Lanka’s trade over the isthmus region. The king also introduced reforms in monkhood. However his successors were unsuccessful, and gradual deterioration started in the Pagan kingdom. The shrinking of central authority resulted in Arakan and Pegu becoming independent. The Thai people known as Shans began to enter Pagan. There were also subsequent Mongol expeditions against the kingdom. The last king of the dynasty, Narasimhapati (Cansu IV), was a boastful ruler, and his subjects murdered him for his fl ight during a Mongol invasion. Under the leadership of the Shans, the kings of Pagan were forced into a ceremonial role only. The problem facing Myanmar had been to hold together different ethnic groups, and this was evident in the Toungoot (Tungut) dynasty of the 16th century and the Konbaung dynasty (1792–1885). The prevalence of Sanskritized names and commercial relations point to the close link between India and Myanmar. The region was geographically nearest to India among Southeast Asian countries, and there were land and sea routes through which cultural relations developed. From very early on Indians traveled these routes to Southeast Asia. Cultural intercourse between the two regions grew, probably through traders and Buddhist missionaries reaching lower Myanmar. Adopting Indian practices, women were given a higher place in society, and the caste system was rejected. Though Buddhism dominated daily life, it was mingled with Brahmanism. At the site of King Kyanzittha’s palace, naga spirits were propitiated, and the services of Brahmans were required. The king was proclaimed an avatar (incarnation) of Vishnu after his death. The name of one of the early cities of the Pyu people was Visnupura (modern Beikthano), and it was a center of Vishnuite infl uence. Images of Brahmanical gods such as Vishnu, Brahma, and Shiva are found throughout Myanmar. Compared to Brahmanism, the infl uence of Buddhism in Myanmar was greater. In the Buddhist Jatakas there are frequent references to the sea voyage to Suvarnabhumi, or the golden land, which has been identifi ed with Myanmar. Kings like Aniruddha and Kyanzittha were patrons of Buddhism, and because of their endeavor, the religion took fi rm roots in Myanmar. See also Champa Kingdom. Further reading: Marr, David G., and A. C. Milner, eds. Southeast Asia in the Ninth to 14th Centuries. Singapore: ANU, 1986; Luce, Gordon H., et al. Old Burma–Early Pagan. New York: Artibus Asiae, 1969; Cady, John F. Thailand, Burma, Laos, & Cambodia. NJ: Prentice Hall, 1966; Aung- Thwin, Michael. Pagan: The Origins of Modern Burma. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1985; Tarling, Nicholas, ed. The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992; Mishra, Patit Paban. Cultural Rapprochement between India and Southeast Asia. New Delhi: NBO, 2005; Sujata, Soni. Evolution of Stupas in Burma Pagan Period, 11th to 13th Centuries a.d. Edited by Alex Wayman. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, 1991; Frasch, Tilman. The Pwa Saws of Bagan. Leiden: International Institute for Asian Studies, 2003. Patit Paban Mishra


Byzantine Empire: architecture, culture, and the artsEdit

Byzantine history spans the period from the late Roman Empire to the beginning of the modern age. Constantine the Great, fi rst Christian ruler of the Roman Empire, moved his capital to Byzantion in 330, renaming the city Constantinople. The state he ruled was Byzant, but the citizens called themselves Rhomaioi (Romans). The Byzantine Empire was heir to the Roman Empire. With the passage of time Byzantine civilization became distinct, as Greek infl uence increased and it dealt with the cultural impacts of Europe, Asia, and, after the seventh century, Islam. During the Middle Ages, when the concept of Eu- 56 Byzantine Empire: architecture, culture, and the arts rope developed, Byzantium was in decline and isolated from the West. Thus Europe came into being without Byzantium, the successor to the Roman Empire. By the time Europe was a full-blown concept, Byzantium was no longer a remnant of the Roman Empire, and Constantinople was part of the Ottoman Empire.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Constantine established Constantinople as Rome’s capital, so the fall of Rome to the Goths did not end the empire, it merely relocated its center. Byzantine culture was a continuation of classical Greece and Rome but was distinctive in the way that it synthesized those infl uences with European and Islamic ones. The early Byzantine period saw the replacement of the ancient gods by Christianity and the establishment of Roman law and Greek and Roman culture. The golden age lasted until the Arab and Persian invasions in the seventh century and the iconoclasm of the eighth century. The Byzantine emperors instituted administrative and fi nancial reforms. Eschewing the western approach of hiring foreign troops and lacking the tax base of the West, the emperors in Constantinople kept a small military. Although the western area lacked an emperor after 476, Byzantine emperors claimed to be rulers of the entire old Roman Empire, even though Byzantium’s military was insuffi cient for the reconquest of the West. For most Byzantine emperors the rhetorical commitment to recapturing Rome was suffi cient. Justinian I (527–565) undertook expeditions with some success, taking North Africa and Italy, but Justinian’s wars against the Ostrogoths destroyed Italy economically, devastating its urban culture. His wars were also a great burden on the treasury. Justinian’s successors had to focus on reestablishing Byzantine fi nances destroyed by Justinian. They also had to deal with Persians in the east and Germans, Slavs, and Mongolians in the west. Heraclius I (610–641) settled Huns in the Balkans to thwart the western threat. Then he bested the Persians, ending that empire. The year of Heraclius’s ascent to the throne, in Arabia Muhammad fi rst heard the message that would send the forces of Islam across the world. By the end of Heraclius’s reign, the Muslim threat in Syria and Persia would force Byzantine attention away from the west and toward the east and south. After initial Muslim successes in Syria and Egypt the Muslims took Persia and pressed into Byzantium several times in the seventh and eighth centuries. Leo the Isaurian (717–741) defeated the fi nal Muslim effort to take Byzantium, and the empire stabilized. Taking advantage of unsettled conditions in the Muslim Caliphate the empire retook most of Syria and reestablished itself as dominant until the 11th century. After besting the Byzantines at Manzikert in 1071, the Seljuk Turks controlled Byzantium’s eastern territory. Byzantium called on its coreligionists in Europe for help against the Turks, sparking the Crusades, which produced European kingdoms in Syria and Palestine and the taking of Constantinople in 1204. Byzantium continued in Greece and retook Constantinople in 1261, but the reestablished kingdom was a small city-centered entity, and Ottoman Turks absorbed it in 1453, renaming it Istanbul. The empire was Christian but its Christianity differed from that of the West. The Latin popes won primacy in a Europe with no centralized secular ruler, but in Byzantium the emperor kept a powerful role in the church. The Byzantine retention of the Roman concept that the emperor was nearly divine would generate a split with the West, particularly through the Iconoclastic Controversy.

THE ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY

During the fourth century in the Roman Empire, classical forms declined and eastern infl uences became more important. Constantinople became a new center for artists in the eastern part of the empire, especially Christians. Other centers included Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome. When the fi rst two fell to the Arabs and Rome to the Goths, Constantinople was alone and supreme. The fi rst great age came during the reign of Justinian I (483–565). He established a code of law that imposed his religion on his subjects and set the stage for absolutism. He built the Hagia Sophia and the Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople and the Basilica of San Vitale in Ravenna (in Italy). After Justinian the empire declined, with Justinian’s conquests lost and Avars, Slavs, and Arabs threatening. Religious and political confl ict also disturbed the capital. In 730 Leo III the Isaurian came into contact with Islamic beliefs during his successful wars against the Muslims. Accepting the purity of the Muslim rejection of idols and images, he banned images of Jesus, Mary, and the saints. The Iconoclastic period lasted until 843. Iconoclastic theologians regarded the worship of icons or images as pagan. Worship was reserved for Christ and God, not for the product of human hands, during the Iconoclastic Controversy. The Iconoclastic Controversy disoriented the Byzantine Church. Byzantine religious culture and intellectual life, previously known for innovation and speculation, were stagnant from that point. A wholesale destruction Byzantine Empire: architecture, culture, and the arts 57 of art showing inappropriate fi gures occurred. Restrictions on content meant that ornamental designs and symbols such as the cross were about the limit of expression. Without human fi gures, mosaicists borrowed Persian and Arab designs, such as fl orals, and the minor arts remained vibrant. The papacy adamantly rejected iconoclasm as a threat to the authority of the pope. Leo’s son Constantine V (740–775) was more adamantly iconoclastic than Leo. Although Byzantium abandoned iconoclasm in the ninth century, the breach persisted. The end of iconoclasm brought about the Macedonian Renaissance, beginning under Basil I, the Macedonian, in 867. The ninth and 10th centuries were times of improved military circumstances, and art and architecture rebounded. Byzantine mosaic style became standardized, with revived interest in classical themes and more sophisticated techniques in human fi gures. After the Iconoclastic Controversy resolved itself in favor of using icons, the empire fl ourished from 843 to 1261. During this period the arts prospered, the offi cial language was Greek, and Christianity solidifi ed its hold from the capital through the northern Slavic lands. Afer the Macedonians came the Komnenian dynasty, starting in 1081 under Alexios I Komnenos. This dynasty reestablished stability after the major dislocations of Manzikert, which cost Byzantium Asia Minor. Between 1081 and 1185 the Komnenoi patronized the arts, and a period of increased humanism and emotion occurred. Examples are the Theotokos of Vladimir and the Murals at Nerezi. As well as painted icons, this period saw mosaic and ceramic examples, and for the fi rst time the iconic form became popular through the empire. Excellent Byzantine work of this period is also found in Kiev, Venice, Palermo, and other places outside the empire. Venice’s Basilica of St. Mark, begun in 1063, was modeled on the now destroyed Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople. The Crusades, specifi cally the massacre of Constantinople in 1204, ended eight centuries of Byzantine culture. The Frankish crusaders of the Fourth Crusade pillaged Constantinople, generating even more destruction of Byzantine art than did the iconoclastic period. PALAEOLOGAN MANNERISM The state reestablished in 1261 included only the Greek Peninsula and Aegean Islands. After the crusader period (1204–61), Byzantium had a fi nal surge until the Ottoman conquest. The fi nal bloom of Byzantine art, the Palaeologan Mannerism, occurred under the Palaeologan dynasty, founded by Michael VIII Palaeologus in 1259. This era saw increased exchange between Byzantine and Italian artists, new interest in pastorals and landscapes, and the replacement of masterful mosaic work such as the Chora Church in Constantinope by narrative frescoes. Byzantine culture included women and men alike, unlike practices in classical Greece and Rome or in medieval Europe. Women could not attend school, but aristocratic females received tutoring in history, literature, philosophy, and composition. The greatest Byzantine writer was the female historian Anna Komnene, whose biography of her father, Emperor Alexios, is among the best of medieval histories. Byzantine art was underpinned by the art of ancient Greece, and until at least 1453 it remained strongly classical yet unique. One difference was that the ancient Greek humanistic ethic gave way to the Christian ethic. That meant that the classical glorifi cation of man became the glorifi cation of God, particularly Jesus. Byzantine art replaced the classical nude with fi gures of God the Father, Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth, the Virgin Mary, and the saints and martyrs. Byzantine art emphasized strongly the icon, an image of Christ, Mary, a saint, or Madonna and Child used as an object of veneration either in church or at home. Byzantine miniatures showed both Hellenistic and Asian infl uences. Byzantine architecture rested on Roman technical developments. Proximity to the Hellenized East meant that Constantinople’s architecture showed Eastern infl uences. The Basilica of St. John of the Studion, dating from the fi fth century, exemplifi es 58 Byzantine Empire: architecture, culture, and the arts Justinian I built the Hagia Sophia in sixth century. The minarets were added later by the Ottomans. the Byzantine use of Roman models. Some criticize Byzantine art as lacking in realistic depictions of humans. Byzantine art lacked some of the naturalism of ancient Greek art. Particularly in sculpture, technical expertise declined as emphasis shifted to Christian themes. However, Byzantine art had periodic technical revivals, and it maintained enough of the Greek classical infl uence to allow the Renaissance to happen. Rejecting sensual pleasure, pagan idols, and personal vanity, Byzantine artists worked to serve Christianity by showing not the external perfect human form but the internal, spiritual element of the subject. Stylized and simplifi ed representations were appropriate to this purpose. New techniques and new levels of accomplishment characterized Byzantine silver- and goldsmithing, enamel, jewelry, and textiles. Byzantine mosaics and icons showed high levels of originality. Architecture found its highest expression in the Hagia Sophia, superior in scale and magnifi cence to anything in the ancient world. Although skill levels fl uctuated over time, in most Byzantine art forms certain usages, patterns, and practices remained constant. Mosaics served as the predominant decorative art for domes, half-domes, and other available surfaces of Byzantine churches. Byzantine painting concentrated to a great extent on devotional panels. Icons were vital to both religious and secular life. Icons lacked individuality, their effectiveness resting on faithfulness to a prototype. Byzantine painting also included manuscript illumination. Byzantine art continues in some aspects in the art of Greece, Russia, and the modern Eastern Orthodox countries. Enamel, ivory, and metal reliquaries and devotional panels were highly valued through the Middle Ages in the West. Byzantine silk was a state monopoly and a highly prized luxury. In Italy Byzantine art was a major contributor to the Romanesque style in the 10th and 11th centuries. In the Holy Roman Empire, Charlemagne had close ties to Byzantium; he and other Frankish and Salic emperors transmitted the Byzantine infl uence through their domains. The offi cial end to Byzantium came with the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, but in the meantime the culture had diffused with Orthodox Christianity to Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, and, most signifi cantly, Russia, which took the mantle from Constantinople after 1453. The Ottomans allowed Byzantine icon painting and small-scale arts to continue. Byzantium transmitted classical culture to Islam and to the West. More important, Byzantine culture and religion strongly infl uenced the Slavs, particularly the Russians. Around 988 the Russian Vladimir converted to Byzantine Christianity. When Byzantium collapsed in 1453, Russia’s rulers took the title “caesar” (czar), that of the Byzantine emperors. The Russian czar proclaimed Moscow the “Third Rome,” after Rome and Byzantium. The Byzantines also preserved culture, pursuing science, philosophy, and classical studies. Byzantine basic education entailed mastery of classical Greek literature, including the works of Homer, largely unknown in the West. Byzantine scholars studied and preserved the works of Plato and Aristotle, making them available to fi rst the Islamic world and then western Europe. See also Byzantine Empire: political history. Further reading: Cormack, Robin. Byzantine Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000; Evans, James Allan. The Emperor Justinian and the Byzantine Empire. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2005; Geankoplos, Deno. The Infl uences of Byzantine Culture on the Medieval Western World. New York: Harper Torch Books, 1966; Rodley, Lyn. Byzantine Art Byzantine Empire: architecture, culture, and the arts 59 The interior of the Hagia Sophia (now a museum in Istanbul), considered more magnifi cent than anything in the ancient world. and Architecture: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. John H. Barnhill

Byzantine Empire: political history Edit

The city of Constantinople, or Byzantium, was founded, according to legend, in 667 b.c.e., by Greeks from Megara and gradually rose in importance during the Roman Empire. Its initial importance was its position on the trade routes in the eastern Mediterranean, especially its close access to the land routes to Persia, Central Asia, India, and China, as well as guarding the entrance to the Pontus Euxinus (Black Sea). During the second century the Roman Empire had grown so substantially that there were moves to split it into an eastern and a western empire. This concept was introduced by Diocletian, who looked to the past for ideas to resolve the problems facing the Roman Empire. His idea was that two emperors (each known as an augustus) would rule the two halves of the Roman Empire. Each augustus would then nominate a younger man, known as a caesar, to share the ruling of the empire and succeed to the post of augustus. This reduced the Roman emperors to the equivalent of chief executive offi cers who nominated their successors. Dicoletian then moved his capital to Nicomedia in modern-day Turkey. The idea did work briefl y, but there were enormous problems, and it was left to Emperor Constantine the Great to rework the system. In 330 Constantine established the eastern capital at Byzantium, which he called Constantinople. He also reintroduced a hereditary succession to try to stop the strife caused by contending caesars. Although his successors ruled over what became known as the Byzantine Empire, those living in Constantinople never saw themselves as Byzantines, the name coming from the Thracian-Greek name for the city. Instead they regarded themselves as Romans (or Romaioi), and direct lineal descendants of the power, traditions, and prestige of the Roman Empire. ORIGINS OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE Essentially the Byzantine Empire owes its origins to Constantine the Great who ruled from 324 to 337. The emperor drew up plans for enlarging his city with the building of a large palace, a forum, a hippodrome, and government departments. To protect the city from attack, Constantine also supervised the building of large walls across the isthmus. Constantine died at Ancyrona, near Nicomedia, and his body was brought back to Constantinople, where it was buried. He was then succeeded by his eldest son, Constantius (or Constantine II), who reigned from 337 to 340. He was succeeded by his brother Constantius II, who ruled until his death in 361 and as sole emperor from 353 to 361. He died of fever near Tarsus in modern-day Turkey. The next emperor was Julian the Apostate, (r. 361–363). He was the son of Julius Constantius, half brother of Constantius II. The last pagan emperor, he tried to restore religious traditions of Rome in an effort to try to restore his empire to its former glory. When Julian died in a battle against the Sassanid Persians, a prominent Roman general, Flavius Iovianus, was elected Roman emperor, becoming the emperor Jovian. He was a Christian and is best remembered for being outmaneuvered in a peace agreement with the Sassanids. He died on February 17, 364, after a reign of only eight months. His successors were Valentinian I, another successful general, and his younger brother Valens, Valens becoming emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. Valens reigned for 14 years, and his fi rst task was to withdraw from Mesopotamia and parts of Armenia, which Jovian had ceded to the Sassanids. However, Valens also had to deal with a revolt by Procopius, a maternal cousin of Julian. Procopius managed to raise two army legions to support his proclamation as emperor, and Valens considered abdicating to prevent a civil war. When Valens sent two legions against Procopius, both mutinied and joined the rebellion. However, by the middle of 366 Valens had managed to raise a large enough army to defeat the forces of Procopius at the Battle of Thyatira. Procopius was captured soon afterwards and executed. The revolt of Procopius encouraged the Goths to attack the Eastern Roman Empire. This meant that Valens had to lead his successful army north, and after defeating a Goth army, he concluded a peace treaty that allowed Roman traders access to the lands controlled by the Goths. War with Sassanid Persia broke out, forcing him to lead his armies back toward Persia. His campaign was cut short when the Visigoths threatened the northern frontier. They had lost lands to the Huns and were anxious to compensate themselves with Roman lands. Eventually the Visigoths allied with the Huns, and along with the Ostrogoths, attacked the Romans. A massive Byzantine army moved against them, leading to the Battle of Adrianople, August 9, 378. The Goths and their allies destroyed the Roman army, and Valens was killed during the battle. It left the Byzantines exposed, and with Gratian, the 19-year-old nephew of Valens, as the emperor of the Western Roman Empire, there was the need for a strong ruler to save the empires. 60 Byzantine Empire: political history THEODOSIUS I Theodosius I, born in Galicia, in modern-day Spain, was the son of a senior military offi cer who was executed after being involved in political intrigues. Theodosius was made commander of Moesia, on the Danube (in modern-day Serbia and Bulgaria). After Adrianople, Gratian appointed him as the co-augustus for the East, and he co-ruled with Gratian and Valentinian II. On a political level, Theodosius was a Christian and made Christianity the offi cial state religion of the Roman Empire. In 381 he helped convene the second general council of the Christian Church, held at Constantinople, where some of the decisions of the Council of Nicaea in 325 were confi rmed. The main task of Theodosius was to ensure the military survival of the Roman Empire, and he immediately went to war in the Balkans with the Sarmatians. He had defeated them six years earlier, and another victory led to his being proclaimed as co-emperor on January 19, 379. He was given the provinces of Dacia (modernday Romania) and Macedonia, both areas having been attacked many times in the previous decades. Living at Thessalonica, Theodosius built up his army. To raise more soldiers, he allowed for Teutons to be recruited, rewarding many of them with senior administrative positions. Theodosius also sought a compromise with the Visigoths and assigned lands to the Goths in the Balkans in return for peace. It was the fi rst time that an entire people were settled on Roman soil and able to maintain their autonomy. It avoided war with the Goths, many of whom converted to Christianity. These moves were unpopular with some in Rome, and later historians have blamed these positions on making Rome vulnerable to attack. However, Theodosius was able to use this newfound military force to great effect. When a usurper, Maximus the Confessor, gained support in the Western Roman Empire and invaded Italy, Theodosius was the only commander with enough soldiers to check his advances. In 378 he defeated Maximus and, later, the forces of another usurper, Eugenius. Theodosius crushed his rebellion at the Battle of Frigidus on September 5–6, 394. By this time Theodosius was sole emperor. He was subsequently known to history as Theodosius the Great. When Theodosius I died, his younger son, Honorius, succeeded him in the West, and his eldest son, Arcadius, succeeded him in the East. Arcadius appears to have been a weak ruler, and for much of his reign, a minister, Flavius Rufi nus, a politician of Gaulish ancestry, made the decisions. With Honorius being dominated by his minister Flavius Stilicho, the position of emperor was in danger of becoming symbolic. According to some accounts, it was rivalry between the ministers that led to Stilicho having Rufi nus assassinated by Goths. However, a new minister, Eutropius, took over for Rufi nus until, in 399, the wife of Arcadius persuaded her husband to remove Eutropius, who was later executed. The Praetorian commander, Anthemius, took over, with Arcadius retreating from the political scene until his death on May 1, 408. His son Flavius Theodosius, who became Theodosius II, succeeded him. Theodosius II was only seven when he became emperor, but on the reputation of the military builtup by his grandfather, the boy had a trouble-free minority, and the empire remained safe from attack through his long reign, which ended with his death on July 28, 450. His older sister, Pulcheria, whose interpretation of Christianity was anti-Jewish, heavily infl uenced Theodosius. Under Pulcheria’s infl uence, the Christian Church condemned the Nestorian viewpoint of the dual nature of Christ as heretical, and Nestorius, its proponent, was exiled to Egypt. In 425 the University of Constantinople was founded as a center for Christian learning. Theodosius II is best remembered for his codifi cation of the laws of the Roman Empire. In 429 he ordered that copies of all laws be brought to Constantinople, and nine years later the Codex Theodosianus was published. Although the Eastern Roman Empire was safe, the Western Roman Empire crumbled during this period, resulting in much power reverting to Constantinople. During the last years of the reign of Theodosius II, the Byzantine Empire came under attack from Attila the Hun, and the Byzantines responded by paying large tribute to the Huns to stop the attacks. On the death of Theodosius II in 450, Pulcerhia chose as her brother’s successor Flavius Marcianus, her husband, who became Emperor Marcian. Marcian stopped the payments to the Huns, who, by this time, were more concerned with attacking Gaul and Italy. Marcian also fortifi ed Syria and Egypt to prevent attacks and was thought to have distanced himself from events in the Western Roman Empire. It appears that Marcian may have been involved in the death of Attila in 452, even though he did not send aid to Rome, which was sacked by the Vandals in 455. Marcian and his wife are both recognized as saints by the Eastern Orthodox Church. Marcian died in 457, and Flavius Valerius Leo Augustus (Leo the Thracian) became the new emperor. He was a successful general who had led campaigns in the Balkans and against the Goths. Leo I sent a large army against the Vandals, under the command of his brother-in-law Basilicus, but it was decisively defeated in 468. He died in 474 and was succeeded by his Byzantine Empire: political history 61 seven-year-old grandson, Leo II, who died 10 months later. Leo II’s father, Zeno, became emperor. Initially he had success leading his armies against the Vandals and the Huns in the Balkans. In January 475 he was deposed by Basilicus, who took control of Constantinople for his reign, which lasted 19 months. In August 476 Zeno took over again, exiling Basilicus and his wife and son to Cappadocia, where they died from exposure. Zeno managed to build up the Byzantine fi nances. When he died in April 491, his widow, Ariadne, chose an important courtier, Anastasius, to succeed him. Anastasius was involved in the Isaurian War from 492 to 496, where forces loyal to Longinus of Cardala, a brother of Zeno, revolted. Many rebels were defeated at the battle of Cotyaeum, and although guerrilla war continued for some years, Anastasius was never in serious danger from them again. From 502 to 505 he was involved in a war with the Sassanid Empire of Persia. Initially the Sassanids were victorious, but the war ended in a stalemate. Anastasius then spent much of the rest of his reign building defenses. These included the Anastasian Wall, which stretched from Propontis to the Euxine, protecting the western approaches to Constantinople. Anastasius died on July 9, 518, the last Roman or Byzantine emperor to be deifi ed. Justin I was nearly 70 when he became emperor. He was illiterate but was a successful career soldier. The last years of his reign saw attacks by Ostrogoths and Persians. In 526 he formally named Justinian, his nephew, as co-emperor and his successor. JUSTINIAN I Justinian I was one of the most famous Byzantine rulers and is best remembered for his legal reforms that saw the establishment of a new legal code. He gained a reputation for working hard, being affable but unscrupulous when necessary. His early military moves were to try to regain the lost lands of Theodosius I. He failed 62 Byzantine Empire: political history An illustrated manuscript showing Byzantine cavalrymen overwhelming enemy cavalry and foot soldiers. The Byzantine Empire was offi cially dissolved in 1204, though its culture remained much the same for the next 200 years. in this but quickly gained a reputation for surrounding himself with advisers who achieved their status through merit. One of these was Tribonian, who had the task of codifying the law—the fi rst time all of Roman law was written down in one code. At the same time Justinian’s general Belisarius decided to launch an attack on the Sassanid Persians and against the Vandals in North Africa, recapturing Carthage. In what became known as the Gothic War, Belisarius retook Rome in 536, and four years later he took the Ostrogoth’s capital, Ravenna. The 540s saw parts of the Byzantine Empire ravaged by bubonic plague. In 565 Justinian I died and his nephew Flavius Iustinius became Emperor Justin II. The Byzantines lost land to the Sassanids in a disastrous war with Persia. Justin II became troubled by mental problems and may have been going senile. He appointed a general named Tiberius as his successor. Tiberius II Constantine was the fi rst truly Greek emperor, and he continued the war with the Persians in Armenia. He was succeeded in 582 by a prominent general, Mauricius, who subsequently married the daughter of his predecessor. The Emperor Maurice reigned from 582 to 602, a time when the empire was constantly attacked. When the Romans intervened in a dynastic war in Persia, they were amply rewarded by the return of eastern Mesopotamia and Armenia. However, while the Byzantines were involved in Persia, the Slavs took control of much of the Balkans. In 602 a mutiny by troops led to a general called Phokas (Phocas) entering Constantinople and killing Maurice, after forcing the deposed emperor to watch the execution of fi ve of his sons. Phokas was from Thrace and was a successful general of obscure origins before he seized the throne. The seizing of power by Phokas was the fi rst bloody coup d’état since Constantinople became the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. Phokas was initially popular because he lowered taxes and introduced reforms that benefi ted the Christian Church. However, on a military front, the Eastern Roman Empire faced invasion, especially in the northern Balkans, and raiders did reach as far as Athens. In addition, King Khosrow II of Persia, installed by Maurice, started to conspire against the man who overthrew him. The Persians championed a young man whom they claimed was a son of Maurice, taking over some of Anatolia. In addition, trouble brewed in Egypt and Syria. In 610 Heraclius, the exarch (proconsul) of Africa, staged a rebellion that ended with Phocas being put to death. Heraclius I was emperor from 610 to 641 and tried to reunite the empire that was still under attack in the Balkans and from the Persians. The latter managed to capture Damascus in 613, Jerusalem in the following year, and in 616 invaded Egypt. Their raids deep into Anatolia caused Heraclius to consider moving the capital from Constantinople to Carthage, but his reorganization of the military allowed him to stop the invading forces. Much of this centered on land grants to families in return for having them serve in the military when the empire was in danger. In 626 Constantinople itself was attacked, but in the following year at the Battle of Nineveh, the Byzantines defeated the Persians, leading to the deposing of Khosrow II of Persia and the Byzantines gaining all the land they had lost. Heraclius started to use the Persian title king of kings, and no longer used the term augustus, preferring basileus, Greek for “monarch.” During the 630s the Arabs proved to be a major threat to the Byzantines, who were decisively defeated in the Battle of Yarmuk in 636. Heraklonas’s two sons succeeded him, Heraklonas Constantine (Constantine III) and Constantine Heraklonas (Heraclius). The former ruled for only four months before succumbing to tuberculosis. His younger half brother became the sole emperor; however, there were rumors that Constantine III had been poisoned, and a rebellion led to the deposing of Heraklonas four months later, and the son of Constantine III became Emperor Constans II. Under Constans II, the Byzantines were on the retreat, having to withdraw from Egypt with the Arabs quickly capturing parts of North Africa. The Arabs also destroyed much of the Byzantine fl eet off Lycia. Later the Arabs split into what became the Sunni and Shiite factions, and were unable to carry out their plan of attacking Constantinople. Constans II was assassinated by his palace chamberlain in 668, and a usurper, Mezezius, was emperor for a year until Constans II’s son became Constantine IV and reigned until 685. By now the Arabs attacked Carthage, Sicily, and captured Smyrna and other ports in Anatolia. The Slavs also used the opportunity to attack Thessalonica. The Byzantines were able to successfully use Greek Fire against the Arabs at the sea battle of Syllaeum. Constantine was worried that his two brothers, crowned with him as coemperors, would pose a threat to him, and he had them both mutilated. This allowed his son Justinian II to succeed to the throne (r. 685–695 and 705–711). In the interval two successful generals, Leontios and Tiberios III, were briefl y emperors. Justinian became increasingly unpopular and was killed by rebels, with Philippikos becoming emperor 711–713. He managed to stabilize the political situation Byzantine Empire: political history 63 and was succeeded by his secretary Artemios, who became Emperor Anastasius II. After two years a rebel leader and former tax collector deposed him, capturing Constantinople and proclaiming himself Emperor Theodosius III. He only lasted two years; a rebel commander took control of Constantinople and forced Theodosius to abdicate. He later become bishop of Ephesus. LEO III The new emperor, Leo III, was able to stabilize the Byzantine Empire, and he remained emperor from 717 until his death in 741. He immediately set about a reorganization of the empire’s administration. Much of this centered on the elevation of serfs to become tenant farmers. Making alliances with the Khazars and the Georgians, he was able to defeat the Arabs. Leo III, however, is best known for his iconoclasm when, from 726 to 729 he ordered the destruction of the worshipping of images. His son, who became Emperor Constantine V, succeeded him at his death. He reigned until 775, managing to continue with the reforms and iconoclasm of his father and also defeat the Arabs and the Bulgars. He died while campaigning against the latter and was succeeded by a son who became Emperor Leo IV. Although Leo IV only reigned for fi ve years, he managed to send his soldiers on several campaigns against the Arabs. When he died, his son, aged only nine, became Emperor Constantine VI. Scheming led to him being taken prisoner and blinded by his mother, who succeeded as Empress Irene, the widow of Leo IV. Her fi nance minister deposed her in 802. He became Emperor Nikephoros I and continued the wars against the Bulgars and the Arabs until he was killed in Bulgaria in 811. The son of Nikephoros I became Emperor Staurakios, but he reigned only for just over two months until he was forced to abdicate. He went to live in a monastery, where he died soon afterwards. His brother- in-law then became Emperor Michael I. Eager to become popular, Michael reduced the high levels of taxation imposed by Nikephoros I. He also sought a compromise with Charlemagne. Abdicating, he retired to a monastery, and Leo V, an Armenian, became the next emperor. He was assassinated in 820, leading to the Phrygian dynasty of Michael II coming to power. Michael II was emperor from 820 to 829, and his son Theophilos succeeded him, ruling until 842. His wife then ruled, and then his son Michael III “The Drunkard,” who was assassinated in 867, ushering in Basil I and the Macedonian dynasty. Basil I was believed to have been of Armenian ancestry, and he lived in Bulgaria, leading an expedition against the Arabs in 866. He helped in the assassination of his predecessor and became one of the greatest Byzantine rulers. Apart from codifying the laws, he also built the Byzantines into a major military power. His reign also coincided with the Great Schism, in which Basil determined that Constantinople should remain the center of Christianity, not Rome. Basil allied the Byzantines to the forces of Louis II, the Holy Roman Emperor. Their combined fl eets were able to defeat the Arabs, and although the Byzantines lost much of Sicily, the eastern frontier was heavily reinforced, and Arab attacks against the Byzantines were unsuccessful. When Basil died in 886, his son Leo VI succeeded him, although some accounts identify Leo VI as a son of Michael III. Leo VI, who was the son of a mistress of Michael III and later mistress of Basil I, ended up at war with the Bulgarians, although his tactical alliance to the Magyars was successful for a period. The Byzantine defeat in 896 was a reverse that was followed by the Arabs capturing the last Byzantine-held bases on Sicily. A Byzantine expedition tried to recapture Crete but failed, and Leo VI died in 912, succeeded by his younger brother Alexander. Emperor Alexander was extremely unpopular, and his death after a polo match ended his reign of 13 months. Leo VI’s illegitimate son then succeeded as Constantine VII in 913, inheriting a war with Bulgaria. Constantine was deposed in 920 by Romanos I, the son of a member of the Imperial Guard who was deposed in 944, leading to Constantine VII returning as emperor. He then reigned for 14 years, and when he died, his son Romanos II became the next emperor. As soon as Romanos II took over, he purged the court of his father’s friends, and allegations were made that he had poisoned his father to gain the throne. Although Romanos II was indolent and lazy, he left the army in the command of capable generals. He died after a reign of four years, succeeded initially by his fi ve-year-old son, Basil II. Nikephoros II quickly deposed Basil, reigning for six years until he was assassinated. It was during his reign, in 961, that the famous monastery complex on Mount Athos was founded. The next emperor was John I, who reigned for six years, until he died. During his reign he trained ex-emperor Basil to rule, and Basil II became emperor again, reigning for 49 years. Basil II formed a strong alliance with Prince Vladimir I of Kiev, and together they managed to stabilize the northern borders of the Byzantine Empire. Basil II also took back large parts of Syria, although he did not manage to retake Jerusalem. War in Thrace against the 64 Byzantine Empire: political history Bulgarians saw the Byzantines destroy their opponents at the battle of Kleidion on July 29, 1014. Basil II was succeeded by his younger brother, Constantine VIII, who reigned for only three years, being succeeded by Romanos III, a great-grandson of the usurper Romanos I. As the fi rst in a new dynasty Romanos III tried to change many aspects of Byzantine rule. He fi nanced many new buildings, including monasteries. He abandoned plans by Constantine VII to curtail the privileges of the nobles but faced many conspiracies, which led to his overthrow after a reign of fewer than six years. Michael IV, a friend of the daughter of Constantine VIII, ascended the throne. Military reforms were pressing, with the Byzantines under attack from Serbs, Bulgarians, and, more menacingly, the Arabs. It was also a period when the Normans were a rising military power. Michael IV defeated the Bulgarians and died in 1041, succeeded by his nephew Michael V, who only ruled for four months. Deposed, blinded, and castrated, Michael V was succeeded by Zoe, his adoptive mother. Constantine IX, the son of a senior civil servant, ruled from 1042 until 1055. A patron of the arts, he was subject to scheming and internal revolts. He was succeeded briefl y by Michael VI and then by Isaac I Komnenos. In 1059 Constantine X became emperor and inaugurated the Doukid dynasty. After his reign of eight years, his son Michael VII ruled for 11 years. For three of those years, Romanos IV, the second husband of Constantine X’s widow, was also emperor. In 1081 Alexios Komnenos, nephew of Isaac I, restored the Komnenid dynasty. Alexios was worried about the Turks controlling the Holy Land and decided to ask Pope Urban II for some military help from western Europe, resulting in the launching of the First Crusade. Over the next two centuries, as battles with Turks continued over Asia Minor, the empire’s relationship to the West deteriorated. During the Crusades the empire’s lands were meant to be used as a staging ground for the war to “reclaim” the Christian holy lands, but bored, undisciplined crusaders frequently wound up sacking and pillaging Byzantine cities when they were too impatient to wait for their arrival in Muslim territories. The Byzantine renaissance of the 12th century was an artistic and economic one—an inward-facing revival rather than a return to the sort of diplomatic fervor that had marked the empire’s earlier centuries. At the turn of the very next century, the soldiers of the failed Fourth Crusade were hired by Alexios IV, the son of the deposed Byzantine emperor Isaac II, to restore his father’s throne. Constantinople fell to the crusaders in 1204, and the Latin Empire was established to govern formerly Byzantine lands, with many territories apportioned to Venice. The Byzantine Empire was offi cially dissolved, though its culture remained much the same for the next 200 years—through shifting governments, as the Latin Empire never stabilized and was followed by brief-lived successors—until 1453, when the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople and all its lands. See also Byzantine Empire: architecture, culture, and the arts. Further reading: Asimov, Isaac. Constantinople: The Forgotten Empire. Boston: Houghton Miffl in Company, 1970; Holmes, Catherine. Basil II and the Governance of Empire Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005; Norwich, John Julius. History of Byzantium. London: Viking, 1991; Obolensky, Dimitri. The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe 500–1453. London: Sphere Books, 1971; Olster, David Michael. The Politics of Usurpation in the Seventh Century: Rhetoric and Revolution in Byzantium. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1993; Sevchenko, Nancy. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991. Justin Corfi eld Bill Kte’pi

The First Global Age 1450 to 1750 Edit

Babur Edit

(1483–1530) Mughal warrior, dynastic founder Babur was descended from Timerlane on his father’s side and Genghis Khan on his mother’s. Son of a petty ruler of Ferghana in Central Asia, he conquered Afghanistan, then northern India, founding the long-lived mughal (Mogul, or Moghul, the different versions of the spelling all derive from Mongol) dynasty in India. His body was returned to Kabul, Afghanistan, where he was buried. He wrote an autobiography of great literary merit called Baburnama (Memoirs of Babur) in his native Turki that recorded his battles, plans for ruling India, his dealings with friends and foes, the flora and fauna of India, and much more. Zahir ud-din Babur was the son of a petty prince in Ferghana in Central Asia. His father died when he was young and Babur had a difficult youth battling for his patrimony. He left Ferghana for good in 1504 and gained control of Kabul in Afghanistan, then an important stopping place along the trade route between India and Central Asia. In 1526, Babur led 12,000 soldiers into India and at the Battle of Panipat defeated and killed Ibrahim Lodi, a Muslim ruler of northern India who led a huge army of 100,000 horses and 100 elephants. The victory opened his way to Lodi’s capitals Delhi and Agra on the shores of the Jumna River. Babur rewarded his men by distributing the huge quantities of loot that came with victory, and allowed those of his followers who wanted to return to Afghanistan to do so, escorting more booty to reward his people who had stayed behind. Babur then took the titles padshah, which means great ruler, and ghazi which means “fighter of the, (Muslim) faith.” Agra and Delhi became his capitals, where he built forts, palaces, and gardens with fountains and running water to alleviate the heat of northern Indian summers. Babur spent the next three years campaigning against both Hindu and Muslim states in northern India, including Bengal; in organizing the administration of the provinces that he had conquered; and in parceling out the land among his supporters in a feudal arrangement. He also began to build a road that would link Delhi and Agra to Kabul. In 1529, when his favorite son and heir, Humayun, became ill Babur performed a ceremony to cure his son by taking on the son’s illness himself. He died shortly later, his health undermined by hard campaigning and India’s hot climate, at age 46. Babur was a many faceted man. A brilliant military leader, he founded a great empire in India that would last for two and half centuries, laying the foundations for unity in a politically fractured land. He was a builder who personally designed gardens and fountains, a patron of the arts, a poet, and a memoirist. Europeans who came to India during the early Mughal dynasty were so impressed with the splendor of the court that they called the rulers Great Mughals. Further reading: The Baburnama, Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor, translated, edited, and annotated by Salman M. Thackston. New York: The Modern Library, 1996; Richards, John F. The Mughal Empire. Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press, 1993. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur

Bacon, Sir FrancisEdit

(1561–1626) British statesman and philosopher Francis Bacon was an English lawyer, statesman, essayist, and philosopher. His public career stretched from Queen Elizabeth’s reign (1558–1603) to King James i’s (1603–25), witnessing the changes of political atmosphere of the early Stuart period. His essays unveiled beauty of modern English language and pleased the witty and pithy taste of English gentility. His advocacy of scientific reasoning helped initiate the English scientific revolution and his academic esotericism fascinated European intellectuals of future generations. The son of a prominent lawyer, Bacon entered Trinity College, Cambridge, at the age of 12, where he mastered Greek wisdom, medieval Scholastic philosophies, and new Renaissance humanism. Afterward, he took up residence at Gray’s Inn in 1580, and was admitted as an outer barrister two years later. He took a seat in the House of Commons in 1584, and made himself famous for his advocacy of the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots in the Parliament of 1586. During his political ascendance, he became acquainted with Robert Devereux, the earl of Essex and a personal confidant of Queen Elizabeth. The earl made young Bacon his confidential adviser and offered him generous financial support. But, in the courtly battle of 1601, the earl kidnapped the queen in an attempt to force her to dismiss his political enemies from the court. Bacon subsequently played an instrumental role in prosecuting and convicting the earl, his patron, and became very much disliked by his colleagues. Bacon received rapid promotion after the accession of James I. For his loyal and effective service to the king, he was rewarded with office of solicitor in 1607, made attorney general in 1613, appointed to the position of lord chancellor and elevated to be baron verulam in 1618, and ultimately created viscount St. Albans in 1621. In Parliament, he often vehemently defended royal prerogatives, and thus gradually alienated himself from a group of intelligent, ambitious, and eccentric gentlemen in the House of Commons. This group of men was driven by a new sense of assertiveness, willing to challenge the king, an insatiable Scot by their biased calculation, for his breaching laws, customs, and parliamentary rules of England. Meanwhile, Bacon always lived in debt and his careless lifestyle was often under the scrutiny and criticism of his peers. At the very peak of his political career in 1621, a parliamentary committee charged him with 23 counts of corruption. He was convicted, suffered a heavy fine, and was committed to the Tower of London for a short period of time. But his life was spared, and he escaped from being deprived of his noble title. Although Bacon’s political career ended in disgrace, his scholarship earned respect from both his friends and foes. He made great efforts to transcend the limits that medieval Scholasticism set on human minds. While criticizing deductive syllogism, he argued forcefully that human minds should be freed from “idols,” the erroneous notions and fallacious tendencies that distorted truth. He saw himself as the intellectual Christopher Columbus, discovering a new world of natural science, where he collected and analyzed data to establish a hypothesis, and experimented to reach and verify truth. His new method was so enlightening that many of the first generation of modern English scientists viewed themselves as his disciples. His essays in the form of fables and aphorisms revealed his insightful and ambiguous worldview. He believed that, if understood correctly, Greek wisdom and the Judeo-Christian truth were complementary, and the Bible and the Book of Nature were compatible. Scientific knowledge, if applied properly, could bring humans back to the original divine Garden of Eden. In his fictional New Atlantis published posthumously in 1627, he imagined an island kingdom ruled by the monarchy, which coexisted with Christianity in harmony, and an Academy of Scientists to stand at the pinnacle of its internal hierarchy. The kingdom was located on a hill as the light of the world, because there the progress of scientific knowledge expanded human capacity to its full to meet the perfect plan of God. New Atlantis revived the idealism of the Greek philosophers, who had anticipated philosophical kingship as the perfect form of human government. This fictional kingdom might explain why Francis Bacon, a brilliant scientific mind, would defend so staunchly King James I and the Church of England at the awakening moment of parliamentary consciousness. See also humanism in Europe; Stuart, House of (England). Further reading: Gaukroger, Stephen. Francis Bacon and the Transformation of Early-Modern Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001; Lampert, Laurence. Nietzsche and Modern Time: A Study of Bacon, Descartes, and 36 Bacon, Sir Francis Nietzsche. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993; Rossi, Paolo, and Sacha Rabinovitch (trans). Francis Bacon: From Magic to Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968; Whitney, Charles. Francis Bacon and Modernity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986. Wenxi Liu


Bacon’s RebellionEdit

This uprising, the most significant in british north america before the Revolution, occurred in Virginia in 1675–76. It was a result of colonial government corruption, declining opportunities for white immigrants, and increased conflict with Native Americans. Since the late 1610s, Virginia had been a profitable enterprise for both tobacco planters and impoverished English men and women who came to America as indentured servants. By 1665, however, a decline in the price of tobacco and increased regulation of trade had brought the boom times to a halt. By this point, the wealthiest planters, especially those allied with the royal governor Sir William Berkeley, had patented thousands of acres of land and were well suited to ride out the hard times. For small planters and recently freed servants, hard times coincided with a decline in the amount of available land and a high male to female ratio. “Six parts of seaven at least are Poore, Endebted, Discontented and Armed,” noted Berkeley, although he did little to mitigate the situation. Instead, as landownership became less attainable, the government limited suffrage to property owners. Faced with a lack of opportunity and high taxes, poorer colonists rented land or headed to the frontier. As the latter group grew in number, it came into conflict with the Susquehannock Indians and war broke out in 1675. Into this volatile situation came Nathaniel Bacon. A young and charismatic member of the English gentry, Bacon garnered a following among poor and frontier colonists by leading indiscriminate attacks on Native Americans. Berkeley worried that Bacon’s actions were hurtful to peaceful tribes and interfered with his monopoly over the fur trade. Accordingly, Berkeley denied Bacon a military commission to continue his war with Native Americans, but the growing unrest of the populace soon sent events spiraling out of control. On June 23, 1676, Bacon and four hundred armed men arrived in Jamestown and demanded that Berkeley accede to their demands. However, once Bacon left town, Berkeley declared him a traitor, to which Bacon responded by twice chasing Berkeley out of the capital and burning Jamestown to the ground on September 18. A month later, Bacon fell ill and died, bringing the rebellion to an abrupt halt. His fellow conspirators were hanged the following spring, while Berkeley returned to England and died soon after. In the short term, Bacon’s Rebellion changed little in Virginia society. Although political inequalities had been addressed during the uprising, many of these, including the expansion of the electorate, were rescinded thereafter. Poverty and a lack of opportunity remained prominent for at least another generation and it was less than a decade before another uprising broke out. In the long term, Bacon’s Rebellion further poisoned relations between colonists and Indians. It also caused Virginia’s planters to realize that the success of a tobacco economy could not rest on a population of white servants for whom there was little opportunity for land ownership and a family once they finished their indentures. Indirectly, then, Bacon’s Rebellion became an impetus for the Chesapeake’s shift from white indentured servants to African slaves. See also natives of North America. Further reading: Morgan, Edmund. American Slavery-American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. New York: Norton, 1975; Washburn, Wilcomb E. The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia. Chapel Hill:. University of North Carolina Press, 1957. John G. McCurdy


bandeirantes in BrazilEdit

Bandeirantes were members of bandeiras, or roving bands of explorers, prospectors, and Indian slavers originating principally in the frontier settlement of São Paulo in colonial Brazil, beginning around the 1580s and continuing for the next 150 years or so. The original meaning of the term bandeira was “flag,” though in medieval Portugal it also came to mean a small autonomous militia. Their primary purpose was to acquire Indian slaves for their Paulista (São Paulo) patrons. Some bandeiras were gone years at a time and traveled thousands of kilometers through the back country. In the process, the bandeirantes explored much of the vast Brazilian interior—its forests, grasslands, rivers, jungles, and backlands (sertão) to the west, south, and north—pushing back the colony’s known frontiers and opening up new paths for settlement and colonization. bandeirantes in Brazil 37 In Brazilian historiography and national culture, bandeirantes occupy a very important and highly ambiguous position—praised for their endurance and discoveries, and condemned for their brutalities and cruelties that were integral to Indian slaving in the backcountry. By 1600, most residents of São Paulo (which at the time was a small settlement of only about 120 houses and 2,000 people) were Portuguese, Indian, and racially mixed mamelucos (the Portuguese equivalent of the Spanish term mestizo). The predominant language was Tupí. Their city and homesteads vulnerable to attack, Paulistas initially launched bandeiras as a defensive measure against hostile natives. By around 1600, bandeiras had transformed into offensive slave-raiding expeditions. The indigenous inhabitants around São Paulo having all but disappeared by this time, victims to enslavement and diseases, the Paulistas found themselves chronically short of servile labor. The bandeiras were their effort to remedy this chronic labor shortage. Most bandeiras left no written record, though many others did, thanks in large part to Jesuit missionaries or foreigners who accompanied them through the backcountry and reported on their experiences. As one Jesuit priest marveled, “One is astounded by the boldness and impertinence with which, at such great cost, men allow themselves to enter that great sertão for two, three, four or more years. They go without God, without food, naked as the savages, and subject to all the persecutions and miseries in the world. Men venture for two or three hundred leagues into the sertão, serving the devil with such amazing martyrdom, in order to trade or steal slaves.” A classic account is by the Jesuit priest Pedro Domingues of 1613, which described a journey of several thousand kilometers lasting 19 months. Occasionally clashing with Spanish settlements emanating out from the Río de la Plata, the bandeirantes helped to define colonial Brazil’s southern boundaries. As time went on, they also clashed repeatedly with the Jesuits, who saw their slave raiding as antithetical to their own goal of converting the natives to Christianity and saving souls. This conflict between bandeirantes and Jesuits in colonial Brazil can be aptly compared to similar conflicts between encomenderos and religious missions in colonial Spanish America during this same period. By around 1650, there occurred a broad shift among bandeiras from slave raiding to the search for precious metals. By this time, African slaves were fulfilling the colony’s servile labor requirements, while the Jesuit missions had fortified their defenses, making Indian slaving more difficult. Greatly extending geographic knowledge of the vast Brazilian interior, the bandeirantes have come to occupy a position within Brazilian national culture akin to the cowboys of the United States or the gauchos of Argentina, symbolizing the spirit of adventure, independence, and, ironically, freedom. It is estimated that bandeirantes enslaved and caused the premature deaths of hundreds of thousands of Indians during the decades of their greatest activity. See also encomienda in Spanish America; Jesuits in Asia; slave trade, Africa and the. Further reading: Hemming, John. Red Gold: The Conquest of the Brazilian Indians. London: Papermac, 1978; Morse, Richard M., ed. The Bandeirantes: The Historical Role of the Brazilian Pathfinders. New York: Knopf, 1965. Michael J. Schroeder


baroque tradition in EuropeEdit

“Baroque” describes both a period and the artistic style that dominated the 17th century. The baroque style originated in Rome, Italy, c. 1600, largely as an expression of Catholicism and the royal courts, and spread throughout Europe, lasting into the early 18th century. Following the Counter Reformation in the 16th century, the Roman Catholic Church, the main patron of the arts in Europe, required new forms of art in ecclesiastical contexts to educate the masses and to strengthen the church’s spiritual and political positions. Baroque painting not only includes portraits of saints and the Virgin, but also encompasses numerous styles and diverse themes—large-scale religious works with monumental figures that clearly convey a narrative, which were intended to convince worshipers to adhere to the church’s doctrines; heroic mythological and allegorical cycles, designed to engage the intellect of the viewer and glorify royalty; portraiture; and still life. Seventeenth-century painting comprises five stylistic categories. Caravaggio (1571–1610), who stressed painting from the model and the use of chiaroscuro, the strong contrast of shade and light, helped to spread naturalism from Rome into Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands. Classicism, represented by Annibale Carracci (1560–1609) and his school, drew from Renaissance and Venetian sources to create works of great drama, vitality, and grandeur that appealed to the senses. Academic classicism, or the Louis XIV style, developed in France through the Royal Academy. Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640) popularized the later high baroque style, 38 baroque tradition in Europe which emphasized unity of composition and context, rich color, emphasis on theatrical drama, and robust, monumental interacting figures. Painters in the Dutch Republic such as Vermeer (1632–75) introduced realism, using themes from everyday, contemporary life and giving great attention to faithfully reproduced detail. In Spain, Velázquez (1599–1660), Murillo (1618–82), Zurbarán, and Cotán created genre scenes and still life. Baroque relief sculpture and sculpture-in-the-round emphasized action and theatricality, employed a single optimal viewpoint, and often depended on context for interpretation. Bernini (1598–1680), considered the greatest sculptor of the baroque era, worked in Rome and sculpted single, dramatic moments that expressed the subject’s inner psychology. Architects of the baroque era, notably Bernini and Francesco Borromini (1588–1667) in Italy, Sir Christopher Wren (1632–1723) in England, Jules Hardouin-Mansart (1646–1708) and Louis Le Vau (1612–70) in France, and Johann Michael Fischer von Erlach (1656–1723) and Balthasar Neumann (1687–1753) in central Europe, created large, impressive buildings with an emphasis on complete spatial integration, in which all architectural elements work together to form a unified whole. Architects altered the planar, horizontal facades of the Renaissance style, embellishing outer facades with central bay projections, freestanding columns, niches, and classical ornament, which emphasized verticality and allowed light and shadow to play across the surface and enhance the sculptural effect of the monumental structures. Architects developed circular, elliptical, elongated cross, and octagonal ground plans for religious and secular buildings. Architects often crowned these baroque structures with an interior dome, employed illusory interior trompe l’oeil effects, and made use of opulent ornament to intensify the dramatic experience for the viewer. Musicians of the baroque era, such as Bach (1685– 1750), Handel (1685–1759), Vivaldi (1678–1741), and Monteverdi (1567–1643), developed a contrapuntal style of imitative counterpoint, harmony, and elaborate ornamentation and popularized opera. In literature, the English metaphysical poets explored metaphor and paradox, authors focused on allegory and metaphor, and the novel form gained in popularity. Further reading: Bazin, Germain. Baroque and Rococo. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1985; Held, Julius, and Donald Posner. Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Art. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; Kitson, Michael. The Age of Baroque. London: Hamlyn, 1966; Martin, John Rupert. Baroque. New York: Harper & Row, 1977; Tapie, Victor-L. The Age of Grandeur. New York: Grove Press, 1960; Toman, Rolf. Baroque Architecture, Sculpture, Painting. Cologne: Konemann, 1998; Wölfflin, Heinrich. Renaissance and Baroque. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984. Alecia Harper


Bible traditionsEdit

The sources surrounding the earliest manuscripts of the Bible are vast and varied. In the first five centuries of the New Testament text, for example, the Bible was copied by hand in stylish capital letters called uncials, but in the next five centuries it was copied in lowercase letters called minuscules. Thus, there were different text forms, to say nothing of the variations caused by human copying in the first thousand years of the written biblical tradition. In 1454 Johann Gutenberg put an end to textual diversity when he invented a new form of printing press. In one fell swoop he standardized the Bible that a community would use for its reading. The question Jews and Christians faced, however, was which Bible text they should use as the Textus Receptus (“received text” or standard, TR) for all printings of the Bible. The Jewish Bible (Old Testament) was not hard to standardize because the rabbis used a version going back to the first millennium c.e. called the Masoretic Text (MT). The MT kept variations to a minimum by strictly controlling the reading and the use of the Bible, though even here the most careful copying could not prevent ambiguities and errors to slip in. As time went on and more discoveries were made, it became clear that the MT indeed was the TR, but there were other less-influential rival texts used by Jews in various places and times. The first printed version based on the MT was the Venice edition of 1524–25, done by Daniel Bomberg and edited by Jacob ben Hayyim. This Bible was dominant among Jews until the 20th century. At that time scholars began using the Leningrad Codex because it reflected the MT from a single and self-consistent editor. Matters were more complicated with the Christian Bible (New Testament). Here there are thousands of Greek manuscripts, quotations from the fathers of the church, and ancient versions. Research on which text was “correct” and therefore to be standardized for the religious community began as early as Origen (185–254) Bible traditions 39 and Jerome (347–420). These scholars noted that there were a number of readings for each of the verses that they interpreted, and they set up rules to justify the ones they used. The issue of text became important in the time of the Renaissance when scholars questioned the millennium-old Latin Bible used by the Western Church. The most influential intellectual of the time Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536) published a Greek New Testament in 1516 based on a mere five to six manuscripts. In spite of his many errors and educated guesses about the original text, his pioneering work was the basis for later editions. When Robert Estienne compiled his “Stephanus” version of the Greek (four editions, 1546–51), the Protestant world picked it up as its TR, in use until the 19th century. Martin Luther used Erasmus for his German Bible in 1519, and Anglicans in England used Stephanus after 1550. The popular King James Version of the Bible is based on the TR, and continued as the best-selling translation until the last 20 years in the United States. As time went on it became clear the Renaissance scholars of the Bible relied too much on the minuscule texts of Byzantine manuscripts and not enough on the earlier uncial sources. Nonetheless, the TR was dominant until B. F. Wescott and F. J. A. Hort decisively led biblical scholarship in new directions with their The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881–82). Further reading: Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the NT: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Mark F. Whitters


Bible translationsEdit

In the ferment of the Protestant Reformation there was public clamoring to read the Bible independently of church interpretations. The King James Version (KJV) for the Protestants and the Douai-Reims Version for the Catholics are the products of hierarchical recognition that the Bible should be more available to church members. One of the first in the 16th century to make an effort to translate the Bible into English was William Tyndale of Oxford University. Accused of heresy and rejected by the bishop of London for his translating, he went to Antwerp to finish his edition in 1537. There he became associated with the Lutherans and died a Protestant martyr’s death. His Bible was smuggled back into England where it had a profound impact on later translating efforts. Henry viii, the instigator of the Anglican Reformation, was initially not in favor of new translations of the Bible. He banned the Tyndale Bible and opposed the Lutherans abroad and the Lollards (followers of John Wycliffe) at home. But once the rupture with Rome occurred he was more receptive to the notion. Henry’s ministers Cromwell and Cranmer cooperated to bring the “Great Bible” to all English churches, rescuing it from Inquisition censure in France, where it was initially being printed. The main translator for this version was John Rogers, a friend of Tyndale, and so the Great Bible contains some of Tyndale’s unpublished notes and Protestant sentiments. Though it was eventually displaced by the KJV, its Psalter was retained in the Book of Common Prayer, the daily liturgy of the Anglican Church. After 1542 Henry VIII took a dimmer view of Bible availability and public reading, an attitude that prevailed until the reign of James I in the early 1600s. Émigrés from Switzerland put together the Geneva Bible during the reign of Elizabeth, and it became the reference translation for the likes of Shakespeare, John Bunyan, and the Puritans. Though lay people—even King James—grew up on the Geneva Bible, the ruling elites were not comfortable with its destabilizing notes and Calvinistic tone. In 1569, a revision of it was carried out by Anglican bishops, and hence received its name, the Bishops’ Bible. Though it was now the official version of the Anglican Church, many of the bishops who had worked on its revision continued to use the Geneva Bible. King James was neither pleased with the Bishops’ Bible nor sympathetic to the Bible of the Puritans, the Geneva Bible. He wanted a Bible that all his subjects would “bound unto it, and none other.” So a new Bible translation project was commissioned, this time without notes unfavorable toward kings and rulers and relying on the best of all the English Bibles of the previous century. The task was given to 54 men—though this number is in question—in 1604. Puritans and Anglicans worked side by side, along with linguists, theologians, laymen, and clergy. Their aim was to derive a Bible that the common citizen could use in every context. The Greek text was the Textus Receptus, the standard New Testament edition pioneered by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza; and the Hebrew text was probably from the Complutensian Polyglot (1514–17), a scholarly effort originating in Spain. King James was unable to finance the work out of his immediate revenue, so compensation was given through ecclesial positions. Room and board for the 40 Bible translations translators were provided by the three sponsoring institutions, Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster. The job of printing went to Robert Barker in 1611, whose family retained the license to print for two generations. Although it claims to have the endorsement of the king and his council, no record of this direct mandate comes from royal sources. Although it is often referred to as the “Authorized Version,” this term more accurately speaks of the approval of the Church of England and thus the indirect support of the king. Other Bibles continued to be used and cited in the English-speaking world, but by 1640 the KJV had over 40 editions and was considered as the superior Bible. By 1662, the Anglican Book of Common Prayer used only it, except for the Psalms. It became so sacrosanct that corrections of its obvious typographical and translation errors were considered by its users as blasphemous. Often called the “noblest monument of English prose,” it has had untold impact on the English language and literature, spawning countless proverbs and images. Increasingly in modern times, however, its vocabulary is more and more archaic, so that in 1988 its American sales were surpassed by the New International Version of the Bible. Meanwhile the Catholics were critical of the new Bible translations and the Protestant government policies in general. Forced to flee, many took refuge across the English Channel in the Spanish Netherlands (present-day France), where they established seminaries for secretly sending back to England hundreds of newly ordained priests. There at Douai and Reims they reworked Jerome’s Vulgate Latin Bible into English, and it was called the Douai-Reims Bible (1582–1609). It was directed by an Oxford-trained scholar, Gregory Martin, under the direction of William (later cardinal) Allen. His New Testament appeared in Reims in 1582 and the Old Testament at Douai in 1609. Later generations of Catholics embraced it over all others, although its heavy use of Latinism is criticized as excessive and sometimes unintelligible. The notes of the Douai-Reims are heavily Catholic. The preface insists that vernacular translations are not necessary and that the Latin Vulgate is superior to the Greek manuscripts (thus, the commonly accepted Textus Receptus pioneered by Erasmus is inferior). Its publication along with the KJV set the stage for continuing controversies between Catholics and Protestants over which was the better translation. The Douai-Reims did not attain widespread acceptance of its Protestant counterpart, due in part to the official Catholic teaching discouraging the public from reading the Bible. A new version of the Douai-Reims appeared in 1749–63 under the supervision of Bishop Richard Challoner of London. The Challoner Bible then was used by Catholics for the next 200 years. Further reading: Nicolson, Adam. God’s Secretaries. New York: HarperCollins, 2003; Wansbrough OSB, Henry. The Story of the Bible. Ijamsville, MD: The Word Among Us, 2006. Mark F. Whitters


Boabdil (Muhammad XI)Edit

(d. c. 1527) last Muslim ruler in Spain Boabdil, who ruled as Muhammad XI (reigned 1482–83, 1487–92), was the last Muslim Nasrid ruler in Granada, Spain, during the final stages of the Reconquest of Spain, or Reconquista. For several centuries the Muslim dynasties in the Iberian Peninsula had lost territory to the Christian Portuguese and Spanish forces. The Almohads (a Berber dynasty from Morocco) lost Cordoba in 1236 and Seville in 1248. The Almohads, strict unitarians, followed the teachings of Ibn Tumert (d. 1130), an extremely conservative religious leader who even condemned all four schools of Islamic law. The far more liberal land and pleasure seeking Muslim population in the Iberian Peninsula rejected the Amohad brand of extreme puritanism and support in wartime. The Muslim city-states were also weakened by internal dynastic divisions and competition among themselves. Granada was left as the last Muslim stronghold; after the Christians took Gibraltar in 1462, Granada was cut off from ports and reinforcements from North Africa. During the first years of his reign, Boabdil was taken prisoner by the Christians and was forced to become a vassal of Castile as a price for his release. He then disputed with his brother, who had styled himself Muhammad XII, before regaining the throne in 1487. But his victory was short lived, for in 1491, the forces of Ferdinand V and Isabella I of Spain lay siege to the city. The defeat of Granada was a foregone conclusion and in January 1492 (on the day of Epiphany), Boabdil handed over the key to the city. He was forced into a temporary exile at Alpujarras. As he reached the ridge overlooking the city, he looked back and sighed. Boabdil’s mother, A’isha, then supposedly taunted her son that he “wept like a woman for what he could not hold as a man.” A stone marker to the “Moor’s sighs” still commemorates the spot. Ferdinand and Isabella, devout Catholics, and their successors moved to erase evidence of the long Boabdil (Muhammad XI) 41 Muslim control over the territory and to establish a Christian society. In reaction some remaining Muslims, known as Mudejars, rose up in a futile revolt that was brutally quashed in 1570. Others, known as Moriscos, converted to Christianity. The majority, including Boabdil, fled to Morocco and other parts of North Africa. For Christendom, the victory over Granada compensated in some measure for the earlier loss of the Byzantine Greek Catholic capital of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453. From the Islamic perspective, the loss of Granada and all of Andalusia was a major defeat. Further reading: Irving, Washington. Tales of the Alhambra. 1832, Granada: Miguel Sanchez, c. 1980; Reston, James. Dogs of God: Columbus, the Inquisition, and the Defeat of the Moors. New York: Knopf, 2006. Janice J. Terry


Book of Common Prayer, theEdit

The Book of Common Prayer contains the liturgy and main theological articles of the Anglican (Episcopal) Church. Still in use today, it has a long history dating back to the Reformation and Elizabeth I. The Church of England was established under Henry VIII in 1534. Breaking from the Roman Catholic church and influenced by the Reformation, the church still maintained a liturgy that was quite similar to the Catholic Mass. While Henry VIII was not in favor of Protestantism, the succession of his son, Edward VI, to the throne resulted in a decidedly Protestant tilt for England under Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. During Edward’s short reign, at Parliament’s request, Cranmer wrote a communion liturgy in English (rather than in the traditional Latin). In 1549, he completed a prayer book called The Bishops Book, which was used until Edward’s death. Cranmer drafted a statement of faith in 42 articles (sections) in 1551, but this was never officially approved. A moderate revision was made in 1552 and used until the accession of his half sister Mary i in 1553. Mary, a staunch Roman Catholic, turned England back toward Catholicism (though without complete success), and Cranmer was burned at the stake in 1556. In 1558, Mary died and her half sister Elizabeth I came to the throne. Elizabeth was determined to have religious peace in England, and so she sought a way for those with both Protestant and Catholic leanings to be together in one national church. Saying she had “no desire to make windows into men’s souls,” Elizabeth nonetheless desired to bring outward observance into uniformity, without binding people’s consciences unnecessarily. From this effort comes the expression “window-dressing.” In 1559, the issue came before Parliament. Most of the House of Commons was Protestant-leaning, and in the House of Lords (which included the church bishops), the small number of Catholic-leaning bishops were unable to sway the other lords toward retaining much in the way of Catholic practice. Parliament requested a new liturgical book that would be a revision of the 1549 and 1551 editions, and work began on the project. Later that year, the first edition of the Book of Common Prayer was approved by Parliament and Elizabeth. In 1562, discussion regarding the theological articles of faith concluded with the approval by Elizabeth of the 39 Articles. These were based on Cranmer’s original 42 articles with several articles condemning Anabaptism removed. The 39 Articles were not formally added to the Book of Common Prayer until the edition of 1604. In 1662, after the restoration of the monarchy, a new version was produced that contained modest revisions, making it more accessible to the Puritans. The 1559 edition contained 21 chapters. Beginning with the Act of Uniformity passed by Parliament, it contains several chapters that gave the order of Bible readings, including psalms and lessons for morning and evening prayers. Most important were the liturgy for the Sunday church service, including chapters on the litany, collects (prayers), and the Holy Communion ceremony. Finally, there were chapters for the order of baptism, marriage, burial, and other short liturgies. In 1928, a substantial revision of the Book of Common Prayer failed to pass Parliament. While some of that revision was approved as an alternate form in the 1960s, the 1662 version remains the official version for the Anglican Church of England. Other Anglican and Episcopal Churches have approved their own versions of the Book of Common Prayer. The composition has widespread influence on Christians today, especially among those desiring structure and tradition in their prayer. Further reading: Book of Common Prayer, www.justus. anglican.org/resources/bcp (cited February 2006); Booty, John E. The Book of Common Prayer, 1559: The Elizabethan Prayer Book. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 42 Book of Common Prayer, the 2005; Hefling, Charles, and Cynthia Shattuck, eds. The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Bruce D. Franson


Borgia familyEdit

The Borgias, or Borja, were a Spanish family from Valencia. There are a number of people identified with this family who have notorious reputations such as Pope Alexander VI and Cesare Borgia. On the other hand, there are family members with good reputations, such as Francis, leader in the Jesuit order and saint. Other notable Borgias are Pope Calixtus III and Lucretia Borgia. The family’s fortunes were founded by Calixtus III, born Alonzo de Borja or Alphonso Borgia (1378–1458). Ingratiating himself with Alphonso V of Aragon, who also ruled Naples and Sicily, he was made a cardinal in 1440 and elected pope in 1455. A capable administrator, he supported crusades against the Turks. He also supported John Hunyadi at Belgrade and the struggles of the Albanian national hero Scandenbeg against the Turks. An unapologetic nepotist, in his largesse to his sister’s family he led to their prominence in Italy as well as Spain. One beneficiary of his uncle’s benevolence was Rodrigo Borgia (1431–1503). Originally from Valencia, he studied law at Bologna. When his maternal uncle was elected pope in 1455, he exchanged his original name of Lazol for the maternal name of Borgia. After his uncle’s election, he received great wealth and in short order was made bishop, cardinal, and vice-chancellor of the church. After his uncle’s death, he served five popes. During this period, he amassed great wealth and had assorted mistresses by whom he had many children, of which Lucretia, Giovanni, and Cesare are the best known. Elected pope, in an election marked by accusations, he initially governed well as Pope Alexander VI. It was not long, however, before he became obsessed with enriching his relations at the expense of the church. Anxious to carve out fiefdoms inside the Papal States, he manipulated and conspired against others who he felt stood in the way of his children’s advancement. He then enlisted the king of France as an ally. This act led to wars that lasted from 1494 to 1559 and ended with Italy under the influence of Spain. His relationship with his subjects was arduous. After his eldest son, Giovanni, was assassinated by his second son, Cesare, he supported the latter as Cesare attempted to carve out an independent kingdom in central Italy. Although he was a good administrator, his unbridled ambition for his children led to chaos in the Papal States. His selling of cardinal hats for money became notorious as did the convenient deaths of a great number of people who earned him the money he coveted. His guiding principle was family advancement. It became clear that the papacy to him during the 11 years of his pontificate was an instance of family aggrandizement. Although most of the misdeeds were done at the behest of Cesare, some were his own. On the plus side, his support of his son and his campaign against the Orsinis and Colonna rid most of the Papal States and Portugal of petty tyrants. He also became a patron of the arts and supported Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael Santi, and Michelangelo. However, his desire to gain wealth, power, and advancement in the interests of his family at any cost left a legacy of crime and infamy, and a heritage of such corruption that it became one of the causes of the Reformation 14 years later. Interestingly, the brother of his last mistress, Giulio Farnese, was made a cardinal and later as Pope Paul VI (1534–49) called the Council of Trent (1545–63), which began the Counter-Reformation, or Catholic Reformation. His son, Cesare (1476–1507), said to be a model for Niccolò Machiavelli, was suspected of many crimes including the murder of his brother and brother-in-law. Completely unscrupulous, he was a good soldier. Once he conquered a place, he usually governed better than the petty tyrant he replaced. His attempt to carve out a kingdom in central Italy was on the verge of success but was frustrated by the death of his father. He died in 1507 while in the service of his brother-in-law. His sister, the beautiful Lucretia (1480–1519), was also accused of many crimes. These alleged crimes tend today to be traced to others such as her father and brother. She had an illegitimate child at 17, her first husband was forced to divorce her first, and her second husband was assassinated. In 1502, she married the heir to the duchy of Ferrara, Alfonso, and the marriage was fairly happy and uneventful. She rose above her past, became a mother of four children, patronized artists such as Titian, did works of charity, and led a respectable life. She died in 1519 in childbirth, but her legend endures. The Spanish branch of the family became dukes of Gandia after Giovanni’s assassination in 1497 and was less notorious. One member served as a viceroy of Peru. However, the most famous member of this branch who died out in the 18th century was St. Francis Borgia. An able administrator, he entered the newly formed Jesuit order in 1546. He became an itinerant preacher and supervised the order in Spain, Portugal, and the Indies. In 1565, he Borgia family 43 became the head of the order and wrote a number of influential texts. He led an exemplary life and was canonized in the following century. Further reading: Chamberlain, E. R. The Fall of the House of Borgia. New York: Buccaneer Press, 1989; Cloulas, Ivan. The Borgias. New York: Franklin Watts, 1989; Johnson, Marian. The Borgias. New York: Penguin Press, 1981; Mallet, Michael Edward. The Borgias: The Rise and Fall of a Renaissance Dynasty. Chicago: Chicago Academy Publishers, 1987; Van Heller, Marcus, and John Stevens. The House of the Borgias. New York: Olympia Press, 2004. Norman C. Rothman


Bourbon dynasty in Latin AmericaEdit

In 1700 Philip V became king of Spain and inaugurated the House of Bourbon, which was to rule Latin America until Napoleon deposed King Ferdinand VII in 1808 and put his (Napoleon’s) own brother, Joseph, on the Spanish throne. In the events that followed, all of Latin America gradually gained its independence. When Philip V became king of Spain the Spanish dominions in the Americas were divided into two viceroyalties— the Viceroyalty of New Spain and the Viceroyalty of Peru. New Spain consisted of the Viceregal Audencia of Mexico (established in 1529) and the interlinked Audencias of Santo Domingo (1511), 44 Bourbon dynasty in Latin America Cesare Borgia confers with Niccolò Machiavelli in this reproduction of a painting by Faraffini. Cesare was said to be a model for the kind of ruler Machiavelli described in his famous treatise on government, The Prince. Panama (1538), Guatemala (1544, as Audencia de los Confines), Manila (1583), and Guadalajara (new Galaicia) (1549). Thus it controlled Mexico, the Spanish Caribbean, Central America, and the Philippines. The Viceroyalty of Peru included the Viceregal Audencia of Lima (1542), the Audencias of Santa Fé de Bogotá (New Granada) (1549), Chile (1609), Buenos Aires (1661–71), Characas (1559), and Quito (1564). The audencias were further divided into provinces. Strictly speaking the two viceroyalties held the same position as the kingdoms of Valencia, Catalonia, Aragon, León, and Castile. All colonial matters since 1524 had been decided by the Royal and Supreme Council of the Indies, and this process continued until 1714 when most functions were assumed by the Ministry of Marine and the Indies, although the council remained in existence until 1834. The Bourbon rulers in Spain always felt that their American colonies could deliver more in tax revenue. Philip V (r. 1700/01–1724, 1724–46) started a campaign to reorganize the administration, assume greater control, and increase trade. One of the greatest handicaps to trade with South America was that goods from Spain to the Americas had to go through Lima. This led to emerging centers for contraband. The most important of these was the town of Colonia, founded by the Portuguese in 1680 on the east bank of the Río de la Plata (River Plate), directly opposite Buenos Aires. From there Spanish, Portuguese, and British goods were smuggled across the river while the city authorities in Buenos Aires proclaimed themselves helpless to deal with the problem. Sailing Regulations In 1720, measures were introduced to regulate the sailing of ships to remove the need for people to buy smuggled goods. During the 1720s and 1730s, there was a rebellion in Paraguay with settlers attacking the Jesuit privileges. The religious order had established communes (known as reductions) in southern and eastern Paraguay and the low prices of their crops undercut many small farmers. The Communero Revolt saw many farmers march on Asunción and the governor, José de Antiquera, refuse to accept a new governor sent from Lima. However the rebels were ousted by Indian levies from the Jesuit reductions. A force from Buenos Aires arrived in 1724, and two years later Antiquera was captured. At the same time there was also a small rebellion among the Araucanian Indians in southern Chile. In 1736–37, there was also a small rebellion led by Juan Santos with Indians rebelling against harsh conditions in mines in central Peru. The rebels damaged the city of Oruro but then dispersed. A more serious conflict broke out in 1735 when the Spanish took advantage of being on the opposite side to Portugal in the War of the Polish Succession. A small Spanish force from Buenos Aires captured Colonia, but two years later the British persuaded them to return it. The task of reforming the colonial administration was left to Philip V’s successor, Ferdinand VI (reigned 1746– 59). He established the Viceroyalty of New Granada in 1739 with a viceroy taking up the position in the following year. However the Anglo-Spanish War of 1739–48 (known in England as the War of Jenkins’ Ear) initially hampered links between Spain and its colonies. Further attempts were made to reduce smuggling but too much was at stake, especially in Buenos Aires, where people still objected to goods’ having to be shipped through Lima. In the Treaty of Madrid of 1750 the Portuguese finally agreed to hand over Colonia, in return for taking the region of the Upper Paraná. When some Jesuits refused to hand over the latter, Portugal sent in soldiers who easily drove back the lightly armed Indians in the Jesuit reductions. As it felt that Spain had not honored its side of the treaty, the Portuguese held on to Colonia. This caused Charles III of Spain to annul the treaty in 1761 and send in soldiers, who finally captured Colonia in 1762. Smuggling, however, continued. Seven Years’ War The Seven Years’ War (1756–63) resulted in a humiliating defeat for Spain. It had stayed out of the war for the first three years, and when in 1760, it entered the conflict, the British attacked the Philippines and Cuba, taking both territories. Spain did manage to take most of the Banda Oriental (now Uruguay). Both the Philippines and Cuba were returned at the Treaty of Paris at the conclusion of the war, but Spain conceded Florida to the British. The easy losses that Spain sustained at the hands of the British illustrated the military vulnerability of Spain’s American colonies. King Charles III (r. 1759–88) decided to push ahead with further administrative reforms. One of the first measures was to increase taxes to help pay for the costly and futile involvement in the Seven Years’ War. In 1765, people in Quito rioted. The colonial administration held firm, and in 1776 Charles III created the Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata, with a viceroy taking up the position in 1778. It covered modernday Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay and eroded further the power of the Viceroyalty of Peru. This move followed a delineation of the land boundary Bourbon dynasty in Latin America 45 between Portuguese Brazil and the Spanish territories that confirmed the east bank of the River Plate, covering modern-day Uruguay, as Spanish. Buenos Aires was made capital of the Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata, and the important silver mines in Upper Peru (modernday Bolivia) were given to the new viceroyalty. Trade was now allowed to come from Europe. In one stroke, smuggling was reduced and the revenue from tariffs increased. Gálvez, fresh from his triumphs in Mexico, returned to Madrid and was appointed minister of the Indies in 1776. He sent officials who worked on increasing revenue, bolstering defenses, and helping increase agriculture and mining. One of the first changes was the Law of Free Trade in 1778, which enabled one part of the Spanish Americas to trade with another more easily. This further reduced smuggling. Gálvez then introduced the position of intendant. This person worked in the Americas but was directly responsible to the Spanish Crown, not the viceroy, so was able to give an independent report on events in the Americas. An intendant was introduced in the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata in 1782, in Peru two years later, and finally, in 1786 in New Spain. Although these moves followed the economic liberalization that was taking place in Europe, the government in Spain also introduced new laws that served to destroy much of their support in the Americas. New laws reduced the ability for governors to appoint officials. Massive dissent arose, some of it leading to talk of rebellion and even moves for independence. This coincided with the Tupac Amaru rebellion; the great-grandson of Inca leader Tupac Amaru rallied his followers near Cuzco in modern-day Peru. He led the first major uprising against the Spanish in two centuries. At its height tens of thousands of Indians joined the rebellion with the Spanish having to send in large numbers of soldiers to restore colonial rule at the cost of thousands of lives. The rebellion was brutally crushed. The Tupac Amaru rebellion also showed that there might not be enough Spanish soldiers in Latin America should another large rebellion or external invasion take place. Furthermore a brief stand-off with the British over the Falkland Islands in 1771 had ended when France indicated itself not willing to give military assistance to Spain. In 1715, there were only 500 soldiers in Buenos Aires. These were largely for protection of the governor and in case Portuguese from Colonia caused trouble. In 1765, the numbers had been increased to 5,500 and 7,000 in 1774. The same happened in Asunción, Santiago, Caracas, Quito, and Bogota. In 1776, the Spanish were sufficiently strong to take back Colonia; at the Treaty of San Ildefonso, Colonia, and the Banda Oriental was awarded to Spain forever. Spain’s involvement in the American Revolution was expected to have brought greater wealth to the Spanish colonies. However, as with the French, it was a costly venture and although it broke up the British Empire in the Americas, it left both Spain and France with large bills to pay. Furthermore exposure to the ideas of democracy affected soldiers like Francisco de Miranda (1750–1816), who, after time in the United States, served in the French Revolutionary Army before trying to free Venezuela from Spanish rule. When Spain sided with France against Britain in the first part of the Napoleonic Wars, 1796–1808, some people in the Americas saw it as their opportunity to use the British to gain independence. Furthermore Britain at the time was unable to sell any of its goods to Europe because of Napoleon’s rigorously enforced “Continental System” and thus also had a commercial motive in South American independence. When Napoleon ousted the king of Spain and placed Joseph Bonaparte on the throne, the days of Bourbon rule in Spain were numbered. See also Jesuits in Asia; Reducciones (congregaciones) in colonial Spanish America. Further reading: Cameron, Roderick. Viceroyalties of the West: The Spanish Empire in Latin America. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1968; de Madariaga, Salvador. The Fall of the Spanish American Empire. London: Hollis & Carter, 1947; Perry, J. H. The Spanish Seaborne Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990; Rock, David. Argentina 1516–1987: From Spanish Colonization to Alfonsín. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987. Justin Corfield Boyne, Battle of the After James II of the House of Stuart was forced off the throne of England in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, he sought to regain his fortunes in Ireland. James went into exile in France in January 1689, as a guest of Louis XIV, the king of France. After his Protestant daughter Mary and her husband, William of Orange, stadtholder of Holland or the Netherlands, were secure in England, Scotland and Ireland were still largely favorable to the Stuarts. In Ireland, the Catholic population favored James II, who was a Roman Catholic. Regardless 46 Boyne, Battle of the of the regime change in London, among the Irish Catholics, James II was still “Righ Seamus” (King James). Louis XIV firmly supported James when he landed in Ireland at Kinsale in March 1689. Not only did Louis XIV see this as a real “second front” in his struggle with William, but he also seems to have been personally committed to James’s cause. In England William and Mary had to support the Protestant succession to the throne, but the Irish Parliament James summoned came out for freedom of conscience. One of the causes of the Glorious Revolution was that James was building an Irish army in Ireland to offset the forces in England that were more under the control of the Protestant Parliament. Richard Talbot, the earl of Tyrconnell, had been charged in 1685 to form the Irish troops and ruled Ireland in the name of James as his lord-lieutenant. Unfortunately, not enough authority was given to Patrick Sarsfield, a natural leader who inspired his troops quite beyond what Tyrconnell could do. This seems to have aroused Tyrconnell’s jealousy, which undermined James’s hopes of using Ireland as a launching point to regain England. In August 1689, William sent an army across the Irish Sea to face James in Ireland. It was commanded by Friedrich Hermann, the first duke of Schomberg. Like Sarsfield, who had fought for the French in the Dutch War of 1672, Schomberg was a veteran of the wars in Europe. Ironically, Schomberg had fought in the French Army as well, but when Louis XIV revoked in 1685 the Edict of Nantes, giving toleration to French Protestants (Huguenots), Schomberg left French service to become commanding general of the margrave of Brandenburg, Frederick William. In 1688, he accompanied William to England, and was there made the duke of Schomberg. However, his military record in Ireland proved disappointing to William. William landed at Belfast on June 14, 1690. Having secured Ulster, the traditional Protestant stronghold of northern Ireland, William moved south toward Dublin, the heart of the Catholic south that supported James. On the strategic defensive now, James decided to meet William along the line of the Boyne River, using it as a natural defensive rampart against William’s southern advance. William’s army numbered about 36,000 men, while James could muster only about 25,000 men. Moreover, William’s army was given a strong boost by his Dutch Guards, veterans of the years of warfare against Louis XIV. On July 1, the two armies met along the banks of the Boyne. William decided to force a crossing of the river about four miles from the city of Drogheda. Immediately, the strategic deficiencies of James’s army showed themselves when William was able to open the battle with an artillery barrage from a cannon he took with him from England. James had no such strength in artillery. William, Schomberg, and other military advisers had decided to cross the Boyne at the village of Oldbridge, where there was some natural shelter for his troops. At the same time, part of the Williamite army made a feint north up the river, hoping to force a response from James to protect his line of retreat. In the morning of July 1, the troops began their march under Schomberg’s son, Charles de Schomberg. The fighting under Schomberg, while not decisive, succeeded in tying down some 6,000 of James’s soldiers. Four hours after the combat had started in the north, William’s troops under Schomberg began the main crossing at Oldbridge, with the Dutch Guards bearing the brunt of the offensive. In what would become one of the most brutal battles of the era, the Dutch Guards, supported by regiments of French Boyne, Battle of the 47 William III, prince of Orange, at the Battle of the Boyne. William commanded a force of some 36,000 men during the conflict. Huguenots, forced a passage of the Boyne. They ran into stiff opposition from the Irish Guards when the earl of Tyrconnell led a charge of his cavalry down the slope of the river, adding their weight to the contest between the Dutch and Huguenots, and the Irish Guards backed by other Irish regiments. For two hours, a savage fight followed, with neither side gaining the upper hand. The battle was so intense that the elder Schomberg spurred his horse into the thick of the fight to urge on the Dutch. In the heat of the moment, he had failed to put on his breast plate and was mortally wounded by Tyrconnell’s Irish horsemen. With the bulk of James’s army now tied down in the north or at Oldsbridge, another Williamite column had crossed the Boyne to the south. At noon, William himself crossed the Boyne at Drybridge, a deep crossing spot. Meanwhile, James kept his attention riveted on the fighting at Oldbridge. With the appearance of William’s fresh troops, James’s Irish soldiers, who had been fighting furiously for two hours at Oldbridge, became seriously outnumbered. James and Tyrconnell began a withdrawal after almost three hours of continuous combat, covered by the sabers of Tyrconnell’s Irish cavalry. James’s army made its retreat to Duleek, where the parts of the army that had confronted the young Schomberg were united with those from the main part of the battle at Oldbridge. Although William attempted a pursuit, he was stopped by the Irish. Although the war would continue until the Irish surrender at the Treaty of Limerick in October 1691, James II would never be able to recover the strategic initiative he had lost on the banks of the Boyne River in July 1690. See also absolutism, European; Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe; Reformation, the; William III. Further reading: Hayes-McCoy, G. A. Irish Battles: A Military History of Ireland. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1997; Hennessy, Maurice N. The Wild Geese: The Irish Soldier in Exile. London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1973; O’Callaghan, John Cornelius. History of the Irish Brigades in the Service of France. Shannon: Irish University Press, 1969. John Murphy


Braganza, House ofEdit

The House of Braganza (Bragança) in Portugal began in 1640 when João IV, formerly duke of Braganza, took the throne. The country had been controlled by the Spanish, and João’s action set off the war for Portuguese independence. The restoration dominated his reign and that of his sons, Afonso VI (1658–68) and Pedro II, princeregent (1668–83) and king (1683–1706). The end of the war with Spain in 1712 allowed João V (1706–50) to focus on the creation of an absolute monarchy. In 1640 Portugal was under Spanish control. The last Portuguese king, Sebastião, had died in 1578 and the two crowns united under philip ii of Spain (Philip I of Portugal). After years of discontent with Spanish rule, a group of provincial nobles convinced the duke of Braganza to accept the renascent Portuguese throne in 1640. The duke was the largest landowner in Portugal and overlord of some 80,000 people. He was crowned João IV on December 15, 1640. Philip IV of Spain, absorbed with mounting setbacks in the Thirty Years’ War and facing internal revolts such as the Catalan uprising, was unable to reconquer Portugal immediately. The new Portuguese king was neither a brilliant nor a particularly charismatic figure. He was cautious and stubborn and had relatively modest ambitions. His position was not to be envied. The break with Spain created a host of political, economic, and religious problems. Spanish influence with the Holy See and Pope Urban VIII ensured that Rome would not recognize the new dynasty. By 1668, 20 of the 28 dioceses in Portugal and overseas had no legal prelate. Militarily, João IV’s first task was to withstand the Spanish counterattack. The dismal state of Portugal’s defenses made this difficult. Border fortifications had lapsed into disrepair during the Habsburg period, the army was virtually nonexistent, and the once vaunted navy was in disarray. As a result, João adopted a largely defensive stance. João died in early November 1656, with the work of securing the dynasty and what remained of the empire still very much in doubt. This task would fall to his wife and sons. Luísa de Gusmão was the sister of the duke of Medina Sidonia. Intelligent, ambitious, and unafraid of the implications of the break with Spain, she had demonstrated more support for the plot against the Habsburgs in its initial stages than had her husband. The revolution of 1649 had given her royal status and she was determined to maintain the future of her children and the dynasty. At home her main political problem related to the immediate succession. She had borne the king three sons: Teodosio (b. 1634), Afonso (b. 1643), and Pedro (b. 1648). From 1640 Teodosio had been groomed to succeed his father but he died of illness in 1653. Therefore, upon João’s death, Afonso, a child of 10, was next in line to the throne. 48 Braganza, House of One of the most enigmatic figures in Portuguese history, Afonso had evidently suffered some type of paralytic seizure early in life that left his right arm and leg partially paralyzed and may also have affected his thinking. He also displayed a profound lack of good judgment. Although the Cortes of 1653 had proclaimed Afonso the legitimate heir upon his brother’s untimely death, there was considerable opposition to crowning him three years later. In the end, a compromise was reached. Afonso VI was proclaimed nine days after his father’s death, while Luisa ruled as regent. During her regency, the queen shared power with a group of conservative nobles who dominated the Council of State. She pursued policies at home and abroad that largely followed the priorities established by her husband. Unfortunately for her, the political, economic, and societal pressures engendered by the Spanish offensives of the years 1661–62 combined with increasing difficulties relating to the continuation of the regency to end her governance. In the spring of 1662, she was deposed by Afonso. She retired to a convent, where she died in 1666 without fully reconciling with her son. The regency had done little to prepare Afonso for the demands of kingship. An impulsive and rebellious man, he spent most of his time riding, watching dog and cock fights, and carousing in the seamier districts of Lisbon. By 1667, his more restrained brother Pedro wanted both power and Afonso’s wife, Maria-Francisca of France. On November 23, Afonso signed a document under pressure that surrendered royal authority to Pedro and his legitimate descendants. The Cortes recognized Pedro II in January 1668. He served as prince regent in deference to his imprisoned elder brother until 1683 and then became king until 1706. Pedro established peace with Spain in 1669 and began the age of absolutism in Portugal by never summoning the Cortes after 1698. João V (b. 1689), who took the throne in 1706 at the age of 17, was the son of Pedro and his second wife, Maria-Sophia-Elizabeth of Neuberg. An absolute monarch who saw louis xiv as model, João spent considerable sums to glorify both Portugal and his reign. In 1742, he suffered an illness of the chest that effectively stopped his days as an active ruler. The country slid into decay. When João died on July 31, 1750, he was succeeded by his son, José I. See also Habsburg dynasty. Further reading: Ames, Glenn J. Renascent Empire?: The House of Braganza and the Quest for Stability in Portuguese Monsoon Asia, ca. 1640–1683. London: Eveleigh Nash, 1915; Livermore, H. V. A New History of Portugal. London: Cambridge University Press, 1976; Newitt, Malyn. A History of Portuguese Overseas Expansion, 1400–1668. New York: Routledge, 2005. Caryn E. Neumann


Brazil, conquest and colonization ofEdit

The Portuguese conquest of Brazil was a complex, prolonged, and partial process that many scholars argue was never fully realized. Lacking large cities, a centralized political structure, and a common language, the estimated 2 to 3 million precontact indigenous inhabitants of the Brazilian coast and interior were divided into an intricate patchwork of ethnolinguistic groups and clan-based tribes. The principal coastal groups were Tupi-speaking peoples who had migrated into the area in the preceding centuries, displacing and absorbing existing groups. Seminomadic hunter-gatherers with intimate knowledge of the local environment, Tupi speakers were divided into numerous major branches and hundreds of autonomous bands, often in conflict with each other and other groups, and possessing great skill in the arts of war. Their principal weapon, often used with deadly effect, was the bow and arrow. Like other ethnolinguistic groups in the Americas, many Tupi-speaking peoples practiced ritual cannibalism in the most general terms, a cultural-religious practice acknowledging the spiritual power of slain enemies. The Portuguese used reports of ritual cannibalism to justify their invasion, slave raiding, and other excesses of violence, much as the Spanish had used the practice of ritual human sacrifice to justify their subjugation of the Aztecs in the conquest of Mexico. The first European explorer to sight the Brazilian coast was Portuguese noble Pedro Álvares Cabral, in command of 13 ships headed around the southern tip of Africa to India, on April 22, 1500. Following a brief excursion on the beach, the expedition’s chronicler, Pêro Vaz de Caminha, produced the first written report on the land and its people. Cabral sent one ship back to Portugal loaded with brazilwood, a red dyewood from which the later colony derived its name, and left behind two convicts to begin the process of mixing with the natives. The following year Florentine explorer Amerigo Vespucci sailed along Brazil’s southern coast. A number of French and Spanish expeditions followed. These initial contacts with the natives were largely peaceful, though here as elsewhere they resulted in the spread of European Brazil, conquest and colonization of 49 diseases against which native peoples had no biological immunity. These diseases led to rapid population declines in many areas long before Europeans arrived. The years 1500–30 saw the growth of the brazilwood trade between Europeans and Brazil’s coastal peoples. Relations between rival French and Portuguese traders soon degenerated into a series of violent clashes, with the French ignoring the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494, to which it was not a signatory. In the early 1520s, the Portuguese established a garrisoned trading station at Pernambuco, where sugar cultivation was introduced in 1526. French‑Portuguese hostilities along the coast intensified. In 1530, the Portuguese Crown responded by commissioning Martím Afonso de Sousa to begin the process of settlement and colonization, an expedition that in 1532 established the first permanent colony at São Vicente near modern São Paulo. As conflicts with the French grew, in the mid-1530s King João III and his advisers devised the donatory system, which divided the coastland into 15 sections or donatories that extended along imaginary boundaries west into the interior, each to be ruled by a captain or hereditary lord. Entrusting colonization to a handful of private individuals who would exercise full authority within their respective domains, the Crown hoped to secure its claims against its French rivals. Most donatories languished and failed, with São Vicente and Pernambuco seeing the greatest albeit limited success. Important in this early phase of colonization were a small number of individuals who mixed with the natives and acted as cultural intermediaries between indigenous peoples and the Portuguese. Sailor Diogo Álvares ventured into the interior near Bahia in the early 1500s, married the daughter of the chief of the Tupinambá tribe, learned their language and culture, and changed his name to Caramurú. By the 1530s, he had become a respected tribal chieftain and from this position of authority worked to facilitate the process of colonization. That the Bahia captaincy failed was due mainly to poor administration and the settlers’ failure to heed Caramurú’s counsel regarding their interactions with the natives. Farther south, the settlement of São Paulo succeeded in large part by the efforts of Portuguese castaway João Ramalho, who had also married into a local tribe, the Goiana Tupinikin, and served as interpreter and intermediary. Portuguese colonists generally mixed with the local inhabitants to a greater extent than was true of other European powers, thereby facilitating subsequent cultural and linguistic melding of different ethnic and racial groups. Sugar Trade As the brazilwood trade faded, sugar became the colony’s economic backbone. By the mid-1540s, two sugarproducing centers had emerged; one was around Pernambuco in the north, and the other was in São Vicente in the south. By this time, competition with French, Spanish, and other rivals had sharpened, prompting the Portuguese Crown to intensify colonization efforts. Consequently, the Crown would play a major role in the colony’s economic development. In 1549, Tomé de Sousa was appointed governorgeneral of Brazil at the head of a major expedition that included royal officials, artisans, soldiers, and Jesuit missionaries. Sousa established Salvador as the colony’s capital. To the south, the French colony at the Guanabara Bay threatened Portuguese control of the southern littoral. In 1565–67, the Portuguese defeated and ousted the French colony and established the town São Sebastião de Rio de Janeiro. Sousa’s successor Mem de Sá A group of headhunters from the upper Amazon region in Brazil. Enslaving native peoples was the initial strategy of colonizers. 50 Brazil, conquest and colonization of (governor-general, 1558–74) consolidated royal control over these coastal population centers. Indigenous resistance to colonization intensified, particularly in consequence of slave-raiding expeditions organized by planters in the rapidly growing sugar industry. Indian counterattacks nearly destroyed the settlements of Bahia, Espirito Santo, and Ilhéus, and killed Brazil’s first bishop, but could not stem the Portuguese tide. The Jesuits played a key role in this early phase of colonization and in the centralization of royal authority. Though their numbers were never large (110 in all of Brazil in 1574), their economic, social, and cultural impact was huge. Young and aggressive, the Jesuit order (founded in 1540) was instrumental in establishing the town of São Paulo in 1557, and in facilitating generally peaceful relations between Indians and colonists in the south. Taking no vow of poverty, Jesuits made their missions (aldeas) self-supporting and profitable through farming, ranching, and related enterprises. They were also crucial to the colony’s educational life. For most of the colonial period, Jesuit colleges in all the major towns served as the colony’s principal schools. By the mid-1500s, sugar planters considered that labor had become the colony’s principal economic bottleneck. Land was plentiful, but sugar production in their view required a steady and reliable supply of bound labor. Enslaving native peoples was their initial strategy for meeting these rising labor demands. The period from 1540 to 1600 saw the most extensive use of Indian slave labor in Brazil’s burgeoning sugar industry. By the late 1500s, disease and native resistance combined to make Indian slavery unable to meet sugar growers’ labor demands, leading to conflicts among the Crown, sugar growers, and the Jesuits. The Crown tended to advocate the integration of Indians into the economy as free wage laborers; sugar growers promoted slavery; and Jesuits worked toward the transformation of Indians into a kind of smallholding or peasant class. Whose vision predominated hinged on a host of local and regional variables. The transition from Indian to African slave labor was gradual, though by the early 1600s African slave labor dominated the sugar industry. The first Africans came as servants and sailors, while the first large-scale importation of African slaves did not begin until the 1570s. By the 1580s, the labor force on the 66 sugar plantations of Pernambuco is estimated at two-thirds Indian and one-third African slaves. In later decades, the proportion of African slaves grew, so that by 1600 Brazil’s slave labor force was predominantly African. Over the next 250 years, Brazil became the single largest recipient of African slaves in the Americas, especially the Northeast, the colony’s principal sugar zone. Brazil’s European population remained overwhelmingly concentrated in coastal areas. All the major cities founded in the 1500s were ports, including Bahia, São Vicente, Olinda (1537), Santos (1545), Salvador (1549), Vitória (1551), and Rio de Janeiro (1565). The pattern continued well into the 1600s, especially in the north and along the lower reaches of the Amazon. The Brazilian population remained heavily concentrated in coastal areas through the colonial period and after. As European coastal populations swelled, migrations of Indian peoples away from the coast intensified, producing a ripple effect throughout the interior. In 1585, São Paulo colonists officially authorized slave-raiding expeditions, and for the next 150 years the bandeirantes hunted Indian slaves across much of Brazil in the service of Paulista sugar planters. From the 1550s on, a series of epidemics ravaged Indian populations, including those of 1552 around Bahia, 1554 around São Paulo, Espírito Santo in 1559, and continuing through the colonial period. Further impelling the Portuguese Crown to consolidate its hold on the colony was the Dutch presence in the Northeast, from the 1620s until their expulsion in 1654. The discovery of gold in present-day Minas Gerais in the mid-1690s led to a gold rush in these regions from 1700 to 1760, while discovery of diamonds in the same region in the 1720s further propelled expansion into the interior. Many escaped African slaves also escaped into the interior, sometimes forming Maroon societies of runaway slaves, called quilombos. The largest and most resilient, Palmares, endured through most of the 1600s. By 1700, the population of the colonized areas was an estimated 300,000, with 100,000 whites, 150,000 mostly African slaves, and 50,000 free blacks, Indians, and mixed-race groups. Colonial Brazil’s first 250 years set in motion a series of patterns and processes that profoundly shaped the subsequent development of Brazilian society. Especially important in this regard were the formation of an export-oriented economy (most notably brazilwood, sugar, gold, and diamonds); stark divisions of race and class; highly unequal landownership; a substantial degree of racial and ethnic intermingling, particularly among the lower classes; the gradual movement of the frontier of settlement westward; the subordination of Indian and African peoples within a relatively rigid social hierarchy; and the existence of vast unconquered lands beyond the western and northern frontiers. Brazil, conquest and colonization of 51 See also Aztecs, human sacrifice and the; Dutch in Latin America; sugarcane plantations in the Americas; voyages of discovery. Further reading: Burns, E. Bradford. A History of Brazil. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970; Hemming, John. Red Gold: The Conquest of the Brazilian Indians. London: Macmillan, 1978; Schwartz, Stuart B. Sugar Plantations in the Formation of Brazilian Society. Bahia, 1550–1835. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Michael J. Schroeder


Brest, Council ofEdit

The Council of Brest took place in the city of Brest, in modern-day Belarus, on June 1, 1596. It produced a “union of the churches,” an agreement between the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Christians who lived in modern-day Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine. During the 16th century, a large number of Eastern Orthodox Christians found themselves living within the expanding Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The Church of Kiev, historically a center of Byzantine Christianity, had avoided formally breaking ecclesial communion with either Rome or Constantinople after the Great Schism of 1054. The leader of this church, Metropolitan Isidore, had been an active participant in the Council of Florence (1438–39), which sought the reunion of all the Eastern Churches with Rome. In much of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, memory of the Council of Florence Union continued to guide church relations. For example, there are a number of extant letters of complaint between Kiev and Rome that refer to the directives of the Council of Florence. Metropolitan Michael (Ragoza) of Kiev and a number of his colleagues began negotiations with Roman Catholic authorities and King Sigismund III of Poland in 1594. The Orthodox Church hierarchy wished to have the protections and privileges enjoyed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The Orthodox were facing discrimination and pressure from the local Protestant and Roman Catholic landholders and nobility. The hierarchs wished protection from these forces, and the Polish king wished to lessen the growing influence of Moscow upon the Orthodox faithful. The king promised the Orthodox hierarchs the same privileges the Roman Catholic hierarchs received. He also promised to preserve the Orthodox faith, rituals, and customs. These guarantees were proclaimed by the king on August 2, 1595. Pope Clement VIII accepted the union with additional conditions. The Orthodox hierarchs accepted the agreement at a subsequent synod held in Brest in 1596. While the Union was accepted by the bishops of Vladimir, Lutsk, Polotsk, Pinsk, and Kholm, it was rejected by the bishops of L’viv and Przemysl (ironically two of the centers of the Greek Catholic Church today) and numerous Orthodox monastics and laypeople. These laypeople formed religious brotherhoods led by Cossacks opposed to the Union and sought new Orthodox bishops from Constantinople. The strongest reason for opposition to the Union was the belief that such an agreement would lead to the destruction of the autonomy of the Kievan Church and restrictions on its traditions, liturgy, and faith. Sadly all of these consequences eventually came to pass. The success or failure of the Union was largely based on the strength of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and later the Kingdom of Poland. After the partitions of Poland by Prussia, Russia, and Austria, the Union was violently abused under the Russian Empire. The Union continued to prosper within the Austrian Empire, however, and became centered in the Galician capital of L’viv. Today the largest of the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine (or Ukrainian-Greek Catholic Church), is the successor of the Union of Brest. Fifty years later, another agreement called the Union of Uzhorod, uniting the Orthodox Church of Mukachevo with the Roman Church, was extensively based on the Union of Brest. See also Counter-Reformation (Catholic Reformation) in Europe. Further reading: Gudziak, Boris A. Crisis and Reform: The Kyivan Metropolitanate, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the Genesis of the Union of Brest. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001. Bryan R. Eyman


British East India Company Edit

See Volume IV.


British North AmericaEdit

Italian merchant John Cabot’s 1497 voyage from England west to what is now Newfoundland, Canada, was Europe’s first contact with North America since the Vikings. Cabot’s feat intensified English attention to the 52 Brest, Council of New World, yet for more than a hundred years, England would trail Spain and other European nations in exploring and exploiting the hemisphere. By 1750, however, Britain, having overcome a multitude of political, religious, and economic crises, was poised to dominate North America. Early Undertakings During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, two efforts to establish English colonies in America ended in failure and death. In 1582, Sir Humphrey Gilbert personally led a large crew across the Atlantic to reclaim Cabot’s Newfoundland for the queen. Its unfavorable climate and competition from Spanish and Portuguese fishermen dampened Gilbert’s hopes. On the voyage home less than a year later, Gilbert perished in an Azores storm. Somewhat more successful was Sir Walter Raleigh, Gilbert’s half brother, and, for a time, a court favorite. Raleigh mounted a new colonial project in 1585, sending five ships bearing a hundred colonists to Roanoke Island, off the North Carolina coast. When these settlers abandoned their mission in 1586, a second group was shipped to Roanoke, including the parents of Virginia Dare, who was, in 1587, the first English child born in North America. By 1590, a series of reprovisioning and rescue missions were reporting that the colony had disappeared, leaving generations of historians to argue whether Indian warfare, internal clashes, famine, disease, or some combination of these had wiped out Raleigh’s colonial ambitions. As the 17th century dawned, England, despite its 1588 defeat of the Spanish Armada, followed by other triumphs over Spain, was still scarcely a presence in North America. At home, rapid population growth and policies that forced subsistence farmers off the land, combined with Reformation-fueled religious conflicts, were creating both crisis and opportunity. British colonization in America emerged as a patchwork process that sent royal British North America 53 In an engraving by John Hall published in 1775, William Penn is shown standing (center, right) as he negotiates with local Native Americans. Penn founded the colony of Pennsylvania in 1681 for those fleeing religious persecution. courtiers, London investors, religious dissident families, and the desperately poor across the Atlantic in search of profits and new hope. Colonial “Plantation ” Before 1660 Britain’s eventual dominion in eastern North America started unpromisingly in 1607 when Jamestown was founded in the region Raleigh had earlier named “Virginia” for Elizabeth I, the presumed “Virgin Queen.” Disciplinary measures imposed by soldier-adventurer John Smith, followed by John Rolfe’s 1614 introduction of tobacco cultivation, eventually saved Jamestown, although major crises continued. Finding capable colonists in this wild and dangerous land remained difficult; Virginians turned to indentured servitude and eventually slavery for their labor needs. As religious conflict deepened in the mother country, British dissidents of varying faiths sought refuge, influence, and livelihoods in North America. In 1632, Maryland was founded near Virginia by George Calvert, the first baron Baltimore, a recent convert to Catholicism. He was granted a proprietary charter by King Charles I, who wife was Catholic. Together, Virginia and Maryland composed the Chesapeake region and survived with similar economies based on tobacco and coerced labor. Meanwhile, in the Massachusetts Bay region other dissenting Englishmen deliberately sought exile from what they saw as a religiously and politically corrupt homeland. The Pilgrims, who made their way to Plymouth in 1620, and the Puritans, who began arriving in large numbers in 1630, sought to create a religious commonwealth that would serve as a “light to the world” and end the reign of the hated Stuart monarchy. Shrewd Puritan investors managed to assemble a joint-stock company that won Crown authorization to claim New England land. By the 1640s, more than 20,000 English men and women were living there. Although more socially stable and economically diversified than the Chesapeake, the growing Puritan religious state experienced problems that fractured Massachusetts Bay. John Winthrop’s leadership soon sparked internal religious dissent, led by Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, resulting their 1635–36 banishment to Rhode Island. Religious differences and a desire for more land led Thomas Hooker and others to relocate in 1636 to what became Connecticut. With the end of the Cromwell Commonwealth and the Restoration of King Charles II in 1660, Britain hit its imperial stride in the New World. Between 1660 and 1732, all the colonies that would eventually break away in the American Revolution came into existence or were wrenched from European rivals. Additionally, the British made significant inroads in the Canadian Maritime regions east of New France. In 1664, as part of a consolidation of royal power, Charles II sent a fleet of ships to seize lands along the Hudson River that had been claimed in 1609 by the Dutch West Indian Company and settled by Dutch colonists. New Netherland, soon renamed New York, was the king’s gift to his brother James, duke of York, who became King James II in 1687. As sole proprietor of a territory that also included New Jersey and Delaware, the duke ruled autocratically, parceling out some of his holdings to favored friends. Although he was also the duke’s personal friend, William Penn in 1681 became a very different kind of proprietor when, in payment of debts owed Penn’s late father, the king granted him an extensive holding named Pennsylvania. To the dismay of family and his royal connections, Penn had become a member of the Society of Friends, known scornfully as “Quakers,” and his “Holy Experiment” made Pennsylvania a refuge for Friends and others fleeing religious persecution. In 1663, Charles II rewarded eight men who had supported his return to the British throne by granting them a proprietorship that they promptly named Carolina, Latin for Charles. By 1670, Carolina was peopled mainly by Virginians, moving south for better or more expansive lands, and Englishmen from West Indian sugar plantations. This territory became the first in North America to depend heavily on slave labor from its inception. Within 20 years, the colony was profiting from such warmweather commodities as cotton, indigo, timber, cattle, and rice. By the early 1700s, African slaves outnumbered white settlers in this “Rice Kingdom.” At its founding in 1732, Georgia was quite unlike other British colonies. Located between Carolina and Spanish-controlled Florida, it had a royal charter from King George ii that allowed English general James Oglethorpe to fulfill his philanthropic dream of resettling poor British immigrants. To assure the virtue of these worthy poor, this new colony’s overseers forbade alcoholic beverages and banned slavery. By 1750, however, Georgia had become a slaveholding society, much like neighboring Carolina. mix of religion and governance Britain’s North American colonies began as a hodgepodge of religions, forms of governance, and economic systems. Clinging mainly to the continent’s eastern seaboard, colonists of different regions and settlement 54 British North America histories had little to do with one another. As Britain began to consolidate its imperial power and goals in the period of political stability that followed the Glorious revolution of 1688, its colonies experienced enormous population growth and new social and political challenges both within colonial society and in dealings with the “Mother Country.” In 1651, during Cromwell’s regime, Parliament passed its first Navigation Act, designed to assure that growing colonial holdings, including those in North America, would produce wealth only for Britain’s benefit and not for its European rivals. Many more navigation acts would follow. These mercantilist laws attempted to control both agricultural and manufactured goods. Many colonists, including plantation owners and New England shipbuilders, were enriched, but these laws also restricted colonial growth and trade initiatives. As part of its aggressive commercial policy, Britain, by the 18th century, had become the world’s major trader in African slaves, surpassing the Dutch. Although the majority of slaves were destined for the sugar islands of the Caribbean, almost three hundred thousand slaves were “delivered” to the North American colonies between 1700 and the outbreak of the American Revolution. Slave importation outstripped robust immigration of whites. No longer suffering a manpower glut, England discouraged emigration by its own people (with the exception of convicted criminals) but wooed colonists from many countries, including France, the Netherlands, and German principalities, often offering religious freedom and British citizenship. As colonial populations increased and competed, issues of governance and home rule emerged. Many colonies had set up assemblies—Virginia’s House of Burgesses of 1619 was the first—to deal with local political problems. These were by no means representative elected bodies, but were dominated by large landowners and other men of importance. Colonies that traced their origins to proprietors (like Calvert and the duke of York) tended to have more autocratic governments. The New England colonies generally allowed broader participation in political decision making. Quaker Proprietor William Penn’s policies allowed more than half of Pennsylvania’s male population to have some political say. Royal governors, chosen by the king or Parliament, would often override local assemblies’ intentions. As colonial populations grew in the 1700s, so too did their thirst for effective political power. Between the Glorious Revolution and the French and Indian War, assemblies in Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, South Carolina, and Massachusetts often contested royal prerogatives and frequently had their way. Colonial legislators asserted their rights as British citizens to participate in lawmaking. Britain’s imperial dominance in the 18th century was closely connected to its relationships with Native American tribal groups and its use of diplomacy, or more often war, to keep Spain and France from gaining ground in the Western Hemisphere. Colonial policies were crafted with an eye to outflanking perceived threats from the these two powerful nations, and their native allies. Fearing that an alliance between Spain and France would imperil its colonial interests, Britain entered the 1701 War of the Spanish Succession. In the subsequent Treaty of Utrecht of 1713, Britain gained control of much of eastern Canada and wrested from Spain its remaining colonial slave trade. More conflicts flared up in succeeding years as the three powers competed for trade preferences and territorial control. Flare-ups occurred regularly between British Carolina and Georgia, and neighboring Spanish Florida. The “War of Jenkins’ Ear” began in 1739 when Spanish customs officials stopped suspected British smugglers and perhaps cut off the English captain’s ear. By 1744, Britain was fighting both Spain and France for North American and West Indian dominance in the War of the Austrian Succession. Wars with Indian tribes were a constant from the earliest years of British incursion in North America. In 1622, Opechancanough, the chief who succeeded his brother, Powhatan, became convinced that whites had no intention of leaving. He and his men attacked Jamestown, killing 300 settlers. In 1675, Wampanoag chief Metacom, known to New Englanders as King Philip, launched a major but ultimately unsuccessful effort to drive out the rapidly growing white population. Twelve towns in Massachusetts were destroyed; a thousand whites and three thousand natives perished. At almost the same time, Virginians desperate for land were killing local Indians in an uprising known as Bacon’s Rebellion. But European powers also made alliances with tribes, hoping to recruit their military aid against other tribes allied with their rivals. The powerful Iroquois Confederacy, centered in New York and Pennsylvania, had once helped the Dutch, but later became an important British ally during King Philip’s War. The Iroquois would help British and colonial forces attack the French and their set of Indian allies in the run-up to the 1754 French and Indian War. By 1750, although not unchallenged, Britain’s North American empire was near its zenith. Britain’s mastery of the continent would soon be enhanced by its smashing British North America 55 victory in the coming war with France. Yet from that victory grew the seeds of colonial rebellion that would, before the end of the century, lose Britain a major portion of North America. Further reading: McFarlane, Anthony. The British in the Americas, 1480–1815. New York: Longman, 1994; Sosin, Jack M. English America and Imperial Inconsistency: The Rise of Provincial Autonomy, 1696–1715. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1985; Ubbelohde, Carl. The American Colonies and the British Empire, 1607–1763. Wheeling, IL: Harlan Davidson, 1973. Marsha E. Ackermann


Bull of DemarcationEdit

Christopher Columbus’s first voyage to the Americas threatened to intensify the rivalry between the Catholic kingdoms of Spain (Castile) and Portugal into open warfare. Both kingdoms wanted to claim all newly discovered lands that were not Christian, that is, not Catholic. The Line of Demarcation was Pope Alexander IV’s solution to this problem. He issued the Bull of Demarcation to prevent Spain and Portugal from battling over new territories with resources such as gold. The bull successfully prevented a war between Spain and Portugal in the 16th century. Neither the pope nor the Spanish or Portuguese actually knew what this line was dividing. The knowledge of the lands west of Europe was sketchy, and most people thought that the land Columbus had reached was part of Asia. The pope may have believed that the Spanish would reach the same lands sailing west over the Atlantic that the Portuguese would reach sailing east around Africa. Previously in 1455, 1456, and 1481, popes had issued bulls about newly discovered land, although they had no knowledge of the actual geography of the earth. The Roman Catholic nations left out of these bulls, including the French and Dutch, paid no attention to the papal decrees. The power of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages had guided all international affairs in Europe up to the 15th century. France and Holland ignored the document, showing that the temporal power of the church was waning. When Columbus returned from the Americas, he stopped in Portugal before going to back to the court of Ferdinand V and Isabella I of Spain. King João II of Portugal claimed the lands Columbus told him about even though the explorer had sailed for the Spanish monarchs. Ferdinand and Isabella appealed to Pope Alexander VI, a Spaniard, for a solution. He issued the Inter caetera, the papal Bull of Demarcation, which was very biased toward Spain. This document conferred all non-Christian lands found west of the designated line to Spain to explore and convert to Christianity. Portugal was to have all non-Christian lands east of the line. This decree in principle shut the Portuguese out of the Americas. Dissatisfied, the Portuguese appealed to both the pope and Spain. Two more papal bulls followed— Examinae devotionis and another Inter caetera. These documents drew a line 100 leagues west of Cape Verde Islands. Discoveries east of the line were to belong to Portugal, and discoveries west of the line were to belong to Spain. This resulted in Spain’s domination of all of South and Central America except Brazil, which the Portuguese claimed. The Treaty of Tordesillas modified the papal bull in 1494. The Bull of Demarcation and later decrees gave the rights to colonize, exploit, and convert all non-Christian territory to Catholicism. These decrees treated all newly discovered nations and people as property and disregarded all non-Christian governments the Catholic explorers found. Later the church realized these bulls were the cause of the enslavement and brutalization of native peoples and tried to emphasize peaceful, noncoerced conversion to Christianity. But it was too late; the system of Europeans’ forcibly taking control of non- Christian lands was already entrenched in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. There have been modern movements for the revocation of these papal bulls. Indigenous peoples feel they were used for the subjugation of non-Christian indigenous peoples and should be rescinded to reflect modern thinking. Certainly, the leaders in Rome could not have foreseen the horrendous decimation of native peoples that the conquest by the European powers caused. The Falkland War of the 1980s was in part justified by Argentina’s claim that the Falkland Islands is based on the Inter caetera. However, the Treaty of Madrid in 1750 annulled the boundary line. See also reducciones (congregaciones) in colonial Spanish America; repartimiento in Spanish America. Further reading: Carman, Glen. “On the Pope’s Original Intent: Las Casas Reads the Papal Bulls of 1493.” Colonial Latin American Review (v.7/2); Williamson, Edwin. Penguin History of Latin America. New York: Allen Lane, 1992; 56 Bull of Demarcation Spate, O. H. K. “The Alexandrine Bulls and the Treaty of Tordesillas,” in Spanish Lake, Australian National University Press, N.D. epress.anu.edu.au/spanish_lake/ch02s02.html (cited November 14, 2005). Nancy Pippen Eckerman


Bushido, Tokugawa period in Japan Edit

When Tokugawa Ieyasu defeated Ishida Mitsunari at the Battle of Sekigahara in October 1600, Bushido, the “way of the warrior,” which his victorious samurai followed, was just reaching its apogee. (Bushi, which means “warrior,” is another term used interchangeably with samurai, which means “one who serves [a lord].”) It is an unwritten code that governed the lives of the upper-class warrior and was more severe than the law code governing the common people. In 1603, Tokugawa was recognized as the shogun, or military ruler of Japan, by Emperor Go-Yozei. A samurai served in the household of a daimyo, or lord. A samurai whose lord’s line was extinct became a ronin, or masterless samurai. As a result of prolonged warfare between lords before 1603, there were many ronin in Japan. Bushido’s origins can be traced to the first appearance of Zen Buddhism in Japan in the 12th century. Zen Buddhism was widely adopted by an emerging warrior class. Zen gave samurai the moral and intellectual strength to follow a demanding calling in life, for which only death could free the true warrior. Bushido emphasized strict loyalty to one’s lord, even to the point of death in battle. And, if faced with disgraceful surrender, Bushido called for the samurai to meet death by his own hand. In seppuku, commonly called hara kiri in the West, a samurai disemboweled himself with a short dagger, after which a trusted friend or comrade, acting as his second, would sever his head with a blow of his sword. Bushido also demanded the samurai lead a clean and honorable life, protect the weak, abstain from riotous living and drunkenness, conscious that he was the representative of the daimyo he served, whose heraldic badge was always displayed prominently on his clothing. Aside from giving him a code of honor, Bushido made the samurai a fearsome warrior with his sword. He strove for mental discipline achieved through swordsmanship akin to that achieved through the pursuit of Zen. Perhaps the greatest statement of Bushido and the sword in the Tokugawa period is found in 1716’s Hagakure, or “hidden leaves.” It is a compilation of the philosophies of Yamamoto Tsunetomo that was sanctioned by the Tokugawa shoguns for its accurate representation of the prevailing philosophies during its reign. It blended the discipline and insight of Zen with the ancestor worship taught by Confucianism. See also ronin, 47. Further reading: Samuel, Robert T. The Samurai: The Philosophy of Victory. New York: Barnes and Noble, 2004; Sato, Hiraoki, trans. and ed. The Sword and the Mind. New York: Barnes and Noble, 2004; Musashi, Miyamoto. The Book of Five Rings. Translated by Thomas Cleary. Boston: Shambhala, 2003; Shigesuke, Tairo. Code of the Samurai. Translated by Thomas Cleary. Rutland, VT: Tuttle Publishing, 1999. John Murphy

Age of Revolution and Empire 1750 to 1900 Edit

Balkan and East European insurrections Edit

In the region between Germany, Russia, and the Balkan Peninsula, one nation after another lost its political independence, while others never even succeeded in gaining political independence to lose. In addition to the history of the empires that controlled East Central Europe and the Balkans, there is a history of nations striving for nationhood. The conquest of the Balkans by the Ottoman Empire was the dominant event of this region’s history in the later Middle Ages. But when that advance turned into a retreat, the question of Eastern authority appeared. During the 1800s large numbers of Balkan peoples passed from Ottoman to Austrian rule. In addition to these political changes, the stimuli of the Enlightenment spreading to eastern Europe promoted a revival of cultural and national traditions. Romanians of the provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia were among the fi rst to expect liberation from Turkish rule, which Russia’s victories in 1770 against the Ottomans seemed to make possible. The Küçük Kaynarca Treaty of 1774 shaped the future of the region. Russia was later to claim that it had won a right to interfere on behalf of the sultan’s Orthodox subjects, giving those subjects the reassurance that they had an ally in Russia. In Poland, divided between Austria, Russia, and Prussia between 1772 and 1795, a resistance movement began. This insurrection had a promising start in 1794, but the Prussian failure to support the Poles was a devastating letdown. Consequently, the failed insurrection served as an excuse for the total dismemberment of the country. SERBIAN NATIONALISM The Balkan nations’ wars for independence started in Serbia, where the struggle against Ottoman rule continued throughout the Napoleonic period, in part because of the response that the ideology of the French Revolution evoked within the region. Ottoman authority in Serbia was the weakest and foreign infl uence strongest than anywhere else in the Ottoman provinces. The revolutionary leader George Petrovich founded the Karageorgevich dynasty. The revolt began in 1804 with hope of success until another Russo-Turkish War broke out two years later. Serbian insurgents were encouraged by a series of victories against regular Ottoman troops in 1805 and 1806, but also by the capture of Belgrade in January 1807. The Russians, however, abandoned the Serbs to their fate when the Peace of Bucharest was concluded in 1812. The fi ght resumed in 1815, the year of the Congress of Vienna, under a new leader, Milosh Obrenovich. His descendants were to be for almost 100 years the rivals of the Karageorgevich. Obrenovich realized that independence would not be won immediately, so he tried to gain gradual concessions from the Ottomans. In 1817 Obrenovich became prince of a small Serbia with partial autonomy. Advantage was taken of the Russo-Turkish War of 1828–29. This time, the peace treaty included full autonomy for Serbia, and in 1830, Obrenovich was B recognized as hereditary ruler, and Serbia’s territory was enlarged. In 1839 the parliament (created in 1835) elected the son of George Petrovich, Alexander, under whom great progress was made toward unity with the Croats. The center of the Yugoslav movement was in Montenegro, where the throne was occupied by Petar Njegosh from 1830 to 1851. GREEK NATIONALISM In Greece the new-Hellenic movement wanted to create an independent Greek state. That movement had a strong appeal in western Europe, and the Greeks had a good chance to fi nd outside support. Prince Alexander Ypsilanti raised a rebellion against the Turks in 1821, and a genuine Greek insurrection broke out simultaneously. Russia seized the opportunity to intervene along with Britain and France, thus accelerating the achievement of independence. Instead of merely an autonomous status, the independence of Greece had to be recognized by the Ottoman Empire in the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829. The treaty confi rmed the autonomous position of the Danubian principalities and recognized the autonomy of Serbia. POLISH, UKRAINIAN, AND CZECH NATIONALISM In former Poland an insurrection against Russian rule broke out in November 1830. Under Czar Alexander I, the Poles were deeply disappointed. Alexander’s promises proved impossible to fulfi ll. The tension increased when Alexander died in 1825. His successor, Nicholas I, considered the parliamentary regime of Poland incompatible with the Russian autocratic form of government. Hence the Poles rose in defense of their constitution, and the struggle ended in a Russian victory. The uprising saw participation in the Lithuanian and Ruthenian regions contributing to the rise of Lithuanian and Ukrainian nationalism. The Ukrainian movement was infl uenced by the rising ideology of Pan-Slavism. In contrast to the Poles, the Ukrainians claimed cultural autonomy rather than independence. Such ideas belonged to the group that founded the Brotherhood of Saints Cyril and Methodius in 1846. The name indicates its ideas of Slavic solidarity on religious grounds and its cultural character. But it was also dedicated to the idea of national freedom. In Russia’s Baltic provinces, the local self-government favored the small German upper class. There was a separation between these German Balts and the Latvian and Estonian peasant population, but among both non- German groups, a cultural revival emerged during the fi rst half of the 19th century. The movement began with the study of folklore and the appearance of newspapers in the native tongues. The same change from cultural to political nationalism can be found in the Austrian Empire. Since 1830, the Matice ceska (Czech mother) encouraged the use of the Czech language, thereby reviving national traditions in opposition to Austria. Czech writers of Slovak origin contributed to the revival of those Slavs who had never experienced independent states, like the Slovenes and the Slovaks. Playing the various nationalities against one another, the government used Czech offi cials in Polish Galicia and welcomed the antagonism between the Magyars and the other groups in Hungary. Hungarian nationalism, too, made rapid progress. The Hungarian Diet prescribed instruction in the Magyar language in the schools of Croatia. Croat nationalism was more alarmed by the pressure coming from Budapest than by the centralization being promoted in Vienna. The idea of Yugoslav unity became popular when the writer Ljudevit Gaj propagated the Illyrian movement. HABSBURG MONARCHY Another crisis began with a Polish insurrection directed against all three partitioning powers. Fighting started on May 9, 1848, and the insurrectionary forces had to capitulate. A violent anti-Polish reaction followed. In Austria, too, the Polish question was reopened, and concessions were made. When Polish activity was transferred to the eastern part of Galicia, the Austrian government favored the claim of the Ruthenians. The whole province was again subject to strict control by the central authorities. During the 1848 Revolution Bohemia was invited to send representatives to the Frankfurt parliament, but the invitation was declined by historian and new Czech leader František Palacky. When a revolution broke out in Vienna in March 1848, there seemed to be hope of cooperation among peoples who anticipated that their national rights would receive consideration under a liberal constitution. The Slavic Congress opened in Prague on June 2, 1848, and delegates met to represent their constituents’ desire that a reorganization of the Habsburg dynasty would give them a chance for freedom. In the end, the congress was disbanded. A constituent assembly drafted a constitution that would satisfy the claims of the various nationalities. Self-government was provided for each of the historic lands of the monarchy. Although constructive, these ideas never materialized. 46 Balkan and East European insurrections The Slavs, though a majority in the Habsburg monarchy, were not the only group that had to be taken into consideration. Any change in authority was met with opposition between the historic concept of Hungary and the aspirations of the non-Magyar nationalities. They were afraid of the Magyar leaders and were not prepared to recognize the equality of all nationalities. The Slavs and the Croats were the strongest opponents of the Hungarian Revolution. Fearing for Croatia’s traditional autonomy, the Croat army crushed the Magyars. Even the occupation of Budapest in early 1849 did not put an end to the Magyar resistance. They decided to dethrone the Habsburgs, and in April 1849 declared Hungary’s independence. The Magyars had to fi ght both the Austrians and the Russians because the emperor had enlisted Russian aid. Attacked by superior forces, the Hungarians had to surrender in August 1849. For their uprising and resistance, the Hungarians were ruthlessly punished. The non-Magyar nationalities were equally disappointed; even Croatia lost its autonomy. Only the Poles made some progress toward independence. ROMANIAN INDEPENDENCE AND UNIFICATION In 1853 the Crimean War started as one more confl ict between Turkey and Russia. The next year, France and Britain came to Turkey’s aid. The matter of Russia protecting the Christians in Turkey was connected with the problem of the liberation of the Balkan peoples. In the wake of its defeat in the Crimean War, it turned out that Russia was less weakened than the Ottoman Empire was. At the 1856 peace conference in Paris, only the Romanians made their problems known. The sultan had to enlarge the autonomy of both Romanian principalities. The delayed unifi cation of the two Danubian principalities seemed a prerequisite for a fully independent Romanian state. In 1858 Moldavia and Wallachia received the right to choose their own princes. The choice of the same prince by both of them ended their separation in 1859. But even then, Romania was far from including all Romanian populations, which remained partly under Austrian and Russian rule, while the principality (and Serbia) remained under Ottoman suzerainty. Serbia was going through a crisis because of the feud of the two dynasties, and as a result of this, Obrenovich returned to power in 1858. He resumed the idea of cooperation with the other Balkan peoples. Despite his assassination in 1868, his policy was continued. POLISH UPRISING Another Polish insurrection broke out in January 1863. As early as 1860 patriotic demonstrations had created tension. The independence movement created a National Committee that decided to arm the peasants in preparation for the planned uprising. Russian countermeasures hastened the outbreak of the insurrection. It found support in Lithuania, while it proved impossible to win the Ukrainian peasants, and the uprising was quickly crushed. Poland was turned into another Russian province. Even more complete was the elimination of everything Polish in historic Lithuania. The Russians decided to stop the national movement among the Lithuanians by forcing them to use the Russian alphabet. Thus Lithuanian nationalism developed in Prussia, which did not consider its Lithuanian minority dangerous. The Poles had no similar opportunities, but instead they found possibilities for cultural progress in Austria. The Habsburg dynasty offi cially promoted Catholicism, which was an advantage for the Poles. In spite of the Polish presence in Galicia, the Ruthenian population of that province also found conditions favorable to national development. DUAL MONARCHY The reorganization of Austria took place with an 1867 compromise with Hungary and the establishment of basic laws determining the constitution of the Austrian part of what was now a dual monarchy. Franz Josef, Emperor of Austria, admitted the diffi culties of ruling a multinational state in which non-Germans constituted about three-quarters of the population. After the disastrous war of 1866 against Prussia and Italy, the emperor tried to federalize the Habsburg dynasty. But he was inclined to an intermediary solution, fully satisfactory only to the Magyars. In its historic boundaries, Hungary was recognized as an independent state with its own constitution, parliament, and government, reducing the ties with Austria to the creation of joint ministries for foreign affairs, war, and common fi nancial affairs. Much less satisfactory was the situation of the other nationalities of Hungary. Only the Croats in 1868 received autonomy in an additional compromise. There remained in Croatia an opposition to that settlement. Furthermore, the 1867 compromise did not end pressures from other nationalities for equality and independence. In Hungary, the Yugoslav movement was strengthened by the existence of independent Serbia. The South Slavs were in a situation similar to that of the Romanians in Transylvania and of the Slovaks and Balkan and East European insurrections 47 Ruthenians. Neither group had any autonomous rights or guarantees of free cultural development. A part of the Croats and all the Slovenes, together with the Czechs, the Poles, and the Ukrainians of Galicia, and some Romanians, remained under the Austrian part of the monarchy. They were disappointed by the fact that, unlike Hungary, the other areas of the kingdom only received provincial autonomy, with equal rights for all languages in local administration, the courts, and the schools. Even the Poles had to give up claims for a real national self-government. Particularly opposed to the 1867 settlement were the Czechs. Under these conditions, the leadership of the Czech national movement passed from the moderate Old Czechs to the radical Young Czechs. BULGARIAN NATIONALISM During the 1870s another Balkan crisis was approaching in connection with the Bulgarian independence movement. When the Turks repressed a revolt in 1876 in Bulgaria, Russia again intervened and made an agreement with Austria and Hungary. The Balkan Peninsula was divided into autonomous states, and both Austria and Hungary were promised some rewards in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The confl ict ended in a complete victory for Russia, allied with all Balkan nations. In the Peace Treaty of San Stefano, signed on March 3, 1878, Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro were declared fully independent, and a large Bulgarian state was created. The borders, however, confl icted with the aspirations of other Balkan peoples. Alarmed at this extension of Russia’s infl uence, European leaders met to discuss boundaries at an international congress held in Berlin, where the Peace of San Stefano was completely revised. The disappointment felt by the Bulgarians convinced them that Russia was their only protector. Serbia and Romania became independent principalities. In Bulgaria, Alexander of Battenberg, the nephew of the Russian czar, was chosen as prince. There was a strong movement for real independence, both in the principality and in the Turkish province of Eastern Rumelia. These incompatible policies led to inevitable clashes in which Alexander proved unpredictable. The union of Eastern Rumelia with Bulgaria was fi nally achieved in 1885. Battenberg’s replacement by Ferdinand of Saxe- Coburg in 1887 strengthened German and Austro- Hungarian infl uence in Bulgaria. In the 1878 Berlin Congress, Austria was granted the provisional right to occupy Bosnia-Herzegovina. That acquisition introduced almost 2 million Orthodox and Muslims into the Habsburg realm. This was a blow to Serbia, which had hoped to gain these provinces with their predominantly Serbian population. Nevertheless, after 1878 Serbia pursued a pro-Austrian policy under Obrenovich, who proclaimed himself king of Serbia in 1882. When he declared war on Bulgaria in 1885 after Bulgaria’s occupation of Eastern Rumelia, Serbia was defeated. After securing Thessaly from Turkey in 1881, Greece fought another war against the Ottoman Empire in 1897 that only brought minor remedies regarding the Thessalian frontier. ONGOING NATIONALISTIC CONFLICT It was not until the 1905 revolution that Europe realized the importance of nationalism within the Russian Empire. Before that crisis, the dissatisfaction of the non- Russian minorities did not appear be serious. In the czarist empire, the Russian majority seemed immense because the Ukrainians and the White Russians were not offi cial nationalities. However, the larger non-Russian ethnic groups made steady progress in their national consciousness. The Byelorussians, the Ukrainians, and other nationalities formed a belt of foreign elements along Russia’s western frontier. Russia kept even the most developed nationalities under strict control. Even the Poles had to postpone their hopes for liberation, focusing instead on economic and social progress. In the Baltic, the Estonians and the Latvians emerged in opposition to Russifi cation. Landmark events in the rise of Estonian nationalism included the compilation of the national epic (Kalevipoeg, published 1857–61) and a later collection of popular traditions. Similarly, the Latvians created their own epic (Lacplesis) and started a collection of popular songs. The Lithuanian national renaissance was different because a medieval tradition of independence could be evoked. A new tendency arose that disregarded the tradition of the former Polish-Lithuanian Union and based Lithuanian nationalism on ethnic and linguistic grounds. Writing in the Lithuanian language was making progress despite restrictions imposed by the Russian government. Lithuania’s nationalism, however, carried no clearly expressed political aim. Discouraged by Russia’s imperialism, many Slavs looked with hope to the Habsburg monarchy, where the problem of nationalities was continually discussed in an entirely different spirit from that in the czarist empire. The nationalities of Austria and Hungary were divided into two groups—nations that were living entirely within the monarchy and those with smaller fragments in other nations. As for the latter, an additional distinction should be made between minorities attracted by an 48 Balkan and East European insurrections independent nation on the other side of the border (as within the Serbs and the Romanians) and those who had no nation of their own at all (as in the case of the Poles and the Ukrainians). The Hungarians, fearful of Slavic infl uence, were invested in the future of the Dual Monarchy, in which they enjoyed a privileged position. After 1876 the trend toward Magyarization of all non-Magyar nationalities became even stronger. Even Croatia’s autonomy was hardly respected. The controversies between Magyars and Croats were a special danger because they opened the question of Yugoslav authority. Despite old rivalries that separated Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs, the movement toward Yugoslav unity made progress. There was unrest among these southern Slavs that was exacerbated by infl uences from the independent states of Serbia and Montenegro. Any concession to the Yugoslavs meant a revival of the Czech claims for a restoration of their historic statehood. In the Balkans, but not in east-central Europe, the 19th century saw the formation of several independent states. A fi rst period between 1800 and 1830 brought some national liberation during the fi rst Balkan revolutions against Ottoman rule. Next came a long period (lasting from 1830–78) of political and social development, while a third phase saw the inclusion of the Balkan peoples into the European power play during the age of imperialism between 1878 and 1903. The development of a national consciousness of all these peoples varied according to the different political and social conditions prevailing in the respective regions. National consciousness, formerly limited to the upper strata of society, penetrated into the lower classes. Considerable political development occurred under Habsburg rule. As the Ottoman Empire weakened in the 19th century, the Balkan nations began to reemerge, though their independence was compromised as they became pawns for competing European powers. Revolutionary risings were frequent under the Ottomans and, as far as the Poles are concerned, in the czarist empire. All these processes had both nationalistic and agrarian elements. The former aimed primarily at the organization of national states, while the latter was marked by endeavors to get rid of foreign landlords. The Balkan people, up to the eve of World War I, profi ted from the Ottoman Empire’s notorious weakness. The non- German Habsburg peoples in the Austrian part of that empire were awarded some degree of cultural autonomy, while in Hungary only the Magyars reached their goal of a practically autonomous state. The Russians faced a massive wave of Russifi cation after the disastrous failure of several Polish uprisings. The fi nal elimination of all political freedom through and after the partitions of Poland between 1772 and 1795 struck a nation with such a long tradition of independence that the divided Polish territories remained throughout the 19th century a permanent center of unrest. Nevertheless, non-Russian people made considerable progress in cultural, social, and economic matters, thereby preparing the way for their independence after 1918. See also Greek War of Independence; Poland, partitions of; Polish revolutions. Further reading: Berend, Tibor Iván. History Derailed: Central and Eastern Europe in the Long Nineteenth Century. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005; Glenny, Misha. The Balkans: Nationalism, War, and the Great Powers, 1804–1999. New York: Viking, 2000; Pearson, Raymond. National Minorities in Eastern Europe, 1848–1944. New York: Macmillan, 1983; Thaden, Edward C. Russia’s Western Borderlands, 1710–1870. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984; Weeks, Theodore R. Nation and State in Late Imperial Russia: Nationalism and Russifi cation on the Western Frontier, 1863–1914. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1996. Martin Moll

Banerji, SurendranathEdit

(1848–1925) Indian statesman Surendranath Banerji (also Banerjea, Banerjee) was one of the creators of modern India and a staunch proponent of an autonomous Indian nation within the British Commonwealth. He was born in Calcutta to a Brahman family and, after earning his B.A. in English literature in Calcutta, traveled to London in 1869 to take the examination to join the Indian Civil Service. (This examination was not offered in India until 1921.) He achieved a high score but was disqualifi ed over a misunderstanding about his age. When this was clarifi ed, he received an appointment for three years, until he was dismissed for a minor rule infraction. Banerji later recalled that these early experiences demonstrated to him the essential injustice of British rule and the powerlessness of the Indian people under it. Banerji returned to India to work as a journalist and educator, and in 1876 founded the Indian Association, the fi rst nationalist political association in Bengal (an area now divided between northeastern India and Banerji, Surendranath 49 Bangladesh). The aim of this association was to encourage Indians of different religious backgrounds to work together, although it was never entirely successful. The Indian Association did, however, serve as the vehicle for India’s nationalist movement and attracted ambitious members of the Indian middle and upper classes (like Banerji himself) who sought greater political and economic opportunities. In 1879 Banerji purchased a newspaper, The Bengalee, which he edited for 40 years. This paper served as a mouthpiece for the Indian Nationalist movement and had the highest circulation of any Indian weekly paper of its time. Banerji was an effective political speaker and was twice elected president of the Indian National Congress. He advocated moderation and the achievement of reforms through the political process, and he believed the goal of British policy should be for eventual selfgovernment for India. He also argued that India should have a constitution similar to that of Canada and that basic civil rights such as habeas corpus should be ensured. Banerji was knighted in 1921 and accepted the post of minister of local self-government in Bengal. His moderate political views were not always popular with the local populace, and after defeat in 1924 by a more radical Swaraj (independence party) candidate, Banerji retired from public life to write his memoirs, published in 1925 as A Nation in the Making. See also Brahmo and Arya Samaj. Further reading: Argov, Daniel. Moderates and Extremists in the Indian National Movement, 1883–1920: With Special Reference to Surendranath Banerjea and Lajpat Rai. New York: Asia Publishing House, 1967; Bose, S. K. Surendranath Banerjea. New Delhi: Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1968; Broomfi eld, J. H. “The Vote and the Transfer of Power,” Journal of Asian Studies 21, no. 2 (1961–62); Krishna, B. Indian Freedom Struggle: The Pathfi nders from Surendranath Banerjea to Gandhi. New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 2002. Sarah Boslaugh


Banks of the United States, First and SecondEdit

Between 1791 and 1836, two federally chartered banks, both headquartered in Philadelphia, helped the United States manage its national wealth and regulate economic activity. Always controversial, each bank in turn faced major political and managerial obstacles. When Andrew Jackson denied the Second Bank a new charter, America’s experiment with central banking ended, not to be restored until the 20th century. In 1790 Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton submitted to Congress what he believed would be a permanent solution to the young nation’s shaky fi nances. His proposed national bank unleashed deeprooted anxieties about the use and abuse of money and newer concerns for legitimacy. The recently ratifi ed Constitution gave little guidance on monetary issues. Thomas Jefferson, then secretary of state, was one of many Americans who believed that only specie—gold and silver coins—was honest. Paper notes and fi nancial instruments could be (and were) used to cheat honest people while enriching corrupt businessmen and speculators. Creation of a powerful national bank raised tensions between North and South, farmers and merchants, debtors and creditors. Some feared that European investors would use the bank to undermine national independence. After a secret meeting at which Hamilton agreed to a plan creating a capital district near Virginia, the First Bank of the United States won a 20-year charter from a regionally split Congress. Opening in 1791, it was both a private, profi t-making corporation and a government agency. Five of the bank’s 25 directors were presidential nominees requiring Senate confi rmation. The bank’s public duties included issuing paper money, collecting federal taxes, and paying federal debts, all on behalf of the Treasury. Although President Jefferson never welcomed this powerful institution, he generally worked with it harmoniously. Meanwhile, privately held and statechartered banks proliferated. Under pressure from local interests, especially after Jefferson’s 1803 Louisiana Purchase, the bank authorized eight regional branches. In this era of slow travel and communications, this posed a problem of central oversight and led to a scandal for the Second Bank. As the largest U.S. corporation, the bank was a lightning rod for political attacks. When the bank’s charter expired in 1811, it failed by one vote in each house to win renewal. President James Madison’s distrust of banking, added to denunciations by competing state banks and the enmity of important businessmen, helped kill the First Bank as the War of 1812 loomed. While British troops attacked Washington and other important sites, the Treasury struggled to fi nance the war and protect the economy. Many of the nation’s 200 state and regional banks issued paper currency of 50 Banks of the United States, First and Second dubious value; some banks failed. At war’s end, Madison called for a new bank, as did House Speaker Henry Clay, who had helped kill the fi rst one. In 1816 the Second Bank of the United States won a 20-year charter and soon opened in a new Philadelphia location. Organized on the same public-private lines as the previous bank, the Second Bank had a rocky start. During the panic of 1819, it abruptly curtailed lending, harming its reputation. In the Baltimore branch, a group of offi cials, including cashier James McCulloch, embezzled more than 1 million dollars. Ironically, McCulloch also fi gured in a major 1819 victory for the bank. Maryland, at the behest of its state banks, had imposed a tax on the federal bank’s local operations. In its unanimous McCulloch v. Maryland decision, the Supreme Court declared the bank to be a “necessary and proper” use of federal power and forbade state taxation. In 1823 Philadelphian Nicholas Biddle was promoted to the bank’s presidency and began reshaping its oversight mission and role in the economy. Generally considered a banking success, although he lacked business training, Biddle would fail politically, as his arrogance and restrictive policies collided with the fi scal exuberance of an era of explosive growth. Andrew Jackson was steeped in Jeffersonian ideals of agrarian republicanism. He opposed public debt, paper money, and federally fi nanced improvements. The president’s intentions toward the bank vacillated. He reappointed Biddle yet called the bank a “hydra of corruption” in his fi rst message to Congress. Jackson’s inner circle, including New York political mastermind Martin Van Buren, had additional reasons for undercutting Biddle’s bank. A rivalry for banking predominance pitted New York City and Philadelphia. Elsewhere, Jacksonian entrepreneurs and speculators seethed over Biddle’s efforts to curb credit and restrain infl ation. In 1832, a presidential election year, Biddle made a serious political error. He allowed anti-Jackson political leaders, including Henry Clay, to persuade him to force Jackson’s hand by pressing for charter renewal four years early. Congress passed the extension but could not override the president’s July veto, the fi rst signifi - cant veto in U.S. history. In his fi ery message, Jackson called the bank an enemy of “the humble members of society—the farmers, mechanics, and laborers.” Easily beating Clay to win a second term, Jackson was not content to allow the bank to complete its remaining years. By the fall of 1833 Treasury Secretary Roger B. Taney (later Supreme Court Chief Justice) had found ways to transfer government deposits from the bank to so-called “pet” banks that supported Jacksonian initiatives. By 1836, when the bank ceased to exist, deposits had been moved to 91 of the nation’s 600 banks. The death of the Second Bank of the United States was not the only cause of the orgy of lending, speculation, and bank failure that fed the panic of 1837, but it was an important factor. Financial and political battles over gold or silver, greenbacks or hard currency, roiled the 19th century, fueling populism after the Civil War. Centralized banking did not reemerge until a Federal Reserve banking system was established in 1913 under President Woodrow Wilson. See also fi nancial panics in North America; political parties in the United States. Further reading: Hammond, Bray. Banks and Politics in America: From the Revolution to the Civil War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957; Kaplan, Edward S. The Bank of the United States and the American Economy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999. Marsha E. Ackermann


baroque culture in Latin AmericaEdit

The term baroque—originally a pejorative label meaning “absurd” or “grotesque”—is used to designate the artistic style that fl ourished in Europe and abroad in the 17th and early 18th centuries. The baroque infl uence reached Latin America in the mid-17th century and continued to make its presence felt long after 1750, the year conventionally given as the end of the baroque movement in Europe. The artistic movement, which originated in Rome in tandem with the Catholic Counter- Reformation, emphasized vigorous movement and emotional intensity. Baroque works were typically characterized by a highly ornamental style and extensive use of decorative detail. Given the movement’s roots in the Counter-Reformation, it comes as little surprise that most (though certainly not all) baroque art served a religious purpose. Life-sized images aimed to capture the emotional states of their subjects (typically biblical fi gures), so that viewers could connect with the subject on an emotional level. On major holy days, religious statues, often dressed in ornamental garments, were paraded through the streets of Latin American cities. While Latin American culture was clearly infl uenced by European styles and aesthetic ideals, Latin American baroque was by no means a mere duplicate of baroque culture in Latin America 51 European artistic forms. Baroque music was generally more lively and less technically complex in a Latin American context than it was in Europe. European innovations in the visual arts were selectively appropriated and transformed to suit a very different context. The result was a hybridization of European, Indian, and African cultural infl uences. Many baroque churches in Latin America, for example, include detailed carvings and other ornamentation that incorporate elements of indigenous spiritual beliefs and practices. Similarly, paintings and sculptures from the baroque era often portray their subjects clad in the native garments or situated in surroundings suggestive of the local climate and geography. The biblical scenes found in the interior of the San Francisco Church in Santa Fé de Bogotá, Colombia, for example, depict biblical fi gures in a rich tropical environment. Some of the fi nest examples of Latin American baroque art and architecture can be seen in the work of Antônio Francisco Lisboa, known more popularly as O Aleijadinho (the “Little Cripple”). This Brazilian sculptor and architect’s masterpieces include baroque churches in São João del Rei and Ouro Preto, as well as the statuary (most famously the Twelve Prophets carved out of soapstone) at the Sanctuary of Bom Jesus do Matozinho in Congonhas do Campo. Aleijadinho’s work, some of which he produced in the early years of the 19th century, serves as a reminder of the inapplicability of rigid periodization of artistic styles in the Latin American context. The decades following independence witnessed a backlash against baroque culture among educated elites in Latin America. The movement for political independence had been inspired in large part by European Enlightenment ideals, and it was to European—and particularly to French neoclassicist—ideals that the Creole elites turned for a cultural model on which to base their newly independent societies. On a more popular level, however, devotional art and pageantry and other expressions of popular culture continued to demonstrate a taste for theatricality and ornamentation characteristic of baroque culture well into the 19th century and beyond. In fact, the enduring presence of baroque aesthetic norms can still be observed in Latin American cultural expression. Further reading: Baily, Gauvin Alexander. Art of Colonial Latin America. London: Phaedon Press, 2005; King, John, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Modern Latin American Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004; Tarragó, Rafael E. The Pageant of Ibero-American Civilization: An Introduction to Its Cultural History. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995; Tenenbaum, Barbara, ed. Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1996. Kathleen Ruppert


Beecher familyEdit

U.S. ministers and reformers Bestriding the 19th century, members of the large and well-educated New England–based family headed by patriarch Lyman Beecher would play crucial roles in the development of American Protestant theology, women’s education, and the abolition of slavery. Daughter Harriet Beecher Stowe’s antislavery best seller, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, was credited with helping to spark the American Civil War; her elder sister, Catharine, reinvented women’s household work as home economics. Their brother Henry Ward Beecher was one of America’s most successful preachers before the scandalous 1875 adultery trial that almost destroyed him. Born in 1775 to a long line of Connecticut blacksmiths, Lyman Beecher studied at Yale College and was ordained a Congregationalist minister in 1798. At a time when the staunch Puritanism of early New England was giving way to Unitarianism and transcendentalism, Lyman Beecher clung to the harsher beliefs of the First Great Awakening. He would enjoy national fame and weather severe disapproval during ministerial postings in Hartford, Boston, and Cincinnati, where he was preacher, professor, and president of the fl edgling Lane Theological Seminary. A stern but loving father, Lyman Beecher was deeply involved in the religious and professional lives of his 11 children by two marriages. He saw all seven of his sons become clergymen before he died in 1863. His eldest child, Catharine, lost her fi ancé, a promising mathematician, in a shipwreck and devoted her life thereafter to female education. Beginning in 1823 when she established the Hartford Female Seminary (soon hiring sister Harriet as a teacher), Catharine advocated an expanded academic curriculum for girls and helped make teaching an honored career for women at a time when men still dominated education. Her 1841 Treatise on Domestic Economy was a huge success, endowing women’s work with scientifi c rigor. In 1850 she founded Milwaukee Female College, where young women were trained systematically to become 52 Beecher family respected homemakers. Yet she continued, despite her own independent achievements, to proclaim male superiority at a time when other women were beginning to agitate for equality. Harriet recalled stories of cruelty she heard as a child and developed a keen understanding of slavery and racism as a wife and mother in Cincinnati, on the border between free Ohio and slave Kentucky. Moving back east in 1850 with her theology professor husband, Calvin Stowe, she became keenly aware of the uproar over the just-enacted Fugitive Slave Law. Inspired by events and encouraged by family members, Harriet began writing. The fi rst installment of Uncle Tom’s Cabin was published in a tiny periodical on June 5, 1851. When the entire novel appeared the next year, millions of copies were sold. The book was an international moral and literary triumph despite hate letters from Southerners, one possibly containing the severed ear of a slave. Harriet wrote more best sellers in a long writing career; none would approach the impact of Uncle Tom. Her younger brother, Henry Ward, fi rst resisted a religious vocation, but having yielded to his father’s dearest wish, became a huge success. After eight years ministering in malarial Indianapolis, where his cautious antislavery sermons sometimes put him in harm’s way, Henry was invited to lead a new Congregational church in Brooklyn, New York. This “bully” pulpit was well paid, prestigious, and a place where the eloquent Henry could gain national attention. Unlike Lyman, Henry was no Calvinist. God’s love, not God’s implacable wrath, infused his sermons. Soon, Henry was a celebrity, drawing huge Sunday crowds. He counseled temperance, denounced America’s Mexican War, and took up collections to free slaves, although he long resisted abolitionism and remained patronizing toward African Americans’ potential for full citizenship. After the Civil War, he supported women’s suffrage, despite opposition from his wife and his sister Catharine. Preacher, writer, novelist, and journalist, Henry almost lost it all when Theodore Tilton, one of his closest associates, accused the minister of an adulterous affair with his wife, Elizabeth. It was almost certainly true and may not have been Henry’s only affair. He denied it steadfastly; Mrs. Tilton kept changing her story. The trial lasted almost six months, ending with the jury voting nine to three to acquit. Tarnished, Henry resumed his career on the national lecture circuit, raking in high appearance fees. In later years, he condemned labor unions but stood up for Native Americans and Jewish immigrants. The offspring of Lyman Beecher, through both achievements and mistakes, played a major role in transforming their America. Leading the way to more socially conscious religious practices, they also helped destroy slavery and elevated women’s roles, foreshadowing greater changes to come. Further reading: Rugoff, Milton. The Beechers: An American Family in the Nineteenth Century. New York: Harper & Row, 1981; White, Barbara A. The Beecher Sisters. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Marsha E. Ackermann


Berlin, Congress of (1878)Edit

The Congress of Berlin in July 1878 was held in response to nationalistic revolts against Ottoman Turks in the Balkans between 1875 and 1877. In 1875 the peasants of Bosnia had rebelled against their Turkish landlords, bringing fellow Slavic states such as Serbia and Montenegro to their aid. Although the Turks defeated the Serbians and Montenegrins, the Balkan confl agration spread to Bulgaria, where the population rose in revolt against Turkish rule. The atrocities perpetuated against Bulgarian insurgents—real, imagined, and exaggerated— had an impact on public opinion in Europe. Harriet Beecher Stowe, her father, Lyman, and her brother Henry Ward. The Beechers were prominent abolitionists and reformers. Berlin, Congress of (1878) 53 In the wake of these revolts, Pan-Slavic sentiment supported Russian intervention to come to the rescue of their Orthodox coreligionists and Slavic brothers. They went to war in the summer of 1877 and, early in 1878 after vigorous Turkish resistance, forces were approaching Constantinople, the Ottoman capital. The Turks then signed the Treaty of San Stefano. Under those terms Serbia and Romania became offi cially independent (they had long enjoyed de facto sovereignty), and Montenegro had its independence confi rmed. It was the fear of other powerful nations, especially Austria and Great Britain, that led to the assembly of the congress. The Treaty of San Stefano had, in fact, been made because these powers had threatened to intervene. Austria had moved troops to the border of Romania, where it could strike at the fl ank of Russian troops if necessary, and the British fl eet entered the straits adjacent to Constantinople so as to bombard Constantinople if Russia attempted to take it. This concern was related to the Eastern Question, which dealt with control of the Strait, including access to the Dardenelles (which controlled the route between the Black Sea), the Mediterranean, and the Bosphorus (the link between Asia and Europe). The decline of Turkey, the ruler of the Straits, had aroused fear and uncertainty regarding the future of these important passageways. When the British noted that Russia’s entrance into Constantinople would be cause for war, the Treaty of San Stefano was signed. Without regard for the anxiety of other European powers, Russia dictated the treaty to create a huge Bulgaria that not only included Bulgaria proper but most of Macedonia from the Aegean to the Serbian border. Other Turkish areas were taken (with the exception of Albania), and Russia annexed territories that it had conquered in the Caucasus. Austria and Italy were opposed to the treaty, and Britain feared that Russian dominance of the Straits would endanger British dominance in the Mediterranean and the route to India. Other Balkan states such as Greece and Serbia opposed the creation of a large Bulgaria, and Romania resented the loss of all of Bessarabia to Russia and part of its southern province of Dobruja to Bulgaria. German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck realized his carefully constructed system of alliances would be torn asunder, so he invited Russia, Great Britain, and Austria to a German-hosted conference held in Berlin. The results of this Congress of Berlin (also attended by France and Italy) were much less favorable to Russia, which had to give back some of the territory it had won in the Caucasus. In effect, Bismarck supported Austria over fellow Russian member in the Three Emperors’ League of Austria, Germany, and Russia. The Bulgaria of San Stefano was split into three parts. Eastern Rumelia, the southeastern section, received a Christian governor but remained under the military and police control of the Turks (in 1885 it was annexed to Bulgaria). The north was made a virtually independent monarchy under a king (and in 1908 its independence was declared), and the rest, including Macedonia, was given back to the Turks. Other changes took place. Greece received Thessaly to the north; Great Britain received Cyprus as a protectorate; and Austria received the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina as protectorates. The result of the Congress of Berlin was ultimately negative. Although Benjamin Disraeli, British prime minister, informed the Turks that they had been given breathing space, he also cynically observed that he doubted that they would take it. He was correct in that assumption. Russia became estranged from Germany’s ally, Austria, and closer to France, Germany’s greater enemy. Austria’s acquisition of Bosnia and Herzegovina infuriated the Serbs who began a campaign for the territory that ultimately led to World War I when the heir to the Austrian throne was assassinated in Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia. See also Balkan and East European Insurrections; British East India Company. Further reading: Anderson, Matthew. The Eastern Question, 1774–1923. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1966; Jelavich, Barbara. History of the Balkans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983; ———. Russia’s Balkan Entanglement, 1806–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991; Meeker, Michael. A Nation of Empire: The Ottoman Legacy of Turkish Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002; Sontag, R. J. European Diplomatic History 1871–1932. New York: Century, 1933. Norman C. Rothman


Bismarck, Otto von (1815–1898) Edit

German statesman Otto von Bismarck was born on April 1, 1815, at his family’s estate of Schoenhausen in Prussia. The same year, Prussia became again the most important country in Germany when its army under Field Marshal von Blücher would help the British duke of Wellington defeat Napoleon I at Waterloo, on June 18, 1815. Bismarck came 54 Bismarck, Otto von from the hereditary warrior caste of the Junkers, Prussian nobles who had centuries before formed the cutting edge of the campaigns of the Teutonic knights in their wars in eastern Europe. At fi rst, Bismarck did not follow the traditional Prussian Junker calling into the military, but took up legal studies in Hanover, Göttingen, and Berlin. Bismarck showed a disinclination toward the practice of law; his interest centered on a career in diplomacy. When the wave of revolutions swept throughout Europe in 1848, Bismarck was a conservative and relieved to see the revolutions largely fail. In France, the revolution did succeed, and Napoleon III, the nephew of Prussia’s old nemesis Napoleon, was elected to power. Nevertheless, Bismarck was not a doctrinaire conservative but more of a political pragmatist ready to adopt ideas from political liberalism that would benefi t Prussia. Throughout his career, Bismarck was characterized by this political adaptability, which helped to make him the master statesman of his day. Bismarck became a rising star in the Prussian diplomatic service, which had been the fast track to success in the kingdom since the time of Frederick the Great, who by his death in 1786 had made the comparatively small monarchy one of the great powers in Europe. He was sent to represent Prussia in France in 1862 and in czarist Russia in 1859, two of the three countries that could either help—or inhibit— Prussian foreign interests. The Austrian Empire, as heir to the old Holy Roman Empire that Napoleon had destroyed in 1806, would prove to be the most important diplomatic threat to Prussian ambitions. While the Holy Roman Empire might be no more, the German Confederation existed in its place, and Prussia chafed at being subordinate to Austria. In 1851 King Frederick William (Friedrich Wilhelm) IV, in recognition of Bismarck’s loyalty during the 1848 uprising, appointed him to the Diet, or assembly, of the Confederation as Prussia’s representative. In one way or the other, von Bismarck would remain at the center of German affairs for the next four decades. At this time, Britain, ruled by Queen Victoria, treated developments in Europe, so long as one power did not become too powerful, as a second-class interest against those of Britain’s developing empire overseas. Bismarck made clear from the start that he had little liking for letting Austria take the lead in German affairs and believed that Prussia should lead instead. After serving as Prussia’s minister to France and Russia and as Prussia’s representative to the German Federal Diet in Frankfurt, he was rewarded with the positions of Prussian foreign minister and prime minister in 1862. Well-schooled in diplomacy among the Great Powers, he would fi nd politics within Prussia to be an entirely different game than the diplomatic game of nations. The kings and Bismarck came grudgingly to live with the political liberals and to realize that some accommodation with liberalism was needed if the country was to be governed at all. Bismarck saw the army as the key to Prussia’s future. On February 1, 1864, a combined Prussian-Austrian army swept over the German frontier to invade Schleswig-Holstein and the Danish garrison occupying it. In August 1865 the Convention of Gastein apportioned Holstein to Austria and Schleswig to Prussia. Although the situation seemed resolved, Bismarck secretly hoped for a casus belli, a cause of war, with the Austrians. Mutual attacks in the parliament of the German Confederation between the Prussian and Austrian representatives were fi nally followed by a Prussian invasion of Austrian-held Holstein. Open hostilities soon broke out between Prussia and Austria. On July 3, 1866, Prussian commander Helmuth von Moltke launched his attack on the Germany’s most notable diplomat, Otto von Bismarck, oversaw the unifi cation of Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm I. Bismarck, Otto von 55 Austrians and their Hungarian allies. In the Six Weeks’ War, the Prussians and their German allies defeated the Austrians and Hungarians. Peace between Prussia and Austria came in the Treaty of Prague in August 1866. To Bismarck, the defeat of Austria was only a means to remove Austria from the German equation— to leave Germany’s destiny in Prussian hands. Accordingly, out of the war came the North German Confederation, which Bismarck saw as a stepping stone to complete Prussian domination of the Germanic states. Bavaria, a southern contender for prominence, had also been humbled—but not crushed—during the Austrian war. With Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary removed from the equation, there was only one player on the European scene with plans for Germany: Emperor Napoleon III of France. Although popularly elected in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848, in 1852, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte had seized power in a military coup, much as his uncle had done in November 1799. Napoleon began to see himself also as the arbiter of German affairs, which was something Bismarck could not abide. At first, Napoleon desired only territorial compensation from Bismarck in return for his neutrality in the Six Weeks’ War. However, when Napoleon decided he wanted Luxembourg, Bismarck was able to marshall German opposition to French desires on German land. The flash point, however, came in Spain. There was a succession crisis when Queen Isabella II of Spain was deposed in 1868. Spain looked for a candidate for the throne and decided on a member of the House of Hohenzollern—the reigning house of King Wilhelm I of Prussia. Napoleon feared encirclement, and tension rose in both France and Prussia. The Hohenzollern candidacy was withdrawn, but Napoleon III foolishly kept up the diplomatic pressure to make it appear as a clear-cut French triumph. Rather than suffer a strategic blow, Bismarck doctored the infamous Ems Telegram to King Wilhelm I to make it appear that the French had deliberately tried to humiliate the Prussian monarch. The end result was predictable. French pride rose up, and Napoleon answered with hostility. On July 19 France declared war on Prussia. By August 1870 France and Prussia, backed by the North German Confederation, began hostilities. From the beginning, the odds were in the favor of the Prussians and their allies: In the face of their 400,000 troops, Napoleon III only was able to muster about half of that number. On September 2, 1870, Napoleon surrendered to the Germans. With peace of a sort in place with France, Bismarck had achieved his goal. Germany was united under the new emperor, or kaiser, Wilhelm I. Bismarck had no more territorial aspirations. Instead, he devoted his career so that the new imperial Germany could progress in peace. With France militarily neutralized (at least for a time), Bismarck devoted his attention to the Austrian Empire, the Dual Monarchy, and czarist Russia. Bismarck’s goal was essentially to re-create the balance of power that had been put in place by the Congress of Vienna, which had brought 40 years of peace until Britain and France had confronted Russia in the Crimean War of 1854–56. The peace he sought for imperial Germany would also benefit the rest of Europe and became his lasting contribution to history. Bismarck, the minister-president (prime minister) of Prussia and the Iron Chancellor of the German Empire, died on July 30, 1898. He did not live to see the adventurist policies of Wilhelm II contribute to the coming of World War I in August 1914 and the ultimate destruction of the German Empire that he had worked so passionately to create and to preserve. See also Berlin, Congress of (1878). Further reading: Howard, Michael. Franco-Prussian War: The German Invasion of France 1870–1871. London: Routledge, 2001; Laffin, John. Jackboot: A History of the German Soldier, 1713–1945. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1995; Pflanze, Otto. Bismarck and the Development of Germany. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971; Taylor, J. P. The Struggle for Mastery in Europe: 1848–1918. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980; Williamson, D. G. Bismarck and Germany 1862–1890. London: Longman, 1998. John F. Murphy, Jr.


Bolívar, SimónEdit

(1783–1830) liberator of South America Revered throughout Spanish-speaking Latin America as the “Liberator,” whose single-minded determination forced Spain to grant independence to South America’s nascent nation-states in the 1820s, Simón Bolívar occupies a singular position as perhaps Latin America’s greatest patriot and hero. Statues and busts of Bolívar grace public plazas across the continent, while his contemporary relevance remains readily apparent, as in Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution, brainchild of President Hugo Chávez, elected in 1998. This 56 Bolívar, Simón popular reverence contrasts sharply with the contemporaneous opinion of Bolívar in the years before his death, when many Latin American elites reviled him as an autocrat and dictator. His political trajectory is the subject of an expansive literature, as his political philosophy evolved from a broad republicanism and democratic idealism in the early 1800s to an antidemocratic autocracy and repudiation of republican ideals by the late 1820s. Weeks before his death from tuberculosis, Bolívar himself expressed his disillusionment and lamented his failure to achieve his vision of a politically unifi ed nation-state embracing all of South America, when he famously proclaimed: “America is ungovernable . . . he who serves a revolution ploughs the sea.” His lament proved prescient, foreshadowing the endemic civil wars that wracked much of the fi rst century of Latin American independence. Born on July 24, 1783, in Caracas, capital of the Provinces of Venezuela of the Viceroyalty of Gran Colombia, Simón Bolívar was the son of Juan Vicente Bolívar and María de la Concepción Palacios y Blanco, one of the most distinguished Creole (American-born Spanish) families in the city of 20,000 inhabitants. His education was eclectic and unconventional, infl uenced by emergent Enlightenment ideals of republicanism, popular sovereignty, and democracy, and by romantic notions regarding nature and the arts. As a youth, he traveled widely in Europe and North America, continuing his studies in Madrid, southern France, and elsewhere. He married in May 1802 in Madrid and eight months later his wife died, a catastrophic personal event that he later claimed changed the trajectory of his life. “If I had not been left a widower . . . I should not be General Bolívar, nor the Liberator,” he later observed. Returning to Europe, in December 1804 he attended the coronation of Napoleon I in Paris, an event that left an enduring impression. He was particularly struck by the popular adoration for the French emperor, which he envisioned for himself for liberating South America from Spanish rule. In August 1805 on the Monte Sacro on the outskirts of Rome, he solemnly vowed that he would “not rest in body or soul till I have broken the chains that bind us to the will of Spain.” He would spend the next two decades struggling to fulfi ll that vow. Bolívar’s military campaigns against the Spanish armies, culminating in Latin American independence, comprise the subject of a vast literature. The evolution of his political philosophy can be seen in three key documents. The fi rst, the Jamaica Letter of September 6, 1815, offered a critical appraisal of the status of the Latin American revolutionary movements and a series of predictions regarding Latin America’s future. The political views inspiring Bolívar’s Jamaica Letter can be characterized as broadly nationalist and republican. The second document, a major speech before the Congress of Angostura in 1819, evinced far greater emphasis on the need for political unity and a strong central executive. The third document, the Bolivian Constitution of 1825, represents the acme of Bolívar’s political shift toward a belief in a unitary executive and strong central state and his fears of civil war and political anarchy. Many of his prognostications on Latin America’s future proved accurate, most notably the monumental diffi culties of governing territories with no tradition of democracy and shot through with deep divisions of race and class. Indeed, throughout his career as the Liberator, Bolívar sought to achieve a political revolution, independence from Spain, without sparking a social revolution from below. Remarkably, he largely succeeded. The process by which popular memories of Bolívar transformed so dramatically after his death, from a despised autocrat to a popular hero and Liberator, represents yet A statue of Simón Bolívar, considered the George Washington of South America, stands in Caracas, Venezuela. Bolívar, Simón 57 another puzzle in the history of this revered Latin American patriot. Further reading: Johnson, John J. Simón Bolívar and Spanish American Independence, 1783–1830. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand Co., 1968; Salcedo-Bastardo, J. L. Bolívar: A Continent and Its Destiny. Translated by A. McDermott. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1977. Michael J. Schroeder


Bourbon restorationEdit

During the French Revolution, the French monarchy was offi cially abolished on September 21, 1792, by the revolutionary National Convention. With the radical Jacobin party of Maximilien Robespierre, Camille Desmoulins, and Georges Danton in control of the Convention, King Louis XVI was condemned to death and sent to the guillotine on January 21, 1793. His son, whom French monarchists considered Louis XVII, died in June 1795 in prison, either the victim of neglect or beatings by his jailors. Although the monarchy in France was offi cially abolished, the Bourbon dynasty continued in exile with others who had fl ed the increasingly radicalized revolutionaries. Due to the death of Louis XVII, the older brother of Louis XVI, the comte de Provence, assumed the title of King Louis XVIII. During the early years of the Revolution, the comte de Provence participated in the National Assembly, as did the other royal princes, the princes of the blood. Sensing the growing radicalization of the revolutionaries, however, he fl ed France in June 1791, at the time that Louis XVI and his wife, Marie Antoinette, attempted to escape, only to be captured by the revolutionaries. Luckily, the comte de Provence had taken a different route and went to Coblenz. He was undoubtedly one of the émigrés with whom Louis XVI intrigued during the Revolution to help him regain his throne. It was the discovery of Louis XVI’s secret correspondence, deemed proof of treason by the radical Jacobins, that was a major reason for his execution. Throughout the years of the Revolution, the comte de Provence pursued his own interests, with little interest in Louis XVI’s safety. The Revolution and the period of the Napoleonic Wars were unkind to Louis XVIII, when he was compelled to rely on the hospitality of other rulers. At the same time, his brother, the comte d’Artois, pursued a confl icting plan from his refuge in London, thus making the Bourbon dynasty a two-headed beast. The comte de Provence remained in Great Britain until Napoleon I’s defeat and abdication on April 11, 1814. Due to the astute negotiations of a diplomat who had switched allegiances to the Bourbons, the victorious allies accepted Louis XVIII as king of France. On May 2, 1814, he entered Paris in triumph. Although he greeted the French people with great promises, Louis XVIII alienated the French army. When Napoleon escaped from exile on February 26, 1815, and landed in France, Louis XVIII knew that the army would never support him against Napoleon. So he fl ed to the Austrian Netherlands, and Napoleon triumphantly entered Paris on March 20, 1815. However, the European crowns were determined to keep Napoleon from ruling France again. On June 18, 1815, near the town of Waterloo in the Austrian Netherlands, Napoleon was decisively defeated by the British and Prussian armies. Forced to abdicate a second time, Napoleon was this time sent away to Saint Helena, far out in the Atlantic, where he died in May 1821. The nature of Louis XVIII’s rule indicates that he supported absolutism. In 1815 he signed the Holy Alliance with Prussia, Austria, and Russia, with the intention of quelling any resurgence of the political liberalism that was the strongest legacy of the French Revolution. The Holy Alliance was expanded to the Quintuple Alliance in 1822, with the addition of England. These European monarchies represented a conservative ideology backed by military might. On September 16, 1824, Louis XVIII died, and the crown passed to his brother, the comte d’Artois, who assumed the throne as King Charles X. Charles X was a very different king than his brother had been. He wanted to see a reactionary reconstruction of France. In March 1830 the liberal Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of the French Assembly, passed a vote of no confi dence on the actions of Charles X’s chief minister, Polignac. In response, Charles X dissolved the Chamber and called for new elections. But when the new Chamber deputies were sworn in, they held the same opposition as the one Charles had dissolved. Abandoning any pretext of supporting the parliamentary system, on July 26, 1830, Charles X issued four drastic decrees. Known as the July Ordinances, they dissolved the new Chamber, imposed strict censorship of the press, limited voting rights to certain favorable groups and businessmen, and called for a new election. The effect of the July Ordinances was cataclysmic. The very next day, revolutionary disturbances broke out in Paris. From July 27 to July 29, the revolutionaries raised barricades in Paris and battled the police 58 Bourbon restoration and the soldiers. Most soldiers refused to fi re on the crowd. Charles X, having no desire to go to the guillotine, quickly abdicated and sought refuge, for the second time in his life, in England. The marquis de Lafayette, who had played important roles in both the American Revolution and the French Revolution, found a solution to the political crisis. Using his still immense popularity, he offered the French people to replace Charles X with Louis-Philippe, the duc d’Orléans, who had fought with the armies of the French Revolution. With the promise that the duc d’Orléans would respect the charter of 1814, the Chamber of Deputies offered him the crown on August 7, 1830. Louis-Philippe would now rule France as the “citizen king.” See also Latin America, Bourbon reforms in. Further reading: Brinton, Crane. The Anatomy of Revolution. New York: Vintage, 1965; Cobban, Alfred. A History of Modern France: Vol. 1, Old Regime and Revolution 1715–1799. New York: Penguin, 1991; Cronin, Vincent. Napoleon Bonaparte: An Intimate Biography. New York: William Morrow, 1972; Lefebvre, Georges. The French Revolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962; ——— , and Henry F. Stockhold. Napoleon. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990; Palmer, R. R. Twelve Who Ruled. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970; ———, and Joel L. Colton. A History of the Modern World. New York: Knopf, 1971. John F. Murphy, Jr.


Brahmo and Arya Samaj Edit

The Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj were two important institutions that developed in 19th-century India against existing social practices. The impact of the West resulted in a social and cultural renaissance in India. To regenerate society, it was felt that modern sciences and ideas of reason were essential. Ram Mohan Roy, occupying a pivotal position in the awakening, was the founder of Brahmo Sabha in 1828, which was known as Brahmo Samaj afterward. Roy was an enlightened thinker and well versed in Sanskrit, English, and Arabic. An accomplished Vedic scholar, he was also a great admirer of Jesus Christ. Roy wanted to bring reform to Hindu society, which had become stagnant. Evils like the sati (suttee) system of self-emolation of widows, child marriage, polygamy, and other social ills had crept in. The goal of the Brahmo Samaj was to rid Hindu society of evils and to practice monotheism. Incorporating the best teachings of other religions, it aimed at a society based on reason and the Vedas. A golden age in Vedic society had begun. Rajnarain Bose, Debendranath Tagore, and Keshab Chandra Sen enriched the Samaj through inculcation of novel ideas that aimed at reforming Hindu religion and society. Bose used the Hindu scriptures like the Vedas, Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita as the holy books of the Hindus. Debendranath Tagore, the father of Rabindranath Tagore, revived the Brahmo Samaj, which had become dormant after Roy’s death in 1843. He established the branches of the Samaj and spoke out against idol worship, pilgrimages, and rituals of Hindu society. Membership of the Samaj continued to rise; from six in 1829 to 2,000 after 1835. Starting in Bengal, it spread to different parts of India. But a schism developed, as Debendranath and the older generation did not like the radical ideas of Sen, who formed the Brahmo Samaj of India in 1866. The older organization was called the Adi (original) Brahmo Samaj. EMANCIPATION OF HINDU WOMEN The crusade of the Brahmo Samaj resulted in the emancipation of Hindu women within the fold of the Samaj. The British government passed the Civil Marriage Act in 1872, prohibiting child marriage and polygamy, as well as the abolition of caste distinctions. When Sen violated this act at the time of his daughter’s marriage, there was another split in the Brahmo Samaj of India in 1878 with the formation of Sadharana (Common) Brahmo Samaj by Ananda Mohan Bose and others. The Brahmo Samaj had done laudable work in the fi eld of education. The urban elite of West and South India came under its spell. It remained a sort of guiding spirit for reformed Hindu society. At the time of World War I, it had 232 branches in major cities of South and Southeast Asia. Apart from the Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore, the Congress presidents and nationalist leaders like Surendranath Banerji and Bipin Chandra Pal were members in the 19th century. Swami Dayananda Saraswati founded the Arya Samaj in the colonial city of Bombay in 1875, but its growth came in the Punjab after the establishment of Lahore Arya Samaj three years later. It grew rapidly in different parts of India, with provincial braches in Uttar Pradesh (1886), Rajasthan (1888), Bengal (1889), and Madhya Pradesh (1889). It also spread to the British Empire outside of India, especially in South Brahmo and Arya Samaj 59 Africa, Fiji, and Mauritius, where people of Indian descent lived. REMOVAL OF UNTOUCHABILITY Dayananda Saraswati was against idolatry, polytheism, ritual, the caste system, the dominance of the Brahmans, and the dogmatic practices of Hinduism. He launched a crusade for social equality, removal of untouchability, and in favor of female education and adult, widow, and intercaste marriages. He toured India, spreading his message. He promoted Vedic learning and its sacredness with his slogan, “Go back to the Vedas.” His platform, however, was not to be misconstrued as encouraging going back to the Vedic times; he showed rationality in his approach toward reforms in Hinduism. The Vedas were to be interpreted by human reason. He also rejected all forms of superstition. He was infl uenced by the intellectual traditions of reason and science of the West. He translated the Vedas and wrote three important books, Satyartha Prakas, Veda-Bhashya Bhumika, and Veda-Bhashya. Of the Ten Principles of the Arya Samaj, the following were paramount: infallibility of the Vedas, the importance of truth, the welfare of others, the promotion of spiritual well-being, and contributing one-hundredth of one’s income to the Samaj. Unlike orthodox Hinduism, the Arya Samaj welcomed the Hindu who had embraced other religions either of his or her own will or because of force. The suddhi (reconversion by ritual purifi cation) generated a lot of controversy in the 20th century. Some historians believed that the religious program of the Samaj was one of the factors responsible for the growth of communalism. Beginning in the 1890s it was also involved in the cow protection movement, leading to widespread communal violence. After Saraswati’s death, the Arya Samaj became aggressive. It preached supremacy of Arya dharma (religion) and contributed to a pan-Hindu revivalist movement. One of the objectives of the Arya Samaj was the spread of education, and it did pioneering work by establishing schools and colleges throughout the country. The Dayanand Anglo-Vedic School opened in Lahore in 1886 and was converted to a college three years later. The educational campaign of the Samaj created a schism in its rank. The orthodox faction held the teachings of Dayananda as the creed of the Samaj, whereas the liberal group saw him primarily as a reformer. After a split in 1893, the orthodox group controlled the major branches of the Samaj, including the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. This group emphasized reconverting the Hindus through the suddhi. Reviving the Vedic ideals, they established Gurukul Kangri at Haradwar in 1902. The liberal wing concentrated on relief work and Dayanand Anglo-Vedic Schools promoted modern curricula in addition to Indian values. The Arya Samaj remained in the forefront of political agitation against British colonial rule, and Lala Rajpat Rai of the Arya Samaj was an important leader of the extremist faction of the Indian National Congress. See also Aligarh college and movement. Further reading: Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar. From Plassey to Partition. New Delhi: Orient Longman, 2004; Carpenter, Mary. Last Days of Raja Rammohun Roy. Calcutta: Rammohun Library, 1997; Kopf, David. Brahmo Samaj and the Shaping of the Modern Indian Mind. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992; Jones, Kenneth W. Arya Dharma: Hindu Consciousness in Nineteenth Century Punjab. New Delhi: Manohar, 1976; Pruthi, R. K., ed., Arya Samaj and Indian Civilization. New Delhi: Discovery, 2004; Yadav, K. C. Arya Samaj and the Freedom Movement 1875–1947. New Delhi: Manohar, 1988. Patit Paban Mishra


Brazil, independence to republic in Edit

Unlike many Spanish-American countries that fought for independence and founded republics thereafter, the Portuguese colony of Brazil gained its independence virtually without bloodshed and remained under the same royal family that had once ruled the territory from afar. Hence Brazilian independence entailed a large degree of continuity. The abolition of the monarchy later in the 19th century represented Brazil’s break with its European past, though the economic and cultural evolutions of the fi rst few decades of independence prepared the way for political change by profoundly altering Brazilian attitudes and society. Napoleon I’s armies disrupted both Iberian monarchies; the Portuguese prince, unlike his Spanish counterpart, decided to take advantage of his country’s overseas holdings and moved the royal family to Brazil in 1807. At Rio de Janeiro, the new capital of the Portuguese empire from 1808, João became king in his own right in 1814, following the death of the mentally unstable queen for whom he had served as regent. When he became king, João proclaimed Brazil a king- 60 Brazil, independence to republic in dom, equal in status to Portugal. This new standing permitted freer trade and led to the creation of various institutions in Rio de Janeiro, including a naval academy, a medical school, and Brazil’s fi rst newspaper. Further, the new king established a full royal court in Rio, complete with 15,000 courtiers, bureaucrats, and aristocratic families who had also accepted exile from Portugal. The Portuguese elites came to Brazil with strong senses of entitlement and an appreciation for French culture, neither of which had been damaged by the Napoleonic conquest of their country. Brazil enjoyed a comparatively smooth transformation from exploited colony to sovereign country with its own monarch in residence. Not all Brazilians appreciated the Portuguese monarchy’s presence in Rio. Even though João himself became quite popular, his courtiers did not. In the years prior to João’s 1821 return to Portugal, Brazilians began to manifest a growing nationalism that triggered revolts, including that of 1817 in Recife. French practices and aesthetics permeated Brazilian elite culture, but otherwise growing numbers of Brazilians became convinced that they could do without the ongoing presence of Europeans in their country. After returning to Europe to defend his throne from Portuguese republicans, João left his son Pedro in Brazil to act as prince regent. Pedro followed his father’s advice and soon came to identify more with Brazil than with Portugal. He refused the demand of the Portuguese Cortes that he return and acquiesce to Brazil’s demotion back to the status of colony. Pedro’s wife, Leopoldina, along with a group of Brazilian Creoles including José Bonifacio de Andrada e Silva, encouraged their prince to lead an independence movement. Pedro pronounced his famous Grito de Ipiranga on September 7, 1822, as he rode along the Ipiranga River. He removed the Portuguese colors from his uniform and avowed, “The hour is now! Independence or death!” Despite some opposition from army garrisons and a weak attack from a Portuguese fl eet, Brazil achieved its independence by 1824 with almost no blood being shed. The fi rst constitutional assembly of 1823 attempted to create a constitutional monarchy, with Pedro as merely a fi gurehead. However, Pedro dissolved that assembly and summoned a smaller group that wrote a far more conservative constitution that satisfi ed his tastes. Republicans in Pernambuco expressed their opposition to the arrangement; resentment of Pedro’s Portuguese advisers and his arrogance displeased many Brazilians who otherwise accepted having an emperor. The monarchy survived the early years of uncertainty. Brazil experienced a period of relative stability, if not unity, following independence. The country established close commercial and fi nancial relations with Britain, though the advantage was entirely on the side of the European power. Brazil accrued an enormous trade deficit with Britain that translated into monetary problems at home. The polarization between conservatives and liberals typical of South America also became characteristic of Brazilian politics, though alignments differed somewhat: Conservatives represented the urban-based civil service and merchants, whereas liberals associated themselves with wealthy landowners of the north and south. The liberal landowners gained control of the general assembly but encountered resistance to their modernizing agenda from the rather autocratic Pedro. INFLATION AND COLLAPSE The emperor’s power declined after the failed war against Argentina for control over Banda Oriental, which had been annexed to Brazil in 1820 as Cisplatine Province but would soon become known as Uruguay. The Brazilian government responded to the fi nancial crisis brought about by the external trade defi cit and the war by printing paper currency unsupported by gold reserves. The ensuing infl ation and collapse in the value of Brazilian money angered urban salary earners and merchants, who joined forces with the liberals to oppose the policies of Pedro I’s government. The emperor mobilized military forces to suppress protestors, but he concluded that it was best to depart the scene. He abdicated in favor of his fi ve-year-old son, the future Pedro II. During the regency, liberals passed an assortment of constitutional reforms that reigned in the executive and weakened the central government relative to the states. Federalism released energies previously kept in check by the central government, however, and revolts spread through the north/Amazonia region and the southern cattle ranching areas after 1835. In response, the assembly reversed decentralization; liberals cooperated with conservatives, at least temporarily, to defend Brazilian unity against such centripetal forces. Pedro II came to the throne early, at age 15, and provided a focus of loyalty for the Brazilian people. The monarchy continued to provide Brazil with political, social, and cultural stability in its independence. He would be the last emperor of Brazil and did not oppress his people or adhere to retrograde ideas. Instead, he encouraged Brazilians to pursue education and science. He also allowed for the formation of the organized and Brazil, independence to republic in 61 articulate opposition movement that sought to eliminate the monarchy entirely. By the later 1860s and especially by the 1870s, however, the combined pressures of economic modernization, the effects of the decision to abolish slavery, social change, and the Paraguayan War encouraged Brazilians to support liberal reformers and intensifi ed demands for sweeping change. Liberals began to demand the abolition of the monarchy and the creation of a republic, in addition to other constitutional changes. When a coup led to the abolition of the monarchy and the institution of a republic, most Brazilians celebrated. Nevertheless, decades would pass before ordinary citizens gained the means to participate actively in the political system and before Brazilians began to acknowledge the various, non-European infl uences that made their culture unique. The long struggle of the Paraguayan War undermined the military’s support for the monarchy while alienating liberals. Army offi cers, especially the relatively young, developed a sense of common identity and purpose during the war. Since these offi cers typically came from families not part of the ruling elite or from urban centers of political infl uence, they had no reason to support the government run by a small portion of Brazilian society. Further, they embraced the positivistic ideals of effi ciency and professionalism in government and civil service; they did not believe that the Brazilian government of Pedro II possessed these attributes. Within a decade, general military backing for a republic became marked, especially after offi cers united to defend a colleague who had published a critique of the minister of war and ran the risk of imprisonment. LIBERAL CAMPAIGN Meanwhile, liberals intensifi ed their campaign against the emperor’s policies. During the Paraguayan War, the emperor had given control of the government to the conservatives. The army commander, the duke of Caxias, had found the previous liberal cabinet unwilling to accept his demands; he convinced the king to replace it with men who would prove more cooperative. Now out of government, the liberals added a republic to their list of demands, along with increased federalism and a parliament. The last major base of support for the monarchy began to crumble in the 1870s as the Catholic battle against Freemasonry continued. Bishops pronounced Catholicism to be antithetical to Freemasonry after priests attended Masonic ceremonies in 1871. Since several imperial ministers were Freemasons, the government castigated the bishops for overreaching and imprisoned those who would not apologize. The clergy banded together in support of the Brazilian prelates and represented themselves as resisting the forces of secularism. Pedro II and his government lost face when they felt compelled to acknowledge the power of the church and released the imprisoned bishops without further punishment in 1875. Banking collapses after the 1873 fi nancial crisis in Europe, to which Brazil had become closely tied as it accrued external debt during the Paraguayan War, further eroded confi dence in the emperor’s government. The fi nal phase in the disintegration of the Brazilian monarchy occurred in the late 1880s. Economic change, which favored coffee over the traditional cash crops of cotton and sugar, meant that wealth increasingly moved into the region around Rio de Janeiro (central-southern Brazil) and dwindled in the northeast. Rubber plantations began to spread through the Amazon and turned towns such as Manaus into rich cities seemingly overnight. The rubber boom lasted from the 1870s until World War I, changing the distribution of Brazil’s population and wealth in the process. Newly wealthy groups began to demand political infl uence commensurate with their economic status. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY Meanwhile, the growing urban elite won ever greater support for the abolition of slavery. The Brazilian emperor and his daughter, Isabel, had both supported the various incarnations of lawyer Joaquim Mabuco’s abolition campaign ever since he established the Humanitarian Society for Abolition in 1869. The government enacted a series of laws that limited the extent of slavery, before abolishing it completely. In 1871 the Law of the Free Womb emancipated children born to slaves; however, the Rio Branco Law required those freeborn children to work unpaid for their mothers’s masters until they turned 21. In 1879 Mabuco resumed his campaign to end slavery as a member of the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies. A Chamber dominated by representatives from cotton- and sugar-growing areas rejected both his 1879 and his 1880 bill, either of which would have abolished slavery within 10 years. In 1880 Mabuco formed the Brazilian Antislavery Society. Throughout the early 1880s Mabuco, along with black journalist José do Patrocinio and other allies, continued to publicize the antislavery agenda. Meanwhile, Jose Duarte Ramalho Ortigão, leader of the Bahian Chamber of Commerce and Agriculture, led opposition 62 Brazil, independence to republic in to abolition on behalf of large plantation owners. In 1885 legislation emancipated slaves with at least 65 years of age. Despite important steps toward abolition and the formation of strong organizations working for the cause, Princess Isabel might not have signed the Golden Law (Lei Aurea) if not for broader economic and social change. Immigrants from Iberia and southern Europe began to arrive in Brazil in large numbers; approximately 3.5 million such people added themselves to the existing population between 1888 and 1928. The number of immigrants who arrived in Brazil over these decades surpassed the number of slaves brought to Brazil over the course of several centuries. The new availability of large amounts of inexpensive labor, paired with technological advances, made it economically feasible to operate plantations without slavery. Abolition encouraged further immigration and permanently altered both the economic and the social structure of Brazil. While her father was abroad in Europe, Isabel assented to the Golden Law on May 13, 1888. The law provided for the complete and unconditional abolition of slavery in Brazil. Slavery came to an end with virtually no bloodshed, though its abolition alienated large landowners who had previously supported the monarchy. They resented the absence of any provision for indemnities to slave owners. Thus by 1888 the imperial government had lost the support of the military, liberals, the church, and conservative landowners. Manuel Deodoro da Fonseca led the military coup that brought an end to the Brazilian Empire in November 1889. He met almost no resistance, though relatively few ordinary Brazilians participated in the coup or in the subsequent creation of a republic. Meanwhile, Pedro and the royal family went into exile; Pedro died in Paris in 1891. Deodoro, who became the fi rst president, resigned. A period of intense political contestation preceded the election of Prudente de Morais, the fi rst of many presidents from the state of São Paulo. The fi rst Brazilian republic enjoyed booms in coffee and rubber exports, effected boundary settlements with its neighbors, and started to recognize the particular racial and cultural mixture that characterized Brazilian society. See also abolition of slavery in the Americas; Latin America, independence in. Further reading: Baronov, David. The Abolition of Slavery in Brazil: The “Liberation” of Africans through the Emancipation of Capital. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000; Burns, E. Bradford. A History of Brazil. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980; Fausto, Boris. A Concise History of Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999; Levine, Robert M. The History of Brazil. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999; Skidmore, Thomas E. Brazil: Five Centuries of Change. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; Toplin, Robert Brent. The Abolition of Slavery in Brazil. New York: Atheneum Press, 1972. Melanie A. Bailey


Brethren movements Edit

Many religious denominations call themselves brethren. Pious German immigrants established most of these groups in America. The oldest and largest of them is the Church of the Brethren, founded in Germany by Alexander Mack in 1708. This denomination, with well over 200,000 American members, is one of the historical peace churches. Nevertheless, it is known for its foot-washing ritual as much as for its pacifi st orientation. The more socially conservative Brethren in Christ Church was founded in 1778 by Jacob Engle and is part of the Holiness Movement, with an American membership of more than 18,000. The much smaller separatist Old Order River Brethren broke from this group in the 1850s and observes plain dress, head coverings for women, and beards for men. The Church of the United Brethren in Christ was founded by Martin Boehm in 1800. The majority of this community eventually joined with the United Methodists in 1968. The others who continued under the brethren name highlight their evangelicalism and have a current American membership of over 27,000. However, with a North American membership of 90,000, the Christian Brethren (Plymouth Brethren) have had the most signifi cant impact on religious thought. This evangelical and nondenominational movement, which generally practices weekly communion and functions without a traditional ecclesiastical structure, was born in Britain in the 1830s. Today, there are two primary groups of Christian Brethren in America, those who exclude from communion all but their own and those who hold an open ritual. Nonetheless, all groups within the movement of the Christian Brethren are devoted to the unique theology developed by John Nelson Darby. A priest in the Church of Ireland, he became the movement’s primary theologian by the late 1840s. Darby was unhappy with the formalism of the state church, and after joining the Brethren movement in Plymouth, England, his pessimism led Brethren movements 63 him to promote ecclesiastical separatism and to create a most provocative theory of biblical prophecy, which he called dispensationalism. Dispensationalism widely infl uenced the preaching of America’s late 19th-century evangelists, such as Dwight L. Moody, and the teaching of early 20th-century Bible scholars, such as C. I. Scofi eld. The famous Scofi eld Reference Bible was published in 1909 by Oxford University Press to support Darby’s theory. Darby claimed that history was divided into seven divinely appointed periods. Each of these seven dispensations represents a different stage in God’s progressive revelation and sovereign plan for humanity’s development. Darby focused his attention on the seventh period and the rise of a millennial kingdom, which was to be preceded by a series of events that included a rapture, or departure of the earthly church at Christ’s fi rst coming. According to Darby, with the loss of Christian moral judgment, the people of Earth would be easily seduced by an Antichrist, which would lead to a time of Tribulation concluded by the so-called Battle of Armageddon. This battle between the forces of evil and Christ, who returns to Earth again, but this time with a heavenly army, would end with the establishment of a thousand-year kingdom of peace. Darby’s theology has been connected to Fundamentalism and absorbed by many evangelical Protestant denominations. Moreover, it has become the dominant prophetic theory in a large number of American Bible colleges and seminaries, foremost among them being Moody Bible Institute in Chicago and Dallas Theological Seminary. Further reading: Bowman, C. F. Brethren Society. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995; Dumbaugh, D. F. The Brethren Encyclopedia. 4 Vol. Ambler, PA: Brethren Encyclopedia, Inc., 2003; Marsden, G. M. Fundamentalism and American Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980. Rick M. Rogers


British East India Company Edit

The British East India Company was founded in 1600, during the last years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, for trade in the East Indies, which had been opened to European trade by the Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama. Because of rivalries for the spice trade in the East Indies, the English East India Company armed its merchantmen to fi ght the galleons of Spain, Portugal, and, later, the Netherlands, all of which threatened British trade with the East. Because of its setback in the Spice Islands at the hands of the Dutch, the English East India Company decided to focus its energies on India, where the Dutch presence was far less powerful. The relative ease with which the British would be able to expand in India during the late 17th and 18th centuries was due to the decline of Mughal central power. In 1757 the British East India Company—or John Company, as it was often called—took a critical step. Taking advantage of the worsening situation in India, it went from being a trading company to taking control of Indian territory as circumstances dictated. By this time the French Compagnie des Indes had taken the place of the Portuguese and Dutch as the main rival of the British in India. In 1756 the Seven Years’ War broke out in Europe and quickly spread to India, where Robert Clive decisively defeated the French client in Bengal. In 1758 Robert Clive became the fi rst governor of Bengal, signalling the transition of the British East India Company from a trading company to the ruler of a large province of India. A year before Clive’s death, Parliament passed the 1773 Regulating Act, which made the governor of Bengal the governor-general, a title the chief company offi cer in India would hold until the British Crown took over the government of India after the Indian Mutiny of 1857. Warren Hastings set in motion future British expansion in India. He instituted direct British rule, but where possible, he left native Indian rulers on their throne, but under British tutelage. Between 1784, when Hastings left India, and the beginning of the 19th century, the company’s British troops continued to enlarge its domains due to the anarchy caused by the collapsing Mughal Empire. As company territory expanded, so did its direct rule. Its magistrates dispensed justice, impervious to bribery, something that local Indians had never before witnessed. The peace the company brought to India helped undermine Indian society. The company permitted En - glish Protestant missionaries to come to India in 1813, establishing missions and schools among the Indian population. Gradually, British authority began reforms in India. For example, William Bentinck, who was governor general from 1833 to 1835, outlawed the practice of sati (suttee), by which a Hindu widow was burned on her dead husband’s funeral pyre. The fl ash point of confl ict between the company administration and the Indian governor-general came under the marquess of Dalhousie, who served from 1848 to 1856. He aggressively sought to enlarge lands 64 British East India Company under the company’s control by the doctrine of lapse, which allowed the company to annex Indian principalities. Many points of friction culminated in a violent outbreak. The Indian Mutiny broke out in Meerut in 1857 when some of the company’s Indian soldiers rose in revolt. A terrible massacre took place at Cawnpore when an Indian ruler, Nana Sahib, had British prisoners brutally killed. Infl amed by the tales of mass murder, the British troops who retook territory that had fallen to the mutineers and their Indian princely allies showed no mercy. By the time the mutiny ended with Sir Hugh Rose’s victory at Gwalior in June 1858, thousands had been killed. The mutiny also ended the rule of the British East India Company. Although it would continue as a trading organization until 1873, in August 1858, the British parliament passed the Government of India Act, which formally passed the administration of British India from the company to the British government. A secretary of state for India became responsible for the administration of British India under the prime minister. For its complicity in the mutiny, the last impotent Mughal emperor was dethroned. In 1877, under Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, Queen Victoria became empress of India. See also Sikh Wars. Further reading: Dalrymple, William. White Mughals. New York: Penguin Books, 2002; James, Lawrence. Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997; Keay, John. India: A History. New York: Grove Press, 2000; Milton, Giles. Nathaniel’s Nutmeg. New York: Penguin, 2000; Mollo, Boris. The Indian Army. London: Blandford, 1981; Nicolle, David. Mughal India, 1504–1761. London: Osprey, 1993; Parker, Geoffrey. The Grand Strategy of Philip II. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998; Trevelyan, G. M. History of England: The Tudors and the Stuart Era. New York: Anchor, 1953; Wolpert, Stanley. A New History of India. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. John F. Murphy, Jr.

British East India Company 65 The British East India Company’s port on the Malabar Coast of India with company trading vessels in the foreground and quayside warehouses and buildings behind. Copperplate engraving, London 1755


British Empire in southern Africa Edit

The fi rst British involvements in South Africa were a result of maritime traffi c going around the Cape of Good Hope to India. In the 17th century, the British East India Company had established trading stations at Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta. By the 18th century, a thriving trade led the British East India Company to have its own navy to carry goods and personnel back and forth from England to India. In 1652 the Dutch East India Company founded a trading station near what is now Cape Town and was busy attempting to extend its settlement into the interior, in the face of opposition from the indigenous African tribes. The wars of the French Revolution began in 1792, and the Netherlands was conquered and occupied by the French. To the British, with their unparalleled Royal Navy and need for a way station to India, the Dutch colony at Cape Town was a tempting target. In 1806 the British captured Cape Town and kept it even after Napoleon I’s fi nal defeat in 1815. BRITISH EXPANSION As the years progressed, the British became intent on making the colony more British; English replaced Dutch as the offi cial language of the colony and its government. Anglican missionaries came to convert the Boers, the descendants of the Dutch settlers, to Anglicanism. (The Boers were staunch Calvinists of the Dutch Reformed Church.) The missionaries also advocated the abolition of slavery. Indeed, due to the infl uence of the London Missionary Society, slavery was virtually abolished in South Africa even before it was in the empire as a whole in 1833. With wars against indigenous tribes an ongoing struggle for European settlements in the area, the British did not wish to take on any new imperial responsibilities in South Africa. The Kaffi r Wars waged between the Europeans and the native Xhosa people were particularly lengthy and brutal. Consequently, between 1852 and 1854 the British government recognized two Boer republics, the Orange Free State, named for the Orange River, and the Transvaal Republic, on the opposite side of the Vaal River. In 1853 the Convention of Bloemfontein formalized, at least for the time being, the British relationship with the Boers. Indeed, the entire government of South Africa was reorganized when in 1853 an Order in Council for Queen Victoria established fully representative government in the Cape Colony, with a parliament set up in Cape Town. In 1877 the imperialist prime minister Benjamin Disraeli expanded the Cape Colony with the annexation of the Boer Transvaal Republic. He sent out a new governor of Cape Colony to oversee the process in the colony: Sir Henry Edward Bartle Frere, who arrived in Cape Town in April 1877. The ninth, and fi nal, Kaffi r War broke out in October 1877, and although it ended with the defeat of the Africans, Frere was still alarmed. In Frere’s view, the most immediate problem lay in the relations with the Zulu Kingdom, now under King Cetewayo. Frere felt that the presence of the Zulu Kingdom, with its 50,000-man army, had to be dealt with by force. On January 11, 1879, British commander Chelmsford’s South African Field Force crossed the border into Zululand. Early on the morning of January 22, Chelmsford set off after the Zulu regiments. He left a force to hold Isandhlwana, the main force of which was the 1st Battalion of the 24th Regiment. The Zulus, some 20,000 strong, pounced on the force left behind at Isandhlwana; not one British soldier was left alive. From there, the Zulu advanced to a garrison that was mostly from the 2nd Battalion. After 12 hours of fi ghting, the Zulu retreated. On March 28, 1879, the British, fi ghting the Zulu at Hlobane, narrowly escaped another disaster like Isandhlwana. Almost immediately, plans were made to reenter Zululand; the image of a victorious Cetewayo was more than the London government could tolerate. On May 31 Chelmsford again advanced into Zululand, determined on a fi nal conquest to redeem himself for his fatal miscalculation at Isandhlwana. On July 4, Chelmsford attacked Cetewayo’s royal kraal at Ulundi and crushed the Zulu regiments. Cetewayo was captured on August 28, 1879, but Queen Victoria intervened to free him in 1883. On February 8, 1884, Cetewayo died amid rumors he had been poisoned. AGITATION FOR FREEDOM Ironically, the removal of the Zulu threat did not mean peace for British South Africa. After the war, the Transvaal Boers began to agitate again for their freedom, taken from them by Shepstone’s annexation in 1877. On December 12, 1880, they united to fi ght for their independence. The British forces were unprepared for the superior marksmanship, modern weapons, and guerrilla tactics employed by the men of the Boer commandos. Prime Minister William Gladstone, opposed to the imperialist philosophy of his rival Benjamin Disraeli, 66 British Empire in southern Africa made peace with the Boers. By August 8, 1881, the Boers ruled again in the Transvaal capital of Pretoria. In 1871 diamonds were discovered in the Cape Colony. One of those caught up in the diamond rush was Cecil Rhodes. In 1881 he founded the De Beers Diamond Company. Pressing north into native African country (and away from stronger Boer resistance), Rhodes was instrumental in the annexation of Bechuanaland, today’s Botswana, in 1885. His primacy among those in the Cape Colony was recognized in 1890 when he became prime minister of the Cape Colony. Coveting the possible diamond hoard in the Transvaal, Rhodes sent Leander Starr Jameson, his assistant during prior wars, on a raid into the Transvaal Republic on December 29, 1895. Jameson and his men were quickly arrested and handed over to the British for trial and sentencing. For Rhodes, the punishment was more embarrassing; in 1896 he was forced to resign as prime minister for the Cape Colony. The Jameson Raid seemed to the Boers another British attempt to conquer them and end their independence once and for all. In 1897 Joseph Chamberlain, the colonial secretary, or secretary of state for the colonies, appointed the ardent imperialist Alfred Milner as high commissioner for South Africa. His views on empire were very similar to Frere’s. Instead of the Zulus, Milner saw the Boers as the main threat to British rule in South Africa. The British prime minister, Robert Cecil, Lord Salisbury, was an ardent empire-builder. While sporadic negotiations continued, both sides prepared for war, and Chamberlain sent reinforcements from England. Paul Kruger, a leader of the Boer resistance, determined to strike before the reinforcements could arrive. He issued an ultimatum, which would expire on October 11, 1899. This saved the British the trouble— and the blame—of declaring war themselves. Kruger followed his ultimatum with a lightning advance by his commandos into both the Cape Colony and Natal Province. Kruger had 88,000 men and knew the British only had 20,000. However, Kruger underestimated the immense forces the British Empire had available. According to some estimates, by the end of the war, the British Empire committed a staggering 450,000 men to fi ght the Boers. The British forces in South Africa were commanded by General Sir Redvers Buller, who proved to be a disappointing commanding offi cer. Time and again, he and his troops were defeated. On January 10, 1900, General Frederick Sleigh Roberts arrived in South Africa to replace the befuddled Buller. Roberts immediately went on the offensive against the Boers. Roberts led the British to victory on February 27 and 28, and March 13, and on May 27, 1900, he entered the Transvaal, determined to bring the war to a conclusion. On June 2 Kruger retreated from the capital of Pretoria, which Roberts entered in triumph three days later. The defeat of the Boer armies was sealed when Buller arrived in the Transvaal from Natal on June 12. Between August 21 and 27 the last major battle of the war took place when Roberts and Buller defeated Boer general Louis Botha at Bergendal. In December 1900, with formal hostilities over, Roberts returned to Britain to become commander in chief of the army. Roberts’s second-in-command, Kitchener, was left to oversee what soon became a guerrilla confl ict. He adopted a draconian policy to stop the commandos, ordering his men to burn down Boer homesteads, destroy their crops, and run off or kill their livestock. Kitchener introduced concentration camps in which to hold the dispossessed Boer families of the commandos. The conditions of the camps were appalling, and disease was endemic. According to some estimates, 28,000 Boers died in 46 camps, and between 14,000 and 20,000 Africans died in the camps. At the same time, the movement of the Boer commandos was hampered by a series of armored blockhouses. On January 28, 1901, Kitchener began a series of fi erce offensives designed to wear down the commandos in a battle of attrition. On May 31, 1902, a peace settlement was made bringing the war to an end at Vereeniging. The Boers had been defeated on the battlefi eld, but had retained their independent spirit. Just two months earlier, on March 26, 1902, Rhodes had died, to be buried in his beloved Rhodesia. As a new century opened, a new and unknown future began for the British in South Africa. See also Shaka Zulu; South Africa, Boers and Bantu in. Further reading: Edgerton, Robert B. Like Lions They Fought: The Zulu War and the Last Black Empire in South Africa. New York: Ballantine, 1988; Farwell, Byron. The Great Boer War. London: Penguin, 1976; James, Lawrence. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. New York: St. Martin’s Griffi n, 1994; Morris, Donal. The Washing of the Spears: The Rise and Fall of the Zulu Nation. New York: Touchstone, 1965; Pakenham, Thomas. The Boer War. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1979; Reader, John. Africa: A Biography of a Continent. New York: Vintage, 1997; Thompson, Leonard. A History of South Africa. New York: Yale University Press, 2001. John F. Murphy, Jr. British Empire in southern Africa 67


British governors-general of India Edit

The offi ce of the governor-general of India was established in 1773 when Warren Hastings was made the fi rst governor-general of the presidency of Fort William, Calcutta, taking up the position in the following year. Initially the offi ce only had control over Fort William, but it quickly came to control the Bengal region of northeastern India. The position was created because of the widespread belief that there was massive corruption in the East India Company that necessitated some form of British government oversight, which led to the Regulating Act. However, Warren Hastings, who held the position from October 20, 1774, to February 1, 1785, was himself subject to widespread allegations of corruption and was impeached in 1787, with the trial lasting from 1788 until his eventual acquittal in 1795. When Hastings left for England, Sir John MacPherson was made provisional governor-general until Earl Cornwallis (later Marquess Cornwallis) arrived in India to serve as governor-general from September 1786 until October 1793. He is perhaps best remembered for his surrender of the port of Yorktown in the American War of Independence. In India in 1792 he defeated Tipu Sultan at Mysore and was succeeded by Sir John Shore who retired in March 1798. His successor was the earl of Mornington (later Marquess Wellesley), who was the brother of Arthur Wellesley, the fi rst duke of Wellington. Arthur Wellesley became the military adviser to the governor-general and established Fort William into a training college for the British administrators in India. Marquess Wellesley left offi ce on July 30, 1805, and was replaced by Marquess Cornwallis, who died two months after starting his second term. After a long period of Sir George Barlow serving as provisional governor-general, Lord Minto was appointed. The earl of Moira (later marquess of Hastings), who had served in the American War of Independence, was the seventh governor-general from 1813–23. During this time he oversaw the purchase of Singapore and also worked on improving the Mughal canal system. However, he was forced out of offi ce owing to a fi nancial scandal, and his successor was Lord (Baron) Amherst (later Earl Amherst) who had led a British embassy to China and hoped to expand British possessions with his involvement in the First Anglo-Burmese War of 1823. Although the war was a British victory, large numbers of British soldiers were killed. In 1828 he was replaced by Lord William Bentinck, who had previously served in India as governor of Madras. His task in India was to massively reduce British government expenditure. He also tried to introduce some social reforms such as ending suttee, a tradition where widows sacrifi ced themselves on their husband’s funeral pyres. His successor, Lord (Baron) Auckland (later fi rst earl of Auckland), quickly found himself involved in a disastrous war in Afghanistan and was replaced by Lord Ellenborough. When Ellenborough arrived in India, he received news of the massacre of the British in Kabul under policies introduced by his predecessor. Although his time as governor-general included a war in Sind, he himself was largely concerned with trying to prevent increasing Russian involvement in Central Asia. Sir Henry Hardinge was briefl y governorgeneral from July 1844 until January 1848, presiding over British India during the First Sikh War. In 1848 Lord Dalhousie (later fi rst marquess of Dalhousie) was appointed as governor-general. He was determined to enlarge British India and oversaw the annexation of much of Burma during the Second Anglo-Burmese War. He was more controversial for introducing his “policy of lapse.” Under this policy in any Indian feudatory state under the direct infl uence of the British East India Company, if the ruler was either “manifestly incompetent or died without a direct heir,” the territory could be annexed by the British. This led to the annexation of Jhansi in 1854 and Oudh (modern-day Awadh) in 1856, two of the major causes of the Indian Mutiny of 1857. Viscount Canning was appointed as governorgeneral in February 1856, and it was during his term that the Indian Mutiny of 1857—now often called the Indian War of Independence—broke out. In 1858 there was a complete overhaul of the British administration in India, and one result was that Canning, who became Earl Canning, was appointed to the newly created position of governor-general and viceroy of India. He was succeeded by the earl of Elgin, who died in 1863, resulting in the subsequent appointment of Sir John Lawrence (later Lord Lawrence). Lawrence had helped prevent trouble in the Punjab in 1857 and was able to maintain the status quo in India in the 1860s. When Lawrence left India in 1869 it was relatively peaceful, and the remaining governors-general, all British nobles, presided over an increasingly prosperous colonial India until its independence in 1947. Further Reading: Bernstein, Jeremy. Dawning of the Raj: The Life and Trials of Warren Hastings. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee 68 British governors-general of India Publisher, 2000; Ghosh, S. C. Dalhousie in India 1848–56. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1975; James, Lawrence. Raj: The Making and Unmaking of British India. New York: St. Martin’s Griffi n, 2000; Morris, Henry. The Governors-General of British India. 2 Vols. Delhi: Discovery Publishing House, 1984. Justin Corfi eld


British occupation of EgyptEdit

Through diplomatic negotiations in 1881–82, the British and French reached an agreement whereby the French occupied Tunisia in North Africa and Britain took Egypt. The British militarily defeated Egyptian nationalist forces led by Ahmed Urabi at the Battle of Tel-el-Kebir in 1882. The Dufferin Commission was then sent to Egypt to make recommendations as to what should be done. Initially, the British claimed that the occupation was a temporary one, but geopolitical considerations and ongoing confl ict in the Sudan under the Mahdi led to the long-term occupation of Egypt by the British. The British superimposed their own administration and became the de facto rulers of Egypt while maintaining the facade of Egypt as an autonomous province of the Ottoman Empire as arranged during the rule of Muhammad Ali. The khedive was retained, with British advisers in the key government offi ces. A nonelective legislative council of Egyptians served in an advisory capacity. This two-tiered, often-cumbersome administration led to British control over all aspects of government from the judicial to fi nancial to education. Evelyn Baring, later Lord Cromer, was appointed consul general in 1883. Cromer was the virtual ruler of Egypt until 1907, when he was forced by the British government to retire following an increase of Egyptian nationalist discontent. A fi scal conservative, Cromer attempted to lessen the fi nancial burdens on the fellaheen (peasants) but devoted few resources to education or other social programs. The British did improve the irrigation systems in Egypt and also abolished forced labor. The railway system that benefi ted British commercial interests was also extended to the detriment of road and water transportation systems. Mixed courts dealt with all cases involving foreigners, and civil courts with Egyptian judges and lawyers served the Egyptian population. A lively press that covered a wide range of political and social issues also developed, although the British carefully monitored it for subversive or anti- British opinions. Over the years the number of British advisers proliferated. The presence of foreign troops and often arrogant British bureaucrats increased nationalist opposition to the occupation, particularly among the urban educated youth. Mustafa Kamil who led the Watan (Nation) Party from 1895 until his death in 1908 was one of the most vociferous and fi ery of the new generation of Egyptian nationalists. Much to the dismay of the British, Tewfi k’s successor, Khedive Abbas Hilmi supported the nationalist cause. Mounting Egyptian nationalism led to the emergence of political parties that the British vainly attempted to control. British control was not formalized until Egypt was declared a British protectorate with the outbreak of World War I in 1914. See also Urabi revolt in Egypt. Further reading: Berque, Jacques. Egypt: Imperialism and Revolution. Translated by Jean Stewart. London: Faber & Faber, 1972; Earl of Cromer. Modern Egypt. 2 Vols. London: Macmillan and Co., 1908; Mansfi eld, Peter. The British in Egypt. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971. Janice J. Terry


Buganda, kingdom of Edit

The early history of Buganda begins with the dynasties starting in roughly 1300. Among them, the Chwezi were the most prominent. The balance of power was changed by the arrival of Luo-speaking people from the Upper Nile who were looking for good land, which they found in Uganda. Arriving in the 1500s, they represented a continuation of the migration of peoples from the Sahara region as desert encroached on the grazing area of their cattle. These pastoralists came as conquerors in many cases, imposing their ways on the more advanced people who became their unwilling subjects. In 1497 the Portuguese explorer Vasco da Gama stopped in East Africa to take on Arab sailors familiar with the Arabian Sea. In 1498 he would visit India. Yet the riches of East Africa were not lost on the Portuguese, and they would return to attempt to carve out their own commercial empire in East Africa, with again the slave trade as one of their most lucrative markets. In 1505 the Portuguese, with their fi rearms, would take both Kilwa and Mombasa as part of a virtual conquest Buganda, kingdom of 69 of the entire Indian Ocean, presenting the Bugandan kings with a new and rich source of trade. The tumultuous changes going on outside Buganda’s borders inevitably had an impact on the country and its people. Portuguese and Arabs clamored to have infl uence with the king, the kabaka, and contributed to instability within the royal house itself. The kabakas were still strong and took astute advantage of the turmoil between the Portuguese and the Arabs to expand their kingdom. The 19th century saw even more powerful foreign powers enter the African scene. In 1806 Britain would conquer the Cape of Good Hope from the Dutch, beginning the modern history of South Africa. In 1830–31 the French would begin the conquest of Algeria, opening their history of empire in North Africa. It was inevitable, as the European colonial powers expanded their control in Africa (Britain conquered Egypt in 1882), that the kingdom of Buganda could not stay immune from their infl uence. Buganda was visited by explorers, such as Henry Morton Stanley and John Hanning Speke, who were impressed by what they saw of the native kingdom. By this time, the internal pressures were causing Buganda to begin to fail as a viable state. Finally, in 1885 the kabaka Mwanga II took an irrevocable step that would inevitably cost Buganda its independence. Between 1885 and 1887 Mwanga II had some 45 Christian converts, some 22 Catholic and 23 Anglican, murdered. Although he did this to thwart the growth of Christianity in his kingdom, the brave example of the martyrs only caused others to join their faith. At the same time, Muslims conspired to have a Muslim placed on the throne instead. In 1867 a Bugandan king converted to Islam, if only in name. Mwanga II lost his throne, but managed to regain it. British intervention was guaranteed when, in the beginning of his persecution, Mwanga II had Anglican bishop James Hannington killed; Hannington had just been appointed to oversee the growing Anglican fl ock in East Africa. At this time, Germany also entered the competition for Buganda. Carl Peters had established the colony of German East Africa, eventually known as Tanganyika. In November 1886 Great Britain and Germany signed an agreement dividing East Africa into the German zone and British East Africa, which bordered Buganda. Peters was determined to add all of Uganda to what the British called “German East.” By May 1890 Peters got Mwanga II to agree to a German protectorate over Uganda. This sent shock waves through London, where the headquarters of the British East Africa Company could see their plans for an East African empire wither. On May 13, the British prime minister Lord Salisbury succeeded in convincing Kaiser Wilhelm I to give up any claims to Uganda and nearby territories in return for the island of Heligoland, which he saw as vital to the defense of the Kiel Canal. However, the British were taking no chances the kaiser might change his mind. The British government of Prime Minister Lord Roseberry dispatched Frederick Lugard in 1894 to end the chaos that was now causing Buganda to implode. Establishing a fi rm British protectorate over Buganda, as he later would do in Nigeria, in 1897, Lugard fi nally deposed Mwanga II. Further reading: Davidson, Basil. Africa in History. New York: Collier, 1968; Packenham, Thomas. The Scramble for Africa. New York: Random House, 1991. John F. Murphy, Jr.


Burlingame, Anson, and Burlingame Treaty (1868)Edit

Anson Burlingame was a lawyer who served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1855 to 1861 and as minister to China from 1861 to 1867. In 1868 the Chinese government appointed him ambassador to negotiate treaties on China’s behalf with the United States and European nations. He died in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1870. As a result of defeat by Great Britain and France in 1858 and again in 1860, China was forced to sign the Treaties of Tianjin (Tientsin) and Beijing (Peking), whereby Britain and France gained the right to establish legations in China’s capital. Because of the mostfavored- nation clause in the treaties, the United States also obtained that right. Burlingame was the fi rst U.S. minister to China, arriving in Beijing in 1862. He and British minister Sir Frederick Bruce championed a cooperative policy toward China based on four principles: cooperation among Western powers, cooperation with Chinese offi cials, recognition of legitimate Chinese interests, and enforcement of treaty rights. A decade of peace and goodwill prevailed in Sino-Western relations as a result. China did not at fi rst reciprocate in establishing diplomatic missions abroad despite urgings by Western nations. In 1862 a minor, Emperor Tongzhi (T’ung- 70 Burlingame, Anson, and Burlingame Treaty (1868) chih), ascended the Chinese throne; his uncle Prince Gong (K’ung) acted as regent and took charge of foreign affairs. Prince Gong needed to understand international law and Western diplomatic practices and obtained the help of an Englishman, Robert Hart, who commissioned W. A. P. Martin and his Chinese assistants to translate 24 essays on international diplomacy into Chinese from a book by Henry Wheaton titled Elements of International Law. Burlingame played a role in their publication and presented a copy to Prince Gong in 1864. The Treaty of Beijing was up for revision in 1868. That prospect aroused fear among Chinese officials due to the persistent demands of Western merchants for a more aggressive policy toward China to force further concessions. At this juncture Burlingame’s tour of duty in China ended. He volunteered to represent China in a roving diplomatic mission to the West. Prince Gong accepted and appointed him and two Chinese as coenvoys. They arrived in the United States in 1868, were received by President Andrew Johnson, and signed a treaty (called the Burlingame Treaty) with Secretary of State Seward. By its terms the United States agreed not to interfere in China’s development, allowed China to establish consulates in the United States, permitted Chinese laborers to enter the United States, and granted reciprocal rights of residence, travel, and access to schools in either country. The embassy next traveled to Britain, Prussia, and Russia, where Burlingame died as a result of pneumonia. The other envoys then visited several other European countries before returning to China in 1870. All European nations agreed not to force China into new agreements. This was China’s first diplomatic mission abroad since being opened by the West. It was a great success in achieving China’s immediate goals by securing Western powers’ commitment to a policy of restraint and noncoersion toward China. See also Tongzhi Restoration/Self-Strengthening Movement. Further reading: Hsu, Immanuel C. Y. China’s Entrance into the Family of Nations, The Diplomatic Phase, 1858–1880. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960; Kim, Samuel Soonki. Anson Burlingame: A Study in Personal Diplomacy. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1972; Williams, Frederick Wells. Anson Burlingame and the First Chinese Mission to Foreign Powers. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur

Burmese Wars, First, Second, and Third Edit

The three Burmese Wars were the result of frictions between the British East India Company, which ruled a growing British dominion in India, and the kingdom of Burma, or Ava. The First Burmese War was fought from 1824 to 1826 over long-standing frontier disputes that the East India Company inherited from the Mughal dynasty of India. At the same time that the British East India Company was expanding in India, Burma had regained unity as the kingdom of Ava in 1752. The first king of a reunified Burma is considered to be Alaungpaya, who reigned from 1752 to 1760. Even before Alaungpaya had reunited Burma, there had been friction between the British and the kingdom of Pegu. In the 1730s the British established a diplomatic resident in Syriam in Pegu to help its trade and gain access to valuable timber. But in 1743 internal unrest caused Syriam to be sacked, and the British representative returned to India. The reign of King Bagyidaw began in 1819. He annexed Assam in 1819 and went on to claim Manipur in 1822. Faced by the Burmese invasion, the local rulers preferred protection under the British East India Company and sought its help. The Burmese struck first on September 23, 1823. In March 1824 the East India Company declared war on Burma and the governor-general Amherst executed a three-pronged assault on the kingdom of Ava. During the British invasion, some Karens, a Burmese ethnic group, actively supported the British, serving as guides. By 1825 British forces had captured the ancient city of Pagan and the king decided to make peace with the British. The war ended with the Treaty of Yandabo in February 1826 that ended the First Burmese War, with Britain gaining valuable coast territory in southern Burma. Peace between the East India Company and the kingdom of Ava lasted until 1852 when Governor- General Dalhousie, wishing to gain complete control of the sea lanes between India and Singapore, sent an ultimatum to King Pagan Min of Ava, threatening that hostilities would begin unless the company’s demands were met by the Burmese within one month. The demands made by the British stemmed from the Treaty of Yandabo. While the Burmese were quick to appease the British, England found enough reason to attack. Facing no real opposition, Dalhousie’s forces annexed the main towns of southern Burma. With the end of the Second Burmese War, the British were Burmese Wars, First, Second, and Third 71 masters of southern Burma. Pagan Min died in February 1853, succeeded by Mindon Min. The British, unsure of the determination of the new king to fi ght and reluctant to be drawn deeper into fi ghting in the jungles of Burma, were content with the gains they had already made. Mindon Min proved to be an astute diplomat in the competition for empire between France and Britain in Southeast Asia. In 1878, Mindon Min was succeeded on the throne by Thibaw Min, who continued to play off the French against the British. Thibaw Min, however, lacked the diplomatic skill of his predecessor and eventually ended up in war against the British. In 1885 the Third Burmese War began when a British force numbering 9,000, with 2,800 local levies under the command of General H. N. D. Prendergast, attacked the Burmese capital at Mandalay. The offi - cial reason for the war dated back to 1878 when King Thibaw came to the throne and sought to erode British infl uence. In early 1885 he insisted that British representatives remove their shoes when entering his palace. With rising tensions, Thibaw began to support tribesmen in Lower Burma who were opposed to British rule. The true reason for the war was more likely that the British were worried about increasing French infl uence in the region—the French foreign minister Jules Ferry having begun meetings with a Burmese delegation. This coincided with a French consul taking up residence in Mandalay, although he was withdrawn for “health reasons” by the French in a diplomatic retreat soon afterward. On October 22, 1885, the British issued an ultimatum to Thibaw demanding that the Burmese accept a British resident in Mandalay and that the British control all foreign relations of the kingdom, thereby making it a protectorate. There were also minor issues such as the matter of a fi ne imposed on the Bombay Burmah Trading Company because the company had underreported its logging of teak and had been underpaying its local staff. Another infl uence was undoubtedly British interest in the oil deposits there. On November 9 the Burmese refused to consider the British demands, and war became inevitable, with the British mustering their forces at Thayetmo. The British advanced up the Irrawaddy River from Thayetmo on November 14. They used fl at-bottomed boats manned by the Royal Navy, taking with them 24 machine guns and many ships containing supplies and ammunition. The British land forces took control of the redoubt at Minhla, where the Burmese put up some resistance on November 17. On November 26, with the fl otilla close to Mandalay, envoys from Thibaw met with General Sir Harry Prendergast and offered to surrender. The British reached Ava on the following day and accepted the Burmese surrender. On November 28, the British started sacking Mandalay, and then a number of them were sent to Bhamo, which they reached on December 28. The war ended with the British annexation of Burma on January 1, 1886. The war was conducted with little loss of life to the British and was a further example, after the Anglo- Zulu War, of what became known as the British Forward policy. The governor-general had been replaced by a viceroy, who ruled India directly in the name of Queen Victoria, who by now was the queen-empress. At the time of the Third Burmese War, Viceroy Frederick Hamilton- Temple-Blackwood (later, fi rst marquis of Dufferin and Ava) was able to martial Crown forces that Thibaw could not match. As expected Thibaw refused the British ultimatum. After an astonishing attack, Thibaw fi nally told his men to lay down their weapons and acknowledged British victory. Mandalay fell, and King Thibaw was imprisoned, although his rank as king would have been respected. After Mandalay was captured, the British went on to capture Bhamo on December 28, 1885. The British wanted to overawe the Burmese and thwart any Chinese move into Burma. On January 1, 1886, the rump state of Thibaw’s Kingdom of Ava, or Upper Burma, was also annexed to British India. The fi nal act took place when Upper and Lower Burma were united as Burma and placed fi rmly within the British Raj, or Indian empire. Sir Frederick Roberts, the hero of the Second Afghan War, completed the pacifi cation of Burma, using Indian cavalry regiments and locally raised troops to subdue remaining pockets of Burmese resistance, although guerrilla warfare would last until at least 1890. See also Anglo-Chinese Opium Wars; Napoleon I. Further reading: Bruce, George. The Burma Wars. London: Hart-Davis, 1973; O’Balance, Edgar. The Story of the French Foreign Legion. London: White Lion, 1974; Wilson, H. H. Narrative of the Burmese War, in 1824–25. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library, 2007. John F. Murphy, Jr.


Crisis and Achievement 1900 to 1950 Edit

Balfour Declaration Edit

The Balfour Declaration was a statement by the British government regarding Zionist aspirations for the creation of an independent Jewish state in Palestine. The statement took the form of a public letter from Lord Arthur James Balfour, the British foreign secretary, to Lord Rothschild, a prominent British Zionist and member of the renowned banking family. After many preliminary drafts the final statement, issued on November 2, 1917, read that His Majesty’s government viewed “with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” It went on to say that the British government would use its “best endeavours” to achieve that goal and that nothing should be done to prejudice “the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews” in other nations. Chaim Weizmann, a leading figure in the World Zionist Organization and a skillful diplomat, had been instrumental in securing British support for a Jewish state. Weizmann was a personal friend of Balfour’s and had met with many key British officials to gain their sympathy for a Jewish state. There were many motivations for the British to issue the Balfour Declaration in 1917. Some Christian Zionists supported a Jewish state for religious and moral reasons. But most government officials supported the declaration for political and wartime reasons. It was hoped that the declaration would encourage Russia to stay in the war in spite of the revolutionary upheaval at the time. Some also thought the statement would prod the United States, where some key Zionists, especially Louis Brandeis of the Supreme Court, had important positions, to enter the war. However, the arguments that a Jewish state would support Britain in the Middle East and help to protect the vital Suez Canal were probably paramount in convincing many in the British cabinet to support the declaration. Because most people in the West knew little or nothing about Palestine, many assumed that there were only a few non-Jews in Palestine and that their civil and religious (but not political) rights should be protected. However, in 1917, when the Balfour Declaration was issued, Palestinian Arabs, a mix of Muslims and Christians, made up over 80 percent of the population in Palestine. It was a predominantly agricultural society, and most people lived in settled villages. Palestinian Arabs and Arab nationalists, especially Sherif Husayn, immediately expressed their opposition to the Balfour Declaration. Sherif Husayn also argued that the statement contradicted the earlier Sherif Husayn– McMahon correspondence regarding the creation of an Arab state. But the Balfour Declaration did not mention the Palestinian Arab population by name, and they remained largely invisible to the Western world. Interestingly, some Jews also opposed the statement. Sir Edwin Montagu, a British Jew and secretary of state for India, opposed the creation of a Jewish state on the grounds that it would raise problems of dual nationality and might actually increase anti-Semitism. B The Balfour Declaration was a major step forward in the Zionist struggle to create a Jewish state in Palestine. At the Paris Peace Conference after the war, Weizmann used the Balfour Declaration to justify the creation of a Jewish state. However, neither Arab nor Jewish national aspirations would be realized after the war because the British and French implemented the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which essentially divided the Arab world between the two imperial powers. The division was formalized in the San Remo Treaty, and Britain made key decisions on how to rule its newly gained Arab territories, including Palestine, at the Cairo Conference in 1921. Further reading: Levin, N. Gordon. The Zionist Movement in Palestine and World Politics, 1880–1918. London and Lexington, MA: Heath, 1974; Stein, Leonard. The Balfour Declaration. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1961; Vital, David. Zionism: The Crucial Phase. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987. Janice J. Terry

Balkan Wars (1912–1913) Edit

During 1912–13 the Balkan Peninsula witnessed two wars: the First Balkan War, which saw an alliance of Balkan states all but destroy the Ottoman presence in the region, and the Second Balkan War, fought between the former allies over the division of the spoils. The Balkan Wars were the result of the incomplete processes of nation-state formation in southeastern Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. Ever since the Congress of Berlin in 1878 warranted the continued existence of the Ottoman Empire in the region, the dominant foreign policy goal of the Balkan states had been expanding into European provinces. Their main motive was to recover territories that were perceived to be under foreign occupation. Thus, one of the dominant claims of the Balkan states at the time was that their fellow ethnic kin were still oppressed by the Ottoman sultan. Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, and Montenegro justifi ed their desire to extend into Ottoman-controlled Macedonia and Thrace through the principle of “liberation” of subjugated populations. For this purpose each country supported armed groups of its conationals that subverted and challenged the Ottoman regime. One of the aims of the Young Turk revolutions of 1908 had been precisely to end these revolts, suppress rival national identities, and “Ottomanize” the population. In this context the situation in the European provinces of the Ottoman Empire impressed on the Balkan governments the need to cooperate. External great powers such as Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Italy were also sizing up the opportunity to get their share of the crumbling Ottoman state, which was referred to at the time as the “sick man of Europe.” The war that Italy launched against the Ottoman Empire in September 1911 hastened the resolve of Balkan governments to sit at the negotiating table. On March 13, 1912, Bulgaria and Serbia signed a treaty of alliance and friendship, which was accompanied by a secret annex anticipating war with Turkey and providing for the division of territorial acquisitions in case of a successful war. According to this annex the territory of Macedonia was to be divided into three zones: two zones that would belong, respectively, to Bulgaria and Serbia and a third one that was contested and would be subject to the arbitration of the Russian czar. At the same time Greece and Bulgaria were conducting separate negotiations, which culminated in the signing of a mutual defense treaty on May, 29, 1912, assuring support in case of war with Turkey. Bulgaria and Serbia had separate discussions with Montenegro, which concluded with verbal agreements that provided for mutual actions against the Ottoman state. By autumn the Balkan governments had managed to prevail over their mutual distrust and had formed a Balkan League premised on an extensive system of bilateral treaties. The Balkan Wars began immediately afterward. On September 26, 1912, Montenegro opened hostilities invoking a long-standing frontier dispute as an excuse for declaring war. On October 2 Turkey hastily concluded a peace treaty with Italy, and on the next day it broke diplomatic relations with Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro but tried to mend relations with Greece. On October 4, 1913, the Ottoman Empire declared war on the Balkan League. In turn Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia, and Montenegro declared war, accusing the Sublime Porte of not having implemented an article of the 1878 Treaty of Berlin, which insisted on the recognition of the minority rights of their conationals in Macedonia. This event began the First Balkan War. With specifi c manifestos the governments of Athens, Belgrade, and Sofi a informed their citizens that they were to fi ght for a common cause and against Ottoman tyranny. Military operations began on all frontiers of European Turkey. Within a month after the start of hostilities, the Balkan armies had won spectacular victories on all fronts. The Bulgarian troops had pushed the Ottoman army to the Çatalca 38 Balkan Wars (1912–1913) line of defense, just 40 kilometers outside of Istanbul, and had besieged Adrianople (modern-day Edirne in Turkey). The Serbs had surged into Macedonia, reaching Monastir (Bitolj) on November 17, 1912, and together with Montenegrin forces had occupied the Sandzak of Novi Pazar and had besieged the town of Scutari (today Shkodra in Albania). The Greek troops advanced in Thessaly. They entered Thessalonica on October 28, only a few hours before the arrival of a Bulgarian detachment, and the town was occupied by both armies. In Epirus Greek detachments advanced all the way to Janina (present-day Ioannina in Greece) and on November 10 laid siege to the city. By December 1912 the Ottoman rule in the Balkans was over. Save for the besieged Adrianople, Scutari, and Janina, the Ottoman troops had been driven out of the former European provinces beyond the Çatalca line covering Istanbul. Alarmed by the success of the Balkan armies, the great powers imposed an armistice on the belligerents on December 3, 1912. It was signed by Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro, who pledged that their troops would remain in their positions. Greece, however, did not join in, as it wanted to continue the siege of Janina and carry on with the blockade of the Aegean coastline. Yet despite the continuation of hostilities in Epirus, Greece, together with Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and Turkey, took part in the peace conference that opened in London on December 16, 1912. After two months of negotiations, toward the end of January 1913, a peace agreement seemed to be in sight. However, on January 23, 1913, a group of disgruntled Turkish offi cers overthrew the Ottoman government. By January 30 fi ghting had resumed on the Çatalca line. On February 21 the Greek army captured Janina, and on March 13 the Bulgarian troops broke the Turkish defenses at Adrianople and occupied the city. On April 10, 1913, Montenegrin and Serb forces entered Scutari, but they had to withdraw eventually under the threat of war from Austria-Hungary. At this juncture the great powers again insisted on armistice and proposed Balkan Wars (1912–1913) 39 Turkish soldiers in the Balkans in 1912 line up for inspection. The two wars in the Balkans saw the effective end of the Ottoman Empire in the region. Following the war against the Turks, the other countries in the Balkans fought each other for territory. a peace treaty, which projected that all the territory west of a straight line stretching between Enos (Enez) on the Aegean Sea and Midia (Midye) on the Black Sea would be ceded to the Balkan states, that this territory was to be divided between the Balkan states under the supervision of the great powers, that an Albanian state would be established, and that the future of the Aegean islands was to be decided by international arbitration. By the end of May 1913 all parties taking part in the First Balkan War were compelled to agree to these conditions at the Treaty of London. Yet at that time rifts started to appear among the Balkan allies over control of the “liberated” territories, with skirmishes between the Greek and Bulgarian troops occupying Thessalonica. Furthermore, the creation of an Albanian state confused the agreements made between Athens, Belgrade, and Sofi a before the start of hostilities. Greece and Serbia insisted that the emergence of Albania deprived them of their anticipated gains on the Adriatic. Therefore, they asserted their right to retain the territories that their armies had already occupied in Macedonia at the expense of Bulgaria. Sofi a insisted that the acquired territory should be divided in accordance with the principle of proportionality of the acquisitions to the military input. Athens and Belgrade insisted on a principle ensuring the balance of power among the members of the Balkan League. Because of their shared interests, Greece and Serbia entered into secret negotiations and on May 19, 1913, reached an agreement for a military pact against Bulgaria. At the same time Romania, which had so far remained neutral, took the opportunity to obtain some concessions for itself. On the pretext of concern about the treatment of the Vlach population in Macedonia, Romania demanded that Bulgaria give up some of its territory in the contested Dobrudja region. Under pressure from Russia, Bulgaria agreed to cede the town of Silistra and the surrounding area to Romania. At the same time Bulgaria, urged by Austria-Hungary, refused to concede any territory in Macedonia to either Serbia or Greece. In the beginning of June there were several military clashes between Bulgarian and Serbian troops. However, it was on June 16, 1913, by an oral command from the Bulgarian czar Ferdinand, that Bulgarian troops launched a full-scale attack on Greek and Serbian forces. Ferdinand was partly encouraged by promises by Austria-Hungary of assistance. However, a recent visit to Bulgarian-occupied Adrianople had also stirred in him a desire to revive the medieval Bulgarian Empire and capture Constantinople. Thus, on June 16, 1913, the Second Balkan War began. In the fi rst few weeks the Bulgarian army had some limited success in holding to its positions, but by the end of the month the Serb, Montenegrin, and Greek armies were already on the offensive. On June 28, 1913, Romania also joined in the fray and declared war on Bulgaria. By July 6 Romanian troops had occupied the whole of northern Bulgaria, and a Romanian cavalry detachment arrived at the Bulgarian capital of Sofi a. On June 30, 1913, Ottoman troops began attacks on Bulgarian positions, and on July 10 they recaptured Adrianople. By mid-July Bulgaria was suffering defeats on all fronts and had lost most of the territory it had gained during the First Balkan War. The Second Balkan War ended in late August 1913. After a personal intercession by Emperor Franz Josef of Austria-Hungary, a peace conference was convened at Bucharest from July 17 to August 16, 1913. As a result of the Bucharest Peace Treaty, Serbia kept the territories of Macedonia, which its troops had obtained during 1912. Thus, it added Kosovo, Novi Pazar, and Vardar Macedonia to its territory. Greece secured over half of Macedonia (Aegean Macedonia), the southern part of Epirus, and an extension into southern Thrace. Bulgaria received the smallest part of Macedonia (Pirin Macedonia) and a section of the Aegean coast, but it had to cede southern Dobrudja to Romania. As a result of its treaty with the Ottoman government, Bulgaria also gave up its claims to Adrianople. In the meantime an independent Albanian state was offi cially created by the Conference of Ambassadors in London on July 29, 1913. This series of treaties concluded the Second Balkan War. It was bloodier than the fi rst one, cost more lives, witnessed horrifi c crimes against civilians, and deepened the divisions between the Balkan states. All sides in the Balkan Wars acted in a way that indicated that their main aim was not simply the acquisition of more territory but also ensuring that this territory was free of rival ethnic groups. The atrocities committed during the Balkan Wars led to the establishment of an international commission of inquiry set up by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. It produced an extensive report detailing the crimes committed by all combatants against their enemies and against civilian populations. Instead of resolving the problems between nationalities in the region, the Balkan Wars further exacerbated interethnic tensions. The psychological trauma of the wars and the displacement of populations increased 40 Balkan Wars (1912–1913) the suspicions and divisions between the Balkan states. The new boundaries that were established as a result of the Treaty of Bucharest in 1913 produced conditions for persistent resentment and created a feeling of unjust expropriation of territory and eradication of people. The suffering and the perceived injustice that all nations in the Balkans experienced molded the foreign policies of regional states. In this respect the Balkan Wars became a major source of the grievances that contributed to the beginning of World War I. Further reading: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The Other Balkan Wars: A 1913 Carnegie Endowment Inquiry in Retrospect. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1993; Hall, Richard C. Balkan Wars, 1912–1913: Prelude to the First World War. London: Routledge, 2000; Jelavich, Barbara. History of the Balkans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983; Kolev, Valery, and Christina Koulouri, eds. The Balkan Wars. Thessalonica: Center for Democracy and Reconciliation in Southeast Europe, 2005; Pavlowitch, Stevan K. A History of the Balkans, 1804–1945. London: Longman, 1999. Emilian Kavalski


Bao Dai Edit

(1913–1997) Vietnamese emperor Prince Nguyen Vinh, later known as Emperor Bao Dai, was the son of Annamese emperor Khai Dinh. Born in Hue on October 22, 1913, Bao Dai was educated in France. He became emperor of Vietnam on November 6, 1925. On his ascension to the throne he took the name Bao Dai, meaning “Keeper of Greatness.” After taking the throne he returned to France and resumed his education, and the regent Ton-Thai Han served until he came of age in 1932. Bao Dai married Jeanette Nguyen Huu Hao on March 24, 1934. As the empress Nam Phuong, she bore him two sons and three daughters. Bao Dai was a reformer, seeking to modernize Vietnamese educational and judicial systems and to end archaic court practices such as the kowtow, and he put young reformers in his fi rst cabinet of 1933. However, the French government continually undermined his initiatives and his authority. In the mid-1930s, with France threatened by Germany, Bao Dai saw his opportunity to seek greater autonomy. When Germany conquered France the new French government at Vichy was compelled to surrender Indochina to Japanese control. Japan declared that it had freed Vietnam from foreign rule. Under Japanese control Bao Dai established a nationalist government. Although he declared Vietnamese independence, in reality Vietnam switched from French to Japanese control. Under Japanese occupation a communist resistance formed led by Ho Chi Minh communist guerrillas called the Vietminh. At the Potsdam Conference in 1945, the Allied leaders Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin agreed that Vietnam would be divided between Chinese and British control after the war. A month after the Japanese surrender in August 1945, Ho Chi Minh announced the creation of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Vietnam became a battleground among the Vietminh, royalists, democrats, and supporters of the French. Bao Dai stepped down to avert a civil war and in March 1946 went into exile in Hong Kong. However, France returned him as a constitutional monarch in an attempt to unify Vietnam. Bao Dai was hesitant, but French agreement to recognize the independent Vietnam led him to return. In 1948 Bao Dai agreed to lead a unifi ed Vietnam under the French Union, received permission to return, and became head of state in 1949. But he soon left Vietnam for Europe, vowing never to return until his country was truly independent. In 1954, when France lost the crucial battle at Dien Bien Phu against the Vietminh, it fi nally agreed to grant independence to Indochina. At Geneva in June 1954, representatives of the United States, the Soviet Union, China, Britain, and France met to decide how to end confl ict in Vietnam. They agreed to divide Vietnam at the 17th parallel, with Ho Chi Minh ruling the north and Ngo Dinh Diem ruling the south as prime minister under Bao Dai. The Vietnamese could choose whether to live in the north or south. By July 1956 an election would be held to determine whether Vietnam would be unifi ed. With U.S. backing Ngo Dinh Diem held a plebiscite on whether to abolish the monarchy in October 1955. The United States opposed Bao Dai because he was out of touch, and supported Diem. American adviser Colonel Edward Lansdale suggested that ballots should be in two colors in hope that the Vietnamese would vote based on their beliefs that red meant good luck while green meant misfortune. Voters complained that they were harassed at the polls, with ballots for Diem counted and votes for Bao Dai tossed into the trash. Diem won 99 percent of the vote. Bao Dai lost the election and went into exile in France. In exile Bao Dai spoke Bao Dai 41 often on behalf of peace and unity for Vietnam, but he lived the life of a playboy. He died in a Paris military hospital on July 31, 1997. Further reading: Chapuis, Oscar. The Last Emperors of Vietnam. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000; Karnow, Stanley. Vietnam: A History. New York: Penguin Books, 1984; U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. The Pentagon Papers Gravel Edition chapter 2, “U.S. Involvement in the Franco-Viet Minh War, 1950–1954.” Boston: Beacon Press, 1971. John H. Barnhill


Batista, FulgencioEdit

(1901–1973) Cuban soldier, politician, and dictator Fulgencio Batista was born in Banes, located in the Oriente province of Cuba, on January 16, 1901, to a poor farming family. He received little formal schooling, although he attended night school, and joined the army in 1931, where he studied stenography. He was promoted to sergeant in 1928. During 1931–33 he took part in a conspiracy to overthrow the dictatorship of Gerardo Machado, which was successful in August 1933. In September of that year he led a revolt against Machado’s successor, Manuel de Céspedes. During this period he violently suppressed a number of attempts to defeat his control. During one attempt a number of those who surrendered to Batista and his men were executed. He was then promoted to colonel and commander in chief of the army by the provisional president, who Batista thanked by leading another revolt that overthrew him. Batista resigned from the army in 1944 and was elected president. Batista was not allowed to succeed himself as president by Cuban law, so he left offi ce in 1944. He traveled widely and lived in Florida for a time. He returned to Cuba and was elected to the senate in 1948. He staged another coup on March 10, 1952, and regained control of the government. He was elected president unopposed on November 1, 1954. In that election he was not expected to win and again used force to suppress his opponents. During his presidency, Batista promoted education and public health care, encouraged independent economic development, and improved labor conditions. He also simplifi ed administrative procedures. However, his regime was exceptionally corrupt, and that, along with his brutal terror against political opponents, turned the people against him. There were several revolts, most notably the guerrilla campaign led by Fidel Castro in 1956, which was successful by late 1958. His regime was overthrown by Castro’s forces, and he resigned the presidency on January 1, 1959, and fl ed the country with his family and many of his followers to the Dominican Republic. He later settled in Portugal, where he wrote Cuba Betrayed in 1962. He also wrote I am With the People (1939), Repuesta (1960), Stones and Laws (1961), To Rule is to Foresee (1962), and The Growth and Decline of the Cuban Republic (1964). Batista died in Spain on August 6, 1973. Further reading: Argote-Freyre, Frank. Fulgencio Batista: Volume 1, From Revolutionary to Strongman. Rutgers, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2006; Chester, Edmund. A Sergeant Named Batista. New York: Holt, 1954; Gellman, Irwin. Roosevelt and Batista: Good Neighbor Diplomacy in Cuba, 1933-1945. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1973. James E. Seelye, Jr.


Batlle, JoséEdit

(1856–1929) president of Uruguay José Batlle y Ordonez was the president of Uruguay from 1903 to 1907 and again from 1911 to 1915 and remains one of the great politicians in the history of Uruguay. He was a passionate believer in pan- Americanism and introduced many social reforms that made Uruguay one of the most liberal countries in the world. José Batlle (pronounced “Bajé”) was born on May 21, 1856, the son of Lorenzo Batlle y Grau, who was one of the major fi gures in the Uruguayan Colorado Party. Lorenzo was minister of war during the siege of Uruguay’s capital, Montevideo. In 1868, when José, Jr., was 12, his father became president of Uruguay, a post he held until 1872. José spent four years studying at Montevideo University and then traveled around Europe, returning to Montevideo in 1881. He followed his father into the Colorado Party and on June 16, 1886, founded the newspaper El Día, which became the party’s paper. In the following year José Batlle became political chief of the department of Minas, an area near Montevideo, and in 1890 he reorganized the Colorados. His wife, Matilde, was also from an 42 Batista, Fulgencio important Colorado family. Her father was Manuel Pacheco y Obes, who had fought in the defense of Montevideo with José’s father. From February 15 to March 1, 1899, José Batlle was acting president of Uruguay, and he made an unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 1900. Following his narrow victory in elections four years later, on March 1, 1903, he succeeded Juan Lindolfo Cuestas. Many people knew José Batlle as the son of a former president and a man of great intellect. However, when he was elected he had no public platform to implement. This was in spite of his being one of the most prominent journalists in Montevideo. When he was elected, Aparicio Saravia, the leader of the rival party, the Blancos, launched a rebellion that lasted for 18 months. When the Colorados defeated the Blancos at the Battle of Masoller on September 1, 1904, it marked the end of fi ghting as a way of sorting out political problems in the country. Saravia was mortally wounded in the fi ghting, and his forces were annihilated. Batlle promoted discussion on social reform and gave Uruguay much of its heritage of democracy and the system of the welfare state, almost alone in Latin America. In 1905 he ended the payment of income tax by low-level civil servants, encouraging people to join the government service. In the following year by presidential decree, he established secondary schools in every city in Uruguay. His third major reform, in 1907, was to allow women to divorce their husbands if they were being cruelly treated, while men could only divorce on grounds of adultery. That bill spent two years in the Uruguayan congress before it was fi nally made law. Other social reforms included the removal from public oaths of references to God and other Christian beliefs and the removal of crucifi xes from hospitals. When his term of offi ce ended on March 1, 1907, Batlle went to Switzerland, where he became an admirer of the plural presidency. He was also hugely infl uenced by the social reforms in Europe during this period, and when he returned to Uruguay he was determined to establish a complete welfare state. His fi rst move was to shore up the fi nancial side of his government, and in 1912 he established the Banco de Seguros, the state insurance bank, and took over the state mortgage bank. In 1913 Batlle wanted to introduce a collegiate head of the executive branch of government on the Swiss model. This caused a massive split in the Colorados, which lasted until 1966 and was blocked by dissident Colorados and the Blancos until Batlle threatened in 1919 to run for a third term. This forced his enemies to decide to back the project as a way of reducing any future power he would have. In 1914 Batlle instituted social security for people who were unemployed. He also legislated for employers in bakeries and textile factories to provide chairs for women employees. In the following year he fi nally pushed through a law that had taken four years of debates. This established the eight-hour workday. At the same time the government took over the telephone services and power generation facilities. The two were merged to form the Usinas Eléctricas y los Teléfonos del Estado (the State Telephone and Electrical Facilities). Many secondary schools were created around the country, and everybody was guaranteed a free high school education. The university was enlarged and also allowed to admit women. Many of these reforms were paid for by the increasingly wealthy beef industry, which expanded dramatically. It was to provide much of the meat required by the British war effort during World War I. José Batlle stood down as president on March 1, 1915, and went into retirement. He died on October 20, 1929. Further reading: Feldwick, W., and L.T. Delaney, eds. Twentieth Century Impressions of Uruguay. London: Lloyd’s Greater Britain Publishing Company, 1912; Vander, Milton I. José Batlle y Ordonez of Uruguay: The Creator of His Times 1902–1907. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963; ———. The Model Country: José Batlle y Ordonez of Uruguay. Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 1980. Justin Corfi eld


Ben-Gurion, DavidEdit

(1886–1973) prime minister of Israel Born as David Josef Gruen in Plonsk, Russia, David Ben-Gurion studied the “Lovers of Zion” movement at a school established by his father. At an early age he met and greatly admired Theodore Herzl, the founder of the International Zionist Movement, who died when Ben-Gurion was 18. It was from then on that he was determined to carry through with what Herzl had only dreamed of—the establishment of a Jewish state. Because of his determination and in fear of the widespread anti-Semitism that plagued eastern Europe, Ben- Gurion moved to Palestine in 1906. He initially worked as a laborer and remained active in the Poalei Tzion movement, which he joined at 17. In 1910 he was elected a member of the editorial board of the Achdut Ben-Gurion, David 43 (unity) newspaper and shortly thereafter adopted the Hebrew name David Ben-Gurion. In hopes of changing the anti-Zionist Ottoman policies in Palestine he went to Constantinople, Turkey, in 1912 to study law and government. At the outbreak of World War I Ben-Gurion returned to Palestine but was arrested as a known member of Poalei Tzion and was deported. He moved to New York City and began Hehaulutz, the American wing of Labor Zionism, and in 1917 married Paula Munweis, with whom he had three children. Certain that the Ottoman authorities would never support Zionism, he strategically altered his plans and joined Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s call to form Jewish battalions within the British Army to liberate Palestine from the Ottoman Empire. Ben-Gurion and his family returned to Palestine in late 1918. Ben-Gurion formed the Histadrut, the Federation of Laborers in Israel, in 1920 and was elected secretary-general in 1921. He also established the Haganah, the paramilitary force of the Labor Zionist movement, which facilitated underground Jewish immigration and provided the backbone of the future Israel Defense Force (IDF). In 1930 Ben-Gurion formed the Israel’s Workers Party, Mapai, which became the government during the fi rst three decades of Israel’s existence. He was elected chairman of the Zionism Executive and chairman of Histadrut, was regarded by the British as the offi cial representative for the Jews in Palestine, and was instrumental in purchasing arms from Europe. Ben-Gurion was elected the leader of the World Zionist Organization’s Department of Defense in 1946. From this and his other positions he pressured the British to either grant the Jews a state in Palestine or to quit the mandate. In 1947 Britain chose the latter. On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion announced Israel’s declaration of independence and became leader of its provisional government. The surrounding Arab nations invaded Israel, and violence increased between the Arabs in Israel and the Jews. Ben-Gurion recognized the rationale of Arab objections to Zionism early on and was aware of the nature of the clash between two genuine claims to the same land; however, he and others believed that the establishment of a Jewish homeland was crucial for the survival of Judaism. Equipped with a stronger military force, Israel defeated the Arabs, and Ben-Gurion became the prime minister on February 26, 1949, a post he held until 1963 except for a period of two years (1953–55). In 1970 he resigned from politics altogether and worked on his autobiography at Kibbutz Sde-Boker until his death in 1973. See also Arab-Israeli War (1948); British mandate in Palestine. Further reading: Bar-Zohar, Michael, and Peretz Kidron, trans. Ben-Gurion: A Biography—The Centennial Edition. New York: Adama Books, 1977; Ben-Gurion, David, and Nechemia Meyers. Israel: A Personal History. Uzy Nystar, trans. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1971; Edelman, Maurice. Ben-Gurion: A Political Biography. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1964. Jenna Levin


Black Dragon and Japanese ultranationalist societiesEdit

Owing their origins to the yakuza, Japan’s native organized crime group, Japanese ultranationalist societies gained strength in the ex-samurai class during the reign of Emperor Meiji. The purpose of one such society, organized in 1901, was the expansion of Japanese control past the Amur River, the border between northeastern China (Manchuria) and Russia. The river, named Amur in Russian, has a Chinese name that translates as the Black Dragon River, hence the name for the society. The Black Dragon Society and other new types of yakuza organizations considered themselves righteous gangsters who worked for the rights of the people, reverence for the imperial institution, and total Japanese domination of Asia. By the beginning of the 20th century, the reign of Emperor Meiji had turned Japan into a world power with a growing economy and a population of around 45 million people. Commerce fl ourished in Japan. As the economy grew and the priorities of the population shifted toward consumerism, gangs grew in power as they organized laborers in businesses such as construction, gambling, building the new metal-wheeled rickshaw, and running street stalls. Gang bosses often opened legitimate businesses to act as covers for underground work. Often they paid off local police to keep their activities quiet. As their power grew, the yakuza increased their presence in politics. Eventually, close ties to infl uential offi cials developed, and many gangs worked under government sanction that protected them from persecution. Since both sides were motivated by opportunism, ideology played only a small part at this time, and cooperation between the gangs and the government resulted. There was always a conservative slant to the 44 Black Dragon and Japanese ultranationalist societies yakuza, but as the Japanese increased their international military presence and some Japanese sought greater democracy, the new yakuza became more conservative and ultranationalist. First erupting on the southernmost Japanese island of Kyushu, ultranationalism became the defi ning force behind Japan’s move to extreme conservativism. The island served as the home to a large number of discontented ex-samurai. Many of these samurai had already been taken advantage of by charismatic patriots and politicians who fought against the perceived disregard for tradition among the modern sector. The city of Fukuoka, located closest to mainland Asia, had developed into a center of xenophobic ultranationalism. From this center of antigovernment ideology, Mitsuru Toyama emerged as a strong leader who effected lasting change in Japanese organized crime. During his 20s, Toyama’s political activities sent him to jail for three years, and upon his release he joined his fi rst nationalist society, called the Kyoshisha, the Pride and Patriotism Society. Toyama handed out money to his followers on the streets in the manner of those before him, earning him the moniker Emperor of the Slums. Next he began enlisting the disgruntled youth of Fukuoka and created a workforce of disciplined and dedicated fi ghters. Toyama made a move in 1881 upon the founding of the Genyosha, the Dark Ocean Society. According to the tenets of its charter, the Dark Ocean Society vowed to revere the imperial institution, love and respect the nation, and defend the people’s rights. Even with such vague intentions, Toyama exploited the passion of the ex-samurai for Japanese expansion and total rule. Toyama was able to successfully tap into this sentiment and create a strong political, paramilitary force. The work of the Dark Ocean Society, whose very name indicated expansion across the small divide of ocean between Japan and mainland Asia, was a campaign of strength. Using blackmail, assassination, and other forms of terror as a catalyst, the Dark Ocean Society was successful in exerting infl uence over government offi cials and ultimately played a critical role in pushing Japan into mainland Asia and war with the United States. An offshoot of the Dark Ocean Society, the Black Dragon Society was known for their espionage, sabotage, and assassination methods in Japan, China (especially in Manchuria), Russia, and Korea. The ultimate objective of the Black Dragon Society was domination of Asia. The natural successor of the Dark Ocean Society, the Black Dragon Society took over Dark Ocean followers along with Dark Ocean policies and goals. Under the patronage and guidance of the Dark Ocean Society’s Toyama, the Black Dragons pushed Japan into a victorious war with Russia, committed political assassinations, and helped create the conditions for a Japanese invasion of Asia. For 30 years, the Black Dragon Society fl ourished. They discouraged Japanese involvement in capitalism, democracy, and anything associated with the West. In the 1920s, even during the Taisho democracy and the increase in Japan’s liberalism, the Black Dragons grew. As a result the Japanese polity was overwhelmed by assassination, police repression, and an increasingly renegade military. Ultranationalist groups increased in power, even receiving money from the imperial family. The Black Dragon Society evolved into the paramilitary arm of a dominant political party. See also Manchurian incident and Manchukuo. Further reading: Hill, Peter B. E. The Japanese Mafi a: Yakuza, Law, and the State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003; Johnson, David T. The Japanese Way of Justice: Prosecuting Crime in Japan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001; Kaplan, David E., and Alec Dubro. Yakuza: Japan’s Criminal Underworld. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003; Miyazaki, Manabu. Toppamono: Outlaw. Radical. Suspect. My Life in Japan’s Underworld. Tokyo: Kotan Publishing, 2005; Sterling, Claire. Thieves’ World. London: Simon & Schuster, 1994. Melissa Benne


Boer WarEdit

The Boer War, from 1899 to 1902, was a confl ict between Great Britain and the Boers, or Dutch settlers, in South Africa. The Boers were mostly farmers who had settled as early as the 18th century in South Africa. The British wanted to unify their Cape Colony and Natal colonies and the Boer republics of the Orange Free State and the South African Republic. The discovery of gold in Transvaal in 1886 led more English settlers to South Africa. These new settlers, called Uitlanders by the Boers, raised Boer concerns over the possible loss of valuable farmland to the English, who were predominantly interested in the mineral resources of South Africa. After British leaders attempted to incite an uprising among the English in Transvaal in the Jameson Raid of 1896, the rift between the British and the Boers widened. As a result, the Boer leader Paul Kruger won the 1898 election as president of the South African Boer War 45 Republic. To undercut possible British moves, the Boers demanded that the British withdraw all their troops; when the ultimatum was rejected, the Boers attacked the Cape Colony and Natal, laying siege to the cities of Kimberley, Mafeking, and Ladysmith. The defense of Mafeking was led by Robert Baden-Powell, the founder of the Boy Scouts. The future prime minister of Britain Winston Churchill also participated in the war, as did the Indian nationalist leader Mohandas K. Gandhi, who served in the British medical corps. After initial defeats, the British rallied their troops and in 1900 appointed Horatio Herbert Kitchener, who had just successfully taken the Sudan, as the commander in chief. With superior fi repower the British army successfully lifted the sieges, but the Boers then resorted to hit-and-run guerrilla warfare tactics, some of which they had learned from the Zulus in earlier confrontations. To defeat the Boers, Kitchener adopted techniques that were used against guerrilla fi ghters throughout the world in the 20th century. These included slash-and-burn attacks against civilian farms and cutting off supplies of food and arms to Boer fi ghters by placing the civilian population in concentration camps. Thousands of Boer women and children were rounded up and placed in armed camps, where many starved to death. Their farms were then burned to the ground, thereby depriving the Boer fi ghters of cover and food supplies. Many indigenous Africans were also placed in camps. Some were sent to camps in Bermuda, India, and St. Helena. Almost 30,000 Boers, mostly women and children, and 14,000 Africans died in the camps. The destruction of much of the countryside also led to food shortages. In the spring of 1902 the Boers were forced to accept defeat. Under the Treaty of Vereeniging all of South Africa became part of the British Empire. Further reading: Evans, Martin. The Boer War: South Africa 1899–1902. London: Osprey Publishing, 1999; Pakenham, Thomas. The Boer War. New York: Random House, 1993. Janice J. Terry


Bonhoeffer, DietrichEdit

(1906–1945) theologian and social activist Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German pastor and brilliant theologian who was made famous by his role in the German resistance movement. He was executed in April 1945 for his involvement in plots to overthrow Adolf Hitler. Bonhoeffer and his twin sister, Sabine, were born on February 4, 1906, in Breslau, Germany (now Wroclaw, Poland). His father, Karl Bonhoeffer, was a distinguished psychiatrist, and his mother, Paula, presided over the early education of her eight children with the aid of a governess, entering her children for state examinations at an early age. In 1912 the Bonhoeffers moved to Berlin, where Dietrich’s father took a post as a professor of psychiatry. By age 14 Dietrich Bonhoeffer had already decided to pursue theology. His family was not particularly religious, attending church only occasionally, but respected his decision even at a relatively young age. In 1923 at age 17, Bonhoeffer entered the University of Tübingen. In 1924 he switched to the University of Berlin, a center for theology made famous by one of its founders, Friedrich Schleiermacher. The theology faculty was headed by Adolf von Harnack, an eminent theologian, and Reinhold Seeberg, a well-known systematic theology professor and author. Bonhoeffer stood out as a brilliant, studious, and somewhat independent thinker. It was during this period that Bonhoeffer began to read and be infl uenced by the works of the Neo- Orthodox movement, a reaction to the liberal theology of Schleiermacher and von Harnack made famous by Karl Barth. Bonhoeffer began work on his doctoral thesis in mid-1926 under Seeberg, fi nishing in December 1927 at age 21 with a rarely awarded summa cum laude. Soldiers man their guns during the Boer War, which pitted the agrarian Dutch settlers of South Africa against the British. 46 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich Assigned to work for a year as an assistant pastor in a Lutheran church in Barcelona, Spain, Bonhoeffer plunged into congregational life. Always interested in children, Bonhoeffer quickly organized a Sunday school program aimed at boys, who responded well to his leadership. In 1930–31 Bonhoeffer did postgraduate study in New York at the Union Theological Seminary. Returning to Berlin, he took up his pastoral duties but continued his association with the university. By this time he had published two books (Sanctorum Communio and Act and Being). In 1931 Bonhoeffer attended an ecumenical conference in Cambridge, England. This conference proved to be the start of his leadership role in the ecumenical movement as well as a wartime cover for many of his activities. During this period, Bonhoeffer’s own faith grew more intensely personal rather than simply academic. In 1933 Adolf Hitler came to power and quickly moved to control the churches. After spending several months in England in late 1933, where he was able to inform British Christians about the increasingly severe plight of Christians in Germany, Bonhoeffer returned to Berlin. During 1934 the regional churches that were still relatively free from government infl uence formed what was called the Confessing Church. This church body decided to form unoffi cial seminaries separate from the theological schools at the government-controlled universities. Bonhoeffer was asked to run a seminary consisting of 23 seminarians in the country town of Finkewalde. It was during this time that Bonhoeffer wrote his best-known work, The Cost of Discipleship, which was based on some of his evening lectures to the seminarians. In the context of Germany with its unquestioning obedience to the führer, Adolf Hitler, Bonhoeffer focused on what true obedience as a Christian meant. He would eventually prove such obedience with his own life. In 1939, in part to avoid a call-up into the military, Bonhoeffer went to England for several months. During that time he met with church and ecumenical authorities trying to persuade them to support the Confessing Church on an offi cial basis. In the United States Bonhoeffer was offered a position as pastor to the German refugees in New York. Accepting it would have meant he could never return to Nazi Germany, then on the verge of war. After much discussion and prayer he chose to return to Germany to share in the fate of his country. Bonhoeffer’s brother-in-law, Hans von Dohnanyi, was already deeply involved in the resistance movement, which at the time was trying to persuade infl uential generals to arrest Hitler. Hitler’s early successes in the war precluded this strategy. In 1940 Bonhoeffer began working for the Abwehr, the German intelligence service headed by Admiral Canaris ostensibly to gather information for the Germans from his international church contacts. This cover provided Bonhoeffer with the freedom to travel internationally as well as avoid a military call-up but at the same time drew him deeper into the circle of resistance, which included Admiral Canaris himself. In 1941 and 1942, well aware of the conspiracy to overthrow Hitler, which involved several German generals, Bonhoeffer traveled several times to Switzerland, Norway, and Sweden looking for ways to communicate via church channels to offi cials in England and elsewhere the necessity for a speedy recognition of the new government that would result from Hitler’s overthrow. In March 1943 Dohnanyi was involved in a failed plot to blow up Hitler during one of his inspection tours. The Gestapo investigations of the resistance were drawing their nets tighter around Canaris and his associates, and on April 5, 1943, Dohnanyi, Bonhoeffer, and several others were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy and put in prison in Berlin. Bonhoeffer had carefully prepared for this moment and was able to evade the charges against him successfully, although he was never released from prison. His case never came to trial, and in 1944 it increasingly looked like Bonhoeffer would be released. During his time in prison Bonhoeffer secretly worked on his book Ethics, which was published posthumously. On July 20, 1944, there was another assassination attempt on Hitler by the conspirator von Stauffenberg. The resulting investigation uncovered incriminating evidence against Canaris and Dohnanyi and indirectly against Bonhoeffer. This judgment sealed the fate of all the conspirators. They were moved to a concentration camp, where they were hanged on the personal orders of Hitler on April 9, 1945. Further reading: Bethge, Eberhard. Dietrich Bonhoeffer. New York: Harper and Row, 1970; Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. New York: Touchstone, 1995; ———. Ethics. New York: Touchstone, 1995. Bruce Franson


Bonus ArmyEdit

During the summer of 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression, as many as 25,000 World War I veterans calling themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force Bonus Army 47 marched on Washington, D.C., to ask Congress for bonuses promised for wages they had lost while in service to their country. The bonuses, authorized in 1924, would not mature until 1945, but the former servicemen clamored for any small portion that would aid the survival of themselves and their starving families. Many of the desperate vets inhabited abandoned downtown buildings or erected makeshift abodes of cardboard, wood, and tin in a shantytown located across Washington’s Anacostia River. Peaceful demonstrations and parades past the capitol were organized by Walter Waters. President Herbert Hoover refused to meet with Waters or the other vets. The House of Representatives passed Texas representative Wright Patman’s bill for accelerated payment, but the Senate defeated the measure by a vote of 62 to 18. With Congress set to recess for the summer, some of the protesters accepted an offer of free transportation back to their homes; others had nowhere else to go. With the help of superintendent of police Pelham Glassford, many others defi antly remained in Washington. On July 28 Secretary of War Patrick J. Hurley ordered Glassford to remove the emaciated veterans, many of whom occupied condemned buildings. Feeling betrayed, veterans hurled rocks at the police, who opened fi re, killing one and wounding another. That afternoon 600 federal troops led by General Douglas MacArthur moved on the marchers in compliance with the president’s order to evict. MacArthur, perhaps convinced that these were communists, not veterans, exceeded his orders and attacked the desperate itinerants with tanks, gas grenades, and cavalry; MacArthur ordered the troops across the Anacostia River, where fi re was set to the Bonus Marchers’ makeshift village, killing three and injuring 54, including children and women. Public sentiment favored the Bonus Marchers. President Hoover could not escape the wrath of an astonished U.S. public that rebelled at such harsh tactics. It was a fi nal straw in his decisive loss in that fall’s election. Hoover’s Democratic successor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, while opposing payment of the bonus, created the Civilian Conservation Corps, setting aside jobs for many veterans; soon after his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, met with a small group of marchers in 1933. In 1944, during World War II, Congress passed and Roosevelt signed the G.I. Bill of Rights, the United States’ fi rst-ever comprehensive and reliable benefi t system for its military veterans. Further reading: Dickson, Paul, and Thomas B. Allen. Bonus Army: An American Epic. New York: Walker and Company, 2004; Waters, Walter W., as told to William C. White. B.E.F.: The Whole Story of the Bonus Army. New York: John Day Company, 1933. John M. Mayernik


Bose, Subhas ChandraEdit

(1897–1945) radical Indian politician Subhas Chandra Bose abandoned an intended career in the Indian civil service to support Mohandas K. Gandhi and the Indian National Congress (INC) in the cause of Indian independence from Great Britain. However, he later found Gandhi’s nonviolent movement too moderate, attacked Gandhi for negotiating with the British authorities, and organized a Socialist Independence of India League in 1928. He also became a labor leader, organized strikes, and was elected president of the All- India Trade Union Congress (1929–31). When Gandhi suspended his satyagraha (truth, force, nonviolent protest) campaign against the British in 1933, Bose and the left-wing members of the INC called for Gandhi’s suspension from the organization and its reorganization. A showdown between Gandhi and Bose in 1937 resulted in the fi rst contested election for president of the INC, which Bose won in 1938. He became an open admirer of Adolf Hitler and took on the title Netaji, which means leader in Hindi, in emulation of the German Nazi leader. His policies so severely fractured the INC that it could not function, compelling him to resign. He broke off relations with the INC and Gandhi as a result and formed the Forward Bloc Party. Whereas Gandhi and the INC advocated noncooperation with the British government when World War II broke out, Bose sponsored terrorism, sabotage, and assassination. His party was banned, and he fl ed India, arriving in Berlin via Afghanistan and the Soviet Union. He was welcomed by Hitler, who provided him with a radio facility to broadcast anti-British propaganda to India. Bose arrived in Japan in mid-1943 in a German Uboat. He proceeded to Japanese-occupied Malaya and helped organize the “Indian National Army,” which consisted of 40,000 soldiers from among the 45,000 Indian prisoners of war captured in Malaya and Singapore. However, command and control of that army remained in Japanese hands. In October 1943 Bose announced the creation of a Provisional Government of Free India and assumed the titles of head of state, prime minister, and minister of war and foreign affairs. 48 Bose, Subhas Chandra The people he supposedly controlled were the 2 million ethnic Indians who were living in Japanese-occupied Malaya and Singapore. However, the Japanese initially put Bose on the Andaman Islands. In November 1943 Bose and other Japanese puppets met in Tokyo in the Greater East Asia Conference. This conference marked the high point of Japan’s “New Order” in Asia and the Greater East Asia Co- Prosperity Sphere it created and controlled. Bose’s “government” was moved to Rangoon in Burma in 1944 as the Japanese-controlled Indian army advanced across the Indian border. It was turned back and surrendered in Rangoon in May 1945. Bose escaped with his Japanese patrons, fl eeing to Indochina, and when Japanese forces collapsed there he left Saigon for Taiwan on the last Japanese plane, which crashed on landing. Captured offi cers who served under Bose were tried and convicted but were given suspended sentences. Further reading: Bose, Subhas Chandra. The Mission of Life. Nirmal Chatterjee and Hirendra Nath Dutt, trans. Calcutta: Thacker, Spink, 1965. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur


Boxer RebellionEdit

The Boxer Rebellion in China was the culmination of the reactionary policies of the dowager empress Cixi (Tz’u-hsi) after she crushed the reform movement of 1898 and imprisoned Emperor Guangxu (Kuang-hsu), who had advocated the thoroughgoing reforms. The defeat of the Boxers by forces of seven Western powers and Japan would bring deeper losses of sovereignty and humiliation to China and totally discredit the Qing (Ch’ing) dynasty. The Boxer movement was rooted in half a century of Western victories over China and the unequal treaties they had imposed on the Chinese, resulting in deep popular resentment among all segments of the people. Many Chinese resented the activities of Western Christian missionaries who had been free to build churches and proselytize throughout the country and were not subject to Chinese laws. The expansion of Western trade in China and the low tariff that they imposed made Chinese-produced goods noncompetitive against Western imports, damaging the economy. Shandong (Shantung) province was particularly hard hit by economic hardships, the result of frequent fl ooding of the Yellow River beginning in the 1880s. Local frustration reached a high point in 1898 due to two events: a particularly bad fl ooding of the Yellow River and Germany’s establishment of a sphere of infl uence in Shandong. A Chinese secret society called the Yihe chuan (I-ho chuan), or the “Righteous and Harmonious Fists,” capitalized on the popular discontent. It was an offshoot of the White Lotus Society and the Eight-Trigram Sect, which had risen in revolt against the Qing dynasty in the late 18th century. Their members claimed magical powers through the practice of shadow boxing, charms, and magical arts. Westerners called its members Boxers because they practised martial arts. The Boxers were mostly poor unemployed farmers and were initially noted for being both antiforeign and antidynastic. However, they were soon co-opted by Cixi and the powerful reactionary Manchu nobles who surrounded her, who hoped to use them to consolidate their power. They skillfully manipulated the Boxers to support the Qing and whip up xenophobia among the people. The Boxers were initially most active in Shandong. However, acting governor Yuan Shikai (Yuan Shih-k’ai) was no fool and knew that their martial arts were no match for fi rearms. He defi ed Cixi’s order to Boxer Rebellion 49 Watching the “Foreign Devils”: Cantonese citizens peer through the gate of the English Bridge, barring them any further access. afford them protection, suppressing them and driving them out of the province. They found a new home in Zhili and Shanxi (Shansi) provinces and were welcomed by Cixi into Beijing (Peking), where they were organized into a militia and “proved” their invulnerability to bullets by a demonstration before her with blanks. Then followed a reign of terror by the Boxers, killing Westerners, Chinese converts to Christianity, and anyone who opposed them. Cixi executed a number of offi cials opposed to the Boxers in the capital, thereby silencing opposition. On June 21, 1900, Cixi issued an edict declaring war against all Western nations, ordered all Chinese diplomats stationed in the West to return home, and ordered provincial governors to round up all foreigners. She also ordered the cutting of telegraphic links between China and the outside world. Several Western diplomats were killed in the capital city, and a Boxer force besieged the Western diplomatic quarters. Fortunately, governors in the south and eastern provinces, including the senior statesman Li Hongzhang (Li Hungchang) and Yuan Shikai, among others, jointly declared the court’s declaration of war illegitimate and their intention to suppress the Boxers and protect the foreigners in their territories. Likewise, Chinese diplomats stationed in the West declared Cixi’s moves illegitimate since the rightful ruler, Emperor Guangxu, was held prisoner by her. A relief force consisting of units of Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Italy, the United States, and Japan was organized and captured Beijing on August 14, lifting the siege of the diplomatic quarters because with no artillery pieces, the Boxers had been unable to capture the sandbagged buildings that held the diplomats, Western missionaries, and Chinese Christians inside. Meanwhile, Cixi, her nephew the captive emperor, and her supporters had fl ed Beijing disguised as farmers. The city and environs were subjected to severe destruction and looting by the conquering soldiers. Diplomats of the eight powers then negotiated terms among themselves to dictate to China. The Boxer Protocol (1900) had 12 clauses: offi cial apologies, punishment of the guilty, suppression of antiforeign organizations, no civil service examinations to be held in provinces that supported Boxer activities, the demolition of Chinese forts at Taku (that controlled entry to Beijing by sea), no import of arms by China for two years, the Western powers to be able to garrison troops at designated points in northern China and to fortify their diplomatic quarters, the abolition of the Zongli Yamen (Tsungli Yamen) that had conducted Chinese foreign affairs since 1862 (to be supplanted by a new ministry of foreign affairs), and an indemnity of 450 million gold taels (1 tael=1 1/3 ounces) to be paid over 40 years. China was not represented at the negotiations and was not permitted to change a word in the protocol. Li Hongzhang was appointed head of the delegation to offer apologies to the Western powers—he died soon after completing the task. Allied soldiers evacuated Beijing in September 1901. Cixi returned to Beijing in 1902 and issued a proclamation blaming Guangxu for all that had happened. The Boxer Rebellion was propelled by popular anger against Western imperialism that was manipulated by an ignorant and reactionary court headed by Cixi. Both the Boxers and Western troops caused terrible suffering among innocent people, the inevitable collapse of the Boxer Rebellion plunged China’s existence into jeopardy, and ultimately it spelled the death knell of the Qing dynasty. Further reading: Esherick, Joseph W. The Origins of the Boxer Uprising. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987; Fleming, Peter. The Siege at Peking. New York: Harper, 1959; Martin, Christopher. The Boxer Rebellion. London: Abelard-Schuman, 1968; Martin, William A. P. The Siege of Peking: China against the World. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources, 1972. Purcell, Victor, ed. The Boxer Uprising. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963; Tan, Chester. The Boxer Catastrophe. New York: W. W. Norton, 1955. Jiu-Hwa Lo Upshur


Brandeis, Louis D.Edit

(1856–1941) U.S. Supreme Court justice A son of German immigrants who became a crusading attorney and the United States’ fi rst Jewish Supreme Court justice, Louis Brandeis made his mark as a leading progressive and helped shape President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. Brandeis was born in St. Louis but made Boston his home soon after graduating from Harvard University. He became a wealthy lawyer while also pursuing cases on behalf of embattled labor unions, immigrants, and others left behind in Gilded Age America. He took on streetcar and railroad interests and wrote muckraking articles about banking. In 1910 New York City cloakmakers struck local sweatshops. Brandeis 50 Brandeis, Louis D. negotiated a settlement satisfactory to both the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) and the manufacturers. Brandeis believed that big business tended to excessively concentrate economic power, harming regional and local enterprises and eliminating true competition. He played a key role in making the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, used mostly to bolster corporate rights since its adoption in 1868, into a vehicle expanding rights for ordinary people. His biggest victory came in 1908 when in Muller v. Oregon the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the state could prevent manufacturers from making women work more than 10 hours a day. Brandeis’s win came just three years after the Court had invalidated a maximum hours statute for bakery workers. In what was soon nicknamed a “Brandeis Brief,” its namesake wrote a 112-page document that went far beyond narrow legal precepts, adding sociological information that, in the words of the Muller decision, included “extracts from over ninety reports of committees, bureaus of statistics, commissioners of hygiene, inspectors of factories, both in this country and in Europe, to the effect that long hours of labor are dangerous for women. . . .” By the time President Woodrow Wilson nominated Brandeis, a political ally, to the Supreme Court, Brandeis had a national reputation as “the people’s attorney.” Nevertheless, his confi rmation process was diffi cult. Both his liberalism and his religion were held against him. His “fi tness” was questioned by leading attorneys, including former President William Howard Taft, and offi cials from his alma mater opposed him. Brandeis was confi rmed by a 47-22 Senate vote in 1916. Considered a reliably liberal member of a rather conservative court, Brandeis was a supporter of the New Deal but by no means a doormat. In 1935 he joined in the unanimous Schechter decision that killed Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery Act, a centerpiece of the New Deal program. In 1932 Benjamin N. Cardozo joined the Court as its second justice of Jewish descent. Brandeis was instrumental in mentoring Felix Frankfurter, a law professor and Roosevelt aide, who became the third Jewish member of the Court, replacing Cardozo when he died in 1938. Brandeis, who was 80 when Roosevelt proposed his controversial 1937 Court-packing plan, was offended but decided to retire in 1939. Brandeis was not especially religiously observant but took a strong interest in Zionism during World War II. His Court duties and a falling-out with European Zionists, including Chaim Weizmann, reduced his involvement, but Brandeis continued to back creation of a Jewish state in British Palestine. In 1948, seven years after Brandeis’s death and the year of Israel’s founding, Brandeis University opened in Waltham, Massachusetts, commemorating its namesake as a Jewish-American legal pioneer and supporter of social justice. Further reading: Strum, Philippa. Brandeis: Beyond Progressivism. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1993; ———. Louis D. Brandeis: Justice for the People. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984. Marsha E. Ackermann


British mandate in PalestineEdit

Although British control of Palestine started on December 11, 1917, the Palestine mandate was not approved by the council of the League of Nations until July 24, 1922, through the Treaty of San Remo. The mandate was formally established on September 29, 1923. Some of the causes of the delay were uncertainties about the territorial boundaries of the new entity and the issue of the contradictory future obligations of the Mandatory Power. The land’s symbolic and political signifi cance by far exceeded its local or even regional importance. The historical cradle of the Jewish people and the holy land of Christianity, Palestine had for many centuries been inhabited by a mainly Muslim and Arabspeaking population. Since the beginning of the 20th century the Zionist movement, established at the congress at Basel in 1897, sought to recreate there the Jewish national home, but up until World War I it still had no international recognition and only limited Jewish support. During World War I on November 2, 1917, the British foreign secretary, Arthur James Balfour, seeking Jewish international support, issued a declaration assuring his government’s support for the establishment in Palestine of the Jewish national home. The Palestine mandate copied the text of the Balfour Declaration, as both Britain and the League of Nations apparently believed that building a Jewish national home and protecting the Arab majority’s rights and position were not incompatible objectives. The Palestine mandate received by Britain in 1920 included the future Transjordan, but this was transformed into a separate territorial unit. The Emirate of Transjordan, never considered part of historic Palestine, was explicitly excluded from the area of Palestine designed as the Jewish national home. In this framework British mandate in Palestine 51 of the Palestine mandate the Jews enjoyed numerous advantages over the local Arab Palestinian population. With the help of worldwide Jewish communities and the British government the Zionists made enormous progress in developing an up-to-date economic, social, and political system. Their numbers increased quickly because of growing immigration, from 83,790 in 1922 to 174,606 in 1931, and were estimated at 528,702 in 1944; they grew from 12 percent of the total population in 1922, to about 17 percent in 1931, to about 31 percent in 1944. In spite of that, the Jewish population remained a minority and would not have achieved their goals and aspirations without constant British military and security guarantees and protection. In practice the British granted considerable autonomy to the various religious groups along the lines of the old Turkish millet system and intended to prevent the development of the national-minded Palestinian Arab ethnic community. Lack of self-rule institutions and elected representatives deprived the Palestinian population of many political chances in the future. Led mainly by the clan (hamula) and big land-owning families, the Palestinian population in the country by 1936 had increased to about 1 million, primarily as the result of a high birth rate. The British government started to introduce limitations on Jewish immigration to Palestine, but these quotas and the very concept of the absorptive capacity of the country became controversial, particularly in the 1930s and early 1940s. The situation in Palestine deteriorated largely under the impact of external factors, which included the Great Depression and Hitler’s assumption of power in 1933 followed by the Nazi regime in Germany. Legal and illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine increased dramatically, from 9,553 in 1932 to 61,854 in 1935, because of which Arab-Jewish relations became tenser. Even before that, especially in 1921 and 1929, there had been violent clashes between the two communities. The Jewish Self-Defense Force, Haganah, was formed on June 15, 1920, and eventually evolved into the Israeli Defense force (IDF). Between 1936 and 1939 there was the great Arab uprising, directed predominantly against the British mandatory power but also against Zionist settlers. The revolt began with a general strike that lasted some six months and soon evolved into a large-scale peasant revolt that mobilized the entire Palestinian Arab population. Almost 1,000 Palestinians and 80 Jews were killed in the fi rst year, and by 1939 the British military had either killed or imprisoned most of the key Palestinian leaders. The revolt considerably weakened Palestinian political and military organizations and caused the loss of key leaders who might have been effective after World War II in the ongoing Arab-Israeli confl ict. The British also tried to fi nd a political solution to the existing dilemma of confl icting Zionist and Palestinian demands for national control over the same territory. In 1936 the Peel Commission was sent to Palestine, and in 1937 it concluded that the mandate was unworkable in its present form. The Peel Commission recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state, a Palestinian area to be merged with Transjordan, and Jerusalem and its neighborhood remaining under direct British control. The partition plan was opposed by both sides. In May 1939 the Statement of Policy on Palestine replaced the partition plan with new directives. The British government declared that it wanted to establish “an independent Palestine State.” This state was to be established within 10 years. During that period Jewish immigration would be limited to 15,000 per year during the fi rst fi ve years, after which no further Jewish immigration without Arab consent would be allowed. In 90 percent of Palestine, the transfer of Arab lands was forbidden or restricted. Predictably, the most negative reaction came from the Zionist and Jewish circles, who dubbed it the “Black Paper.” The most radical wing of the Zionist movement, the revisionists, almost immediately initiated violent actions against the British administration and the Arabs. The smuggling of arms and illegal immigrants into Palestine had begun before 1939, but it continued and intensifi ed after that. Between 1939 and 1943 about 20,000 illegal Jewish immigrants and 19,000 legal ones entered the country. After World War II several factors, such as U.S. support for the Zionist cause, the decline of British economic and political power, and the impact of the Holocaust on world opinion persuaded the British to submit the Palestine question to the United Nations on April 12, 1947. On May 15, 1948, the British mandate was terminated, and the British evacuated their troops from Palestine. Caught between confl icting obligations and facing the decline of their own power, the British had no choice but to leave. See also Ben-Gurion, David; Hashemite monarchy in Jordan. Further reading: Cohen, Michael Joseph. Palestine to Israel: From Mandate to Independence. London: Frank Cass, 1988; Marlowe, John. The Seat of Pilate: An Account of the Palestine Mandate. London: Cresset Press, 1959; Segev, Tom. 52 British mandate in Palestine One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2000; Shepherd, Naomi. Ploughing Sand: British Rule in Palestine 1917– 1948. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2000; Tessler, Mark. A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Confl ict. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994. Andrej Kreutz

Bryan, William Jennings Edit

(1860–1925) U.S. political leader Although he lost the presidency three times, William Jennings Bryan used powerful oratory and sympathy for America’s downtrodden to transform the Democratic Party. In the Woodrow Wilson administration, Bryan tried unsuccessfully to keep the United States out of World War I. A committed Christian, he spent his fi nal days in Tennessee, opposing Darwinian evolution at the Scopes trial and thereby entering history as a hero to the devout and a laughingstock to an urbanizing nation. Bryan grew up in rural Salem, Illinois, becoming a lawyer and a Democrat like his father. In 1887, seeing greater political opportunity, he moved to Nebraska, where he became in 1890 only the second Democrat to win a congressional seat in Nebraska’s 23 years of statehood. In an era that esteemed oratory, Bryan spoke clearest and loudest, attracting national attention as he took up “prairie insurgency” causes that challenged both major parties. A supporter of direct senatorial election and banking reform, he called for federal intervention on behalf of farmers and laborers who felt themselves oppressed. Bryan sided with those who demanded unlimited coinage of cheaper silver money, positioning himself in the depression year of 1896 as the one candidate who could make populist demands a reality. The Chicago nominating convention erupted in cheers when Bryan fi nished his 20-minute “Cross of Gold” speech. The next day Bryan outpolled 12 other hopefuls, winning nomination on the fi fth ballot. Bryan broke campaign tradition by barnstorming 18,000 miles through 26 states, while Republican senator William McKinley conducted a genteel campaign from his Ohio front porch. Despite attracting a huge following of “believers,” Bryan could not match the Republicans’ fund-raising prowess and had trouble attracting urban support. He lost decisively and would lose again to McKinley in 1900 and to William Howard Taft in 1908. Although he volunteered for the 1898 Spanish- American War (but never saw action), Bryan opposed imperialism and especially opposed U.S. efforts to rule the Philippines. Yet he disregarded Jim Crow laws that stifl ed African-American political participation. Bryan calculated that his political success depended on white votes from the “Solid South.” Even so, black leader W. E. B. Dubois saw hope in the “Great Commoner’s” concern for the poor and exploited. Bryan’s tenure as Woodrow Wilson’s secretary of state was disastrous. Wilson, who meddled in the Mexican Revolution and the Caribbean, did not share Bryan’s idealistic pacifi sm. In June 1914 World War I broke out in Europe. Bryan counseled true neutrality but resigned after a German U-boat attack on Britain’s Lusitania in 1915 killed 128 Americans and prompted a harsh presidential warning. Although Bryan was a dedicated Christian and teetotaler who championed Prohibition, he was no rube. He became wealthy from speaking engagements yet supported the graduated income tax. He traveled widely abroad, visiting Russian writer and pacifi st Leo Tolstoy. Bryan (and his wife, Mary Baird Bryan) strongly backed women’s suffrage. By the 1920s, though, Bryan seemed quaint to a new generation. His focus on Darwinism’s evils and the Bible’s truth seemed especially antimodern, even though he was among the fi rst evangelists to speak on radio. So when Bryan was brutally interrogated during the 1925 Scopes trial by famed lawyer Clarence Darrow, once a Bryan supporter, the legendary orator’s weak showing seemed to prove the idiocy of his cause. Six days later Bryan, a diabetic, died in his sleep in Dayton. Mourned by thousands along its route, Bryan’s funeral train carried him to burial in Arlington Cemetery. The Democratic Party of Franklin D. Roosevelt and other future leaders would owe much to Bryan’s initiatives. Further reading: Kazin, Michael. A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006; Levine, Lawrence W. Defender of the Faith: William Jennings Bryan, the Last Decade, 1915–1925. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965/1987. Marsha E. Ackermann

Ba’ath Party Edit

The Ba’ath (“Renaissance” in Arabic) was a pan-Arab political party founded by Michel Aflaq and Salah al- Din Bitar. From Syria, Aflaq (1910–89) came from a Greek Orthodox family; he studied at the Sorbonne and became a teacher in a well-known secondary school in Damascus. Bitar (1912–80), from a prominent Damascene Sunni Muslim family, also studied in France and taught at the same school as Aflaq. In 1940 they led a small group known as the Movement of Arab Renaissance, or Ba’ath, that professed a pan-Arab, anti-imperialism program. Aflaq was the preeminent ideologue of the party, which published a series of papers dealing with Arab nationalism, Arab union, and Arab socialism, as opposed to a strictly Marxist ideology. The party’s motto was “Unity, Freedom, Socialism.” In 1947 the group merged with another nationalist party to form the Arab Ba’ath Party. The new party attracted members including nationalistic youth; disaffected minorities, especially the Alawites in Syria; and young army officers. In 1953 the party unified with Akram Hourani’s Arab Socialist Party to become the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party. A popular nationalist, Hourani had a far wider following than Aflaq, and his participation in the party enlarged its support and membership. The party was organized into cells on the grassroots level, giving it considerable flexibility. Groups of cells (two to seven) were formed into party divisions that merged into party sections representing entire towns or rural districts and, at the highest level, party branches. At periodic party congresses all the party branches met. The national command was the executive that exercised considerable power from the top down. In 1958 the Ba’ath strongly supported the creation of the United Arab Republic but became disenchanted with having to take a secondary role to that of Nasser and Egypt. The Ba’ath supported Syria’s withdrawal from the union in 1961, and a military coup in 1963 brought the Ba’ath into power. Bitar and Aflaq both supported the so-called civilian wing of the party versus the military wing, but they were outmaneuvered in 1966. Although he retained the title of secretary-general of the party, Aflaq held no real power and went into exile. He ultimately moved to Baghdad in 1974, where he enjoyed considerable respect but no real power. In 1989 Aflaq died, whereupon the Iraqi regime announced that he had converted to Islam prior to his death. After considerable infighting among Ba’athist officers in Syria, Hafez al-Assad seized power in 1970 and proceeded to establish a regime that lasted into the 21st century. Bitar split from the party owing to disagreements with the Assad regime; he went into exile in Paris, where he was assassinated—possibly by Syrian intelligence—in 1980. The Ba’ath established branches in Jordan, Lebanon, North and South Yemen, and other Arab states. Al-Saiqa was the Palestinian branch of the Ba’ath under control of Syria. Although these separate branches played some limited political roles in their respective countries, Syria and Iraq remained the centers of the party’s power. In Iraq the Ba’ath Party came to power in 1963 under Abd al-Salem Arif, but internal disputes again led to its B loss of power. Under General Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, who led a military coup in 1968, the Ba’ath returned to power. Although most Iraqi Ba’athists were not professional soldiers, they attracted considerable support from the military. Bakr’s main protégé, Saddam Hussein, a committed Ba’athist, ousted his mentor from power in 1979. Assad in Syria and Hussein in Iraq became bitter rivals, but both claimed to represent the real Ba’ath Party. Although both leaders professed their commitment to pan-Arabism, they adopted increasingly nationalistic policies to retain power. The Ba’ath Party in Iraq was dismantled after the U.S. invasion in 2003 but remained in power under Bashar al-Assad in Syria. Further reading: Baram, Amatzia. Culture, History and Ideology in the Formation of Ba’athist Iraq, 1968–89. London: Macmillan, 1991; Hinnebusch, Raymond A. Authoritarian Power and State Formation in Ba’athist Syria: Army, Party, and Peasant. Boulder, CO: Westview, 1990; Roberts, David. The Ba’ath and the Creation of Modern Syria. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987. Janice J. Terry


The Contemporary World 1950 to the Present Edit

baby boom, U.S.Edit

The term baby boom refers to the dramatic increase in the population of certain industrialized nations in the years following the end of World War II. In the United States, the population grew from 141 million to 179 million— an increase of 27 percent between 1947 and 1960—at a time when immigration to the United States was limited by restrictive laws. By contrast, the population of the United States grew just 13 percent between 1960 and 1970. This increased birthrate generally affected all social classes and reversed a population decline that had been going on for 150 years. In Canada, the birthrate increased from 24.3 per thousand in 1945 to 28.9 in 1947, and did not return to lower rates until 1963. The boom in the United States can be explained by demographic and ideological factors. Although the age of marriage for both men and women dropped between 1930 and 1950, Great Depression uncertainties and massive social dislocations caused by war put a damper on reproduction. Both of these concerns had lifted by the late 1940s. By 1960, 97 percent of Americans over 18 had been married at least once; this was perhaps a product of postwar affluence but possibly also a response to a fear of nonmarital sexuality that had been produced by wartime. The so-called nuclear family became a symbol of U.S. freedom. Ideological factors also contributed to the boom. Partly to ease the reentry of men returning from the war, women who had been engaged in war work were encouraged to leave the workplace and to concentrate on making a home for their families. This was accompanied by a preference for more than one child and a concurrent belief that childlessness demonstrated socially dysfunctional behavior. Women who married in the 1940s and 1950s generally had most of their children before they were 30 and allowed child-rearing to become their career. The G.I. Bill and suburbanization in the late 1940s and the 1950s helped establish the nuclear family ideal. The boom influenced the form of suburbanization by making the construction of schools and playgrounds necessary and caused an expansion in college and university construction. The baby boomers were the first generation to consider television their birthright, and several of the television programs of the 1950s depicted idealized versions of their family life. The idea that the nuclear family of the 1950s, as seen on television, represented “traditional family values” persisted into the 21st century. As baby boomers entered adolescence, many of them became associated with the Civil Rights movement, other student movements of the 1960s, and the so-called hippie counterculture. Members of the baby boom invented the slogan “Don’t trust anyone over thirty.” By the 1990s baby boomers were the “establishment” in the United States. Born in 1946, Bill Clinton, who served as president from 1992 to 2000, was America’s first baby-boomer president. Further reading: May, Elaine Tyler. Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era. New York: Basic Books, 1988; Owram, Doug. Born at the Right Time: A History of the Baby-Boom Generation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. David Miller Parker

Baghdad Pact/CENTOEdit

The Baghdad Pact, also known as the Middle East Treaty Organization (METO) and the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), was a mutual defense treaty that aimed to encircle the southwestern flank of the Soviet Union. The United States viewed the treaty, similar to 48 baby boom, U.S. NATO, as a means to prevent possible Soviet expansion into the vital oil-producing region of the Middle East during the cold war. It also enabled the United States to establish a military presence in member nations. CENTO began with a series of treaties of mutual cooperation between the United States, Pakistan, and Turkey in 1954 and a military assistance agreement with Iraq in the same year. In 1955 Turkey and Iraq signed a mutual defense treaty creating the foundation for the Baghdad Pact. In the same year Britain, Iran, and Pakistan joined the Baghdad Pact, which guaranteed economic and military assistance to any country in the pact that was threatened by communism. In 1958 a coup in Iraq ousted the pro-Western government, and the following year Iraq withdrew from the treaty, prompting the change of its name to the Central Treaty Organization. The effectiveness of CENTO was lessened during the Indo-Pakistani Wars of 1965 and 1971; neither party to the treaty rushed to assist Pakistan even though India was at the time an ally of the Soviet Union. Following the overthrow of the pro- Western Pahlavi dynasty and the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, Iran also withdrew from CENTO. Along with the failure of CENTO members to assist Pakistan, the withdrawal of Iran and Iraq from the treaty led to the treaty’s demise. See also Nasser, Gamal Abdel. Further reading: Kerr, Malcolm. The Arab Cold War: Gamal Abd Al-Nasir and His Rivals, 1958–1970. London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1971; Ramazani, Rouhollah K. Iran’s Foreign Policy, 1914–1973: A Study of Foreign Policy in Modernizing Nations. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1975. Ramzi Abou Zeineddine


Balkans (1991–present)Edit

Since 1991 the region of the Balkans has been a place of dynamic change. The region (excluding Greece) has been divided into two subregions: the Western Balkans, consisting of Albania and the entities that emerged from the breakup of Yugoslavia—Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia, Slovenia, and Montenegro, and Bulgaria and Romania. The division of the Balkans into two subregions reflects the distinct dynamics in the two sets of states. For instance, the Western Balkans were subjected post-1991 to the dynamics of building nation-states, while Bulgaria and Romania embarked on the path of postcommunist consolidation of democracy, marked by free elections, market liberalization, and the strengthening of civil society. However, the underlying feature characterizing the developments in all Balkan countries was the uncertainty of their transition process. This may be the main reason why Slovenia, which emerged from the dissolution of Yugoslavia, not only managed to distance itself from the Balkans with its domestic and foreign policy objectives but also ultimately “left” the region altogether. Ambiguity dominated the Balkan states for the better part of the 1990s. This pattern changed as a result of the Kosovo crisis of 1999 for two reasons. First, and perhaps tragically, by that time the nation-state-building projects in the western Balkans had reached a plateau of stability, which allowed the countries from that subregion to focus on their democratization. The uneven transition processes in Bulgaria and Romania had led to the establishment of the first reformist governments in those countries. Second, in the aftermath of the Kosovo crisis the two dominant international institutions in Europe— the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—altered their perceptions of the Balkans. After 1999 they recognized the candidate status of Bulgaria and Romania and outlined the prospect of membership for the countries of the Western Balkans. Such twin alteration of the intraregional and extraregional trends in the Balkans informed the 21stcentury processes in the region. bulgaria Despite their being lumped together, the postcommunist development trajectories of Bulgaria and Romania were characterized by quite different dynamics. The transition in Bulgaria, which began on November 10, 1989, with the removal of Todor Zhivkov as head of state, was in effect an internal coup within the Bulgarian Communist Party. These developments set up the background for a rather unpredictable transformation process, one that was initiated from “above” and did not reflect a significant social anxiety with the communist status quo. The pattern of power up to 1997 was marked by governments that came, tried their policies, and were ousted by either the corrective of popular unrest or a change of allegiance of coalition partners. After 1997, however, governments followed the road of democratization and market reforms fairly consistently and pursued the objectives of EU and NATO integration. As a result, on March 29, 2004, Bulgaria became a member of NATO and joined the EU on January 1, 2007. Balkans (1991–present) 49 romania In Romania, the transition process began with a series of violent protests across the country in December 1989, which culminated with the execution of the communist dictator Nicolae Ceaus¸escu on Christmas night, 1989. During the winter of 1989–90 a new political formation emerged, which called itself the National Salvation Front (NSF). It established itself as the vanguard of the revolution and ruled in Romania until 1996. During this period the government was afflicted by internal dissent as a result of the authoritarian tendencies of the NSF leader Ion Iliescu and domestic unrest caused by both the interethnic tensions with the substantial Hungarian minority located in Transylvania and the social disorder caused by the miners’ uprising during 1991. Another set of problems was associated with the NSF’s wavering foreign policy. After the elections in 1996, however, consecutive governments did away with the uncertainty characterizing the country’s initial transition process. Thus, like Bulgaria, Romania joined NATO on March 29, 2004, and joined the EU on January 1, 2007. albania The post-1991 period in the subregion of the western Balkans was in many respects even more heterogeneous than the one in Bulgaria and Romania. Although all countries in the subregion experienced violent upheavals of one sort or another, they dealt with their effects differently. Albania was the only country from the western Balkans that did not emerge from the dissolution of former Yugoslavia. Yet internal conflict beleaguered its postcommunist development. The period up to the 1992 elections was generally characterized by chaos, which led to an exacerbation of the division between the north and the south of the country, rapid growth of organized crime, and the beginning of large-scale emigration fueled by the economic deterioration. Subsequent governments failed to address these problems, which led to a severe crisis in the country during 1997. It was spurred by the collapse of several financial pyramid schemes, which wiped out the savings of the majority of the Albanian population. During the unrest, military depots were raided and scores of weapons were looted. Order was restored only after the international 50 Balkans (1991–present) Personnel with the NATO-led Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Bosnia collect weapons seized during Operation Harvest. The steel plant melts the weapons and renders them as harmless metal. community dispatched a military force to the country during Operation Alba. Albania did not fully recover from this crisis, and in 2006 continued to be the poorest country in Europe. republic of macedonia The transition of the other countries from the western Balkans was marked by the wars of Yugoslav dissolution. Unlike the other republics of former Yugoslavia, however, Macedonia succeeded to gain its independence peacefully after a referendum on September 8, 1991. The country’s transition, however, was hampered by the embargo on former Yugoslavia imposed by the international community. At the same time the country faced an embargo from Greece, which refused to recognize the country by its constitutional name and continued to refer to it as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Concurrently the existence of the Macedonian nation and language was challenged by Bulgaria. Furthermore the ecumenical independence of the Macedonian Orthodox Church continued to be challenged by the Serbian Orthodox Church. None of these challenges threatened the existence of the Macedonian state as much as the tension caused by the conflict with the substantial Albanian minority in the country. In the wake of the Kosovo conflict the nearly 25 percent of Albanians living in Macedonia demanded greater recognition of their cultural and political rights. This led to violence during 2001. The conflict was settled under pressure from the international community with the signing of the Ohrid Peace Accords in August 2001. As a result of the implementation of these accords the EU recognized Macedonia as a candidate country in December 2005. It became a member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace program in 1995. croatia The beginning of the democratic transition in Croatia is usually dated to the electoral victory of the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) in the first multiparty elections in April 1990. The vote for the HDZ, led by Franjo Tudjman, was also a vote for independence from Yugoslavia. The subsequent Homeland War lasted until 1995 and witnessed the territorial consolidation of the country and the exodus of the Serbian minority, as well as the military involvement of Croatia in the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The authoritarian rule of President Tudjman, which lasted until his death in 1999, was characterized by nepotism, criminal privatization, and subversion of constitutional practices. It was only after the parliamentary and presidential elections in 2000 that Croatia began affiliating itself with European institutions. On May 25, 2000, it became a member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace program. In terms of its relations with the EU, Croatia was the most advanced country from the subregion of the western Balkans. On November 13, 2005, it began its accession negotiations, which were the final stage in gaining membership to the Brussels-based bloc. bosnia-herzegovina The development of Bosnia-Herzegovina after 1991 was marked by war, which ravaged the country until 1995. During this time, over 250,000 people lost their lives and many more were either internally displaced or fled the country altogether. After the signing of the General Framework Agreement for Peace (Dayton Accords) in 1995, Bosnia-Herzegovina became a virtual protectorate of the international community with a rotating presidency between the representatives of the three dominant ethnic groups—Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs. However, decision-making in the country was overseen by a High Representative of the International Community, who could intervene in the domestic affairs of the state and remove elected officials. Bosnia-Herzegovina gradually overcame the division between the three ethnic communities and progressed with the consolidation of its statehood. serbia and montenegro Until the Kosovo crisis of 1999, the political process in Serbia and Montenegro was driven by the extreme nationalism propagated by Slobodan Miloševic´, which fuelled the breakup of Yugoslavia. As a result Serbia and Montenegro were involved in several wars and subjected to international sanctions. Miloševic´’s ouster during the elections of 2000 and his subsequent arrest and transfer to the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia in 2001 seemed to suggest that the country was distancing itself from the policies of the 1990s. However the murder of the reformist Serbian prime minister Zoran Djindjic on March 12, 2003, reflected the continuing legacy of the wars. Montenegro held a referendum on its independence in May 2006 where its citizens voted to become an independent nation. Montenegro declared its independence on June 3, 2006, followed by Serbia’s declaration of independence on June 5, 2006. A further complication was the status of Kosovo, which after the 1999 conflict remained a protectorate of the UN, although still formally a province of Serbia. In 2006 representatives of the international community, the Serbs, and the Kosovar Balkans (1991–present) 51 Albanians conducted talks however, on the status of the province. The talk yielded little progress, as the Kosovo citizens favored independence, which was formally declared in February 2008, despite Serbia’s objectives. Further reading: Andjelic, Neven. Bosnia-Herzegovina: The End of a Legacy. London: Frank Cass, 2003; Bartlett, William. Croatia: Between Europe and the Balkans. London: Routledge, 2003; Dimitrov, Vesselin. Bulgaria: The Uneven Transition. London: Routledge, 2001; Light, Duncan, and David Phinnemore, eds. Post-Communist Romania. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001; Vickers, Miranda, and James Pettifer. Albania: From Anarchy to a Balkan Identity. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Emilian Kavalski


Baltic States (1991–present)Edit

In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev, the newly elected general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, introduced two concepts to his country and its satellite states that would fundamentally change the course of human history: glasnost and perestroika. Glasnost, which literally means “openness,” allowed the citizens of the Soviet Union and its satellite states greater freedom of expression. Perestroika was about restructuring the Soviet economy, shifting from rigid, centralized state planning to a more flexible approach to combat chronic shortages of consumer goods. These two reforms, coupled with struggles between moderate and hard-line Communists within the Politburo, the economic strain of the war in Afghanistan, the renewal of the arms race with the West, and the revolutions that swept through the satellite states in 1989, furthered the calls for secession from the Soviet Union by the three Baltic states: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The desire for independence from the Soviet Union had deep roots, stretching back to their annexation in 1940 per the terms of the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact. The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, signed in August 1939 by Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler, provided for the three Baltic states and the eastern third of Poland to fall under a Soviet sphere of influence in exchange for the Soviet Union’s neutrality upon the German invasion of western Poland. Following the annexations, tens of thousands of Balts were deported from their homelands by Soviet authorities and shipped eastward, a process repeated in the late 1940s. The aim of the wide-sweeping deportations was to remove those most likely to resist Soviet occupation and communism. From the early 1950s until the mid-1980s, protests against Soviet control were limited and brutally crushed by government forces. However the freedom promised by Gorbachev’s reforms led, by 1987, to popular demonstrations in major cities such as Tallinn (Estonia), Riga (Latvia), and Vilnius (Lithuania) against Soviet rule. In 1988, these spurred the establishment of popular nationalist organizations in Estonia (April), Lithuania (June), and Latvia (October). The first official cracks in the forced relationship between the Baltic states and the Soviet Union began to appear in late 1988 when the Estonian Supreme Soviet declared Estonia’s sovereignty. This proclamation was quickly followed by similar declarations by its counterparts in Lithuania and Latvia in May 1989. On August 23, 1989, the Balts demanded independence from Soviet control by forming a continuous human chain of more than 2 million people, 370 miles long, that linked their capital cities. When the Soviet Union responded with force to demonstrations in Vilnius and Riga in January 1991, the response of Baltic citizens was swift and decisive. Between February and March of 1991 all three states held referenda regarding independence. In contrast, referenda held by the Soviets testing the willingness to continue the union were predominantly boycotted by the Baltic population. In August 1991, all three Baltic states officially declared their independence, received external recognition of such, and were admitted by the United Nations as independent nations. On September 6, 1991, in the aftermath of the failed hardline coup attempt to replace Gorbachev in August, the Soviet Union recognized the three Baltic states. Having successfully won their independence, each of the Baltic states then had multiple issues to address: politically, the formation of new governments, the foundation of political parties, and the drafting of constitutions; economically, restoring private property, releasing state control of industrial development and collectivization of farms, transitioning to an independent currency, and securing a solid and independent economic base; and socially, restructuring the school system and curriculum, restoring traditional institutions, including churches, and dealing with issues of citizenship and ethnicity. The Baltic states were more difficult given that they were literally controlled by Moscow. They lacked independent institutions from which they could begin to build. The Estonians officially adopted their new constitution by referendum on June 28, 1992. This was soon 52 Baltic States (1991–present) followed by elections for their parliament, the Riigikogu, in September, which brought a center-right coalition into power, led by the Fatherland Party (Isamaa). Elections for Lithuania’s parliament, the Seimas, occurred in October 1992 and resulted in a majority victory for the Lithuanian Democrat Labor Party. The same month a new Lithuanian constitution, establishing a democratic republic, was adopted by popular referendum and endorsed by the newly elected parliament. Latvians held the first national elections for their parliament, the Saeima, in June of 1993, leading to the victory of the centrist party, Latvia’s Way (Latvijas Cels), at the polls. The question of citizenship for non-Balts continued to be a major point of contention. In 1989 Lithuania had the smallest percentage of Russians among its population at 9.4 percent; therefore it chose a more inclusive approach to citizenship. However Latvia’s Russian minority was 34 percent of its overall population and Estonia’s Russian population made up approximately 30 percent. In November 1991 Estonia was the first Baltic state to establish specific divisions between citizens, as native Estonians and predominantly Russian immigrants who would have to undergo a process of naturalization before they were granted citizenship. Initially, Latvia passed a strict citizenship bill in 1994, establishing a quota of 2,000 maximum naturalizations per year. This quota provision was eliminated. Following freedom from Soviet rule, economic productivity fell dramatically across Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The new governments struggled to transition from state-controlled, command economies to market capitalism. Industrial production in Estonia fell by more than 50 percent in 1992, whereas in Latvia it fell by 33 percent, and in Lithuania by about 40 percent. The vast majority of workers maintained employment, indicating that worker productivity fell sharply as well. Given the backward nature of factories, transportation systems, and communication networks due to the impoverished Soviet system as a whole, the Baltic nations grappled with reforming their economies and developing markets in the West. They were also at a disadvantage in terms of learning basic capitalist business techniques such as marketing, packaging, and design. The Balts needed to retool not only their machinery but their economic mentality as well. Another psychological barrier to embracing capitalism was the longlasting legacy of bitterness toward those who profited and operated on the black market under the communist system. Often those who privatized larger businesses first were the Soviet managers of these plants and factories, continuing their pattern of economic exploitation. Privatization on the smaller scale occurred with less corruption. Within the agricultural sector, the transition from collectivized farms to privatization was extremely difficult. Two additional negative elements were the lack of an adequate supply of farm machinery and the problems generated by a firm commitment to returning lands to those from whom they were taken during the process of collectivization. In addition, during 1992 a severe drought wreaked havoc on both food production and the stability of the livestock population. Disaster was averted only through the infusion of large amounts of Western aid. But the prices of native agricultural products rose sharply, resulting in stronger competition with food imports from the West. This led farmers to lobby their governments to institute protective tariffs for native-grown products, a tactic that would then harm the drive to increase exports of Baltic products to Western markets, which was connected to their desire to be integrated into Western economic entities. Estonia was the first of the three Baltic States to reestablish an independent currency, the kroon, in June of 1992, and it led the charge for economic reform. Latvia soon followed with limited circulation of the lat in March of 1993, and Lithuania unveiled the litas in June of 1993. Although an important symbolic step on the path to complete autonomy, the emergence of independent currencies also emphasized some of the weaknesses within the economic structure. Another source of instability was the lack of hard currency held by the respective governments. This weakness was remedied in part by the restoration of gold reserves by Western nations; these reserves had been sent west in 1940 as the Soviet occupation had begun. By 1993 Estonia and Lithuania gained membership in the Council of Europe; Latvia soon followed suit in 1995. By late 1995 all three had applied to join the European Union; by March 2004 all three had officially joined. Another important means of securing full independence from the Soviet Union was the development of national militaries and the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Baltic soil. These national militaries began as all-volunteer forces and were hampered by a lack of well-trained Balts, given that few Balts had wanted to become officers in the Soviet military. In addition, during the transition period, government funds for training and equipping soldiers and for securing weaponry were scarce. Russian forces withdrew from Lithuania in August 1993; in August 1994 they withdrew from both Latvia and Estonia. All three Baltic states joined NATO in 2004. Baltic States (1991–present) 53 Further reading: Akerman, Ella, and Graeme Herd. “Russian Foreign Policy: The CIS and the Baltic States.” In Russian Politics Under Putin. Cameron Ross, ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004; Juviler, Peter. Freedom’s Ordeal: The Struggle for Human Rights and Democracy in Post-Soviet States. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998; Lieven, Anatol. The Baltic Revolution: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Path to Independence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993; Norgaard, Ole. The Baltic States After Independence. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 1997; Vilpisauakas, Ramunas and Steponaviciene. “The Baltic States: The Economic Dimension.” In Winners and Losers of EU Integration. Helena Tang, ed. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2000. Laura J. Hilton


Banda, HastingsEdit

(1896?–1997) Malawian president Dr. Hastings Banda was a physician and prime minister, founding president, and former dictator of the African country of Malawi. After leading the country’s independence movement against the British, Banda became prime minister in 1963. An authoritarian ruler, Banda became president in 1966 and president for life in 1971. In 1994 Banda authorized democratic elections. He was defeated. Banda died in a South African hospital in 1997; he was rumored to have been 101 years old. The name “Malawi” was given to the country formerly named Nyasaland by Dr. Banda. Having read a French map that called the dominating lake of the country “Lake Maravi,” Banda decided he liked the sound and appearance of the name and chose a similar name. Because of tribal migrations, several tribes make Malawi their home. The Tumbuka from the Congo and the Chewa from Zambia moved into Malawi during the 14th through the 16th centuries and remain there today. The Bantu peoples flourished in Malawi during the 18th century and the Yao moved into southern Malawi in the 19th century. It is thought that the Yao used firearms taken from Arabian traders to capture weaker tribes for the growing slave trade. Although slave trading had existed in Africa for centuries, the international transatlantic slave trade drastically increased the practice. The first Europeans in Malawi were Portuguese explorers, but the most famous explorer was the British Dr. David Livingstone in 1846. Dr. Livingstone would return to Malawi twice more to help establish trade routes and mission sites before his death in 1873. Livingstone’s Malawian legacy was the increased trade and missionary presence in Malawi, which eventually became a trade center. During the late 19th century, Malawi became a British protectorate. During the next few decades, the British government officials in Malawi battled slave traders, oversaw the growth of European settlers, constructed a postal system, and built a railway line. Local Malawian peoples were dissatisfied under the British colonial system and in 1915, the Reverend John Chilembwe led a violent uprising against European settlers living on formerly Malawian farmlands. By 1944 the growing elite consisting of Europeans, Americans, and Africans organized the Nyasaland African Congress in order to protect their new holdings. Britain joined the Central African Federation, a whitedominated organization, in 1953. When he was young, Hastings Banda left Malawi for Rhodesia and South Africa. The son of peasants, Banda went to work in the South African gold mines and by 1925 had enough money to head to America for college. He studied on a scholarship at the Wilberforce Institute in Ohio and then went to the University of Chicago. After graduation, Banda went to Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee. Although he graduated in 1937, Banda was required to earn a second medical degree in order to practice medicine in the British Empire. In 1941 he graduated from the School of Medicine of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of the University of Edinburgh. After World War II, Banda established his medical practice in Scotland and London. His office soon became a meeting place for exiled African leaders. However, in 1953 Dr. Banda chose to return to Africa, establishing a medical practice in Ghana. By 1958, Banda had returned to Malawi to campaign against the Central African Federation. In 1959 he spent time in prison for his political activities but was released in April 1960. In 1963, Banda and his Malawi Congress Party won the elections in a landslide victory. Dr. Hastings Banda became the prime minister on February 1, 1963. The British still controlled all of Malawi’s financial, security, and judicial systems. In May 1963 a new constitution took effect, winning Malawi its independence from Britain. In 1966 Malawi became a republic with Banda as its president. Banda became increasingly autocratic, making himself president for life in 1971. Opponents were jailed, sent into exile, or killed. The foreign 54 Banda, Hastings press was barred from entering the country. In addition to gaining almost total control of Malawi’s economics, Banda also made economic trade ties with South Africa. During apartheid in South Africa, Malawi was the country’s only African public trade partner. Following rioting and the suspension of Western aid in 1992, Banda had no choice but to abandon the idea of one-party rule and even his life presidency in 1993. Open democratic elections were held in 1994, and Bakili Muluzi easily defeated Banda. Calculations report Banda accumulated over $320 million in personal assets during his rule. Another calculation reports that during his rule, over 250,000 people went missing or were murdered in connection with the government. Further reading: Baker, Colin A. State of Emergency: Crisis in Central Africa, Nyasaland 1959–1960. New York: Tauris Academic Studies, 1997; Lwanda, John Lloyd. Kamuzu Banda of Malawi: A Study in Promise, Power, and Paralysis. Glasgow: Dudu Nsomba Publications, 1995; Short, Philip. Banda. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1974; Williams, T. David. Malawi, The Politics of Despair. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978. Melissa Benne


Bandung ConferenceEdit

(Asian-African Conference) The Bandung Conference, or Asian-African Conference, attended by 29 primarily newly independent nations, was held in 1955. The Indonesian leader Ahmed Sukarno hosted the conference of so-called Third World nations, most of which had become independent after World War II and were generally poor, agricultural, and economically underdeveloped. They represented over half the world’s population. India’s leader Jawaharlal Nehru played a key role in the conference that adopted his principles of opposing imperialism and focusing on the development of local economies rather than reliance on either the Western world led by the United States or the Soviet bloc dominated by the Soviet Union. Participants of the conference also raised issues of race, religion, and world peace. Most were, however, authoritarian in their political orientations. The Chinese prime minister, Zhou Enlai (Chou En-lai), was another key spokesperson at the conference. Aware of the different political and economic approaches of the participants, Zhou wisely did not push an aggressive communist program and succeeded in establishing ties with other Asian and African leaders. Other leaders at the conference included Kwame Nkrumah, prime minister of the Gold Coast (Ghana); Ho Chi Minh, the North Vietnamese prime minister; and President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt. The nations of North Africa also attended and condemned French imperialism. Nasser spoke about the role of Pan-Arabism and Pan-Africanism as well as the cause of Palestinian self-determination. Nasser, Nehru, and President Tito of Yugoslavia subsequently became personal friends and exchanged state visits with one another. Many of the participants of the Bandung Conference became leaders of the Nonaligned Movement in the early 1960s. The Nonaligned Movement sought to steer a middle or neutral course between the United States and the Soviet Union in the cold war. Neither superpower endorsed the Nonaligned Movement, although the United States tended to be more hostile to the neutralism of nations seeking to maximize their own benefits rather than adopting policies that mirrored that of either superpower. Many leaders of African and Asian nations attended a conference in both Bandung and Jakarta marking the 50th anniversary of the conference in 2005. See also Third World/Global South. Further reading: Adjibolosoo, Senya B. S. K., and Benjamin Ofori-Amoah, eds. Addressing Misconceptions About Africa’s Development: Seeing Beyond the Veil. New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1998; Wright, Richard. The Color Curtains. Oxford: University of Mississippi, 1994. 1st ed., 1956. Janice J. Terry


Bangladesh, People’s Republic ofEdit

Bangladesh—officially known as the People’s Republic of Bangladesh—is a country of 55,598 square miles in South Asia. Bangladesh translates as the “Country of Bengal.” Geographically Bangladesh shares a small border with Myanmar in the southeast, and the rest is surrounded by India except for the Bay of Bengal to the south. Bangladesh, whose capital is Dhaka, had an estimated 2005 population of over 141,800,000. Officially the government is a parliamentary republic that declared independence from Pakistan on March 26, 1971. (The total population of Bangladesh recently ranked eighth in the world but the land area 94th. Hence the Bangladesh, People’s Republic of 55 population density ranks near the top of all countries in the world. Its climate is marked by frequent monsoons and cyclones.) The partition of India in 1947 resulted in the division of Bengal according to religion. The western section of Bengal went to India and the eastern to Pakistan as a province that would become East Pakistan. During the 1960s, East Pakistan began to push for autonomy. A 1970 cyclone, according to many experts, may have acted as a tipping point in the push for an independent East Pakistan. Many charged that the central government responded poorly to the disaster. Unrest spread when the Awami League and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman won a majority in parliamentary elections but were not permitted to take office. These events led to the Bengali Liberation War that lasted for nine months. Support from Indian armed forces in December of 1971 led to independence and the establishment of Bangladesh. Politically Bangladesh has two major parties—the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the Bangladesh Awami League. The BNP gains support from a number of radical Islamic parties including Jamaat-e- Islami Bangladesh and Islami Oikya Jot. The rivalry between the BNP and the Awami League has often led to protests and violence. Students are quite active in politics and reflect the historical legacy of liberation politics. In February of 2005 two Islamic parties— Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB) and Jama’atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB)—were banned after a series of terrorist attacks and bombings. Bangladesh is located on the Ganges Delta. Most of Bangladesh is no more than 10 meters above sea level. Therefore some scientists suggest that a rise of the water only one meter above sea level would flood approximately 10 percent of the land in the country. The country is underdeveloped and overpopulated, with recent per capita income of only approximately $440. World Bank reports, however, have praised Bangladesh for progress in literacy, gains in education, and the reduction of population growth. Between 1990 and 1996 the economy grew at an annual rate of 5 percent. Its economic development is stymied by cyclones and floods, inefficient state enterprises, lack of power as well as corruption, and a rapidly growing population. See also Gandhi, Indira. Further reading: Baujyan, Md. Abdul Wadud. Emergence of Bangladesh and Role of Awami League. New Delhi: Vikas, 1982; Baxter, C. Bangladesh, From Nation to a State. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997; Franda, Marcus. Bangladesh: The First Decade. New Delhi: South Asian Publishers, 1982; O’Donnell, Charles Peter. Bangladesh: Biography of a Muslim Nation. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1984; Session, Richard, and Leo E. Rose. War and Secession: Pakistan, India, and the Creation of Bangladesh. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990. Matthew H. Wahlert


Bay of PigsEdit

In April 1961 putting into effect a plan initially formulated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) under the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration, U.S. President John F. Kennedy authorized the Bay of Pigs invasion to topple Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro. The plan was for a U.S.-trained and equipped force of Cuban exiles to invade Playa Girón in the Bahía de Cochinos (Bay of Pigs) on the south coast and spark a popular uprising against Castro, which would overthrow his regime and end Cuba’s Communist experiment. Ill-conceived from its inception, and plagued by mishaps and missteps, the invasion failed, becoming a major foreign policy embarrassment for Kennedy and solidifying popular support for Castro within Cuba. A few months later, Cuban revolutionary leader Che Guevara thanked a Kennedy aide for the invasion, which Guevara claimed “enabled [us] to consolidate” the revolution and “transformed [us] from an aggrieved little country to an equal.” The Bay of Pigs fiasco also had major repercussions for the cold war, helping to precipitate the Cuban missile crisis, convincing the Kremlin that Kennedy was weak and indecisive, and steeling Kennedy’s resolve to stand up to the perceived menace of global communism. Operational planning for the invasion began in March 1960, headed by Vice President Richard Nixon. This was in the wake of the successful CIAsponsored incursions into Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954), which resulted in the installation of governments friendly to the United States. The CIA secretly recruited a Cuban exile force of some 1,000 men, called Brigade 2506, which underwent training in south Florida and Guatemala. The original landing site near Trinidad, Cuba, was later changed to the Bay of Pigs. Operations began on April 15 with a failed effort to destroy the Cuban Revolutionary Air Force. Two days later, four privately chartered ships transported 1,511 Cuban exiles to the Bay of Pigs, accompanied by CIA-owned landing crafts carrying supplies. Fighting was fierce and lasted for four days (April 17–21). Casualties are estimated at 2,000 to 5,000 56 Bay of Pigs Cubans and 200–300 invading exiles. Kennedy refused to send in air support or the marines, fearing the consequences of clear evidence of direct U.S. involvement. The Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces soon killed or captured most of the invading force. Soon afterward, 1,209 captive exiles were put on trial. Around 20 were executed or otherwise killed, the remainder being released within two years in exchange for $53 million in medicine and food. The botched invasion was a major blow to the Kennedy administration and gave a major boost to Castro at home and abroad. Kennedy’s vacillating leadership during the Bay of Pigs prompted Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to challenge the U.S. administration more directly by placing nuclear-armed missiles in Cuba, leading to the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. Until his assassination in November 1963, Kennedy endeavored to demonstrate his strength in confronting the Soviet Union and its allies in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, a foreign policy stance attributable in large part to the Bay of Pigs debacle. Further reading: Goodwin, Richard. “Memorandum for the President, Conversation with Commandante Ernesto Che Guevara.” August 22, 1961, The National Security Archive, http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/bayofpigs/ (accessed January 19, 2007); Kornbluh, Peter, ed. Bay of Pigs Declassified: The Secret CIA Report on the Invasion of Cuba. New York: The New Press, 1998; Wyden, Peter. Bay of Pigs: The Untold Story. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1979. Michael J. Schroeder


Beat movementEdit

Every generation has its own avant-garde movement, and the Beats were the avant-garde of the 1950s in the United States, providing an acerbic critique of what they believed was a bland, conformist, and frivolous society. The writers associated with the movement had a disproportionate influence for their numbers. They worked outside traditional creative forms and behavior, placing immense value on personal freedom and spontaneity and viewing themselves as poets in a philistine nation. They used their immediate raw experience—sometimes drug fueled—as the basis for their writing, and used patterns of plain American speech but also adopted the rhythms of progressive jazz and bebop. The movement began in 1945, when Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg, students at Columbia University, met William S. Burroughs in New York City. The movement got its name from an article that John Clellon Brown, a novelist of the movement, wrote for the New York Times in 1952. In the article Brown talked of a “new vision” invented from the everyday surroundings of the writers that sustained their “perfect craving to believe” in the U.S. promise of freedom in the tense cold war years. The movement made headlines in 1956 when Lawrence Ferlinghetti, a poet and the proprietor of San Francisco’s City Lights Bookstore, published Ginsberg’s Howl and Other Poems, which was promptly seized by a customs agent and became the basis for an obscenity trial. Howl would sell 100,000 copies in the next 10 years. The same year, Kerouac’s On the Road, written in 1951 on teletype paper as a single 120-footlong paragraph, became a best seller. Burroughs published Naked Lunch in 1960. It had been impounded when published in serial form, but was declared not obscene a year later. The Beat writers were not taken seriously by many outside observers. Critics in the print media—and there were many—called the group “beatniks,” a term created by San Francisco columnist Herb Caen, suggesting an unsavory connection to the Soviet Union’s shocking 1957 launch of Sputnik. Mainstream media portrayed them as hipsters and slackers: the men wearing goatees and sunglasses and carrying a book of poetry, the women with long straight hair and heavy eye makeup. Although the principal figures of the movement had scattered by the early 1960s, Beat remained a fully realized subculture in urban areas like Greenwich Village and the Venice District of Los Angeles. In San Francisco, the Beat movement had left its haunts in North Beach and relocated to a multiracial working-class neighborhood farther west, called Haight-Ashbury, leading commentators to believe that the Beat ethos was responsible for the “hippie” movement of the late 1960s. The Beat movement did inform the politics of the New Left to a degree, and it can be credited with creating the atmosphere of freedom of expression in which the protest movements of the 1960s developed. Further reading: Tytell, John. Naked Angels: Kerouac, Ginsberg, Burroughs. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991; Watson, Steven. The Birth of the Beat Generation: Visionaries, Rebels and Hipsters, 1944–1960. New York: Pantheon Books, 1995. David Miller Parker Beat movement 57


Berlin blockade/airliftEdit

The Berlin blockade was a diplomatic crisis and military operation during the cold war precipitated by the Soviet Union’s blockade of the city of Berlin from June 18, 1948, to May 12, 1949, and the subsequent relief effort launched by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France to provide provisions for the western half of the city. The Berlin blockade was one of the first major diplomatic crises of the cold war. The Western Allies’ ability to provide for the city proved to be a major diplomatic victory and ensured the creation of a pro-Western West German state. However, it also ensured the division of Germany and Berlin for the next four decades. The diplomatic struggle over Berlin in 1948–49 had its origins in the final months of World War II and the agreements made among the Allied powers over the division of postwar Germany. Germany’s capital, Berlin, although deep within the proposed Soviet zone, would also be divided into four sectors of occupation. Although each power would be given sole control of its respective zone, an Allied Control Council based in Berlin would be assembled to coordinate and plan policy for all of Germany. These plans were made under the assumption that the occupation of Germany would be temporary and that Germany would be reunified relatively soon after the war’s end. Critically, the agreements were also made under the assumption of continued inter-Allied cooperation. Within days of Nazi Germany’s defeat, the Soviets undertook efforts to ensure the dominance of sympathetic German communists in their zone, especially in Berlin, which the Soviets claimed was an integral part of their zone. Their overall aim was the reunification of a pro-communist German state, a goal that placed it at odds with the Western Allies. In 1946 the Soviet Union sponsored the forced merger of the German Communist Party and the Social Democrats (SPD) of its zone into the Socialist Unity Party (SED). Censorship of the press was instituted and members of noncommunist parties were frequently arrested in the Soviet zone. In Berlin agitators working for the SED frequently disrupted the meetings of the democratically elected city council. In 1946 the election of the Social Democrat Ernst Reuter to the office of lord mayor of Berlin was vetoed by the Soviets. However, the Soviets were unable to gain control of Berlin outside their zone or the rest of Germany. Over the course of the next three years, hopes of inter-Allied cooperation quickly faded as it became increasingly apparent that neither the Soviets nor the Western Allies would come to an agreement on either a postwar settlement or reunifying Germany. In 1947 the British and the United States united their two zones to create the Bizone, or Bizonia. Although it was created as an economic union, the Bizone would eventually form the nucleus of what was to become West Germany. In the spring of 1948—the three Western Allies—along with Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg— assembled at the London Conference to plan for the future of the three west German zones. In 1948 with reunification unlikely, the British and the Americans made moves to sponsor the creation of a Western-oriented German state in their zones. Together with the French they created the deutsche mark to replace the inflated reichsmark. This currency reform took effect in the three western zones and the three western sectors of Berlin. The Soviets argued that this violated postwar agreements made at the Potsdam Conference and their rights to all of Berlin. They subsequently ordered a blockade of all rail, road, and barge traffic into and out of the three western sectors of Berlin. The Soviets’ aim was to halt the creation of a West German state and force the Western Allies out of Berlin. It became apparent to the Allied powers that any compromise or appearance of backing down before Soviet intimidation would be diplomatically disastrous. Although several U.S. generals argued that Berlin was not strategically important enough to risk a confrontation and pressed for withdrawal, President Harry S. Truman and Secretary of State George C. Marshall felt that Berlin was critical to maintaining a strong front against the spread of communism. The Western Allies affirmed their support for their respective sectors in Berlin. However, there were few actions that they could take. With only 15,000 Allied troops in West Berlin, a fight was not possible. General Clay advocated using an armed convoy to break the blockade. But both the U.S. State Department and the Pentagon saw this as both too risky and unworkable. The option of an airlift became increasingly attractive, as it would demonstrate Allied determination to remain in Berlin and provide it with much-needed provisions and supplies. Also, whereas the rights for land access to Berlin were left undefined, the Western Allies and the Soviets had concluded an agreement guaranteeing access by air. Thus the likelihood of war resulting from an airlift was much smaller than if the Allies were to force the blockade. Between June 1948 and May 1949 almost all the provisions for the western zones of Berlin were shipped 58 Berlin blockade/airlift in by air, using aircraft such as the C-47 Dakota and C-54 Skymaster. The operation was given the code name “Vittles” and was commanded by General William H. Tunner. Tunner, who had experience transporting goods over the Himalayas during World War II, organized an extremely complex operation. During the summer months the airlift was able to provide only between 3,000 and 4,000 tons of goods a day. By the onset of winter, Vittles was providing between 5,000 and 6,000 tons a day. The Allies were also blessed by a winter marked by frequently clear skies. During the spring of 1949 an aircraft landed at one of the three airports in the western zone once every two minutes. The citizens of Berlin greatly appreciated the Allied efforts and many West Berliners aided in distributing supplies throughout the city. Children called the planes Rosinenbombers (“Raisin Bombers”), and the name became a popular appellation for the aircraft throughout the city. Ernst Reuter, unofficially mayor of the western sectors and spokesman for the western half of the city, made great efforts to improve morale and win world sympathy for the city. What supplies the airlift could not provide were often found on the black market in the east and through legal East-West trade. By the spring of 1949 it had become apparent that the western sectors could be sustained with the necessary provisions, so long as the Soviet military did not interfere. However, it had come at a cost: 31 Americans, 40 Britons, and 5 Germans lost their lives to airrelated accidents during the course of the airlift. On May 12, the Soviets, aware they would neither force the Western Allies to back down on the issue of currency reform nor end their support for a West German state, ended the blockade. Fearful that the Soviets might try to renew the blockade, the Allies continued airlifting provisions into September of 1949. The blockade was a disastrous diplomatic defeat for the Soviet Union. In the short-term it had failed to accomplish its two primary goals: to prevent the creation of a pro-Western German state and to expel the Allies from Berlin. The French, who had initially opposed the creation of a western Germany, joined their zone to the Bizone in 1949. That same year, both the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic were proclaimed. Berlin blockade/airlift 59 The “Last Vittles” flight left Rhein Main Air Base on September 30, 1949, as sister planes of the airlift flew overhead in formation, marking the end of a dramatic chapter in air history, the Berlin airlift. The chief long-term effect was the prolonged division of Germany. The Western Allies had confronted the Soviets and had maintained their commitments without having to resort to armed action. The blockade also proved damaging to world opinion of the Soviet Union. Berlin, long perceived as a bastion of German-Prussian militarism, had been transformed into a symbol of freedom. The allied presence in Berlin would be the source of almost constant difficulty for the East German state, as it provided an enclave of Western liberalism and economic prosperity that was a constant source of enticement for the citizens of the communist state. West Berlin would be a popular destination for East German emigrants over the course of the next decade, their massive flight from the east stopped only by the erection of the Berlin Wall in 1961. See also cold war. Further reading: Eisenberg, Carolyn. Drawing the Line: The American Decision to Divide Germany, 1944–1949. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996; Gaddis, John Lewis. The Cold War: A New History. New York: Penguin Press, 2005; Haydock, Michael. City Under Siege: The Berlin Blockade and Airlift, 1948–1949. Washington, D.C.: Brassey’s, 1999; Large, David Clay. Berlin. Berlin: Basic Books, 2000; Parrish, Thomas. Berlin in the Balance, 1945–1949: The Blockade, Airlift, the First Major Battle of the Cold War. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1999; Trachtenberg, Marc. A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945–1963. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999. Nicholas J. Schlosser


Betancourt, RómuloEdit

(1908–1981) Venezuelan president One of the leading figures of 20th-century Venezuelan history, Rómulo Betancourt is generally credited with playing a pivotal role in helping to establish viable and sustainable democratic institutions in Venezuela that endured from his second presidency (1959–64) to the 2000s. A moderate social reformer and forerunner of latter-day Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez in his advocacy of populist social democracy focusing on the needs of the poor, Betancourt founded the political party Democratic Action (Acción Democrática, AD) in 1941, which would play a major role in subsequent Venezuelan political life. Threading a difficult line between the far Left, the far Right, and the omnipresent specter of U.S. intromission in this oil-rich country, Betancourt contributed in enduring ways to the institutionalization of Venezuelan democracy. Born in the town of Guatire in the state of Miranda to a family of modest means, he starting working at 14 years of age to put himself through high school, college, and law school. In 1928 he participated in student protests against the dictatorship of Juan Vicente Gómez, events marking him as a leading member of the “Generation of 28” dedicated to democratization and social reform. After being jailed by the Gómez regime he went into exile and became active in various leftist political groups, including the Communist Party of Costa Rica. At age 23 he penned the Plan of Barranquilla, a Marxist-inspired document outlining his vision of his homeland’s political future. After Gómez’s death in 1936, he returned clandestinely to Venezuela and became engaged in political activity against the military regime. In 1940 he went into exile in Chile, where he published Venezuelan Problems (Problemas Venezolanos). A year later he returned to Venezuela and founded AD, gathering around him a team committed to reform that formed the nucleus of the party and skillfully using the press and other media to disseminate his ideas. On October 19, 1945, a coalition of AD reformers and disgruntled army officers overthrew the military regime and installed Betancourt as president of a provisional government. During his first presidency (1945– 48), Betancourt’s government instituted a wide range of political, economic, and social reforms, including universal suffrage; mechanisms for free and fair elections; an accord with foreign oil companies that guaranteed a reasonable profit, decent wages, and ensured labor peace; agrarian reform; expansion of public education and public health facilities; and related initiatives. Declining to run for a second successive term, in 1948 he transferred power to his successor, the novelist and activist Rómulo Gallegos. Later that year, in December, the military in collusion with conservative elements overthrew the Gallegos government, ruling Venezuela for the next 10 years under General Marcos Pérez Jiménez. In 1958 a resurgent coalition of reformers and army officers overthrew the Jiménez regime, installing a democratic AD-dominated government, with Betancourt again as president, which broadened and deepened the reforms of the 1940s. Since 1958 Venezuela has been ruled by a succession of democratically elected governments. Surviving an assassination attempt 60 Betancourt, Rómulo by Dominican dictator Rafael Trujillo in 1960, and promulgating the Betancourt Doctrine that denied diplomatic recognition to regimes coming to power by military force, Betancourt died on September 28, 1981, in Doctor’s Hospital in New York City. Further reading: Alexander, Robert Jackson. Rómulo Betancourt and the Transformation of Venezuela. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1982; Coronil, Fernando. The Magical State: Nature, Money, and Modernity in Venezuela. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. Michael J. Schroeder


Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)Edit

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is a nationalist party of India. It grew out of a Hindu nationalist organization, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS, National Volunteer Organization), which was founded in 1925 by K. B. Hedgewar as a reaction to Muslim fundamentalism. That organization was dedicated to propagating orthodox Hindu religious practices and building Hindu unity. In 1947 upon independence the Indian subcontinent was divided into two separate states, India and Pakistan. Although most Muslims remained in Pakistan and most Hindus stayed in India, some Muslims lived in India while some Hindus continued living in Pakistan. This situation, along with a territorial dispute over the Kashmir region, created tensions between the two nations. In 1951 Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS)—a political wing of RSS that grew during the 1950s and 1960s— was established. In 1971 East Pakistan seceded and created a new nation, Bangladesh. The BJS supported the movement for the creation of Bangladesh. In 1977 the BJS joined the Janata Party, a coalition of opposition parties that defeated Indira Gandhi and the Congress Party in parliamentary elections and formed a government that lasted through the end of 1979, when Gandhi returned to the government. In 1980 BJS was renamed and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was born. The principles of the BJP are inspired by Hindu nationalism and the main objectives are to build up India as a strong, unified, and prosperous nation. In 1984 the BJP separated from the RSS; it became the main opposition to the Congress Party. In the 1991 elections the BJP became an effective opposition party winning so many seats that the Congress Party had to govern with a coalition. In 1996 the BJP emerged as the largest party in Parliament. When parliamentary elections were held in 1998, again the BJP and some opposition parties won the largest number of seats and formed a government. This government lasted only one year but during that time the administration fulfilled an electoral promise and carried out the country’s first nuclear tests, making India a nuclear power. As a consequence, Pakistan also conducted nuclear tests, making both countries nuclear. The BJP administration faced a new conflict with Pakistan whose soldiers had occupied ground on the Indian side of the line of control demarcated by the United Nations in Kashmir. However, peace was restored in 2001. Under the BJP government, India’s economy became decentralized and market-oriented with privatizations of government corporations, increasing foreign investment, and the liberalization of trade under World Trade Organization rules. There was improvement in infrastructure and production and the middle class grew. However, there was little improvement for the rural and poor classes. In February 2002 a series of violent incidents in Gujarat State discredited the BJP government. Many activists and members of the BJP were accused of leading the violence against the Muslim minority in that state. In the 2004 elections the Congress Party coalition won the elections and the BJP became the opposition party. Further reading: Blank, Jonah. “Kashmir: Fundamentalism Takes Root.” Foreign Affairs (November–December 1999); Chhibber, Pradeep K. Democracy Without Associations: Transformation of the Party System and Social Cleavages in India. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001; Sil, Rudra. “India.” Part one, chapter 8 in Comparative Politics, Interest, Identities and Institutions in a Changing Global Order. J. Kopstein and M. Lichbach, eds. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Verónica M. Ziliotto


Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX)Edit

(1927– ) Thai king Bhumibol Adulyadej, Rama IX of the Chakri dynasty, is the reigning king of Thailand and the longestruling monarch in the world. His bespectacled visage is Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX) 61 a familiar sight in Thailand, where photographs of the king and his queen consort, Sirikit, adorn the walls of many homes. Political developments ended absolute monarchy in Thailand in 1932, and Bhumibol’s uncle King Pradjadhipok abdicated three years later, elevating 10-yearold Ananda Mahidol to the throne. On June 9, 1946, the 21-one-year-old King Ananda was found in the royal chamber dead of a gunshot wound. Three palace aides were eventually executed for their involvement. Bhumibol Adulyadej, still a minor, ascended to the throne the next day but returned to Switzerland to continue his education. In 1950 Bhumibol returned temporarily for his wedding and official coronation. He married his fiancée, the 17-year-old M. R. Sirikit Kityakara, whom he had met in Paris while her father was the Thai ambassador to France. The royal couple returned to take up permanent residence in Thailand in 1951. Between 1951 and 1957, King Bhumibol and the royal household found themselves subject to a “royal containment” policy. The government, headed by the antiroyalist prime minister Phibun and dominated by the military, vigorously circumscribed the influence of the monarch, restricting him primarily to a symbolic role in traditional and religious ceremonies. The situation changed in 1957 when a rival military faction, led by Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, worked with a royalist faction to topple the Phibun government. Sarit and his coconspirators apparently had sought an audience with the king to inform him of their plans. In turn, King Bhumibol designated Sarit the military protector of Bangkok during the period of upheaval. This marked the beginning of a partnership between Sarit and the king. Field Marshal Sarit and the king enjoyed a cordial working relationship. Sarit, who appreciated the value of promoting King Bhumibol both as a rallying point in Thai political life and as an antidote to communist influence, astutely included the monarch as a junior partner in governance. Consequently, King Bhumibol’s role in Thailand became increasingly visible and influential. He and Queen Sirikit toured the country, visited foreign nations, and in general became prominent symbols of Thailand. His popularity in the country remains unquestioned. Even though the king is generally above politics, he has used his stature to intervene in political crises. In 1992 a political crisis brewed when demonstrators protested the appointment as prime minister a leader of the military coup that had ousted a democratically elected government the previous year. The king intervened, mediating a peaceful resolution to the crisis. King Bhumibol’s popularity in the country is also the result of his and the royal family’s efforts to improve the livelihood of ordinary Thai citizens. The king and other members of his family have been closely involved with agricultural, environmental, and social welfare projects that have endeared them to the populace. Further reading: Baker, Chris, and Pasuk Phongpaichit. A History of Thailand. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005; Horn, Robert. “A Royal Dressing Down.” Time (158, no. 25); Stockwell, Tony. “Thailand’s Modernising Monarchs.” History Today 50, no. 7 (July 2000); Suwannathat- Pian, Kobkua. Kings, Country and Constitutions: Thailand’s Political Development, 1932–2000. London: Routledge Curzon, 2003. Soo Chun Lu


Bhutto, BenazirEdit

(1953–2007 ) Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto was the first female to lead a modern Muslim country; she was prime minister of Pakistan from December 1988 to August 1990 and again from October 1993 to November 1996. Bhutto’s father was Zulfikar Bhutto, who founded the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). Benazir Bhutto was born on June 21, 1953, in Karachi, Pakistan. She attended Harvard’s Radcliffe College starting in 1969 and graduated, cum laude, in 1973. She then attended Lady Margaret Hall at Oxford University, where she studied politics, philosophy, and economics until 1977. She was elected president of the Oxford Union and became the first Asian woman to lead their debating society. She returned to Pakistan in 1977. Shortly after her return to Pakistan, a military coup led by General Zia overthrew her father’s government, imprisoned him, and hanged him two years later. Over the next seven years, until her exile in 1984, she was imprisoned several times because of her opposition to Zia. In January 1984 she went into exile in London. From there she worked to build the PPP’s strength and in January 1986, after martial law was lifted, she returned. Because Pakistan is a Muslim country, she decided that she needed to be married and arranged a marriage to Asif Ali Zardari in December 1987. 62 Bhutto, Benazir With Zia’s death in August 1988, elections were held and Bhutto ran for prime minister. The PPP was unable to win a majority of the seats in parliament, but did put together a coalition government with Bhutto as the prime minister. Bhutto and the PPP worked to improve the conditions of the poor of Pakistan as well as to improve social justice in the country. She also believed in a free economy and private control of business. She worked to improve human rights in Pakistan. Throughout Bhutto’s term, the opposition tried to get her removed from office. Their attempts had been unsuccessful until 1990 when violence broke out in several cities in Pakistan. This violence, along with support from the military, gave the Pakistani president the excuse he needed to dismiss the government. Thus on August 6, 1990, Bhutto was removed from office and charged with corruption, nepotism, and misuse of her office. In elections in October the PPP lost all but a few of the seats it held in parliament. Bhutto spent the next several years improving her reputation. The government that replaced her coalition proved unable to deal with the problems of Pakistan and new elections were held in 1993. The PPP, while holding a large number of seats, did not have a majority. When a PPP candidate was elected president, it appeared that the government would be stable. However, corruption and criminal activity by politicians continued to be a problem. She was dismissed as prime minister in 1996 and went into exile. Bhutto vowed she would triumph in new elections scheduled for February 1997, but she lost to Nawaz Sharif, whom she had replaced in 1993. In January 1998 corruption charges against Bhutto and her husband widened. Bhutto denied the charges and said they were politically motivated, but during her five years in office, Pakistan’s treasury was drained, and she was unable to deliver the programs she had promised. In spite of the charges, Bhutto maintained her position as leader of Pakistan’s major opposition party, the PPP. In 1999, Bhutto fled Pakistan to avoid corruption charges, and she was convicted in absentia by a Pakistani court. In October of that year, Sharif lost power when General Pervez Musharraf took over the country in a military coup. Bhutto returned to Pakistan in 2007 after President Musharrarf granted her and others amnesty from corruption charges. She was assassinated shortly after. Further reading: Akhund, Iqbal. Trial and Error: The Advent and Eclipse of Benazir Bhutto. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2000; Fredriksen, John C. Biographical Dictionary of Modern World Leaders: 1992 to Present. New York: Facts On File, 2003; Haqqani, Husain. Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005. Dallace W. Unger, Jr.


Bhutto, ZulfikarEdit

(1928–1979) Pakistani leader Zulfikar Bhutto, one of the prominent leaders of Pakistani politics and founder of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) was born on January 5, 1928, in Larkna, Sind. He was the son of Sir Shah Nawaz Bhutto, a wealthy landowner. Bhutto was close to President Muhammad Ayub Khan (1907–74) and held the important portfolio of foreign affairs. He was an excellent orator and represented Pakistan in various world capitals and the United Nations with conviction. He left the company Bhutto, Zulfikar 63 Zulfikar Bhutto was one of the prominent leaders of Pakistani politics and founder of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). of Ayub after the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 and formed the PPP on November 2, 1967, in Lahore. The PPP catered to the needs of diverse constituencies in Pakistan, attracting people from various walks of life. In the political turmoil of the last days of Ayub, Bhutto and his PPP tried to oust Ayub. General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, the successor of Ayub, ordered the elections based on adult franchise on December 7, 1970. With the slogan “Food, Shelter and Clothing,” the PPP emerged victorious in west Pakistan, whereas the Awami League of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman gained an absolute majority in the whole of Pakistan. The PPP prevailed upon Yahya Khan in not allowing Mujibur to form a government. Bhutto called the National Assembly to prepare the third constitution for Pakistan. It became operative on August 12, 1973. The parliamentary system was adopted and the prime minister became the most powerful official. He was also the commander in chief of the armed forces. Comparative stability entered the politics of Pakistan. Pakistan also recognized the independence of Bangladesh in the first amendment of the constitution. Bhutto carried out reforms in industry, agriculture, and the civil services, and ordered the nationalization of banks along with rice, flour, and cotton mills. Bhutto had a fair amount of success in international relations. He tried his best to revive the image of Pakistan after its humiliation due to the secession of East Pakistan. He cemented the country’s relations with other Islamic countries. Under him both India and Pakistan recognized the Line of Control (LOC) that had been established after their war of 1971 and agreed to refrain from the use of force against each other. Pakistan gained back the territory lost in the war. The accords prevented any major conflagration between the two until 1999. Bhutto announced in January 1977 that elections were to be held for the National Assembly two months later. The PPP emerged victorious with 155 seats and the combined opposition; the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) secured only 36 seats. The PNA then launched a mass movement against Bhutto, claiming that the elections were rigged. Bhutto was arrested and released a month later. In September, he was arrested on charges of authorizing the murder of an opponent three years previously. He was found guilty of murder and he was hanged on April 4, 1979. The PPP again came to power in 1988 with Benazir Bhutto the daughter of Zulfikar Bhutto, becoming prime minister. Further reading: Akhund, Iqbal. Trial and Error. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2000; Blood, R. Peter, ed. Pakistan: A Country Study. Washington, DC: Area Handbook Series, 1995; Mukerjee, Dilip. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto: Quest for Power. Dehi: Vikas, 1972; Raza, Rafi. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Pakistan, 1967–1977. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1997; Raza, Rafi, ed. Pakistan in Perspective, 1947–1977. Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1997; Syed, Anwar H. The Discourse and Politics of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992. Patit Paban Mishra


Biafran War (1967–1970)Edit

The Biafran War, also known as the Nigerian Civil War, was a political conflict waged from July 6, 1967, to January 13, 1970. It was a war rooted in ethnic conflicts between three main tribes in the country: the Igbo in the southeast, the Yoruba in the west, and the Hausa/Fulani in the north. The war came about as a result of events that followed the independence of Nigeria in 1963. In 1964 elections were held, which were afterward condemned by non-northern Nigerians as fraudulent. In January 1966 a coup d’état was staged by mostly Igbo officers that put Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi in power at the head of a government that gave more favor to Igbo-related officers. A countercoup was then staged by Lieutenant Colonel Murtala Mohammed that placed Lieutenant Colonel Yakubu Gowon (a northerner) in power on July 29, 1966. Because Igbos became suspect for the problems caused by the first coup, social unrest started that led to massacres of Igbo people, continuing into September of the same year. Around 30,000 Igbo civilians were killed, and over 1 million Igbos began to relocate to the southeast to escape persecution. At the same time Hausas and other non-Igbos were killed in Igbo lands, causing a counter-exodus to escape retaliation. Oil had been discovered in Nigeria in 1958, and the country’s oil industry was based in the Igbodominated southeast. Lieutenant Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, military governor of the eastern region, became the leader for the Igbo side. Based on Igbo appeals for secession from the federal government, he declared the independence of the Republic of Biafra on May 30, 1966. Unwilling to lose the oil industry, the FMG advanced into Biafra on July 6, 1967, to force Biafra back into the fold of Nigeria. The Biafran forces 64 Biafran War (1967 –1970) repulsed the advance, then launched a counterinvasion into FMG territories, seizing key strategic locations. At the end of 1967 however, the FMG regained these territories, and the Biafran forces were again looking for breakthroughs into Nigeria. For most of 1968 the forces were stalemated. The Biafran military enjoyed much support from foreign countries. French doctors and other volunteer groups airlifted supplies and medical assistance into Biafra. The Swedish eccentric Carl Gustav von Rosen fought as a mercenary on the Biafran side. When Biafra was declared, the country was formally recognized by only Tanzania, Zambia, Gabon, South Africa, and Ivory Coast. Other African countries refused to recognize Biafra because they were opposed to South Africa. FMG forces later took the town of Owerri, the capital of the Igbo heartland, and thought that victory was close. But Biafran forces reclaimed it later on, and the stalemate held again. By April 1969 the Biafran forces were heavily reduced, but they continued fighting. Ojukwu’s appeals for United Nations intervention in October were unsuccessful. The final push of FMG forces started in December of 1969. On January 6, 1970, Owerri again fell to the FMG. On January 10 Ojukwu admitted defeat and fled Nigeria for the Ivory Coast. He left the country to the commander of the Biafran Army, Philip Effiong, who led a delegation to Lagos and formally surrendered on January 15, 1970, thus ending the existence of Biafra. The Biafran War ended with 100,000 military casualties, while between 500,000 and 3 million Biafran civilians became casualties from starvation during the war. After the war, ethnic tensions continued to be a problem in Nigerian politics. Further reading: Draper, Michael I. Shadows: Airlift and Airwar in Biafra and Nigeria, 1967–1970. Charlottesville, VA: Howell, 2000; Global Security. “Biafran War,” http://www. globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/biafra.htm (cited September 2006); Madiebo, Alexander. The Nigerian Revolution and the Biafran War. Nigeria: Fourth Dimension, 1980; Okpoko, John. The Biafran Nightmare: The Controversial Role of International Relief Agencies in a War of Genocide. Enugu: Delta of Nigeria, 1986; Osaghae, Eghosa E. Crippled Giant: Nigeria Since Independence. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999; Uzokwe, Alfred O. Surviving in Biafra: The Story of the Nigerian Civil War. Lincoln: Writers Advantage, 2003. Chino Fernandez


biblical inerrancyEdit

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy asserts that the original texts or teachings of the Bible contain no errors. The word infallibility sometimes appears as a synonym for inerrancy, but strictly speaking, the term infallibility has a slightly different sense, namely, that the claims of a religious authority cannot fail. A good case can be made that all major branches of the Christian faith historically embraced biblical inerrancy or its equivalent, yet also that the definition of biblical inerrancy took on additional connotations and significance for Protestant evangelicals in the late 19th century. Roman Catholics generally prefer to discuss religious authority in terms of the infallibility of the Church, which entails the teachings of its councils, leaders (especially the pope), and official documents, including the Bible. Eastern Orthodoxy looks particularly to the religious authority of the seven ecumenical Church councils. For some Protestants, biblical inerrancy provides a litmus test for determining who is an evangelical. Thus biblical inerrancy became the theological basis for founding both the National Association of Evangelicals (1942) and the Evangelical Theological Society (1949). While the most widely accepted evangelical confession of the 20th century, the Lausanne Covenant (1974), states that the Bible is “without error in all that it affirms,” the phrase implicitly allows some ambiguity since there are serious debates over what in fact the Bible actually affirms. Hence, while many evangelicals would agree with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, the meaning and implications of that belief have often been contested. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) was an attempt by certain evangelical theologians to articulate clearly and delimit the meaning of biblical inerrancy. Nevertheless, there are at least four rather different senses in which the doctrine of biblical inerrancy has been understood by those who embrace it. For some, biblical inerrancy means that every propositional statement in the Bible—including statements bearing upon science or history—must be accepted as a divinely sanctioned literal truth. For others, the Bible is still in some important sense true when referring to nonreligious domains, but such references should not be pressed too literally, especially when they are merely describing human experiences of the physical world. A third approach turns the focus upon the reliability of the Bible’s religious teachings. The fourth way of understanding biblical inerrancy emphasizes the Bible’s overall purpose of bringing people into biblical inerrancy 65 fellowship with God, rather than asking whether this or that proposition is true. The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is frequently defended by one or more of the following arguments: an appeal to the nature of God (God cannot lie and the Bible is his divine word), the teachings of Jesus (Christ) of Nazareth about the trustworthiness of Scripture, the Bible’s own self-authenticating claims, the threat to religious authority if the Bible is errant, or the analysis of test cases to show that apparent errors in the biblical text are instead true and that supposed contradictions are actually in harmony with each other. Further reading: Geisler, Norman L. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980; Lightner, Robert P. A Biblical Case for Total Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 1997. Timothy Paul Erdel


Black Power movementEdit

Influential from 1960 to 1976, the Black Power movement was a conscious endeavor to liberate the blacks from white political, social, and cultural institutional clutches. As a radical political philosophy, the Black Power movement advocated ethnic integrity, self-sufficiency, and self-assertion with an aim to maximize black opportunities. During a march to Mississippi, Stokley Carmichael is believed to have articulated the blueprint of the movement. Although Martin Luther King, Jr., with his philosophy of nonviolence and brotherhood, succeeded in the pursuit of equality, blacks felt that they had been alienated and discriminated against in many social institutions. It was this disappointment with King’s approach to the African-American condition that persuaded Huey Newton, Malcolm X, and Stokely Carmichael to look for an alternative model. Accordingly, they insisted on the need to advance black freedom through force. In its initial stages, the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) was the only organization that supported the Black Power movement. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) denounced Black Power, though it reportedly generated support later. Interestingly, the impact of the Black Power movement in America surfaced in the United Kingdom. Organizations such as the Racial Adjustment Action Society and the Universal Coloured People’s Association fervently propagated the ideologies of the Black Power movement. Carmichael visited London in 1967 and was deported for inciting racial hatred. In 1966 Black Power reached new prominence in the form of the Black Panther movement. Founded in Oakland, California, in 1966 by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, the Black Panthers fashioned their views after Frantz Fanon, Mao Zedong, and Malcolm X. With their “rhetoric of the gun,” the Black Panthers, like the Black Power movement, strove to advance the rights of blacks through violence and force. But the most intense and successful manifestation of the Black Power movement is the Black Arts movement. Drawing inspiration from the ideological specifics of the Black Power movement, the Black Arts movement ardently rejected white literary standards and sought to define a new black aesthetic. Prominent members of the Black Arts 66 Black Power movement A recruiting poster for the Black Panthers, one of the best-known and militant Black Power organizations. movement, among others, include Amiri Baraka (LeRoi Jones), Harold Cruse, Sonia Sanchez, Haki Madhubuti, Ed Bullins, Dudley Randall, Ed Spriggs, Nikki Giovanni, Conrad Rivers, and Mari Evans. Two prominent contributions of the Black Arts movement are the growth of theater groups and black poetry performance. Baraka, a prominent Black Arts practitioner, established Black Arts Repertory Theatre and School in Harlem. Another prominent playwright of this era was Ed Bullins. Unlike Ellison, Ed Bullins—true to the spirit of the Black Arts and Black Power movements—denied the whites in his plays. Poets such as Haki Madhubuti, Sonia Sanchez, and Angela Jackson experimented with verse forms with the intention of differentiating from white literary culture and thus asserting cultural autonomy. Though the radical political agenda of the Black Arts movement was severely criticized by the later artists, the movement’s thrust toward cultural autonomy brought black creativity to new heights. Eventually, the Black Power movement was increasingly met with violence from white counterparts. Strict government measures such as Cointelpro and IRS probes later disrupted the activities of the Black Power movement. Finally, though the Black Power movement failed to enact concrete political changes, it marked a crucial phase in the evolution of African-American politics on the eve of the civil rights era. See also Civil Rights movement, u.s. Further reading: Carson, Clayborne. In Struggle: SNCC and the Black Awakening of the 1960s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. Cleaver, Eldridge. Soul on Ice. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968. Dickstein, Morris. Gates of Eden: American Culture in the Sixties. New York: Basic Books, 1977. Van Deburg, William L. New Day in Babylon: The Black Power Movement and American Culture, 1965–1975. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Wilson, William J. Power, Racism and Privilege: Race Relations in Theoretical and Sociohistorical Perspectives. New York: Free Press, 1973. Sathyaraj Venkatesan


Bolivian revolution (1952–1964)Edit

Beginning in 1952 Bolivia underwent a social and economic revolution, spearheaded by the Revolutionary Nationalist Movement (Movimiento Nacionalista Revolucionario, MNR), a political party founded in 1941 and led by the economist Victor Paz Estenssoro and the lawyer and former president’s son Hernán Siles Zuazo. The roots of the revolution can be traced to Bolivia’s humiliating defeat by Paraguay in the Chaco War (1932– 35); decades of military dictatorship and politically exclusionary rule by the landowning and military elite; the country’s long history of class and racial inequality and extreme poverty among its mostly indigenous population; and the emergence of new leftist political forces from the early 1940s, particularly its labor unions, peasant leagues, and Marxist-oriented political parties. Coming to power through both electoral victory and popular mobilizations, after 1952 the MNR instituted a range of far-reaching social and economic reforms. By the late 1950s the revolutionary process stalled in consequence of mounting conservative opposition, growing factionalism and corruption within the MNR, and U.S. support to conservative elements. In 1964 the MNR was overthrown in a military coup. The Bolivian revolution left an enduring legacy, with much of the popular unrest and indigenous political organizing of the 1990s and 2000s finding important antecedents in the revolutionary period half a century before. Coming to power on April 16, 1952, after a wave of strikes and street protests, the MNR under Paz Estenssoro launched an ambitious program of land, labor, and social reform. Establishing universal suffrage in July, the regime expanded the electorate from around 200,000 to over one million voters. It also slashed the size and power of the military. In October it nationalized the country’s largest tin mines and established the state-run Mining Corporation of Bolivia (Corporación Minera de Bolivia, COMIBOL). The act fulfilled a longtime goal of the Union Federation of Bolivian Tin Workers (Federación Sindical de Trabajadores Mineros de Bolivia, FSTMB), founded in 1944 and led by Juan Lechín, the country’s largest labor union with some 60,000 members. Following the MNR’s assumption of power, in 1952 Bolivian trade unions formed the Bolivian Workers’ Center (Central Obrera Boliviana, COB), with the FSTMB as its largest affiliate. The COB exercised a major political influence throughout the period of MNR rule. In August 1953 the MNR initiated a sweeping program of agrarian reform in an attempt to eliminate forced labor and address the country’s extremely unequal landowning patterns. Before 1953, 6 percent of landowners controlled upwards of 90 percent of the nation’s arable land, and 60 percent of landowners controlled 0.2 percent. While not all of the provisions of the 1953 Agrarian Reform Law were implemented, in later years land ownership became significantly less unequal. Peasant leagues, forming armed militias, exerted considerable influence Bolivian revolution (1952–1964 ) 67 on the revolutionary government, partly through their representation in the new Ministry of Peasant Affairs. By the end of Paz Estenssoro’s first term (1952–56), the revolutionary process had slowed in consequence of mounting opposition from conservative elements, growing polarization within the multiclass ruling coalition, economic decline in the tin and farming industries, and skyrocketing inflation due to increased government spending. Under the presidency of Siles Zuazo (1956– 60), the United States stepped up its efforts to moderate the regime through increased flows of economic assistance, heightening the country’s political polarization. By Paz Estenssoro’s second term (1960–64), the MNR’s more radical elements faced mounting internal and external opposition. In 1964 a resurgent military overthrew the regime, followed by a series of military dictatorships that ruled until 1982. Further reading: Klein, Herbert S. A Concise History of Bolivia. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003; Morales, Waltraud Q. A Brief History of Bolivia. New York: Facts On File, 2003. Michael J. Schroeder


Bosch, JuanEdit

(1909–2001) Dominican president Poet, scholar, educator, activist, politician, and the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic after the long dictatorship of Rafael Trujillo, Juan Emilio Bosch y Gaviño is most remembered for championing the rights and dignity of ordinary Dominicans through his writings and his progressive liberaldemocratic politics. His tenure as president was brief, lasting only seven months—from February to September 1963—when he was overthrown by a coalition of conservative forces. He nonetheless continued to play a major role in Dominican politics, running for president and losing repeatedly to U.S.-supported candidates (1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1994), becoming the standard-bearer of the country’s populist left and pushing the national political discourse toward the promotion of liberal democracy, civil rights, and the political enfranchisement of the poor and working class. Born on June 30, 1909, in the Dominican town of La Vega to a Puerto Rican mother and Catalonian father, at age 28 Bosch went into exile in Cuba to escape the repression of the Trujillo regime. Two years later, in 1939 in Havana, he cofounded the Dominican Revolutionary Party (Partido Revolucionario Dominicano, PRD), which would later play a major role in Dominican politics. Devoting much of his time to poetry and writing, in 1933 he published his first collection of stories, Camino Real; from 1935 to 1963 he published no fewer than 13 novels, anthologies, and works of nonfiction (from Indios [1935] and La mañosa [1936] to David, biografía de un rey [1963]). After Trujillo’s assassination on May 30, 1961, he returned to the Dominican Republic, and, after a tempestuous interlude characterized by widespread popular mobilization and abiding U.S. concern relating to the cold war and the radicalization of the Cuban revolution, Bosch was elected president in the national elections of December 20, 1962, with 64 percent of the vote. Assuming the presidency on February 27, 1963, he embarked on an ambitious program of economic, political, and social reform. His administration promulgated a new liberal constitution in April that secularized the government; guaranteed civil rights for all citizens; imposed civilian control on the military; and inaugurated a far-reaching program of agrarian reform. The reforms alienated the most powerful sectors of Dominican society, including the Catholic Church, the military, industrialists, and large landowners. In the context of the intensifying cold war, the stage was set for a U.S.- supported conservative coup, which came on September 25, 1963. Going into exile in Puerto Rico, he returned to the Dominican Republic in September 1965 after the U.S. military intervention of April that ended an emerging civil war between pro-PRD and anti-PRD factions. He ran again for president in 1966, but was defeated by the U.S.-supported Joaquín Balaguer. While he never regained the presidency, he became renowned for his left-populist rhetoric, the acuity of his social criticism, and his determination to improve the lot of ordinary Dominicans. In 1973 he founded a new political party, the Dominican Liberation Party (Partido de la Liberación Dominicana, PLD), which since the mid-1990s has drifted to the center-right. The author of at least 36 publications translated into many languages, and popularly revered as a national hero, he died on November 1, 2001, in Santo Domingo. Further reading: Atkins, G. Pope. Arms and Politics in the Dominican Republic. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1981; Chester, Eric Thomas. Rag-Tags, Scum, Riff-Raff, and Commies: The U.S. Intervention in the Dominican Republic, 1965– 1966. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2001; Hartlyn, Jonathan. The Struggle for Democratic Politics in the Dominican 68 Bosch, Juan Republic. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1998. Michael J. Schroeder


Bourguiba, HabibEdit

(1903–2000) Tunisian leader Habib Bourguiba, known as the Supreme Warrior, was born in Monastir, Tunisia, in 1903 and died in April 2000 while under house arrest in his hometown. Bourguiba attended Sadiqi College in Tunis, where he graduated in 1924. He then went to France to study law and political science at the University of Paris. Upon graduation in 1927 Bourguiba returned to Tunisia; a year later he was writing for multiple political newspapers on issues involving Tunisian nationalism. Bourguiba was a member of the Executive Committee of the Destour Party, but his disagreements with the party’s political approach led to his resignation. He formed the breakaway Neo-Destour Party in 1934. The French colonial authorities reacted to Bourguiba’s growing power by exiling him for two years. This would prove to be the first of many times Bourguiba would be imprisoned and released by the French during the struggle for Tunisian independence. In April 1938 pro-nationalist demonstrations broke out in Tunisia and the French authorities opened fire on the crowds. Shortly thereafter, Bourguiba was imprisoned by the French on charges of sedition. In 1945 as the war ended, Bourguiba embarked on a series of tours through Arab nations, the United States, and parts of Europe to publicize the Tunisian cause. When Bourguiba returned to Tunisia, he reorganized and resumed control of the Neo-Destour Party. In January 1952 armed resistance broke out in parts of Tunisia and Bourguiba was again arrested and imprisoned in France. Beleaguered by the ongoing war in Algeria, the French released Bourguiba in 1955 and granted independence to Tunisia in 1956. Bourguiba became Tunisia’s first president. He promptly embarked on a program of reform and development. Tunisia’s constitution called for a secular state. Women were granted equality, and ambitious educational and health care programs were instituted; however, early attempts to collectivize agriculture failed and economic difficulties beset the nation. Bourguiba was sympathetic to independence movements in developing countries, but his calls for negotiations with Israel in the mid-1960s led to riots in Jordan and Lebanon. In 1975 Bourguiba was named president for life. He was seen by many as a passionate orator with a charismatic personality but he also had a reputation as a shrewd politician who outmaneuvered his political opponents. The economy continued to decline during the 1980s as Islamist political groups gained support. As his health failed, Bourguiba seemed increasingly unable to deal with the mounting political, economic, and social problems of the nation. In November 1987 a bloodless coup led by Zine el Abidine Ben Ali took over the government and ousted Bourguiba. Ben Ali proclaimed that Bourguiba, at the age of 84, was too old and senile to serve as president. Bourguiba lived under house arrest for 13 years until his death in 2000. Although Ben Ali promised a return to democracy and held elections, he too became increasingly authoritarian and continued to rule Tunisia into the 21st century. See also Algerian revolution. Further reading: Borowiec, Andrew. Modern Tunisia: A Democratic Apprenticeship. New York: Praeger, 1998; Salem, N. Habib Bourghiba, Islam and the Creation of Tunisia. London: Croom Helm, 1984. Brian M. Eichstadt


Bracero Program (1942–1964)Edit

The Bracero Program, begun in August 1942 at the height of World War II in response to war-induced labor shortages in the United States, was a joint U.S.-Mexican agreement to bring temporary Mexican male laborers to work in the U.S. agricultural, railroad, and related industries. While the program was conceived as a temporary wartime expedient, commercial fruit, vegetable, and cotton growers in the U.S. Southwest found the program so profitable that they persuaded the U.S. Congress and Mexican governments to extend it for nearly two decades after the end of the war. In the 22 years during which the program was operational, an estimated 5 million Mexican men worked as braceros (a term roughly synonymous with “jornaleros,” or “day laborers”). Repeatedly condemned by human rights activists as abusive and exploitive, the Bracero Program had a major impact on the economic, social, and cultural history of both Mexico and the United States. The program provided millions of poor Mexicans with legal entrée into the United States, familiarizing them with the land, its people, its wage structure, and its employment opportunities. For some it provided Bracero Program (1942 –1964 ) 69 an opportunity to reconnect with kin on the U.S. side of the border. After completing the terms of their contracts, many braceros opted to stay in the United States illegally or to return to Mexico and cross the border clandestinely at a later time. The program also made major contributions to the development of commercial agriculture in the U.S. Southwest. While the terms of the original agreement mandated a minimum wage of 30 cents per hour, humane working conditions, and free round-trip transportation between Mexico and sites of employment, in practice the U.S. companies hiring bracero laborers frequently failed to adhere to these requirements. Unauthorized and sometimes exorbitant deductions for food, housing, medical attention, and other necessities were common, as were abusive practices such as substandard food and housing, poor sanitary conditions, physical intimidation, and violence. The program was briefly halted in 1948 in response to a decision by Texas cotton growers to pay braceros $2.50 per hundred weight, while non-braceros earned $3.00. The Mexican government responded by suspending the program, an impasse resolved with a U.S. government apology and a new agreement in 1951 under U.S. Public Law 78 (sometimes called the “second” Bracero Program), which continued until 1964 (with successive “temporary” extensions in 1954, 1956, 1958, and 1961). Through the 1950s, an estimated 300,000 Mexicans worked as braceros annually. In order to combat illegal immigration and the tendency of many braceros to remain in the United States without authorization, in 1954 the U.S. government launched “Operation Wetback,” a program intended to repatriate unauthorized Mexicans, which also resulted in the deportation of some U.S. citizens. By the mid-1950s such repatriations reached a high of 3.8 million. The Bracero Program is the subject of an expansive literature. The most rigorous early scholarly investigation was by the Mexican-American scholar and activist Dr. Ernesto Galarza, whose book Merchants of Labor (1964) is considered a classic in the field. Testifying repeatedly before the U.S. Congress and other government bodies, Galarza and others finally persuaded lawmakers to end the program. The program’s termination coincided with the rise of the National Farmworkers Association (later United Farmworkers of America, UFW), led by labor organizer Cesar Chavez. In many ways, the ending of the Bracero Program—and the glut of cheap migrant labor it provided—made possible the rise of the UFW. Further reading. Galarza, Ernesto. Merchants of Labor: The Mexican Bracero Story. Charlotte, CA: McNally and Loftin, 1964; Gonzalez, Gilberto G. Guest Workers or Colonized Labor?: Mexican Labor Migration to the United States. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2006. Michael J. Schroeder


Brazil, military dictatorship inEdit

(1964–1985) Following a recurring pattern in Brazilian history (1889, 1930, 1937, 1945), in 1964 a group of military officers overthrew the civilian government of João Goulart (1961–64), installing a military dictatorship that ruled for the next 21 years. The roots of the crisis prompting the coup have been traced to a confluence of events from the mid-1950s. These included a dramatic upsurge in leftist political movements, parties, and unions among urban and rural dwellers, encouraged by civilian leaders and intensifying after the 1959 Cuban revolution, combined with a growing economic crisis marked by high inflation (nearly 90 percent in 1964) and foreign debt ($3 billion), huge budget deficits ($1.1 billion in 1964); declining foreign investment, and eroding middle-class support. With U.S. backing, on March 31, 1964, a group of officers headed by General Humberto Castello Branco seized power. Castello Branco ruled as president until 1967, his principal goal economic stabilization. Reforms 70 Brazil, military dictatorship in (1964 –1985) Mexican workers at the border await legal employment in the United States, February 3, 1954. introduced by his planning minister, the neo-orthodox technocrat Roberto Campos, partly achieved this aim. The regime also reformed the nation’s banking system and reduced unions’ bargaining power. From 1968 to 1974 years of the so-called Brazilian miracle, foreign investment soared, industry boomed, and the economy grew at an average annual rate of 11 percent, though inflation still averaged around 23 percent. Relatively moderate, Castello Branco and his successor, General Artur Costa e Silva (1967–69), tolerated a degree of organized dissent, though when opposition leaders launched a series of protests and strikes in 1967–68, Costa e Silva cracked down, arresting and jailing hundreds. In September 1969 he suffered a stroke and was replaced by hard-liner General Emilio Garrastazu Médici (1969–74). By 1969 there emerged in the country’s major cities more than a dozen guerrilla groups, composed of perhaps 500 members altogether and akin to the Montoneros in Argentina, that for the next four years waged a losing battle against the dictatorship. Robbing banks and kidnapping foreign diplomats, the guerrillas found inspiration in the writings of Carlos Marighela, especially his Mini-manual of the Urban Guerrilla. The years of Brazil’s Dirty War (1969–73) were marked by mass jailings, institutionalized torture, and upwards of 333 disappearances, far fewer than in neighboring Argentina and Uruguay. By 1973 the urban guerrilla groups had been eradicated. In 1974 the more moderate General Ernesto Geisel (1974–79) assumed the presidency. Inclined toward a return to civilian rule, in October he allowed opposition parties to run in congressional elections, resulting in their landslide victory, thus stalling further democratization. In the economic sphere, the steep OPEC oil price hikes in 1973 and 1979 returned Brazil to high deficits, ballooning debt, and climbing inflation, which reached 110 percent in 1980. The abundance of cheap petrodollars on world markets delayed the day of economic reckoning, but in 1981 a global recession and credit squeeze compelled Brazil to default on its commercial bank loans, decisively ending the economic boom. The fifth and last of the general-presidents was João Figueiredo (1979–85), who, facing mounting popular opposition and a ravaged economy, pledged a return to civilian rule. Local, state, and federal congressional elections in 1982 were followed by presidential elections in 1985, won by Tancredo Neves, governor of the state of Minas Gerais. Since 1985 Brazil has been governed by a succession of democratically elected governments. Further reading: Skidmore, Thomas E. Brazil: Five Centuries of Change. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; ———. Politics of Military Rule in Brazil, 1964–85. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Michael J. Schroeder


Brezhnev, Leonid IlyichEdit

(1906–1982) Soviet politician On October 15, 1964, Leonid Brezhnev became first secretary (later renamed general secretary) of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), a position he held until his death on November 10, 1982. For the last five years of his life, as well as from 1960 to 1964, he was also president of the Soviet Union. As a result, during the 18 years that Brezhnev was the undisputed leader of the Soviet Union the country went through a period of economic stagnation and, although at his death it remained a superpower, its military power was being sapped by its long occupation of Afghanistan. The Soviet Union was also unable to exert as much influence in Eastern Europe as it had 20 years earlier. Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev was born in 1906 in the village of Kamenskoye in the Ukraine. It was an iron and steel center and both his grandfather and his father had worked in the iron and steel plant. After completing his education at a local school, Brezhnev also went to work in the local factories. When he was 17 he joined the Young Communist League, became interested in farm collectivization, and went to study in Kursk. He then left the Ukraine to work as a land-use specialist in Byelorussia and the Urals. When he was 25, Brezhnev returned to his hometown and studied metallurgy, graduating from the local institute in 1935. Four years later he was elected secretary of the Communist Party Committee for the Dnepropetrovsk region, at that time one of the largest industrial centers in the Soviet Union. In 1941 at the outbreak of World War II in the USSR, Brezhnev joined the army as a political officer, holding the rank of brigade commissar. In 1944 he was promoted to major general and marched with the 4th Ukrainian Army Group in the June 1945 Red Square Victory Parade. At the conclusion of the war he was put in charge of the Carpathian military district. He then became leader of the Communist Party in Moldavia, the smallest of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union, and then became a member of the party’s central committee and a candidate member of the presidium, losing all these positions in the shakeup that followed the death of Joseph Stalin in 1954. Brezhnev, Leonid Ilyich 71 Brezhnev spent the next two years in Kazakhstan, where he became involved in developing new lands for agriculture. According to official Soviet government publications, Brezhnev greatly enjoyed his time there. It was during his time in Kazakhstan that Brezhnev became an ally of Nikita Khruschev and in 1957 succeeded Kliment Voroshilov as chairman of the presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and thus the chief of state—or president of the Soviet Union—from May 7, 1960, until he resigned on July 15, 1964, to take a more active part in Communist Party affairs. On October 14, 1964, Brezhnev took part in the ousting of Khrushchev as first secretary of the CPSU and took his place, with a strong ally in Alexei Kosygin, the chairman of the council of ministers during most of Brezhnev’s time in power. Brezhnev and Kosygin pledged themselves to reinvigorating the economy of the Soviet Union and ensuring that it remained one of the superpowers. In contrast to Khrushchev, who made personal decisions on most issues, Brezhnev operated a more collective form of leadership and gradually tended to concentrate on larger foreign and defense matters. Nikolai V. Podgorny’s retirement as chairman of the presidium of the Supreme Soviet (in essence head of state) meant that Brezhnev was able to assume that position as well, making it the first time the general secretary of the Communist Party was also head of state; Yuri Andropov, Konstantin Chernenko, and Mikhail Gorbachev were later to combine both roles. On an organizational level, Brezhnev was keen to reduce membership of the CPSU, which had expanded under Khrushchev. He always felt that the larger the party the more unwieldy it could become. Like many people at the time, Brezhnev was fascinated by the achievements of Yuri Gagarin, and he poured much government energy and resources into space research. However, he was quickly diverted by political machinations. With the Prague Spring of 1968 threatening Soviet control of the country, Brezhnev reacted quickly. When he could not persuade Czechoslovak Communist Party leaders to change their positions, he ordered Warsaw Pact troops into Czechoslovakia. This was later justified by the “Brezhnev Doctrine,” with the Soviet Union stating publicly that it could intervene in countries within its sphere of influence. But Brezhnev was careful to be seen as acting multilaterally and soldiers from other Warsaw Pact countries were also involved. It was a move decried in the West but Brezhnev saw the political storm in western Europe as a price he had to pay for what he genuinely did regard as a threat to Soviet hegemony in eastern Europe. Soon afterward, Brezhnev entered with U.S. president Richard Nixon into a period of détente. Nixon visited the Soviet Union in 1972 and the two signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT 1) on May 26, 1972, at a summit meeting in Moscow. In 1973, Brezhnev traveled to the United States. In November 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected U.S. president and there was a greater focus on human rights. There was much Western press coverage of dissidents such as Anatoly Sharansky and Andrey Sakharov, as well as the use of Soviet mental asylums for holding critics of the government. However, the presence of more Western tourists in the Soviet Union also tended to lessen tensions and to open up the country considerably. They naturally visited Moscow and Leningrad (St. Petersburg), and began to travel to Kazakhstan and other parts of Central Asia, admittedly on tours organized by the Soviet travel bureau Intourist. After his health declined in late 1979, Brezhnev was seen in public less often, although he did visit Yugoslavia for the death of Marshal Tito in May 1980. Pictures of a seemingly robust Brezhnev meeting with Jimmy Carter reassured many of the Soviet leader’s health. By this time the Soviet Union was embroiled in a major conflict in Afghanistan. The Soviet government clearly did not expect the major storm of protests from the West, although the West’s reactions to the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in December 1978 should have prepared it for this. Brezhnev saw it as the Soviet Union aiding a neighboring government that was about to succumb to Muslim fundamentalists. Brezhnev’s actions in Afghanistan became one of the most criticized aspects of Soviet foreign policy. 72 Brezhnev, Leonid Ilyich Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev (right) meets with U.S. president Gerald Ford in the mid-1970s. The next big test for Brezhnev was over the founding of the independent trade union, Solidarity, which was established in Poland in September 1980. When by the following year Solidarity boasted a membership of 10 million, Brezhnev was keen on the Polish authorities’ acting quickly. On December 13, 1981, the Polish government imposed martial law and declared the Solidarity trade union illegal. Its leader, Lech Wałe˛sa, was arrested and his release only days after Brezhnev’s death clearly indicated Brezhnev’s role in the crackdown. When Brezhnev died on November 10, 1982, in Moscow, he was buried in Red Square. Apparently the team that had embalmed Lenin and had looked after Lenin’s body for decades expected to be asked to embalm Brezhnev, but this was not the case. For many years Brezhnev had been a familiar figure on the international stage. He had also received more public honors than most Soviet leaders, including the Lenin Peace Prize in 1973, the title of marshal of the Soviet Union in 1976, the Order of Victory (the highest military honor) in 1978, and the Lenin Prize for Literature (for his memoirs) in 1979. In hindsight, however, the Brezhnev era was regarded as one of economic stagnation. Although published economic figures showed that the economy was improving, and that economic growth had accelerated, the truth was that the Soviet infrastructure was wearing out, and its military was unable to keep up with new technology being designed in the United States. The Brezhnev years represented a decline in initiative, and the economy was largely maintained through the country’s massive natural resources. Brezhnev’s successor as general secretary of the CPSU was Yuri Andropov, who, although he had been head of the feared KGB, was determined to overcome the malaise that had taken place during the 1970s. He had been the man who had actually carried out Brezhnev’s policies of putting dissidents in mental asylums and forced internal exile. In a surprise move, Andropov immediately launched a crackdown on official corruption. Andropov also tried to repair relations with China, but died after only 15 months as general secretary. He was replaced by one of Brezhnev’s staunchest supporters, Konstantin Chernenko. On Chernenko’s death after 13 months as general secretary Mikhail Gorbachev became general secretary of the CPSU. Further reading: Anderson, Richard. Public Politics in an Authoritarian State: Making Foreign Policy During the Brezhnev Years. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993; Brezhnev, Leonid I. Memoirs. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982; Dallin, Alexander, ed. The Khrushchev and Brezhnev Years. New York: Garland, 1992; Gelman, Harry. The Brezhnev Politburo and the Decline of Détente. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984. Justin Corfield


Brown v. Board of EducationEdit

The unanimous May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court decision known informally as Brown sent shock waves through a deeply segregated nation and strengthened the growing African-American Civil Rights movement. Intended to end the racial segregation of public schools, the Brown decision made important inroads, but educational equality for minorities remained elusive. By 1948 the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense and Educational Fund, headed by lawyer Thurgood Marshall, was focusing on dramatically unequal public schools. Eventually they would bring to the nation’s highest court a group of five lawsuits initiated by African-American parents from South Carolina; Virginia; Washington, DC; Delaware; and Topeka, Kansas. The Brown case was named for Oliver Brown, the pastor father of Linda, a seven-year-old third-grader. She daily navigated a Topeka rail yard and busy roads to attend an all-black school although a white school was nearby. Compared to other school systems in the Brown case, Topeka provided relatively equal facilities to its tiny black population; community activists emphasized that racial separation made black children there feel inferior. The combined cases reached the Supreme Court in 1952, but its ruling was postponed in anticipation of a rehearing. By then the Court had a newly appointed chief justice, Earl Warren, a former Republican governor of California. Brown would become the first of many cases that made the Warren Court a byword for judicial activism on behalf of America’s disenfranchised. Warren read the 11-page decision aloud. It invoked the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment in support of equal protection for minorities. It marshaled sociological and psychological evidence showing that racial separation, especially of children, rendered them “inherently unequal.” And Brown invalidated Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 ruling that had affirmed the doctrine of “separate but equal.” In 1955 with a decision dubbed Brown II, the Court urged federal judges to undo school segregation “with all deliberate speed.” By then a forceful white backlash had emerged. Although some southern and border states began to Brown v. Board of Education 73 educate black and white children together, many districts defied the Court’s suggestions. In 1956 a “Southern Manifesto,” initiated by South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, accused the Court of abusing its power and vowed to reverse Brown. It was signed by 19 of 22 southern senators and 77 of 105 representatives. In cities like Charlotte and New Orleans efforts to enroll black children in white schools were met with hostility and outright violence. In Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957 an attempt by nine carefully chosen black students to attend Central High School was met with spitting, kicking, and death threats, encouraged by Governor Orval Faubus. Reluctantly President Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered army and national guard troops into Little Rock to restore order. By 1964 only 1.2 percent of black children in 11 southern states were attending school with white children. Many whites left public schools for nominally “private” academies. The situation “up north” was hardly better. There, segregation occurred not by law (de jure), but by longstanding patterns of racial housing discrimination (de facto). In the 1970s a Boston judicial plan to bus black students to predominantly white schools triggered violent protests not unlike those in Little Rock, as white families fled to suburban schools. Meanwhile African-American parents, most at first delighted by Brown, questioned the aims of racial integration and doubted its realization. They argued that adequate school budgets and resources were more important than seating their children next to whites in the classroom. In 1967 the NAACP’s Thurgood Marshall became the first African-American justice appointed to the Supreme Court, but the racial equality he had worked to achieve remained only partially implemented when Brown’s 50th anniversary was celebrated in 2004. Further reading: Kluger, Richard. Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America’s Struggle for Equality. New York: Knopf, 2004; Patterson, James T. Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and its Troubled Legacy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Marsha E. Ackermann


Bush, George H. W.Edit

(1924– ) U.S. president George Herbert Walker Bush (b. June 12, 1924) was president of the United States from 1989 to 1993 after serving as Ronald Reagan’s vice president for the previous eight years. He was born in Massachusetts, the son of Prescott Bush, a banker and future senator whose indirect financial ties to the Nazi Party remain controversial. He followed in his father’s footsteps by entering military service on his 18th birthday, in the midst of World War II, and became the country’s youngest naval aviator; by the time he was discharged at the end of the war three years later, he had received three Air Medals, the Distinguished Flying Cross, and the Presidential Unit Citation. He entered Yale University, where he majored in economics, joined the Skull and Bones society as his father had, and captained the baseball team in the first College World Series. In 1964, the year after Prescott finished his second and final year as senator from Connecticut, Bush ran for the Senate in Texas, winning the Republican nomination but losing the election. He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1966, where he served until again losing the senatorial election in 1970. In the 1970s, he served as the United States ambassador to the United Nations and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, an appointment that confirmed for many people the suspicions that he had been involved with the agency since his days at Yale. In fact, CIA documents have admitted that Bush’s business partner in Zapata Petroleum, the oil business he started, was a covert agent. The extent of Bush’s other ties with the agency have not been established. In 1980 Bush was Ronald Reagan’s principal opponent in the Republican primaries and the one who coined the derisive term “voodoo economics” to refer to Reagan’s fiscal policy. When Reagan won the Republican nomination, he made Bush his running mate; the two won decisively in both 1980 and 1984. In 1988 Bush became one of the few vice presidents to succeed his president. Over the course of the Reagan presidency, the cold war had all but ended, and during Bush’s term, the Berlin Wall was taken down, Germany reunified, the Soviet Union dissolved, and many Eastern European countries behind the Iron Curtain began holding elections or overthrew their communist governments. In 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bush led the United Nations coalition in operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, liberating Kuwait but stopping short of invading Iraq; it was, Bush said, not a war for oil but a war against aggression. Significantly, it was also a televised war, the first major American military action conducted under the watch of cable news. Americans whose parents had been the first to see footage of war on the evening news were now the first to see their war broadcast live. 74 Bush, George H. W. In the 1992 election Bush lost to Governor Bill Clinton, an election notable for the involvement of Texas billionaire and third-party candidate Ross Perot, who won nearly a fifth of the popular vote despite frequent decisions not to run. Key to Bush’s loss were the recession, the perception that he was out of touch with the common man (particularly when compared with the genial Clinton), and the desire for change to reflect a new state of affairs in the wake of the cold war. Further reading: Duffy, Michael, and Dan Goodgame. Marching In Place: The Status Quo Presidency of George Bush. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992; Green, John Robert. The Presidency of George Bush. Lawrence: Kansas University Press, 2000; Kelley, Kitty. The Family: The True Story of the Bush Dynasty. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2004; Smith, Jean Edward. George Bush’s War. New York: Henry Holt, 1992. Bill Kte’pi

Bush, George W. Edit

(1946– ) U.S. president George Walker Bush was the 43rd president of the United States, elected in 2000 and serving from 2001 to 2008. His presidency began and remained in controversy, from the issues surrounding the 2000 election to the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The oldest son of President George H. W. Bush, Bush was raised in Texas where his father had moved to start his Zapata Oil corporation, and like other men in his family, attended Yale University where he earned a degree in history and was a member of the Skull and Bones society. While his father and grandfather had served in the navy during wartime, he served in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. Bush has described this period of his life as irresponsible and informed by bad choices, characterized by excessive drinking. After a failed congressional bid, he spent most of the 1980s working in the oil industry before purchasing a share of the Texas Rangers baseball team, of which he served as general manager from 1989 to 1994. He ran for governor of Texas in 1994, the same year his younger brother Jeb ran for governor of Florida; Jeb lost, but was elected in 1998, the same year George won his reelection by a landslide. As governor of Texas, Bush was a noted conservative. State executions rose to higher levels than any other state in modern American history, and the line between church and state was worn thin when Bush declared June 10, 2000, to be “Jesus Day,” a state holiday in memory of Jesus and encouraging reaching out to those in need. At the time, Bush was running for president; in an early debate preceding the Republican primaries, he named Jesus (identifying him only by the religious title “Christ”) as the political philosopher he most identified with. He won the Republican nomination, picking Dick Cheney—his father’s secretary of defense—as his running mate. Voting irregularities in Florida, where Jeb was still governor, made it difficult to determine whether Bush or Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore, had won the state, and the electoral vote in the rest of the country was close enough that the Florida votes would be the tiebreakers. Less than one-tenth of 1 percent separated the two candidates, requiring a series of recounts both by hand and machine, and precipitating a national controversy over reports of vote tampering, problematic ballot designs and the handling of overseas ballots, and the coincidence of a Bush governing the state. The U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled that with no time remaining to require a thorough and uniform recount, the state’s then-official count—in favor of Bush—would be upheld. Gore conceded the election rather than fight the matter further. More than any other president in recent memory, even in light of Ronald Reagan’s cold war rhetoric and its resemblance to “fire and brimstone” sermons, Bush has worn his faith on his sleeve, making frequent reference to God and Christian matters in his speeches. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Bush Bush, George W. 75 George H. W. Bush and King Fahd (seated, right) meet in the Royal Pavilion in Saudi Arabia to discuss the situation in Iraq in 1990. declared a “war on terrorism,” and shortly identified an “axis of evil” (Iran, Iraq, and North Korea) as those states most guilty of sponsoring terrorist activity. Both terms of his presidency have been defined by this initiative. While foreign policy led to war with Afghanistan and a protracted war in Iraq, domestic policy was affected by the USA Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The Office of Strategic Influence was created in secret to develop psychological means of furthering the war on terrorism, changing its name once the public discovered its existence. Bush and his administration have come under constant criticism. He has positioned himself as his father’s successor, staffing his cabinet with several men associated with the elder Bush and repeatedly referring to an Iraqi assassination attempt (“they tried to kill my dad”) as part of his justification for the war in Iraq. His approval rating has dipped as low as 28 percent, among the lowest presidential approval ratings in history, and several prominent movements have called for his impeachment, usually in response to the controversy surrounding the National Security Agency’s warrant-less surveillance. His slow response to the failure of the levees in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005 has also come under fire, particularly given his support of the clearly ineffective Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Further reading: Daalder, Ivo H. America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy. New York: Wiley, 2005; Mansfield, Stephen. The Faith of George W. Bush. New York: Tarcher, 2003; Minutaglio, Bill. First Son: George W. Bush and the Bush Family Dynasty. New York: Three Rivers, 2001; Toobin, Jeffrey. Too Close To Call: The Thirty-Six Day Battle To Decide the 2000 Election. New York: Random House, 2002. Bill Kte’pi

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki